A Source Book for Ancient Church History

The Second Division of Ancient Christianity: The Church Under the Christian Empire: From 312 to Circa 750

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The two great collections of secular laws are:

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

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

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

---

Period I: The Imperial State Church of the Undivided Empire, or Until the Death of Theodosius the Great, 395

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

Chapter I. The Church and Empire Under Constantine

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

§ 58. The Empire Under Constantine and His Sons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 59. Favor Shown the Church by Constantine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday is to be observed.

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

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

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

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

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

§ 60. The Repression of Heathenism Under Constantine

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

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

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

Private sacrifices forbidden.

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

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

Haruspicia in certain circumstances to be observed.

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

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

Unfinished heathen temples need not be completed.

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

§ 61. The Donatist Schism Under Constantine

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. The Council of Arles A. D. 314

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. The Council of Nicæa

For the Council of Nicæa, see Hefele, §§ 18-44. All church histories give large space to the Council of Nicæa. V. infra, §§ 63 ff., 72, a.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter II. The Arian Controversy Until the Extinction of the Dynasty of Constantine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional source material: J. Chrystal, Authoritative Christianity, Jersey City, 1891, vol. I; The Council of Nicæa: The Genuine Remains; H. R. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV); Athanasius, On the Incarnation (PNF, ser. II, vol. IV).

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

The outbreak of the controversy at Alexandria circa 318.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those who became apostates were Arius, Achillas, Æithales, Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, who were then presbyters; Euzoius, Lucius, Julianus, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, who were then deacons; and with them Secundus and Theonas, then called bishops. And the novelties which they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures are the following: God was not always a Father, but there was a time when He was not a Father. The Logos of God was not always, but came into existence from things that were not; wherefore there was a time when He was not; for the Son is a creature and a work. Neither is He like in essence to the Father. Neither is He truly by nature the Logos of the Father; neither is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things made and created, and is called the Logos and Wisdom by an abuse of terms, since He himself originated by God’s own logos and by the wisdom that is in God, by which God has made not only all things but Him also. Wherefore He is in His nature subject to change and variation as are all rational creatures. And the Logos is foreign, is alien and separated from the being [ousia] of God. And the Father cannot be102 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 substance104 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 not105 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 unity107 wandered through various places, when Axido and Fasir were called by the same mad ones the leaders of the saints, no one could be secure in his possessions; written evidences of indebtedness lost their force; no creditor was at liberty at that time to demand anything. All were terrified by the letters of those who boasted that they were the leaders of the saints, and if there was any delay in fulfilling their commands, suddenly a furious multitude hurried up and, terror going on before, creditors were surrounded with a wall of dangers, so that those who ought to have been asked for their protection were by fear of death compelled to use humble prayers. Each one hastened to abandon his most important duties; and profit was thought to have come from these outrages. Even the roads were no longer at all safe, because masters, turned out of their carriages, ran humbly before their slaves sitting in the places of their masters. By the judgment and rule of these the order of rank between masters and servants was changed. Therefore when there arose complaint against the bishops of your party, they are said to have written to Count Taurinus, that such men could not be corrected in the Church, and they demanded that they should receive discipline from the said count. Then Taurinus, in response to their letters, commanded an armed body of soldiers to go through the markets where the Circumcellions were accustomed to wander. In Octavum very many were killed, many were beheaded and their bodies, even to the present day, can be counted by the white altars or tables.108 When first some of their number were buried in the basilicas, Clarus, a presbyter in Subbulum, was compelled by his bishop to disinter those buried. Whence it is reported that what was done had been commanded to be done, when it is admitted that sepulture in the house of God is not granted. Afterward the multitude of these people increased. In this way Donatus of Bagaja found whence he might lead against Macarius a raging mob. Of that sort were those who were to their own ruin murderers of themselves in their desire for a false martyrdom. Of these, also, were those who rushed headlong and threw themselves down from the summits of lofty mountains. Behold from what numbers the second Bishop Donatus formed his cohorts! Those who were bearing treasure which they had obtained for the poor were held back by fear. They decided in so great a predicament to demand from Count Sylvester armed soldiery, not that by these they should do violence to any one, but that they might stop the force drawn up by the aforesaid Bishop Donatus. Thus it happened that an armed soldiery was seen. Now, as to what followed, see to whom it ought or can be ascribed. They had there an infinite number of those summoned, and it is certain that a supply of provisions for a year had been provided. Of the basilicas they made a sort of public granary, and awaited the coming of those against whom they might expend their fury, if the presence of armed soldiery had not prevented them. For when, before the soldiers came, the metatores,109 as was the custom, were sent, they were not properly received, contrary to the apostolic precept, “honor to whom honor, custom to whom custom, tribute to whom tribute, owe no man anything.” For those who had been sent with their horses were smitten by those whose names you have made public with malicious intent. They were the authors of their own wrong; and what they could suffer they themselves taught by these outrages. The soldiers who had been maltreated returned to their fellows, and for what two or three suffered, all grieved. All were roused, and their officers could not restrain the angered soldiers.

§ 68. Julian the Apostate

The reign of Julian the Apostate (361-363) is important in the history of the Christian Church, in the first place, as indicating the slight hold which heathenism had retained as a system upon the bulk of the people and the impossibility of reviving it in any form in which it might compete with the Church. Julian attempted to inject into a purified heathenism those elements in the Christian Church which he was forced to admire. The result was a fantastic mixture of rites and measures with which the heathen would have nothing to do. In the second place, in the development of the Church’s doctrinal system, and especially in the Arian controversy, the reign of Julian gave the contestants, who were obliged to stand together against a common enemy, reason for examining in a new way the points they had in common, and enabled them to see that some at least differed more over the expression than over the content of their faith. The character of Julian has long been a favorite subject of study and especially the motives that induced him to abandon Christianity for the Neo-Platonic revival of heathenism.

Additional source material: Socrates, Hist. Ec., III: Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XVI-XXV, translated by C. D. Yonge (Bohn’s Classical Library); Select Works of Julian, translated by C. W. King (Bohn).

(a) Socrates. Hist Ec. III. 1. (MSG, 67:368.)

The Emperor Julian.

The account of the Emperor Julian as given by Socrates is probably the best we have. It is, on the whole, a model of a fair statement, such as is characteristic of the history of Socrates in nearly all its parts. In spite of its length it is worthy of a place in its entirety, as it explains the antecedents of a character which the world has had difficulty in understanding.

Constantine, who gave Byzantium his own name, had two brothers born of the same father but by a different mother, of these one was named Dalmatius, the other Constantius. Dalmatius had a son of the same name as his own; Constantius had two sons, Gallus and Julian. Now, as on the death of Constantine, the founder of Constantinople, the soldiery had put the younger brother Constantius to death, the lives of his two orphaned children were also endangered; but a disease, apparently fatal, preserved Gallus from the violence of his father’s murderers; and as to Julian, his age—for he was only eight years old at the time—protected him. The Emperor’s jealousy toward them having been subdued, Gallus attended schools at Ephesus in Ionia, in which country considerable possessions had been left them by their parents. Julian, however, when he was grown up pursued his studies at Constantinople, going constantly to the palace, where the schools then were, in simple attire and under the care of the eunuch Mardonius. In grammar, Nicocles, the Lacedæmonian, was his instructor; and Ecbolius, the sophist, who was at that time a Christian, taught him rhetoric; for the Emperor Constantius had made provision that he should have no pagan masters, lest he should be seduced to pagan superstitions; for Julian was a Christian at the beginning. Since he made great progress in literature, the report began to spread that he was capable of ruling the Roman Empire; and this popular rumor becoming generally spread abroad, greatly disquieted the Emperor. Therefore he removed him from the great city to Nicomedia, forbidding him at the same time to frequent the school of Libanius the Syrian sophist. For Libanius, having been driven away by the teachers of Constantinople, had opened a school at Nicomedia. Here he gave vent to his indignation against the teachers in his treatise composed against them. Julian, however, was interdicted from being his auditor, because Libanius was a pagan in religion; nevertheless because he admired his orations, he procured them and read them secretly and diligently. As he was becoming very expert in the rhetorical art, Maximus the philosopher arrived in Nicomedia, not the Byzantine, Euclid’s father, but the Ephesian whom the Emperor Valentinian afterward caused to be executed as a practicer of magic. This took place later; at that time the only thing that attracted him to Nicomedia was the fame of Julian. Having obtained from him a taste for the principles of philosophy, Julian began to imitate the religion of his teacher, who had instilled into his mind a desire for the Empire. When these things reached the ears of the Emperor, wavering between hope and fear, Julian became very anxious to lull the suspicion that had been awakened, and he who was at first truly a Christian then became one in pretence. Shaved to the very skin, he pretended to live the monastic life; and while in private he pursued philosophical studies, in public he read the sacred writings of the Christian Church. Moreover, he was appointed reader of the church in Nicomedia. Thus by these pretexts he escaped the Emperor’s displeasure. Now he did all this from fear, but he by no means abandoned his hope; telling many of his friends that times would be happier when he should possess all. While his affairs were in this condition his brother Gallus, who had been created Cæsar, when he was on his way to the East came to Nicomedia to see him. But when Gallus was slain shortly after, Julian was immediately suspected by the Emperor; therefore the latter directed that he should be kept under guard; he soon found means, however, of escaping from his guards, and fleeing from place to place he managed to be in safety. At last Eusebia, the wife of the Emperor, having discovered him in his retreat, persuaded the Emperor to do him no harm, and to permit him to go to Athens to study philosophy. From thence—to be brief—the Emperor recalled him and afterward created him Cæsar, and having given him his own sister Helen in marriage, he sent him to Gaul against the barbarians. For the barbarians whom the Emperor Constantius had hired as auxiliary forces against Magnentius, being of no use against that usurper, were pillaging the Roman cities. Inasmuch as he was young he ordered him to undertake nothing without consulting the other military chiefs.… Julian’s complaint to the Emperor of the inertness of his military officers procured for him a coadjutor in the command more in sympathy with his ardor; and by their combined efforts an assault was made upon the barbarians. But they sent him an embassy, assuring him that they had been ordered by letters of the Emperor to march into Roman territories, and they showed him the letters. But he cast the ambassadors into prison, vigorously attacked the forces of the enemy and totally defeated them; and having taken their king prisoner, he sent him to Constantius. After these successes he was proclaimed Emperor by the soldiers; and inasmuch as there was no imperial crown at hand, one of the guards took the chain which he wore around his own neck and placed it upon Julian’s head. Thus Julian became Emperor; but whether he subsequently conducted himself as a philosopher, let my readers determine. For he neither sent an embassy to Constantius, nor paid him the least homage in acknowledgment of past favors; but conducted everything just as it pleased him. He changed the rulers of the provinces, and he sought to bring Constantius into contempt by reciting publicly in every city the letters which Constantius had written to the barbarians. For this reason the cities revolted from Constantius and attached themselves to him. Then he openly put off the pretence of being a Christian; going about to the various cities, he opened the pagan temples, offering sacrifices to the idols, and designating himself “Pontifex Maximus”; and the heathen celebrated their pagan festivals with pagan rites. By doing these things he excited a civil war against Constantius; and thus as far as he was concerned all the evils involved in war happened. For this philosopher’s desire could not have been fulfilled without much bloodshed. But God, who is the judge of His own counsels, checked the fury of these antagonists without detriment to the State by the removal of one of them. For when Julian arrived among the Thracians, it was announced that Constantius was dead. And thus did the Roman Empire at that time escape the intestine strife. Julian entered Constantinople and at once considered how he might conciliate the masses and secure popular favor. Accordingly, he had recourse to the following measures: he knew that Constantius was hated by all the people who held the homoousian faith and had driven them from the churches and had proscribed and exiled their bishops. He was aware, also, that the pagans were extremely discontented because they had been forbidden to sacrifice to their gods, and were anxious to get their temples opened and to be at liberty to offer sacrifices to their idols. Thus he knew that both classes secretly entertained hostile feelings toward his predecessor, and at the same time the people in general were exceedingly exasperated by the violence of the eunuchs, and especially by the rapacity of Eusebius, the chief officer of the imperial bed-chamber. Therefore he treated all with craftiness. With some he dissembled; others he attached to himself by conferring obligations upon them, led by a desire for vainglory; but to all he manifested how he stood toward the heathen religion. And first, in order to slander Constantius and condemn him as cruel toward his subjects among the people generally, he recalled the exiled bishops and restored to them their confiscated estates. He next commanded suitable agents to open the pagan temples without delay. Then he directed that those who had been treated unjustly by the eunuchs should receive back the property of which they had been plundered. Eusebius, the chief officer of the imperial bed-chamber, he punished with death, not only on account of the injuries he had inflicted on others, but because he was assured that it was through his machinations his brother Gallus had been killed. The body of Constantius he honored with an imperial funeral, but he expelled the eunuchs, the barbers, and cooks from the palace.… At night, remaining awake, he wrote orations which he afterward delivered in the Senate, going thither from the palace, though in fact he was the first and only Emperor since the time of Julius Cæsar who made speeches in that assembly. He honored those who were eminent for literary attainments, and especially those who taught philosophy; in consequence of which an abundance of pretenders to learning of this sort resorted to the palace from all quarters, men who wore their palliums and were more conspicuous for their costume than for their erudition. These impostors, who invariably adopted the religious sentiments of their prince, were inimical to the welfare of the Christians; but since Julian himself was overcome by excessive vanity he derided all his predecessors in a book which he wrote, entitled “The Cæsars.” Led by the same haughty disposition, he composed treatises against the Christians as well.

(b) Sozomenus, Hist. Ec., V, 3. (MSG, 67:1217.)

Julian’s restoration of heathenism.

When Julian was placed in sole possession of the Empire he commanded all the temples throughout the East to be reopened; and he also commanded that those which had been neglected to be repaired, those which had fallen into ruins to be rebuilt, and the altars to be restored. He assigned considerable money for this purpose. He restored the customs of antiquity and the ancestral ceremonies in the cities and the sacrifices. He himself offered libations openly and sacrificed publicly; and held in honor those who were zealous in these things. He restored to their ancient privileges the initiators and the priests, the hierophants and the servants of the temples, and confirmed the legislation of former emperors in their favor. He granted them exemption from duties and other burdens as they had previously had had such exemption. He restored to the temple guardians the provisions which had been abolished. He commanded them to be pure from meats, and to abstain from whatever, according to pagan opinion, was not befitting him who had announced his purpose of leading a pure life.

(c) Sozomenus, Hist. Ec., V, 5. (MSG, 67:1225.)

Julian’s measures against the Christians.

Among those who benefited by the recall of those who had been banished for their religious beliefs were not only the orthodox Christians who suffered under Constantius, but also the Donatists and others who had been expelled from their homes by the previous emperors.

Julian recalled all who, during the reign of Constantius, had been banished on account of their religious beliefs, and restored to them their property which had been confiscated by law. He charged the people not to commit any act of injustice against any of the Christians, not to insult them and not to constrain them to sacrifice unwillingly.… He deprived the clergy, however, of their immunities, honors, and provisions which Constantine had conferred, repealed the laws which had been enacted in their favor, and reinforced their statutory liabilities. He even compelled the virgins and widows, who on account of their poverty were reckoned among the clergy, to refund the provision which had been assigned them from the public treasury.… In the intensity of his hatred of the faith, he seized every opportunity to ruin the Church. He deprived it of its property, votive offerings, and sacred vessels, and condemned those who had demolished temples during the reign of Constantine and Constantius to rebuild them or to defray the expense of re-erection. On this ground, since they were unable to repay the sum and also on account of the search after sacred money, many of the priests, clergy, and other Christians were cruelly tortured and cast into prison.… He recalled the priests who had been banished by the Emperor Constantius; but it is said that he issued this order in their behalf, not out of mercy, but that through contention among themselves the churches might be involved in fraternal strife and might fall away from their law, or because he wished to asperse the memory of Constantius.

(d) Julian, Ep. 49, ad Arsacium; Julian, Imp., Epistulæ, ed. Hertlein. Leipsic, 1875 f.; also in Sozomenus, Hist. Ec., V, 16. (MSG, 67:1260.)

To Arsacius, High Priest of Galatia. Hellenism110 does not flourish as we would have it, because of its votaries. The worship of the gods, however, is grand and magnificent beyond all our prayers and hopes. Let our Adrastea be propitious to these words. No one a little while ago could have dared to look for such and so great a change in a short time. But do we think that these things are enough, and not rather consider that humanity shown strangers, the reverent diligence shown in burying the dead, and the false holiness as to their lives have principally advanced atheism?111 Each of these things is needful, I think, to be faithfully practised among us. It is not sufficient that you alone should be such, but in general all the priests, as many as there are throughout Galatia, whom you must either shame or persuade to be zealous, or else deprive them of their priestly office, if they do not come with their wives, children, and servants to the temples of the gods, or if they support servants, sons, or wives who are impious toward the gods and prefer atheism to piety. Then exhort the priests not to frequent the theatres, not to drink in taverns, nor to practise any art or business which is shameful or menial. Honor those who comply, expel those who disobey. Establish hostelries in every city, so that strangers, or whoever has need of money, may enjoy our philanthropy, not merely those of our own, but also those of other religions. I have meanwhile made plans by which you will be able to meet the expense. I have commanded that throughout the whole of Galatia annually thirty thousand bushels of corn and sixty thousand measures of wine be given, of which the fifth part I order to be devoted to the support of the poor who attend upon the priests; and the rest is to be distributed by us among strangers and beggars. For if there is not one among the Jews who begs, and even the impious Galileans, in addition to their own, support also ours, it is shameful that our poor should be wanting our aid.

(e) Sozomenus, Hist. Ec., V, 16. (MSG, 67:1260.)

Measures taken by Julian for the restoration of heathenism.

The Emperor, who had long since been eager that Hellenism should prevail through the Empire, was bitterly grieved seeing it excelled by Christianity. The temples, however, were kept open; the sacrifices and the ancient festivals appeared to him in all the cities to come from his will. He grieved that when he considered that if they should be deprived of his care they would experience a speedy change. He was particularly chagrined on discovering that the wives, children, and servants of many pagan priests professed Christianity. On reflecting that the Christian religion had a support in the life and behavior of those professing it, he determined to introduce into the pagan temples everywhere the order and discipline of the Christian religion: by orders and degrees of the ministry, by teachers and readers to give instruction in pagan doctrines and exhortations, by appointed prayers on certain days and at stated hours, by monasteries both for men and for women who desired to live in philosophical retirement, likewise hospitals for the relief of strangers and of the poor, and by other philanthropy toward the poor to glorify the Hellenic doctrine. He commanded that a suitable correction be appointed by way of penance after the Christian tradition for voluntary and involuntary transgressions. He is said to have admired especially the letters of recommendation of the bishops by which they commended travellers to other bishops, so that coming from anywhere they might go to any one and be hospitably received as known and as friends, and be cared for kindly on the evidence of these testimonials. Considering also these things, he endeavored to accustom the pagans to Christian practices.

(f) Sozomenus. Hist. Ec., V, 18. (MSG, 67:1269.)

Cf. Socrates, Hist. Ec., III, 16.

Julian forbade the children of Christians to be instructed in the writings of the Greek poets and authors, and to frequent the public schools.… He did not permit Christians to be educated in the learning of the Greeks, since he considered that only from them the power of persuasion was gained. Apollinaris,112 therefore, at that time employed his great learning and ingenuity in the production of a heroic epic on the antiquities of the Hebrews to the reign of Saul as a substitute for the poem of Homer.… He also wrote comedies in imitation of Menander, and imitated the tragedies of Euripides and the odes of Pindar.… Were it not that men were accustomed to venerate antiquity and to love that to which they are accustomed, the works of Apollinaris would be equally praised and taught.

(g) Julian, Epistula 42

Edict against Christian teachers of the classics.

This is the famous decree prohibiting Christians from teaching the Greek classics, and was quite generally understood by Christians as preventing them from studying the same.

I think true culture consists not in proficiency in words and speech, but in a condition of mind which has sound intentions and right opinions concerning good and evil, the honorable and the base. Whoever, therefore, thinks one thing and teaches those about him another appears to be as wanting in culture as in honor. If in trifles there is a difference between thought and speech, it is nevertheless an evil in some way to be endured; but if in important matters any one thinks one thing and teaches in opposition to what he thinks, this is the trick of charlatans, the act not of good men, but of those who are thoroughly depraved, especially in the case of those who teach what they regard as most worthless, deceiving and enticing by flattery into evil those whom they wish to use for their own purposes. All those who undertake to teach anything should be upright in life and not cherish in their minds ideas which are in opposition to those commonly received; most of all I think that such they ought to be who converse with the young on learning, or who explain the writings of the ancients, whether they are teachers of eloquence or of rhetoric, and still more if they are sophists. For they aim to be not merely teachers of words but of morals as well, and claim instruction in political science as belonging to their field. Whether this be true, I will leave undetermined. But praising them as those who thus strive for fine professions, I would praise them still more if they neither lied nor contradicted themselves, thinking one thing and teaching their pupils another. Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Isocrates, and Lysias were indebted to the gods for all their science. Did they not think that they were under the protection of Hermes and of the Muses? It seems to me, therefore, absurd that those who explain their writings should despise the gods they honored. But when I think it is absurd, I do not say that, on account of their pupils, they should alter their opinions; but I give them the choice, either not to teach what they do not hold as good, or, if they prefer to teach, first to convince their pupils that Homer, Hesiod, or any of those whom they explain and condemn, is not so godless and foolish in respect to the gods as they represent him to be. For since they draw their support and make gain from what these have written, they confess themselves most sordidly greedy of gain, willing to do anything for a few drachmas. Hitherto there were many causes for the lack of attendance upon the temples, and overhanging fear gave an excuse for keeping secret the right teaching concerning the gods. Now, however, since the gods have granted us freedom, it seems to me absurd that men should teach what they do not regard as good. If they believe that all those men are wise whose writings they expound and as whose prophets they sit, let them first imitate their piety toward the gods; but if they think that these writers erred concerning the most honored gods, let them go into the churches of the Galileans and expound Matthew and Luke, believing whom you forbid attendance upon the sacrifices. I would that your ears and tongues were born again, as you would say, of those things in which I always take part, and whoever loves me thinks and does. This law is to apply to teachers and instructors generally. Whoever among the youth wishes to make use of their instruction is not forbidden. For it would not be fair in the case of those who are yet youths and do not know which way to turn, to forbid the best way, and through fear to compel them to remain unwillingly by their ancestral institutions. Although it would be right to cure such people against their wills as being insane, yet it is permitted all to suffer under this disease. For it is my opinion that the ignorant should be instructed, not punished.

Chapter III. The Triumph of the New Nicene Orthodoxy Over Heterodoxy and Heathenism

The Arian controversy was the most important series of events in the internal history of the Christian Church in the fourth century, without reference to the truth or error of the positions taken or the rightful place of dogma within the Church. It roused more difficulties, problems, and disputes, led to more persecutions, ended in greater party triumphs than any other ecclesiastical or religious movement. It entered upon its last important phase about the time of the accession of the Emperor Julian. From that time the parties began to recognize their real affiliations and sought a basis of union in a common principle. The effect was that on the accession of Christian emperors the Church was able to advance rapidly toward a definitive statement. Of the emperors that followed Julian, Valentinian I (364-375), who ruled in the West, took a moderate and tolerant position in the question regarding the existence of heathenism alongside of the Church and heretical parties within the Church, though afterward harsher measures were taken by his son and successor (§ 69). In the East his colleague Valens (364-378) supported the extreme Arian party and persecuted the other parties, at the same time tolerating heathenism. This only brought the anti-Arians more closely together as a new party on the basis of a new interpretation of the Nicene formula (§ 70, cf. § 66, c). On the death of Valens at Adrianople, 378, an opportunity was given this new party, which it has become customary to call the New Nicene party, to support Theodosius (379-395) in his work of putting through the orthodox formula at the Council of Constantinople, 381 (§ 71).

§ 69. The Emperors From Jovian to Theodosius and Their Policy Toward Heathenism and Arianism

The reign of Jovian lasted so short a time, June, 363, to February, 364, that he had no time to develop a policy, and the assertion of Theodoret that he extinguished the heathen sacrificial fires is doubtful. On the death of Jovian, Valentinian was elected Emperor, who soon associated with himself his brother Valens as his colleague for the East. The two were tolerant toward heathenism, but Valens took an active part in favor of Arianism, while Valentinian held aloof from doctrinal controversy. On the death of Valentinian I, his sons Gratian (murdered at Lyons, 383) and Valentinian II (murdered at Vienne by Arbogast, 392), succeeded to the Empire. Under them the policy of toleration ceased, heathenism was proscribed. In the East under Theodosius, appointed colleague of Gratian in 379, the same policy was enforced. Arianism was now put down with a strong hand in both parts of the Empire.

(a) Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, XXX, 9, § 5

The religious policy of Valentinian I.

Ammianus Marcellinus is probably the best of the later Roman historians, and is the chief authority for much of the secular history from 353 to 378, in which period he is a source of the first rank, writing from personal observation and first-hand information. Ammianus was himself a heathen, but he seems not to have been embittered by the persecution to which his faith had been subjected. He was a man of a calm and judicial mind, and his judgment is rarely biassed, even when he touches upon ecclesiastical matters which, however, he rarely does.

Valentinian was especially remarkable during his reign for his moderation in this particular—that he kept a middle course between the different sects of religion, and never troubled any one, nor issued any orders in favor of one kind of worship rather than another; nor did he promulgate any threatening edicts to bow down the necks of his subjects to the form of worship to which he himself was inclined; but he left these parties just as he found them, without making any alterations.

(b) Codex Theodosianus, XII, 1, 75; A. D. 371

In this edict Valentinian I confirms the immunities of the heathen priesthood which had been restored by Julian. The heathen priesthood is here shown to continue as still open to aspirants after political honors and conferring immunities upon those who attained it. The curial had to pass through the various offices in fixed order before he attained release from burdens which had been laid upon him by the State’s system of taxation.

Let those be held as enjoying immunity who, advancing by the various grades and in due order, have performed their various obligations and have attained by their labor and approved actions to the priesthood of a province or to the honor of a chief magistracy, gaining this position not by favor and votes obtained by begging for them, but with the favorable report of the citizens and commendation of the public as a whole, and let them enjoy the repose which they shall have deserved by their long labor, and let them not be subject to those acts of bodily severity in punishment which it is not seemly that honorati should undergo.

(c) Theodoret. Hist. Ec., IV, 21; V, 20. (MSG, 82:1181.)

The following statement of Theodoret might seem to have been inspired by the general hatred which was felt for the violent persecutor and pronounced Arian, Valens. Nevertheless the statement is supported by references to the conditions under Valens made by Libanius in his Oratio pro Templis, addressed to the Emperor Theodosius.

IV, 21. At Antioch Valens spent considerable time, and gave complete license to all who under cover of the Christian name, pagans, Jews, and the rest preached doctrines contrary to those of the Gospel. The slaves of this error even went so far as to perform pagan rites, and thus the deceitful fire which after Julian had been quenched by Jovian, was now rekindled by permission of Valens. The rites of the Jews, of Dionysus and Demeter were no longer performed in a corner as they would have been in a pious reign, but by revellers running wild in the forum. Valens was a foe to none but to them that held the apostolic doctrine.

V, 20. Against the champions of the apostolic decrees alone he persisted in waging war. Accordingly, during the whole period of his reign the altar fire was lit, libations and sacrifices were offered to idols, public feasts were celebrated in the forum, and votaries initiated in the orgies of Dionysus ran about in goatskins, mangling dogs in Bacchic frenzy.

(d) Symmachus, Memorial to Valentinian II; Ambrose, Epistula 17. (MSL, 16:1007.)

A petition for the restoration of the altar of Victory in the Senate House at Rome.

Symmachus, prefect of the city, had previously appealed to Gratian to restore the altar which had been removed. The following petition, of which the more impressive parts are given, was made in 384, two years after the first petition. The opening paragraph refers to the former petition. The memorial is found among the Epistles of Ambrose, who replies to it.

1. As soon as the most honorable Senate, always devoted to you, knew what crimes were made amenable to law, and saw that the reputation of late times was being purified by pious princes, following the example of a favorable time, it gave utterance to its long-suppressed grief and bade me be once again the delegate to utter its complaints. But through wicked men audience was refused me by the divine Emperor, otherwise justice would not have been wanting, my lords and emperors of great renown, Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, victorious, triumphant, and ever august.

3. It is our task to watch on behalf of your clemency. For by what is it more suitable that we defend the institutions of our ancestors, and the rights and destiny of our country, than by the glory of these times, which is all the greater when you understand that you may not do anything contrary to the custom of your ancestors? We request, then, the restoration of that condition of religious affairs which was so long of advantage to the State. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opinion be counted up; a late one [Julian] practised the ceremonies of his ancestors, a later [Valentinian I], did not abolish them. If the religion of old times does not make a precedent, let the connivance of the last [Valentinian and Valens] do so.

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

5. But even if the avoidance of such an omen113 were not sufficient, it would at least have been seemly to abstain from injuring the ornaments of the Senate House. Allow us, we beseech you, as old men to leave to posterity what we received as boys. The love of custom is great. Justly did the act of the divine Constantius last for a short time. All precedents ought to be avoided by you, which you know were soon abolished.114

6. Where shall we swear to obey your laws and commands? By what religious sanctions shall the false mind be terrified, so as not to lie in bearing witness? All things are, indeed, filled with God, and no place is safe for the perjured, but to be bound in the very presence of religious forms has great power in producing a fear of sinning. That altar preserves the concord of all; that altar appeals to the good faith of each; and nothing gives more authority to our decrees than that our order issues every decree as if we were under the sanction of an oath. So that a place will be opened to perjury, and my illustrious princes, who are defended by a public oath, will deem this to be such.

7. But the divine Constantius is said to have done the same. Let us rather imitate the other actions of that prince [Valentinian I], who would have undertaken nothing of the kind, if any one else had committed such an error before him. For the fall of the earlier sets his successor right, and amendment results from the censure of a previous example. It was pardonable for your clemency’s ancestor in so novel a matter not to guard against blame. Can the same excuse avail us, if we imitate what we know to have been disapproved?

8. Will your majesties listen to other actions of this same prince, which you may more worthily imitate? He diminished none of the privileges of the sacred virgins, he filled the priestly offices with nobles. He did not refuse the cost of the Roman ceremonies, and following the rejoicing Senate through all the streets of the Eternal City, he beheld the shrines with unmoved countenance, he read the names of the gods inscribed on the pediments, he inquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed admiration for their founders. Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained these for the Empire, for every one has his own customs, every one his own rites. The divine Mind has distributed different guardians and different cults to different cities. As souls are separately given to infants as they are born, so to a people is given the genius of its destiny. Here comes in the proof from advantage, which most of all vouches to man for the gods. For, since our reason is wholly clouded, whence does the knowledge of the gods more rightly come to us, than from the memory and records of successful affairs? Now if a long period gives authority to religious customs, faith ought to be kept with so many centuries, and our ancestors ought to be followed by us as they happily followed theirs.

9. Let us now suppose that we are present at Rome and that she addresses you in these words: “Excellent princes, fathers of your country, respect my years to which pious rites have brought me. Let me use the ancestral ceremonies, for I do not repent of them. Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free. This worship subdued the world to my laws, these sacred rites repelled Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones from the capitol. Have I been reserved for this, that when aged I should be blamed? I will consider what it is thought should be set in order, but tardy and discreditable is the reformation of old age.”

10. We ask, therefore, peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that what all worship be considered one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what paths each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease; we offer now prayers, not conflict.115

(e) Ambrose, Epistula 18. (MSL, 16:1013.)

Reply of Ambrose to the Memorial of Symmachus.

Immediately after the receipt of the Memorial of Symmachus by Valentinian II, a copy was sent to Ambrose, who wrote a reply or letter of advice to Valentinian, which might be regarded as a counter-petition. In it he enters upon the arguments of Symmachus. Although he could not present the same pathetic figure of an old man pleading for the religion of his ancestors, his arguments are not unjust, and dispose satisfactorily of the leading points made by Symmachus. The line of reasoning represents the best Christian opinion of the times on the matter of the relation of the State to heathenism.

3. The illustrious prefect of the city has in a memorial set forth three propositions which he considers of force—that Rome, he says, asks for her rites again, that pay be given to her priests and vestal virgins, and that a general famine followed upon the refusal of the priests’ stipends.…

7. Let the invidious complaints of the Roman people come to an end. Rome has given no such charge. She speaks other words. “Why do you daily stain me with the useless blood of the harmless herd? Trophies of victory depend not upon the entrails of the flock, but on the strength of those who fight. I subdued the world by a different discipline. Camillus was my soldier who slew those who had taken the Tarpeian rock, and brought back to the capitol the standards taken away; valor laid low those whom religion had not driven off.… Why do you bring forward the rites of our ancestors? I hate the rites of Neros. Why should I speak of emperors of two months,116 and the ends of rulers closely joined to their commencements. Or is it, perchance, a new thing for barbarians to cross their boundaries? Were they, too, Christians whose wretched and unprecedented cases, the one a captive emperor117 and under the other118 the captive world,119 made manifest that their rites which promised victory were false? Was there then no altar of Victory?…”

8. By one road, says he, one cannot attain to so great a secret. What you know not, that we know by the voice of God. And what you seek by fancies we have found out from the very wisdom and truth of God. Your ways, therefore, do not agree with ours. You implore peace for your gods from the Emperor, we ask peace for our emperors themselves from Christ.…

10. But, says he, let the ancient altars be restored to their images, and their ornaments to the shrines. Let this demand be made of one who shares in their superstitions; a Christian emperor has learned to honor the altar of Christ alone.… Has any heathen emperor raised an altar to Christ? While they demand the restoration of things which have been, by their own example they show us how great reverence Christian emperors ought to pay to the religion which they follow, since heathen ones offered all to their superstitions.

We began long since, and now they follow those whom they excluded. We glory in yielding our blood, an expense moves them.… We have increased through loss, through want, through punishment; they do not believe that their rites can continue without contribution.

11. Let the vestal virgins, he says, retain their privileges. Let those speak thus who are unable to believe that virginity can exist without reward, let those who do not trust virtue, encourage it by gain. But how many virgins have their promised rewards gained for them? Hardly are seven vestal virgins received. See the whole number whom the fillet and chaplets for the head, the robes of purple dye, the pomp of the litter surrounded by a company of attendants, the greatest privileges, immense profits, and a prescribed time for virginity have gathered together.

12. Let them lift up the eyes of soul and body, let them look upon a people of modesty, a people of purity, an assembly of virginity. Not fillets are the ornament of their heads, but a veil common in use but ennobled by chastity; the enticement of beauty not sought out, but laid aside; none of those purple insignia, no delicious luxuries, but the practice of fasts; no privileges, no gains; all other things, in fine, of such a kind that one would think them restrained from desire whilst practising their duties. But whilst the duty is being practised the desire for it is aroused. Chastity is increased by its own sacrifice. That is not virginity which is bought with a price, and not kept through a desire for virtue; that is not purity which is bought by auction for money or which is bid for a time.

16. No one has denied gifts to shrines and legacies to soothsayers; their land only has been taken away, because they did not use religiously that which they claimed in right of religion. Why did not they who allege our example practise what we did? The Church has no possessions of her own except the faith. Hence are her returns, her increase. The possessions of the Church are the maintenance of the poor. Let them count up how many captives the temples have ransomed, what food they have contributed for the poor, to what exiles they have supplied the means of living. Their lands, then, have been taken away, but not their rights.

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

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

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

30. If the old rites pleased, why did Rome also take up foreign ones? I pass over the ground hidden with costly buildings, and shepherds’ cottages glittering with degenerate gold. Why, that I may reply to the very matter which they complain of, have they eagerly received the images of captured cities, and conquered gods, and the foreign rites of alien superstition? Whence, then, is the pattern of Cybele washing her chariots in a stream counterfeiting the Almo? Whence were the Phrygian prophets and the deities of unjust Carthage, always hateful to the Romans? And he whom the Africans worship as Celestis, the Persians as Mithra, and the greater number as Venus, according to a difference of name, not a variety of deities?

31. They ask to have her altar erected in the Senate House of the city of Rome, that is where the majority who meet together are Christians! There are altars in all the temples, and an altar also in the Temple of Victory. Since they delight in numbers, they celebrate their sacrifices everywhere. To claim a sacrifice on this one altar, what is it but to insult the faith? Is it to be borne that a heathen should sacrifice and a Christian be present?… Shall there not be a common lot in that common assembly? The faithful portion of the Senate will be bound by the voices of those who call upon the gods, by the oaths of those who swear by them. If they oppose they will seem to exhibit their falsehood, if they acquiesce, to acknowledge what is a sacrilege.

(f) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 10, 12; A. D. 392

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

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

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

§ 70. The Dogmatic Parties and Their Mutual Relations

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

Additional source material: Athanasius, De Synodis (PNF); Basil, Epp. 38, 52, 69, 125 (PNF, ser. II, vol. VIII); Hilary of Poitiers, De Synodis, cc. 87-91 (PNF, ser. II, vol. IX); Socrates, Hist. Ec., III, 25.

Council of Alexandria A. D. 362. Tomus Ad Antiochenos. (MSG, 26:797.)

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

The Council of Alexandria, in addition to condemning the Macedonian heresy, in advance of Constantinople, also anticipated that assembly by condemning Apollinarianism without mentioning the teacher by whom the heresy was taught. It is condemned in the seventh section of the tome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Emperor Theodosius was appointed colleague of Gratian and Valentinian II, 378. He issued in conjunction with these emperors an edict (Cod. Theod., XVI, 1, 2; cf. Cod. Just., I, 1, 1, v. infra, § 72, b, e), requiring all subjects of the Empire to hold the orthodox faith in the Trinity. He then called a council of Eastern bishops to meet at Constantinople in 381 to settle the question as to the succession to the see of that city and to confirm the creed of Nicæa as the faith of the Eastern half of the Church. Gregory of Nazianzus was appointed bishop of Constantinople, but was forced to resign, having formerly been bishop of Sasima, from which he had been translated in violation of the Nicene canons. As soon as it was apparent that the bishops would have to accept the Nicene faith the thirty-six Macedonians withdrew. Their opinion as to the Holy Spirit, that He was not divine in the same sense that the Son was divine, was condemned, without express statement of the point condemned, as was also the teaching of Apollinaris as to the nature of Christ. The council was not intended to be an ecumenical or general council, and it was not regarded as such even in the East until after the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, and then probably on account of the creed which was then falsely attributed to the Fathers of Constantinople. In the West the council was not recognized as an ecumenical council until well into the sixth century. (See Hefele, § 100.) The council issued no creed and made no additions to the Nicene creed. It published a tome, since lost, setting forth the faith in the Trinity. It enacted four canons, of which only the first three are of general application.

Additional source material: Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils (PNF); Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 6-9; Socrates, Hist. Ec., V, 8; Basil, De Spiritu Sancto (PNF), Hefele, §§ 95-100.

(a) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, Canons, Bruns, I, 20. Cf. Kirch, Nn. 583 Ff

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

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

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

Canon 3. The bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after123 the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

(b) Cyril of Jerusalem, Creed. (Cf. MSG, 35:533.) Cf. Hahn, § 124

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

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

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

Incarnate and made man; crucified and buried;

And rose again the third day;

And ascended into heaven;

And sat on the right hand of the Father;

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

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

And in one baptism of repentance for remission of sins;

And in one holy Catholic Church;

And in the resurrection of the flesh;

And in the life eternal.

(c) Epiphanius, Ancoratus, Chs. 119 F. (MSG, 43:252.) Cf. Hahn, § 125

Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, was the most important of the hereseologists of the Fathers, gathering to form his work on heresies some scores of heterodox systems of teachings. His passion for orthodoxy was taken advantage of by Theophilus of Antioch to cause trouble for Chrysostom and others; see Origenistic controversy, § 87. The Ancoratus, from which the following creed is taken, is a statement of the Catholic faith which, amidst the storms of the Arian controversy, should serve as an anchor of salvation for the Christians. The date of the following creed, which has come to be known as the Salaminium, is 374. It is evidently based upon that of Jerusalem given by Cyril.

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

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, that is, of the substance of the Father, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [homoousios] with the Father; by whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets; and in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

But those who say there was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten, or He was made of nothing, or of another substance or essence [hypostasis or ousia], saying that the Son of God is effluent or variable—these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Chapter IV. The Empire and the Imperial State Church

In the period extending from the accession of Constantine (311 or 324) to the death of Theodosius the Great (395), the characteristic features of the Church’s organization took definite form, and its relations to the secular authorities and the social order of the Empire were defined. Its constitution with its hierarchical organization of clergy, of courts, and synods, together with its intimate union, at least in the East, with the imperial authority, became fixed (§ 72). As the Church of the Empire, it was under the control and patronage of the State; all other forms of religion, whether pagan or Christian, schismatical or heretical, were severely repressed (§ 73). The Christian clergy, as officials in this State Church, became a class by themselves in the society of the Empire, not only as the recipients of privileges, but as having special functions in the administration of justice, and eventually in the superintendence of secular officials and secular business (§ 74). By degrees the Christian spirit influenced the spirit of the laws and the popular customs, though less than at first sight might have been expected; the rigors of slavery were mitigated and cruel gladiatorial sports abandoned (§ 75). Meanwhile popular piety was by no means raised by the influx of vast numbers of heathen into the Church; bringing with them no little of their previous modes of thought and feeling, and lacking the testing of faith and character furnished by the persecutions, they lowered the general moral tone of the Church, so that Christians everywhere were affected by these alien ideas and feelings (§ 76). The Church, however, endeavored to raise the moral tone and ideals and to work effectively in society by care for the poor and other works of benevolence, and in its regulation of marriage, which began in this period to be a favorite subject of legislation for the Church’s councils (§ 76). In monasticism this striving against the lowering forces in Christian society and for a higher type of life most clearly manifested itself, and, beginning in Egypt, organized forms of asceticism spread throughout the East and toward the end of the period to the West as well (§ 78). But monasticism was not confined to the private ascetic. The priesthood, as necessarily presenting an example of higher moral life, began to be touched by the ascetic spirit, and in the West this took the form of enforced clerical celibacy, though the custom of the East remained far less rigorous (§ 79). In presenting these lines of development, it is at times convenient to pass beyond the exact bounds of the period, so that the whole subject may be brought together at this point of the history.

§ 72. The Constitution of the State Church

The Church’s constitution received its permanent form in this period. The conciliar system was carried to its logical completion in the ecumenical council representing the entire Church and standing at the head of a system which included the provincial and patriarchal councils, at least in theory. The clergy were organized into a hierarchy which rested upon the basis of the single bishop in his diocese, who had under him his clergy, and culminated in the patriarchs placed over the great divisions of the State Church, corresponding to the primary divisions of the Empire. The Emperor assumed the supreme authority in the Church, and the foundation was laid for what became under Justinian Cæsaropapism. By the institution of the hierarchical gradation of authority and jurisdiction, for the most part corresponding to the political and administrative divisions of the Empire, the Church both assumed a rigidly organized form and came more easily under the control of the secular authority.

(A) The Ecumenical Council

The Council of Nicæa was held before there was any definition of the place of an ecumenical council. Many councils were held during the Arian controversy that were quite as representative. It was taken for granted that the councils were arranged in a scale of authority corresponding to the extent of the Church represented. The first clear statement of this principle is at the Council of Constantinople A. D. 382.

Council of Constantinople, A. D. 382, Canon 2. Text, Hefele, § 98

The so-called second general council was held in 381, but in the next year nearly the same bishops were called together by Theodosius (cf. Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V. 9). In a letter addressed to the Western bishops at a council at Rome this council speaks of their previous meeting at Constantinople in 381 as being an ecumenical council. The query suggests itself whether, considering the fact that it actually only represented the East and did represent more than one patriarchate, “ecumenical” might not be understood as being used in a sense similar to that in which the African bishops spoke of their councils as universalis. See Hefele, § 100, note.

The following canon is printed as the sixth canon of Constantinople, A. D. 381, in Hefele and the other collections, e.g., Bruns and Percival.

… If persons who are neither heretics, nor excommunicated, nor condemned, nor charged with crime claim to have a complaint in matters ecclesiastical against the bishop,124 the holy synod commands such to bring their charges first before all the bishops of the province, and to prove before them the charges against the accused bishop. But should it happen that the comprovincials be unable to settle the charges alleged against the bishop, the complainants shall have recourse then to the larger synod of the bishops of that diocese,125 who shall be called together on account of the complaint; and the complainants may not bring their complaint until they have agreed in writing to take upon themselves the same punishment which would have fallen upon the accused, in case the complainants in the course of the matter should be proved to have brought a false charge against the bishop. But if any one, holding in contempt these directions, venture to burden the ear of the Emperor, or the tribunals of the secular judges, or disturb an ecumenical synod,126 dishonoring the bishops of their patriarchal province, such shall not be admitted to make complaint, because he despises the canons and violates the Church’s order.

(B) The Hierarchical Organization

(a) Council of Nicæa, A. D. 325, Canons. Text, Hefele, § 42. Cf. Kirch, Nn. 364-368

Canons of organization.

Canon 4 regulates the ordinations of bishops; Canon 5 orders that excommunications in one diocese shall hold good everywhere; Canon 6 defines the larger provincial organization which eventually resulted in the patriarchates; Canon 7 defines the position of the bishopric of Jerusalem; Canons 15 and 16 place the bishops permanently in their sees and the clergy under their own proper bishop.

Canon 4. It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should assemble, and the suffrages of the absent should also be given and communicated in writing, and then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the metropolitan.

Canon 5. Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provisions of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others.… Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishops. And that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may be thoroughly examined by them, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop may be seen by all to be for just causes excommunicated, until it shall appear fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent (that the pure gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away) and let the second be held about autumn.

Canon 6. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the bishop of Rome also.127 Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of his metropolitan, the great synod has declared that such a man ought not to be bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall, from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honored, let him, saving its due dignity to the metropolis, have the next place of honor.

Canon 15. On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the canon must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great synod, shall attempt any such thing or continue in such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.

Canon 16. Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes;128 and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if one shall dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop from whom, although he was enrolled in the clergy list, he has seceded, let the ordination be void.

(b) Synod of Antioch, A. D. 341. Canons, Bruns, I, 80 F., Cf. Kirch, Nn. 439 Ff

For the Council of Antioch, see § 65, c. These canons on discipline were held in highest authority in the Church, although enacted by Arians whose creed was rejected. They obtained this position in the law of the Church because they carried further the natural line of development long since taken in the ecclesiastical system. Cf. Hefele, § 56.

Canon 2. All who enter the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of some disorder, from the holy partaking of the eucharist, are to be cast out of the Church until, after they shall have made confession, have brought forth fruits of penance, and have made earnest entreaty, they shall have obtained forgiveness; and it is unlawful to communicate with excommunicated persons, or to assemble in private houses and pray with those who do not pray in the Church; or to receive in one church those who do not assemble with another church. And if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.

Canon 3. If any presbyter or deacon or any one whatever belonging to the priesthood shall forsake his own parish and shall depart, and, having wholly changed his residence, shall set himself to remain for a long time in another parish, let him no longer officiate; especially if his own bishop shall summon and urge him to return to his own parish, and he shall disobey. And if he persist in his disorder, let him be wholly deposed from his ministry, so that no further room be left for his restoration. And if another bishop shall receive a man deposed for this cause, let him be punished by the common synod as one who nullifies the ecclesiastical laws.

Canon 4. If any bishop be deposed by a synod, or any presbyter or deacon, who has been deposed by his bishop, shall presume to execute any part of the ministry, whether it be a bishop according to his former function, or a presbyter, or a deacon, he shall no longer have any prospect of restoration in another synod, nor any opportunity of making his defence; but they who communicate with him shall be cast out of the Church, and particularly if they have presumed to communicate with the persons aforementioned, knowing the sentence pronounced against them.

Canon 6. If any one has been excommunicated by his own bishop, let him not be received by others until he has either been restored by his own bishop, or until, when a synod is held, he shall have appeared and made his defence, and, having convinced the synod, shall have received a different sentence. And let this decree apply to the laity, and to the presbyters and deacons, and all who are enrolled in the clergy list.

Canon 9. It behooves the bishops in each province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought of the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, according to the ancient canon which prevailed from the time of our fathers, or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with piety, which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent upon his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him not undertake anything further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

Canon 10. The holy synod decrees that those [bishops] living in village and country districts, or those who are called chorepiscopi, even though they have received ordination to the episcopate, shall regard their own limits and manage the churches subject to them, and be content with the care and administration of these; but they may ordain readers, subdeacons, and exorcists, and shall be content with promoting these; but they shall not presume to ordain either a presbyter or a deacon, without the consent of the bishop of the city to which he and his district are subject. And if he shall dare to transgress these decrees, he shall be deposed from the rank which he enjoys. And a chorepiscopus is to be appointed by the bishop of the city to which he is subject.

(c) Council of Sardica, A. D. 343 or 344, Canons, Bruns, I, 88. Cf. Mirbt, n. 113, and Kirch, nn. 448 ff.

The Council of Sardica was intended to be composed of representatives from the entire Empire who might be able to settle once and for all the Arian question. It met at Sardica on the boundary between the two divisions of the Empire as they were then defined. The Eastern ecclesiastics, strongly Arian, found themselves outnumbered by the Western bishops who supported Athanasius and the Nicene definition of faith. The Eastern representatives withdrew to Philippopolis near by, and held their own council. The following canons were intended to provide a system of appeal for cases like that of Athanasius, and although they do not seem to have been acted upon enough to have become a part of the Church’s system, yet they were of great importance inasmuch as subsequently they were used as late as the ninth century for a support to a wholly different system of appeals. These canons were very early attributed to the Council of Nicæa A. D. 325.

Canon 3. Bishop Hosius said: This, also, it is necessary to add—that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless perchance they are invited by their brethren, that we seem not to close the door to charity. But if in any province a bishop have an action against his brother bishop, neither shall call in as judge a bishop from another province. But if judgment shall have gone against any bishop in a case, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be heard, let us, if it be your pleasure, honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who have tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall decide that the case should be retried, let it be retried, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall be satisfied that the case is such that what has been done should not be disturbed, what has been decreed shall be confirmed.

Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered: It is our pleasure.

Canon 4. Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you, it is necessary to add to this sentence, which full of sincere charity thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who happened to be in the vicinity, and he asserts that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop is not to be settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.

Latin Version of Canon 4. Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you, there ought to be added to this sentence, which full of holiness thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who dwell in the vicinity, and he asserts that the business ought to be conducted by him in the city of Rome, another bishop should in nowise be ordained in his see after the appellation of him who appears to have been deposed, unless the cause shall have been determined by the judgment of the bishop of Rome.

Canon 5.129 Bishop Hosius said: Let it be decreed that if a bishop shall have been accused and the assembled bishops of the same region shall have deposed him from his office, and he, so to speak, appeals and takes refuge with the bishop of the Roman Church and wishes to be heard by him, if he130 think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those of fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one demand that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seems good to the bishop of Rome to send presbyters from his own side, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right, that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he thinks that they [the bishops] are sufficient for the hearing and determining of the matter of the bishop, let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.

(d) Gratian and Valentinian, Rescript; A. D. 378. (MSG, 13:586.) Mirbt, Nn. 118, f

This rescript was sent in answer to a petition addressed to the emperors by a Roman council under Damasus. It is, therefore, found connected with an epistle in the works of Damasus. It does not seem to have been the foundation of any claim or to have played any considerable part in the development of the Roman primacy. It is of importance in the present connection as illustrating the part emperors took in the internal affairs of the Church. For Damasus and the disturbances in connection with his election, v. infra, § 74, a. The rescript may be found in Mansi, III, 624; Hardouin, I, 842; and in Gieseler, I, 380.

6. If any one shall have been condemned by the judgment of Damasus, which he shall have delivered with the council of five or seven bishops, or by the judgment or council of those who are Catholics, and if he shall unlawfully attempt to retain his church,131 in order that such a one, who has been called to the priestly judgment, shall not escape by his contumacy, it is our will that such a one be remitted by the illustrious prefects of Gaul and Italy, either by the proconsul or the vicars, use having been made of due authority, to the episcopal judgment, and shall come to the city of Rome under an escort; or if such insolence of any one shall appear in parts very far distant, the entire pleading of his case shall be brought to the examination of the metropolitan of the province in which the bishop is, or if he himself is the metropolitan, then of necessity he shall hasten without delay to Rome, or to those whom the Roman bishop shall assign as judges, so that whoever shall have been deposed shall be removed from the confines of the city in which they were priests. For we punish those who deserve punishment less severely than they deserve, and we take vengeance upon their sacrilegious stubbornness more gently than it merits. And if the unfairness or partiality of any metropolitan, bishop, or priest is suspected, it is allowed to appeal to the Roman bishop or to a council gathered of fifteen neighboring bishops, but so that after the examination of the case shall have been concluded what was settled shall not be begun over again.

(e) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 1, 2; Feb. 27, A. D. 380. Cf. Kirch, N. 755

The following edict was issued by Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, requiring the acceptance of the orthodox faith by all subjects. In other words, the emperors, following the example of Constantius and Valens in enforcing Arianism, are now enforcing the Nicene theology. Sozomenus, Hist. Ec., VII, 4, gives the circumstances under which this edict was issued.

It is our will that all the peoples whom the government of our clemency rules shall follow that religion which a pious belief from Peter to the present declares the holy Peter delivered to the Romans, and which it is evident the pontiff Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, follow; that is, that according to the apostolic discipline and evangelical doctrine we believe in the deity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost of equal majesty, in a holy trinity. Those who follow this law we command shall be comprised under the name of Catholic Christians; but others, indeed, we require, as insane and raving, to bear the infamy of heretical teaching; their gatherings shall not receive the name of churches; they are to be smitten first with the divine punishment and after that by the vengeance of our indignation, which has the divine approval.

(f) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 1, 3

Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to Auxonius, proconsul of Asia.

To enforce still further the principles of Nicene orthodoxy certain bishops were named as teachers of the true faith, communion with whom was a test of orthodoxy.

We command that all churches be forthwith delivered up to the bishops who confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be of one majesty and power; of the same glory and of one splendor, making no distinction by any profane division, but rather harmony by the assertion of the trinity of the persons and the unity of the Godhead, to the bishops who are associated in communion with Nectarius, bishop of the Church of Constantinople, and with Timotheus in Egypt, bishop of the city of Alexandria; in the parts of the Orient, who are in communion with Pelagius, bishop of Laodicæa and Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus; in proconsular Asia and in the diocese of Asia, who are in communion with Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, and Optimus, bishop of Antioch; in the diocese of Pontus, who are in communion with Helladius, bishop of Cæsarea, and Otreius, bishop of Melitina, and Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, Terennius, bishop of Scythia, Marmarius, bishop of Marcianopolis. Those who are of the communion and fellowship of approved priests132 ought to be admitted to possess the Catholic churches; but all who dissent from the communion of the faith of those whom the special list has named ought to be expelled from the churches as manifest heretics; and no opportunity whatsoever ought to be allowed them henceforth of obtaining episcopal churches133 that the priestly orders of the true and Nicene faith may remain pure and no place be given to evil cunning, according to the evident form of our precept.

(g) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. Address to Theodosius. See Mansi, III, 557

The following letter illustrates the relation of the councils in the East to the imperial authority. The emperors called the various general councils, directed their discussions and confirmed the results. In this way their findings were given the force of laws and authority throughout the Church. V. infra, §§ 90, 91.

To the most religious Emperor Theodosius, the holy synod of bishops assembled in Constantinople out of different provinces.

We begin our letter to your Piety with thanks to God, who has established the Empire of your Piety for the common peace of the churches and for the support of the true faith. And, after rendering due thanks unto God, as in duty bound, we lay before your Piety the things which have been done in the holy synod. When, then, we had assembled in Constantinople, according to the letter of your Piety, we first of all renewed our unity of heart each with the other, and then we pronounced some concise definitions, ratifying the faith of the Nicene Fathers, and anathematizing the heresies which have sprung up contrary thereto. Besides these things, we also framed certain canons for the better ordering of the churches, all which we have subjoined to this our letter. We therefore beseech your Piety that the decree of the synod may be ratified, to the end that as you have honored the Church by your letter of citation, so you should set your seal to the conclusion of what has been decreed. May the Lord establish your Empire in peace and righteousness, and prolong it from generation to generation; and may He add unto your earthly powers the fruition of the heavenly kingdom also. May God, by the prayers of the saints, show favor to the world, that you may be strong and eminent in all good things as an Emperor most truly pious and beloved of God.

(h) Synod of Antioch, A. D. 341, Canons, Bruns, I, 80

The following canons passed at Antioch are the first touching a habit which they did little to correct. The so-called sixth canon of Constantinople, 381, in reality a canon of the council of the next year, took up the matter again. All through the great controversies appeals were constantly made to the emperors because, after all, they alone had the authority. Cf. Hefele, § 56.

Canon 11. If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters of his bishop of the province and particularly of the bishop of the metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only from the communion, but also from the rank which he happens to have had; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor, beloved of God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary business shall require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him undertake his journey with the letters from them.

Canon 12. If any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any bishop deposed by a synod, shall dare trouble the ears of the Emperor, when it is his duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to more bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by the examination and decision made by them; if, despising these, he shall trouble the Emperor, he shall be entitled to no pardon, neither shall he have opportunity of defence, nor any hope of future restoration.

§ 73. Sole Authority of the State Church

When Theodosius had successfully forced upon the East the theology of Nicæa, his policy as to religious matters was manifest. No longer was heresy to be allowed. Laws were to control opinion in the same way that they did conduct. The old plea of the persecuted Christians under the heathen Roman Empire, religio non cogi potest, was completely forgotten. As Christianity was the one sole religion of divine character, based upon the unique divine act of the incarnation, it was folly to allow men to continue in heathenism—it might even be dangerous to the State to allow them, as it might bring down the just vengeance of God. With this policy the populace was completely in accord, especially when it led to the plunder and destruction of heathen sanctuaries, and many of the more zealous of the clergy were willing to lead in the assault. In these ways the State Church obtained a two-fold exclusive authority: as regards heathenism, and as regards heresy.

(a) Codex Theodosianus

Laws regarding heathenism.

XVI, 10, 14; A. D. 399.

Whatever privileges were conceded by the ancient laws to the priests, ministers, prefects, hierophants of sacred things, or by whatsoever name they may be designated, are to be abolished henceforth, and let them not think that they are protected by a granted privilege when their religious confession is known to have been condemned by the law.

XVI, 10, 16; A. D. 399.

If there are temples in the fields, let them be destroyed without crowd or tumult. For when these have been thrown down and carried away, the support of superstition will be consumed.

XVI, 10, 15; A. D. 399.

This law appears again in the Cod. Just., I, 13, 3, for it appears to have been necessary even as late as the sixth century to prevent unauthorized destructions of temples which were in the cities and might be fairly regarded as ornaments to the city.

We prohibit sacrifices yet so that we wish that the ornaments of public works to be preserved. And that those who attempt to overthrow them may not flatter themselves that it is with some authority, if any rescript or, perchance, law is alleged, let these documents be taken from their hands and referred to our knowledge.

XVI, 10, 21; A. D. 416.

Those who are polluted by the error or crime of pagan rites are not to be admitted to the army nor to receive the distinction and honor of administrator or judge.

XVI, 10, 23; A. D. 423.

Although the pagans that remain ought to be subjected to capital punishment if at any time they are detected in the abominable sacrifices of demons, let exile and confiscation of goods be their punishment.

XVI, 10, 24; A. D. 423. (Retained in Cod. Just., I, 11, 16.)

The Manichæans and those who are called Pepyzitæ [Montanists] and also those who by this one opinion are worse than all heretics, in that they dissent from all as to the venerable day of the Easter festival, we subject to the same punishment, viz.: confiscation of goods and exile, if they persist in the same unreason. But this we especially demand of Christians, both those who are really such and those who are called such, that they presume not, by an abuse of religion, to lay hands upon the Jews and pagans who live peaceably and who attempt nothing riotous or contrary to the laws. For if they should do violence to them living securely and take away their goods, let them be compelled to restore not merely what they have taken away but threefold and fourfold. Let the rectors of provinces, officials, and provincials know that if they permit these things to be done, they themselves will be punished, as well as those who do them.

(b) Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 29. (MSG, 82:1256.)

The destruction of temples.

The following passage is illustrative of the temper of those who took part in the destruction of heathen sanctuaries. The imperial edicts for these acts were obtained in 399. Chrysostom, the leader in the movement, fairly represents the best thought and temper of the Church.

On receiving information that Phœnicia was still suffering from the madness of the demons’ rites, he [John Chrysostom] got together some monks fired with divine zeal and despatched them, armed with imperial edicts, against the idols’ shrines. He did not draw from the imperial treasury the money to pay the craftsmen and their assistants who were engaged in the work of destruction, but he persuaded certain faithful and wealthy women to make liberal contributions, pointing out to them how great would be the blessing their generosity would win. Thus the remaining shrines of the demons were utterly destroyed.

(c) Socrates, Hist. Ec., VII, 15. (MSG, 67:768.)

The murder of Hypatia.

The fearful murder of Hypatia represents another aspect of the opposition to heathenism, in which the populace seconded the efforts of the authorities in a policy of extirpating paganism.

There was a woman in Alexandria named Hypatia. She was the daughter of the philosopher Theon, and she had attained such a proficiency in literature and science as to surpass by far all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the Platonic school, which had come down from Plotinus, she explained all the principles of philosophy to her auditors. Therefore many from all sides, wishing to study philosophy, came to her. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner which she had acquired by her study, she not infrequently appeared with modesty in the presence of magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in entering an assembly of men. For all men, on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue, admired her the more. Against her envious hostility arose at that time. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes [governor of Alexandria] it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop [Cyril]. Some men of this opinion and of a hot-headed disposition, whose leader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home. Dragging her from her carriage they took her to the church called Cæsareum. There they completely stripped her and murdered her with tiles. When they had torn her in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there they burnt them. This affair brought no little opprobrium, not only upon Cyril but also upon the whole Alexandrian Church. And surely murders, fights, and actions of that sort are altogether alien to those who hold the things of Christ. These things happened in the fourth year of the episcopate of Cyril [415].

(d) Socrates, Hist. Ec., VII, 11. (MSG, 67:757.)

Novatians and the Church at the beginning of the fifth century.

Socrates is the principal authority for the later history of the Novatians. It is probable that his interest in them and evident sympathy for them were due to some connection with the sect, perhaps in his early years, and he gives many incidents in their history, otherwise unknown.

After Innocent [401-417], Zosimus [417-418] governed the Roman Church for two years, and after him Boniface [418-422] presided over it for three years. Celestinus [422-432] succeeded him, and this Celestinus took away the churches from the Novatians at Rome and obliged Rusticula, their bishop, to hold his meetings secretly in private houses. Until this time the Novatians had flourished exceedingly in Rome, having many churches there and gathering large congregations. But envy attacked them there, also, as soon as the Roman episcopate, like that of Alexandria, extended itself beyond the limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and degenerated into its present state of secular domination. And for this cause the bishops would not suffer even those who agreed with them in matters of faith to enjoy the privileges of assembling in peace, but stripping them of all they possessed, praised them merely for these agreements in faith. The bishops of Constantinople kept themselves free from this sort of conduct; in so much as in addition to tolerating them and permitting them to hold their assemblies within the city, as I have already stated,134 they treated them with every mark of Christian regard.

(e) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 5, 40; A. D. 407

Edict of Arcadius and Honorius against the Manichæans and other heretics. (Retained in Cod. Just., I, 5, 4.) Cf. Mirbt, n. 155.

What we have thought concerning the Donatists we have recently set forth. Especially do we pursue, with well-merited severity, the Manichæans, the Phrygians, and the Priscillianists,135 since men of this sort have nothing in common with others, neither in custom nor laws. And first we declare that their crime is against the State, because what is committed against the divine religion is held an injury of all. And we will take vengeance upon them by the confiscation of their goods, which, however, we command shall fall to whomsoever is nearest of their kindred, in ascending or descending lines or cognates of collateral branches to the second degree, as the order is in succession to goods. Yet it shall be so that we suffer the right to receive the goods to belong to them, only if they themselves are not in the same way polluted in their conscience. And it is our will that they be deprived of every grant or succession from whatever title derived. In addition, we do not leave to any one convicted of this crime the right of giving, buying, selling, or finally of making a contract. The prosecution shall continue till death. For if in the case of the crime of treason it is lawful to attack the memory of the deceased, not without desert ought he to endure condemnation. Therefore let his last will and testament be invalid, whether he leave property by testament, codicil, epistle, or by any sort of will, if ever he has been convicted of being a Manichæan, Phrygian, or Priscillianist, and in this case the same order is to be followed as in the grades above stated; and we do not permit sons to succeed as heirs unless they forsake the paternal depravity; for we grant forgiveness of the offence to those repenting. We will that slaves be without harm if, rejecting their sacrilegious master, they pass over to the Catholic Church by a more faithful service. Property on which a congregation of men of this sort assemble, in case the owner, although not a participator in the crime, is aware of the meeting and does not forbid it, is to be annexed to our patrimony; if the owner is ignorant, let the agent or steward of the property, having been punished with scourging, be sent to labor in the mines, and the one who hires the property, if he be a person liable to such sort of punishment, be deported. Let the rectors of provinces, if by fraud or force they delay the punishment of these crimes when they have been reported, or if conviction have been obtained neglect punishment, know that they will be subject to the fine of twenty pounds of gold. As for defensors and heads of the various cities and the provincial officials, a penalty of ten pounds is to compel them to do their duty, unless performing those things which have been laid down by the judges in this matter, they give the most intelligent care and the most ready help.

(f) Leo the Great, Epistula 7. (MSL, 54:620.)

Manichæanism in Rome.

This epistle, addressed to the bishops throughout Italy, shows the way in which zealous bishops could, and were expected to, co-operate with the secular authorities in putting down heresy.

Leo the Great [440-461], the greatest of the popes before Gregory the Great, was equally great as an ecclesiastical statesman, as theologian, and universally acknowledged leader of the Roman people in the times of the invasions of Attila and Genseric. Without being the creator of the papal idea, he was able so to gather up the elements that had been developed by Siricius, Innocent, and others, as to give it a classical expression that almost warrants one in describing him as the first of the popes in the later sense of that term. His literary remains consist of sermons, of which ninety-six are genuine, in which, among other matters, he sets forth his conception of the Petrine prerogative (see below, § 87, b), and letters in which he deals with the largest questions of ecclesiastical politics, especially in the matter of the condemnation of Monophysitism at the Council of Chalcedon. See below, § 91.

Our search has discovered in the city a great many followers and teachers of the Manichæan impiety, our watchfulness has proclaimed them, and our authority and censure have checked them: those whom we could reform we have corrected and driven to condemn Manichæus with his preachings and teachings, by public confession in the Church, and by the subscription of their own hands; and thus we have lifted those who have acknowledged their fault from the pit of their impiety, by granting them opportunity for repentance. But some who had so deeply involved themselves that no remedy could assist them have been subjected to the laws, in accordance with the constitutions of our Christian princes, and lest they should pollute the holy flock by their contagion, have been banished into perpetual exile by the public judges. And all the profane and disgraceful things which are found, as well in their writings as in their secret traditions, we have disclosed and clearly proved to the eyes of Christian laity, that the people might know what to shrink from or avoid; so that he that was called their bishop was himself tried by us and betrayed the criminal views which he held in his mystic religion, as the record of our proceedings can show you. For this, too, we have sent you for instruction; and after reading them you will be able to understand all the discoveries we have made.

And because we know that some of those who are involved here in too close an accusation for them to clear themselves have fled, we have sent this letter to you, beloved, by our acolyte; that your holiness, dear brothers, may be informed of this, and see fit to act more diligently and cautiously, lest the men of Manichæan error be able to find opportunity of hurting your people and of teaching these impious doctrines. For we cannot otherwise rule those intrusted to us unless we pursue, with the zeal of faith in the Lord, those who are destroyers and destroyed; and with what severity we can bring to bear, cut them off from intercourse with sound minds, lest this pestilence spread much wider. Wherefore I exhort you, beloved, I beseech and warn you to use such watchful diligence as you ought and can employ in tracking them out lest they find opportunity of concealment anywhere.

(g) Leo the Great, Epistula 15. (MSL, 54:680.)

An account of the tenets of the Priscillianists. Leo is answering a letter sent him by Bishop Turribius of Asturia, in which that bishop had given him statements about the faith of these sectaries. It appears that these statements which Leo quotes and refutes in brief are not wholly correct and that the Priscillianists were far from being as heretical as they have been commonly represented. See articles in the recent encyclopædias, e.g., New Schaff-Herzog, and Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. The change in opinion is due to the discovery of writings of Priscillian himself. Nevertheless, these statements, defective as they may be, represent the opinion of the times as to these heretics and the general attitude toward what was regarded as heretical and savoring of Manichæanism.136

1. And so under the first head is shown what impious views they hold about the divine Trinity; they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, now Holy Ghost; and as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and He who proceedeth from both yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, but not consisting of three persons.…

2. Under the second head is displayed their foolish and empty fancy about the issue of certain virtues from God which He began to possess, and which were posterior to God in His own essence.…

3. Again the language of the third head shows that these same impious persons assert that the Son of God is called “only begotten” for this reason that He alone was born of a virgin.…

4. The fourth head deals with the fact that the birthday of Christ, which the Catholic Church venerates as His taking on Him the true man, because “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” is not truly honored by these men, but they pretend that they honor it, for they fast on that day, as they do also on the Lord’s Day, which is the day of Christ’s resurrection. No doubt they do this because they do not believe that Christ the Lord was truly born in man’s nature, but maintain that by a sort of illusion there was an appearance of what was not a reality.

5. Their fifth head refers to their assertion that man’s soul is a part of the divine substance, and that the nature of our human state does not differ from its Creator’s nature.…

6. The sixth points out that they say that the devil never was good and that his nature is not God’s handiwork, but that he came forth of chaos and darkness.…

7. In the seventh place follows that they condemn marriage and are horrified at begetting children, in which, as in nearly all things, they agree with the profanity of the Manichæans.

8. Their eighth point is that the formation of men’s bodies is the device of the devil and that the seed of conception is shaped by the aid of demons in the womb.…

9. The ninth notice declares that they say that the sons of promise are born, indeed, of women, conceived by the Holy Spirit; lest the offspring that is born of carnal seed should seem to share in God’s estate.…

10. Under the tenth head they are reported as asserting that the souls which are placed in men’s bodies have previously been without a body and have sinned in their heavenly habitation and for this reason have fallen from their high estate to a lower one alighting upon ruling spirits of divers qualities, and after passing through a succession of powers of the air and stars, some fiercer, some milder, are enclosed in bodies of different sorts and conditions, so that whatever variety and inequality is meted out to us in this life, seems the result of previous causes.…

11. Their eleventh blasphemy is that in which they suppose that both the souls and bodies of men are under the influence of fatal stars.…

12. The twelfth of these points is this: that they map out the parts of the soul under certain powers and the limbs under others; and they suggest the characters of the inner powers that rule the soul by giving them the names of the patriarchs; and on the other hand, they attribute the signs of the stars to those under which they put the body.

§ 74. The Position of the State Church in the Social Order of the Empire

The elevation of the Church exposed the Church to worldliness whereby selfish men, or men carried away with partisan zeal, took advantages of its privileges or contended fiercely for important appointments. The clergy all too frequently ingratiated themselves with wealthy members of their flocks that they might receive from them valuable legacies, an abuse which had to be corrected by civil law; factional spirit occasionally led to bloodshed in episcopal elections. But on the other hand the Church was employed by the State in an important work which properly belonged to the secular administration, viz., the administration of justice in the episcopal courts of arbitration, for which see Cod. Just., I, tit. 3, de Episcopali Audientia; cf. E. Loening, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts, vol. I; and in the supervision of civil officials in the expenditures of funds for public improvements. These are but instances of their large public activity according to law.

(a) Ammianus Marcellinus, Hist. Rom., XXVII, 3, §§ 12 Ff. Cf. Kirch, Nn. 607 Ff

Damasus and Ursinus.

The strife which attained shocking proportions in connection with the election of Damasus seems to have been connected with the schism at Rome occasioned by the attitude of Liberius in the Arian controversy. Damasus proved one of the ablest bishops that Rome ever had in the ancient Church. For aid in overcoming the partisans of Ursinus a Roman council appealed to the Emperor Gratian, whose answer is given in part above, § 72, e.

12. Damasus and Ursinus, being both immoderately eager to obtain the bishopric, formed parties and carried on the conflict with great asperity, the partisans of each carrying their violence to actual battle, in which men were wounded and killed. And as Juventius, prefect of the city, was unable to put an end to it, or even to soften these disorders, he was at last by their violence compelled to withdraw to the suburbs.

13. Ultimately Damasus got the best of the strife by the strenuous efforts of his partisans. It is certain that on one day one hundred and thirty-seven dead bodies were found in the Basilica of Sicinus, which is a Christian church. And the populace who had thus been roused to a state of ferocity were with great difficulty restored to order.

14. I do not deny, when I consider the ostentation that reigns at Rome, that those who desire such rank and power may be justified in laboring with all possible exertion and vehemence to obtain their wishes; since after they have succeeded, they will be secure for the future, being enriched by offerings of matrons, riding in carriages, dressing splendidly, and feasting luxuriously, so that their entertainments surpass even royal banquets.

15. And they might be really happy if, despising the vastness of the city which they excite against themselves by their vices, they were to live in imitation of some of the priests in the provinces, whom the most rigid abstinence in eating and drinking, and plainness of apparel, and eyes always cast on the ground, recommend to the everlasting Deity and His true worshippers as pure and sober-minded men.

(b) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 2, 20; A. D. 370. Cf. Kirch, N. 759

The following law is only one of several designed to correct what threatened to become an intolerable abuse.

Ecclesiastics and those who wish to be known by the name of the continent137 are not to come into possession of the houses of widows and orphan girls, but are to be put aside by public courts if afterward the affines and near relatives of such think that they ought to be put away. Also we decree that the aforesaid may acquire nothing whatsoever from the liberality of that woman to whom privately, under the cloak of religion, they have attached themselves, or from her last will; and all shall be of no effect which has been left by one of these to them, they shall not be able to receive anything by way of donation or testament from a person in subjection. But if, by chance, after the warning of our law, these women shall think something is to be left to them by way of donation or in their last will, let it be seized by the fisc. But if they should receive anything by the will of those women in succession to whom or to whose goods they have the support of the jus civile or the benefit of the edict, let them take it as relatives.

(c) Codex Theodosianus, I, 27, 2; A. D. 408

Edict of Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius II concerning the Audientia Episcopalis.

According to Roman law many cases were frequently decided by an arbitrator, according to an agreement between the litigants. The bishops had long acted as such in many cases among Christians. As they did not always decide suits on authorization by the courts, their decisions did not have binding authority in all cases. But after Constantine’s recognition of the Church they were given authority to decide cases, and according to an edict of 333 their decisions were binding even if only one litigant appealed to his judgment. But this was reduced to cases in which there was an agreement between the parties. The following law, the earliest extant, though probably not the earliest, may be found, curtailed by the omission of the second sentence, in Cod. Just., I, 4, 8.

An episcopal judgment shall be binding upon all who chose to be heard by the priests.138 For since private persons may hear cases between those who consent, even without the knowledge of the judges, we suffer it to be permitted them. That respect is to be shown their decisions which is required to be shown your authority,139 from which there is no appeal. By the court and the officials execution is to be given the sentence, so that the episcopal judicial examination may not be rendered void.

(d) Codex Theodosianus, II, 1, 10; A. D. 398

Law of Arcadius and Honorius.

The following law is cited to show that in the legalization of the Audientia Episcopalis the legislation followed a principle that was not peculiar to the position of the Church as the State Church. The Jews had a similar privilege. The conditions under which their religious authorities could act as arbitrators were similar to that in which the bishops acted. This edict can also be found in Cod. Just., I, 9, 8.

Jews living at Rome, according to common right, are in those cases which do not pertain to their superstition, their court, laws, and rights, to attend the courts of justice, and are to bring and defend legal actions according to the Roman laws; hereafter let them be under our laws. If, indeed, any by agreement similar to that for the appointment of arbitrators, decide that the litigation be before the Jews or the patriarchs by the consent of both parties and in business of a purely civil character, they are not forbidden by public law to choose their courts of justice; and let the provincial judges execute their decisions as if the arbitrators had been assigned them by the sentence of a judge.

(e) Codex Justinianus, I, 4, 26

The following law of the Emperor Justinian, A. D. 530, is one of many showing the way in which the bishops were employed in many duties of the State which hardly fell to their part as ecclesiastics.

With respect to the yearly affairs of cities, whether they concern the ordinary revenues of the city, either from funds derived from the property of the city, or from legacies and private gifts, or given or received from other sources, whether for public works, or for provisions, or public aqueducts, or the maintenance of baths or ports, or the construction of walls and towers, or the repairing of bridges and roads, or for trials in which the city may be engaged in reference to public or private interests, we decree as follows: The very pious bishop and three men of good reputation, in every respect the first men of the city, shall meet and each year not only examine the work done, but take care that those who conduct them or have been conducting them, shall manage them with exactness, shall render their accounts, and show by the production of the public records that they have duly performed their engagements in the administration of the sums appropriated for provisions, or baths, or for the expenses involved in the maintenance of roads, aqueducts, or any other work.

§ 75. Social Significance of the State Church

The Church at no time degenerated into a mere department of the State. In spite of the worldly passions that invaded it and the dissensions that distracted it, the Church remained mindful of its duty as not merely a guardian of the deposit of faith but as a school of Christian morality. This was the principle of the penitential discipline of the ante-Nicene period. It was saved from becoming a mere form, or lost altogether by the custom which became general after 400, of having the confession of sin made in private. In matters of great moral concern, such as the treatment of slaves, marriage, and divorce, and the cruel sports of the arena, the Church was able to exert its influence and eventually bring about a change in the law. And in standing for righteousness, instances were not lacking when the highest were rebuked by the Church, as in the great case of Ambrose and Theodosius.

(a) Leo the Great, Epistula 168, Ch. 2. (MSL, 54:1210.) Cf. Denziger, N. 145

Confession should no longer be public, but only private. From the tone of the letter it would appear that private confession had been customary for some time and that public confession had so far gone out of use as to appear as a novelty. V. supra, § 42.

I direct that that presumptuous violation of the apostolic rule be entirely done away, which we have recently learned has been without warrant committed by some; namely, concerning penance, which is demanded of the faithful, that a written confession in a schedule concerning the nature of each particular sin be not recited publicly, since it suffices that the guilt of conscience be made known by a secret confession to the priests alone. Although that fulness of faith appears to be laudable which on account of the fear of God is not afraid to blush before men, yet because the sins of all are not such that those who demand penance would not be afraid to publish them, let a custom so objectionable be done away; that many may not be deterred from the remedies of penitence, since they are ashamed or are afraid to disclose their deed to their enemies, by which they might be ruined by the requirements of the laws. For that confession suffices which is first offered to God, then further to the priest, who intervenes as with intercessions for the sins of the penitent. In this way many can be brought to penitence if the bad conscience of the one making the confession is not published in the ears of the people.

(b) Codex Theodosianus, IV, 7, 1; A. D. 321. Cf. Kirch, N. 749

Edict of Constantine granting the privilege of manumission to take place in churches.

The Church does not seem to have been opposed to slavery as an institution. It recognized it as a part of the social order, following the advice of St. Paul. But, at the same time, also following his advice, it endeavored to inculcate Christian love in the treatment of slaves, and legislated frequently on the matter. The edict of Constantine was in favor of this humane teaching of the Church to the extent that it enabled it to forward the tendency toward manumission of slaves, which the Church taught as a pious act. This edict is to be found in Cod. Just., I, 13, 2.

Those who from the motives of religion shall give deserved liberty to their slaves in the midst of the Church shall be regarded as having given the same with the same legal force as that by which Roman citizenship has been customarily given with the traditional solemn rites. But this is permitted only to those who give this liberty in the presence of the priest. But to the clergy we concede more, so that, when they give liberty to their slaves, they may be said to have granted a full enjoyment of liberty, not merely in the face of the Church and the religious people, but also, when in their last disposition of their effects they shall have given liberty or shall direct by any words whatsoever that it be given, on the day of the publication of their will liberty, without any witness or intervention of the law, shall belong to them immediately.

(c) Canons Bearing on Slavery

Synod of Elvira, A. D. 309, Canon 5, Bruns, II, 1

If a mistress seized with furious passion beat her female slave with whips so that within three days she gives up her soul in suffering, inasmuch as it is uncertain whether she killed her wilfully or by chance, let her, if it was done wilfully, be readmitted after seven years, when the lawful penance has been accomplished; or after the space of five years if it was by chance; but if she should become ill during the appointed time, let her receive the communion.

Synod of Gangra, A. D. 343, Canon 3, Bruns, I, 107

If any one, under the pretence of piety, advises a slave to despise his master and run away from his service and not with good will and full respect serve his master, let him be anathema.

Synod of Agde, A. D. 509. Canon 7, Bruns, II, 147

As slaves were a valuable possession, bishops could no more alienate them than any other property, or only under the same conditions. This canon lays down principles generally followed in the relation of the Church toward the unfree of every sort on lands belonging to the endowments of the Church.

The bishops should possess the houses and slaves of the Church in a faithful manner and without diminishing the right of the Church, as the primitive authorities direct, and also the vessels of their ministry as intrusted to them. That is, they should not presume to sell nor alienate by any contracts those things from which the poor live. If necessity requires that something should be disposed of either as a usufruct140 or in direct sale, let the case be first shown before two or three bishops of the same province or neighborhood, as to why it is necessary to sell; and after the priestly discussion has taken place, let the sale which was made be confirmed by their subscription; otherwise the sale or transaction made shall not have validity. If the bishop bestows upon any deserving slaves of the Church their liberty, let the liberty that has been conferred be respected by his successors, together with that which the manumitter gave them when they were freed; and we command them to hold twenty solidi in value in fields, vineyards, and dwellings; what shall have been given more the Church shall reclaim after the death of the one who manumitted.141 But little things and things of less utility to the Church we permit to be given to strangers and clergy for their usufruct, the right of the Church being maintained.

(d) Apostolic Constitutions, IV, 6. (MSG, 1:812.)

Cruelty to slaves was placed upon the same moral level as cruelty and oppression of other weak and defenceless people.

The Apostolic Constitutions form an elaborate treatise upon the Church and its organization in eight books, which appear, according to the consensus of modern scholars, to belong to the early part of the fifth century. The Apostolic Canons are eighty-five canons appended to the eighth book.

Now the bishop ought to know whose oblations he ought to receive, and whose he ought not. For he is to avoid corrupt dealers and not receive their gifts.… He is also to avoid those that oppress the widow and overbear the orphan, and fill the prisons with the innocent, and abuse their own slaves wickedly, I mean with stripes and hunger and hard service.

(e) Apostolic Canons, Canon 81, Bruns, I, 12

This deals with the question of the ordination of a slave. Later, if a slave was ordained without his master’s consent, the ordination held, but the bishop was obliged to pay the price of the slave to his master. Cf. Council of Orleans, A. D. 511, Can. 8.

We do not permit slaves to be ordained to the clergy without their masters’ consent; for this would wrong those that owned them. For such a practice would occasion the subversion of families. But if at any time a servant appears worthy to be ordained to a high office, such as Onesimus appears to have been, and if his master allows it, and gives him his freedom, and dismisses him free from his house, let him be ordained.

(f) Gregory the Great, Ep. Ad Montanam et Thomam. (MSL, 77:803.)

Gregory and others approved of manumission of slaves as an act of self-denial, for therein a man surrendered what belonged to him, as in almsgiving; but he and others also justified the practice of manumission upon lines that recall Stoic ideas of man’s natural freedom. Yet, at the same time, Gregory could insist upon the strict discipline of slaves in the administration of the Church property.

The following is a letter of manumission addressed apparently to a man and his wife.

Since our Redeemer, the Maker of every creature, vouchsafed to assume human flesh for this end, that when by the grace of His divinity the chain of slavery wherewith we were held had been broken He might restore us to our pristine liberty, it is a salutary deed if men, whom nature originally produced free, and whom the law of nations has subjected to the yoke of slavery, be restored by the benefit of manumission to the liberty in which they were born. And so moved by loving-kindness and consideration of the case, we make you Montana and Thomas, slaves of the holy Roman Church, which with the help of God we serve, free from this day and Roman citizens, and we release to you all your private property.142

(g) Codex Theodosianus, XV, 12, 1; A. D. 325. Cf. Kirch, N. 754

Constitution of Constantine regarding gladiatorial shows.

This edict was by no means enforced everywhere. In a shorter form it passed into the Cod. Just. (XI, 44, 1), but only after the edict of Honorius had stopped these shows.

Bloody spectacles are not pleasing in civil rest and domestic tranquillity. Wherefore we altogether prohibit them to be gladiators143 who, it may be, for their crimes have been accustomed to receive this penalty and sentence, and you shall cause them rather to serve in the mines, that without blood they may pay the penalty of their crimes.

(h) Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 26. (MSG, 82:1256.)

Honorius, who had inherited the Empire of Europe, put a stop to gladiatorial combats, which had long been held in Rome, and he did this under the following circumstances. There was a certain man named Telemachus who had embraced the ascetic life. He had set out for the East and for this reason had repaired to Rome. There, when the abominable spectacle was being exhibited, he went himself into the stadium, and stepping down into the arena endeavored to stop the men who were wielding their weapons against one another. The spectators of the slaughter were indignant and, inspired by the mad fury of the demon who delights in these bloody deeds, stoned the peacemaker to death. When the admirable Emperor was informed of this he numbered Telemachus in the army of the victorious martyrs, and put an end to that impious practice.

(i) Ambrose, Ep. 51. (MSL, 16:1210.) Cf. Kirch, Nn. 754 Ff

Letter to the Emperor Theodosius after the massacre at Thessalonica in 390.

The Emperor had ordered a general massacre of the inhabitants of Thessalonica because of a sedition there. Ambrose wrote to him the following letter after having pleaded in vain with him before the massacre to deal mercifully with the people. (The well-known story of the penitence of Theodosius may be found in Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 17.) His residence at the seat of the imperial government at that time, Milan, made him the chief adviser to the court in spite of the fact that the Arian influence was strong at court, as the empress mother Justina was an Arian, cf. Ambrose, Ep. 20, 21. (PNF, ser. II, vol. X.)

4. Listen, august Emperor, I cannot deny that you have a zeal for the faith; I confess that you have the fear of God. But you have a natural vehemence, which, if any one endeavors to soothe it, you quickly turn to mercy; and if any one stirs it up, you allow it to be roused so much that you can scarcely restrain it. Would that it might be that, if no one soothed it, at least no one inflamed it. To yourself I willingly intrust it, restrain yourself and overcome your natural vehemence by the love of piety.…

6. There took place in the city of the Thessalonians that of which no memory recalls the like, which I was not able to prevent taking place; which, indeed, I had before said, would be most atrocious when I so often petitioned concerning it144 and which as you yourself show, by revoking it too late, you consider to be grave, and this I could not extenuate when committed.…

After citing from the Bible several cases of kings exhibiting penance for sins, Ambrose continues:

11. I have written this, not to confound you, but that the examples of kings may stir you up to put away this sin from your kingdom, for you will put it away by humbling your soul before God. You are a man, temptation has come to you; conquer it. Sin is not done away but by tears and penitence. Neither angel can do it, nor archangel. The Lord himself, who alone can say “I am with you,” if we have sinned, does not forgive any but those who do penance.

12. I urge, I beg, I exhort, I warn; for it is grief to me that you who were an example of unheard-of piety, who were conspicuous for clemency, who would not suffer single offenders to be put in peril, should not mourn that so many innocent persons have perished. Though you have waged war most successfully, though in other matters too you are worthy of praise, yet piety was ever the crown of your actions. The devil envied that which you had as a most excellent possession. Conquer him whilst you still possess that wherewith you can conquer. Do not add another sin to your sin by a course of action which has injured many.

13. I, indeed, though a debtor to your kindness, for which I cannot be ungrateful, that kindness which I regard as surpassing that of many emperors, and has been equalled by one only, I have no cause, I say, for a charge of contumacy against you, but have cause for fear. I dare not offer the sacrifice if you intend to be present. Is that which is not allowed after the shedding of the blood of one innocent person allowed after the shedding of the blood of many? I think not.

(j) Codex Theodosianus, III, 16, 2; A. D. 421

The later Roman law of divorce.

The Roman law under the Empire was extremely favorable to divorce, making it easy for either party to become rid of the other for any cause that seemed sufficient. The Christian Church from the first, following the teaching of Christ, opposed divorce. Marriage was an indissoluble relation; see § 39 f, g. It was only by degrees that much change could be introduced into the civil law. The following law of Theodosius II gives the condition of the law in the fifth century. It shows that to some extent the Christian principles regarding marriage had affected legislation.

If a woman leave her husband by a repudiation made by her and prove no cause for her divorcing him, the gifts which she received as bride shall be taken away and she shall likewise be deprived of her dowry, and be subjected to the punishment of deportation; and to her we deny not only the right of marriage with another man, but also the right of post-liminium.145 But if the woman opposed to the marriage prove faults of morals and vices, though of no great gravity, let her lose her dowry and pay back to her husband her marriage gift, and let her never join herself in marriage with another; that she may not stain her widowhood with the impudence of unchastity we give the repudiated husband the right of bringing an accusation by law. Hereafter if she who abandons her husband prove grave causes and a guilt involving great crimes, let her obtain a control of her dowry and marriage gifts, and five years after the day of repudiation she shall receive the right of remarrying; for it would then appear that she had acted rather out of detestation of her husband than from desire after another. Likewise, if the husband bring a divorce and charge grave crimes against the woman, let him bring action against the accused under the laws and let him both have the dowry (sentence having been obtained) and let him receive his gifts to her and let the free choice of marrying another be granted him immediately. But if it is an offence of manners and not of a criminal nature, let him receive the donations, relinquish the dowry, and marry after two years. But if he merely wishes to dissolve the marriage by dissent, and she who is put away is charged with no fault or sin, let the man lose the donation and the dowry, and in perpetual celibacy let him bear as a penalty for his wrongful divorce the pain of solitude; to the woman, however, is conceded after a year the right to remarry. Regarding the retention of the dowry on account of the children we command that the directions of the old law shall be observed.

(k) Jerome, Epistula 78, Ad Oceanum. (MSL, 22:691.)

Divorce and remarriage.

The principle here laid down by Jerome was that which ultimately prevailed in the Church of the West, that after divorce there could be no remarriage, inasmuch as the marriage bond was indissoluble, though the parties might be separated by the law. But another principle was also made a part of the code of Christian morality, that what was forbidden a woman was also forbidden a man, i.e., the moral code as to chastity was the same for both sexes.

§ 3. The Lord hath commanded that a wife should not be put away except for fornication; and that when she has been put away, she ought to remain unmarried [Matt. 19:9; I Cor. 7:11]. Whatever is given as a commandment to men logically applies to women also. For it cannot be that while an adulterous wife is to be put away, an incontinent husband must be retained.… The laws of Cæsar are different, it is true, from the laws of Christ. Papinian commands one thing; our Paul another.146 Among them the bridles are loosened for immodesty in the case of men. But with us what is unlawful for women is equally unlawful for men; and both are bound by the same conditions of service. She147 then put away, as they report, a husband that was a sinner; she put away one who was guilty of this and that crime.… She was a young woman; she could not preserve her widowhood.… She persuaded herself and thought that her husband had been lawfully put away from her. She did not know that the strictness of the Gospel takes away from women all pretexts for remarriage, so long as their former husbands are alive.

(l) Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, I, 7. (MSL, 23:229.)

The inferiority of marriage to virginity.

While the Church teachers insisted on the indissolubility of marriage and its sanctity, in not a few cases they depreciated marriage. Of those who did this Jerome may be regarded as the most characteristic and representative of a tendency which had set in, largely in connection with the increase of monasticism, regarded as the only form of Christian perfection.

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”148 If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one; for nothing is opposed to goodness but the bad. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, it is conceded that a worse evil may not happen. But what sort of good is that which is allowed only because there may be something worse? He would have never added, “Let each man have his own wife,” unless he had previously said, “But because of fornication.”… “Defraud ye not one another, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer.” What, I pray, is the quality of that good thing which hinders prayer, which does not allow the body of Christ to be received? So long as I do a husband’s part, I fail in continency. The same Apostle in another place commands us to pray always.149

9. “It is better to marry than to burn.” If marriage itself be good, do not compare it with fire, but simply say, “It is good to marry.” I suspect the goodness of that thing which must be only the lesser of two evils. What I want is not the smaller evil, but a thing that is absolutely good.

(m) Chrysostom, Hom. 66 in Matth. (XX, 30). (MSG, 58:630.)

The Church took the lead in philanthropy and not only organized relief of poor but constantly exhorted people to contribute to the cause. See above, § 68, d.

If both the wealthy and those next to them in wealth were to distribute among themselves those in need of bread and raiment, scarcely would one poor person fall to the share of fifty men, or even a hundred. Yet, nevertheless, though in such great abundance of persons able to assist them, they are wailing every day. And that thou mayest learn their inhumanity, recall that the Church150 has a revenue of one of the lowest among the wealthy, and not of the very rich; and consider how many widows it succors every day, how many virgins; for indeed the list of them amounts to the number of three thousand. Together with these she succors them that dwell in prison, the sick in the caravansaries, the healthy, those that are absent from their homes, those that are maimed in their bodies, those that wait upon the altar; and with respect to food and raiment, those that casually come every day; and her substance is in no respect diminished. So that if ten men only were thus willing to spend, there would be no poor.

(n) Gregory of Nazianzus, Panegyric on Basil, Ch. 63. (MSG, 36:577.)

Gregory of Nazianzus was the friend and schoolmate of Basil. The action of Basil in forcing upon him the bishopric of Sasima led to an estrangement and brought about the tragedy of Gregory’s ecclesiastical career, his forced resignation of the archiepiscopal see of Constantinople. See Gregory’s oration, “The Last Farewell” (PNF, ser. II, vol. VII, 385). Nevertheless, the death of Basil was an occasion for him to deliver his greatest oration. It was probably composed and delivered several years after Basil’s decease and after Gregory had retired from Constantinople to his home at Nazianzus.

Go forth a little way from the city, behold the New City,151 the storehouse of piety … where disease is regarded in a philosophic light, and disaster is thought to be a blessing in disguise, and sympathy is tested. Why should I compare with this work Thebes having the seven gates, and the Egyptian Thebes and the walls of Babylon … and all other objects of men’s wonder and of historic record, from all of which, except for some slight glory, there was no advantage to their founders? My subject is the most wonderful of all, the short road to salvation, the easiest ascent to heaven.152 There is no longer before our eyes that terrible and piteous spectacle of men dead before their death, in many members of their body already dead, driven away from their cities and homes and public places and fountains, ay and from their dearest ones, recognizable by their names rather than by their features.… He, however, it was who most of all persuaded us men, as being men, not to despise men nor to dishonor Christ, the head of all, by inhuman treatment of them; but in the misfortune of others to establish well our own lot and to lend to God that mercy, since we ourselves need mercy. He did not therefore disdain to honor disease with his lips; he was noble and of noble ancestry and of brilliant reputation, but he saluted them as brethren, not out of vainglory, as some might suppose (for who was so far removed from this feeling?), but taking the lead in approaching to tend them in consequence of his philosophy, and so giving not only a speaking but also a silent instruction. Not only the city, but the country and parts beyond behave in like manner; and even the leaders of society have vied with one another in their philanthropy and magnanimity toward them.

§ 76. Popular Piety and the Reception of Heathenism in the Church

When vast numbers poured into the Church in the fourth century and the profession of Christianity no longer involved danger, morals became less austere, and the type of piety became adapted to the religious condition of those with whom the Church had now to deal. This is shown in the new place that the intercession of saints and the veneration of their relics take in the religious life of the times. Yet these and similar forms of devotion in popular piety were not new and cannot be attributed in principle to any wholesale importation of heathenism into the Church, as was charged at the time and often since. In principle, and to some extent in practice, they can be traced to times of persecution and danger. But, on the other hand, no little heathenism was brought into the Church by those who came into it without any adequate preparation or real change of religious feeling. With this heathenism the Church had to struggle, either casting it out in whole or in part, or rendering it as innocuous as possible. In spite of all, many heathen superstitions remained everywhere in Christendom, though playing for the most part such an inferior rôle as to be negligible in the total effect.

Additional source material: Eusebius, Vita Constantini (PNF), III, 21, 28; IV, 38, 39, 54.

(a) Ambrose, De Viduis, Ch. 9. (MSL, 16:264.)

The importance and value of calling upon the saints for their intercessions.

When Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with violent fever, Peter and Andrew besought the Lord for her: “And He stood over her and commanded the fever and it left her, and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.”…

So Peter and Andrew prayed for the widow. Would that there were some one who could so quickly pray for us, or better still, they who prayed for the mother-in-law—Peter and Andrew his brother. Then they could pray for one related to them, now they are able to pray for us and for all. For you see that one bound by great sin is less fit to pray for herself, certainly less likely to obtain for herself. Let her then make use of others to pray for her to the Physician. For the sick, unless the Physician be called to them by the prayers of others, cannot pray for themselves. The flesh is weak, the soul is sick and hindered by the chains of sins, and cannot direct its feeble steps to the throne of that great Physician. The angels must be entreated for us, who have been to us as guardians; the martyrs must be entreated whose patronage we seem to claim by a sort of pledge, the possession of their body. They can entreat for our sins, who, if they had any sins, washed them in their own blood; for they are the martyrs of God, our leaders, the beholders of our life and of our actions. Let us not be ashamed to take them as intercessors for our weakness, for they themselves knew the weakness of the body, even when they overcame.

(b) Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, Chs. 4 Ff. (MSL, 23:357.)

A defence of the worship and practice of the Church, especially in regard to veneration of relics against the criticism of Vigilantius.

Jerome’s attack on Vigilantius is in many respects a masterpiece of scurrility, and unworthy of the ability of the man. But it is invaluable as a statement of the opinions of the times regarding such matters as the veneration of relics, the attitude toward the departed saints and martyrs, and many other elements of the popular religion which have been commonly attributed to a much later period.

Ch. 4. Among other words of blasphemy he [Vigilantius] may be heard to say: “What need is there for you not only to reverence with so great honor but even to adore I know not what, which you carry about in a little vessel and worship?” And again in the same book, “Why do you adore by kissing a bit of powder wrapped up in a cloth?” and further on, “Under the cloak of religion we see really a heathen ceremony introduced into the churches; while the sun is shining heaps of tapers are lighted, and everywhere I know not what paltry bit of powder wrapped in a costly cloth is kissed and worshipped. Great honor do men of this sort pay to the blessed martyrs, who, as they think, are to be glorified by trumpery tapers, but to whom the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne, with all the brightness of His majesty gives light.”

Ch. 5. … Is the Emperor Arcadius guilty of sacrilege, who, after so long a time, conveyed the bones of the blessed Samuel from Judæa to Thrace? Are all the bishops to be considered not only sacrilegious but silly as well, who carried that most worthless thing, dust and ashes, wrapped in silk and in a golden vessel? Are the people of all the churches fools, who went to meet the sacred relics, and received them with as much joy as if they beheld the living prophet in the midst of them, so that there was one great swarm of people from Palestine to Chalcedon and with one voice the praises of Christ resounded?…

Ch. 6. For you say that the souls of the Apostles and martyrs have their abode either in the bosom of Abraham, or in some place of refreshment, or under the altar of God, and that they cannot leave their own tombs and be present where they will. They are, it seems, of senatorial rank and are not in the worst sort of prison and among murderers, but are kept apart in liberal and honorable custody in the isles of the blessed and the Elysian fields. Do you lay down laws for God? Will you throw the Apostles in chains? So that to the day of judgment they are to be kept in confinement and are not with the Lord, although it is written concerning them, “They follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth.” If the Lamb is present everywhere, then they who are with the Lamb, it must be believed, are everywhere. And while the devil and the demons wander through the whole world, and with only too great speed are present everywhere, the martyrs after shedding their blood are to be kept out of sight shut up in a coffin153 from whence they cannot go forth? You say in your pamphlet that so long as we are alive we can pray for one another; but after we are dead the prayer of no person for another can be heard, and especially because the martyrs, though they cry for the avenging of their blood, have never been able to obtain their request. If Apostles and martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for others, when they ought still to be anxious for themselves, how much more must they do so after they have their crowns and victories and triumphs? A single man, Moses, won pardon from God for six hundred thousand armed men; and Stephen, the follower of his Lord and the first martyr for Christ, entreats pardon for his persecutors; and after they have entered on their life with Christ, shall they have less power? The Apostle Paul says that two hundred and seventy-six souls were given him in the ship; and after his dissolution, when he began to be with Christ, must he then shut up his mouth and be unable to say a word for those who throughout the whole world have believed in his Gospel? Shall Vigilantius the live dog be better than Paul the dead lion?

(c) Council of Laodicæa, A. D. 343-381, Canons 35. F., Bruns, I, 77

The Council of Laodicæa is of uncertain date, but its earliest possible date is 343 and the latest 381, i.e., between the Councils of Sardica and Constantinople. See Hefele, § 93. It owes its importance not to any immediate effect it had upon the course of the Church’s development, but to the fact that its canons were incorporated in collections and received approval, possibly at Chalcedon, A. D. 451, though not mentioned by name in Canon 1, and certainly at the Quinisext, A. D. 692, Canon 2. In the West the canons were of importance as having been used by Dionysius Exiguus in his collection. That the Canon of Holy Scripture was settled at this council is a traditional commonplace in theology, but hardly borne out by the facts. The council only drew up one of the several imperfect lists of sacred books which appeared in antiquity. The following canons show the influx of heathenism into the Church, resulting from the changed status of the Church.

Canon 35. Christians must not forsake the Church of God and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in secret idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ and gone over to idolatry.

Canon 36. They who are of the priesthood and of the lower clergy shall not be magicians, enchanters, mathematicians154 nor astrologers; nor shall they make amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear such we command to be cast out of the Church.

(d) Augustine, Epistula 29. (MSL, 33:117.)

Heathenism in the Church.

An Epistle of Augustine, written when Augustine was still a presbyter of Hippo, concerning the birthday of Leontius, formerly bishop of Hippo. In it he tells Alypius that he had at length put an end to the custom among the Catholics of Hippo of taking part in splendid banquets on the birthday of saints, as was then the custom in the African churches.

Ch. 8. When the day dawned on which they were accustomed to prepare themselves for excess in eating and drinking, I received notice that some, even of those who were present at my sermon, had not yet ceased complaining, and that so great was the power of detestable custom among them that, using no other argument, they asked: “Wherefore is this now prohibited? Were they not Christians who in former times did not interfere with this practice?”…

Ch. 9. Lest, however, any slight should seem to be put by us upon those who before our time either tolerated or dared not put down such manifest wrong-doings of an undisciplined multitude, I explained to them the necessity by which this custom seems to have arisen in the Church; namely, that when, in the peace which came after such numerous and violent persecutions, crowds of heathen who wished to assume the Christian religion were kept back because, having been accustomed to celebrate the feasts connected with idols in revelling and drunkenness, they could not easily refrain from these pleasures so hurtful and so habitual; and it seemed good to our ancestors that for a time a concession should be made to this infirmity, that after they had renounced the former festivals they might celebrate other feasts, in honor of the holy martyrs, which were observed, not with the same profane design, although with similar indulgence. Now upon them as persons bound together in the name of Christ, and submissive to the yoke of His august authority, the wholesome restraints of sobriety were laid; and these restraints, on account of the honor and fear of Him who appointed them they might not resist; and that therefore it was now time that those who did not dare to deny that they were Christians should begin to live according to Christ’s will; being now Christians they should reject those things conceded that they might become Christians.

§ 77. The Extension of Monasticism Throughout the Empire

Asceticism arose within the Christian Church partly as the practical expression of the conviction of the worthlessness of things transitory and partly as a reaction against the moral laxity of the times. As this laxity could not be kept entirely out of the Church, and Christians everywhere were exposed to it, those who sought the higher life felt the necessity of retirement. From the life of the isolated hermit, asceticism advanced naturally to the community type of the ascetic life. There were forerunners in non-Christian religions of the solitary ascetic and the cenobite in Egypt, Palestine, India, and elsewhere, but all the essentials of Christian monasticism can be adequately explained without employing the theory of borrowing or imitation. For the principal points of development, v. §§ 53, 78, 104. When monasticism had once made itself a strong factor in the Christian religious life of Egypt, it was quickly taken up by other parts of the Church as it satisfied a widely felt want. In Asia Minor Basil of Cæsarea was the great promoter and organizer of the ascetic life; and his rule still obtains throughout the East. In the West Athanasius appears to have introduced monastic ideas during his early exiles. Ambrose was a patron of the movement. Martin of Tours, Severinus, and John Cassian did much to extend it in Gaul. Augustine organized his clergy according to a monastic rule which ultimately played a large part in later monasticism.

(a) Palladius, Historia Lausiaca, Ch. 38. (MSG, 34:1099.)

The Rule of Pachomius.

Palladius, the author of the history of monasticism, known as the Historia Lausiaca, was an Origenist, pupil of Evagrius Ponticus, and later bishop in Asia Minor. He is not to be confused with Palladius of Helenopolis, who lived about the same time, in the first part of the fifth century. The work of Palladius receives its name from the fact that it is dedicated to a high official, Lausus by name. Palladius made a careful study of monasticism, travelling extensively in making researches for his work. He also used what written material was available. It is probable that the text is largely interpolated, but on the whole it is a trustworthy account of the early monasticism. It was written about A. D. 420, and the following account of Pachomius should be compared with that of Sozomenus, Hist. Ec., III, 14, written some years later. Text in Kirch, nn. 712 ff.

There is a place in the Thebaid called Tabenna, in which lived a certain monk Pachomius, one of those men who have attained the highest form of life, so that he was granted predictions of the future and angelic visions. He was a great lover of the poor, and had great love to men. When, therefore, he was sitting in a cave an angel of the Lord came in and appeared to him and said: Pachomius you have done well those things which pertain to your own affairs; therefore sit no longer idle in this cave. Up, therefore, go forth and gather all the younger monks and dwell with them and give them laws according to the form which I give thee. And he gave him a brass tablet on which the following things were written:

1. Give to each to eat and drink according to his strength; and give labors according to the powers of those eating, and forbid neither fasting nor eating. Thus appoint difficult labors to the stronger and those who eat, but the lighter and easy tasks to those who discipline themselves more and are weaker.

2. Make separate cells in the same place; and let three remain in a cell. But let the food of all be prepared in one house.

3. They may not sleep lying down, but having made seats built inclining backward let them place their bedding on them and sleep seated.

4. But by night let them wear linen tunics, being girded about. Let each of them have a shaggy goatskin, made white. Without this let them neither eat nor sleep. When they go in unto the communion of the mysteries of Christ every Sabbath and Lord’s Day, let them loose their girdles and put off the goatskin, and enter with only their cuculla [cf. DCA]. But he made the cuculla for them without any fleece, as for boys; and he commanded to place upon them certain branding marks of a purple cross.

5. He commanded that there be twenty-four groups of the brethren, according to the number of the twenty-four letters. And he prescribed that to each group should be given as a name a letter of the Greek alphabet, from Alpha and Beta, one after another, to Omega, in order that when the archimandrite asked for any one in so great a company, that one may be asked who is the second in each, how group Alpha is, or how the group Beta; again let him salute the group Rho; the name of the letters following its own proper sign. And upon the simpler and more guileless place the name Iota; and upon those who are more ill-tempered and less righteous the letter Xi. And thus in harmony with the principles and the life and manners of them arrange the names of the letters, only the spiritual understanding the meaning.

6. There was written on the tablet that if there come a stranger of another monastery, having a different form of life, he shall not eat nor drink with them, nor go in with them into the monastery, unless he shall be found in the way outside of the monastery.

7. But do not receive for three years into the contest of proficients him who has entered once for all to remain with them; but when he has performed the more difficult tasks, then let him after a period of three years enter the stadium.

8. When they eat let them veil their faces, that one brother may not see another brother eating. They are not to speak while they eat; nor outside of their dish or off the table shall they turn their eyes toward anything else.

9. And he made it a rule that during the whole day they should offer twelve prayers; and at the time of lighting the lamps, twelve; and in the course of the night, twelve; and at the ninth hour, three; but when it seemed good for the whole company to eat, he directed that each group should first sing a psalm at each prayer.

But when the great Pachomius replied to the angel that the prayers were few, the angel said to him: I have appointed these that the little ones may advance and fulfil the law and not be distressed; but the perfect do not need to have laws given to them. For being by themselves in their cells, they have dedicated their entire life to contemplation on God. But to these, as many as do not have an intelligent mind, I will give a law that as saucy servants out of fear for the Master they may fulfil the whole order of life and direct it properly. When the angel had given these directions and fulfilled his ministry he departed from the great Pachomius. There are monasteries observing this rule, composed of seven thousand men, but the first and great monastery, wherein the blessed Pachomius dwelt, and which gave birth to the other places of asceticism, has one thousand three hundred men.

(b) Basil the Great, Regula Fusius Tractata, Questio 7. (MSG, 31:927.)

The Rule of St. Basil is composed in the form of question and answer, and in place of setting down a simple, clearly stated law, with perhaps some little exhortation, goes into much detailed argument, even in the briefer Rule. In the following passage Basil points out the advantages of the cenobitic life over the solitary or hermit life. It is condensed as indicated.

Questio VII. Since your words have given us full assurance that the life [i.e., the cenobitic life] is dangerous with those who despise the commandments of the Lord, we wish accordingly to learn whether it is necessary that he who withdraws should remain alone or live with brothers of like mind who have placed before themselves the same goal of piety.

Responsio 1. I think that the life of several in the same place is much more profitable. First, because for bodily wants no one of us is sufficient for himself, but we need each other in providing what is necessary. For just as the foot has one ability, but is wanting another, and without the help of the other members it would find neither its own power strong nor sufficient of itself to continue, nor any supply for what it lacks, so it is in the case of the solitary life: what is of use to us and what is wanting we cannot provide for ourselves, for God who created the world has so ordered all things that we are dependent upon each other, as it is written that we may join ourselves to one another [cf. Wis. 13:20]. But in addition to this, reverence to the love of Christ does not permit each one to have regard only to his own affairs, for love, he says, seeks not her own [I Cor. 13:5]. The solitary life has only one goal, the service of its own interests. That clearly is opposed to the law of love, which the Apostle fulfilled, when he did not in his eyes seek his own advantage but the advantage of many, that they might be saved [cf. I Cor. 10:33]. Further, no one in solitude recognizes his own defects, since he has no one to correct him and in gentleness and mercy direct him on his way. For even if correction is from an enemy, it may often in the case of those who are well disposed rouse the desire for healing; but the healing of sin by him who sincerely loves is wisely accomplished.… Also the commands may be better fulfilled by a larger community, but not by one alone; for while this thing is being done another will be neglected; for example, by attendance upon the sick the reception of strangers is neglected; and in the bestowal and distribution of the necessities of life (especially when in these services much time is consumed) the care of the work is neglected, so that by this the greatest commandment and the one most helpful to salvation is neglected; neither the hungry are fed nor the naked clothed. Who would therefore value higher the idle, useless life than the fruitful which fulfils the commandments of God?

3. … Also in the preservation of the gifts bestowed by God the cenobitic life is preferable.… For him who falls into sin, the recovery of the right path is so much easier, for he is ashamed at the blame expressed by so many in common, so that it happens to him as it is written: It is enough that the same therefore be punished by many [II Cor. 2:6].… There are still other dangers which we say accompany the solitary life, the first and greatest is that of self-satisfaction. For he who has no one to test his work easily believes that he has completely fulfilled the commandments.…

4. For how shall he manifest his humility, when he has no one to whom he can show himself the inferior? How shall he manifest compassion, cut off from the society of many? How will he exercise himself in patience, if no one opposes his wishes?

(c) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, Canon 4. Bruns, I, 26

The subjection of the monastery and the monks to the bishop.

Asceticism of the solitary life was apart from the organization of the Church; when this form of life had developed in cenobitism it still remained for a time, at least, outside the ecclesiastical organization. Athanasius, who was a patron of the monastic life and often found support and refuge among the monks, did much to bring Egyptian monasticism back to the Church, and in the fifth century monks became a great power in ecclesiastical affairs, cf. the Origenistic controversy, v. infra, § 88. Basil, at once archbishop of Cæsarea and leading exponent of monastic ideas, brought the two to some extent together. But always the episcopal control was only with difficulty brought to bear on the monastic life, and in the West this opposition of the two religious forces ultimately became embodied in the principle of monastic exemption. The Council of Chalcedon, in 451, aimed to correct the early abuse by placing the monasteries under the control of the bishop.

They who lead a true and worthy monastic life shall enjoy the honor that belongs to them. But since there are some who assume the monastic condition only as a pretence, and will upset the ecclesiastical and civil regulations and affairs, and run about without distinction in the cities and want to found cloisters for themselves, the synod therefore has decreed that no one shall build a cloister or house of prayer or erect anywhere without the consent of the bishop of the city; and further, that also the monks of every district and city shall be subject to the bishop, that they shall love peace and quiet and observe the fasts and prayers in the places where they are assigned continually; that they shall not cumber themselves with ecclesiastical and secular business and shall not take part in such; they shall not leave their cloisters except when in cases of necessity they may be commissioned by the bishop of the city with such; that no slave shall be admitted into the cloister in order to become a monk without the permission of his master. Whoever violates this our order shall be excommunicated, that the name of God be not blasphemed. The bishop of the city must keep a careful oversight of the cloisters.

(d) Jerome, Epistula 127, Ad Principiam. (MSL, 22:1087.)

The introduction of monasticism into the West during the Arian controversy.

5. At that time no high-born lady at Rome knew of the profession of the monastic life, neither would she have dared, on account of the novelty, publicly to assume a name that was regarded as ignominious and vile. It was from some priests of Alexandria and from Pope Athanasius155 and subsequently from Peter,156 who, to escape the persecution of the Arian heretics, had fled for refuge to Rome as the safest haven of their communion—it was from these that she [Marcella] learned of the life of the blessed Anthony, then still living, and of the monasteries in the Thebaid, founded by Pachomius, and of the discipline of virgins and widows. Nor was she ashamed to profess what she knew was pleasing to Christ. Many years after her example was followed first by Sophronia and then by others.… The revered Paula enjoyed Marcella’s friendship, and it was in her cell that Eustochium, that ornament of virginity, was trained.

(e) Augustine, Confessiones, VIII, Ch. 6. (MSL, 32:755.)

The extension of monasticism in the West.

Upon a certain day … there came to the house to see Alypius and me, Pontitianus, a countryman of ours, in so far as he was an African, who held high office in the Emperor’s court. What he wanted with us I know not. We sat down to talk together, and upon the table before us, used for games, he noticed by chance a book; he took it up, opened it, and, contrary to his expectations, found it to be the Apostle Paul, for he imagined it to be one of those books the teaching of which was wearing me out. At this he looked up at me smilingly, and expressed his delight and wonder that he so unexpectedly found this book, and this only, before my eyes. For he was both a Christian and baptized, and in constant and daily prayers he often prostrated himself before Thee our God in the Church. When, then, I had told him that I bestowed much pains upon these writings, a conversation ensued on his speaking of Anthony, the Egyptian monk, whose name was in high repute among Thy servants, though up to that time unfamiliar to us. When he came to know this he lingered on that topic, imparting to us who were ignorant a knowledge of this man so eminent, and marvelling at our ignorance. But we were amazed, hearing Thy wonderful works most fully manifested in times so recent, and almost in our own, wrought in the true faith and the Catholic Church. We all wondered—we that they were so great, and he that we had never heard of them.

From this his conversation turned to the companies in the monasteries, and their manners so fragrant unto Thee, and of the fruitful deserts of the wilderness, of which we knew nothing. And there was a monastery at Milan full of good brethren, without the walls of the city, under the care of Ambrose, and we were ignorant of it. He went on with his relation, and we listened intently and in silence. He then related to us how on a certain afternoon, at Treves, when the Emperor was taken up with seeing the Circensian games, he and three others, his comrades, went out for a walk in the gardens close to the city walls, and there, as they chanced to walk two and two, one strolled away with him, while the other two went by themselves; and these in their ramblings came upon a certain cottage where dwelt some of Thy servants, “poor in spirit,” of whom “is the kingdom of heaven,” and they found there a book in which was written the life of Anthony. This one of them began to read, marvel at, and be inflamed by it; and in the reading to meditate on embracing such a life, and giving up his worldly employments to serve Thee.… Then Pontitianus, and he that had walked with him through other parts of the garden, came in search of them to the same place, and, having found them, advised them to return as the day had declined.… But the other two, setting their affections upon heavenly things, remained in the cottage. And both of them had affianced brides who also, when they heard of this, dedicated their virginity to God.

(f) Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin of Tours, Ch. 10. (MSL, 20:166.)

Monasticism in Gaul.

St. Martin, bishop of Tours, was born 316, became bishop of Tours in 371, and died 396. He was the most considerable figure in the Church life of Gaul at that time. Sulpicius Severus was his disciple and enthusiastic biographer. For John Cassian and his works on monasticism, see PNF, ser. II, vol. XI.

And now having entered upon the episcopal office, it is beyond my power to set forth how well and how much he [Martin] performed. For he remained with the utmost constancy the same as he had been before. In his heart there was the same humility and in his garments the same simplicity; and so full of dignity and courtesy, he maintained the dignity of a bishop, yet so as not to lay aside the objects and virtues of a monk. Accordingly he made use for some time of the cell connected with the church; but afterward, when he felt it impossible to tolerate the disturbance of the numbers of those visiting it, he established a monastery for himself about two miles outside the city. This spot was so secret and retired that he did not desire the solitude of a hermit. For, on one side, it was surrounded by a precipitous rock of a lofty mountain; while the river Loire has shut in the rest of the plain by a bend extending back for a distance. The place could be approached by only one passage, and that very narrow. Here, then, he possessed a cell constructed of wood; many also of the brethren had, in the same manner, fashioned retreats for themselves, but most of them had formed these out of the rock of the overhanging mountain, hollowed out into caves. There were altogether eighty disciples, who were being disciplined after the example of the saintly master. No one there had anything which was called his own; all things were possessed in common. It was not allowed either to buy or sell anything, as is the custom amongst most monks. No art was practised there except that of transcribers, and even to this the more youthful were assigned, while the elders spent their time in prayer. Rarely did any of them go beyond the cell unless when they assembled at the place of prayer. They all took their food together after the hour of fasting was past. No one used wine except when illness compelled him. Most of them were dressed in garments of camel’s hair. Any dress approaching softness was there deemed criminal, and this must be thought the more remarkable because many among them were such as are deemed of noble rank, who though very differently brought up had forced themselves down to this degree of humility and patience, and we have seen many of these afterward as bishops. For what city or church could there be that would not desire to have its priest from the monastery of Martin?

§ 78. Celibacy of the Clergy and the Regulation of Clerical Marriage

The insistence upon clerical celibacy and even the mere regulation of the marriage of the clergy contributed not a little to making a clear distinction between the clergy and the laity which became a marked feature in the constitution of the Church. The East and the West have always differed as to clerical marriage. In the East the parish clergy have always been married; the bishops formerly married have long since been exclusively of the unmarried clergy. The clergy who do not marry become monks. This seems to have been the solution of practical difficulties which were found to arise in that part of the Church in connection with general clerical celibacy. In the West the celibacy of the clergy as a body was an ideal from the beginning of the fourth century, and became an established principle by the middle of the fifth century under Leo the Great, though as a matter of fact it was not enforced as a universal obligation of the clerical order until the reforms of Gregory VII. In the following canons and documents the division is made between the East and the West, and the selected documents are arranged chronologically so as to show the progress in legislation toward the condition that afterward became dominant in the respective divisions of the Empire and the Church.

(A) Clerical Marriage in the East

(a) Council of Ancyra, A. D. 314, Canon 10. Bruns, I, 68. Cf. Mirbt, N. 90

The following canon is important as being the first Eastern regulation of a council bearing on the subject and having been generally followed long before the canons of this council were adopted as binding by the Council of Constantinople known as the Quinisext in 692, Canon 2; cf. Hefele, § 327. For the Council of Ancyra, see Hefele, § 16.

Canon 10. Those who have been made deacons, declaring when they were ordained that they must marry, because they were not able to abide as they were, and who afterward married, shall continue in the ministry because it was conceded to them by the bishop. But if they were silent on the matter, undertaking at their ordination to abide as they were, and afterward proceeded to marry, they shall cease from the diaconate.

(b) Council of Nicæa, A. D. 325, Canon 3. Bruns, I, 15. Cf. Mirbt, N. 101, Kirch, N. 363

The meaning of the following canon is open to question because of the term subintroducta and the concluding clause. Hefele contends that every woman is excluded except certain specified persons. But the custom of the East was not to treat the rule as meaning such. See E. Venables, art. “Subintroductæ,” in DCB; and Achelis, art. “Subintroductæ,” in PRE. Hefele’s discussion may be found in his History of the Councils, §§ 42 and 43; in the latter he discusses the question as to the position of the council as to the matter of clerical celibacy.

Canon 3. The great synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta (συνείσακτος) dwelling with him, except only a mother, sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.

(c) Council of Gangra, A. D. 355-381, Canon 4. Bruns, I, 107

The canons of this council were approved at the Quinisext together with those of Ancyra and Laodicæa and others. This canon is directed against the fanaticism of the Eustathians.

Canon 4. If any one shall maintain, concerning a married presbyter, that it is not lawful to partake of the oblation that he offers, let him be anathema.

(d) Socrates, Hist. Ec., V, 22. (MSG, 67:640.)

That the custom of clerical celibacy grew up without much regard to conciliar action, and that canons only later regulated what had been established and modified by custom, is illustrated by the variation in the matter of clerical marriage noted by Socrates.

I myself learned of another custom in Thessaly. If a clergyman in that country should, after taking orders, cohabit with his wife, whom he had legally married before ordination, he would be degraded.157 In the East, indeed, all clergymen and even bishops abstain from their wives; but this they do of their own accord and not by the necessity of law; for many of them have had children by their lawful wives during their episcopate. The author of the usage which obtains in Thessaly was Heliodorus, bishop of Tricca in that country, under whose name it is said that erotic books are extant, entitled Ethiopica, which he composed in his youth. The same custom prevails in Thessalonica and in Macedonia and Achaia.

(e) Quinisext Council, A. D. 692, Canons 6, 12, 13, 48. Bruns, I, 39 Ff

Canons on celibacy.

The Trullan Council fixed the practice of the Eastern churches regarding the celibacy of the clergy. In general it may be said that the clergyman was not allowed to marry after ordination. But if he married before ordination he did not, except in the case of the bishops separate from his wife, but lived with her in lawful marital relations.

Canon 6. Since it is declared in the Apostolic Canons that of those who are advanced to the clergy unmarried, only lectors and cantors are able to marry, we also, maintaining this, determine that henceforth it is in nowise lawful for any subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter after his ordination to contract matrimony; but if he shall have dared to do so, let him be deposed. And if any of those who enter the clergy wishes to be joined to a wife in lawful marriage before he is ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, let it be done.

Canon 12. Moreover, it has also come to our knowledge that in Africa and Libya and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving scandal and offence to the people. Since, therefore, it is our particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock placed in our hands and committed to us, it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur.… But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.

Canon 13. [Text in Kirch, nn. 985 ff.] Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate and presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that lawful marriage of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient season.… For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they may be able to obtain from God what they ask in sincerity.

Canon 48. The wife of him who is advanced to the episcopal dignity shall be separated from her husband by mutual consent, and after his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop’s provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.

(B) Clerical Celibacy in the West

(a) Council of Elvira, A. D. 306, Canon 33. Bruns, II, 6. Cf. Mirbt, N. 90, and Kirch, N. 305

This is the earliest canon of any council requiring clerical celibacy. For the Council of Elvira, see Hefele, § 13; A. W. W. Dale, The Synod of Elvira, London. 1882. For discussion of reasons for assigning a later date, see E. Hennecke, art. “Elvira, Synode um 313,” in PRE, and the literature there cited. The council was a provincial synod of southern Spain.

Canon 33. It was voted that it be entirely forbidden158 bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and all clergy placed in the ministry to abstain from their wives and not to beget sons: whoever does this, let him be deprived of the honor of the clergy.

(b) Siricius, Decretal A. D. 385. (MSL, 13:1138.) Mirbt, Nn. 122 F.; cf. Denziger, Nn. 87 Ff

Clerical celibacy: the force of decretals.

In the following passages from the first authentic decretal, the celibacy of the clergy is laid down as of divine authority in the Church, and the rule remains characteristic of the Western Church. See Canon 13 of the Quinisext Council, above, § 78, c. The binding authority of the decretals of the bishop of Rome is also asserted, and this, too, becomes characteristic of the jurisprudence of the Western Church.

Ch. 7 (§ 8). Why did He admonish them to whom the holy of holies was committed, Be ye holy, because I the Lord your God am holy? [Lev. 20:7.] Why were they commanded to dwell in the temple in the year of their turn to officiate, afar from their own homes? Evidently it was for the reason that they might not be able to maintain their marital relations with their wives, so that, adorned with a pure conscience, they might offer to God an acceptable sacrifice. After the time of their service was accomplished they were permitted to resume their marital relations for the sake of continuing the succession, because only from the tribe of Levi was it ordained that any one should be admitted to the priesthood.… Wherefore also our Lord Jesus, when by His coming He brought us light, solemnly affirmed in the Gospel that He came not to destroy but to fulfil the law. And therefore He who is the bridegroom of the Church wished that its form should be resplendent with chastity, so that in the day of Judgment, when He should come again, He might find it without spot or blemish, as He taught by His Apostle. And by the rule of its ordinances which may not be gainsaid, we who are priests and Levites are bound from the day of our ordination to keep our bodies in soberness and modesty, so that in those sacrifices which we offer daily to our God we may please Him in all things.

Ch. 15 (§ 20). To each of the cases, which by our son Bassanius you have referred to the Roman Church as the head of your body, we have returned, as I think, a sufficient answer. Now we exhort your brotherly mind more and more to obey the canons and to observe the decretals that have been drawn up, that those things which we have written to your inquiries you may cause to be brought to the attention of all our fellow-bishops, and not only of those who are placed in your diocese, but also of the Carthaginians, the Bætici, the Lusitani, and the Gauls, and those who in neighboring provinces border upon you, those things which by us have been helpfully decreed may be sent accompanied by your letters. And although no priest of the Lord is free to ignore the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable definitions of the canons, yet it would be more useful and, on account of the long time you have been in holy orders, exceedingly glorious for you, beloved, if those things which have been written you especially by name, might through your agreement with us be brought to the notice of all our brethren, and that, seeing that they have not been drawn up inconsiderately but prudently and with very great care, they should remain inviolate, and that, for the future, opportunity for any excuse might be cut off, which is now open to no one among us.

(c) Council of Carthage, A. D. 390, Canon 2. Bruns, I, 117

See also Canon 1 of the same council.

Canon 2. Bishop Aurelius said: “When in a previous council the matter of the maintenance of continence and chastity was discussed, these three orders were joined by a certain agreement of chastity through their ordination, bishops, I say, presbyters, and deacons; as it was agreed that it was seemly that they, as most holy pontiffs and priests of God, and as Levites who serve divine things, should be continent in all things whereby they may be able to obtain from God what they ask sincerely, so that what the Apostles taught and antiquity observed, we also keep.” By all the bishops it was said: “It is the pleasure of all that bishops, presbyters, and deacons, or those who handle the sacraments, should be guardians of modesty, and refrain themselves from their wives.” By all it was said: “It is our pleasure that in all things, and by all, modesty should be preserved, who serve the altar.”

(d) Leo the Great, Ep. 14, Ad Anastasium; Ep. 167, Ad Rusticum. (MSL, 54:672, 1204.)

The final form of the Western rule, that the clergy, from subdeacon to bishop, both inclusive, should be bound to celibacy, was expressed in its permanent form by Leo the Great in his letters to Anastasius and Rusticus. From each of these letters the passage bearing on the subject is quoted. By thus following up the ideas of the Council of Elvira and the Council of Carthage as well as the decretal of Siricius, the subdeacon was included among those who were vowed to celibacy, for he, too, served at the altar, and came to be counted as one of the major orders of the ministry.

Ep. 14, Ch. 5. Although they who are not within the ranks of the clergy are free to take pleasure in the companionship of wedlock and the procreation of children, yet, for the sake of exhibiting the purity of complete continence, even subdeacons are not allowed carnal marriage; that “both they that have wives be as though they had none” [I Cor. 7:29], and they that have not may remain single. But if in this order, which is the fourth from the head, this is worthy to be observed, how much more is it to be kept in the first, the second, and the third, lest any one be reckoned fit for either the deacon’s duties or the presbyter’s honorable position, or the bishop’s pre-eminence, who is discovered as not yet having bridled his uxorious desires.

Ep. 167, Quest. 3. Concerning those who minister at the altar and have wives, whether they may cohabit with them.

Reply. The same law of continence is for the ministers of the altar as for the bishops and priests who, when they were laymen, could lawfully marry and procreate children. But when they attained to the said ranks, what was before lawful became unlawful for them. And therefore in order that their wedlock may become spiritual instead of carnal, it is necessary that they do not put away their wives159 but to have them “as though they had them not,” whereby both the affection of their married life may be retained and the marriage functions cease.

---

Period II. The Church From The Permanent Division Of The Empire Until The Collapse Of The Western Empire And The First Schism Between The East And The West, Or Until About A. D. 500

In the second period of the history of the Church under the Christian Empire, the Church, although existing in two divisions of the Empire and experiencing very different political fortunes, may still be regarded as forming a whole. The theological controversies distracting the Church, although different in the two halves of the Græco-Roman world, were felt to some extent in both divisions of the Empire and not merely in the one in which they were principally fought out; and in the condemnation of heresy, each half of the Church assisted the other. Though already marked lines of cleavage are clearly perceptible, and in the West the dominating personality of Augustine forwarded the development of the characteristic theology of the West, setting aside the Greek influences exerted through Hilary, Ambrose, Rufinus, and Jerome, and adding much that was never appreciated in the East—yet the opponent of Augustine was condemned at the general council of Ephesus, 431, held by Eastern bishops in the East; and at the same time in the East the controversies regarding the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, although of interest almost entirely in the East and fought out by men of the East, found their preliminary solution at Chalcedon in 451 upon a basis proposed by the West. On the other hand, the attitudes of the two halves of the Church toward many profound problems were radically different, and the emergence of the Roman See as the great centre of the West amid the overturn of the Roman world by the barbarians, and the steadily increasing ascendency of the State over the Church in the East tended inevitably to separate ecclesiastically as well as politically the two divisions of the Empire. As the emperors of the East attempted to use dogmatic parties in the support of a political policy, the differences between the Church of the East, under the Roman Emperor, and the Church of the West, where the imperial authority had ceased to be a reality, became manifest in a schism resulting from the Monophysite controversy and the attempt to reconcile the Monophysites.

Chapter I. The Church at the Beginning of the Permanent Separation of the Two Parts of the Roman Empire

Although Theodosius the Great had been the dominating power in the government of the Empire almost from his accession in 379, he was sole ruler of the united Roman Empire for only a few months before his death in 395. The East and the West became henceforth permanently divided after having been united, since the reorganization of the Empire under Diocletian in 285, for only three periods aggregating twenty-eight years in all. The imperial authority was divided between the sons of Theodosius, Arcadius taking the sovereignty of the East and Honorius that of the West. Stilicho, a Vandal, directed the fortunes of the West until his death in 408, but the Empire of the East soon began to take a leading part, especially after the barbarians commenced to invade the West about 405, and to establish independent kingdoms within the boundaries of the Empire. The German tribes that settled within the Empire were either Arians when they entered or became such almost immediately after; this Arianism had been introduced among the West Goths from Constantinople during the dominance of that creed. The Franks alone of all the Germanic tribes were heathen when they settled within the Empire.

§ 79. The Empire of the Dynasty of Theodosius

Emperors of the West:

Honorius; born 384, Emperor 395-423.

Valentinian III; born 419, Emperor 425-455; son of Galla Placidia, the daughter of Theodosius the Great, and the Empress of the West 419-450.

Emperors of the East:

Arcadius: born 377, Emperor 395-408.

Theodosius II: born 401, Emperor 408-450.

Marcianus: Emperor 450-457; husband of Pulcheria (born 399, died 453), daughter of Arcadius.

The greatest event in the first half of the fifth century, the period in which the degenerate descendants of Theodosius still retained the imperial title, was the Barbarian Invasion, a truly epoch-making event. In 405 the Vandals, Alans, and Suevi crossed the Rhine, followed later by the Burgundians. August 24, 410, Alarich, the king of the West Goths, captured Rome. In 419 the West Gothic kingdom was established with Toulouse as a capital. In 429 the Vandals began to establish themselves in North Africa, and about 450 the Saxons began to invade Britain, abandoned by the Romans about 409. Although the West was thus falling to pieces, the theory of the unity of the Empire was maintained and is expressed in the provision of the new Theodosian Code of 439 for the uniformity of law throughout the two parts of the Empire. This theory of unity was not lost for centuries and was influential even into the eighth century.

(a) Jerome, Ep. 123, Ad Ageruchiam. (MSL, 22:1057.)

The Barbarian Invasions in the opening years of the fifth century.

Jerome’s letters are not to be considered a primary source for the barbarian invasion, but they are an admirable source for the way the invasion appeared to a man of culture and some patriotic feeling. With this passage should be compared his Ep. 60, ad Heliodorum, § 16, written in 396, in which he expresses his belief that Rome was falling and describes the barbarian invaders. The following letter was written 409.

§ 16. Innumerable savage tribes have overrun all parts of Gaul. The whole country between the Alps and the Pyrenees, between the Rhine and the ocean, have been laid waste by Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alans, Gepidi, Herules,160 Saxons, Bergundians, Allemans and, alas for the common weal—even the hordes of the Pannonians. For Asshur is joined with them (Psalm 83:8). The once noble city of Mainz has been captured and destroyed. In its church many thousands have been massacred. The people of Worms have been extirpated after a long siege. The powerful city of Rheims, the Ambiani [a tribe near Amiens], the Altrabtæ [a tribe near Arras], the Belgians on the outskirts of the world, Tournay, Speyer, and Strassburg have fallen to Germany. The provinces of Aquitaine and of the Nine Nations, of Lyons and Narbonne, with the exception of a few cities, all have been laid waste. Those whom the sword spares without, famine ravages within. I cannot speak of Toulouse without tears; it has been kept hitherto from falling by the merits of its revered bishop, Exuperius. Even the Spains are about to perish and tremble daily as they recall the invasion of the Cymri; and what others have suffered once they suffer continually in fear.

§ 17. I am silent about other places, that I may not seem to despair of God’s mercy. From the Pontic Sea to the Julian Alps, what was once ours is ours no longer. When for thirty years the barrier of the Danube had been broken there was war in the central provinces of the Roman Empire. Long use dried our tears. For all, except a few old people, had been born either in captivity or during a blockade, and they did not long for a liberty which they had never known. Who will believe it? What histories will seriously discuss it, that Rome has to fight within her borders, not for glory but for bare life; and that she does not fight even, but buys the right to exist by giving gold and sacrificing all her substance? This humiliation has been brought upon her, not by the fault of her emperors, both of them most religious men [Arcadius and Honorius], but by the crime of a half-barbarian traitor,161

(b) Jerome, Prefaces to Commentary on Ezekiel. (MSL, 25, 15:75.)

The fall of Rome.

Jerome’s account of the capture of Rome by Alarich is greatly exaggerated (see his Ep. 127, ad Principiam). By his very exaggeration, however, one gains some impression of the shock the event must have occasioned in the Roman world.

Preface to Book I. Intelligence has suddenly been brought to me of the death of Pammachus and Marcella, the siege of Rome [A. D. 408], and the falling asleep of many of my brethren and sisters. I was so stupefied and dismayed that day and night I could think of nothing but the welfare of all.… But when the bright light of all the world was put out,162 or, rather, when the Roman Empire was decapitated, and, to speak more correctly, the whole world perished in one city, “I became dumb and humbled myself, and kept silence from good words, but my grief broke out afresh, my heart was hot within me, and while I was musing the fire was kindled” [Psalm 39:3, 4].

Preface to Book III. Who would believe that Rome, built up by the conquest of the whole world, had collapsed; that she had become both the mother of nations and their tomb; that all the shores of the East, of Egypt, of Africa, which had once belonged to the imperial city should be filled with the hosts of her men-servants and maid-servants; that every day holy Bethlehem should be receiving as mendicants men and women who were once noble and abounding in every kind of wealth?

(c) Theodosius II, Novella I, De Theodosiani Codicis Auctoritate; Feb. 15, 439

The Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, Augusti, to Florentius, Prætorian Prefect of the East.

Our clemency has often been at a loss to understand the cause of the fact that, although so many rewards are held out for the maintenance of arts and studies, so few and rare are they who are fully endowed with a knowledge of the civil law, and that although so many have grown pale from late studies, scarcely one or two have gained a sound and complete learning. When we consider the enormous multitude of books, the diversity in the forms of process, and the difficulty of legal cases, and, further, the huge mass of imperial constitutions which, hidden as it were under a veil of gross mist and darkness, precludes man’s intellect from gaining a knowledge of them, we have performed a task needful for our age, and, the darkness having been dispelled, we have given light to the laws by a brief compendium. Noble men of approved faithfulness were selected, men of well-known learning, to whom the matter was intrusted. We have published the constitutions of former princes, cleared by interpretation of difficulties so that men may no longer have to wait formidable responses from expert lawyers as from a shrine, since it is quite plain what is the value of a donation, by what action an inheritance is to be sued for, with what words a contract is to be made.… Thus having wiped out the cloud of volumes, on which many wasted their lives and explained nothing in the end, we establish a compendious knowledge of the imperial constitutions since the time of the divine Constantine, and permit no one after the first day of next January to use in courts and daily practice of law the imperial law, or to draw up pleadings except from these books which bear our name and are kept in the sacred archives.…

To this we add that henceforward no constitution can be passed in the West or in any other place by the unconquerable Emperor, the son of our clemency, the everlasting Augustus Valentinian, or possess any legal validity, except the same by a divine pragmatica be communicated to us. The same rule is to be observed in the acts which are promulgated by us in the East; and those are to be condemned as spurious which are not recorded in the Theodosian Code [certain documents excepted which were kept in the registers of bureaux].

§ 80. The Extension of the Church About the Beginning of the Fifth Century

The most important missionary work in the early part of the fifth century was the extension of the work of Ulfilas among the German tribes and the work of the missionaries of the West in Gaul and western Germany. Of the latter the most important was Martin of Tours.

(a) Socrates, Hist. Ec., II, 41. (MSG, 67:349.)

Ulfilas.

Additional material for the life of Ulfilas may be found in the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, fragments of which, as preserved, may be found appended to the Bohn translation of Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History.

After giving a list of creeds put forth by various councils, from Nicæa down to the Arian creed of Constantinople, 360 (text may be found in Hahn, § 167), Socrates continues:

The last creed was that put forth at Constantinople [A. D. 360], with the appendix. For to this was added the prohibition respecting the mention of substance [ousia], or subsistence [hypostasis], in relation to God. To this creed Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths, then first gave his assent. For before that time he had adhered to the faith of Nicæa; for he was a disciple of Theophilus, bishop of the Goths, who was present at the Nicene Council, and subscribed what was there determined.

(b) Ulfilas, Confession of Faith. Hahn, § 198

This confession of faith, which Ulfilas describes as his testament, is found at the conclusion of a letter of Auxentius, his pupil, an Arian bishop of Silistria, in Mœsia Inferior; see note of Hahn. It should be compared with that of Constantinople of 360.

I, Ulfilas, bishop and confessor, have always thus believed, and in this sole and true faith I make my testament before my Lord: I believe that there is one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible; and in His only begotten Son, our Lord and God, the fashioner and maker of all creation, not having any one like him—therefore there is one God of all, who, in our opinion, is God—and there is one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power—as Christ said to his apostles for correction, “Behold I send the promise of my Father to you, but remain ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be indued with power from on high”; and again, “And ye shall receive power coming upon you from the Holy Spirit”—neither God nor Lord, but a minister of Christ in all things; not ruler, but a subject, and obedient in all things to the Son, and the Son himself subject and obedient in all things to his Father … through Christ … with the Holy Spirit.…163

(c) Socrates, Hist. Ec., IV, 23. (MSG, 67:551.)

The barbarians dwelling beyond the Danube, who are called Goths, having been engaged in a civil war among themselves, were divided into two parties; of one of these Fritigernus was the leader, of the other Athanaric. When Athanaric had obtained an evident advantage over his rival, Fritigernus had recourse to the Romans and implored their assistance against his adversary. When these things were reported to the Emperor Valens [364-378], he ordered the troops garrisoned in Thrace to assist those barbarians against the barbarians fighting against them. They won a complete victory over Athanaric beyond the Danube, totally routing the enemy. This was the reason why many of the barbarians became Christians: for Fritigernus, to show his gratitude to the Emperor for the kindness shown him, embraced the religion of the Emperor, and urged those under him to do the same. Therefore it is that even to this present time so many of the Goths are infected with the religion of Arianism, because the emperors at that time gave themselves to that faith. Ulfilas, the bishop of the Goths at that time, invented the Gothic letters and, translating the Holy Scriptures into their own language, undertook to instruct these barbarians in the divine oracles. But when Ulfilas taught the Christian religion not only to the subjects of Fritigernus but to the subjects of Athanaric also, Athanaric, regarding this as a violation of the privileges of the religion of his ancestors, subjected many of the Christians to severe punishments, so that many of the Arian Goths of that time became martyrs. Arius, indeed, failing to refute the opinion of Sabellius the Libyan, fell from the true faith and asserted that the Son of God was a new God; but the barbarians, embracing Christianity with greater simplicity, despised this present life for the faith of Christ.

(d) Sulpicius Severus, Vita S. Martini, 13. (MSL, 20:167.)

Sulpicius Severus was a pupil of Martin of Tours, and wrote the life of his master during the latter’s lifetime (died 397), but published it after his death. He wrote also other works on Martin. The astounding miracles they contain present curious problems for the student of ethics as well as of history. As St. Martin was one of the most popular saints of Gaul, and in this case the merits of the man and his reputation as a saint were in accord, the works of Sulpicius became the basis of many popular lives of the saint. The following passage illustrates the embellishment which soon became attached to all the lives of religious heroes. It is, however, one of the least astounding of the many miracles the author relates in apparent good faith. Whatever may be the judgment regarding the miracle, the story contains several characteristic touches met with in the history of missions in the following centuries: e.g., the destruction of heathen temples and objects of worship. This sacred tree also finds its duplicate in other attacks upon heathen sanctuaries.

Ch. 13. When in a certain village he had demolished a very ancient temple, and had set about cutting down a pine-tree, which stood close to the temple, the chief priest of that place and a crowd of other heathen began to oppose him. And though these people, under the influence of the Lord, had been quiet while the temple was being overthrown, they could not patiently allow the tree to be cut down. Martin carefully instructed them that there was nothing sacred in the trunk of a tree; let them rather follow God, whom he himself served. He added that it was necessary that that tree be cut down, because it had been dedicated to a demon [i.e., to a heathen deity]. Then one of them, who was bolder than the others, said: “If you have any trust in the God whom you say you worship, we ourselves will cut down this tree, you shall receive it when it falls; for if, as you declare, your Lord is with you, you will escape all injury.” Then Martin, courageously trusting in the Lord, promised that he would do this. Thereupon all that crowd of heathen agreed to the condition; for they held the loss of their tree a small matter, if only they got the enemy of their religion buried beneath its fall. Accordingly when that pine-tree was hanging over in one direction, so that there was no doubt as to what side it would fall on being cut, Martin, having been bound, was, in accordance with the decision of these pagans, placed in that spot where, as no one doubted, the tree was about to fall. They began, therefore, to cut down their own tree with great joy and mirth. At some distance there was a great multitude of wondering spectators. And now the pine-tree began to totter and to threaten its own ruin by falling. The monks at a distance grew pale and, terrified by the danger ever coming nearer, had lost all hope and confidence, expecting only the death of Martin. But he, trusting in the Lord, and waiting courageously, when now the falling pine had uttered its expiring crash, while it was now falling, while it was just rushing upon him, with raised hand put in its way the sign of salvation [i.e., the sign of the cross]. Then, indeed, after the manner of a spinning top (one might have thought it driven back) it fell on the opposite side, so that it almost crushed the rustics, who had been standing in a safe spot. Then truly a shout was raised to heaven; the heathen were amazed by the miracle; the monks wept for joy; and the name of Christ was extolled by all in common. The well-known result was that on that day salvation came to that region. For there was hardly one of that immense multitude of heathen who did not desire the imposition of hands, and, abandoning his impious errors, believe in the Lord Jesus. Certainly, before the times of Martin, very few, nay, almost none, in those regions had received the name of Christ; but through his virtues and example it has prevailed to such an extent that now there is no place there which is not filled with either very crowded churches or monasteries. For wherever he destroyed heathen temples, there he was accustomed to build, immediately, either churches or monasteries.

Chapter II. The Church of the Western Empire in the Fifth Century

The period between the closing years of the fourth century, in which the struggle was still going on between heathenism and Christianity (§ 81), and the end of the Roman Empire of the West is of fundamental importance in the study of the history of the Christian Church of the West. In this period were laid the foundations for its characteristic theology and its ecclesiastical organization. The former was the work of St. Augustine, the most powerful religious personality of the Western Church. In this he built partly upon the traditions of the West, but also, largely, upon his own religious experience (§ 82). These elements were developed and modified by the two great controversies in which, by discussion, he formulated more completely than ever had been done before the idea of the Church and its sacraments in opposition to the Donatists (§ 83), and the doctrines of sin and grace in opposition to a moralistic Christianity, represented by Pelagius (§ 84). The leading ideas of Augustine, however, could be appropriated only as they were modified and brought into conformity with the dominant ecclesiastical and sacramental system of the Church, in the semi-Pelagian controversy, which found a tardy termination in the sixth century (§ 85). In the meanwhile the inroads of the barbarians with all the horrors of the invasions, the confusion in the political, social, and ecclesiastical organization, threatened the overthrow of all established institutions. In the midst of this anarchy, the Roman See, in the work of Innocent I, and still more clearly in the work of Leo the Great, enunciated its ideals and became the centre, not merely of ecclesiastical unity, in which it had often to contest its claims with the divided Church organizations of the West, but still more as the ideal centre of unity for all those that held to the old order of the Empire with its culture and social life (§ 86).

§ 81. The Western Church Toward the End of the Fourth Century

Heathenism lingered as a force in society longer in the West than in the East, not merely among the peasantry, but among the higher classes. This was partly due to the conservatism of the aristocratic classes and the superior form in which the religious philosophy of Neo-Platonism had been presented to the West. This presentation was due, in no small part, to the work of such philosophers as Victorinus, who translated the earlier works of the Neo-Platonists so that it escaped the tendencies, represented by Jamblichus, toward theurgy and magic, and an alliance with polytheism and popular superstition. Victorinus himself became a Christian, passing by an easy transition from Neo-Platonism to Christianity; a course in which he was followed by Augustine, and, no doubt, by others as well.

Augustine, Confessiones, VIII, 2. (MSL, 32:79.)

The conversion of Victorinus.

To Simplicianus then I went—the father of Ambrose,164 in receiving Thy grace,165 and whom he truly loved as a father. To him I narrated the windings of my error. But when I mentioned to him that I had read certain books of the Platonists, which Victorinus, formerly professor of rhetoric at Rome (who died a Christian, as I had heard), had translated into Latin, he congratulated me that I had not fallen upon the writings of other philosophers, which were full of fallacies and deceit, “after the rudiments of this world” [Col. 2:8], whereas they, in many respects, led to the belief in God and His word. Then to exhort me to the humility of Christ, hidden from the wise and revealed to babes, he spoke of Victorinus himself, whom, while he was in Rome, he had known intimately; and of him he related that about which I will not be silent. For it contained great praise of Thy grace, which ought to be confessed unto Thee, how that most learned old man, highly skilled in all the liberal sciences, who had read, criticised, and explained so many works of the philosophers; the teacher of so many noble senators, who, also, as a mark of his excellent discharge of his duties, had both merited and obtained a statue in the Roman Forum (something men of this world esteem a great honor), he, who had been, even to that age, a worshipper of idols and a participator in the sacrilegious rites to which almost all the nobility of Rome were addicted, and had inspired the people with the love of “monster gods of every sort, and the barking Anubis, who hold their weapons against Neptune and Venus and Minerva” [Vergil, Æneid, VIII, 736 ff.], and those whom Rome once conquered, she now worshipped, all of which Victorinus, now old, had defended so many years with vain language,166 he now blushed not to be a child of Thy Christ, and an infant at Thy fountain, submitting his neck to the yoke of humility, and subduing his forehead to the reproach of the cross.

O Lord, Lord, who hast bowed the heavens and come down, touched the mountains and they smoked [Psalm 144:5], by what means didst Thou convey Thyself into that bosom? He used to read, Simplicianus said, the Holy Scriptures and most studiously sought after and searched out all the Christian writings, and he said to Simplicianus, not openly, but secretly and as a friend: “Knowest thou that I am now a Christian?” To which he replied: “I will not believe it, nor will I rank you among the Christians unless I see you in the Church of Christ.” Whereupon he replied derisively: “Do walls then make Christians?” And this he often said, that already he was a Christian; and Simplicianus used as often to make the same answer, and as often the conceit of the walls was repeated. For he was fearful of offending his friends, proud demon worshippers, from the height of whose Babylonian pride, as from the cedars of Lebanon, which the Lord had not yet broken [Psalm 29:5], he seriously thought a storm of enmity would descend upon him. But after that he had derived strength from reading and inquiry, and feared lest he should be denied by Christ before the holy angels if he was now afraid to confess Him before men [Matt. 10:33], and appeared to himself to be guilty of a great fault in being ashamed of the sacraments of the humility of Thy word, and not being ashamed of the sacrilegious rites of those proud demons, which as a proud imitator he had accepted, he became bold-faced against vanity and shamefaced toward the truth, and suddenly and unexpectedly said to Simplicianus, as he himself informed me: “Let us go to the Church; I wish to be made a Christian.” And he, unable to contain himself for joy, went with him. When he had been admitted to the first sacrament of instruction [i.e., the Catechumenate], he, not long after, gave in his name that he might be regenerated by baptism. Meanwhile Rome marvelled and the Church rejoiced; the proud saw and were enraged; they gnashed with their teeth and melted away [Psalm 92:9]. But the Lord God was the hope of Thy servant, and He regarded not vanities and lying madness [Psalm 40:4].

Finally the hour arrived when he should make profession of his faith, which, at Rome, they, who are about to approach Thy grace, are accustomed to deliver from an elevated place, in view of the faithful people, in a set form of words learnt by heart. But the presbyters, he said, offered Victorinus the privilege of making his profession more privately, as was the custom to do to those who were likely, on account of bashfulness, to be afraid; but he chose, rather, to profess his salvation in the presence of the holy assembly. For it was not salvation that he had taught in rhetoric and yet he had publicly professed that. How much less, therefore, ought he, when pronouncing Thy word, to dread Thy meek flock, who, in the delivery of his own words, had not feared the mad multitudes! So then, when he ascended to make his profession, and all recognized him, they whispered his name one to the other, with a tone of congratulation. And who was there among them that did not know him? And there ran through the mouths of all the rejoicing multitude a low murmur: “Victorinus! Victorinus!” Sudden was the burst of exultation at the sight of him, and as sudden the hush of attention that they might hear him. He pronounced the true faith with an excellent confidence, and all desired to take him to their hearts, and by their love and joy they did take him to them; such were the hands with which they took him.

§ 82. Augustine’s Life and Place in the Western Church

Aurelius Augustinus, the greatest of the Latin fathers, was born 354, at Tagaste, in Numidia. He was educated to be a teacher of rhetoric, and practised his profession at Carthage, Rome, and Milan. From 374 to 383, he was a Manichæan catechumen, for although his mother, Monnica, was a Christian, his religious education had been very meagre, and he was repelled by the literary character of the Scriptures as commonly interpreted. In 387, after a long struggle, and passing through various schools of thought, he, with his son Adeodatus, were baptized at Milan by Ambrose. In 391 he became a presbyter, and in 394 bishop of Hippo Regius, a small town in North Africa. He died 430, during the Vandal invasion. Of his works, the Confessions are the most widely known, as they have become a Christian classic of edification of the first rank. They give an account of his early life and conversion, but are more useful as showing his type of piety than as a biography. From them is learned the secret of his influence upon the Western world. The literary activity of Augustine was especially developed in connection with the prolonged controversies, in which he was engaged throughout his episcopate (see §§ 83, 84), but he wrote much in addition to controversial treatises. The group of characteristic doctrines known as “Augustinianism,” viz.: Original Sin, Predestination, and Grace and the doctrines connected with them, were, to a large extent, the outcome of his own religious experience. He had known the power and depth of sin. He had discovered the hand of God leading him in spite of himself. He knew that his conversion was due, not to his own effort or merit, but to God’s grace.

The works of Augustine have been translated in part in PNF, ser. I, vols. I-VIII. There are many translations of the Confessions; among others, one by E. B. Pusey, in “Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church,” reprinted in “Everyman’s Library.”

(a) Augustine, Confessiones, VIII, 12. (MSL, 32:761.)

The conversion of Augustine.

This is, perhaps, the most famous passage in the Confessions. It came at the end of a long series of attempts to find peace in various forms of philosophy and religion. Augustine regarded it as miraculous, the crown and proof of the work of grace in him. The scene was in Milan, 387, in the garden of the villa he occupied with his friend Alypius. The principal obstacle to his embracing Christianity was his reluctance to abandon his licentious life. To this the reference is made in the passage from Scripture which he read, i.e., Rom. 13:13, 14.

When a profound reflection had, from the depths of my soul, drawn together and heaped up all my misery before the sight of my heart, there arose a mighty storm, accompanied by as mighty a shower of tears. That I might pour it all forth in its own words I arose from beside Alypius; for solitude suggested itself to me as fitter for the business of weeping. So I retired to such a distance that even his presence could not be oppressive to me. Thus it was with me at that time, and he perceived it; for something, I believe, I had spoken, wherein the sound of my voice appeared choked with weeping, and thus I had risen up. He then remained where we had been sitting, very greatly astonished. I flung myself down, I know not how, under a certain fig-tree, giving free course to my tears, and the streams of my eyes gushed out, an acceptable sacrifice unto Thee. And not indeed in these words, yet to this effect, spake I much unto Thee—“But Thou, O Lord, how long?” [Psalm 13:1]. “How long, Lord? Wilt Thou be angry forever? Oh, remember not against us former iniquities” [Psalm 79:5, 8]; for I felt that I was held fast by them. I sent up these sorrowful cries: “How long, how long? To-morrow, and to-morrow? Why not now? Why is there not this hour an end to my uncleanness?”

I was saying these things and was weeping in the most bitter contrition of my heart, when, lo, I hear the voice as of a boy or girl, I know not which, coming from a neighboring house, chanting and oft repeating: “Take up and read; take up and read.” Immediately my countenance was changed, and I began most earnestly to consider whether it was usual for children in any kind of game to sing such words; nor could I remember ever to have heard the like anywhere. So, restraining the torrent of my tears, I rose up, interpreting it in no other way than as a command to me from Heaven to open the book and read the first chapter I should light upon. For I had heard of Anthony [see also § 77, e], that accidentally coming in whilst the Gospel was being read, he received the admonition as if what was read was addressed to him: “Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me” [Matt. 19:21]. And by such oracle was he forthwith converted unto Thee. So quickly I returned to the place where Alypius was sitting; for there had I put down the volume of the Apostles, when I rose thence. I seized, I opened, and in silence I read that paragraph on which my eye first fell: “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying; but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof” [Rom. 13:13, 14]. No further would I read; there was no need; for instantly, as the sentence ended, by a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart, all the gloom of doubt vanished away.

Closing the book, then, and putting either my finger between, or some other mark, I now with a tranquil countenance made it known to Alypius. And he thus disclosed to me what was wrong in him, which I knew not. He asked to look at what I had read. I showed him; and he looked even further than I had read, and I knew not what followed. This, in fact, followed: “Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye” [Rom. 14:1]; which he applied to himself, and discovered to me. By this admonition was he strengthened; and by a good resolution and purpose, very much in accord with his character (wherein, for the better, he was always far different from me), without any restless delay he joined me. Thence we go to my mother. We tell her—she rejoices. We relate how it came to pass—she exults and triumphs, and she blesses Thee, who art “able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think” [Eph. 3:20]; for she perceived Thee to have given her more for me than she used to ask by her pitiful and most doleful groanings. For Thou didst so convert me unto Thyself, that I sought neither a wife, nor any other hope of this world—standing in that rule of faith in which Thou, so many years before, had showed me unto her. And thou didst turn her grief unto gladness [Psalm 30:11], much more plentiful than she had desired, and much dearer and chaster than she used to crave, by having grandchildren of my flesh.

(b) Augustine, Confessiones, X, 27, 29, 43. (MSL, 32:795, 796, 808.)

The following passages from the Confessions are intended to illustrate Augustine’s type of piety.

Ch. 29. My whole hope is only in Thy exceeding great mercy. Give what Thou commandest and command what Thou wilt.167 Thou imposest continency upon us. “And when I perceived,” saith one, “that no one could be continent except God gave it; and this was a point of wisdom also to know whose this gift was” [Wis. 8:21]. For by continency are we bound up and brought into one, whence we were scattered abroad into many. For he loves Thee too little, who besides Thee loves aught which he loves not for Thee. O love, who ever burnest and art never quenched! O charity, my God, kindle me! Thou commandest continency; give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt.

Ch. 27. Too late have I loved Thee, O fairness, so ancient, yet so new! Too late have I loved Thee. For behold Thou wast within and I was without, and I was seeking Thee there; I, without love, rushed heedlessly among the things of beauty Thou madest. Thou wast with me, but I was not with Thee. Those things kept me far from Thee, which, unless they were in Thee, were not. Thou didst call and cry aloud, and Thou broke through my deafness. Thou didst gleam and shine and chase away my blindness. Thou didst exhale fragrance and I drew in my breath and I panted for Thee. I tasted, and did hunger and thirst. Thou didst touch me, and I burned for Thy peace.

Ch. 43. O how Thou hast loved us, O good Father, who sparedst not thine only Son, but didst deliver Him up for us wicked ones! [Rom. 8:32.] O how Thou hast loved us, for whom He, who thought it not robbery to be equal with Thee, “became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” [Phil. 2:8]. He alone, “free among the dead” [Psalm 88:5], that had power to lay down His life, and power to take it again [John 10:18]; for us was He unto Thee both victor and the victim, and the victor became the victim; for He was unto Thee both priest and sacrifice, and priest because sacrifice; making us from being slaves to become Thy sons, by being born of Thee, and by serving us. Rightly, then, is my strong hope in Him, because Thou didst cure all my diseases by Him who sitteth at Thy right hand and maketh intercession for us [Rom. 8:34]; else should I utterly despair. For numerous and great are my infirmities, yea numerous and great are they; but Thy medicine is greater. We might think that Thy word was removed from union with man and despair of ourselves had not He been “made flesh and dwelt among us” [John 1:14].

(c) Augustine, De Civitate dei, XIII, 3, 14. (MSL, 41:378; 86.)

The Fall of Man and Original Sin.

The City of God is Augustine’s great theodicy, apology, and philosophy of universal history. It was begun shortly after the capture of Rome, and the author was engaged upon it from 413 to 426. It was the source whence the mediæval ecclesiastics drew their theoretical justification for the curialistic principles of the relation of State and Church, and at the same time the one work of St. Augustine that Gibbon the historian regarded highly. For an analysis see Presensée, art. “Augustine” in DCB.

Compare the position of Augustine with the following passage from St. Ambrose, On the Death of Satyrus, II, 6, “Death is alike to all, without difference for the poor, without exception for the rich. And so although through the sin of one alone, yet it passed upon all; … In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of paradise. In Adam I died; how shall the Lord call me back, except He find me in Adam; guilty as I was in him, so now justified in Christ.” [MSL, 16:1374.]

The first men would not have suffered death if they had not sinned.… But having become sinners they were so punished with death, that whatsoever sprang from their stock should also be punished with the same death. For nothing else could be born of them than what they themselves had been. The condemnation changed their nature for the worse in proportion to the greatness of their sin, so that what was before as punishment in the man who had first sinned, followed as of nature in others who were born.… In the first man, therefore, the whole human nature was to be transmitted by the woman to posterity when that conjugal union received the divine sentence of its own condemnation; and what man was made, not when he was created but when he sinned, and was punished, this he propagated, so far as the origin of sin and death are concerned.

Ch. 14. For God, the author of natures, not of vices, created man upright; but man, being by his own will corrupt and justly condemned, begot corrupted and condemned children. For we were all in that one man when we were all that one man, who fell into sin by the woman who had been made from him before the sin. For not yet was the particular form created and distributed to us, in which we as individuals were to live; but already the seminal nature was there from which we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and bound by the chain of death, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man in any other state. And thus from the bad use of free will, there originated a whole series of evils, which with its train of miseries conducts the human race from its depraved origin, as from a corrupt root, on to the destruction of the second death, which has no end, those only being excepted who are freed by the grace of God.

(d) Augustine, De Correptione et Gratia, 2. (MSL, 44:917.)

Grace and Free Will.

Now the Lord not only shows us what evil we should shun, and what good we should do, which is all the letter of the law can do; but moreover He helps us that we may shun evil and do good [Psalm 37:27], which none can do without the spirit of grace; and if this be wanting, the law is present merely to make us guilty and to slay us. It is on this account that the Apostle says: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” [II Cor. 3:6]. He, then, who lawfully uses the law, learns therein evil and good, and not trusting in his own strength, flees to grace, by the help of which he may shun evil and do good. But who flees to grace except when “the steps of a man are ordered by the Lord, and He wills his ways”? [Psalm 37:23.] And thus also to desire the help of grace is the beginning of grace.… It is to be confessed, therefore, that we have free choice to do both evil and good; but in doing evil every one is free from righteousness and is a servant of sin, while in doing good no one can be free, unless he have been made free by Him who said: “If the Son shall make you free, then you shall be free indeed” [John 8:36]. Neither is it thus, that when any one shall have been made free from the dominion of sin, he no longer needs the help of his Deliverer; but rather thus, that hearing from Him, “Without me ye can do nothing” [John 15:5], he himself also says to Him: “Be Thou my helper! Forsake me not!”

(e) Augustine, De Civitate dei, XV, 1. (MSL, 41:437.)

Predestination.

Inasmuch as all men are born condemned, and of themselves have not the power to turn to grace, which alone can save them, it follows that the bestowal of grace whereby they may turn is not dependent upon the man but upon God’s sovereign good pleasure. This is expressed in the doctrine of Predestination. For a discussion of the position of Augustine respecting Predestination and his other doctrines as connected with it, see J. B. Mozley, A Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, 1873, a book of great ability. Cf. also Tixeront, History of Dogmas, vol. II.

I trust that we have already done justice to these great and difficult questions regarding the beginning of the world, of the soul, and of the human race itself. This race we have distributed into two parts: the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. And these we have also mystically called the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil.…

Each man, because born of condemned stock, is first of all born from Adam, evil and carnal, and when he has been grafted into Christ by regeneration he afterward becomes good and spiritual. So in the human race, as a whole, when these two cities began to run their course by a series of births and deaths, the citizen of this world was born first, and after him the stranger of this world, and belonging to the City of God,168 predestined by grace, elected by grace, by grace a stranger here below, and by grace a citizen above. For so far as regards himself he is sprung from the same mass, all of which is condemned in its origin; but God like a potter (for this comparison is introduced by the Apostle judiciously and not without thought) of the same lump made one vessel to honor and another to dishonor [Rom. 9:21].

(f) Augustine, De Correptione et Gratia, Chs. 23 (9), 39 (13). (MSL, 44:930, 940.)

Ch. 23 (9). Whosoever, therefore, in God’s most providential ordering are foreknown [præsciti] and predestinated, called justified, glorified—I say not, even though not yet born again, but even though not yet born at all—are already children of God, and absolutely cannot perish.… From Him, therefore, is given also perseverance in good even to the end; for it is not given except to those who will not perish, since they who do not persevere will perish.169

Ch. 39 (13). I speak of those who are predestinated to the kingdom of God, whose number is so certain that no one can either be added to them or taken from them; not of those who when He had announced and spoken, were multiplied beyond number [Psalm 40:6]. For these may be said to be called [vocati] but not chosen [electi], because they are not called according to purpose.170

(g) Augustine, Enchiridion, 100. (MSL, 40:279.)

Twofold Predestination.

Augustine does not commonly speak of predestination of the wicked, i.e., those who are not among the elect and consequently predestinated to grace and salvation. As a rule he speaks of predestination in connection with the saints, those who are saved. But that he, with perfect consistency, regarded the wicked as also predestinated is shown by the following, as also other passages in his works, e.g., City of God, XV, 1 (v. supra), XXII, ch. 24:5. This point has a bearing in connection with the controversy on predestination in the ninth century, in which Gottschalk reasserted the theory of a double predestination.

These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all His good pleasure [Psalm 111:2], and wisely sought out, that when the angelic and the human creature sinned, that is, did not do what He willed but what the creature itself willed, so by the will of the creature, by which was done what the Creator did not will, He carried out what He himself willed; the supremely Good thus turning to account even what is evil; to the condemnation of those whom He has justly predestinated to punishment and to the salvation of those whom He has mercifully predestinated to grace.

(h) Augustine, De Civitate dei, XVI, 2. (MSL, 41:479.)

Augustine’s theory of allegorical interpretation.

Augustine had been repelled by the literal interpretation of the Scriptures and turned to the Manichæans who rejected the Old Testament. Confessions, III, 5. From Ambrose he learned the “mystical” or allegorical method of interpreting the Old Testament, cf. Confessions, VI, 4. With Augustine’s theory, treated at length, especially in his De Doctrina Christiana, Bk. 3, should be compared Origen’s in De Principiis, IV, 9-15. See above, § 43, b.

These secrets of the divine Scriptures we investigate as we can;171 some in more, some in less agreement, but all faithfully holding it as certain that these things were neither done nor recorded without some foreshadowing of future events, and that they are to be referred only to Christ and His Church, which is the City of God, the proclamation of which has not ceased since the beginning of the human race; and we now see it everywhere accomplished. From the blessing of the two sons of Noah and from the cursing of the middle son, down to Abraham, for more than a thousand years, there is no mention of any righteous person who worshipped God. I would not, therefore, believe that there were none, but to mention every one would have been very long, and there would have been historical accuracy rather than prophetic foresight. The writer of these sacred books, or rather the Spirit of God through him, sought for those things by which not only the past might be narrated, but the future foretold, which pertained to the City of God; for whatever is said of these men who are not its citizens is given either that it may profit or be made glorious by a comparison with what is different. Yet it is not to be supposed that all that is recorded has some signification; but those things which have no signification of their own are interwoven for the sake of the things which are significant. Only by the ploughshare is the earth cut in furrows; but that this may be, other parts of the plough are necessary. Only the strings of the harp and other musical instruments are fitted to give forth a melody; but that they may do so, there are other parts of the instrument which are not, indeed, struck by those who sing, but with them are connected the strings which are struck and produce musical notes. So in prophetic history some things are narrated which have no significance, but are, as it were, the framework to which the significant things are attached.

(i) Augustine, Enchiridion, 109, 110. (MSL, 40:283.)

Augustine in his teaching combined a number of different theological tendencies, without working them into a consistent system. His doctrines of Original Sin, Predestination, Grace are by no means harmonized with his position regarding the Church and the sacraments in which he builds upon the foundation laid in the West, especially by Optatus. See below, § 83. There is also a no small remnant of what might be called pre-Augustinian Western piety, which comes down from Tertullian and of which the following is an illustration, a passage which is of significance in the development of the doctrine of purgatory. Cf. Tertullian, De Monogamia, ch. 10. See above, § 39.

§ 109. The time, moreover, which intervenes between a man’s death and the final resurrection, keeps the soul in a hidden retreat, as each is deserving of rest or affliction, according to what its lot was when it lived in the flesh.

§ 110. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead are benefited by the piety of their living friends, when the sacrifice of the Mediator is offered, or alms given in the Church in their behalf. But these services are of advantage only to those who during their lives merited that services of this kind could help them. For there is a manner of life which is neither so good as not to require these services after death, nor so bad that these services are of no avail after death. There is, on the other hand, a kind of life so good as not to require them; and again one so bad that when they depart this life they render no help. Therefore it is here that all the merit and demerit is acquired, by which one can either be relieved or oppressed after death. No one, then, need hope that after he is dead he shall obtain the merit with God which he had neglected here. And, accordingly, those services which the Church celebrates for the commendation of the dead are not opposed to the Apostle’s words: “For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” [Rom. 14:10; II Cor. 5:10]. For that merit that renders services profitable to a man, each one has acquired while he lives in the body. For it is not to every one that these services are profitable. And why are they not profitable to all, except it be because of the different kinds of lives that men lead in the body? When, therefore, sacrifices either of the altar or of alms of any sort are offered on behalf of the dead who have been baptized, they are thanksgivings for the very good; they are propitiations [propitiationes] for the not very bad; and for the case of the very bad, even though they do not assist the dead, they are a species of consolation to the living. And to those to whom they are profitable, their benefit consists either in full remission of sins, or at least in making the condemnation more tolerable.

§ 83. Augustine and the Donatist Schism

After the recall of the Donatists by the Emperor Julian, the sect rapidly increased, though soon numerous divisions appeared in the body. The more liberal opinions of the Donatist grammarian Tychonius about 370 were adopted by many of the less fanatical. The connection of the party with the Circumcellions alienated others. The contest for rigorism led by Maximianus about 394 occasioned a schism within the Donatist body.

Augustine’s activity in the Donatist troubles began as soon as he was made bishop of Hippo, as his town was made up largely of Donatists, who probably constituted more than a half of the population. The books written by him after 400 have alone survived.

The turning-point in the history of Donatism was the Collatio, or conference, held at Carthage in 411. Two hundred and seventy-nine Donatist, and two hundred and eighty-six Catholic, bishops were present. Augustine was one of those who represented the Catholic position. The victory was adjudged by the imperial commissioners to the Catholic party. After this the laws against the sect were enforced relentlessly, and Donatism rapidly lost its importance. The Vandal invasion in 429 changed the condition of things for a time. The last traces of Donatism disappear only with the Moslem invasion in the seventh century.

The importance of the Donatist controversy is that in it were defined the doctrines of the Church and of the sacraments, definitions which, with some modifications, controlled the theology of the Church for centuries.

(a) Optatus, De Schismate Donatistarum, II, 1-3. (MSL, 11:941.)

The unity of the Catholic Church.

Ch. 1. The next thing to do … is to show that there is one Church which Christ called a dove and a bride. Therefore the Church is one, the sanctity of which is derived from the sacraments; and it is not valued according to the pride of persons. Therefore this one dove Christ also calls his beloved bride. This cannot be among heretics and schismatics.… You have said, brother Parmenianus, that it is with you alone … among you in a small part of Africa, in the corner of a small region, but among us in another part of Africa will it not be? In Spain, in Gaul, in Italy, where you are not, will it not be?… And through so many innumerable islands and other provinces, which can scarcely be numbered, will it not be? Wherein then will be the propriety of the Catholic name, since it is called Catholic, because it is reasonable172 and everywhere diffused?

Ch. 2. I have proved that that is the Catholic Church, which spread throughout the whole world, and now are its ornaments to be recalled; and it is to be seen where the first five gifts [i.e., notes of the Church] are, which you say are six. Among these the first is the cathedra, and unless a bishop, who is the angel [the second gift or note according to the Donatists], sit in it, no other gift can be joined. It is to be seen who first placed a see and where.… You cannot deny that in the city of Rome the episcopal cathedra was first placed by Peter, and in it sat Peter, the head of all the Apostles, wherefore he is called Cephas, so that in that one cathedra unity is preserved by all, that the other Apostles might not claim each one for himself a cathedra; so that he is a schismatic and a sinner who against that one cathedra sets up another.

Ch. 3. Therefore Peter first sat in that single cathedra, which is the first gift of the Church, to him succeeded Linus … to Damasus, Siricius, who is our contemporary, with whom the world together with us agree in one fellowship of communion by the interchange of letters. Recite the origin of your cathedra, you who would claim for yourself the Holy Church [cf. Tertullian, De Præscriptione, c. 32].

(b) Optatus, De Schismate Donatistarum, V, 4. (MSL, 11:1051.)

The validity of sacraments is not dependent on the character of those who minister them. With this should be compared Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani Donatistæ, II, 38-91, and the treatise De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem, which is little more than a working out in a thousand variations of this theme.

In celebrating this sacrament of baptism there are three things which you can neither increase, diminish, nor omit. The first is the Trinity, the second the believer, and the third the minister.… The first two remain ever immutable and unmoved. The Trinity is always the same, the faith in each is one. But the person of him who ministers is clearly not equal to the first two points, in that it alone is mutable.… For it is not one man who always and everywhere baptizes. In this work there were formerly others, and now others still, and again there will be others; those who minister may be changed, the sacraments cannot be changed. Since therefore you see that they who baptize are ministers and are not lords, and the sacraments are holy in themselves, not on account of men, why is it that you claim so much for yourselves? Why is it that you endeavor to exclude God from His gifts? Permit God to be over the things which are His. For that gift cannot be performed by a man because it is divine. If you think it can be so bestowed, you render void the words of the prophets and the promises of God, by which it is proved that God washes, not man.

(c) Augustine, De Baptismo Contra Donatistas, IV, 17 (§ 24). (MSL, 43:169.)

Baptism without the Church valid but unprofitable.

Augustine, as opposing the Donatists and agreeing with the Catholic Church, asserted the validity of baptism when conferred by one outside the communion of the Church. It was notorious that Cyprian and the Council of Carthage, A. D. 258 [see ANF, vol. V., pp. 565 ff.; cf. Hefele, § 6], had held an opposite opinion. As Cyprian was the great teacher of North Africa, and in the highest place in the esteem of all, Augustine was forced to make “distinctions.” This he did in his theory as to the validity of baptism as in the following passage. The Sixth Book of the same treatise is composed of a statement of the bishops at the Council of Carthage, and Augustine’s answer to each statement.

“Can the power of baptism,” says Cyprian, “be greater than confession, than martyrdom, that a man should confess Christ before men, and be baptized in his own blood, and yet,” he says, “neither does this baptism profit the heretic, even though for confessing Christ he be put to death outside the Church.” This is most true; for by being put to death outside the Church, he is proved not to have had that charity of which the Apostle says: “Though I give my body to be burned and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing” [I Cor. 13:3]. But if martyrdom is of no avail for the reason that charity is lacking, neither does it profit those who, as Paul says, and Cyprian further sets forth, are living within the Church without charity, in envy and malice; and yet they can both receive and transmit true baptism. “Salvation,” he says, “is not without the Church.” Who denies this? And therefore whatever men have that belongs to the Church, outside the Church it profits them nothing toward salvation. But it is one thing not to have, another to have it but to no use. He who has it not must be baptized that he may have it; he who has to no use must be corrected, that what he has he may have to some use. Nor is the water in baptism “adulterous,” because neither is the creature itself, which God made, evil, nor is the fault to be found in the words of the Gospel in the mouths of any who are astray; but the fault is theirs in whom there is an adulterous spirit, even though it may receive the adornment of the sacrament from a lawful spouse. It therefore can be true that baptism is “common to us and to the heretics,” since the Gospel can be common to us, although their error differs from our faith; whether they think otherwise than the truth about the Father or Son or the Holy Spirit; or, being cut away from unity, do not gather with Christ, but scatter abroad, because it is possible that the sacrament of baptism can be common to us if we are the wheat of the Lord with the covetous within the Church and with robbers and drunkards and other pestilent persons, of whom it is said, “They shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” and yet the vices by which they are separated from the kingdom of God are not shared by us.

(d) Augustine, Ep. 98, Ad Bonifatium. (MSL, 33:363.)

Relation of the sacrament to that of which it is the sign. Sacraments are effective if no hinderance is placed to their working.

On Easter Sunday we say, “This day the Lord rose from the dead,” although so many years have passed since His resurrection.… The event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that when a man is questioned and answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, does he not declare what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. [Augustine’s general definition of a sacrament is that it is a sign of a sacred thing.] In most cases, moreover, they do, in virtue of this likeness, bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As therefore in a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of faith is faith.… Now, believing is nothing else than having faith; and accordingly, when on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that he has faith because of the sacrament of faith, and in like manner the answer is made that he turns himself toward God because of the sacrament of conversion, since the answer itself belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. Thus the Apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of baptism: “We are buried with Christ by baptism into death.” He does not say, “We have signified our being buried with Him,” but: “We have been buried with Him.” He has therefore given to the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word describing the transaction itself.

10. Therefore an infant, although he is not yet a believer in the sense of having that faith which includes the consenting will of those who exercise it, nevertheless becomes a believer through the sacrament of that faith.… The infant, though not yet possessing a faith helped by the understanding, is not obstructing173 faith by an antagonism of the understanding, and therefore receives with profit the sacrament of faith.

(e) Augustine, De Correctione Donatistarum, §§ 22 Ff. (MSL, 33:802.)

The argument in favor of using force to compel the Donatists to return to the Church.

Augustine in the early part of the Donatist controversy was not in favor of using force. Like the others, e.g., Optatus, he denied that force had been employed by the Church. About 404 the situation changed, and his opinion did likewise. This work, known also as Epistle CLXXXV, was written circa 417. Compare Augustine’s position with the statement of Jerome, “Piety for God is not cruelty,” cf. Hagenbach, History of Christian Doctrines, § 135:7. The Donatists had much injured their position by their treatment of a party which had produced a schism in their own body, the Maximianists.

§ 22. Who can love us more than Christ who laid down His life for the sheep? And yet, after calling Peter and the other Apostles by His word alone, in the case of Paul, formerly Saul, the great builder of His Church, but previously its cruel persecutor, He not only constrained him with His voice, but even dashed him to the earth with His power.… Where is what they [the Donatists] are accustomed to cry: “To believe or not to believe is a matter that is free”? Toward whom did Christ use violence? Whom did He compel? Here they have the Apostle Paul. Let them recognize in his case Christ’s first compelling and afterward teaching; first striking and afterward consoling. For it is wonderful how he who had been compelled by bodily punishment entered into the Gospel and afterward labored more in the Gospel than all they who were called by word only; and the greater fear compelled him toward love, that perfect love which casts out fear.

§ 23. Why, therefore, should not the Church compel her lost sons to return if the lost sons compelled others to perish? Although even men whom they have not compelled but only led astray, their loving mother embraces with more affection if they are recalled to her bosom through the enforcement of terrible but salutary laws, and are the objects of far more deep congratulation than those whom she has never lost. Is it not a part of the care of the shepherd, when any sheep have left the flock, even though not violently forced away, but led astray by soft words and by coaxings, and they have begun to be possessed by strangers, to bring them back to the fold of his master when he has found them, by the terrors or even the pains of the whip, if they wish to resist; especially since, if they multiply abundantly among the fugitive slaves and robbers, he has the more right in that the mark of the master is recognized on them, which is not outraged in those whom we receive but do not baptize?174 So indeed is the error of the sheep to be corrected that the sign of the Redeemer shall not be marred. For if any one is marked with the royal stamp by a deserter, who has himself been marked with it, and they receive forgiveness, and the one returns to his service, and the other begins to be in the service in which he had not yet been, that mark is not effaced in either of them, but rather it is recognized in both, and approved with due honor because it is the king’s. Since they cannot show that that is bad to which they are compelled,175 they maintained that they ought not to be compelled to the good. But we have shown that Paul was compelled by Christ; therefore the Church in compelling the Donatists is following the example of her Lord, though in the first instance she waited in hopes of not having to compel any, that the prediction might be fulfilled concerning the faith of kings and peoples.

§ 24. For in this sense also we may interpret without absurdity the apostolic declaration when the blessed Apostle Paul says: “Being ready to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled” [II Cor. 10:6]. Whence also the Lord himself bids the guests to be brought first to His great supper, and afterward compelled; for when His servants answered Him, “Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room,” He said to them: “Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in” [Luke 14:22, 23]. In those, therefore, who were first brought in with gentleness the former obedience is fulfilled, but in those who were compelled the disobedience is avenged. For what else is the meaning of “Compel them to come in,” after it had previously been said, “Bring in,” and the answer was: “Lord, it is done as Thou commandest, and yet there is room”? Wherefore if by the power which the Church has received by divine appointment in its due season, through the religious character and faith of kings, those who are found in the highways and hedges—that is, in heresies and schisms—are compelled to come in, then let them not find fault because they are compelled, but consider to what they are so compelled. The supper of the Lord, the unity, is of the body of Christ, not only in the sacrament of the altar but also in the bond of peace.

(f) Augustine, Contra Epistulam Parmeniani, II, 13 (29). (MSL, 43:71.)

Indelibility of baptism.

Parmenianus was the Donatist bishop who succeeded Donatus in the see of Carthage. The letter here answered was written to Tychonius, a leading Donatist. In it Parmenianus calls the Church defiled because it contained unworthy members. The answer of Augustine was written in 400, many years later.

If any one, either a deserter or one who has never served as a soldier, signs any private person with the military mark, would not he who has signed be punished as a deserter, when he has been arrested, and so much the more severely as it could be proved that he had never at all served as a soldier, and at the same time along with him would not the most impudent giver of the sign, be punished if he have surrendered him? Or perchance he takes no military service, but is afraid of the military mark [character] in his body, and he betakes himself to the clemency of the Emperor, and when he has poured forth prayers and obtained forgiveness, he then begins to undertake military service, when the man has been liberated and corrected is that mark [character] ever repeated, and not rather is he not recognized and approved? Would the Christian sacraments by chance be less enduring than this bodily mark, since we see that apostates do not lack baptism, and to them it is never given again when they return by means of penitence, and therefore it is judged not possible to lose it.

(g) Augustine, Contra Epistulam Manichæi, Ch. 4 (5). (MSL, 42:175.) Cf. Mirbt, N. 132

Authority of the Catholic Church.

This work, written in 396 or 397, is important in this connection as showing the place the Catholic Church took in the mind of Augustine as an authority and the nature of that authority.

Not to speak of that wisdom which you [the Manichæans] do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of people and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of Peter the Apostle, to whom the Lord after His resurrection gave it in charge to feed His sheep down to the present episcopate. And so lastly does the name itself of Catholic, which not without reason, amid so many heresies, that Church alone has so retained that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets no heretic will venture to point to his own basilica or house. Since then so many and so great are the very precious ties belonging to the Christian name which rightly keep a man who is a believer in the Catholic Church … no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.

Let us see what Manichæus teaches us; and in particular let us examine that treatise which you call the Fundamental Epistle in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it, we were called by you enlightened. The epistle begins: “Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.” Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe that he is an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. You know that it is my rule not to believe without consideration anything offered by you. “Wherefore I ask, who is this Manichæus?” You reply, “An apostle of Christ.” I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give me knowledge of the truth, and you force me to believe something I do not know. Perhaps you will read the Gospel to me, and from it you will attempt to defend the person of Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the Gospel, what could you reply to him if he said to you: “I do not believe”? For my part I should not believe the Gospel except the authority of the Catholic Church moved me. So then I have assented to them when they say to me, “Believe the Gospel”; why should I not assent to them saying to me: “Do not believe the Manichæans”?

§ 84. The Pelagian Controversy

The Pelagian controversy, in which the characteristic teaching of Augustine found its best expression, may be divided into three periods. In the first period, beginning about 411, Pelagius and Cælestius, who had been teaching at Rome unmolested since 400 and had come to Carthage, probably on account of the barbarian attack upon Rome, are opposed at Carthage, and six propositions attributed to Cælestius are condemned at a council there, where he attempted to be ordained. Cælestius leaves for the East and is ordained at Ephesus, 412, and Pelagius soon after follows him. In the second period, 415-417, the controversy is in the East as well as in the West, as Augustine by letters to Jerome gave warning about Pelagius, and councils are held at Jerusalem and Diospolis, where Pelagius is acquitted of heresy. This was probably due as much to the general sympathy of the Eastern theologians with his doctrine as to any alleged misrepresentation by Pelagius. But in North Africa synods are also held condemning Pelagius, and their findings are approved by Innocent of Rome. But Pelagius and Cælestius send confessions of faith to Zosimus (417-418), Innocent’s successor, who reproves the Africans and acquits Pelagius and Cælestius as entirely sound. In the third period, 417-431, the attack on Pelagius is taken up at Rome itself by some of the clergy, and an imperial edict is obtained against the Pelagians. Zosimus changes his opinion and approves the findings of a general council called at Carthage in 418, in which the doctrines of original sin and the need of grace are asserted. The last act of the controversy in its earlier form, after the deposition of the leading Pelagians, among them Julian, of Eclanum, their theologian, is the condemnation of Pelagius at the Council of Ephesus, in 431. V. infra, § 89.

Additional source material: See A. Bruckner, Quellen zur Geschichte des pelagianischen Streites (in Latin), in Krüger’s Quellenschriften, Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1906. The principal works of Augustine bearing on the Pelagian controversy may be found in PNF, ser. I, vol. V.

(a) Augustine, Ep. 146, Ad Pelagium. (MSL, 33:596.)

This was probably written before the controversy. As to its use later, see Augustine, De gestis Pelagii, chs. 51 (26) f. (PNF)

I thank you very much that you have been so kind as to make me glad by your letter informing me of your welfare. May the Lord recompense you with those blessings that you forever be good and may live eternally with Him who is eternal, my lord greatly beloved and brother greatly longed for. Although I do not acknowledge that anything in me deserves the eulogies which the letter of your benevolence contains about me, I cannot, however, be ungrateful for the good-will therein manifested toward one so insignificant, while suggesting at the same time that you should rather pray for me that I may be made by the Lord such as you suppose me already to be.

(b) Augustine. De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione et De Baptismo Parvulorum. (MSL, 44:185, 188.)

Augustine’s testimony as to the character of Pelagius.

This work was written in 412, after the condemnation of Cælestius at Carthage. It was the first in the series of polemical writings against the teaching of Pelagius. The first book is especially important as a statement of Augustine’s position as to the nature of justifying grace.

It should be recalled that Pelagius was a monk of exemplary life, and a zealous preacher of morality. It may be said that in him the older moralistic tendency in theology was embodied in opposition to the new religious spirit of Augustine. Cf. Bruckner, op. cit., n. 4.

III. 1. However, within the last few days I have read some writings of Pelagius, a holy man, as I hear, who has made no small progress in the Christian life, and these writings contain very brief expositions of the Epistles of Paul the Apostle.176

III. 3. But we must not omit that this good and praiseworthy man (as they who know him describe him as being) has not advanced this argument against the natural transmission of sin in his own person.

(c) Pelagius, Fragments, in Augustine’s De Gratia Christi et De Peccato Originali. (MSL, 44:364, 379.)

The teaching of Pelagius can be studied not only in his opponent’s statements but in his own words. These are to be found in his commentary (see note to previous selection), and also in fragments found in Augustine’s writings and several minor pieces (see below).

I. 7. Very ignorant persons think that we do wrong in this matter to divine grace, because we say that it by no means perfects sanctity in us without our will: as if God could impose any commands upon His grace and would not supply also the help of His grace to those to whom He has given commands, so that men might more easily accomplish through grace what they are required to do by their free will. And this grace we do not for our part, as you suppose, allow to consist merely in the law, but also in the help of God. God helps us by His teaching and revelation when He opens the eyes of our heart; when He points out to us the future, that we may not be absorbed in the present; when He discovers to us the snares of the devil; when He enlightens us with manifold and ineffable gifts of heavenly grace. Does the man who says this appear to you to be a denier of grace? Does he not acknowledge both man’s free will and God’s grace?

I. 39. Speaking of the text Rom. 7:23: “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”

Now what you [i.e., Augustine, whom he is addressing] wish us to understand of the Apostle himself, all Church writers assert that he spoke in the person of the sinner, and of one still under the law, who by reason of very long custom of vice was held bound, as it were, by a certain necessity of sinning, and who, although he desired good with his will in practice, indeed, was driven into evil. In the person, however, of one man the Apostle designates the people who sinned still under the ancient law, and this people, he declares, are to be delivered from this evil of custom through Christ, who first of all remits all sins in baptism, to those who believe on Him, and then by an imitation of Himself incites them to perfect holiness, and by the example of virtues overcomes the evil custom of sins.

(d) Pelagius, Epistula Ad Demetriadem. (MSL, 33:1100 Ff.)

This epistle, from which selections are given, was written probably about 412 or 413. As it gives a statement of the teaching of Pelagius in his own words, it is of especial historical interest. Demetrias was a virgin, and probably under the spiritual direction of Pelagius, though little is known of her. Text in Bruckner, op. cit., n. 56.

Ch. 2. As often as I have to speak of the principles of virtue and a holy life, I am accustomed first of all to call attention to the capacity and character of human nature, and to show what it is able to accomplish; then from this to arouse the feelings of the hearer, that he may strive after different kinds of virtue, that he may permit himself to be roused to acts which perhaps he had regarded as impossible. For we are quite unable to travel the way of virtue if hope does not accompany us. For all attempts to accomplish anything cease if one is in doubt whether he will attain the goal. This order of exhortation I follow in other minor writings and in this case also. I believe it must be kept especially in mind where the good of nature needs to be set forth the more in detail as the life is to be more perfectly formed, that the spirit may not be more neglectful and slow in its striving after virtue, as it believes itself to have the less ability, and when it is ignorant of what is within it, think that it does not possess it.

Ch. 3. One must be careful to see to it that … one does not think that a man is not made good because he can do evil and is not compelled to an immutable necessity of doing good through the might of nature. For if you diligently consider it and turn your mind to the subtler understanding of the matter, the better and superior position of man will appear in that from which his inferior condition was inferred. But just in this freedom in either direction, in this liberty toward either side, is placed the glory of our rational nature. Therein, I say, consists the entire honor of our nature, therein its dignity; from this the very good merit praise, from this their reward. For there would be for those who always remain good no virtue if they had not been able to have chosen the evil. For since God wished to present to the rational creature the gift of voluntary goodness and the power of the free will, by planting in man the possibility of turning himself toward either side, He made His special gift the ability to be what he would be in order that he, being capable of good and evil, could do either and could turn his will to either of them.

Ch. 8. We defend the advantage of nature not in the sense that we say it cannot do evil, since we declare that it is capable of good and evil; we only protect it from reproach. It should not appear as if we were driven to evil by a disease of nature, we who do neither good nor bad without our will, and to whom there is always freedom to do one of two things, since always we are able to do both.… Nothing else makes it difficult for us to do good than long custom of sinning which has infected us since we were children, and has gradually corrupted us for many years, so that afterward it holds us bound to it and delivered over to it, so that it almost seems as if it had the same force as nature.

If before the Law, as we are told, and long before the appearance of the Redeemer, various persons can be named who lived just and holy lives, how much more after His appearance must we believe that we are able to do the same, we who have been taught through Christ’s grace, and born again to be better men; and we who by His blood have been reconciled and purified, and by His example incited to more perfect righteousness, ought to be better than they who were before the Law, better than they who were under the law.

(e) Marius Mercator, Commonitorium Super Nomine Cælestii, Ch. 1. (MSL, 48:67.) Cf. Kirch, Nn. 737 Ff

The Council of Carthage and the opinions of Cælestius condemned at that council, 411.

Marius Mercator, a friend and supporter of Augustine, was one of the most determined opponents of Pelagianism, as also of Nestorianism. His dates are not well determined. In 418 he sent works to Augustine to be examined by the latter, and he seems to have lived until after the Council of Chalcedon, 451. The work from which the selection is taken was written, 429, in Greek, and translated and republished in Latin, 431 or 432. With the following should be compared Augustine’s De Gratia Christi et Peccato Originali, II, 2f., and Ep. 175:6; 157:3, 22.

A certain Cælestius, a eunuch from his mother’s womb, a disciple and auditor of Pelagius, left Rome about twenty years ago and came to Carthage, the metropolis of all Africa, and there he was accused of the following heads before Aurelius, bishop of that city, by a complaint from a certain Paulinus, a deacon of Bishop Ambrose of Milan, of sacred memory, as the record of the acts stands in which the same complaint is inserted (a copy of the acts of the council we have in our hands) that he not only taught this himself, but also sent in different directions throughout the provinces those who agreed with him to disseminate among the people these things, that is:

1. Adam was made mortal and would have died whether he had sinned or had not sinned.

2. The sin of Adam injured himself alone, and not the human race.

3. New-born children are in that state in which Adam was before his fall.

4. Neither by the death and sin of Adam does the whole race die, nor by the resurrection of Christ does the whole race rise.

5. The Law leads to the kingdom of heaven as well as the Gospel.

6. Even before the coming of the Lord there were men without sin.

(f) Pelagius. Confessio Fidei. (MSL, 45:1716 F.) Hahn, § 209

The confession of faith addressed to Innocent of Rome, but actually laid before Zosimus, in 417, consists of an admirably orthodox statement of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the incarnation, an expansion of the Nicene formula with reference to perversions of the faith by various heretics, and in conclusion a statement of Pelagius’s own opinions regarding free will, grace, and sin. It is due to the irony of history that it should have been found among the works of both Jerome and Augustine, long passed current as a composition of Augustine, Sermo CCXXXVI, and should have been actually quoted by the Sorbonne, in 1521, in its articles against Luther. It also appears in the Libri Carolini, III, 1, as an orthodox exposition of the faith. The passages which bear upon the characteristic Pelagian doctrine are here given. Fragments of the confessions of other Pelagians, e.g., Cælestius, and Julius of Eclanum, are found in Hahn, §§ 210 and 211. For the proceedings in the East, see Hefele, § 118.

We hold that there is one baptism, which we assert is to be administered to children in the same words of the sacrament as it is administered to adults.…

We execrate also the blasphemy of those who say that anything impossible to do is commanded man by God, and the commands of God can be observed, not by individuals but by all in common, also those who with the Manichæans condemn first marriages or with the Cataphrygians condemn second marriages.… We so confess the will is free that we say that we always need the aid of God, and they err who with the Manichæans assert that man cannot avoid sins as well as those who with Jovinan say that man cannot sin; for both take away the liberty of the will. But we say that man can both sin and not sin, so that we confess that we always have free will.

(g) Augustine, Sermo 131. (MSL, 38:734.) Cf. Kirch, N. 672

Causa finita est.

Late in 416 synods were held in Carthage and Mileve condemning Pelagianism. On January 27, 417, Innocent wrote to the Africans, approving their councils and condemning Pelagianism, incidentally stating the supreme authority of the Roman See and requiring that nothing should ever be definitively settled without consulting the Apostolic See (text of passage in Denziger. ed. 1911, n. 100). September 23 of the same year, about the time when Pelagius and Cælestius were at Rome with Zosimus seeking to rehabilitate themselves in the West, Augustine delivered a sermon in which he made the following statement. It is the basis of the famous phrase Roma locuta, causa finita est, a saying which is apocryphal, however, and not found in the works of Augustine.

What, therefore, is said concerning the Jews, that we see in them [i.e., the Pelagians]. They have the zeal for God; I bear witness, that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Why is it not according to knowledge? Because, being ignorant of the justice of God and wishing to establish their own, they are not subject to the righteousness of God [Rom. 10:2 f.]. My brethren, have patience with me.

When you find such, do not conceal them, let there be not false mercy in you. Most certainly when you find such, do not conceal them. Refute those contradicting, and those resisting bring to me. For already two councils about this case have been sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come. The case has been ended; would that the error might some time end! Therefore let us warn them that they pay attention; let us teach them that they may be instructed; let us pray that they may be changed.

(h) Zosimus, III Ep. ad Episcopos Africæ de causa Cælestii A. D. 417. (MSL, 45:1721.) Cf. Bruckner, op. cit., n. 28.

Fragments of his later Epistula tractoria together with other letters may be found in Bruckner, op. cit.

Likewise Pelagius sent letters also containing an extended justification of himself, to which he added a profession of his faith, what he condemned and what he followed, without any dissimulation, so that all subtilities of interpretation might be avoided. There was a public recitation of these. They contained all things like those which Cælestius had previously presented and expressed in the same sense and drawn up in the same thoughts. Would that some of you, dearest brethren, could have been present at the reading of the letters. What was the joy of the holy men who were present; what was the admiration of each of them! Some of them could scarcely restrain themselves from tears and weeping, that such men of absolutely correct faith could have been suspected. Was there a single place in which the grace of God or his aid was omitted?

(i) Council of Carthage, A. D. 418, Canons. Bruns, I, 188

These canons of the Council of Carthage, A. D. 418, were incorporated in the Codex Canon Ecclesiæ Africanæ adopted at the Council of Carthage A. D. 419. The numbers given in brackets are the numbers in that Codex. Interprovincial councils were known in North Africa as “general councils.”

In the consulate of the most glorious emperors, Honorius for the twelfth time and Theodosius for the eighth, on the calends of May, at Carthage in the Secretarium of the Basilica of Faustus, when Bishop Aurelius presided over the general council, the deacons standing by, it pleased all the bishops, whose names and subscriptions are indicated, met together in the holy synod of the church of Carthage:

1 [109]. That whosoever should say that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in the body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because of the desert [or merit] of sin, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

2 [110]. Likewise that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s womb should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which is removed by the layer of regeneration, whence the conclusion follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For not otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin has come into the world,177 and so it passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than as the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith, even infants, who could have committed no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

3 [111]. Likewise, that whoever should say that the grace of God, by which a man is justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for the remission of past sins, and not for assistance against committing sins in the future, let him be anathema.

4 [112]. Also, whoever shall say that the same grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord helps us not to sin only in that by it are revealed to us and opened to our understanding the commandments, so that we may know what to seek, what we ought to avoid, and also that we should love to do so, but that through it we are not helped so that we are able to do what we know we should do, let him be anathema. For when the Apostle says, “Wisdom puffeth up, but charity edifieth,” it were truly infamous were we to believe that we have the grace of Christ for that which puffeth us up, but have it not for that which edifieth, since each is the gift of God, both to know what we ought to do, and to love it so as to do it; so that wisdom cannot puff us up while charity is edifying us. For as it is written of God, “Who teacheth man knowledge,” so also it is written, “Love is of God.”

5 [113]. It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification is given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were commanded to do through our free will; as if when grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spake concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said, “Without me ye can do nothing,” and not “Without me ye can do it but with difficulty.”

6 [114]. It seemed also good that as St. John the Apostle says, “If ye shall say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”; whosoever thinks that this should be so understood as to mean that out of humility we ought to say that we have sin, and not because it is really so, let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to add, “But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity,” where it is sufficiently clear that this is said not only in humility but also in truth. For the Apostle might have said, “If we shall say we have no sins we shall extol ourselves, and humility is not in us”; but when he says, “we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us,” he sufficiently intimates that he who affirmed that he had no sin would speak not that which is true but that which is false.

7 [115]. It has seemed good that whosoever should say that when in the Lord’s Prayer, the saints say, “Forgive us our trespasses,” they say this not for themselves, because they have no need of this petition, but for the rest who are sinners of the people; and that therefore none of the saints can say, “Forgive me my trespasses,” but “Forgive us our trespasses”; so that the just is understood to seek this for others rather than for himself, let him be anathema.

8 [116]. Likewise it seemed good, that whosoever asserts that these words of the Lord’s Prayer when they say, “Forgive us our trespasses,” are said by the saints out of humility and not in truth, let them be anathema.

The following canon, although it seems to have been enacted for the case of Apiarius, is nevertheless often cited in the same connection as the eight against Pelagius, and is therefore given here for the sake of convenience.

18 [125]. Likewise, it seemed good that presbyters, deacons, or other of the lower clergy who are to be tried, if they question the decision of their bishops, the neighboring bishops having been invited by them with the consent of their bishops shall hear them and determine whatever separates them. But should they think that an appeal should be carried from them, let them not carry the appeal except to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. But whoso shall think of carrying an appeal across the seas, shall be admitted to communion by no one in Africa.178

§ 85. Semi-Pelagian Controversy

With the condemnation of Pelagianism the doctrine of Augustine in its logically worked out details was not necessarily approved. The necessity of baptism for the remission of sins in all cases was approved as well as the necessity of grace. The doctrine of predestination, an essential feature in the Augustinian system, was not only not accepted but was vigorously opposed by many who heartily condemned Pelagianism. The ensuing discussion, known as the Semi-Pelagian controversy (427-529), was largely carried on in Gaul, which after the Vandal occupation of North Africa, became the intellectual centre of the Church in the West. The leading opponent of Augustine was John Cassian (ob. 435), abbot of a monastery at Marseilles, hence the term Massilians applied to his party, and his pupil, Vincent of Lerins, author of Commonitorium, written 434. The chief Augustinians were Hilary and Prosper of Aquitaine. The discussion was not continuous. About 475 it broke out again when Lucidus was condemned at a council at Lyons and forced to retract his predestinarian views; and again about 520. The matter received what is regarded as its solution in the Council of Orange, 529, confirmed by Boniface II in 531. By the decrees of this council so much of the Augustinian system as could be combined with the teaching and practice of the Church as to the sacraments was formally approved.

(a) John Cassian. Collationes, XIII. 7 Ff. (MSL, 49:908.)

John Cassian, born about 360, was by birth and education a man of the East, and does not appear in the West until 405, when he went to Rome on some business connected with the exile of Chrysostom, his friend and patron. In 415 he established two monasteries at Marseilles, one for men and the other for women. He had himself been educated as a monk and made a careful study of monasticism in Egypt and Palestine. Western monasticism is much indebted to him for his writings. De Institutis Cœnobiorum and the Collationes. In the former, he describes the monastic system of Palestine and Egypt and the principal vices to which the monastic life is liable; in the latter, divided into three parts, Cassian gives reports or what purports to be reports of conversations he and his friend Germanus had with Egyptian ascetics. These books were very popular during the Middle Ages and exerted a wide influence.

Ch. 7. When His [God’s] kindness sees in us even the very smallest spark of good-will shining forth or which He himself has, as it were, struck out from the hard flints of our hearts, He fans it and fosters it and nurses it with His breath, as He “will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” [I Tim. 2:4].… For He is true and lieth not when He lays down with an oath: “As I live, saith the Lord, I will not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his way and live” [Ezek. 33:11]. For if he willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we think without grievous blasphemy that He willeth not all men universally, but only some instead of all be saved. Those then who perish, perish against His will, as He testifieth against each of them day by day: “Turn from your evil ways for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” [Ezek. 33:11] … The grace of Christ is then at hand every day, which, while it “willeth all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth,” calleth all without exception, saying: “Come all unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest” [Matt. 11:28]. But if he calls not all generally but only some, it follows that not all are heavy laden with either original sin or actual sin, and that this saying is not a true one: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” [Rom. 3:23]; nor can we believe that “death passed on all men” [Rom. 5:12]. And so far do all who perish, perish against the will of God, that God cannot be said to have made death, as the Scripture itself testifieth: “For God made not death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living” [Wisdom 1:13].

Ch. 8. When He sees anything of good-will arisen in us He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on to salvation, giving increase to that which He himself implanted or He sees to have arisen by our own effort.

Ch. 9. … But that it may be still more evident that through the good of nature, which is bestowed by the kindness of the Creator, sometimes the beginnings of a good-will arise, yet cannot come to the completion of virtue unless they are directed by the Lord, the Apostle is a witness, saying: “For to will is present with me, but to perform what is good I find not” [Rom. 7:18].

Ch. 11. … If we say that the beginnings of a good-will are always inspired in us by the grace of God, what shall we say about the faith of Zacchæus, or of the piety of that thief upon the cross, who by their own desire brought violence to bear upon the Kingdom of Heaven, and so anticipated the special leadings of their callings?…

Ch. 12. We should not hold that God made man such that he neither wills nor is able to do good. Otherwise He has not granted him a free will, if He has suffered him only to will or be capable of evil, but of himself neither to will nor be capable of what is good.… It cannot, therefore, be doubted that there are by nature seeds of goodness implanted in every soul by the kindness of the Creator; but unless these are quickened by the assistance of God, they will not be able to attain to an increase of perfection; for, as the blessed Apostle says: “Neither is he that planteth anything nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase” [I Cor. 3:7]. But that freedom of will is to some degree in a man’s power is very clearly taught in the book called The Pastor,179 where two angels are said to be attached to each one of us, i.e. a good and a bad one, while it lies in a man’s own option to choose which to follow. And, therefore, the will always remains free in man, and it can either neglect or delight in the grace of God. For the Apostle would not have commanded, saying, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” [Phil. 2:12], had he not known that it could be advanced or neglected by us.… But that they should not think that they did not need divine aid he adds: “For it is God who worketh in you both to will and accomplish His good pleasure” [Phil. 2:13]. The mercy of the Lord, therefore, goes before the will of man, for it is said, “My God will prevent me with His mercy” [Psalm 59:10], and again, that He may put our desire to the test, our will goes before God who waits, and for our good delays.

(b) Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, Chs. 2, 23, 26, (MSL, 50:659.)

The rule of Catholic verity.

Vincent of Lerins wrote his Commonitorium in 434, three years after the death of Augustine, who had been commended in 432 to the clergy of Gaul by Celestine of Rome [Ep. 21; Denziger, nn. 128-142; Mansi IV, 454 ff.]. Vincent attacked Augustine in his Commonitorium, not openly, but, so far as the work has been preserved, covertly, under the pseudonym of Peregrinus. The work consists of two books, of which the second is lost with the exception of what appear to be some concluding chapters, or a summary taking the place of the book. In the first book he lays down the general principle as to the tests of Catholic truth. In doing so he is careful to point out several cases of very great teachers, renowned for learning, ability, and influence, who, nevertheless, erred against the test of Catholic truth, and brought forward opinions which, on account of their novelty, were false. It is a working out in detail of the principles of the idea of Tertullian in his De Prœscriptione [v. supra, § 27]. The Augustinian doctrines of predestination and grace could not stand the test of the appeal to antiquity. After laying down his test of truth it appears to have been the author’s intention to prove thereby the doctrine of Augustine false. The so-called “Vincentian rule” is often quoted without a thought that it was intended, primarily, as an attack upon Augustine. The Commonitorium may be found translated in PNF, ser. II, vol. XI.

Ch. 2 [4]. I have often inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and, so to speak, universal rule I might be able to distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity, and I have always, and from nearly all, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds of heretics as they arise, or to avoid their snares, and to continue sound and complete in the faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our faith in two ways: first, by the authority of the divine Law, and then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one, perhaps, will ask: Since the canon of Scripture is complete and sufficient for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to add to it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason: because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words one way, another in another way; so that almost as many opinions may be drawn from it as there are men.… Therefore it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies, and of such various errors, that the rule of a right understanding of the prophets and Apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself all possible care should be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For that is truly and properly “Catholic” which, as the name implies and the reason of the thing declares, comprehends all universally. This will be the case if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality in this way, if we confess that one faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in nowise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at least almost all, priests and doctors.

Ch. 23 [59]. The Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds; does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but, while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view—if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and to polish it; if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it; if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it. Finally, what other objects have councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity, should in the future be believed intelligently; that what was before preached coldly, should in the future be preached earnestly; that what before was practised negligently, should henceforth be practised with double solicitude?

Passage referring especially to Augustine.

Ch. 26 [69]. But what do they say? “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down”; that is, “If thou wouldest be a son of God, and wouldest receive the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, cast thyself down; that is, cast thyself down from the doctrine and tradition of that sublime Church, which is imagined to be nothing less than the very temple of God.” And if one should ask one of the heretics who gives this advice: How do you prove it? What ground have you for saying that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? he has only the answer ready: “For it is written”; and forthwith he produces a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law, from the Psalms, from the Apostles, from the prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle, the unhappy soul is precipitated from the height of Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy. Then with the accompanying promises, the heretics are wont marvellously to beguile the incautious. For they dare to teach and promise that in their church, that is, in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special and altogether personal grace of God, so that whosoever pertain to their number, without any labor, without any effort, without any industry, even though they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock,180 have such a dispensation from God, that borne up of angel hands, that is, preserved by the protection of angels, it is impossible they should ever dash their feet against a stone, that is, that they should ever be offended.

(c) Council of Orange, A. D. 529, Canons. Bruns II, 176. Cf. Denziger, N. 174

The end of the Semi-Pelagian controversy.

The Council of Orange, A. D. 529, was made up of several bishops and some lay notables who had gathered for the dedication of a church at Orange. Cæsarius of Arles had received from Felix IV of Rome eight statements against the Semi-Pelagian teaching. He added some more of his own to them, and had them passed as canons by the company gathered for the dedication. It is noteworthy that the lay notables signed along with the bishops. Boniface II, to whom the canons were sent, confirmed them in 532: “We approve your above written confession as agreeable to the Catholic rule of the Fathers.” Cf. Hefele, § 242. For the sources of the canons, see Seeberg, History of Doctrines, Eng. trans., I, 380, note 3. For the sake of brevity the scriptural quotations are not given, merely indicated by references to the Bible.

Canon 1. Whoever says that by the offence of the disobedience of Adam not the entire man, that is, in body and soul, was changed for the worse, but that the freedom of his soul remained uninjured, and his body only was subject to corruption, has been deceived by the error of Pelagius and opposes Scripture [Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 6:16; II Peter 2:19].

Canon 2. Whoever asserts that the transgression of Adam injured himself only, and not his offspring, or that death only of the body, which is the penalty of sin, but not also sin, which is the death of the soul, passed by one man to the entire human race, wrongs God and contradicts the Apostle [Rom. 5:12].

Canon 3. Whoever says that the grace of God can be bestowed in reply to human petition, but not that the grace brings it about so that it is asked for by us, contradicts Isaiah the prophet and the Apostle [Is. 65:1; Rom. 10:20].

Canon 4. Whoever contends that our will, to be set free from sin, may anticipate God’s action, and shall not confess that it is brought about by the infusion of the Holy Spirit and his operation in us, that we wish to be set free, resists that same Holy Spirit speaking through Solomon: “The will is prepared by the Lord” [Proverbs 8:35, cf. LXX; not so in Vulgate or Heb.], and the Apostle [Phil. 2:13].

Canon 5. Whoever says the increase, as also the beginning of faith and the desire of believing, by which we believe in Him who justifies the impious, and we come to the birth of holy baptism, is not by the free gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit turning our will from unbelief to belief, from impiety to piety, but belongs naturally to us, is declared an adversary of the apostolic preaching [Phil. 1:6; Ephes. 2:8]. For they say that faith by which we believe in God is natural, and they declare that all those who are strangers to the Church of Christ in some way are believing.

Canon 6. Whoever says that to us who, without the grace of God, believe, will, desire, attempt, struggle for, watch, strive for, demand, ask, knock, mercy is divinely bestowed, and does not rather confess that it is brought about by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit in us that believe, will, and do all these other things as we ought, and annexes the help of grace to human humility and obedience, and does not admit that it is the gift of that same grace that we are obedient and humble, opposes the Apostle [I Cor. 4:7].

Canon 7. Whoever asserts that by the force of nature we can rightly think or choose anything good, which pertains to eternal life, or be saved, that is, assent to the evangelical preaching, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all grace to assent to and believe the truth, is deceived by an heretical spirit, not understanding the voice of the Lord [John 15:5], and of the Apostle [II Cor. 3:5].

Canon 8. Whoever asserts that some by mercy, others by free will, which in all who have been born since the transgression of the first man is evidently corrupt, are able to come to the grace of baptism, is proved an alien from the faith. For he asserts that the free will of all has not been weakened by the sin of the first man, or he evidently thinks that it has been so injured that some, however, are able without the revelation of God to attain, by their own power, to the mystery of eternal salvation. Because the Lord himself shows how false this is, who declares that not some, but no one was able to come to Him unless the Father drew him [John 6:4], and said so to Peter [Matt. 16:17] and the Apostle [I Cor. 12:3].

The canons that follow are less important. The whole concludes with a brief statement regarding the points at issue, as follows:

And so according to the above sentences of the Holy Scriptures and definitions of ancient Fathers, by God’s aid, we believe that we ought to believe and preach:

That by the sin of the first man, free will was so turned aside and weakened that afterward no one is able to love God as he ought, or believe in God, or do anything for God, which is good, except the grace of divine mercy comes first to him [Phil. 1:6, 29; Ephes. 2:8; I Cor. 4:7, 7:25; James 1:17; John 3:27].…

We also believe this to be according to the Catholic faith, that grace having been received in baptism, all who have been baptized, can and ought, by the aid and support of Christ, to perform those things which belong to the salvation of the soul, if they labor faithfully.

But not only do we not believe that some have been predestinated to evil by the divine power, but also, if there are any who wish to believe so evil a thing, we say to them, with all detestation, anathema.

Also this we profitably confess and believe, that in every good we do not begin and afterward are assisted by the mercy of God, but without any good desert preceding, He first inspires in us faith and love in Him, so that we both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism with His help are able to perform those things which are pleasing to Him. Whence it is most certainly to be believed that in the case of that thief, whom the Lord called to the fatherland of paradise, and Cornelius the Centurion, to whom an angel of the Lord was sent, and Zacchæus, who was worthy of receiving the Lord himself, their so wonderful faith was not of nature, but was the gift of the divine bounty.

And because we desire and wish our definition of the ancient Fathers, written above, to be a medicine not only for the clergy but also for the laity, it has been decided that the illustrious and noble men, who have assembled with us at the aforesaid festival, shall subscribe it with their own hand.

§ 86. The Roman Church as the Centre of the Catholic Roman Element of the West

In the confusion of the fifth century, when the provinces of the Roman Empire were being lopped off one by one, Italy invaded, and the larger political institutions disappearing, the Church was the one institution that maintained itself. In not a few places among the barbarians the bishops became the acknowledged heads of the Roman element of the communities. In meeting the threatened invasion of Italy by Attila, Leo was the representative of the Roman people, the head of the embassy sent to induce the Hun to recross the Danube. Under such circumstances the see of Rome constantly gained in importance politically and ecclesiastically. As a centre of unity it was far more powerful than a feeble emperor at Ravenna or puppets set up by barbarians. It was the one and only great link between the provinces and the representative of the ancient order. It represented Rome, an efficient and generally gratefully recognized authority. In the development of the papal idea the first stadium was completed with the pontificate of Leo the Great (440-461), who, fully conscious of the inherited Petrine prerogatives, expressed them the most clearly, persistently, and, on the whole, most successfully of any pontiff before Gregory the Great. Leo, therefore, stands at the end of a development marked by the utterances of Victor, Cornelius, Siricius, Innocent I, Zosimus, Boniface I, and Celestine. For their statements of the authority of the Roman see, see Denziger, under their names, also Kirch and Mirbt. The whole may be found combined in one statement in Schwanne, Dogmengeschichte, I, 413 f.; II, 661-698.

Additional source material: In English there is comparatively little except the writings of Leo, see especially Sermones 2, 82, 84; Epistulæ 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 105, 167; Jerome, Ep. 146, ad Evangelum. Kirch, Mirbt, and Denziger give many references to original texts and citations.

(a) Leo the Great, Sermo 3. (MSL, 55:145 F.)

On the prerogatives of Peter and his see.

Ch. 2. … From His overruling and eternal providence we have received also the support of the Apostle’s aid, which assuredly does not cease from its operation; and the strength of the foundation, on which the whole lofty building of the Church is reared, is not weakened by the weight of the temple that rests upon it. For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual; and, as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter. For when, as has been read in the Gospel lesson [i.e., for the day], the Lord has asked the disciples whom they believed Him to be, amid the various opinions that were held, the blessed Peter replied, saying: “Thou art the Christ,” etc. [Matt. 16:16-19].

Ch. 3. The dispensation of the truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that since he is called the rock, since he is pronounced the foundation, since he is constituted the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, since he is set up as the judge to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is intrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done or rightly decreed by us, if anything is obtained from the mercy of God by daily supplications, it is his work and merits whose power lives in his see and whose authority excels. For this, dearly beloved, that confession gained, that confession which, inspired in the Apostle’s heart by God the Father, transcends all the uncertainty of human opinions, and was endued with the firmness of a rock, which no assaults could shake. For throughout the Church Peter daily says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and every tongue which confesses the Lord is inspired by the instruction [magisterio] of that voice.

(b) Leo the Great, Ep. 104, Ad Marcianum Augustum, A. D. 452. (MSL, 54:993.)

Condemnation of the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon.

This and the two following epistles upon the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon define the relation of the Roman see to councils, canons, and patriarchal sees. Apostolic sees may not be constituted by mere canon; political importance of a place does not regulate its ecclesiastical position; the see of Rome can reject the canons of councils even though general; apostolic sees connected with Peter may not have their authority diminished. For the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, v. infra, § 90, d.

Ch. 3. Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its glory, and may it, under the protection of God’s right hand, long enjoy the rule of your clemency. Yet the basis of things secular is one, and the basis of things divine another; and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord laid as a foundation. He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for the aforesaid [Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople] that by the aid of your piety and by my favorable assent he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a royal city, which he cannot make an apostolic see; and let him on no account hope to be able to rise by injury to others. For the privileges of the churches, determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene synod, cannot be overthrown by an unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by an innovation. And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ, it is necessary that I show an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge intrusted to me, and it tends to condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and laid down under the guidance of God’s spirit at the synod of Nicæa for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which God forbid) and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common word of the Lord’s whole house.

(c) Leo the Great, Ep. 105, Ad Pulcheriam Augustam A. D. 452. (MSL, 54:997.)

Condemnation of all canons contravening those of Nicæa.

§ 3. Let him [Anatolius] know to what sort of man he has succeeded, and, expelling all the spirit of pride, let him imitate the faith of Flavian, his modesty and his humility, which raised him up even to a confessor’s glory. If he will shine with his virtues, he will be praiseworthy and everywhere he will win an abundance of love, not by seeking human things, but divine favor. And by this careful course I promise that my heart will also be bound to him, and the love of this apostolic see which we have ever bestowed upon the church of Constantinople shall never be violated by any change. Because, if rulers, lacking self-restraint, fall into errors, yet the purity of the churches of Christ continues. As for the assents of bishops which are in contradiction with the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicæa, in conjunction with your faithful race we do not recognize them, and by the authority of the blessed Apostle Peter we absolutely disannul in comprehensive terms in all cases ecclesiastical, following those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by three hundred and eighteen bishops for the pacific observance of all priests, so that, even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree from theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.

(d) Leo the Great, Ep. 106, Ad Anatolium A. D. 452. (MSL, 54:1005.)

The relation of the apostolic sees to Peter.

Your purpose is in no way whatever supported by the written assent of certain bishops, given, as you allege, sixty years ago,181 and never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See by your predecessors; under this project182 which from its outset was tottering and has already collapsed, you now wish to place too late and useless props.… The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown, nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on antiquity. The see of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through St. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the blessed Peter, nor may the splendor of so great a church be obscured by another’s clouds, when Dioscurus fell through his persistence in impiety. The church of Antioch, too, in which first, at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter, the Christian name arose, must continue in the position assigned to it by the Fathers, and, being set in the third place [Can. 6, Nicæa, 325, v. supra, § 72], must never be lowered therefrom. For the see is one thing, and those who preside in it something different; and an individual’s great honor is his own integrity.

(e) Leo the Great, Ep. 6, Ad Anastasium A. D. 444. (MSL, 54:616.) Cf. Kirch, Nn. 814 Ff

The policy of centralization. The primates are representatives of the bishop of Rome. Anastasius was bishop of Thessalonica.

Ch. 2. Inasmuch, dear brother, as your request has been made known to us through our son Nicholas, the priest, that you also, like your predecessors, might receive from us in your turn authority over Illyricum for the observance of the rules, we give our consent, and earnestly exhort that no concealment and no negligence may be allowed in the management of the churches situated throughout Illyricum, which we commit to you in our stead, following the precedent of Siricius, of blessed memory, who then, for the first time acting on a fixed method, intrusted them to your last predecessor but one, Anysius, of holy memory, who had at the time well deserved of the Apostolic See, and was approved by after events, that he might render assistance to the churches situated in that province, whom he wished to keep up to the discipline.…

Ch. 5. Those of the brethren who have been summoned to a synod should attend, and not deny themselves to the holy congregation.… But if any more important question spring up, such as cannot be settled there under your presidency, brother, send your report and consult us, so that we may write back under the revelation of the Lord, of whose mercy it is that we can do aught, because He has breathed favorably upon us; that by our decision we may vindicate our right of cognizance in accordance with old-established tradition, and the respect which is due the Apostolic See; for as we wish you to exercise your authority in our stead, so we reserve to ourselves points which cannot be decided on the spot and persons who have appealed to us.183

Chapter III. The Church in the Eastern Empire

At the beginning of the permanent division of the Empire, the church life of the East was disturbed by a series of closely connected disputes known as the First Origenistic Controversy (§ 87), in which were comprised a conflict between a rationalistic tendency, connected with the religious philosophy of Origen, and a traditionalism that eschewed speculation, a bitter rivalry between the great sees of Alexandria, the religious and intellectual capital of the East, and Constantinople, the church of the new imperial city, and personal disputes. But more serious controversies were already beginning. While the Church of the West was laying the foundations of the papal system, the Church of the East was falling more and more under the dominance of the secular authority; while the West was developing its anthropology, with its doctrines of Original Sin, Grace, and Election, the East was entering upon the long discussion of the topic which had been left by the Arian controversy—granted that the incarnate Son of God is truly eternal God, in what way are the divine and human natures related to the one personality of the incarnate God (§ 88)? The controversies that arose over this topic involved the entire Church of the East, and found in the general councils of Ephesus, A. D. 431 (§ 89), and Chalcedon, A. D. 451 (§ 90), partial solutions. In the case of each council, permanent schisms resulted, and large portions of the Church of the East broke away from the previous unity (§ 91); and on account of the intimate connection between the affairs of the Church and the secular policy of the Empire, a schism was caused between the see of Rome and the churches in communion with the see of Constantinople.

§ 87. The First Origenistic Controversy and the Triumph of Traditionalism

In the East the leading theologians of the fourth century were educated under the influence of Origenism; among these were Basil of Cæsarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. In the West the feeling regarding Origen was not so favorable, but the Western theologians, Jerome and Rufinus, who were then living in Palestine, shared in the general admiration of Origen. But a series of brief controversies broke out in which the standing of Origen as an orthodox theologian was seriously attacked, as well as the whole tendency for which he stood. The result was a wide-spread condemnation of the spiritualizing teaching of the great Alexandrian, and the rise of what might be called an anthropomorphic traditionalism. The first of the three controversies took place in Palestine, 395-399, and was occasioned by Epiphanius of Salamis, a zealous opponent of heresy. He denounced Origen and induced Jerome to abandon Origen; and Rufinus was soon in bitter enmity with Jerome. The second controversy took place in Egypt about the same time, when a group of monks in the Scetic desert, who were violently opposed to Origenism, compelled Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria and an admirer of Origen, to abandon that theologian and to side with them against the monks of the Nitrian desert, who were Origenists, and to condemn Origen at a council at Alexandria, 399. The third controversy involved John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, who had protected four Nitrian monks who had fled to his protection. Theophilus seized the opportunity and, with the assistance for a time of Epiphanius, ultimately brought about the downfall of Chrysostom, who died deposed and in exile, 404. No controversies of the ancient Church are less attractive than the Origenistic, in which so much personal rancor, selfish ambition, mean intrigue, and so little profound thought were involved. The literature, therefore, is scanty.

Additional source material: Jerome, Ep. 86-99 (PNF); Rufinus and Jerome, controversial writings bearing on Origenism in PNF, ser. II. vol. III, pp. 417-541; Socrates, Hist. Ec., VI, 2-21; Sozomen, Hist. Ec., VIII, 2-28.

(a) Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 27. (MSG, 32:187.)

The force of unwritten tradition.

The following is the most important and authoritative statement of the force of unwritten tradition in the Eastern Church. It is referred to by John of Damascus in his defence of images (De Fide Orthod., IV, 16), cf. § 109. It is placed in the present section as illustrating the principle of traditionalism which, in a fanatical form, brought about the Origenistic controversies.

Of the beliefs and public teachings preserved in the Church, some we have from written tradition, others we have received as delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have in relation to true piety the same binding force. And these no one will gainsay, at least no one who is versed even moderately in the institutions of the Church. For were we to reject such customs as are unwritten as having no great force, we should unintentionally injure the gospels in their very vitals; or, rather, reduce our public definition to a mere name and nothing more. For example, to take the first and most general instance, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East in our prayers? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words at the invocation and at the displaying of the bread in the eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the Apostle or the Gospel has recorded; but, both before and after, we say other words as having great importance for the mystery, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover, we bless the water of baptism and the oil of chrism, and, besides this, him who is baptized. From what writings? Is it not from the silent and mystical tradition? What written word teaches the anointing of oil itself? And whence is it that a man is baptized three times? And as to other customs of baptism, from what Scripture comes the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from the unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in silence, averse from curious meddling and inquisitive investigation, having learned the lesson that the reverence of the mysteries is best preserved in silence? How was it proper to parade in public the teaching of those things which it was not permitted the uninitiated to look at?

(b) Jerome, Preface to the Vulgate Translation of the New Testament. (MSL, 29:557.)

Jerome’s free critical attitude in his work in his earlier life.

This preface is addressed to Bishop Damasus of Rome and is dated 383.

You urge me to make a new work out of an old and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures already scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ among themselves, I am to decide which of them agree with the Greek original. A pious labor, but a perilous presumption; to judge others, myself to be judged of all; to change the language of the aged, and to carry back the world already grown gray, back to the beginnings of its infancy! Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume into his hands and perceives that what he reads differs from the flavor which once he tasted, break out immediately into violent language and call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books or to change or correct anything? I am consoled in two ways in bearing this odium: in the first place, that you, the supreme bishop, command it to be done; and secondly, even on the testimony of those reviling us, what varies cannot be true. For if we put faith in the Latin texts, let them tell us which; for there are almost as many texts as copies. But if the truth is to be sought from many, why should we not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident and ignorant men, and further, all that has been added or altered by sleepy copyists? I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy Elders, and has reached us by a descent of three steps. I do not ask what Aquila and Symmachus think, or why Theodotion takes a middle course between the ancients and the moderns. I am willing to let that be a true translation which had apostolic approval [i.e., the LXX]. I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of the Apostle Matthew, who first published the gospel of Christ in Judea and in Hebrew. This [i.e., the New Testament], as it is in our language, is certainly marked by discrepancies, and the stream flows in different channels; it must be sought in one fountainhead. I pass over those manuscripts bearing the names of Lucian and Hesychius, which a few contentious persons perversely support. It was not permitted these writers to amend anything in the Old Testament after the labor of the Seventy; and it was useless to make corrections in the New, for translations of the Scriptures already made in the language of many nations show that they are additions and false. Therefore this short preface promises only the four gospels, of which the order is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts and only of the ancient manuscripts. And that they might not depart far from the Latin customarily read, I have used my pen with some restraint, so that having corrected only the passages which seemed to change the meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as it was.

(c) Jerome, Ep. 7, Ad Pammachium. (MSL, 23:376.)

The principal errors of Origen according to Jerome.

This is the most important work of Jerome in the controversy known as the Origenistic controversy. Jerome attacks in this work John, bishop of Jerusalem, and writes as a result of the work of Epiphanius in Palestine three years before. The following were addressed to John to reject, as a test of that bishop’s orthodoxy. See above, § 43.

First, in the book περὶ ἀρχῶν it is said [I, 1:8]: “For as it is unfitting to say that the Son can see the Father, so it is not meet to think that the Holy Spirit can see the Son.”

Secondly, that souls are bound in this body as in a prison; and that before man was made in paradise they dwelt among rational creatures in the heavens. Wherefore, afterward, to console itself, the soul says in the Psalms, “Before I was humbled I went wrong,” and “Return, my soul, unto thy rest,” and “Lead my soul out of prison,” and similarly elsewhere.

Thirdly, that he says that both the devil and the demons will some time or other repent and ultimately reign with the saints.

Fourthly, that he interprets the coats of skins, with which Adam and Eve were clothed after their fall and ejection from paradise, to be human bodies, and no doubt they were previously in paradise without flesh, sinews, or bones.

Fifthly, he most openly denies the resurrection of the flesh, the bodily structure, and the distinction of sexes by which we men are distinguished from women, both in his explanation of the first psalm and in many other treatises.

Sixthly, he so allegorizes paradise as to destroy the truth of history, understanding angels instead of trees, heavenly virtues instead of rivers; and he overthrows all that is contained in the history of paradise by his tropological interpretation.

Seventhly, he thinks that the waters which in the Scriptures are said to be above the heavens are holy and supernal powers; while those which are upon the earth and beneath the earth are, on the contrary, demoniacal powers.

Eighthly, that the image and likeness of God, in which man was created, was lost and was no longer in man after he was expelled from paradise.

(d) Anastasius, Ep. Ad Simplicianum, in Jerome, Ep. 95 (MSL, 22:772.)

Condemnation of Origen by Anastasius, bishop of Rome, A. D. 400

To his lord and brother, Simplicianus, Anastasius.

It is felt right that a shepherd have great care and watchfulness over his flock. In like manner, also, the careful watchman from his lofty tower keeps a lookout day and night on behalf of the city. In the hour of tempest and peril the prudent shipmaster suffers great distress of mind lest by the tempest and the violent waves his vessel be dashed upon the rocks. With similar feelings that reverend and honorable man Theophilus, our brother and fellow-bishop, ceases not to watch over the things which make for salvation, that God’s people in the different churches may not by reading Origen run into awful blasphemies.

Having been informed, then, by the letter of the aforesaid, we inform your holiness that just as we are set in the city of Rome, in which the prince of the Apostles, the glorious Peter, founded the Church and then by his faith strengthened it; to the end that no man contrary to the commandment read these books which we have mentioned and the same we have condemned; and with earnest prayers we have urged that the precepts of the Evangelists which God and Christ have inspired the Evangelists to teach ought not to be forsaken; but that is to be remembered which the venerable Apostle Paul preached by way of warning: “If any one preach a gospel unto you other than that which was preached unto you, let him be anathema” [Gal. 1:8]. Holding fast, therefore, this precept, we have intimated that everything written in days past by Origen that is contrary to our faith is even by us rejected and condemned.

We have written these things to your holiness by the hand of the presbyter Eusebius, who, being a man filled with a glowing faith and having the love of the Lord, has shown me some blasphemous chapters at which we shuddered and which we condemned, but if any other things have been put forth by Origen, you should know that with their author they are alike condemned by me. The Lord have you in safe-keeping, my lord and brother deservedly held in honor.

(e) Rufinus, Preface to Translation of Origen’s “De Principiis”. (MSL, 22:733 and Also MSG, 11:111.)

In this preface Rufinus refers, without mentioning names, to Jerome. Inasmuch as it was perfectly clear to whom the allusion was made, as the translator and admirer of Origen, Jerome felt himself personally attacked and retorted furiously upon Rufinus.

I know that a great many of the brethren, incited by their desire for a knowledge of the Scriptures, have requested various men versed in Greek letters to make Origen a Roman and give him to Latin ears. Among these was our brother and associate [i.e., Jerome], who was so requested by Bishop Damasus, when he translated the two homilies on the Song of Songs from Greek into Latin, prefixed to the work a preface so full of beauty and so magnificent that he awoke in every one the desire of reading Origen and of eagerly examining his works, and he said that to the soul of that man the words might well be applied, “The King has brought me into his chamber” [Cant. 2:4], and he declared that Origen in his other books surpassed all other men, but in this had surpassed himself. What he promised in his preface is, indeed, that he would give to Roman ears not only these books on the Song of Songs, but many others of Origen. But, as I perceive, he is so pleased with his own style that he pursues an object bringing him more glory, viz., to be the father of a book rather than a translator. I am therefore following out a task begun by him and commended by him.… In translation, I follow as far as possible the method of my predecessors, and especially of him whom I have already mentioned, who, after he had translated into Latin above seventy of the books of Origen, which he called Homilies, and also a certain number of the tomes written on the Apostle [the Epistles of St. Paul], since a number of offensive passages are to be found in the Greek, eliminated and purged, in his translation, all of them, so that the Latin reader will find nothing in these which jar on our faith. Him, therefore, we follow, not indeed with the power of his eloquence, but as far as we can in his rules and methods: that is, taking care not to promulgate those things which in the books of Origen are found to be discrepant and contradictory one to the other. The cause of these variations I have set forth fully in the apology which Pamphilus wrote for the books of Origen, to which is appended a short treatise showing how proofs which, as I judge, are quite clear in his books have in many cases been falsified by heretical and evil-disposed persons.

(f) Augustine, Ep. 73, Ch. 8. (MSL, 33:249.)

The attempt of Augustine to bring about a reconciliation between Rufinus and Jerome. Jerome had written some affectionate words to Augustine to which he alludes in the beginning of the following passage:

When, by these words, now not only yours but also mine, I am gladdened and refreshed, and when I am comforted not a little by the desire of both of us for mutual fellowship, which has been suspended and is not satisfied, suddenly I am pierced through by the darts of keenest sorrow when I consider that between you [i.e., Rufinus and Jerome] (to whom God granted in fullest measure and for a long time that which both of us have longed for, that in closest and most intimate fellowship you tasted together the honey of Holy Scriptures) such a blight of bitterness has broken out, when, where, and in whom it was not to be feared, since it has befallen you at the very time when, unencumbered, having cast away secular burdens, you were following the Lord, were living together in that land in which the Lord walked with human feet, when He said, “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you”; being, moreover, men of mature age, whose life was devoted to the study of the word of God. Truly, “man’s life on earth is a period of trial” [Job 7:1]. Alas, that I cannot meet you both together, perchance that in agitation, grief, and fear I might cast myself at your feet, weep till I could weep no more, and appeal as I love you, first to each of you for his own sake, and then for the sake of those, especially the weak, “for whom Christ died” [I Cor. 8:11], who to their great peril look on you as on the stage of time, imploring you not to scatter abroad, in writing, those things about each other which when reconciled, you, who are now unwilling to be reconciled, could not then destroy, and which when reconciled you would not dare to read lest you should quarrel anew.

(g) Socrates, Hist. Ec., VI, 15. (MSG, 67:708.)

The fall of Chrysostom.

Epiphanius had gone to Constantinople on the suggestion of Theophilus, and there, in his zeal, had violated the canons of ordination as generally received. In this case he had ordained priests in the diocese of Chrysostom and without his permission. Other troubles had arisen. On being called to account for his conduct by Chrysostom, Epiphanius hastily left the city, and died on the voyage back to his diocese, Salamis, in Cyprus.

When Epiphanius had gone John was informed by some person that the Empress Eudoxia had set Epiphanius against him. Being of a fiery temperament and of ready utterance, he soon after pronounced to the public an invective against women in general. The people readily took this as uttered indirectly against the Empress, and so the speech, laid hold of by evil-disposed persons, was brought to the knowledge of those in authority. At length the Empress, having been informed of it, immediately complained to her husband of the insult offered her, saying that the insult offered her was an insult to him. He therefore gave orders that Theophilus should speedily convoke a synod against John; Severianus also co-operated in promoting this, for he still retained his grudge [i.e., against Chrysostom. See DCB, art. “Severianus, bishop of Gabala.”]. No great length of time, accordingly, intervened before Theophilus arrived, having stirred up many bishops from different cities; but this, also, the summons of the Emperor had commanded. Especially did they assemble who had one cause or another of complaint against John, and there were present besides those whom John had deposed, for John had deposed many bishops in Asia when he went to Ephesus for the ordination of Heraclides. Accordingly they all, by previous agreement, assembled at Chalcedon in Bithynia.… Now none of the clergy [i.e., of Constantinople] would go forth to meet Theophilus or pay him the customary honors because he was openly known as John’s enemy. But the Alexandrian sailors—for it happened that at that time the grain-transport ships were there—on meeting him, greeted him with joyful acclamations. He excused himself from entering the church, and took up his abode at one of the imperial mansions called “The Placidian.” Then, in consequence of this, many accusations began to be poured forth against John, and no longer was there any mention of the books of Origen, but all were intent on pressing a variety of absurd accusations. When these preliminary matters were settled the bishops were convened in one of the suburbs of Chalcedon, which is called “The Oak,” and immediately cited John to answer charges which were brought against him.… And since John, taking exception to those who cited him, on the ground that they were his enemies, demanded a general council, without delay they repeated their citation four times; and as he persisted in his refusal to answer, always giving the same reply, they condemned him, and deposed him without giving any other cause for his deposition than that he refused to obey when summoned. This, being announced toward evening, incited the people to a very great sedition, insomuch that they kept watch all night and would by no means suffer him to be removed from the church, but cried out that the charges against him ought to be determined by a larger assembly. A decree of the Emperor, however, commanded that he should be immediately expelled and sent into exile. When John knew this he voluntarily surrendered himself about noon, unknown to the populace, on the third day after his condemnation; for he dreaded any insurrectionary movement on his account, and he was accordingly led away.

(h) Theophilus of Alexandria, Ep. Ad Hieronymum, in Jerome, Ep. 113. (MSL, 22:932.)

Theophilus on the fall of Chrysostom.

To the well-beloved and most loving brother Jerome, Theophilus sends greeting in the Lord.

At the outset the verdict of truth satisfies but few; but the Lord, speaking by the prophet, says, “My judgment goeth forth as the light,” and they who are surrounded with a horror of darkness do not with clear mind perceive the nature of things, and they are covered with eternal shame and know by their outcome that their efforts have been in vain. Wherefore we also have always desired that John [Chrysostom], who for a time ruled the church of Constantinople, might please God, and we have been unwilling to accept as facts the cause of his ruin in which he behaved himself rashly. But not to speak of his other misdeed, he has by taking the Origenists into his confidences,184 by advancing many of them to the priesthood, and by this crime saddening with no slight grief that man of God, Epiphanius, of blessed memory, who has shone throughout all the world a bright star among bishops, deserved to hear the words, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen.”

§ 88. The Christological Problem and the Theological Tendencies

The Arian controversy in bringing about the affirmation of the true deity of the Son, or Logos, left the Church with the problem of the unity of the divine and human natures in the personality of Jesus. It seemed to not a few that to combine perfect deity with perfect humanity would result in two personalities. Holding fast, therefore, to the reality of the human nature, a solution was attempted by Apollinarius, or Apollinaris, by making the divine Logos take the place of the human logos or reason. Mankind consisted of three parts: a body, an animal soul, and a rational spirit. The Logos was thus united to humanity by substituting the divine for the human logos. But this did violence to the integrity of the human nature of Christ. This attempt on the part of Apollinaris was rejected at Constantinople, but also by the Church generally. The human natures must be complete if human nature was deified by the assumption of man in the incarnation. On this basis two tendencies showed themselves quite early: the human nature might be lost in the divinity, or the human and the divine natures might be kept distinct and parallel or in such a way that certain acts might be assigned to the divine and certain to the human nature. The former line of thought, adopted by the Cappadocians, tended toward the position assumed by Cyril of Alexandria and in a more extreme form by the Monophysites. The latter line of thought tended toward what was regarded as the position of Nestorius. In this position there was such a sharp cleavage between the divine and the human natures as apparently to create a double personality in the incarnate Son. This divergence of theological statement gave rise to the christological controversies which continued in various forms through several centuries in the East, and have reappeared in various disguises in the course of the Church’s theological development.

Additional source material: There are several exegetical works of Cyril of Alexandria available in English, see Bardenhewer, § 77, also a German translation of three treatises bearing on christology in the Kempten Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, 1879. For the general point of view of the Cappadocians and the relation of the incarnation to redemption, see Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism (PNF, ser. II, vol. V), v. infra, § 89 and references in Seeberg, § 23.

(a) Apollinaris, Fragments. Ed. H. Lietzmann

His Christology.

The following fragments of the teaching of Apollinaris are from H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule. Texte und Untersuchungen, 1904. Many fragments are to be found in the Dialogues which Theodoret wrote against Eutychianism, which he traced to the teaching of Apollinaris. The first condemnation of Apollinaris was at Rome, 377, see Hefele, § 91; Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 10, gives the letter of Damasus issued in the name of the synod.

P. 224 [81]. If God had been joined with a man, one complete being with another complete being, there would be two sons of God, one Son of God by nature, another through adoption.

P. 247 [150]. They who assume a twofold spirit in Christ pull a stone out with their finger. For if each is independent and impelled by its own natural will, it is impossible that in one and the same subject the two can be together, who will what is opposed to each other; for each works what is willed by it according to its own proper and personal motives.

P. 248 [152]. They who speak of one Christ, and assert that there are two independent spiritual natures in Him, do not know Him as the Logos made flesh, who has remained in His natural unity, for they represent Him as divided into two unlike natures and modes of operation.

P. 239 [129]. If a man has soul and body, and both remain distinguished in unity, how much more has Christ, who joins His divine being with a body, both as a permanent possession without any commingling one with the other?

P. 209 [21, 22]. The Logos became flesh, but the flesh was not without a soul, for it is said that it strives against the spirit and opposes the law of the understanding. [In this Apollinaris takes up the trichotomy of human nature, a view which he did not apparently hold at the beginning of his teaching.]

P. 240 [137]. John [John 2:19] spoke of the destroyed temple, that is, of the body of Him who would raise it up again. The body is altogether one with Him. But if the body of the Lord has become one with the Lord, then the characteristics of the body are proved to be characteristics of Him on account of the body.

(b) Apollinaris, Letter to the Emperor Jovian. Lietzmann, 250 Ff

We confess the Son of God who was begotten eternally before all times, but in the last times was for our salvation born of Mary according to the flesh; … and we confess that the same is the Son of God and God according to the spirit, Son of man according to the flesh; we do not speak of two natures in the one Son, of which one is to be worshipped and one is not to be worshipped, but of only one nature of the Logos of God, which has become flesh and with His flesh is worshipped with one worship; and we confess not two sons, one who is truly God’s Son to be worshipped and another the man—who is of Mary and is not to be worshipped, who by the power of grace had become the Son of God, as is also the case with men, but one Son of God who at the same time was born of Mary according to the flesh in the last days, as the angel answered the Theotokos Mary who asked, “How shall this be?”—“The Holy Ghost will come upon thee.” He, accordingly, who was born of the Virgin Mary was Son of God by nature and truly God … only according to the flesh from Mary was He man, but at the same time, according to the spirit, Son of God; and God has in His own flesh suffered our sorrows.

(c) Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. I Ad Cledonium. (MSG, 37:181.)

In this epistle Gregory attacks Apollinaris, basing his argument on the notion of salvation by incarnation, which formed the foundation of the most characteristic piety of the East, had been used as a major premise by Athanasius in opposition to Arianism, and runs back to Irenæus and the Asia Minor school; see above, § 33.

If any one trusted in a man without a human mind, he is himself really bereft of mind and quite unworthy of salvation. For what has not been assumed has not been healed; but what has been united to God is saved. If only half of Adam fell, then that which is assumed and saved may be half also; but if the whole, it must be united to the whole of Him that was begotten and be saved as a whole. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe the Saviour only with bones and nerves and the semblance of humanity. For if His manhood is without soul [ἄψυχος], even the Arians admit this, that they may attribute His passion to the godhead, as that which gives motion to the body is also that which suffers. But if He had a soul and yet is without a mind, how is He a man, for man is not a mindless [ἄνουν] animal? And this would necessarily involve that His form was human, and also His tabernacle, but His soul was that of a horse, or an ox, or some other creature without mind. This, then, would be what is saved, and I have been deceived in the Truth, and have been boasting an honor when it was another who was honored. But if His manhood is intellectual and not without mind, let them cease to be thus really mindless.

But, says some one, the godhead was sufficient in place of the human intellect. What, then, is this to me? For godhead with flesh alone is not man, nor with soul alone, nor with both apart from mind, which is the most essential part of man. Keep, then, the whole man, and mingle godhead therewith, that you may benefit me in my completeness. But, as he asserts [i.e., Apollinaris], He could not contain two perfect natures. Not if you only regard Him in a bodily fashion. For a bushel measure will not hold two bushels, nor will the space of one body hold two or more bodies. But if you will look at what is mental and incorporeal, remember that I myself can contain soul and reason and mind and the Holy Spirit; and before me this world, by which I mean the system of things visible and invisible, contained Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For such is the nature of intellectual existences that they can mingle with one another and with bodies, incorporeally and invisibly.…

Further, let us see what is their account of the assumption of the manhood, or the assumption of the flesh, as they call it. If it was in order that God, otherwise incomprehensible, might be comprehended, and might converse with men through His flesh as through a veil, their mask is a pretty one, a hypocritical fable; for it was open to Him to converse with us in many other ways, as in the burning bush [Ex. 3:2] and in the appearance of a man [Gen. 18:5]. But if it was that He might destroy the condemnation of sin by sanctifying like by like, then as He needed flesh for the sake of the condemned flesh and soul for the sake of the soul, so also He needed mind for the sake of mind, which not only fell in Adam but was first to be affected, as physicians say, of the illness. For that which received the commandment was that which failed to observe the commandment, and that which failed to observe the commandment was that also which dared to transgress, and that which transgressed was that which stood most in need of salvation, and that which needed salvation was that which also was assumed. Therefore mind was taken upon Him.

(d) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 382, Epistula Synodica. Hefele, § 98

Condemnation of Apollinarianism.

At the Council of Constantinople held the year after that which is known as the Second General Council, and attended by nearly the same bishops, there was an express condemnation of Apollinaris and his doctrine, for though Apollinaris had been condemned in 381, the point of doctrine was not stated. The synodical letter of the council of 382 is preserved only in part in Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 9, who concludes his account with these words:

Similarly they openly condemn the innovation of Apollinarius [so Theodoret writes the name] in the phrase, “And we preserve the doctrine of the incarnation of the Lord, holding the tradition that the dispensation of the flesh is neither soulless, nor mindless, nor imperfect.”

(e) Theodore of Mopsuestia, Creed. Hahn, § 215

The position of the Nestorians.

The following extracts are from the creed which was presented at the Council of Ephesus, 431, and was written by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the greatest theologian of the party which stood with Nestorius. Although it does not state the whole doctrine of Theodore, yet its historical position is so important that its characteristic passages belong in the present connection. Bibliographical and critical notes in Hahn, loc. cit.

Concerning the dispensation which the Lord God accomplished for our salvation in the dispensation according to the Lord Christ, it is necessary for us to know that the Lord God the Logos assumed a complete man, who was of the seed of Abraham and David, according to the statement of the divine Scriptures, and was according to nature whatsoever they were of whose seed He was, a perfect man according to nature, consisting of reasonable soul and human flesh, and the man who was as to nature as we are, formed by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem us all from the bondage of the law [Gal. 4:4] who receive the adoption of sonship which was long before ordained, that man He joined to himself in an ineffable manner.…

And we do not say that there are two Sons or two Lords, because there is one God [Son?] according to substance, God the Word, the only begotten Son of the Father, and He who has been joined with Him is a participator in His deity and shares in the name and honor of the Son; and the Lord according to essence is God the Word, with whom that which is joined shares in honor. And therefore we say neither two Sons nor two Lords, because one is He who has an inseparable conjunction with Himself of Him who according to essence is Lord and Son, who, having been assumed for our salvation, is with Him received as well in the name as in the honor of both Son and Lord, not as each one of us individually is a son of God (wherefore also we are called many sons of God, according to the blessed Paul), but He alone in an unique manner having this, namely, in that He was joined to God the Word, participating in the Sonship and dignity, takes away every thought of two Sons or two Lords, and offers indeed to us in conjunction with the God the Word, to have all faith in Him and all understanding and contemplation, on account of which things also He receives from every creature the worship and sacrifice of God. Therefore we say that there is one Lord, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things were made, understanding principally God the Word, who according to substance is Son of God and Lord, equally regarding that which was assumed, Jesus of Nazareth, who God anointed with the Spirit and power, as in conjunction with God the Lord, and participating in sonship and dignity, who also is called the second Adam, according to the blessed Apostle Paul, as being of the same nature as Adam.

(f) Theodore of Mopsuestia, Fragments. Swete, Theodori Epis. Mops. In Epistulas B. Pauli Commentarii, Cambridge, 1880, 1882

In the appendix to the second volume of this work by Theodore there are many fragments of Theodore’s principal dogmatic work, On the Incarnation, directed against Eunomius. The work as a whole has not been preserved. In the same appendix there are also other important fragments. The references are to this edition.

P. 299. If we distinguish the two natures, we speak of one complete nature of God the Word and a complete person (πρόσωπον). But we name complete also the nature of the man and also the person. If we think on the conjunction (συνάφεια) then we speak of one person.

P. 312. In the moment in which He [Jesus] was formed [in the womb of the Virgin] He received the destination of being a temple of God. For we should not believe that God was born of the Virgin unless we are willing to assume that one and the same is that which is born and what is in that which is born, the temple, and God the Logos in the temple.… If God had become flesh, how could He who was born be named God from God [cf. Nicene Creed], and of one being with the Father? for the flesh does not admit of such a designation.

P. 314. The Logos was always in Jesus, also by His birth and when He was in the womb, at the first moment of his beginning; to His development He gave the rule and measure, and led Him from step to step to perfection.

P. 310. If it is asked, did Mary bear a man, or is she the bearer of God [Theotokos], we can say that both statements are true. One is true according to the nature of the case; the other only relatively. She bore a man according to nature, for He was a man who was in the womb of Mary.… She is Theotokos, since God was in the man who was born; not enclosed in Him according to nature, but was in Him according to the relation of His will.

(g) Nestorius, Fragments. Loofs, Nestoriana

The fragments of Nestorius have been collected by Loofs, Nestoriana, Halle, 1905; to this work the references are made. It now appears that what was condemned as Nestorianism was a perversion of his teaching and that Nestorius was himself in harmony with the definition which was put forth at Chalcedon, a council which he survived and regarded as a vindication of his position after the wrong done him at Ephesus by Cyril; cf. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching, Cambridge, 1908.

P. 252. Is Paul a liar when he speaks of the godhead of Christ and says: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy”? My good friend, Mary has not born the godhead, for that which is born of the flesh is flesh.… A creature has not born the Creator, but she bore a man, the organ of divinity; the Holy Ghost did not create God the Word, but with that which was born of the Virgin He prepared for God the Word, a temple, in which He should dwell.

P. 177. Whenever the Holy Scriptures make mention of the works of salvation prepared by the Lord, they speak of the birth and suffering, not of the divinity but of the humanity of Christ; therefore, according to a more exact expression the holy Virgin is named the bearer of Christ [Christotokos].

P. 167. If any one will bring forward the designation, “Theotokos,” because the humanity that was born was conjoined with the Word, not because of her who bore, so we say that, although the name is not appropriate to her who bore, for the actual mother must be of the same substance as her child, yet it can be endured in consideration of the fact that the temple, which is inseparably united with God the Word, comes of her.

P. 196. Each nature must retain its peculiar attributes, and so we must, in regard to the union, wonderful and exalted far above all understanding, think of one honor and confess one Son.… With the one name Christ we designate at the same time two natures.… The essential characteristics in the nature of the divinity and in the humanity are from all eternity distinguished.

P. 275. God the Word is also named Christ because He has always conjunction with Christ. And it is impossible for God the Word to do anything without the humanity, for all is planned upon an intimate conjunction, not on the deification of the humanity.

(h) Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium, V, 5. (MSG, 45:705.)

The Christology of the Cappadocians.

The Cappadocians use language which was afterward condemned when given its extreme Alexandrian interpretation. Hefele, § 127, may be consulted with profit.

The flesh is not identical with the godhead before this is transformed into the godhead, so that necessarily some things are appropriate to God the Word, other things to the form of a servant. If, then, he [Eunomius] does not reproach himself with a duality of Words, on account of such confusion, why are we slanderously charged with dividing the faith into two Christs, we who say that He who was highly exalted after His passion, was made Lord and Christ by His union with Him who is verily Lord and Christ, knowing by what we have learned that the divine nature is always one and the same mode of existence, while the flesh in itself is that which reason and sense apprehend concerning it, but when mixed with the divine it no longer remains in its own limitations and properties, but is taken up to that which is overwhelming and transcendent. Our contemplation, however, of the respective properties of the flesh and of the godhead remains free from confusion, so long as each of these is considered in itself, as, for example, “The Word was before the ages, but flesh came into being in the last times.”… It is not the human nature that raises up Lazarus, nor is it the power that cannot suffer that weeps for him when he lies in the grave; the tear proceeds from the man, the life from the true Life.… So much as this is clear … that the blows belong to the servant in whom the Lord was, the honors to the Lord, whom the servant compassed about, so that by reason of contact and the union of natures the proper attributes of each belong to both, as the Lord receives the stripes of the servant, while the servant is glorified with the honor of the Lord.

The godhead “empties” itself that it may come within the capacity of the human nature, and the human nature is renewed by becoming divine through its commixture with the divine.… As fire that lies in wood, hidden often below the surface, and is unobserved by the senses of those who see or even touch it, is manifest, however, when it blazes up, so too, at His death (which He brought about at His will, who separated His soul from His body, who said to His own Father “Into Thy hands I commend My spirit” [Luke 23:46], “who,” as He says, “had power to lay it down and had power to take it again”), He who, because He is the Lord of glory, despised that which is shame among men, having concealed, as it were, the flame of His life in His bodily nature, by the dispensation of His death, kindled and inflamed it once more by the power of His own godhead, warming into life that which had been made dead, having infused with the infinity of His divine power those humble first-fruits of our nature; made it also to be that which He himself was, the servile form to be the Lord, and the man born of Mary to be Christ, and Him, who was crucified through weakness, to be life and power, and making all such things as are piously conceived to be in God the Word to be also in that which the Word assumed; so that these attributes no longer seem to be in either nature, being, by commixture with the divine, made anew in conformity with the nature that overwhelms it; participates in the power of the godhead, as if one were to say that a mixture makes a drop of vinegar mingled in the deep to be sea, for the reason that the natural quality of this liquid does not continue in the infinity of that which overwhelms it.

§ 89. The Nestorian Controversy; the Council of Ephesus A. D. 431

The Council of Ephesus was called to settle the dispute which had arisen between Cyril and the Alexandrians and Nestorius, archbishop of Constantinople, and the Antiochians. Several councils had been held previously, and much acrimonious debate. Both parties desired a council to adjust the dispute. The Emperor Theodosius II, in an edict of November 19, 430, called a council to be held on the following Whitsunday at Ephesus. The council was opened by Cyril and Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, June 22, a few days after the date assigned. This opening of the synod was opposed by the imperial commissioner and the party of Nestorius, because many of the Antiochians had not yet arrived. Cyril and Memnon, who had undertaken to bring about the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius, forced through their programme. On June 26 or 27 the Antiochians arrived, and, under the presidency of John of Antioch, and with the approval of the imperial commissioner, they held a council attended by about fifty bishops, while two hundred attended the rival council under Cyril. This smaller council deposed Cyril and Memnon. Both synods appealed to the Emperor and were confirmed by him. But shortly after Cyril and Memnon were restored. The Antiochians now violently attacked the successful Alexandrians but, having abandoned Nestorius, patched up a union with the Alexandrians, by which Cyril subscribed in 433 to a creed drawn up by the Antiochians, probably by Theodoret of Cyrus. Accordingly, the council of Cyril was now recognized by the Antiochians, as well as by the imperial authority, and became known as the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431.

Additional source material: Socrates, Hist. Ec., VII, 29-34; Theodoret, Epistulæ in PNF, ser. II, vol. III, and his counter propositions to the Anathemas of Cyril, ibid., pp. 27-31; Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (PNF).

(a) Cyril of Alexandria, Anathematisms. Hahn, § 219

Condemnation of the position of Nestorius.

Cyril held a council at Alexandria in 430, in which he set forth the teaching of Nestorius, as he understood it, in the form of anathemas against any who held the opinions which he set forth in order. Nestorius immediately replied by corresponding anathematisms. They may be found translated PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV, p. 206, where they are placed alongside of Cyril’s. In the meantime, Celestine of Rome had called upon Nestorius to retract, though as a matter of fact the Nestorian or Antiochian position was more in harmony with the position held in Rome, e.g., compare Anath. IV with the language of Nestorius and Leo, see Tome of Leo in § 90. A Greek text of these Anathematisms of Cyril may be found also in Denziger, n. 113, as they were described in the Fifth General Council as part of the acts of the Council of Ephesus A. D. 431; the Latin version (the Greek is lost) of the Anathematisms of Nestorius, as given by Marius Mercator are in Kirch, nn. 724-736.

I. If any one shall not confess that the Emmanuel is in truth God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is Theotokos, inasmuch as according to the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh; let him be anathema.

II. If any one shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united according to hypostasis to flesh, and that with the flesh of His own He is one Christ, the same manifestly God and man at the same time; let him be anathema.

III. If any one after the union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by a connection only, which is according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by a union according to nature; let him be anathema.

IV. If any one divide between the two persons or hypostases the expressions in the evangelical and apostolic writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the saints, or by Himself concerning Himself, and shall apply some to Him as to a man regarded separately apart from the Word of God, and shall apply others, as appropriate to God only, to the Word of God the Father; let him be anathema.

V. If any one dare to say that the Christ is a god-bearing man, and not rather that He is in truth God, as an only Son by nature, because “The Word was made flesh,” and hath share in flesh and blood as we have; let him be anathema.

VI. If any one shall dare to say that the Word of God the Father is the God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess Him as at the same time both God and man, since according to the Scriptures the Word became flesh; let him be anathema.

VII. If any one say that Jesus is, as a man, energized by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only begotten is attributed to Him as being something else than His own; let him be anathema.

VIII. If any one say that the man assumed ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with Him, and recognized together with Him as God, as one being with another (for this phrase “together with” is added to convey this meaning) and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay Him one glorification, because “the Word was made flesh”; let him be anathema.

IX. If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, so that He used through Him a power not His own, and from Him received power against unclean spirits, and power to perform divine signs before men, and shall not rather confess that it was His own spirit, through which He worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.

X. The divine Scriptures say that Christ was made the high priest and apostle of our confession [Heb. 3:1], and that for our sakes He offered Himself as a sweet odor to God the Father. If then any one say that it is not the divine Word himself, when He was made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than He, a man born of a woman, yet different from Him who has become our high priest and apostle; or if any one say that He offered Himself as an offering for Himself, and not rather for us, whereas, being without sin, He had no need of offering; let him be anathema.

XI. If any one shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving, and belongs to the Word of God the Father as His very own, but shall pretend that it belongs to another who is united to Him according to worthiness, and who has served as only a dwelling for the Divinity; and shall not rather confess that that flesh is life-giving, as we say, because it has been made the possession of the Word who is able to give life to all; let him be anathema.

XII. If any one shall not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and that He was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise He tasted death in the flesh, and that He is become the first-born from the dead [Col. 1:18], for as God He is the life and life-giving; let him be anathema.

(b) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. Condemnation of Nestorius. Mansi, IV, 1211

The text may also be found in Hefele, § 134, under the First Session of the Council.

The holy synod says: Since in addition to other things the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our Citation and did not receive the most holy and God-fearing bishops who were sent to him by us, we were compelled to proceed to the examination of his impieties. And, discovering from his letters and treatises and from the discourses recently delivered by him in this metropolis, which have been testified to, that he has held and published impious doctrines, and being compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him: Our Lord Jesus Christ whom he has blasphemed, decrees through the present most holy synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity and from all priestly communion.

(c) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, Ep. Ad Celestinum. Mansi, IV, 1330-1338

The letter is very long and gives an almost complete history of the council. It may be found complete in PNF, loc. cit., p. 237. It is of special importance in connection with the Pelagian controversy, as it states that the Council of Ephesus had confirmed the Western deposition of the Pelagians.

The letters were read which were written to him [Nestorius] by the most holy and reverend bishop of the church of Alexandria, Cyril, which the holy synod approved as being orthodox and without fault, and in no point out of agreement, either with the divinely inspired Scriptures, or with the faith handed down and set forth in the great synod by the holy Fathers who were assembled some time ago at Nicæa, as your holiness, also rightly having examined this, has given witness.…

When there had been read in the holy synod what had been done touching the deposition of the irreligious Pelagians and Celestinians, of Celestius, Pelagius, Julianus, Præsidius, Florus, Marcellinus, and Orontius, and those inclined to like errors, we also deemed it right that the determinations of your holiness concerning them should stand strong and firm. And we all were of the same mind, holding them deposed.

(d) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, Canons, Bruns, I, 24

The text may be found also in Hefele, § 141.

Whereas it is needful that they who were detained from the holy synod and remained in their own district or city for any reason, ecclesiastical or personal, should not be ignorant of the matters which were decreed by the synod; we therefore notify your holiness and charity that——

I. If any metropolitan of a province, forsaking the holy and ecumenical synod, has joined the assembly of apostasy [the council under John of Antioch], or shall join the same hereafter; or if he has adopted, or shall adopt, the doctrines of Celestius,185 he has no power in any way to do anything in opposition to the bishops of the province because he is already cast forth by the synod from all ecclesiastical communion, and is without authority; but he shall be subjected to the same bishops of the province and to the neighboring bishops who hold the orthodox doctrines, to be degraded completely from his episcopal rank.

II. If any provincial bishops were not present at the holy synod, and have joined or attempted to join the apostasy; or if, after subscribing to the deposition of Nestorius, they went back to the assembly of apostasy, these, according to the decree of the holy synod, are to be deposed completely from the priesthood and degraded from their rank.

(e) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, Manifesto of John of Antioch and his council against Cyril and his council. Mansi, IV, 1271.

The holy synod assembled in Ephesus, by the grace of God and at the command of the pious emperors, declares: We should indeed have wished to be able to hold a synod in peace, according to the canons of the holy Fathers and the letters of our most pious and Christ-loving emperors; but because you held a separate assembly from a heretical, insolent, and obstinate disposition, although, according to the letters of our most pious emperors, we were in the neighborhood, and because you have filled both the city and the holy synod with every sort of confusion, in order to prevent the examination of points agreeing with the Apollinarian, Arian, and Eunomian heresies and impieties, and have not waited for the arrival of the most religious bishops summoned from all regions by our pious emperors, and when the most magnificent Count Candidianus warned you and admonished you in writing and verbally that you should not hear such a matter, but await the common judgment of all the most holy bishops; therefore know thou, O Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and thou, O Memnon, bishop of this city, that ye are dismissed and deposed from all sacerdotal functions as the originators and leaders of all this disorder and lawlessness, and those who have violated the canons of the Fathers and the imperial decrees. And all ye others who seditiously and wickedly, and contrary to all ecclesiastical sanctions and the royal decrees, gave your consent are excommunicated until you acknowledge your fault and reform and accept anew the faith set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicæa, adding to it nothing foreign or different, and until ye anathematize the heretical propositions of Cyril, which are plainly repugnant to evangelical and apostolic doctrine, and in all things comply with the letters of our most pious and Christ-loving emperors, who require a peaceful and accurate consideration of the dogma.

(f) Creed of Antioch A. D. 433. Hahn, § 170

This creed was probably composed by Theodoret of Cyrus, and was sent by Count Johannes to the Emperor Theodosius in 431 as expressing the teaching of the Antiochian party. The bitterest period of the Nestorian controversy was after the council which is commonly regarded as having settled it. The Antiochians and the Alexandrians attacked each other vigorously. At last, in 433, John, bishop of Antioch, sent the creed given below to Cyril of Alexandria, who signed it. The creed expresses accurately the position of Nestorius. In this way a union was patched up between the contending parties. But the irreconcilable Nestorians left the Church permanently. This creed in the form in which it had been presented to the Emperor was at the beginning and the end worded somewhat differently, cf. Hahn, loc. cit., note.

We therefore acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, complete God and complete man, of a rational soul and body; begotten of the Father before the ages according to His godhead, but in the last days for us and for our salvation, of the Virgin Mary, according to the manhood; that He is of the same nature as the Father according to His godhead, and of the same nature with us according to His manhood; for a union of the two natures has been made; therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this conception of the unconfused union, we confess that the holy Virgin is Theotokos, because God the Word was made flesh and became man, and from her conception united with Himself the temple received from her. We recognize the evangelical and apostolic utterances concerning the Lord, making common, as in one person, the divine and the human characteristics, but distinguishing them as in two natures; and teaching that the godlike traits are according to the godhead of Christ, and the humble traits according to His manhood.

§ 90. The Eutychian Controversy and the Council of Chalcedon A. D. 451

What is known as the Eutychian controversy is less a dogmatic controversy than a struggle between the patriarchs of the East for supremacy, using party theological differences as a support. Few passages in the history of the Church are more painful. The union made in 433 between the Antiochian and Alexandrian parties lasted fifteen years, or until after the death of those who entered into it. At Antioch Domnus became bishop in 442, at Alexandria Dioscurus in 444, and at Constantinople Flavian in 446. Early in 448 Dioscurus, who aimed at the domination of the East, began to attack the Antiochians as Nestorians. In this he was supported at Constantinople by Chrysaphius, the all-powerful minister of the weak Theodosius II, and the archimandrite Eutyches, the godfather of the minister. Eusebius of Dorylæum thereupon accused Eutyches, who held the Alexandrian position in an extreme form, of being heretical on the doctrine of the Incarnation. Eutyches was condemned by Flavian at an endemic synod [cf. DCA, I. 474]. November 22, 448. Both Eutyches and Flavian [cf. Leo the Great, Ep. 21, 22] thereupon turned to Leo, bishop of Rome. Leo, abandoning the traditional Roman alliance with Alexandria, on which Dioscurus had counted, supported Flavian, sending him June 13, 449, a dogmatic epistle (the Tome, Ep. 28) defining, in the terms of Western theology, the point at issue. A synod was now called by Theodosius at Ephesus, August, 449, in which Dioscurus with the support of the court triumphed. Eutyches was restored, and the leaders of the Antiochian party, Flavian, Eusebius, Ibas, Theodoret, and others deposed. Flavian [cf. Kirch, nn. 804 ff.], Eusebius, and Theodoret appealed to Leo, who vigorously denounced the synod as a council of robbers (Latrocinium Ephesinum). At the same time the situation at the court, upon which Dioscurus depended, was completely changed by the fall of Chrysaphius and the death of Theodosius. Pulcheria, his sister, and Marcian, her husband, succeeded to the throne, both adherents of the Antiochian party, and opposed to the ecclesiastical aspirations of Dioscurus. A new synod was now called by Marcian at Chalcedon, a suburb of Constantinople. Dioscurus was deposed, as well as Eutyches, but Ibas and Theodoret were restored after an examination of their teaching. A definition was drawn up in harmony with the Tome of Leo. It was a triumph for Leo, which was somewhat lessened by the passage of canon 28, based upon the third canon of Constantinople, A. D. 381, a council which was henceforth recognized as the “Second General Council.” Leo refused to approve this canon, which remained in force in the East and was renewed at the Quinisext Council A. D. 692.

Additional source material: W. Bright, Select Sermons of S. Leo the Great on the Incarnation; with his twenty-eighth Epistle called the “Tome”, Second ed., London, 1886; Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (PNF); Evagrius, Hist. Ec., II, 1-5, 18, Eng. trans., London, 1846 (also in Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library); also much material in Hefele, §§ 170-208.

(a) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, Acts. Mansi, VI, 741 Ff

The position of Eutyches and his condemnation.

Inasmuch as Eutyches was no theologian and no man of letters, he has left no worked-out statement of his position. What he taught can be gathered only from the acts of the Council of Constantinople A. D. 448. These were incorporated in the acts of the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449, and as his friends were there they may be regarded as trustworthy. The acts of the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449 were read in the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, and in this way the matter is known.

The following passages are taken from the seventh sitting of the Council of Constantinople, November 22, 448.

Archbishop Flavian said: Do you confess that the one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is consubstantial with His Father as to His divinity, and consubstantial with His mother as to His humanity?

Eutyches said: When I intrusted myself to your holiness I said that you should not ask me further what I thought concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

The archbishop said: Do you confess Christ to be of two natures?

Eutyches said: I have never yet presumed to speculate concerning the nature of my God, the Lord of heaven and earth; I confess that I have never said that He is consubstantial with us. Up to the present day I have not said that the body of our Lord and God was consubstantial with us; I confess that the holy Virgin is consubstantial with us, and that of her our God was incarnate.…

Florentius, the patrician, said: Since the mother is consubstantial with us, doubtless the Son is consubstantial with us.

Eutyches said: I have not said, you will notice, that the body of a man became the body of God, but the body was human, and the Lord was incarnate of the Virgin. If you wish that I should add to this that His body is consubstantial with us, I will do this; but I do not understand the term consubstantial in such a way that I do not deny that he is the Son of God. Formerly I spoke in general not of a consubstantiality according to the flesh; now I will do so, because your Holiness demands it.…

Florentius said: Do you or do you not confess that our Lord, who is of the Virgin, is consubstantial and of two natures after the incarnation?

Eutyches said: I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union [i.e., the union of divinity and humanity in the incarnation], but after the union one nature.… I follow the teaching of the blessed Cyril and the holy Fathers and the holy Athanasius, because they speak of two natures before the union, but after the union and incarnation they speak not of two natures but of one nature.

Condemnation of Eutyches.

Eutyches, formerly presbyter and archimandrite, has been shown, by what has taken place and by his own confession, to be infected with the heresy of Valentinus and Apollinaris, and to follow stubbornly their blasphemies, and rejecting our arguments and teaching, is unwilling to consent to true doctrines. Therefore, weeping and mourning his complete perversity, we have decreed through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has been blasphemed by him, that he be deprived of every sacerdotal office, that he be put out of our communion, and deprived of his position over a monastery. All who hereafter speak with him or associate with him, are to know that they also are fallen into the same penalty of excommunication.

(b) Leo the Great, Epistola Dogmatica or the Tome. Hahn, § 176. (MSL, 54:763.)

This letter was written to Flavian on the subject which had been raised by the condemnation of Eutyches in 448. It is of the first importance, not merely in the history of the Church, but also in the history of doctrine. Yet it cannot be said that Leo advanced beyond the traditional formulæ of the West, or struck out new thoughts [cf. Augustine, Ep. 187, text and translation of most important part in Norris, Rudiments of Theology, 1894, pp. 262-266]. It was to be read at the Council of Ephesus, 449 A. D., but was not. It soon became widely known, however, and was approved at the endemic Council of Constantinople, A. D. 450, and when read at Chalcedon, the Fathers of the council cried out: “Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo.”

It may be found translated in PNF, ser II, vol. XII, p. 38, and again vol. XIV, p. 254. The best critical text is given in Hahn, § 224. A translation with valuable notes may be found in Wm. Bright, op. cit. Hefele, § 176, gives a paraphrase and text with useful notes. The most significant passages, which are here translated, may be found in Denziger, nn. 143 f.

Ch. 3. Without detracting from the properties of either nature and substance, which came together in one person, majesty took on humility; strength, weakness; eternity, mortality; and to pay off the debt of our condition inviolable nature was united to passible nature, so that as proper remedy for us, one and the same mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, could both die with the one and not die with the other. Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His and complete in what was ours.…

Ch. 4. There enters, therefore, these lower parts of the world the Son of God, descending from His heavenly seat, and not quitting the glory of His Father, begotten in a new order by a new nativity. In a new order: because He who was invisible in His own nature, was made visible in ours; He who was incomprehensible [could not be contained], became comprehensible in ours; remaining before all times, He began to be in time; the Lord of all, He took upon Him the form of a servant, having obscured His immeasurable majesty. He who was God, incapable of suffering, did not disdain to be man, capable of suffering, and the immortal to subject Himself to the laws of death. Born by a new nativity: because the inviolate virginity knew not concupiscence, it ministered the material of the flesh. The nature of the Lord was assumed from the mother, not sin; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, born of the womb of the Virgin, because His nativity is wonderful, yet is His nature not dissimilar to ours. For He who is true God, is likewise true man, and there is no fraud186 since both the humility of the man and the loftiness of God meet.187 For as God is not changed by the manifestation of pity, so the man is not consumed [absorbed] by the dignity. For each form [i.e., nature] does in communion with the other what is proper to it [agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium est]; namely, by the action of the Word what is of the Word, and by the flesh carrying out what is of the flesh. One of these is brilliant with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not depart from equality with the paternal glory, so the flesh does not forsake the nature of our race.188

(c) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, Definition. Mansi, VII, 107

The definition of Chalcedon lays down the fundamental principles upon which rests the doctrine of the incarnation, both in Eastern and Western theology. It is the necessary complement and result of the discussion that led to the definition of Nicæa, and is theologically second only to that in importance. At Nicæa the true and eternal deity of the Son who became incarnate was defined; at Chalcedon the true, complete, and abiding humanity of manhood of the incarnate Son of God. In this way two natures were asserted to be in the incarnate Logos. According to Chalcedon, which came after the Nestorian and the Eutychian controversies, these natures are neither to be confused so that the divine nature suffers or the human nature is lost in the divine, nor to be separated so as to constitute two persons. The definition was, however, not preceded by any clear understanding of what was to be understood by nature in relation to hypostasis. This was left for later discussion. There was even then left open the question as to the relation of the will to the nature, and this gave rise to the Monothelete controversy (see § 110). But the definition of Chalcedon is important not merely for the history of doctrine but also for the general history of the Church. The course of Christianity in the East depends upon the great controversies, and in Monophysitism the Church of the East was split into permanent divisions. The divisions of the Eastern Church prepared the way for the Moslem conquests. The attempts made to set aside the definition of Chalcedon as a political move led to a temporary schism between the East and the West.

In this definition, it should be noted, the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, for the first time takes its place alongside of Nicæa and Ephesus, A. D. 431, and the so-called creed of Constantinople is placed on the same level as the creed put forth at Nicæa. The creed of Constantinople eventually took the place of the creed of Nicæa even in the East.

The text of the definition may be found in its most important dogmatic part in Hefele, § 193; Hahn, § 146; Denziger, n. 148. For a general description of the council, see Evagrius, Hist. Ec., II, 3, 4. Extracts from the acts in PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV, 243 ff.

The holy, great, and ecumenical synod, assembled by the grace of God and the command of our most religious and Christian Emperors Marcian and Valentinian, Augusti, at Chalcedon, the metropolis of the province of Bithynia, in the martyry of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia, has decreed as follows:

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when strengthening the knowledge of the faith in his disciples, to the end that no one might disagree with his neighbor concerning the doctrines of religion, and that the proclamation of the truth might be set forth equally to all men, said: “My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.” But since the Evil One does not desist from sowing tares among the seeds of godliness, but ever invents something new against the truth, therefore the Lord, providing, as He ever does, for the human race, has raised up this pious, faithful, and zealous sovereign, and He has called together unto Himself from all parts the chief rulers of the priesthood, so that, with the grace of Christ, our common Lord, inspiring us, we may cast off every plague of falsehood from the sheep of Christ and feed them with the tender leaves of truth. And this we have done, with unanimous consent driving away erroneous doctrine and renewing the unerring faith of the Fathers, publishing to all the creed of the three hundred and eighteen [i.e., the creed of Nicæa], and to their number adding as Fathers those who have received the same summary of religion. Such are the one hundred and fifty who afterward assembled in great Constantinople and ratified the same faith. Moreover, observing the order and every form relating to the faith which was observed by the holy synod formerly held in Ephesus, of which Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria, of holy memory, were the leaders [i.e., Ephesus A. D. 431], we do declare that the exposition of the right and blameless faith made by the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, assembled at Nicæa in the reign of Constantine, of pious memory, shall be pre-eminent, and that those things shall be of force also which were decreed by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers at Constantinople for the uprooting of the heresies which had then sprung up and for the confirmation of the same Catholic and apostolic faith of ours.

Then follow:

“The Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers at Nicæa.” The so-called Constantinopolitan creed, without the “filioque.”

This wise and salutary formula of divine grace sufficed for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of religion; for it teaches the perfect doctrine concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and sets forth the incarnation of the Lord to them that faithfully receive it. But forasmuch as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings, some of them daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation for us and refusing to use the name Theotokos in reference to the Virgin, while others bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that there is one nature of the flesh and the godhead, maintaining that the divine nature of the Only begotten is by mixture capable of suffering; therefore this present, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to exclude from them every device against the truth and teaching that which is unchanged from the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate. And on account of them that contend against the Holy Ghost, it confirms the doctrine afterward delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled in the imperial city, which doctrine they declare unto all men, not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors, but in order to explain through written documents their faith concerning the Holy Ghost against those who were seeking to destroy His sovereignty. And on account of those who are attempting to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation [i.e., the incarnation], and who shamelessly pretend that He who was born of the holy Virgin Mary was a mere man, it receives the synodical letters of the blessed Cyril, pastor of the church of Alexandria, addressed to Nestorius and to the Easterns,189 judging them suitable for the refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius and for the instruction of those who long with holy ardor for a knowledge of the saving symbol. And to these it has rightly added for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines the letter of the president of the great and old Rome, the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo, which was addressed to Archbishop Flavian, of blessed memory,190 for the removal of the false doctrines of Eutyches, judging them to be agreeable to the confession of the great Peter and to be a common pillar against misbelievers. For it opposes those who would rend the mystery of the dispensation into a duad of Sons; it repels from the sacred assembly those who dared to say that the godhead of the Only begotten is capable of suffering; it resists those who imagine there is a mixture or confusion in the two natures of Christ; it drives away those who fancy His form as a servant is of an heavenly or of some substance other than that which was taken of us,191 and it anathematizes those who foolishly talk of two natures of our Lord before the union,192 conceiving that after the union there was only one.193

Following the holy Fathers,194 we all with one voice teach men to confess that the Son and our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same, that He is perfect in godhead and perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body, consubstantial with His Father as touching His godhead, and consubstantial with us as to His manhood,195 in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten of His Father before all worlds according to His godhead; but in these last days for us and for our salvation of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, according to His manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten Son,196 in197 two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being preserved and concurring in one person and hypostasis,198 not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have spoken concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and as the creed of the Fathers has delivered us.

These things having been expressed by us with great accuracy and attention, the holy ecumenical synod decrees that no one shall be permitted to bring forward another faith,199 nor to write, nor to compose, nor to excogitate, nor to teach such to others. But such as dare to compose another faith, or to bring forward, or to teach, or to deliver another creed to such as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth from among the Gentiles or the Jews, or any heresy whatever; if they be bishops or clerics, let them be deposed, the bishops from the episcopate, the clerics from the clerical rank; but if they be monks or laymen, let them be anathematized.

(d) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, Canon 28. Bruns, I, 32

The rank of the see of Constantinople.

This canon is closely connected with Canon 3 of Constantinople, A. D. 381, but goes beyond that in extending the authority of Constantinople. With this canon should be compared Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon, which, taken with Canon 28, make Constantinople supreme in the East. For the circumstances in which the Canon was passed, see Hefele, § 200. The letter of the council submitting its decrees to Leo for approval and explaining this canon is among the Epistles of Leo, Ep. 98. (PNF, ser. II, vol. XII, p. 72.) For Leo’s criticism, v. supra, § 86. See W. Bright, Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, 1882. A valuable discussion of the canon in its historical setting is in Hergenröther, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, 1867, I, 74-89.

Texts of the canon may be found in Kirch, n. 868, and Hefele, loc. cit.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has just been read, of the one hundred and fifty bishops, beloved of God we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople or New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of Old Rome, because it was the royal city, and the one hundred and fifty most religious bishops, moved by the same considerations, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, judging with good reason that the city which is honored with the sovereignty and the Senate, and also enjoys equal privileges with old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that in the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace the metropolitans, and such bishops also of the dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained only by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with the bishops of his province ordaining bishops of the province, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been said above, the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses shall be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

(e) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, Protests of the Legates of Leo Against Canon 28. Mansi, VII, 446

Lucentius, the bishop [legate of Leo], said: The Apostolic See gave orders that all things should be done in our presence [Latin text: The Apostolic See ought not to be humiliated in our presence], and therefore whatever was done yesterday during our absence, to the prejudice of the canons, we pray your highnesses [i.e., the royal commissioners who directed the affairs of the council] to command to be rescinded. But if not, let our protest be placed in these acts [i.e., the minutes of the council then being approved], so that we may know clearly what we are to report to that apostolic and chief bishop of the whole Church [Latin text: to that apostolic man and Pope of the universal Church], so that he may be able to take action with regard either to the indignity done to his see or to the setting at naught of the canons.

§ 91. Results of the Decision of Chalcedon: The Rise of Schisms From the Monophysite Controversy

The definition of the Council of Chalcedon, in spite of its condemnation of Nestorius and its approval of the letters of Cyril, was a triumph of the Antiochian school and a condemnation of Alexandrian theology. At Chalcedon no more than at Nicæa was a controversy settled. So far from being settled at the council, Monophysitism began with it its long career in the Eastern Church only to end in permanent schisms. As soon as the results of Chalcedon were known the Church was in an uproar. Riots broke out in Jerusalem against the patriarch. At Alexandria, Timothy Ælurus, a Monophysite, was able to drive out the orthodox patriarch. In Antioch, Petrus Fullo did the same and added to the liturgical Trisagion [Is. 6:3] the Theopaschite phrase: “God who was crucified for us.” The Emperor Marcian died 457 and was succeeded by Leo I (457-474). His grandson Leo II (474) was succeeded by his father Zeno (474-475, 477-491). Zeno was temporarily deposed by Basiliscus (475-477), who, basing his authority upon the Monophysite faction, issued an Encyclion condemning Chalcedon and Leo’s Epistle, and making Monophysitism the religion of the Empire. Zeno was restored by a Dyophysite faction under the lead of Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople. Zeno, to win back the Monophysites, issued in 482 the Henoticon, setting aside Chalcedon and making only the definition of Nicæa authoritative. Dissatisfaction arose on both sides, and minor schisms in the East took place. With Rome a schism arose lasting 484-519.

Additional source material: Evagrius, Hist. Ec., lib. III.

(a) Basiliscus, Encyclion; A. D. 476; in Evagrius, Hist. Ec., III, 4. (MSG, 86, II:2600.) Cf. Kirch, Nn. 879 f

Although an anti-encyclion was issued in 477 condemning Eutyches as well as Nestorius, the attempts of Basiliscus were in vain.

The Emperor Cæsar Basiliscus, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever-worshipful Augustus, and Marcus, the most noble Cæsar, to Timotheus, archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, most reverend and beloved of God.

Whatever laws the pious emperors before us, who worshipped the blessed and immortal and life-giving Trinity, have decreed in behalf of the true and apostolic faith, these laws, we say, as always beneficial for the whole world, we will at no time to be inoperative, but rather we promulgate them as our own. We, preferring piety and zeal in the cause of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who created and has made us glorious before all diligence in human affairs, and also believing that concord among the flocks of Christ is the preservation of ourselves and our subjects, the firm foundation and unshaken bulwark of our Empire, and, accordingly, being rightly moved with godly zeal and offering to God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ, the unity of the holy Church as the first-fruits of our reign, do ordain as the basis and confirmation of human felicity, namely, the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers who were in time past assembled with the Holy Ghost at Nicæa, into which both ourselves and all our believing subjects were baptized; that this alone should have reception and authority with the orthodox people in all the most holy churches of God as the only formulary of the right faith, and sufficient for the utter destruction of all heresy and for the complete unity of the holy churches of God; the acts of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled in this imperial city, in confirmation of the sacred symbol itself and in condemnation of those who blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, retaining their own force; as well as of all done in the metropolitan city of the Ephesians against the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently favored his opinions.200 But the proceedings which have disturbed the unity and good order of the holy churches of God, and the peace of the whole world, that is to say, the so-called Tome of Leo, and all things done at Chalcedon in innovation upon the before-mentioned holy symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, whether by way of definition of the faith or setting forth of symbols, or interpretation, or instruction, or discourse; we decree that these shall be anathematized both here and everywhere by all the most holy bishops in every church and shall be given to the flames by whomsoever they shall be found, insomuch as it was so enjoined respecting all heretical doctrines by our predecessors of pious and blessed memory, Constantine and Theodosius the younger [v. supra, § 73], and that, having thus been rendered null, they shall be utterly cast out from the one and only Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, as superseding the everlasting and saving definitions of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, and those of the blessed Fathers who, by the Holy Ghost, decreed at Ephesus [it is possible that there is a fault in the text here; the expected reading of the passage would be: and of the one hundred and fifty bishops who decreed concerning the Holy Spirit; and of those who were assembled at Ephesus] that no one, either of the priesthood or laity, be allowed to deviate in any respect from that most sacred constitution of the holy symbol, and we decree that these be anathematized together with all the innovations upon the sacred symbol which were made at Chalcedon and the heresy of those who do not confess that the only begotten Son of God was truly incarnate and made man of the Holy Ghost and of the holy and ever-virgin Mary, Theotokos, but falsely allege that either from heaven or in mere phantasy and seeming He took flesh; and, in short, every heresy and whatever else at any time in any manner or place in the whole world, in either thought or word, has been devised as an innovation upon and in derogation of the sacred symbol. And inasmuch as it belongs especially to imperial providence to furnish to their subjects, with forecasting deliberation, security not only for the present but for the future, we decree that everywhere the most holy bishops shall subscribe to this our sacred circular letter when exhibited to them, and shall distinctly declare that they submit to the sacred symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers alone, which the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers confirmed, as it was also defined by the most holy Fathers who subsequently assembled in the metropolitan city of the Ephesians, that they should submit to the sacred symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, as the definition of faith, and shall anathematize everything done at Chalcedon as an offence to the orthodox people and utterly cast it out of the churches as an impediment to the general happiness and our own.201 Those, moreover, who after the issuing of this our sacred letter, which we trust has been issued according to God, in an endeavor to bring about that unity which all desire for the holy churches of God, shall attempt to bring forward or so much as to name the innovation upon the faith made at Chalcedon, either in discourse, instruction, or writing, in whatsoever manner or place—those persons, as the cause of confusion and tumult in the churches of God and among the whole body of our subjects, and as enemies of God and to our safety, we command (in accordance with the laws ordained by our predecessor Theodosius, of blessed and pious memory, against such sorts of evil designs, which laws are subjoined to this our sacred circular) that, if they be bishops or clergy, they be deposed; if monks or laymen, that they be subjected to banishment and every mode of confiscation and the severest penalties. For so the holy and homoousian Trinity, the Creator and Life-giver of the universe, which has ever been adored by us in piety, now also is served by us in the destruction of the before-mentioned tares and the confirmation of the true and apostolic traditions of the holy symbol, becoming favorable and gracious both to our souls and to every one of our subjects, shall ever aid us and preserve in peace human affairs.

(b) Zeno, Henoticon; in Evagrius, Hist. Ec., III, 14. (MSG, 86, II:2620.) Cf. Kirch, Nn. 883 f

Zeno published his Henoticon in 482 as an attempt to win back the Monophysites. Evagrius says, in a note to the document: “When these things were read, those who were in Alexandria were joined to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” The effect so far as the West went was just the opposite. Felix III protested and threatened. But Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, who was chiefly responsible for the document, refused to listen. Felix (cf. Evagrius, III, 18) and Acacius thereupon issued mutual excommunications. On the accession of the Emperor Anastasius [491-518] the Henoticon continued in force, as his sympathies were with the Monophysites. It will be noted that the Henoticon not merely sets aside Chalcedon but introduces phrases which make it appear that the same moral subject is present in every act, whether of humility or majesty, and that it is God who suffers. These are characteristic Monophysite positions.

The Emperor Cæsar Zeno, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever-worshipful Augustus, to the most reverend bishops and clergy, and to the monks and laity throughout Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.

Being assured that the origin and constitution, the might and invincible shield of our sovereignty, is the only right and true faith, which the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers assembled at Nicæa set forth by divine inspiration, and the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers who in like manner met at Constantinople, confirmed; we night and day employ every means of prayer, of zealous care, and of laws, that the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God in every place may be multiplied, which is the incorruptible and immortal mother of our sceptre; and that the pious laity, continuing in peace and unanimity in respect to God, may, together with the bishops, highly beloved of God, the most pious clergy, the archimandrites, and monks, offer up acceptably their supplications in behalf of our sovereignty. So long as our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who was made man and brought forth of Mary, the holy Virgin and Theotokos, approves and readily accepts the praise we render by concord and our service, the power of enemies will be crushed and swept away, and all will bend their necks to our power, which is according to God, and peace and its blessings, kindly temperature, abundant produce, and whatever else is beneficial will be liberally bestowed upon men. Since, then, the irreprehensible faith is the preserver of both ourselves and Roman affairs, petitions have been offered to us from pious archimandrites and hermits and other venerable persons, imploring with tears that there be unity for the most holy churches, and the parts should be joined to parts which the enemy of all good has of old time attempted to keep apart, knowing that, if he assails the body of the Church sound and complete, he will be defeated. For, since it happens that of unnumbered generations which during the lapse of so many years in time have withdrawn from life, some have departed deprived of the laver of regeneration, and others have been borne away on the inevitable journey of man without having partaken of the divine communion; and innumerable murders have also been committed; and not only the earth, but the very air has been filled by a multitude of blood-sheddings, who would not pray that this state of things might be transformed into good? For this reason we were anxious that you should know that neither we nor the churches everywhere have ever held or shall hold, nor are we aware of any persons who hold, any other symbol or teaching or definition of faith or creed than the aforementioned holy symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, which the aforesaid one hundred and fifty holy Fathers confirmed. If any person should hold such, we regard him as an alien; for we are confident that this symbol alone is, as we said, the preserver of our sovereignty. And all the people desiring the saving illumination were baptized, receiving this faith only, and this the holy Fathers assembled at Ephesus also followed; who deposed the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently held his sentiments. And this Nestorius we also anathematize, together with Eutyches and all who entertain opinions contrary to the above-mentioned, receiving at the same time the twelve chapters of Cyril, of holy memory, formerly archbishop of the holy Catholic Church of the Alexandrians. We confess, moreover, that the only begotten Son of God, himself God, who truly became man, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, is consubstantial with the Father as to his godhead, and the same consubstantial with ourselves as respects his manhood; that having descended and become flesh of the Holy Ghost and Mary, the Virgin and Theotokos, He is one and not two; for we affirm that both His miracles and the sufferings which He voluntarily endured in the flesh, are of one; for we do not in any degree admit those who either make a division or a confusion or introduce a phantom; inasmuch as His truly sinless incarnation from the Theotokos did not produce an addition of a son, because the Trinity continued as a Trinity, even when one of the Trinity, God the Word, did become incarnate. Knowing, then, that neither the holy orthodox churches of God in all places nor the priests, highly beloved of God, who are at their head, nor our own sovereignty, have allowed or do allow any other symbol or definition of faith than the before-mentioned holy teaching, we have united ourselves thereunto without hesitation. And these things we write, not as making an innovation upon the faith, but to satisfy you; and every one who has held or holds any other opinion, either at the present or at another time, whether at Chalcedon or in any synod whatever, we anathematize; and specially the aforementioned Nestorius and Eutyches, and those who maintain their doctrines. Link yourselves, therefore, to the spiritual mother, the Church, and in her enjoy divine communion with us, according to the aforesaid one and only definition of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers. For your all-holy mother, the Church, waits to embrace you as true children, and longs to hear your gentle voice so long withheld. Speed yourselves, therefore, for by so doing you will both draw toward yourselves the favor of our Master and Saviour and God, Jesus Christ, and be commended by our sovereignty.

§ 92. The Church of Italy Under the Ostrogoths and During the First Schism Between Rome and the Eastern Church

The schism between New and Old Rome lasted from 484 to 517, but attempts were made on both sides to end the deplorable situation. The two successors of Acacius were willing to resume communion with Rome and restore the name of the bishop of Rome to the diptychs, but refused to take the names of their predecessors from the same, as required by the latter. Gelasius (492-496), Anastasius II (496-498), and Symmachus (498-514) held firmly but unavailingly to the Roman contention that, before any communion was possible, the name of Acacius must be struck from the diptychs—in the case of the dead an act as condemnatory as excommunication in the case of the living. Meanwhile the Roman see boldly asserted the independence of the Church, and protested against the action of the Emperor in setting aside the decree of Chalcedon as usurpation and tyranny. This is most clearly set forth by Gelasius, in his epistle to the Emperor Anastasius. The schism finally came to an end in 519, in accordance with the ecclesiastical policy of Justinian, and at that time the Formula of Hormisdas (514-523) was accepted by the heads of the Eastern Church by an act constituting a complete surrender of the claims of the Orientals.

While the schism was still existing and Rome was treating with the East upon an independent footing, the situation in Italy was far less brilliant. The Arian king, the Ostrogoth Theodoric (489, 493-526) ruled Italy, and the attitude of the Roman see was far less authoritative toward the local ruler. It was, however, a period of great importance for the future of the Church; Boethius, Cassiodorus, Dionysius Exiguus, and Benedict of Nursia (v. infra, §§ 104, 105) all belong to this period and the decree of Gelasius, De Recipiendis Libris, was of permanent influence upon the theological science of the West.

Additional source material: Cassiodorus, Varia, Eng. trans. (condensed), by T. Hodgkin (The Letters of Cassiodorus), London, 1886.

(a) Gelasius, Ep. Ad Imp. Anastasium. (MSL, 59:42.)

A definition of the relation between the secular and religious authority.

The date of this epistle is 494. The period is not dealt with at any length in English works on ecclesiastical history; see, however. T. Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, II, pp. 41-84, the chapter entitled “Papal Prerogative under Popes Gelasius and Symmachus.”

After Gelasius has alluded to the circumstances in which he is writing and excused his not writing, he mentions his natural devotion to the Roman Emperor—being himself by birth a Roman citizen—his desire as a Christian to share with him the right faith, and as vicar of the Apostolic See his constant anxiety to maintain the true faith; he then proceeds:

I beseech your piety not to regard as arrogance duty in divine affairs. Far be it from a Roman prince, I pray, to regard as injury truth that has been intimated to him. For, indeed, there are, O Emperor Augustus, two by whom principally this world is ruled: the sacred authority of the pontiffs and the royal power. Of these the importance of the priests is so much the greater, as even for kings of men they will have to give an account in the divine judgment. Know, indeed, most clement son, that although you worthily rule over the human race, yet as a man of devotion in divine matters you submit your neck to the prelates, and also from them you await the matters of your salvation, and in making use of the celestial sacraments and in administering those things you know that you ought, as is right, to be subjected to the order of religion rather than preside over it; know likewise that in regard to these things you are dependent upon their judgment and you should not bend them to your will. For if, so far as it pertains to the order of public discipline, the priests of religion, knowing that the imperial power has been bestowed upon you by divine providence, obey your laws, lest in affairs of exclusively mundane determination they might seem to resist, with how much more gladness, I ask, does it become you to obey them who have been assigned to the duty of performing the divine mysteries. Just as there is no light risk for the pontiffs to be silent about those things which belong to the service of the divinity, so there is no small peril (which God forbid) to those who, when they ought to obey, refuse to do so. And if it is right that the hearts of the faithful be submitted to all priests generally who treat rightly divine things, how much more is obedience to be shown to the prelate of that see which the highest divinity wished to be pre-eminent over all priests and which the devotion of the whole Church continually honors?

(b) Gelasius, Epist. De Recipiendis et Non Recipiendis Libris. Mansi, VIII, 153 Ff

This decretal is evidently made of matter of different dates, as has been shown by Hefele, § 217, and probably contains matter which may be later than Gelasius. In the first section of the decretal is a list of the canonical books of the Bible, as in the Vulgate; the decretal then sets forth the claims of the Roman see (§ 2), the books to be received (§ 3), and the books which the Roman Church rejects (§ 4). In respect to several there are various comments added, but these have in several cases been omitted for the sake of brevity, where they are of less importance. Portions of the decretal in Denziger, nn. 162-164; the full text of the decretal may be found in Mansi VIII, 153 ff. Preuschen, Analecta, vol. II, pp. 52 ff.; Mirbt, n. 168.

II. Although the one dwelling of the universal Catholic Church spread through the world is of Christ, the holy Roman Church, however, has been placed before the other churches by no synodical decrees, but has obtained the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, saying, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” etc.202 To it was given the fellowship of the most blessed Apostle Paul, that chosen vessel who not at a different time, as heretics prate, but at one time and on one and the same day by a glorious death, was crowned together with Peter in agony in the city of Rome under the Emperor Nero. And they equally consecrated the said holy Roman Church to Christ and placed it over all the others in the whole world by their presence and venerable triumph.

III. Therefore the first see of Peter the Apostle is the Roman Church, not having any spot or wrinkle or any such thing. The second see was consecrated at Alexandria in the name of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and the evangelist. He himself, having been directed by the Apostle Peter to Egypt, preached the word of truth and consummated a glorious martyrdom. But as the third see of the same most blessed Apostle Peter is held the see of Antioch, since he held that before he came to Rome, and there the name of the new people, the name of Christians, arose.

IV. 1. And although no other foundation can be laid than that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus, yet after the writings of the Old and New Testaments,203 which we receive regularly, the same holy Roman Church does not prohibit these following writings to be received for the purposes of edification:

2. The holy synod of Nicæa, according to the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, under the Emperor Constantine.

3. The holy synod of Ephesus, in which Nestorius was condemned with the consent of the most blessed Pope [papa] Celestine, held under Cyril, the prelate of the see of Alexandria, and Acadius, a bishop sent from Italy.

4. The holy synod of Chalcedon, which was held under the Emperor Marcian and Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, and in which Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscurus were condemned.

V. 1. Likewise the works of the blessed Cæcilius Cyprianus, martyr, and bishop of Carthage; 2. … of Gregory the bishop of Nazianzus; 3. … of Basil, bishop of Cappadocia; 4. … of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria; 5. … of John [Chrysostom], bishop of Constantinople; 6. … of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria; 7. … of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria; 8. … of Hilary, bishop of Poitiers; 9. … of Ambrose, bishop of Milan; 10. … of Augustine, bishop of Hippo; 11. … of Jerome, the presbyter; 12. … of Prosper; 13. … likewise the Epistle of the blessed Pope Leo to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, against Eutyches and other heretics; and if any one dispute even so much as an iota of the text of the epistle, and will not reverently receive it in all points, let him be anathema.

14. Likewise the works and treatises of the orthodox Fathers are to be read, who in no respect have deviated from the union with the holy Roman Church, nor have separated from its faith and teaching; but, by the grace of God, have shared in communion with it even to the last days of their life.

15. Likewise the decretal epistles which the most blessed Popes at different times have given from the city of Rome, in reply to consultations of various fathers, are to be reverently received.

16. Likewise the acts of the holy martyrs.… But, according to an ancient custom and singular caution, they are not to be read in the holy Roman Church, because the names of those who wrote them are not known.…

17. Likewise the lives of the fathers Paul, Antony, Hilarion, and all hermits which the most blessed Jerome has described, we receive in honor.

18. Likewise the acts of the blessed Sylvester, prelate of the Apostolic See, although the name of the writer is unknown; however, we know that it is read by many Catholics in the city of Rome, and on account of its ancient use many churches have copied it.

19. Likewise the writing concerning the discovery of the cross and another concerning the discovery of the head of the blessed John the Baptist.…

20. Rufinus, a most religious man, has published many books on ecclesiastical affairs and has also translated several writings. But because the venerable Jerome has criticised him in various points for his freedom in judgment, we are of the same opinion as we know Jerome is, and not only concerning Rufinus but all others whom, out of zeal toward God and devotion to the faith, Jerome has condemned.

21. Likewise several works of Origen which the blessed Jerome does not reject we receive as to be read; the remaining works along with their author we declare are to be rejected.

22. Likewise the chronicles of Eusebius of Cæsarea and the books of his Ecclesiastical History, although in the first book of his narrative he has been a little warm and afterward he wrote one book in praise and defence of Origen, the schismatic, yet on account of the mention of several things, which pertain to instruction, we say that they are to that extent not to be rejected.…

23. Likewise we approve Orosius; 24. … the works of Sedulius; 25. … the works of Juvencus.…

VI. Other works which have been written by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in no respect receives, and these, although they are not received and are to be avoided by Catholics, we believe ought to be added below.

There follow a list of thirty-five apocryphal gospels, acts, and similar documents. The epistle continues:

36. The book which is called The Canons of the Apostles; 37. the book called Physiologus, written by heretics and ascribed to Ambrose; 38. the history of Eusebius Pamphilius; 39. the works of Tertullian; 40. … of Lactantius or Firminianus; 41. … of Africanus; 42. … Postumianus and Gallus; 43. … of Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla; 44. … all the works of Faustus the Manichæan; 45. the works of Commodus; 46. the works of another Clement of Alexandria; 47. the works of Thascius Cyprianus; 48. of Arnobius; 49. of Tichonius; 50. of Cassianus a presbyter of Gaul; 51. Victorinus of Pettau; 52. of Frumentius the blind; 53. of Faustus of Reiz; 54. the Epistle of Jesus to Abgar; 55. Passion of St. Cyricus and Julitta; 56. Passion of St. Georgius; 57. the writings which are called the “Curse of Solomon”; 58. all phylacteries which have been written not with the names of angels, as they pretend, but rather of demons; 59. these works and all similar to them which Simon Magus [a list of heretics down to] Peter [Fullo] and another Peter [Mongus], of whom one defiled Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his adherents, as also all heretics or disciples of heretics or schismatics have taught or written, whose names we do not remember are not only repudiated by the entire Roman Catholic Church, but we declare are bound forever with an indissoluble anathema together with their authors and followers of their authors.

(c) Hormisdas, Formula. Mansi, VIII, 407. Cf. Denziger, Nn. 171 f

The formula which Hormisdas of Rome (514-523) proposed in 515, and which was accepted Easter 519 by the patriarch John II of Constantinople and many other Orientals, and which ended the schism between Rome and Constantinople occasioned by Acacius. As soon as this formula was accepted the leading Monophysites fled to Egypt.

The beginning of salvation is to preserve the rule of a correct faith and to deviate in no respect from the constitutions of the fathers. And because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be allowed to fail, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” etc. [Matt. 16:18], these things which were said are proved by the effects of things, because in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot or blemish. Desiring in no respect to be separated from this hope and faith, and following the constitutions of the Fathers, we anathematize all heretics, and especially the heretic Nestorius, who was once bishop of the city of Constantinople, and condemned in the Council of Ephesus by Pope Celestine and by the holy Cyril, prelate of the city of Alexandria. Likewise we anathematize Eutyches and Dioscurus of Alexandria, condemned in the holy synod of Chalcedon which we follow and embrace; adding to these Timotheus the parricide, known as Ælurus, and also his disciple and follower Peter [Mongus], also Acacius, who remained in the society of their communion; because he mixed himself with their communion he deserves the same sentence of condemnation as they; no less condemning Peter [Fullo] of Antioch with his followers and the followers of all those above named. We receive and approve, therefore, all the universal Epistles of Pope Leo which he wrote concerning the Christian religion. And therefore, as we have said, following in all things the Apostolic See and approving all of its constitutions, I trust that I may be deemed worthy to be in the communion with you, in which as the Apostolic See declares there is, complete and true, the totality of the Christian religion.

---

Period III. The Dissolution Of The Imperial State Church And The Transition To The Middle Ages: From The Beginning Of The Sixth Century To The Latter Part Of The Eighth

The third period of the ancient Church under the Christian Empire begins with the accession of Justin I (518-527), and the end of the first schism between Rome and Constantinople (519). The termination of the period is not so clearly marked. By the middle and latter part of the eighth century, however, the imperial Church has ceased to exist in its original conception. The Church in the East has become, in great part, a group of national schismatic churches under Moslem rulers, and only the largest fragment of the Church of the East is the State Church of the greatly reduced Eastern empire. In the West, the imperial influence has ceased, and the Roman see has allied its fortunes with the rising Frankish power, and the rise of a Western empire is already foreshadowed.

In this period, the imperial ecclesiastical system, which had begun with Constantine, found its completion in the Cæsaropapism which was definitively established by Justinian as the constitution of the Eastern Church. But at the same time the Monophysite churches seceded and became permanent national churches. The long Christological controversy found, at least as regards Monophysitism, its settlement on a basis derived from the revived Aristotelian philosophy; and the mystical piety of the East, with its apparatus of hierarchy and sacraments, found its characteristic expression in the works of Dionysius the Areopagite.

While in the East the Church was assuming its permanent form, in the West the condition of the Church was being profoundly influenced by the completely changed political organization of what had been the Roman Empire of the West, but was now parcelled out among new Germanic nationalities. The Church in the various kingdoms, in spite of its adherence to the see of Rome as the centre of Catholic unity, came, to no small extent, under the secular authority, and Christianity in Ireland, in Spain, among the Franks, Anglo-Saxons, and even among the Lombards in Italy assumed a national character, coming largely under the control and subject to the laws and customs of the nation. In this period were laid the foundations of the leading ecclesiastical institutions of the Middle Ages, as the Church, although still under the influence of antiquity, adapted itself and its institutions to the changed condition due to the political situation and took up its duty of training the rude peoples that had come within its fold.

The seventh and eighth centuries saw the completion of the revolution in the ecclesiastical situation. In the East, in the territories in which the national churches of the Monophysites were established, the Moslem rule protected them from the attempts of the orthodox emperors to enforce uniformity. The attempts made to recover their allegiance before they succumbed to Islam had only ended in a serious dispute within the Orthodox Church, the Monothelete controversy, which ended in the Sixth General Council of 681. In Italy the Arian Lombards were gradually won to the Catholic faith, but the Roman see soon found itself embarrassed by the too near secular authority. Accordingly, when the controversy with the East over Iconoclasm broke out, the Roman Church became practically independent of the Eastern imperial authority, and in its conflict with the Lombards came into alliance with the rising Frankish power. With this, the transition to the Middle Ages may be said to have been completed. It was, however, only the last of a series of acts whereby the Church was severing itself from the ancient order and coming into closer alliance with the new order in the life of the West. Henceforth the Church, which found its centre in the Roman see, belongs to the West, and its relations to the East, although no formal schism had occurred, are of continued and increasing estrangement or alienation.

The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. II, will cover the entire period and give ample bibliographical references.

Chapter I. The Church in the Eastern Empire

The century extending from the accession of Justin I (518-528) to the end of the Persian wars of Heraclius (610-641), or from 518 to 628, is the most brilliant period of the Eastern Empire. The rise of Islam had not yet taken place, whereby the best provinces in Asia and Africa were cut off from the Empire. A large part of the West was recovered under Justinian, and under Heraclius the power of Persia, the ancient enemy of the Roman Empire, which had been a menace since the latter part of the third century, was completely overthrown in the most brilliant series of campaigns since the foundation of the Roman Empire. With the death of Justin II (565-578), the family of Justin came to an end after occupying the throne for sixty years. But under Tiberius (578-582) and Maurice (582-602) the policy of Justinian was continued in all essentials in the stereotyped form known as Byzantinism. The Church became practically a department of the State and of the political machinery. The only limitation upon the will of the Emperor was the determined resistance of the Monophysites and smaller factions. Maurice was succeeded by the rude Phocas (602-610), whom a military revolution placed upon the throne, and who instituted a reign of terror and blood. Upon his downfall, Heraclius (610-641) ascended the throne.

§ 93. The Age of Justinian

Justinian I, the greatest of all the rulers of the Eastern Empire, succeeded his uncle Justin I (518-527); but he had, from the beginning of the latter’s reign, exercised an ever-increasing influence over the imperial policy, and to him can be attributed the direction of ecclesiastical affairs from the accession of Justin. No reign among the Eastern emperors was more filled with important events and successful undertakings. His first great work was the reduction of the vast mass of Roman law to what approached a system. This was accomplished in 534, resulting in the Digest, made up of the various decisions and opinions of the most celebrated Roman legal authorities, the Codex, comprising all the statute law then in actual force and applicable to the conditions of the Empire, and the Institutes, a revision of the excellent introductory manual of Gaius. No body of law reduced to writing has been more influential in the history of the world. The second great undertaking, or series of undertakings, was the reconquest of the West. In 533 Belisarius recovered North Africa to the Empire by the overthrow of the Vandal kingdom. In 554 the conquest of Italy by Belisarius and Narses was completed. Portions of Spain had also been recovered. No Eastern Emperor ruled over a larger territory than did Justinian at the time of his death. The third great line of work on the part of Justinian was his regulation of ecclesiastical and theological matters. In this he took an active personal part. The end of the schism with the West had been brought about under the reign of his uncle. Three controversies fill the reign of Justinian: the Theopaschite (519-533) over the introduction of the phrase into the Trisagion, stating that God was crucified for us, so that the Trisagion read as follows, “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us”; the Second Origenistic controversy (531-543) in which those elements of Origen’s teaching which had never been accepted by the Church were condemned along with Origen himself; and the Three Chapters controversy, 544-553, in which, as an attempt to win back the Monophysites, which began even before the Conference with the Severians in 533, three of the leading Antiochians were condemned. In connection with the two last controversies, the Fifth General Council was held A. D. 553.

Additional source material: Evagrius, Hist. Ec., Lib. IV-VI; John of Ephesus, The Third Part of His Ecclesiastical History, trans. by R. Payne Smith, Oxford, 1860; Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils (PNF).

(a) Justinian, Anathematisms Against Origen. Mansi, IX, 533. (MSG, 86:1013; MSL, 65:221.)

The Origenistic controversy arose in Palestine, where the learned monks were nicknamed Origenists by the more ignorant. The abbot St. Sabas was especially opposed to the group which had received this name. But several, among whom the more important were Domitian and Theodore Askidas, won the favor of Justinian and the latter received promotion, becoming bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia. Supported by them, struggles broke out in various places between the Sabaites and the Origenists. Ephraem, patriarch of Antioch, in a synodal letter thereupon condemned Origenism. The Origenists tried in vain to win the support of John, patriarch of Constantinople. But he turned to Justinian, who thereupon abandoned the Origenists and issued an edict condemning Origen and his writings, and appending a summary of the positions condemned in ten anathematisms. Text in Denziger, nn. 203 f. Synods were ordered for the condemnation of Origen, and among these was the synod under Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, in which were issued fifteen anathematisms based upon the ten of Justinian (Hefele, §§ 257, 258). With this action, the controversy may be said to be closed, were it not that in spite of the renewed condemnation at the Fifth General Council (see below) disputes and disturbances continued in Palestine until 563.

1. If any one says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, that is, that they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that satiated with the vision of God, they turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them became cold [ἀποψυγείσας] and they were there named souls [ψυχάς] and were condemned to punishment in bodies, let him be anathema.

2. If any one says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was united with God the Word before the incarnation and conception of the Virgin, let him be anathema.

3. If any one says or thinks that the body of the Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin, and that afterward there was united with it God the Word and the pre-existing soul, let him be anathema.

4. If any one says or thinks that the Word of God has become like to all heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim He was a cherub and for the seraphim a seraph, in short, like all the superior powers, let him be anathema.

5. If any one says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human bodies will arise spherical in form and not like our present form, let him be anathema.

6. If any one says or thinks that the heavens, the sun, moon, and stars, and the waters above the firmament have souls and are spiritual and rational beings, let him be anathema.

7. If any one says or thinks that Christ the Lord in a future age will be crucified for demons as He was for men, let him be anathema.

8. If any one says or thinks that the power of God is limited and that He created only as much as He was able to comprehend, let him be anathema.

9. If any one says or thinks that the punishment of demons and impious men is only temporary and will have an end, and that a restoration [apocatastasis] will take place of demons and impious men, let him be anathema.

10. Let Origen be anathema together with that Adamantius who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable doctrine, and whoever there is who thinks thus or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

(b) Vigilius, Judicatum. Mansi, IX, 181

This important document was addressed to Menas of Constantinople and is dated April 11, 548. Unfortunately it exists only in detached fragments, which are given below, taken from the text as given by Hefele, § 259. The first is given in a letter of Justinian to the Fifth Council, an abridgment of which may be found in Hefele, § 267. Other fragments are from the Constitutum (see below), where they are quoted by Vigilius from his previous letter to Menas, which Hefele has identified with the Judicatum. In this opinion Krüger (art. “Vigilius” in PRE). and Bailey (art. “Vigilius” in DCB) and other scholars concur. The force of the first is that the writings condemned by the Three Chapters are heretical; of the others, that the credit of the Council of Chalcedon must be maintained. How the two positions were reconciled is not clear.

1. And because certain writings under the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia have been handed to us which contain many things contrary to the right faith, we, following the warnings of the Apostle Paul, who said: Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, therefore anathematize Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, with all his impious writings, and also those who defend him. We anathematize also the impious epistle which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, as contrary to the right faith, and also all who defend it and say that it is right. We anathematize also the writings of Theodoret which were written contrary to the right faith and against the capitula of Cyril.204

2. Since it is evident to us by sufficient reason, that whosoever attempts to do anything to the disparagement of the aforesaid council, will rather sin against himself.

3. If it had been shown conclusively by us to be contained in the acts [i.e., of the Council of Chalcedon], no one would have dared to be the author of so great a presumption or would have regarded as doubtful or undecided anything which was brought before that most holy judgment; since it is to be believed that those then present could have investigated things diligently even apart from writing, and have defined them positively, which appears to us after so much time and on account of unknown causes still unsettled; since also it is a part of reverence for the synods that in those things which are less understood one recognizes their authority.

4. All things being accepted and remaining perpetually established which were defined in the venerable councils at Nicæa, and Constantinople, in the first at Ephesus, and at Chalcedon, and confirmed by the authority of our predecessors; and all who in the said holy councils were deposed are without doubt condemned, and those are no less absolved whose absolution was decreed by the same synods.

5. Subjecting also him to the sentence of anathema who accepts as of any force whatsoever may be found against the said synod of Chalcedon, written in this present letter, or in anything in the present case whatever done by us or by any one; and let the holy synod of Chalcedon, of which the authority is great and unshaken, perpetual and reverenced, have the same force as that which the synods of Nicæa, Constantinople, and the first at Ephesus have.

6. We anathematize also whoever does not faithfully follow and equally venerate the holy synods of Nicæa. of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and the synod of Chalcedon as most holy synods, agreeing in the one and immaculate faith of the Apostles, and confirmed by the pontiffs of the Apostolic See, and whoever wishes to correct as badly said, or wishes to supply as imperfect, those things which were done in the same councils which we have mentioned.

(c) Vigilius, Oath to Justinian, August 15, A. D. 550. Mansi. IX, 363. (MSL, 69: 121.)

The Judicatum met with great opposition in the West. Vigilius, to still the clamor against it, withdrew it and proposed other measures in consultation with Justinian. In connection with this he bound himself with an oath to support Justinian in putting through the condemnation of the Three Chapters, and this oath Justinian produced later, when Vigilius had presented his Constitutum to him refusing to condemn the chapters. The Emperor thereupon suppressed the Constitutum.

The most blessed Pope Vigilius has sworn to the most pious lord Emperor in our presence, that is of me, Theodorus, bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia [see DCB, Theodorus of Askidas], and of me, Cethegus, the patrician, by the sacred nails with which our Lord God Jesus Christ was crucified and by the four holy Gospels, as also by the sacred bridle,205 so also by the four Gospels; that, being of one mind and will with your piety, we shall so will, attempt, and act, as far as we are able, so that the three chapters, that is, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the epistle attributed to Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret against the orthodox faith and his sayings against the twelve capitula of the holy Cyril, may be condemned and anathematized; and to do nothing, either by myself or by those whom we can trust, either of the clerical or lay order, in behalf of the chapters, against the will of your piety, or to speak or to give counsel secretly in behalf of those chapters. And if any one should say anything to me to the contrary, either concerning these chapters or concerning the faith, or against the State, I will make him known to your piety, without peril of death, and also what has been said to me, so that on account of my place you do not abandon my person; and you have promised, because I observe these things toward your piety, to protect my honor in all respects, and also to guard my person and reputation and to defend them with the help of God and to protect the privileges of my see. And you have also promised that this paper shall be shown to no one. I promise further that in the case of the three chapters, we shall treat in common as to what ought to be done, and whatsoever shall appear to us useful we will carry out with the help of God. This oath was given the fifteenth day of August, indiction XIII, the twenty-third year of the reign of our lord Justinian, the ninth year after the consulship of the illustrious Basil. I, Theodore, by the mercy of God bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, have subscribed hereunto as a witness to this oath; I, Flavius Cethegus, patrician, have subscribed hereunto as a witness to this oath.

(d) Vigilius, Constitutum, May 14, 553. (MSL, 69:67.)

The synod known as the Fifth General Council met May 5, 553, and proceeded to condemn the Three Chapters, as directed by the Emperor. Vigilius refused to attend, but consented to pronounce his judgment on the matter apart from the council. This he did in his Constitutum ad Imperatorem, May 14, 553. In it he condemns the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but opposes the condemnation of Theodore himself, inasmuch as he had died in the communion of the Church. He also opposes the condemnation of Theodoret and Ibas, because both were acquitted at Chalcedon. This Constitutum is to be distinguished from the Constitutum of 554 (MSL, 69:143, 147), in which, after the council had acceded to the proposals of the Emperor and condemned the Three Chapters and had excommunicated Vigilius by removing his name from the diptychs, the latter confirmed the decisions of the council and joined in the condemnation of the Three Chapters. For a discussion of the whole situation, see Hefele, §§ 272-276. The devious course followed by Vigilius has been the subject of much acrimonious debate. The facts of the case are now generally recognized. The conclusion of Cardinal Hergenröther, KG. I, 612, is the best that can be said for Vigilius: “In the question as to the faith, Vigilius was never wavering; but he was so, indeed, in the question as to whether the action was proper or opportune, whether it was advisable or necessary to condemn subsequently men whom the Council of Chalcedon had spared, to put forth a judgment which would be regarded by the Monophysites as a triumph of their cause, which was most obnoxious for the same reason, and its supposed dishonoring of the Council of Chalcedon, and was likely to create new divisions instead of healing the old.”

The portions of the Constitutum given below are the conclusions of Vigilius as to each of the Three Chapters. The whole is a lengthy document.

All these things have been diligently examined, and although our Fathers speak in different phrases yet are guided by one sentiment, that the persons of priests, who have died in the peace of the Church, should be preserved untouched; likewise the constitutions of the Apostolic See, which we have quoted above, uniformly define that it is lawful for no one to judge anew anything concerning the persons of the dead, but each is left in that condition in which the last day finds him; and especially concerning the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia, what our Fathers determined is clearly shown above. Him, therefore, we dare not condemn by our sentence, and we do not permit him to be condemned by any one else; the above-written chapters of dogmas, which are damned by us, or any sayings of any one without name affixed, not agreeing with, or consonant with, the evangelical and apostolic doctrine and the doctrines of the four synods, of Nicæa, of Constantinople, of the first of Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, we, however, do not suffer to be admitted to our thought or even to our ears.

But concerning the writings which are brought forward under the name of that venerable man, Theodoret, late bishop, we wonder, first, why it should be necessary or with what desire anything should be done to the disparagement of the name of that priest, who more than a hundred years ago, in the judgement of the sacred and venerable Council of Chalcedon, subscribed without any hesitation and consented with profound devotion to the Epistle of the most blessed Pope Leo.… The truth of these things having been considered, we determine and decree that nothing be done or proposed by any one in judgement upon him to the injury and defamation of a man most approved in the synod of Chalcedon, that is to say, Theodoret of Cyrus. But guarding in all respects the reverence of his person, whatsoever writings are brought forward under his name or under that of another evidently in accord with the errors of the wicked Nestorius and Eutyches we anathematize and condemn.

Then follow these five anathematisms, the test of which may be found in Hahn, § 228:

1. If any one does not confess that the Word was made flesh, and the inconvertibility of the divine nature having been preserved, and from the moment of conception in the womb of the virgin united according to subsistence [hypostatically] human nature to Himself, but as with a man already existing; so that, accordingly, the holy Virgin is not to be believed to be truly the bearer of God, but is called so only in word, let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall deny that a unity of natures according to subsistence [hypostatically] was made in Christ, but that God the Word dwelt in a man existing apart as one of the just, and does not confess the unity of natures according to subsistence, that God the Word with the assumed flesh remained and remains one subsistence or person, let him be anathema.

3. If any one so divides the evangelical, apostolic words in reference to the one Christ, that he introduces a division of the natures united in Him, let him be anathema.

4. It any one says that the one Jesus Christ, God the Word and the same true Son of Man, was ignorant of future things or of the day of the last judgment, and was able to know only so far as Deity revealed to Him, as if dwelling in another, let him be anathema.

5. If any one applies to Christ as if stripped of His divinity the saying of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews,206 that He knew obedience by experience and with strong crying and tears offered prayers and supplications to God who was able to save Him from death, and who was perfected by the labors of virtue, so that from this he evidently introduces two Christs or two Sons, and does not believe the one and the same Christ to be confessed and adored Son of God and Son of Man, of two and in two natures inseparable and undivided, let him be anathema.

… We have also examined concerning the Epistle of the venerable man Ibas, once bishop of the city of Edessa, concerning which you also ask if in early times anything concerning it was undertaken by our Fathers, or discussed, or examined, or determined. Because it is known to all and especially to your piety, that we are ignorant of the Greek language, yet by the aid of some of our company, who have knowledge of that tongue, we discover clearly and openly that in the same synod the affair of the venerable man Ibas was examined, from the action taken regarding Photius, bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, that this epistle, concerning which inquiry is made, was brought forward against him by his accusers; and when, after discussion of the affair was ended, it was asked of the venerable Fathers what ought to be done concerning the matter of the same Ibas, the following sentence was passed:

Paschasius and Lucentius, most reverend bishops, and Boniface, presbyter, holding the place of the Apostolic See (because the apostolic delegates are accustomed always to speak and vote first in synods), by Paschasius said: “Since the documents have been read, we perceive from the opinion of the most reverend bishops that the most reverend Ibas is approved as innocent; for now that his epistle has been read we recognize it as orthodox. And on this account we decree that the honor of the episcopate be restored to him, and the church, from which unjustly and in his absence he was driven out, be given back.” [The patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch agreed, and their opinions are also quoted by Vigilius from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.]

… Therefore we, following in all things the discipline and judgment of the holy Fathers, and the disposition of all things according to the account which we have given of the judgment of the Council of Chalcedon, since it is most evidently true, from the words of the Epistle of the venerable man Ibas, regarded with the right and pious mind, and from the action taken regarding Photius and Eustathius, and from the opinions of bishop Ibas, discussed in his presence by those present, that our Fathers present at Chalcedon most justly pronounced the faith of the same venerable man Ibas orthodox and his blaming the blessed Cyril, which they perceive to have been from error of human intelligence, purged by appropriate satisfaction, by the authority of our present sentence, we determine and decree in all things so also in the often-mentioned Epistle of the venerable Ibas, the judgment of the Fathers present at Chalcedon remain inviolate.

Conclusion of the Constitutum:

These things having been disposed of by us in every point with all caution and diligence, in order to preserve inviolate the reverence of the said synods and the venerable constitutions of the same; mindful that it has been written [cf. Prov. 22:26], we ought not to cross the bounds of our Fathers, we determine and decree that it is permitted to no one of any ecclesiastical rank or dignity to do anything contrary to these things which, by this present constitution, we assert and determine, concerning the oft-mentioned three chapters, or to write or to bring forward, or to compose, or to teach, or to make any further investigation after this present definition. But concerning the same three chapters, if anything contrary to these things, which we here determine and assert, is made in the name of any one, in ecclesiastical order or dignity, or shall be found by any one or anywheresoever, such a one by the authority of the Apostolic See, in which by the grace of God we are placed, we refute in every way.

(e) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553, Definition. Mansi, IX, 367

Condemnation of the Three Chapters.

This action is taken from the Definition of the council, a rather wordy document, but ending with a passage indicating the action of the council. From this concluding passage this condemnation is taken. See Hefele, § 274, also PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV, pp. 306-311.

We condemn and anathematize with all other heretics who have been condemned and anathematized by the before-mentioned four holy synods, and by the Catholic and Apostolic Church, Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, and also those things which Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith and against the twelve capitula of the holy Cyril, and against the first synod of Ephesus, and also those which he wrote in defence of Theodore and Nestorius. In addition to these, we also anathematize the impious epistle which Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian, which denies that God the Word was incarnate of the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and accuses Cyril, of holy memory, who taught the truth, of being a heretic and of the same sentiments with Apollinaris, and blames the first synod of Ephesus for deposing Nestorius without examination and inquiry, and calls the twelve capitula of Cyril impious and contrary to the right faith, and defends Theodore and Nestorius, and their impious dogmas and writings. We, therefore, anathematize the three chapters before mentioned, that is the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia with his execrable writings, and those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is said to be by Ibas, together with their defenders and those who have written or do write in defence of them, or who dare to say that they are correct, and who have defended or do attempt to defend their impiety with the names of the holy Fathers or of the holy Council of Chalcedon.

(f) Council of Constantinople A. D. 553. Anathematism 11. Mansi, IX, 201. Cf. Denziger. N. 223

Condemnation of Origen.

Appended to the Definition of the council are fourteen anathematisms, forming (1-10) an exposition of the doctrine of the two natures, and concluding with condemnation of Origen, together with other heretics, and of the Three Chapters (11-14). These anathematisms are based upon a confession of faith of the Emperor Justinian, a lengthy document, but containing thirteen anathematisms. This confession of faith was composed before the council, probably in 551. For an analysis of it, see Hefele, § 263. The text of the council’s anathematisms may be found in Hefele, § 274, also in Hahn, § 148. Attempts have been made by older scholars to show that the name Origen was a later insertion. For arguments, see Hefele, loc. cit.

If any one does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, with their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four holy synods, and all those who have been or are of the same mind with the heretics mentioned, and who remain to the end in their impiety, let him be anathema.

§ 94. The Byzantine State Church Under Justinian

According to Justinian’s scheme of Church government, the Emperor was the head of the Church in the sense that he had the right and duty of regulating by his laws the minutest detail of worship and discipline, and also of dictating the theological opinions to be held in the Church. This is shown, not merely in his conduct of the Fifth General Council, but also in his attempt, at the end of his life, to force Aphthartodocetism upon the Church. This position of the Emperor in relation to the Church is known as Cæsaropapism. (See Bury, Later Roman Empire, chap. XI.) The ecclesiastical legislation of Justinian should also be considered. At the same time Justinian strictly repressed the lingering heathenism and, in the interest of the schools at Constantinople, closed the schools at Athens, the last stronghold of paganism.

(a) Evagrius, Hist. Ec., IV, 39. (MSG, 86 II:2781.)

Aphthartodocetism of Justinian.

Among the many variations of Monophysitism flourishing under Justinian was Aphthartodocetism, according to which the body of Christ, before as well as after his resurrection, was “a glorified body,” or incapable of suffering. See selection for description.

At that time Justinian, abandoning the right road of doctrine and following the path untrodden by the Apostles and Fathers, became entangled in thorns and briars; and he attempted to fill the Church also with these, but failed in his purpose, and thereby fulfilled the prediction of prophecy.… Justinian, after he had anathematized Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, issued what the Latins call an edict, after the deposition of Eustochius [A. D. 556], in which he termed the body of the Lord incorruptible and incapable of the natural and blameless passions; affirming that the Lord ate before His passion in the same manner as after His resurrection, His holy body having undergone no conversion or change from the time of its actual formation in the womb, not even in respect to the natural and voluntary passions, nor yet after the resurrection. To this he proceeded to compel bishops in all parts to give their assent. However, they all professed to look to Anastasius, the Bishop of Antioch, and thus avoided the first attack.

(b) Justinian, Novella VI “Preface”

Church and State according to Justinian.

Among the greatest gifts of God bestowed by the kindness of heaven are the priesthood and the imperial dignity. Of these the former serves things divine; the latter rules human affairs and cares for them. Both are derived from the one and the same source, and order human life. And, therefore, nothing is so much a care to the emperors as the dignity of the priesthood; so that they may always pray to God for them. For if one is in every respect blameless and filled with confidence toward God, and the other rightly and properly maintains in order the commonwealth intrusted to it, there is a certain excellent harmony which furnishes whatsoever is needful for the human race. We, therefore, have the greatest cares for the true doctrines of God and the dignity of the priesthood which, if they preserve it, we trust that by it great benefits will be bestowed by God, and we shall possess undisturbed those things which we have, and in addition acquire those things which we have not yet acquired. But all things are well and properly carried on, if only a proper beginning is laid, and one that is acceptable to God. But this we believe will be so if the observance of the sacred canons is cared for, which also the Apostles, who are rightly to be praised, and the venerated eye-witnesses and ministers of the word of God, delivered, and which the holy Fathers have also preserved and explained.

(c) Justinian, Novella CXXXVII, 6

The following section from the conclusion of a novella illustrates the manner in which Justinian legislated in matter of internal affairs for the Church and instituted a control over the priesthood which was other than that of the Church’s own system of discipline.

We command that all bishops and presbyters shall offer the sacred oblation and the prayers in holy baptism not silently, but with a voice which may be heard by the faithful people, that thereby the minds of those listening may be moved to greater contrition and to the glory of God. For so, indeed, the holy Apostle teaches (I Cor. 14:16; Rom. 10:10).… Therefore it is right that to our Lord Jesus Christ, to our God with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be offered prayer in the holy oblation and other prayers with the voice by the most holy bishops and the presbyters; for the holy priests should know that if they neglect any of those things they shall render an account at the terrible judgment of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and that we shall not quietly permit such things when we know of them and will not leave them unpunished. We command, therefore, that the governors of the epachies, if they see anything neglected of those things which have been decreed by us, first urge the metropolitans and other bishops to celebrate the aforesaid synods, and do whatsoever things we have ordered by this present law concerning synods, and, if they see them delaying, let them report to us, that from us may come a proper correction of those who put off holding synods. And the governors and the officials subject to them should know that if they do not observe these matters they will be liable to the extreme penalty [i.e., death]. But we confirm by this present law all things which have been decreed by us in various constitutions concerning bishops, presbyters, and other clerics, and further concerning lodging-places for strangers, poor-houses, orphan asylums and others as many as are over the sacred buildings.

(d) Justinian, Novella CXXIII, 1

Laws governing the ordination of bishops.

We decree that whenever it is necessary to ordain a bishop, the clergy and the leading citizens whose is the bishop who is to be ordained shall make, under peril of their souls, with the holy Gospels placed before them, certificates concerning three persons, testifying in the same certificates that they have not chosen them for any gifts or promises or for reasons of friendship, or any other cause, but because they know that they are of the true and Catholic faith and of honest life, and learned in science and that none of them has either wife or children, and know that they have neither concubine nor natural children, but that if any of them had a wife the same was one and first, neither a widow nor separated from her husband, nor prohibited by the laws and sacred canons; and know that they are not a curial or an official, or, in case they should be such, are not liable to any curial or official duty; and they know that they have in such case spent not less than fifteen years in a monastery. This also is to be contained in the certificate: that they know the person selected by them to be not less than thirty years of age; so that from the three persons for whom these certificates were made the best may be ordained by the choice and at the peril of him who ordains. But a curial or an official who, as has been said, has lived fifteen years in a monastery and is advanced to the episcopate is freed from his rank so that as freed from the curia he may retain a fourth part of his property, since the rest of his property, according to our law, is to be claimed by the curia and fisc. Also we give to those who make the certificate the privilege that if they deem a layman, with the exception of a curial or an official, worthy of the said election, they may choose such layman with the two other clergy or monks, but so, however, that the layman who has in this way been chosen to the episcopate shall not be ordained at once, but shall first be numbered among the clergy not less than three months, and so having learned the holy canons and the sacred ministry of the Church, he shall be ordained bishop; for he who ought to teach others ought not himself to be taught by others after his consecration. But if by chance there are not found in any place three persons eligible to such election, it is permitted those who make the certificates to make them for two or even for only one person, who shall each have the testimonials mentioned by us. But if those who ought to elect a bishop do not make this certificate within six months, then, at the peril of his soul, let him who ought to ordain ordain a bishop, provided, however, that all things which we have said be observed. But if any one is made bishop contrary to the aforesaid rules, we command that he be driven entirely from the episcopate; but as for him who dared to ordain him against these commands, let him be separated from the sacred ministry for a year and all his property, which at any time or in any way shall come into his possession, shall be seized on account of the crime he has committed against the rule of the Church of which he was a bishop.

Ch. 13. We do not permit clergy to be ordained unless they are educated, have the right faith, and an honorable life, and neither have, nor have had, a concubine or natural children, but who either live chastely or have a lawful wife and her one and only, neither a widow not separated from her husband, nor forbidden by laws and sacred canons.

Ch. 14. We do not permit presbyters to be made less than thirty years old, deacons and sub-deacons less than twenty-five, and lectors less than sixteen; nor a deaconess to be ordained207 in the holy Church who is less than forty years old and who has been married a second time.

(e) Justinian, Codex, I, 11

Law against paganism.

The following laws of Justinian, though of uncertain date, mark the termination of the contest between Christianity and paganism. In the second of these laws there is a reference to the prohibition of pagan teachers. It is in line with the closing of the schools of the heathen teachers at Athens. The decree closing the schools has not been preserved.

Ch. 9. We command that our magistrates in this royal city and in the provinces take care with the greatest zeal that, having been informed by themselves or the most religious bishops of this matter, they make inquiry according to law into all impurities of pagan208 superstitions, that they be not committed, and if committed that they be punished; but if their repression exceed provincial power, these things are to be referred to us, that the responsibility for, and incitement of, these crimes may not rest upon them.

(1) It is permitted no one, either in testament or by gift, to leave or give anything to persons or places for the maintenance of pagan impiety, even if it is not expressly contained in the words of the will, testament, or donation, but can be truly perceived in some other way by the judges. (2) But those things which are so left or given shall be taken from the persons and places to whom they have been given or left, and shall belong to the cities in which such persons dwell or in which such places are situated, so that they may be paid as a form of revenue. (3) All penalties which have been introduced by previous emperors against the errors of pagans or in favor of the orthodox faith are to remain in force and effect forever and guarded by this present pious legislation.

Ch. 10. Because some are found who are imbued with the error of the impious and detestable pagans, and do those things which move a merciful God to just wrath, and that we may not suffer ourselves to leave uncorrected matters which concern these things, but, knowing that they have abandoned the worship of the true and only God, and have in insane error offered sacrifices, and, filled with all impiety, have celebrated solemnities, we subject those who have committed these things, after they have been held worthy of holy baptism, to the punishment appropriate to the crimes of which they have been convicted; but for the future we decree to all by this present law that they who have been made Christians and at any time have been deemed worthy of the holy and saving baptism, if it appear that they have remained still in the error of the pagans, shall suffer capital punishment.

(1) Those who have not yet been worthy of the venerable rite of baptism shall report themselves, if they dwell in this royal city or in the provinces, and go to the holy churches with their wives and children and all the household subject to them, and be taught the true faith of Christians, so that having been taught their former error henceforth to be rejected, they may receive saving baptism, or know, if they regard these things of small value, that they are to have no part in all those things which belong to our commonwealth, neither is it permitted them to become owners of anything movable or immovable, but, deprived of everything, they are to be left in poverty, and besides are subject to appropriate penalties.

(2) We forbid also that any branch of learning be taught by those who labor under the insanity of the impious pagans, so that they may not for this reason pretend that they instruct those who unfortunately resort to them, but in reality corrupt the minds of their pupils; and let them not receive any support from the public treasury, since they are not permitted by the Holy Scriptures or by pragmatic forms [public decrees] to claim anything of the sort for themselves.

(3) For if any one here or in the provinces shall have been convicted of not having hastened to the holy churches with his wife and children, as said, he shall suffer the aforesaid penalties, and the fisc shall claim his property, and they shall be sent into exile.

(4) If any one in our commonwealth, hiding himself, shall be discovered to have celebrated sacrifices or the worship of idols, let him suffer the same capital punishment as the Manichæans and, what is the same, the Borborani [certain Ophitic Gnostics; cf. DCB], for we judge them to be similar to these.

(5) Also we decree that their children of tender years shall at once and without delay receive saving baptism; but they who have passed beyond their earliest age shall attend the holy churches and be instructed in the Holy Scriptures, and so give themselves to sincere penitence that, having rejected their early error, they may receive the venerable rite of baptism, for in this way let them steadfastly receive the true faith of the orthodox and not again fall back into their former error.

(6) But those who, for the sake of retaining their military rank or their dignity or their goods, shall in pretence accept saving baptism, but have left their wives and children and others who are in their households in the error of pagans, we command that they be deprived of their goods and have no part in our commonwealth, since it is manifest that they have not received holy baptism in good faith.

(7) These things, therefore, we decree against the abominable pagans and the Manichæans, of which Manichæans the Borborani are a part.

§ 95. The Definitive Type of Religion in the East: Dionysius the Areopagite

The works of Dionysius the Areopagite first appear in the controversies in the reign of Justinian, when they are quoted in the Conference with the Severians, 531 or 533. There are citations from the works of the Areopagite fifteen or twenty years earlier in the works of Severus, the Monophysite patriarch of Antioch. In this is given the latest date to which they may be assigned. They cannot be earlier than 476, because the author is acquainted with the works of Proclus (411-485) and uses them; also he refers to the practice of singing the Credo in divine service, which was first introduced by the Monophysites at Antioch in 476. No closer determination of the date is possible. The author is wholly unknown.

That he was Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts 17:34) is maintained by no scholar to-day. His standpoint is that of the later Eastern religious feeling and practice, with its strong desire for mysteries and sacramental system. But he brings to it Neo-Platonic thought to such a degree as to color completely his presentation of Christian truth. The effect of the book was only gradual, but eventually very great. In the East it gave authority, which seemed to be that of the apostolic age, for its highly developed system of mysteries, which had grown up in the Church. In the West it served as a philosophical basis for scholastic mysticism. On account of the connection between Dionysius and the later Greek philosophy and the mediæval philosophy, Dionysius the Areopagite occupies a place in the histories of philosophy quite out of proportion to the intrinsic merit of the writer.

Additional source material: English translations of Dionysius the Areopagite, Dean Colet, ed. by J. H. Lupton, London, 1869, and J. Parker, Oxford, 1897 (not complete); a new translation into German appeared in the new edition of the Kempten Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, 1912.

(a) Dionysius Areopagita, De Cælesti Hierarchia, III, 2. (MSG, 3:165.)

Dionysius thus defines “Hierarchy”:

He who speaks of a hierarchy indicates thereby a holy order … which in a holy manner works the mysteries of illumination which is appropriate to each one. The order of the hierarchy consists in this, that some are purified and others purify; some are illuminated and others illuminate; some are completed and others complete.

(b) De Cælesti Hierarchia, VI, 2. (MSG, 3:200.)

The heavenly hierarchy.

Theology has given to all heavenly existences new explanatory titles. Our divine initiator divides these into three threefold ranks. The first is that, as he says, which is ever about God, and which, as it is related (Ezek. 1), is permanently and before all others immediately united to Him; for the explanation of the Holy Scripture tells us that the most holy throne and the many-eyed and many-winged ranks, which in Hebrew are called cherubim and seraphim, stand before God in the closest proximity. This threefold order, or rank, our great leader names the one, like, and only truly first hierarchy, which is more godlike and stands more immediately near the first effects of the illuminations of divinity than all others. As the second hierarchy, he names that which is composed of authorities, dominions, and powers, and as the third and last of the heavenly hierarchies he names the order of angels, archangels, and principalities.

(c) De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, I, 1. (MSG, 3:372.)

The nature of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

That our hierarchy … which is given by God, is God-inspired and divine, a divinely acting knowledge, activity, and completion, we must show from the supernal and most Holy Scriptures to those who through hierarchical secrets and traditions have been initiated into the holy consecration.… Jesus, the most divine and most transcendent spirit, the principle and the being and the most divine power of every hierarchy, holiness, and divine operation, brings to the blessed beings superior to us a more bright and at the same time more spiritual light and makes them as far as possible like to His own light. And through our love which tends upward toward Him, by the love of the beautiful which draws us up to Him, He brings together into one our many heterogeneities; that He might perfect them so as to become a uniform and divine life, condition, and activity, He gives us the power of the divine priesthood. In consequence of this honor we arrive at the holy activity of the priesthood, and so we ourselves come near to the beings over us, that we, so far as we are able, approximate to their abiding and unchangeable holy state and so look up to the blessed and divine brilliancy of Jesus, gaze religiously on what is attainable by us to see, and are illuminated by the knowledge of what is seen; and thus we are initiated into the mystic science, and, initiating, we can become light-like and divinely working, complete and completing.

(d) De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, V, 3. (MSG, 3:504.)

The most holy consecration of initiation has as the godlike power or activity the expiatory purification of the imperfect, as the second the illuminating consecration of the purified, and as the last, which also includes the other two, the perfecting of the consecrated in the knowledge of the consecrations that belong to them.…

5. The divine order of the hierarch209 is the first under the God-beholding orders; it is the highest and also the last, for in it every other order of our hierarchy ends and is completed.210 For we see that every hierarchy ends in Jesus, and so each one ends in the God-filled hierarchs.

6. The hierarchical order, which is filled full of the perfecting power, performs especially the consecrations of the hierarchy, imparts by revelation the knowledge of the sacred things, and teaches the conditions and powers appropriate to them. The order of priests which leads to light leads to the divine beholding of the sacred mysteries all those who have been initiated by the divine order of the hierarchs and with that order performs its proper sacred functions. In what it does it displays the divine working through the most holy symbols [i.e., sacraments] and makes those who approach beholders and participants in the most holy mysteries, sending on to the hierarch those who desire the knowledge of those sacred rites which are seen. The order of the liturges [or deacons] is that which cleanses and separates the unlike before they come to the sacred rites of the priests, purifies those who approach that it may render them pure from all that is opposing and unworthy of beholding and participating in the sacred mysteries.

(e) De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, I, 3. (MSG, 3:373.)

The sacraments.

The mysteries or sacraments, according to Dionysius the Areopagite, are six in number: baptism, the eucharist, anointing or confirmation, the consecration of priests, the consecration of monks,211 and the consecration of the dead. These he discusses in chs. 2-7 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.

Salvation can in no other way come about than that the saved are deified. The deification is the highest possible resemblance to God and union with Him. The common aim of all the hierarchy is the love which hangs upon God and things divine, which fills with a divine spirit and works in godlike fashion; and before this is the complete and never retreating flight from that which is opposed to it, the knowledge of being as being, the vision and knowledge of the holy truth, the divinely inspired participation in the homogeneous perfection of the One himself, so far as man can come to that, the enjoyment of the holy contemplation, which spiritually nourishes and deifies every one who strives for it.

Chapter II. The Transition to the Middle Ages. The Foundation of the Germanic National Churches

While the doctrinal system of the Church was being wrought out in the disputes and councils of Rome and the East, the foundations of the Germanic national churches were being laid in the West. In the British Isles the faith was extended from Britain to Ireland and thence to Scotland (§ 96). Among the inmates of the monasteries of these countries were many monks who were moved to undertake missionary journeys to various parts of Western Europe, and among them St. Columbanus. But even more important for the future of Western Christendom was the conversion of the Franks from paganism to Catholic Christianity. At a time when the other Germanic rulers were still Arian, Clovis and the Franks became Catholics and, as a consequence, the champions of the Catholic faith. The Franks rapidly became the dominant power in the West, and soon other Germanic races either were conquered or followed the example of the Franks and became Catholics (§ 97). The State churches that thus arose were more under the control of the local royal authority than the Catholic Church had previously been, and the rulers were little disposed to favor outside control of the ecclesiastical affairs of their kingdoms (§ 98). Toward the end of the sixth century the greatest pontiff of the ancient Church, Gregory the Great, more than recovered the prestige and influence which had been lost under Vigilius. By his able administration he did much to unite the West, to heal the schism resulting from the Fifth Council, and to overcome the heresies which divided the Arians and the Catholics. At the same time he advanced the authority of the see of Rome in the East as well as in the West (§ 99). Of the many statesman-like undertakings of Gregory none had more far-reaching consequences than the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons and the establishment in England of a church which would be in close and loyal dependence upon the Roman see, and in consequence of that close connection would be the heir of the best traditions of culture in the West (§ 100).

§ 96. The Celtic Church in the British Isles

Christianity was probably planted in the British Isles during the second century; as to its growth in the ante-Nicene period little is definitely known. Representatives of the British Church were at Arles in 314. The Church was in close connection with the Church on the Continent during the fourth century and in the fifth during the Pelagian controversy. The Christianity thus established was completely overthrown or driven into Wales by the invasion of the pagan Angles, Jutes, and Saxons circa 449-500. (For the conversion of the newcomers, v. infra, § 100.) Early in the fifth century the conversion of Ireland took place by missionaries from Britain. In this conversion St. Patrick traditionally plays an important part.

Additional source material: Bede, Hist. Ec., Eng. trans. by Giles, London, 1894; by A. M. Sellar, London, 1907 (for Latin text, v. infra, a); Adamnani, Vita S. Columbæ, ed. J. T. Fowler, 1894 (with valuable introduction and translation); St. Patrick, Genuine Writings, ed. G. T. Stokes and C. H. H. Wright, Dublin, 1887; J. D. Newport White, The Writings of St. Patrick, 1904. For bibliography of sources, see Gross, The Sources and Literature of English History, 1900, pp. 221 f.

(a) Bede, Hist. Ec. Gentis Anglorum, I, 13. (MSL, 95:40.)

The Venerable Bede (672 or 673-735), monk at Jarrow, the most learned theologian of the Anglo-Saxon Church, was also the first historian of England. For the earliest period he used what written sources were available. His work becomes of independent value with the account of the coming of Augustine of Canterbury, 597 (I, 23). The history extends to A. D. 731. The best critical edition is that of C. Plummer, 1896, which has a valuable introduction, copious historical and critical notes, and careful discrimination of the sources. Wm. Bright’s Chapters on Early English Church History is an elaborate commentary on Bede’s work as far as 709, the death of Wilfrid. Translation of Bede’s History by J. A. Giles, may be found in Bohn’s Antiquarian Library, and better by A. M. Sellar, 1907.

In the following passage we have the only reference made by Bede to the conversion of Ireland, and his failure to mention Patrick has given rise to much controversy, see J. B. Bury, The Life of St. Patrick and his Place in History, 1905. This passage, referring to Palladius, is a quotation from the Chronica of Prosper of Aquitaine (403-463) ann. 431 (MSL, 51, critical edition in MGH, Auct. antiquiss, 9:1); from Gildas, De excidio Britanniæ liber querulus (MSL, 69:327, critical edition in MGH, Auct. antiquiss, 13. A translation by J. A. Giles in Six Old English Chronicles, in Bohn’s Antiquarian Library), is the reference to the letter written to the Romans; from the Chronica of Marcellinus Comes (MSL, 51:913; critical edition in MGH, Auct. antiquiss, 11) is the reference to Blæda and Attila.

In the year of the Lord’s incarnation, 423, Theodosius the younger received the empire after Honorius and, being the forty-fifth from Augustus, retained it twenty-six years. In the eighth year of his reign, Palladius was sent by Celestinus, the pontiff of the Roman Church, to the Scots212 that believed in Christ to be their first bishop. In the twenty-third year of his reign (446), Aëtius, the illustrious, who was also patrician, discharged his third consulate with Symmachus as his colleague. To him the wretched remnants of the Britons sent a letter beginning: “To Aëtius, thrice consul, the groans of the Britons.” And in the course of the letter they thus express their calamities: “The barbarians drive us to the sea; the sea drives us back to the barbarians; between them there have arisen two sorts of death; we are either slain or drowned.” Yet neither could all this procure any assistance from him, as he was then engaged in a most dangerous war with Blæda and Attila, kings of the Huns. And though the year next before this, Blæda had been murdered by the treachery of his brother Attila, yet Attila himself remained so intolerable an enemy to the republic that he ravaged almost all Europe, invading and destroying cities and castles.

(b) Patrick, Confessio, Chs. 1, 10. (MSL, 53:801.)

The call of St. Patrick to be a missionary.

There is much dispute and uncertainty about the life and work of St. Patrick. Of the works of Patrick, two appear to be genuine, his Confessio and his Epistola ad Coroticum. The other works attributed to him are very probably spurious. The genuine works may be found in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, vol. II, pt. ii, 296 ff.

I, Patrick, a sinner, the most ignorant and least of all the faithful, and the most contemptible among many, had for my father Calpornius the deacon, son of the presbyter Potitus, the son of Odissus, who was of the village of Bannavis Tabernia; he had near by a little estate where I was taken captive. I was then nearly sixteen years old. But I was ignorant of the true God213 and I was taken into captivity unto Ireland, with so many thousand men, according to our deserts, because we had forsaken God and not kept His commandments and had not been obedient to our priests who warned us of our salvation. And the Lord brought upon us the fury of His wrath and scattered us among many nations, even to the end of the earth, where now my meanness appears to be among strangers. And there the Lord opened the senses of my unbelief, that I might remember my sin, and that I might be converted with my whole heart to my Lord God, who looked upon my humbleness and had mercy upon my youth and ignorance, and guarded me before I knew Him, and before I knew and distinguished between good and evil, and protected me and comforted me as a father a son.

… And again after a few years214 I was with my relatives in Britain, who received me as a son, and earnestly besought me that I should never leave them after having endured so many great tribulations. And there I saw in a vision by night a man coming to me as from Ireland, and his name was Victorinus, and he had innumerable epistles; and he gave me one of them and I read the beginning of the epistle as follows: “The voice of the Irish.” And while I was reading the epistle, I think that it was at the very moment, I heard the voice of those who were near the wood of Fochlad,215 which is near the Western Sea. And thus they cried out with one voice: We beseech thee, holy youth, to come here and dwell among us. And I was greatly smitten in heart, and could read no further and so I awoke. Thanks be to God, because after many years the Lord granted them according to their cry.

(c) Bede, Hist. Ec., III, 4. (MSL, 95:121.)

St. Ninian and St. Columba in Scotland.

In the year of our Lord 565, when Justin the younger, the successor of Justinian, took the government of the Roman Empire, there came into Britain a priest and abbot, distinguished in habit and monastic life, Columba by name, to preach the word of God to the provinces of the northern Picts, that is, to those who are separated from the southern parts by steep and rugged mountains. For the southern Picts, who had their homes within those mountains, had long before, as is reported, forsaken the error of idolatry, and embraced the true faith, by the preaching of the word to them by Ninian,216 a most reverend bishop and holy man of the British nation, who had been regularly instructed at Rome in the faith and mysteries of the truth, whose episcopal see was named after St. Martin, the bishop, and was famous for its church, wherein he and many other saints rest in the body, and which the English nation still possesses. The place belongs to the province of Bernicia, and is commonly called Candida Casa,217 because he there built a church of stone, which was not usual among the Britons.

Columba came to Britain in the ninth year of the reign of Bridius, the son of Meilochon, the very powerful king of the Picts, and he converted by work and example that nation to the faith of Christ; whereupon he also received the aforesaid island [Iona] for a monastery. It is not large, but contains about five families, according to English reckoning. His successors hold it to this day, and there also he was buried, when he was seventy-seven, about thirty-two years after he came into Britain to preach. Before he came into Britain he had built a noble monastery in Ireland, which from the great number of oaks is called in the Scottish tongue218 Dearmach, that is, the Field of Oaks. From both of these monasteries many others had their origin through his disciples both in Britain and Ireland; but the island monastery where his body lies holds the rule.

That island always has for its ruler an abbot, who is a priest, to whose direction all the province and even bishops themselves are subject by an unusual form of organization, according to the example of their first teacher, who was not a bishop, but a priest and monk; of whose life and discourses some writings are said to have been preserved by his disciples. But whatever he was himself, this we regard as certain concerning him, that he left successors renowned for their great continency, their love of God, and their monastic rules. However, they followed uncertain cycles219 in their observance of the great festival [Easter], for no one brought them the synodal decrees for the observance of Easter, because they were placed so far away from the rest of the world; they only practised such works of piety and chastity as they could learn from the prophetical, evangelical, and apostolical writings. This manner of keeping Easter continued among them for a long time, that is, for the space of one hundred and fifty years, or until the year of our Lord’s incarnation 715.

§ 97. The Conversion of the Franks. The Establishment of Catholicism in the Germanic Kingdoms

Chlodowech (Clovis, 481-511) was originally a king of the Salian Franks, near Tournay. By his energy he became king of all the Franks, and, overthrowing Syagrius in 486, pushed his frontier to the Loire. In 496 he conquered a portion of the Alemanni. About this time he became a Catholic. He had for some time favored the Catholic religion, and with his conversion his rule was associated with that cause in the kingdoms subject to Arian rulers. In this way his support of Catholicism was in line with his policy of conquest. By constant warfare Chlodowech was able to push his frontier, in 507, to the Garonne. His death, in 511, at less than fifty years of age, cut short only for a time the extension of the Frankish kingdom. Under his sons, Burgundy, Thuringia, and Bavaria were conquered. The kingdom, which had been divided on the death of Chlodowech, was united under the youngest son, Chlotar I (sole ruler 558-561), again divided on his death, to be united under Chlotar II (sole ruler 613-628). In Spain the Suevi, in the northwest, became Catholic under Carrarich in 550. They were conquered in 585 by the Visigoths, who in turn became Catholic in 589.

(a) Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, II, 30. 31. (MSL, 71:225.)

Gregory of Tours (538-593) became bishop of Tours in 573. Placed in this way in the most important see of France, he was constantly thrown in contact with the Merovingian royal family and had abundant opportunity to become acquainted with the course of events at first hand. His most important work, the History of the Franks, is especially valuable from the fifth book on, as here he is on ground with which he was personally familiar. In Book II, from which the selection is taken, Gregory depends upon others, and must be used with caution.

The baptism of Chlodowech was probably the result of a long process of deliberation, beginning probably before his marriage with Chrotechildis, a Burgundian princess, who was a Catholic. While still a pagan he was favorably disposed toward the Catholic Church. About 496 he was baptized, probably on Christmas Day, at Rheims, by St. Remigius. The place and date have been much disputed of late. The earliest references to the conversion are by Nicetus of Trier (ob. circa 566), Epistula ad Chlodosvindam reginam Longobardorum (MSL, 5:375); and Avitus, Epistula 41, addressed to Chlodowech himself. (MSL, 59:257). A careful examination of all the evidence may be found in A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, fourth ed., I, 595 ff. Hauck concludes that “the date, December 25, 496, may be regarded as almost certainly the date of the baptism of Chlodowech. The connection as to time between the first war with the Alemanni and the baptism may have given occasion to seek for some actual connection between the two events.” The selection is therefore given as the traditional version and is not to be relied upon as correct in detail. It represents what was probably the current belief within a few decades of the event.

Ch. 30. The queen (Chrotechildis) ceased not to warn Chlodowech that he should acknowledge the true God and forsake idols. But in no way could he be brought to believe these things. Finally war broke out with the Alemanni. Then by necessity was he compelled to acknowledge what before he had denied with his will. The two armies met and there was a fearful slaughter, and the army of Chlodowech was on the point of being annihilated. When the king perceived that, he raised his eyes to heaven, his heart was smitten and he was moved to tears, and he said: “Jesus Christ, whom Chrotechildis declares to be the Son of the living God, who says that Thou wilt help those in need and give victory to those who hope in Thee, humbly I flee to Thee for Thy mighty aid, that Thou wilt give me victory over these my enemies, and I will in this way experience Thy power, which the people called by Thy name claim that they have proved to be in Thee. Then will I believe on Thee and be baptized in Thy name. For I have called upon my gods but, as I have seen, they are far from my help. Therefore, I believe that they have no power who do not hasten to aid those obedient to them. I now call upon Thee and I desire to believe on Thee. Only save me from the hand of my adversaries.” As he thus spoke, the Alemanni turned their backs and began to take flight. But when they saw that their king was dead, they submitted to Chlodowech and said: “Let not, we pray thee, a nation perish; now we are thine.” Thereupon he put an end to the war, exhorted the people, and returned home in peace. He told the queen how by calling upon the name of Christ he had obtained victory. This happened in the fifteenth year of his reign (496).

Ch. 31. Thereupon the queen commanded that the holy Remigius, bishop of Rheims, be brought secretly to teach the king the word of salvation. The priest was brought to him secretly and began to lay before him that he should believe in the true God, the creator of heaven and earth, and forsake idols, who could neither help him nor others. But he replied: “Gladly do I listen to thee, most holy Father, but one thing remains, for the people who follow me suffer me not to forsake their gods. But I will go and speak to them according to thy words.” When he met his men, and before he began to speak, all the people cried out together, for the divine power had anticipated him: “We reject the mortal gods, pious king, and we are ready to follow the immortal God whom Remigius preaches.” These things were reported to the bishop, who rejoiced greatly and commanded the font to be prepared.… The king first asked to be baptized by the pontiff. He went, a new Constantine, into the font to be washed clean from the old leprosy, and to purify himself in fresh water from the stains which he had long had. But as he stepped into the baptismal water, the saint of God began in moving tone: “Bend softly thy head, Sicamber, reverence what thou hast burnt, and burn what thou hast reverenced.”…

Therefore the king confessed Almighty God in Trinity, and was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and was anointed with the holy chrism with the sign of the cross. Of his army more than three thousand were baptized. Also his sister Albofledis was baptized.… And another sister of the king, Lanthechildis by name, who had fallen into the heresy of the Arians, was converted, and when she had confessed that the Son and the Holy Ghost were of the same substance with the Father, she was given the chrism.

(b) Gregory of Tours, Hist. Francorum, II, 35-38. (MSL, 71:232.)

Clovis at the head of the anti-Arian party in Gaul.

Ch. 35. When Alarich, the king of the Goths, saw that King Chlodowech continually conquered the nations, he sent messengers to him saying: “If my brother wishes, it is also in my heart that we see each other, if God will.” Chlodowech was not opposed to this and came to him. They met on an island in the Loire, in the neighborhood of Amboise, in the territory of Tours, and spake and ate and drank together, promised mutual friendship, and parted in peace.

Ch. 36. But already many Gauls wished with all their heart to have the Franks for their masters. It therefore happened that Quintianus, bishop of Rhodez, was driven out of his city on account of this. For they said to him: “You wish that the rule of the Franks possessed this land.” And a few days after, when a dispute had arisen between him and the citizens, the rumor reached the Goths who dwelt in the city, for the citizens asserted that he wished to be subject to the rule of the Franks; and they took counsel and planned how they might kill him with the sword. When this was reported to the man of God, he rose by night, and with the most faithful of his servants left Rhodez and came to Arverne.…

Ch. 37. Thereupon King Chlodowech said to his men: “It is a great grief to me that these Arians possess a part of Gaul. Let us go forth with God’s aid, conquer them, and bring this land into our power.” And since this speech pleased all, he marched with his army toward Poitiers, for there dwelt Alarich at that time.… King Chlodowech met the king of the Goths, Alarich, in the Campus Vocladensis [Vouillé or Voulon-sur-Clain] ten miles from Poitiers; and while the latter fought from afar, the former withstood in hand to hand combat. But since the Goths, in their fashion, took to flight, King Chlodowech at length with God’s aid won the victory. He had on his side a son of Sigbert the Lame, whose name was Chloderich. The same Sigbert, ever since he fought with the Alemanni near Zulpich [in 496], had been wounded in the knee and limped. The king killed King Alarich and put the Goths to flight.… From this battle Amalrich, Alarich’s son, fled to Spain, and by his ability obtained his father’s kingdom. Chlodowech, however, sent his son Theuderic to Albi, Rhodez, and Arverne, and departing he subjugated those cities, from the borders of the Goths to the borders of the Burgundians, to the rule of his father. But Alarich reigned twenty-two years.

Chlodowech spent the winter in Bourdeaux, and carried away the entire treasure of Alarich from Toulouse, and he went to Angoulême. Such favor did the Lord show him that, when he looked on the walls, they fell of themselves. Thereupon when the Goths had been driven from the city he brought it under his rule. After the accomplishment of these victories he returned to Tours and dedicated many gifts to the holy Church of St. Martin.

Ch. 38. At that time he received from the Emperor Anastasius the title of consul, and in the Church of St. Martin he assumed the purple cloak and put on his head a diadem. He then mounted a horse and with his own hand scattered among the people who were present gold and silver in the greatest profusion, all the way from the door of the porch of the Church of St. Martin to the city gate. And from this day forward he was addressed as consul, or Augustus. From Tours Chlodowech went to Paris and made that the seat of his authority.220

(c) Third Council of Toledo, A. D. 589, Acts. Mansi, IX, 992

This council is the most important event in the history of the Visigothic Church of Spain, marking the abandonment of Arianism by the ruling race of Spain and the formal acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity or the Catholic faith and unity. The Suevi had accepted Catholicism more than thirty-five years before; see Synod of Braga, A. D. 563, in Hefele, § 285 (cf. also Hahn, § 176, who gives the text of the anathematisms in which, after a statement of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, the balance of the anathematisms are concerned with Priscillianism). Reccared, the Visigothic king (586-601), became a Catholic in 587, and held the council of 589 to effect the conversion of the nation to his new faith. For a letter of Gregory the Great on the conversion of Reccared, see PNF, ser. II, vol. XII, pt. 2. p. 87, and two from Gregory to Reccared himself (ibid., vol. XIII, pp. 16, 35). The creed, as professed at Toledo, is the first instance of the authorized use of the term “and the Son” in a creed in connection with the doctrine of the “procession of the Holy Spirit,” the form in which the so-called Nicene creed came to be used in the West, and the source of much dispute between the East and the West in the ninth century and ever since.

I. From the Speech of Reccared at the Opening of the Council

I judge that you are not ignorant, most reverend priests [i.e., bishops] that I have called you into our presence for the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline; and because in time past the existence of heresy prevented throughout the entire Catholic Church the transaction of synodical business. God, who has been pleased by our action to remove the obstacle of the same heresy, warns us to set in order the ecclesiastical laws concerning church matters. Therefore let it be a matter of joy and gladness to you that the canonical order is being brought back to the lines of the times of our fathers, in the sight of God and to our glory.

II. From the Statement of Faith

There is present here all the famous nation of the Goths, esteemed for their real bravery by nearly all nations, who, however, by the error of their teachers have been separated from the faith and unity of the Catholic Church; but now, agreeing as a whole with me in my assent to the faith, participate in the communion of that Church which receives in its maternal bosom a multitude of different nations and nourishes them with the breasts of charity. Concerning her the prophet foretelling said: “My house shall be called the house of prayer for all nations.” For not only does the conversion of the Goths add to the amount of our reward, but also an infinite multitude of the people of the Suevi, whom under the protection of Heaven we have subjected to our kingdom, led away into heresy by the fault of an alien,221 we have endeavored to recall to the source of truth. Therefore, most holy Fathers, I offer as by your hands to the eternal God, as a holy and pleasing offering, these most noble nations, who have been attached by us to the Lord’s possessions. For it will be to me in the day of the retribution of the just an unfading crown and joy if these peoples, who now by our planning have returned to the unity of the Church, remain founded and established in the same. For as by the divine determination it has been a matter of our care to bring these peoples to the unity of the Church of Christ, so it is a matter of your teaching to instruct them in the Catholic dogmas, by which they may be instructed in the full knowledge of the truth, that they may know how to reject totally the errors of pernicious heresy, to remain in charity in the ways of the true faith, and to embrace with fervent desire the communion of the Catholic Church.… As it is of benefit to us to profess with the mouth what we believe in the heart … therefore I anathematize Arius with all his doctrines … so I hold in honor, to the praise and honor and glory of God, the faith of the holy Council of Nicæa.… I embrace and hold the faith of the one hundred and fifty Fathers assembled at Constantinople.… I believe the faith of the first Council of Ephesus … likewise with all the Catholic Church I reverently receive the faith of the Council of Chalcedon.… To this my confession I have added the holy constitutions [i.e., confessions of faith] of the above-mentioned councils, and I have subscribed with complete singleness of heart to the divine testimony.

Here follows the faith of Nicæa, the so-called creed of Constantinople, with the words relating to the Holy Ghost, ex Patre et Filio procedentem (proceeding from the Father and the Son); the actual form filioque does not here occur.

III. From the Anathemas, Hahn, § 178

3. Whosoever does not believe in the Holy Ghost and will not believe that He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and will not say that He is co-essential with the Father and the Son, let him be anathema.

IV. From the Canons, Bruns, I, 212

Canon 1. After the damnation of the heresy of Arius and the exposition of the Catholic faith, this holy council ordered that, because in the midst of many heretics and heathen throughout the churches of Spain, the canonical order has been necessarily neglected (for while liberty of transgressing abounded, and the desirable discipline was denied, and every one fostered excesses of heresy in the protection and continuation of evil times, a strict discipline was far off, but now the peace of the Church has been restored by the mercy of Christ), everything which by the authority of early canons may be forbidden is forbidden, discipline arising again, and everything is required which they order done. Let the constitutions of all the councils remain in their force, likewise all the synodical letters of the holy Roman prelates. Henceforth let no one aspire unworthily to ecclesiastical promotions and honors against the canons. Let nothing be done which the holy Fathers, filled with the Spirit of God, decreed should not be done. And let those who presume to violate the laws be restrained by the severity of the earlier canons.

Canon 2. Out of reverence for the most holy faith and to strengthen the weak minds of men, acting upon the advice of the most pious and glorious King Reccared222 the synod has ordered that throughout the churches of Spain, Gaul, and Gallicia, the symbol of the faith be recited according to the form of the Oriental churches, the symbol of the Council of Constantinople, that is, of the one hundred and fifty bishops; and before the Lord’s prayer is said, let it be pronounced to the people in a clear voice, by which also the true faith may have a manifest testimony, and the hearts of the people may approach to the reception of the body and blood of Christ with hearts purified by faith.

§ 98. The State Church in the Germanic Kingdoms

So long as the Germanic rulers remained Arian, the Catholic Church in their kingdoms was left for the most part alone or hindered in its synodical activity. But as the kingdoms became Catholic on the conversion of their kings, the rulers were necessarily brought into close official relations with the Church and its administration; and they exercised a strict control over the ecclesiastical councils and the episcopal elections. The Merovingians, on their conversion from paganism, at once became Catholics, and they consequently assumed this control immediately. With the extension of the Frankish kingdom, the authority of the king in ecclesiastical affairs was likewise extended. In Spain the Visigoths were Arians until 589. On the conversion of the nation at that date, the king at once assumed an extensive ecclesiastical authority (for Reccared’s confirmation of the Third Synod of Toledo, 589, see Bruns, I, 393), and in the development of the system the councils of Toledo became at once the parliaments of the entire nation, now united through its common faith, and the synods of the Church. This system was cut short by the Moslem invasion of 711, and the development of the Church and its relation to the State is to be studied in the Frankish kingdom in which from this time the ecclesiastical development of Western Europe is to be traced. The best evidence for the legal state of the Church under the Germanic rulers is chiefly in the acts of councils.

But there was also in the Catholic Church in the Germanic kingdoms a strong monastic spirit which was by no means willing to see the Church become an “establishment.” This fitted in poorly with the condition of the State Church. It is illustrated by the career of St. Columbanus.

(a) Council of Orleans, A. D. 511, Synodical Letter. Bruns, II, 160

The king summons the council and approves its findings. Extract from the synodical letter in which the canons are sent to Chlodowech.

To their Lord, the Son of the Catholic Church, Chlodowech, the most glorious king, all the priests223 whom you have commanded to come to the council.

Because your great care for the glorious faith so moves you to reverence for the Catholic religion that from love of the priesthood you have commanded the bishops to be gathered together into one that they might treat of necessary things, according to the proposals of your will and the titles [i.e., topics] which you have given, we reply by determining those things which seem good to us; so that if those things which we have decreed prove to be right in your judgment, the approval of so great a king and lord might by a greater authority cause the determinations of so many bishops to be observed more strictly.

(b) Council of Orleans, A. D. 549, Canons. Bruns, II, 211

Canons regarding Episcopal elections. The first instance in canonical legislation in the West recognizing the necessity of royal consent to the election of a bishop. For the relation of the Pope to metropolitans, see in § 99 the Epistle of Gregory the Great to Vigilius of Arles.

Canon 10. That it shall be lawful for no one to obtain the episcopate by payment or bargaining, but with the permission of the king, according to the choice of the clergy and the people, as it is written in the ancient canons, let him be consecrated by the metropolitan or by him whom he sends in his place, together with the bishops of the province. That if any one violates by purchase the rule of this holy constitution, we decree that he, who shall have been ordained for money, shall be deposed.

Canon 11. Likewise as the ancient canons decree, no one shall be made bishop of those who are unwilling to receive him, and neither by the force of powerful persons are the citizens and clergy to be induced to give a testimonial of election.224 For this is to be regarded as a crime; that if this should be done, let him, who rather by violence than by legitimate decree has been ordained bishop, be deposed forever from the honor of the episcopate which he has obtained.

(c) Council of Paris, A. D. 557, Canon. Bruns, II, 221

Canon 8. No bishop shall be ordained for people against their will, but only he whom the people and clergy in full election shall have freely chosen; neither by the command of the prince nor by any condition whatever against the will of the metropolitan and the bishops of the province shall he be forced in. That if any one with so great rashness presumes by royal appointment225 to reach the height of this honor, let him not deserve to be received as a bishop by the bishops of the province in which the place is located, for they know that he was ordained improperly. If any of the fellow bishops of the province presume to receive him against this prohibition, let him be separated from all his brethren and be deprived of the charity of all.

(d) Gregory of Tours, Hist. Francorum, IV, 15. (MSL, 71:280.)

The difficulty of the Church in living under the Merovingian monarchs with their despotism and violence is illustrated by the following passage. The date of the event is 556.

When the clergy of Tours heard that King Chlothar [511-561; 558-561, as surviving son of Chlodowech, sole ruler of the Franks] had returned from the slaughter of the Saxons, they prepared the consensus226 that they had chosen the priest Eufronius bishop and went to the king. When they had presented the matter, the king answered: “I had indeed commanded that the priest Cato should be ordained there, and why has our command been disregarded?” They answered him: “We have indeed asked him, but he would not come.” And as they said this suddenly the priest Cato appeared and besought the king to command that Cautinus be removed and himself be appointed bishop of Arverne.227 But when the king laughed at this, he besought him again, that he might be ordained for Tours, which he had before rejected. Then the king said to him: “I have already commanded that you should be consecrated bishop of Tours, but, as I hear, you have despised that church; therefore you shall be withheld from the government of it.” Thereupon he departed ashamed. But when the king asked concerning the holy Eufronius, they said that he was a nephew of the holy Gregory, whom we have mentioned above.228 The king answered: “That is a distinguished and very great family. Let the will of God and of the holy Martin229 be done; let the election be confirmed.” And after he had given a decree for the ordination, the holy Eufronius was ordained as the eighth bishop after St. Martin.230

(e) Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc., VIII, 22, (MSL, 71:464.)

Royal interference in episcopal elections was not infrequent under the Merovingians. Confused as the following account is, it is clear from it that the kings were accustomed to violate the canons and to exercise a free hand in episcopal appointments. See also the preceding selection. The date of the event is 585. For the Synod of Maçon, A. D. 585, see Hefele, § 286.

Laban, Bishop of Eauze,231 died that year. Desiderius, a layman, succeeded him, although the king had promised with an oath that he would never again ordain a bishop from the laity. But to what will not the accursed hunger for gold drive human hearts? Bertchramnus232 had returned from the synod,233 and on the way was seized with a fever. The deacon Waldo was summoned, who in baptism had also been called Bertchramnus, and he committed to him the whole of his episcopal office, as he also committed to him the provisions regarding his testament, as well as those who merited well by him. As he departed the bishop breathed out his spirit. The deacon returned and with presents and the consensus234 of the people, went to the king235 but he obtained nothing. Then the king, having issued a mandate, commanded Gundegisilus, count of Saintes, surnamed Dodo, to be consecrated bishop; and so it was done. And because many of the clergy of Saintes before the synod had, in agreement with Bishop Bertchramnus, written various things against their Bishop Palladius to humiliate him, after his236 death they were arrested by the bishop, severely tortured, and stripped of their property.

(f) Chlotar II, Capitulary, A. D. 614. MGH, Leges, II. Capitularia Regum Francorum, Ed. Boretius, I, 20, MGH, Leges, 1883

Not only did the councils admit the right of the king to approve the candidate for consecration as bishop, but the kings laid down the principle that their approval was necessary. They also legislated on the affairs of the Church, e.g., on the election of bishops. The text may also be found in Altmann und Bernheim, Ausgewählte Urkunden. Berlin, 1904, p. 1.

Ch. 1. It is our decree that the statutes of the canons be observed in all things, and those of them which have been neglected in the past because of the circumstances of the times shall hereafter be observed perpetually; so that when a bishop dies one shall be chosen for his place by the clergy and people, who is to be ordained by the metropolitan and his provincials; if the person be worthy let him be ordained by the order of the prince; but if he be chosen from the palace237 let him be ordained on account of the merit of his person and his learning.

Ch. 2. That no bishop while living shall choose a successor, but another shall be substituted for him when he become so indisposed that he cannot rule his church and clergy. Likewise, that while a bishop is living no one shall presume to take his place, and if one should seek it, it is on no account to be given him.

(g) Fredegarius Scholasticus, Chronicon, 75f. (MSL, 71:653.)

The Chronicon of Fredegarius is important, as it continues in its last book the History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours. The best edition is in the MGH, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum II, ed. Krusch. An account of the work may be found in DCB, art. “Fredegarius Scholasticus.” In the Frankish kingdom the higher clergy, especially the bishops, assembled with the great men of the realm in councils under the king to discuss affairs of State. These councils have been called concilia mixta. They are, however, to be distinguished from the strictly ecclesiastical assemblies in which the clergy alone acted. A change was introduced by Charles the Great. The following passage shows the king consulting with the bishops, along with the other nobles.

§ 75. In the eleventh year of his reign Dagobert came to the city of Metz, because the Wends at the command of Samo still manifested their savage fury and often made inroads from their territory to lay waste the Frankish kingdom, Thuringia, and other provinces. Dagobert, coming to Metz, with the counsel of the bishops and nobles, and the consent of all the great men of his kingdom, made his son, Sigibert, king of Austrasia, and assigned him Metz as his seat. To Chunibert, bishop of Cologne, and the Duke Adalgisel, he committed the conduct of his palace and kingdom.238 Also he gave to his son sufficient treasure and fitted him out with all that was appropriate to his high dignity; and whatsoever he had given him he confirmed by charters specially made out. Since then the Frankish land was sufficiently defended by the zeal of the Austrasians against the Wends.

§ 76. When in the twelfth year of his reign a son named Chlodoveus was born by Queen Nantechilde to Dagobert, he made, with the counsel and advice of the Neustrians, an agreement with his Sigibert. All the great men and the bishops of Austrasia and the other people of Sigibert, holding up their hands, confirmed it with an oath, that after the death of Dagobert, Neustria and Burgundy, by an established ordinance, should fall to Chlodoveus; but Austrasia, because in population and extent it was equal to those lands, should belong in its entire extent to Sigibert.

(h) Jonas, Vita Columbani, Chs. 9, 12, 17, 32, 33, 59, 60. (MSL, 87:1016.)

Columbanus (543-615) was the most active and successful of the Irish missionary monks laboring on the continent of Europe. In 585 Columbanus left Ireland to preach in the wilder parts of Gaul, and in 590 or 591 founded Luxeuil, which became the parent monastery of a considerable group of monastic houses. He came into conflict with the Frankish clergy on account of the Celtic mode of fixing the date of Easter [see Epistle of Columbanus among the Epistles of Gregory the Great, to whom it is addressed, Bk. IX, Ep. 127, PNF, ser. II, vol. XIII, p. 38; two other epistles on the subject in MSL, vol. 80], his monastic rule [MSL, 80:209], and his condemnatory attitude toward the dissoluteness of life prevalent in Gaul among the clergy, as well as in the court. Banished from Burgundy in 610 partly for political reasons, he worked for a time in the vicinity of Lake Constance. In 612, leaving his disciple Gallus [see Vita S. Galli, by Walafrid Strabo, MSL, 114; English translation by C. W. Bispham, Philadelphia, 1908], he went to Italy and, having founded Bobbio, died in 615. Gallus (ob. circa 640) subsequently founded the great monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland, near Lake Constance. The Celtic monks on the continent abandoned their Celtic peculiarities in the ninth century and adopted the Benedictine rule.

Jonas, the author of the life of Columbanus, was a monk at Bobbio. His life of Columbanus was written about 640; see DCB, “Jonas (6).” In the following, the divisions and numbering of paragraphs follow Migne’s edition. There is an excellent new edition in the MGH, Script. rerum Merovin., ed. Krusch, 8vo, 1905.

Columbanus sets forth.

Ch. 9. Columbanus gathered such treasures of divine knowledge that even in his youth he could expound the Psalter in polished discourse and could make many other discourses, worthy of being sung and useful to teach. Thereupon he took pains to be received into the company of monks, and sought the monastery of Benechor [in Ulster] the head of which, the blessed Commogellus, was famous for his many virtues. He was an excellent father of his monks and highly regarded because of his zeal in religion and the maintenance of discipline according to the rule. And here he began to give himself entirely to prayer and fasting and to bear the yoke of Christ, easy to those who bear it, by denying himself and taking up his cross and following Christ, that he, who was to be the teacher of others, might himself learn by teaching, and by mortification to endure in his own body what he should abundantly show forth; and he who should teach what by others ought to be fulfilled, himself first fulfilled. When many years had passed for him in the cloister, he began to desire to wander forth, mindful of the command which the Lord gave Abraham: “Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred and from thy father’s house unto a land that I will show thee” [Gen. 12:1]. He confessed to Commogellus, the venerable Father, the warm desire of his heart, the desire enkindled by the fire of the Lord [Luke 12:49]; but he received no such answer as he wished. For it was a grief to Commogellus to bear the loss of a man so full of comfort. Finally Commogellus began to take courage and place it before his heart that he ought to seek more to advance the benefit of others than to pursue his own needs. It happened not without the will of the Almighty, who had trained His pupil for future wars, that from his victories he might obtain glorious triumphs and gain joyful victories over the phalanxes of slain enemies. The abbot called Columbanus unto him and said that though it was a grief to him yet he had come to a decision useful to others, that he would remain in peace with him, would strengthen him with consolation, and give him companions for his journey men who were known for their religion.…

So Columbanus in the twentieth239 year of his life set forth, and with twelve companions under the leadership of Christ went down to the shore of the sea. Here they waited the grace of Almighty God that he would prosper their undertaking, if it took place with His consent; and they perceived that the will of the merciful Judge was with them. They embarked and began the dangerous journey through the straits, and crossed a smooth sea with a favorable wind, and after a quick passage reached the coasts of Brittany.…

Columbanus founds monasteries in Gaul.

Ch. 12. At that time there was a wide desert called Vosagus [the Vosges] in which there lay a castle long since in ruins. And ancient tradition called it Anagrates [Anegray]. When the holy man reached this place, in spite of its wild isolation, its rudeness, and the rocks, he settled there with his companions, content with meagre support, mindful of the saying that man lives not by bread alone, but, satisfied with the Word of Life, he would have abundance and never hunger again unto eternity.

Ch. 17. When the number of the monks had increased rapidly, he began to think of seeking in the same desert for a better place, where he might found a monastery. And he found a place, which had formerly been strongly fortified, at a distance from the first place about eight miles, and which was called in ancient times Luxovium.240 Here there were warm baths erected with special art. A multitude of stone idols stood here in the near-by forest, which in the old heathen times had been honored with execrable practices and profane rites. Residing here, therefore, the excellent man began to found a cloister. On hearing of this the people came to him from all sides in order to dedicate themselves to the practice of religion, so that the great crowd of monks gathered together could hardly be contained in the company of one monastery. Here the children of nobles pressed to come, that, despising the scorned adornments of the world and the pomp of present wealth, they might receive eternal rewards. When Columbanus perceived this and that from all sides the people came together for the medicines of penance, and that the walls of one monastery could not without difficulty hold so great a body of converts to the religious life, and although they were of one mind and one heart, yet it was ill fitted to the intercourse of so great a multitude, he sought out another place, which was excellent on account of its abundance of water, and founded a second monastery, which he named Fontanæ,241 and placed rulers over it, of whose piety none doubted. As he now settled companies of monks in this place, he dwelt alternately in each and, filled with the Holy Ghost, he established a rule which they should observe that the prudent reader or hearer of it might know by what sort of discipline a man might become holy.

The quarrel of Columbanus with the Court.

Ch. 32. It happened one day that the holy Columbanus came to Brunichildis, who was at that time in Brocariaca.242 When she saw him coming to the court she led to the man of God the sons of Theuderich, whom he had begotten in adultery. He asked as he saw them what they wanted of him, and Brunichildis said: “They are the king’s sons; strengthen them with thy blessing.” But he answered: “Know then that these will never hold the royal sceptre, for they have sprung from unchastity.” In furious anger she commanded the boys to depart. The man of God thereupon left the royal court, and when he had crossed the threshold there arose a loud roar so that the whole house shook, and all shuddered for fear; yet the rage of the miserable woman could not be restrained. Thereupon she began to plot against the neighboring monasteries, and she caused a decree to be issued that the monks should not be allowed to move freely outside the land of the monastery, and that no one should give them any support or otherwise assist them with offerings.

Ch. 33. Against Columbanus Brunichildis excited the mind of the king and endeavored to disturb him; and she encouraged the minds of his princes, his courtiers, and great men to set the mind of the king against the man of God, and she began to urge the bishops that by vilifying the religion of Columbanus they might dishonor the rule he had given his monks to observe.…

Columbanus founds Bobbio.

§ 59. When the blessed Columbanus learned that Theudebert had been conquered by Theuderich, he left Gaul and Germany,243 which were under Theuderich, and entered Italy where he was honorably received by Agilulf the Lombard king, who gave him permission to dwell where he wished in Italy. It happened by the will of God that, while he was in Milan, Columbanus wishing to attack and root out by the use of the Scripture the errors of the heretics, that is, the false doctrine of the Arians, lingered and composed an excellent work against them.244

§ 60. While things were thus going on, a man named Jocundus came before the king and reported to him that he knew of a church of the blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, in a desert region of the Apennines, in which he learned that there were many advantages, being uncommonly fruitful and supplied with water full of fish. It was called in old time Bobium245 on account of the brook which flowed by it; another river in the neighborhood was called Trebia, on which Hannibal, spending a winter, suffered great losses of men, horses, and elephants. Thither Columbanus removed and restored with all possible diligence the already half-ruined church in all its former beauty. The roof and the top of the temple and the ruins of the walls he repaired and set to work to construct other things necessary for a monastery.

§ 99. Gregory the Great and the Roman Church in the Second Half of the Sixth Century

Gregory the Great was born about 540. In 573 he was appointed prefect of the city of Rome, but resigned the following year to become a monk. Having been ordained deacon, he was sent in 579 to Constantinople as papal apocrisiarius, or resident ambassador at the court of the Emperor. In 586 he was back in Rome and abbot of St. Andrew’s, and in 590 he was elected Pope. As Pope his career was even more brilliant. He reorganized the papal finances, carried through important disciplinary measures, and advanced the cause of monasticism. His work as the organizer of missions in England, his labors to heal the Istrian schism, his relations with the Lombards, his dealings with the Church in Gaul, his controversy with Constantinople in the matter of the title “Ecumenical Patriarch,” and other large relations and tasks indicate the range of his interests and the extent of his activities. As a theologian Gregory interpreted Augustine for the Middle Ages and was the most important and influential theologian of the West after Augustine and before the greater scholastics. He did much to restore the prestige of his see, which had been lost in the earlier part of the sixth century. He died 604.

Additional source material: Selections from the writings of Gregory, including many of his letters, may be found in PNF, ser. II, vols. XII and XIII; see also A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford).

The selections under this section are arranged under four heads: (1) Relations with Gaul; (2) Relations with Constantinople; (3) Relations with the Schism in Northern Italy; (4) Relations with the Lombards; for English mission, v. infra, § 100.

1. Relations With Gaul

(a) Gregory the Great, Ep. Ad Vigilium, Reg. V, 53. (MSL, 77:782.)

The following letter was written in 595 in reply to a letter from Vigilius, bishop of Arles, asking for the pallium (DCA, art. “Pallium,” also Cath. Encyc.) and the vicariate. For the relation of the Roman see to the bishop of Arles as primate of Gaul, see E. Loening, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts. The relation of the vicariate to the papacy and also to the royal power is indicated by the fact that the pallium is given in response to the request of the king. The condition of the church under Childebert is also shown; see § 98 for canons bearing on simony and irregularities in connection with ordination.

As to thy having asked therein [in a letter of Vigilius to Gregory] according to ancient custom for the use of the pallium and the vicariate of the Apostolic See, far be it from me to suspect that thou hast sought eminence of transitory power, or the adornment of external worship, in our vicariate and the pallium. But, since it is known to all whence the holy faith proceeded in the regions of Gaul, when your fraternity asks for a repetition of the early custom of the Apostolic See, what is it but that a good offspring reverts to the bosom of its mother? With willing mind therefore we grant what has been requested, lest we should seem either to withhold from you anything of the honor due to you, or to despise the petition of our most excellent son, King Childebert.…

I have learned from certain persons informing me that in the parts of Gaul and Germany no one attains to holy orders except for a consideration given. If this is so, I say it with tears, I declare it with groans, that, when the priestly order has fallen inwardly, neither will it be able to stand outwardly for long.…

Another very detestable thing has also been reported to us, that some persons being laymen, through the desire of temporal glory, are tonsured on the death of bishops, and all at once are made priests.…

On this account your fraternity must needs take care to admonish our most excellent son, King Childebert, that he remove entirely the stain of this sin from his kingdom, to the end that Almighty God may give him so much the greater recompense with himself as He sees him both love what He loves and shun what He hates.

And so we commit to your fraternity, according to ancient custom, under God, our vicariate in the churches which are under the dominion of our most excellent son Childebert, with the understanding that their proper dignity, according to primitive usage, be preserved to the several metropolitans. We have also sent a pallium which thy fraternity will use within the Church for the solemnization of mass only. Further, if any of the bishops should by any chance wish to travel to any considerable distance, let it not be lawful for him to remove to other places without the authority of thy holiness. If any question of faith, or it may be relating to other matters, should have arisen among the bishops, which cannot easily be settled, let it be ventilated and decided in an assembly of twelve bishops. But if it cannot be decided after the truth has been investigated, let it be referred to our judgment.

2. Relations With Constantinople

(b) Gregory the Great, Ep. Ad Johannem Jejunatorem, Reg. V, 44. (MSL, 77:738.) Cf. Mirbt, N. 180

On the title “Ecumenical Patriarch.”

The controversy over the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” was a result of Gregory’s determination to carry through, as far as possible, the Petrine rights and duties as he conceived them. The title was probably intended to mark the superiority of Constantinople to the other patriarchates in the East, according to the Eastern principle that the political rank of a city determined its ecclesiastical rank. It seemed to Gregory to imply a position of superiority to the see of Peter. As it certainly might imply that, he consistently opposed it. But it had been a title in use for nearly a century. (Cf. Gieseler, KG, Eng. trans., vol. I, p. 504.) Justinian in 533 so styled the patriarch of Constantinople (Cod. I, 1, 7). For the difference in point of view between the East and the West as to rank of great sees, see Leo’s letters on the 28th canon of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, supra, in § 86.

At the time when your fraternity was advanced in sacerdotal dignity, you recall what peace and concord of the churches you found. But, with what daring or with what swelling of pride I know not, you have attempted to seize upon a new name for yourself, whereby the hearts of all your brethren would be offended. I wonder exceedingly at this, since I remember that in order not to attain to the episcopal office thou wouldest have fled. But now that thou hast attained unto it, thou desirest so to exercise it as if thou hadst run after it with ambitious desire. And thou who didst confess thyself unworthy to be called a bishop, hast at length been brought to such a pitch that, despising thy brethren, thou desirest to be named the only bishop. And in regard to this matter, weighty letters were sent to thy holiness by my predecessor Pelagius, of holy memory, and in them he annulled the acts of the synod,246 which had been assembled among you in the case of our former brother and fellow priest, Gregory, because of that execrable title of pride, and forbade the archdeacon whom he sent according to custom to the feet of our Lord247 to celebrate the solemnities of the mass with thee. But after his death, when I, an unworthy man, succeeded to the government of the Church, I took care, formerly through thy representatives, and now through our common son and deacon, Sabianus, to address thy fraternity, not indeed in writing, but by word of mouth, desiring thee to refrain thyself from such presumption; and in case thou wouldest not amend I forbade his celebrating the solemnities of the mass with thee; that so I might appeal to thy holiness through a certain sense of shame, and then, if the execrable and profane assumption could not be corrected through shame, I might resort to canonical and prescribed measures. And because sores that are to be cut away should first be stroked with a gentle hand, I beg of thee, I beseech thee, and, as kindly as I can, I demand of thee that thy fraternity rebuke all who flatter thee and offer thee this name of error, and not consent to be called by a foolish and proud title. For truly I say it weeping, and out of deepest sorrow of heart attribute it to my sins, that this my brother, who has been placed in the episcopal order, that he might bring back the souls of others to humility, has, up to the present time, been incapable of being brought back to humility; that he who teaches truth to others has not consented to teach himself, even when I implore him.

Consider, I pray thee, that by this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that it is in contradiction to the grace poured out on all in common; in which grace thou thyself wilt be able to grow so far as thou thyself wilt determine to do so. And thou wilt become by so much the greater as thou restrainest thyself from the usurpation of proud and foolish titles; and thou wilt advance in proportion as thou art not bent on arrogation by the humiliation of thy brethren.… Certainly Peter, the first of the Apostles, was a member of the holy and universal Church; Paul, Andrew, John—what are they but the heads of particular communities? And yet all are members under one Head. And to bind all together in a short phrase, the saints before the Law, the saints under the Law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord’s body were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has ever wished himself to be called “universal.”…

Is it not the fact, as your fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them by the venerable Council of Chalcedon of being called “universal”?248 But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this rash name, lest, if in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren.

(c) Gregory the Great, Ep. Ad Phocam, Reg. XIII, 31. (MSL, 77:1281.)

Epistle to Phocas congratulating him on his accession.

Phocas (602-610) was a low-born, ignorant centurion whom chance had placed at the head of a successful rebellion originating in the army of the Danube. The rebellion was successful, and the Emperor Maurice was murdered, together with his sons. Maurice had been unsuccessful in war, unpopular with the army, and his financial measures had been oppressive. Phocas was utterly incompetent as a ruler, licentious and sanguinary as a man. His reign was a period of horror and blood.

Gregory to Phocas. Glory to God in the highest, who, according as it is written, changes times, and transfers kingdoms, because He has made apparent to all what He has vouchsafed to speak by His prophet, that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will [Dan. 4:17]. For in the incomprehensible dispensation of Almighty God there is an alternating control of human life, and sometimes, when the sins of many are to be smitten, one is raised up through whose hardness the necks of subjects may be bowed down under the yoke of tribulation, as in our affliction we have long had proof. But sometimes, when the merciful God has decreed to refresh with His consolation the mourning hearts of many, He advances one to the summit of government, and through the bowels of His mercy infuses in the minds of all the grace of exultation in Him. In which abundance of exultation we believe that we, who rejoice that the benignity of your piety has arrived at imperial supremacy, shall speedily be confirmed. “Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth be glad” [Psalm 96:11], and let the whole people of the republic, hitherto afflicted exceedingly, grow cheerful for your benignant deeds. Let the proud minds of enemies be subdued to the yoke of your domination. Let the sad and depressed spirit of subjects be relieved by your mercy. Let the power of heavenly grace make you terrible to your enemies; let piety make you kind to your subjects. Let the whole republic have rest in your most happy times, since the pillage of peace under the color of legal processes has been exposed. Let plottings about testaments cease, and benevolences extorted by violence end. Let secure possession of their own goods return to all, that they may rejoice in possessing without fear what they have acquired without fraud. Let every single person’s liberty be now at length restored to each one under the yoke of the holy Empire. For there is this difference between the kings of the nations and the emperors of the republic: the kings of the nations are lords of slaves, but the emperors lords of free men. But we shall better speak of these things by praying than by putting you in mind of them. May Almighty God keep the heart of your piety in the hand of His grace in every thought and deed. Whatsoever things should be done justly, whatever things with clemency, may the Holy Ghost, who dwells in your breast direct, that your clemency may both be exalted in a temporal kingdom and after the course of many years attain to heavenly kingdoms. Given in the month June, indiction six.

3. Gregory and the Schism in North Italy

Among the results of the Fifth General Council of Constantinople, 553, was a wide-spread schism in the northern part of Italy and adjacent lands. The bishops of the western part of Lombardy, under the lead of the bishop of Milan, together with the bishops of Venetia, Istria, and a portion of Illyricum, Rhætia Secunda, and Noricum, under the bishop of Aquileia, renounced communion with the see of Rome, and became autocephalic. Even bishops in Tuscany abandoned communion with the see of Rome because the council and Vigilius had condemned Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas (v. supra, § 93). Justin II attempted to heal the schism, and his verbose edict may be found in Evagrius, Hist. Ec., V, 4. A serious problem was presented to the Roman see. In dealing with them, however, it was possible to treat each group separately. On account of the Lombard invasion the bishop of Aquileia removed his see to Grado. Gregory the Great had some success in drawing the schismatics into more friendly relations. But not till 612 was the see of Aquileia-Grado in communion with Rome. A rival bishop was elected, who removed his see to old Aquileia. See extract from Paulus Diaconus (f). And the opposition was maintained until about 700. The Milanese portion of the schism had long since ended. Of Gregory’s epistles several bearing on the schism are available in PNF, ser. II, vols. XII and XIII: Reg. I, 16; II, 46, 51; IV, 2, 38, 39; V, 51; IX, 9, 10; XIII, 33.

(d) Gregory the Great, Ep. Ad Constantium, Reg. IV, 2. (MSL, 77:669.)

Gregory to Constantius, Bishop of Milan. My beloved son, the deacon Boniface, has given me information from a private letter of thy fraternity: namely, that three bishops, having sought out rather than having found an occasion, have separated themselves from the pious communion of thy fraternity, saying that thou hast assented to the condemnation of the three chapters and hast given a solemn pledge. And, indeed, whether there has been any mention made of the three chapters in any word or writing whatever, thy fraternity remembers well; although thy fraternity’s predecessor, Laurentius (circa 573), did send a most strict security to the Apostolic See, and to it a legal number of the most noble men subscribed; among whom, I also, at that time holding the prætorship of the city, likewise subscribed; because, when such a schism had taken place about nothing, it was right that the Apostolic See should be careful to guard in all respects the unity of the universal Church in the minds of priests. But as to its being said that our daughter, Queen Theodelinda,249 after hearing this news has withdrawn herself from thy communion, it is perfectly evident that though she has been seduced to some little extent by the words of wicked men, yet when Hippolytus the notary and John the abbot arrive, she will seek in all ways the communion of the fraternity.

(e) Gregory the Great, Ep. Ad Constantium, Reg. IV, 39. (MSL, 77:713.)

In reply to a letter from Constantius of Milan informing Gregory that the demand had been made upon him by the clergy of Brescia that he should take an oath that he, Constantius, had not condemned the Three Chapters, i.e., had not accepted the Fifth General Council, Gregory advises him to take no such oath.

But lest those who have thus written to you should be offended, send them a letter declaring under an imposition of an anathema that you neither take away anything from the faith of the synod of Chalcedon nor receive those who do, and that you condemn whatsoever it condemned and absolve whatsoever it absolved. And thus I believe that they may soon be satisfied.… As to what you have written to the effect that you are unwilling to transmit my letter to Queen Theodelinda on the ground that the fifth synod is named in it, for you believed that she might be offended, you did right not to transmit it. We are therefore doing now as you recommended, namely, only expressing approval of the four synods. Yet as to the synod which was afterward called at Constantinople, which is called by many the fifth, I would have you know that it neither ordained nor held anything in opposition to the four most holy synods, seeing that nothing was done in it with respect to the faith, but only with respect to three persons, about whom nothing is contained in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon;250 but after the canons had been promulgated, discussion arose, and final action was ventilated concerning persons.

(f) Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum, IV, 32, 33, 36. (MSL, 95:657.)

The continuation of the schism in Istria and the rise of the two patriarchates of Aquileia. The Emperor Phocas and the title “Head of All the Churches.”

32. In the following month of November [A. D. 605] King Agilulf concluded peace with the Patrician Smaragdus for a year, and received from the Romans twelve thousand solidi. Also the Tuscan cities Balneus Regis [Bagnarea] and Urbs Vetus [Orvieto] were conquered by the Lombards. Then appeared in the heavens in the months of April and May a star which is called a comet. Thereupon King Agilulf again made a peace with the Romans for three years.

33. In the same days after the death of the patriarch Severus, the abbot John was made patriarch of old Aquileia in his place with the approval of the king and Duke Gisulf. Also in Grados [Grado] the Roman251 Candidianus was appointed bishop. In the months of November and December a comet was again visible. After the death of Candidianus, Epiphanius, who had formerly been the papal chief notary, was elected patriarch by the bishops who stood under the Romans; and since this time there were two patriarchs.

36. Phocas, as also has been related above, after the murder of Maurice and his sons, obtained the Roman Empire and ruled for eight years. At the request of Pope Boniface252 he decreed that the seat of the Roman and Apostolic Church should be the head of all churches [caput omnium ecclesiarum], because the Church of Constantinople in a proclamation had named itself first of all. At the request of another Pope Boniface,253 he commanded that the idolatrous rubbish should be removed from the old temple which bore the name of the Pantheon, and from it a church should be made to the holy Virgin Mary and all martyrs, so that where formerly the service not of all gods but of all idols was celebrated, now only the memory of all saints should be found.

4. Gregory the Great and the Lombards

The Lombards entered Italy 568, and gradually spread over nearly all the peninsula. The territories retained by the Emperor from the conquests of Justinian were only the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Ducatus Romanus, and the Ducatus Neapolitanus, the extreme southern parts of the peninsula and Liguria. The Lombards were the last Germanic tribe to settle within the Empire, and like so many others they were Arians. Theodelinda, the queen of the Lombards, was a Bavarian princess and a Catholic. Her second husband, Agilulf, seems to have been favorably disposed to Catholicism, far more so than Authari, her first husband.

(g) Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum, IV, 5-9. (MSL, 95:540.)

Paulus Warnefridi, known as Paulus Diaconus (circa 720-circa 800), was himself a Lombard, and in writing his History of the Lombards shows himself the patriot as well as the loyal son of the Roman Church. To do this was at times difficult. The work is one of the most attractive histories written in the Middle Ages. For nearly all of his history, Paulus is dependent upon older sources, but he restates the older accounts in clear and careful fashion. The connection between the various extracts is not always felicitous, yet he has succeeded in producing one of the great books of history. For an analysis of the sources, see F. H. B. Daniell, art. “Paulus (70) Diaconus” in DCB. The best edition is that by Bethmann and Waitz in the MGH, Scriptores rerum Langobardorum et Italicarum sæc. VI-IX, also in the 8vo edition. There is an English translation of the entire work in the Translations and Reprints of the Historical Department of the University of Pennsylvania.

5. At that time the learned and pious Pope Gregory, after he had already written much for the benefit of the holy Church, wrote also four books concerning the lives of the saints; these books he called Dialogus, that is, conversation, because in them he has introduced himself speaking with his deacon Peter. The Pope sent these books to Queen Theodelinda, whom he knew to be true in the faith in Christ and abounding in good works.

6. Through this queen the Church of God obtained many and great advantages. For the Lombards, when they were still held by heathen unbelief, had taken possession of the entire property of the Church. But, induced by successful requests of the queen, the king, holding fast to the Catholic faith,254 gave the Church of Christ many possessions and assigned to the bishops, who had theretofore been oppressed and despised, their ancient place of honor once more.

7. In these days Tassilo was made king of Bavaria by the Frankish king Childebert. With an army he immediately marched into the land of the Slavs, and with great booty returned to his own land.

9. At the same time the patrician and exarch of Ravenna, Romanus,255 went to Rome. On his return to Ravenna he took possession of the cities which had been taken by the Lombards. The names of them are: Sutrium [Sutri], Polimarcium [near Bomarzio and west of Orte], Horta [Orte], Tuder [Todi], Ameria [Amelia], Perusia [Perugia], Luceoli [near Gubbio], and several others. When King Agilulf received word of this, he at once marched forth from Ticinus with a strong army and pitched before the city of Perusia. Here he besieged several days the Lombard duke Marisio, who had gone over to the side of the Romans, took him prisoner, and without delay had him executed. On the approach of the king, the holy Pope Gregory was so filled with fear that, as he himself reports in his homilies, he broke off the explanation of the temple, to be read about in Ezekiel; King Agilulf returned to Ticinus after he had settled the matter, and not long after, chiefly on account of the entreaties of his wife, Queen Theodelinda, who had often been advised in letters by the holy Father Gregory to do so, he concluded with Gregory and the Romans a lasting peace. To thank her for this, the venerable priest sent the following letter to the queen:

Gregory to Theodelinda, queen of the Lombards. How your excellency has labored earnestly and kindly, as is your wont, for the conclusion of peace, we have learned from the report of our son, the abbot Probus. Nor, indeed, was it otherwise to be expected of your Christianity than that you would in all ways show assiduity and goodness in the cause of peace. Wherefore, we give thanks to Almighty God, who so rules your heart with His lovingkindness that, as He has given you a right faith, so He also grants you to work always what is pleasing in His sight. For you may be assured, most excellent daughter, that for the saving of much bloodshed on both sides you have acquired no small reward. On this account, returning thanks for your good-will, we implore the mercy of God to repay you with good in body and soul here and in the world to come. Moreover, greeting you with fatherly affection, we exhort you so to deal with your most excellent consort that he may not reject the alliance of the Christian republic. For, as I believe you yourself know, it is in many ways profitable that he should be inclined to betake himself to its friendship. Do you then, after your manner, always strive for what tends to good-will and conciliation between the parties, and labor wherever an occasion of reaping a reward presents itself, that you may commend your good deeds the more before the eyes of Almighty God.

§ 100. The Foundation of the Anglo-Saxon Church

The Anglo-Saxon Church owes its foundation to the missionary zeal and wise direction of Gregory the Great. Augustine, whom Gregory sent, arrived in the kingdom of Kent 597, and established himself at Canterbury. In 625, Paulinus began his work at York, and Christianity was accepted by the Northumbrian king and many nobles. On the death of King Eadwine, Paulinus was obliged to leave the kingdom. Missionaries were brought into Northumbria in 635 from the Celtic Church, the centre of which was at Iona, where the new king Oswald had taken refuge on the death of Eadwine. Aidan now became the leader of the Northern Church. As the Christianization of the land advanced and Roman customs were introduced into the northern kingdom, practical inconveniences as to the different methods of reckoning the date of Easter, in which the North Irish and the Celts of Scotland differed from the rest of the Christian Church, came to a settlement of the difficulty at Streaneshalch, or Whitby, 664. Colman, Bishop of Lindisfarne, the leader of the Celtic party, withdrew, and Wilfrid, afterward bishop of York, took the lead under the influence of the Roman tradition. The Church of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, now in agreement as to custom, was organized by Theodore of Canterbury (668-690), and developed a remarkable intellectual life, becoming, in fact, for the first part at least of the eighth century, the centre of Western theological and literary culture.

Additional source material: Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, for editions, v. supra, § 96. This is the best account extant of the conversion of a nation to Christianity. H. Gee and W. J. Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History, London, 1896; A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, 1869 ff.

(a) Bede, Hist. Ec., I, 29. (MSL, 95:69.)

The scheme of Gregory the Great for the organization of the English Church A. D. 601.

Gregory, in planning his mission, seems not to have been aware of the profound changes in the kingdom resulting from the Anglo-Saxon invasion. He selected York as the seat of an archbishop, because it was the ancient capital of the Roman province in the North, and London, because it was the great city of the South. The rivalry of the two archbishops caused difficulties for centuries, and was a hinderance to the efficiency of the ecclesiastical system. By this letter, the British bishops were to be under the authority of Augustine, a position which was distasteful to the British, who were extremely hostile to the Anglo-Saxons, and incomprehensible to them, as they saw no reason or justification in any such arrangement without their consent. They withdrew from all intercourse with the new Anglo-Saxon Church and retired into Wales.

To the most reverend and holy brother and fellow bishop, Augustine, Gregory, servant of the servants of God.

Although it is certain that the unspeakable rewards of the eternal kingdom are laid up for those who labor for Almighty God, yet it is necessary for us to render to them the benefits of honors, that from this recompense they may be able to labor more abundantly in the zeal for spiritual work. And because the new Church of the English has been brought by thee to the grace of Almighty God, by the bounty of the same Lord and by your toil, we grant you the use of the pallium, in the same to perform only the solemnities of the mass, in order that in the various places you ordain twelve bishops who shall be under your authority, so that the bishop of the city of London ought always thereafter to be consecrated by his own synod and receive the pallium of honor from the holy Apostolic See, which by God’s authority I serve.256 Moreover, we will that you send to York a bishop whom you shall see fit to ordain, yet so that if the same city shall have received the word of God along with the neighboring places, he shall ordain twelve other bishops, and enjoy the honor of metropolitan, because if our life last, we intend, with the Lord’s favor, to give him the pallium also. And we will that he be subject to your authority, my brother. But after your decease he shall preside over the bishops he has ordained, so that he shall not be subject in anywise to the bishop of London. Moreover, let there be a distinction of honor between the bishops of the city of London and of York, in such a way that he shall take the precedence who has been ordained first. But let them arrange in concord by common counsel and harmonious action the things which need to be done for the zeal for Christ; let them determine rightly and let them accomplish what they have decided upon without any mutual misunderstandings.

But you, my brother, shall have subject to you not only the bishops whom you have ordained and those ordained by the bishop of York, but also, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, the priests [i.e., the bishops] of Britain; so that from the lips of your holiness they may receive the form both of correct faith and of holy life, and fulfilling the duties of their office in faith and morals may, when the Lord wills, attain to the kingdom of heaven. May God keep you safe, most reverend brother. Dated the 22d June in the nineteenth year of the reign of Mauritius Tiberius, the most pious Augustus, in the eighteenth year of the consulship of the same Lord, indiction four.

(b) Bede, Hist. Ec., III, 25 F. (MSL, 95:158.)

The Easter dispute and the synod of Whitby. The triumph of the Roman tradition.

The sharpest dispute between the Celtic and the Roman churches was on the date of Easter as presenting the most inconveniences. The principal points were as follows: Both parties agreed that it must be on Sunday, in the third week of the first lunar month, and the paschal full moon must not fall before the vernal equinox. But the Celts placed the vernal equinox on March 25, and the Romans on March 21. The Celts, furthermore, reckoned as the third week the 14th to the 20th days of the moon inclusive; the Romans the 15th to the 21st inclusive. The Irish Church in the southern part of Ireland had already adopted the Roman reckoning at the synod of Leighlin, 630-633 [Hefele, § 289]. The occasion of the difference of custom was, in reality, that the Romans had adopted in the previous century a more correct method of reckoning and one that had fewer practical inconveniences. For a statement by a Celt, see Epistle of Columbanus to Gregory the Great, in the latter’s Epistolæ, Reg. IX, Ep. 127 (PNF, ser. II, vol. XIII, p. 38). In the following selection space has been saved by omissions which are, however, indicated.

At this time [circa 652] a great and frequent controversy happened about the observance of Easter; those that came from Kent or France asserting that the Scots kept Easter Sunday contrary to the custom of the universal Church. Among them was a most zealous defender of the true Easter, whose name was Ronan, a Scot by nation, but instructed in ecclesiastical truth, either in France or Italy, who disputed with Finan,257 and convinced many, or at least induced them, to make a stricter inquiry after the truth; yet he could not prevail upon Finan … James, formerly the deacon of the venerable archbishop Paulinus … kept the true and Catholic Easter, with all those that he could persuade to adopt the right way. Queen Eanfleda [wife of Oswy, king of Northumbria] and her attendants also observed the same as she had seen practised in Kent, having with her a Kentish priest that followed the Catholic mode, whose name was Romanus. Thus it is said to have happened in those times that Easter was kept twice in one year;258 and that when the king, having ended the time of fasting, kept his Easter, the queen and her attendants were still fasting and celebrating Palm Sunday.…

After the death of Finan [662] … when Colman, who was also sent out of Scotland, came to be bishop, a great controversy arose about the observance of Easter, and the rules of ecclesiastical life.… This reached the ears of King Oswy and his son Alfrid; for Oswy, having been instructed and baptized by the Scots, and being very perfectly skilled in their language, thought nothing better than what they taught. But Alfrid, having been instructed in Christianity by Wilfrid, a most learned man, who had first gone to Rome to learn the ecclesiastical doctrine, and spent much time at Lyons with Dalfinus, archbishop of France, from whom he had received the ecclesiastical tonsure, rightly thought this man’s doctrine ought to be preferred to all the traditions of the Scots.…

The controversy having been started concerning Easter, the tonsure, and other ecclesiastical matters, it was agreed that a synod should be held in the monastery of Streaneshalch, which signifies the bay of the lighthouse, where the Abbess Hilda, a woman devoted to God, presided; and that there the controversy should be decided. The kings, both father and son, came hither. Bishop Colman, with his Scottish clerks, and Agilbert,259 and the priests Agatho and Wilfrid. James and Romanus were on their side. But the Abbess Hilda and her associates were for the Scots, as was also the venerable bishop Cedd, long before ordained by the Scots.… Then Colman said: “The Easter which I keep, I received from my elders who sent me hither as bishop; all our fathers, men beloved of God, are known to have kept it in the same manner; and that the same may not seem to any to be contemptible or worthy of being rejected, it is the same which St. John the Evangelist, the disciple especially beloved of our Lord, with all the churches over which he presided, is recorded as having observed.…”

Wilfrid, having been ordered by the king to speak, said: “The Easter which we observe we saw celebrated by all at Rome, where the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, lived, taught, suffered, and were buried; we saw the same done in Italy and France, when we travelled through those countries for pilgrimage and prayer. We found the same practised in Africa, Asia, Egypt, Greece, and in all the world, wherever the Church of Christ is spread abroad, through several nations and tongues, at one and the same time … except only those and their accomplices in obstinacy, I mean the Picts and the Britons, who foolishly, in these two remote islands of the world, and only in part of them, oppose all the rest of the universe.… John, pursuant to the custom of the law, began the celebration of the feast of Easter on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, not regarding whether the same happened on a Saturday or any other day.… Thus it appears that you, Colman, neither follow the example of John, as you imagine, nor that of Peter, whose traditions you knowingly contradict.… For John, keeping the paschal time according to the decree of the Mosaic law, had no regard to the first day after the Sabbath [i.e., that it should fall on Sunday], and you who celebrate Easter only on the first day after the Sabbath do not practise this. Peter kept Easter Sunday between the fifteenth and the twenty-first day of the moon, and you do not do this, but keep Easter Sunday from the fourteenth to the twentieth day of the moon, so that you often begin Easter on the thirteenth moon in the evening … besides this in your celebration of Easter, you utterly exclude the twenty-first day of the moon, which the law ordered to be especially observed.”

To this Colman rejoined: “Did Anatolius, a holy man, and much commended in ecclesiastical history, act contrary to the Law and the Gospel when he wrote that Easter was to be celebrated from the fourteenth to the twentieth? Is it to be believed that our most reverend Father Columba and his successors, men beloved of God, who kept Easter after the same manner, thought or acted contrary to the divine writings? Whereas there were many among them whose sanctity was attested by heavenly signs and the workings of miracles, whose life, customs, discipline I never cease to follow, not questioning that they are saints in heaven.”

Wilfrid said: “It is evident that Anatolius was a most holy and learned and commendable man; but what have you to do with him, since you do not observe his decrees? For he, following the rule of truth in his Easter, appointed a cycle of nineteen years, which you are either ignorant of, or if you know yet despise, though it is kept by the whole Church of Christ.… Concerning your Father Columba and his followers … I do not deny that they were God’s servants, and beloved by Him, who, with rustic simplicity but pious intentions, have themselves loved Him.… But as for you and your companions, you certainly sin, if, having heard the decrees of the Apostolic See, or rather of the universal Church, and the same confirmed by Holy Scripture, you refuse to follow them. For though your Fathers were holy, do you think that their small number in a corner of the remotest island is to be preferred before the universal Church of Christ throughout the world? And if that Columba of yours (and, I may say, ours also, if he was Christ’s servant) was a holy man and powerful in miracles, yet could he be preferred before the most blessed prince of the Apostles, to whom our Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’?”

When Wilfrid had thus spoken, the king said: “Is it true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?” He answered: “It is true, O king.” Then he said: “Can you show any such power given to your Columba?” Colman answered: “None.” Then the king added: “Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?” They both answered: “We do.” Then the king concluded: “And I also say unto you that he is the doorkeeper whom I will not contradict, but will, as far as I know and am able in all things, obey his decrees, lest, when I come to the gates of the kingdom of heaven, there should be one to open them, he being my adversary who is proved to have the keys.” The king having said this, all present, both small and great, gave their assent, and renounced the more imperfect institution, and resolved to conform to that which they found to be better.… [ch. 26]. Colman, perceiving that his doctrine was rejected and his sect despised, took with him such as would not comply with the Catholic Easter and the tonsure (for there was much controversy about that also) and went back to Scotland to consult with his people what was to be done in this case. Cedd, forsaking the practices of the Scots, returned to his bishopric, having submitted to the Catholic observance of Easter. This disputation happened in the year of our Lord’s incarnation, 664.

(c) Bede, Hist. Ec., IV, 5. (MSL, 95:180.)

The Council of Hertford A. D. 673. The organization of the Anglo-Saxon Church by Theodore.

As the important synod of Whitby marks the beginning of conformity of the Anglo-Saxon Church under the leadership of the kingdom of Northumbria to the customs of the Roman Church, so the synod of Hertford brings the internal organization of the Church into conformity with the diocesan system of the Continent and of the East, where the principles of the general councils were at this time most completely enforced. Theodore of Canterbury was a learned Greek who was sent to England to be archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Vitalian in 668. The Council of Hertford was the first council of all the Church among the Anglo-Saxons. For the council, see also Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, III, 118-122. The text given is that of Plummer.

In the name of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the perpetual reign of the same Lord Jesus Christ and His government of His Church. It seemed good that we should come together according to the prescription of the venerable canons, to treat of the necessary affairs of the Church. We are met together on this 24th day of September, the first indiction in the place called Hertford. I, Theodore, although unworthy, appointed by the Apostolic See bishop of the church of Canterbury, and our fellow priest the most reverend Bisi, bishop of the East Angles, together with our brother and fellow bishop Wilfrid, bishop of the nation of the Northumbrians, present by his proper legates, as also our brethren and fellow bishops, Putta, bishop of the Castle of the Kentishmen called Rochester, Leutherius, bishop of the West Saxons, and Winfrid, bishop of the province of the Mercians, were present. When we were assembled and had taken our places, each according to his rank, I said: I beseech you, beloved brethren, for the fear and love of our Redeemer, that we all labor in common for our faith, that whatsoever has been decreed and determined by the holy and approved Fathers may be perfectly followed by us all. I enlarged upon these and many other things tending unto charity and the preservation of the unity of the Church. And when I had finished my speech I asked them singly and in order whether they consented to observe all things which had been canonically decreed by the Fathers? To which all our fellow priests answered: We are all well agreed readily and most cheerfully to keep whatever the canons of the holy Fathers have prescribed. Whereupon I immediately produced the book of canons,260 and pointed out ten chapters from the same book, which I had marked, because I knew that they were especially necessary for us, and proposed that they should be diligently observed by all, namely:

Ch. 1. That we shall jointly observe Easter day on the Lord’s day after the fourteenth day of the moon in the first month.

Ch. 2. That no bishop invade the diocese of another, but be content with the government of the people committed to him.

Ch. 3. That no bishop be allowed to trouble in any way any monasteries consecrated to God, nor to take away by violence anything that belongs to them.

Ch. 4. That the monks themselves go not from place to place; that is, from one monastery to another, without letters dismissory of their own abbot;261 but that they shall continue in that obedience which they promised at the time of their conversion.

Ch. 5. That no clerk, leaving his own bishop, go up and down at his own pleasure, nor be received wherever he comes, without commendatory letters from his bishop; but if he be once received and refuse to return when he is desired so to do, both the receiver and the received shall be laid under an excommunication.

Ch. 6. That stranger bishops and clerks be content with the hospitality that is freely offered them; and none of them be allowed to exercise any sacerdotal function without permission of the bishop in whose diocese he is known to be.

Ch. 7. That a synod be assembled twice in the year. But, because many occasions may hinder this, it was jointly agreed by all that once in the year it be assembled on the first of August in the place called Clovesho.

Ch. 8. That no bishop ambitiously put himself before another, but that every one observe the time and order of his consecration.

Ch. 9. The ninth chapter was discussed together: That the number of bishops be increased as the number of the faithful grew;262 but we did nothing as to this point at present.

Ch. 10. As to marriages: That none shall be allowed to any but what is a lawful marriage. Let none commit incest. Let none relinquish his own wife but for fornication, as the holy Gospel teaches. But if any have dismissed a wife united to him in lawful marriage, let him not be joined to another if he wish really to be a Christian, but remain as he is or be reconciled to his own wife.

After we had jointly treated on and discussed these chapters, that no scandalous contention should arise henceforth by any of us, and that there be no changes in the publication of them, it seemed proper that every one should confirm by the subscription of his own hand whatever had been determined. I dictated this our definitive sentence to be written by Titillus, the notary. Done in the month and indiction above noted. Whosoever, therefore, shall attempt in any way to oppose or infringe this sentence, confirmed by our present consent, and the subscription of our hands as agreeable to the decrees of the canons, let him know that he is deprived of every sacerdotal function and our society. May the divine grace preserve us safe living in the unity of the Church.

(d) Bede, Hist. Ec., IV, 17. (MSL, 95:198.)

Council of Hatfield, A. D. 680.

At the Council of Hatfield the Anglo-Saxon Church formally recognized the binding authority of the five general councils already held, and rejected Monotheletism in accord with the Roman synod A. D. 649. It seems to have been, as stated in the introduction to the Acts of the council, a preventive measure. In Plummer’s edition of Bede this chapter is numbered 15.

At this time Theodore, hearing that the faith of the Church of Constantinople had been much disturbed by the heresy of Eutyches,263 and being desirous that the churches of the English over which he ruled should be free from such a stain, having collected an assembly of venerable priests and very many doctors, diligently inquired what belief they each held, and found unanimous agreement of all in the Catholic faith; and this he took care to commit to a synodical letter for the instruction and remembrance of posterity. This is the beginning of the letter:

In the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the reign of our most pious lords, Egfrid, king of the Humbrians, in the tenth year of his reign, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of October [September 17] in the eighth indiction, and Ethelred, king of the Mercians, in the sixth year of his reign; and Adwulf, king of the Kentishmen, in the seventh year of his reign; Theodore being president, by the grace of God, archbishop of the island of Britain and of the city of Canterbury, and other venerable men sitting with him, bishops of the island of Britain, with the holy Gospels laid before them, and in the place which is called by the Saxon name of Hatfield, we, handling the subject in concert, have made an exposition of the right and orthodox faith, as our incarnate Lord Jesus Christ delivered it to His disciples, who saw Him present and heard His discourses, and as the creed of the holy Fathers has delivered it, and all the holy and universal synods and all the chorus of approved doctors of the Catholic Church teach. We therefore piously and orthodoxly following them and, making our profession according to their divinely inspired teaching, believe in unison with it, and confess according to the holy Fathers that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are properly and truly a consubstantial Trinity in unity, and unity in Trinity; that is, in one God in three consubstantial subsistencies or persons of equal glory and honor.

And after many things of this kind that pertained to the confession of the right faith, the holy synod also adds these things to its letter:

We have received as holy and universal five synods of the blessed Fathers acceptable to God; that is, of the three hundred and eighteen assembled at Nicæa against the most impious Arius and his tenets; and of the one hundred and fifty at Constantinople against the madness of Macedonius and Eudoxius and their tenets; and of the two hundred in the first Council of Ephesus against the most wicked Nestorius and his tenets; and of the six hundred and thirty at Chalcedon against Eutyches and Nestorius and their tenets; and again of those assembled in a fifth council at Constantinople [A. D. 553], in the time of the younger Justinian, against Theodore and the epistles of Theodoret and Ibas and their tenets against Cyril.

And a little after: Also we have received the synod264 that was held in the city of Rome in the time of the blessed Pope Martin in the eighth indiction, in the ninth year of the reign of the most pious Constantine.265 And we glorify our Lord Jesus Christ as they glorified Him, neither adding nor subtracting anything; and we anathematize with heart and mouth those whom they anathematized; and those whom they received we receive, glorifying God the Father without beginning, and his only begotten Son, begotten of the Father before the world began, and the Holy Ghost proceeding ineffably from the Father and the Son, as those holy Apostles, prophets, and doctors have declared whom we have mentioned above. And we all who with Theodore have made an exposition of the Catholic faith have subscribed hereto.

Chapter III. The Foundation of the Ecclesiastical Institutions of the Middle Ages

In the period between the conversion of the Franks and the rise of the dynasty of Charles Martel, or the period comprising the sixth and seventh centuries, the foundation was laid for those ecclesiastical institutions which are peculiar to the Middle Ages, and found in the mediæval Church their full embodiment. In the Church the Latin element was still more or less dominant, and society was only slowly transformed by the Germanic elements. In the adjustment of Roman institutions to the new political conditions in which Germanic factors were dominant, the Germanic and the Roman elements are accordingly found in constantly varying proportions. In the case of the diocesan and parochial organization, only very slowly could the Church in the West attain that complete organization which had long since been established in the East, and here Roman ideas were profoundly modified by Germanic legal principles (§ 101). But at the same time the Church’s body of teaching and methods of moral training were made clearly intelligible and more applicable to the new conditions of Christian life. The teaching of Augustine was received only in part at the Council of Orange, A. D. 529 (v. supra, § 85), and it was profoundly modified by the moralistic type of theology traceable to Tertullian and even further back (v. supra, § 39). It was, furthermore, completed by a clearer and more precise statement of the doctrines of purgatory and the sacrifice of the mass, and to the death of Christ was applied unequivocally the doctrine of merit which had been developed in the West in connection with the early penitential discipline, and which was seen to throw a new light upon the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. These conceptions served as a foundation for new discussions, and confirmed tendencies already present in the Church (§ 102). Connected with this theology was the penitential discipline, which, growing out of the ancient discipline as modified by the earlier form of monastic life, especially in Ireland, came under the influence of the Germanic legal conceptions (§ 103). In the same period monasticism was organized upon a new rule by Benedict of Nursia (§ 104), and the need of provision for the education of the young and for the training of the clergy was felt and, to some extent, provided for by monastery schools and other methods of education (§ 105).

§ 101. Foundation of the Mediæval Diocesan and Parochial Constitution

An outline of some of the legislation is here given, whereby the parish as organized in the West was built up, and the diocese was made to consist of a number of parishes under the bishop, who, however, did not exercise an absolute control over the incomes and position of the priests under him.

The selections are given in chronological order.

(a) Council of Agde, A. D. 506, Canons. Bruns, II, 145

This is one of the most important councils of the period. Its various canons have all been embodied in the Canon Law; for the references to the Decretum of Gratian, in which they appear, see Hefele, § 222. It is to be noted that it was held under Alarich, the Arian king of the Visigoths. The preface is, therefore, given as being significant.

Since this holy synod has been assembled in the name of the Lord and with the permission of our most glorious, magnificent, and most pious king in the city of Agde, there, with knees bent and on the ground, we have prayed for his kingdom, his long life, for the people, that the lord who has given us permission to assemble, may happily extend his kingdom, that he may govern justly and protect valiantly; we have assembled in the basilica of St. Andrew to treat of the discipline and the ordination of pontiffs and other things of utility to the Church.

Canon 21. If any one wishes to have an oratory in the fields outside of the parishes, in which the gathering of the people is lawful and appointed, we permit him to have a mass there with the proper license on the other festivals, on account of the weariness of the family [i.e., in going to the distant parish church], but on Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, Ascension Day, Pentecost and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, or if there are any other very high festival days observed, let them hold no masses except in the cities and parishes. But if the clergy, without the command or permission of the bishop, hold and perform the masses on the festivals above mentioned in the oratories, let them be driven from the communion.

Canon 30. Because it is appropriate that the service of the Church be observed in the same way by all, it is to be desired that it be done so everywhere. After the antiphones the collects shall be said in order by the bishops and presbyters, and the hymns of Matins and Vespers be sung daily; and at the conclusion of the mass of Matins and Vespers,266 after the hymns a chapter of the Psalms shall be read, and the people who are gathered shall, after the prayer, be dismissed with a benediction of the bishop until Vespers.

Canon 38. Without letters commendatory of their bishops, it is not permitted to the clergy to travel. The same rule is to be observed in the case of monks. If reproof of words does not correct them, we decree that they shall be beaten with rods. It is also to be observed in the case of monks that it is not permitted them to leave the community for solitary cells, unless the more severe rule is remitted by their abbot to them who have been approved in the hermit life, or on account of the necessity of infirmity; but only then let it be done so that they remain within the walls of the same monastery, and they are permitted to have separate cells under the authority of the abbots. It is not permitted abbots to have different cells or many monasteries, or except on account of the inroads of enemies to erect dwellings within walls.

(b) I Council of Orleans, A. D. 511, Canons. Bruns, II, 160

Canon 15. Concerning those things which in the form of lands, vineyards, slaves, and other property the faithful have given to the parishes, the statutes of the ancient canons are to be observed, so that all things shall be in the control of the bishop; but of those things which are given at the altar, a third is to be faithfully given to the bishop.

Canon 17. All churches which in various places have been built and are daily being built shall, according to the law of the primitive canons, be in the control of the bishop in whose territory they are located.

(c) IV Council of Orleans, A. D. 541, Canons. Bruns, II, 208

Canon 7. In oratories on landed estates, the lords of the property shall not install wandering clergy against the will of the bishop to whom the rights of that territory belong, unless, perchance, they have been approved, and the bishop has in his discretion appointed them to serve in that place.

Canon 26. If any parishes are established in the houses of the mighty, and the clergy who serve there have been admonished by the archdeacon of the city, according to the duty of his office, and they neglect to do what they ought to do for the Church, because under the protection of the lord of the house, let them be corrected according to the ecclesiastical discipline; and if by the agents of these lords, or by these lords themselves of the place, they are prevented from doing any part of their duty toward the Church, those who do this iniquity are to be deprived of the sacred rites until, having made amends, they are received back into the peace of the Church.267

Canon 33. If any one has, or asks to have, on his land a diocese [i.e., parish], let him first assign to it sufficient lands and clergy who may there perform their duties, that suitable reverence be done to the sacred places.

(d) V Council of Orleans, A. D. 549, Canons. Bruns, II, 208

At this council no less than seven archbishops, forty-three bishops and representatives of twenty-one other bishops were present. It was, therefore, a general council of the Frankish Church, although politically the Frankish territory was divided into three kingdoms held respectively by Childebert, Chlothar, and Theudebald. Orleans itself was in the dominion of Childebert. Cf. preface to the canons of II Orleans, A. D. 533, which states that that council was attended by five archbishops and the deputy of a sixth, as well as by bishops from all parts of Gaul, and was called at the command of the “Glorious kings,” i.e., Childebert, Chlothar, and Theudebert.

Canon 13. It is permitted to no one to retain, alienate, or take away goods or property which has been lawfully given to a church, monastery, or orphan asylums for any charity; that if any one does do so he shall, according to the ancient canons [cf. Hefele, §§ 220, 222], be regarded as a slayer of the poor, and shall be shut out from the thresholds of the Church so long as those things are not restored which have been taken away or retained.

(e) Council of Braga, A. D. 572, Canons. Bruns, II, 37

Canon 5. As often as bishops are requested by any of the faithful to consecrate churches, they shall not, as having a claim, ask any payment of the founders; but if he wishes to give him something from a vow he has made, let it not be despised; but if poverty or necessity prevent him, let nothing be demanded of him. This only let each bishop remember, that he shall not dedicate a church or basilica before he shall have received the endowment of the basilica and its service confirmed by an instrument of donation; for it is a not light rashness for a church to be consecrated, as if it were a private dwelling, without lights and without the support of those who are to serve there.

Canon 6. In case of any one who builds a basilica, not from any faithful devotion, but from the desire of gain, that whatsoever is there gathered of the offerings of the people he may share half and half with the clergy, on the ground that he has built the basilica on his own land, which in various places is said to be done quite constantly, this therefore ought hereafter to be observed, that no bishop consent to such an abominable purpose, that he should dare to consecrate a basilica which is founded not as the heritage of the saints but rather under the condition of tribute.

(f) II Council of Toledo, A. D. 589, Canons. Bruns, I, 217

Canon 19. Many who have built churches demand that these churches, contrary to the canons, shall be consecrated in such a way that they shall not allow the endowment, which they have given the church, to belong to the control of the bishop; when this has been done in the past, let this be void, and in the future forbidden; but let all things pertain to the power and control of the bishop according to the ancient law.

§ 102. Western Piety and Thought in the Period of the Conversion of the Barbarians

In the century following Augustine, the dogmatic interest of the Church was chiefly absorbed in the Christological controversies in the East. There were, however, some discussions in the West arising from the manifest difficulty of reconciling the doctrine of predestination, as drawn from Augustine, with the efficacy of baptism. For the adjustment of the teaching of Augustine to the sacramental system of the Church and to baptism more particularly, see the Council of Orange, A. D. 529, of which the principal conclusions are given above (§ 85). In the sixth century and in the early part of the seventh, doctrines were clearly enunciated which had been abundantly foreshadowed by earlier writers, but had not been fitted into an intelligible and practical system. These were especially the doctrine of purgatory and the sacrifice of the mass. The doctrine of purgatory completed the penitential system of the early Church by making it possible to expiate sin by suffering in a future existence, in the case of those who had died without completely doing penance here. By the sacrifice of the mass the advantages of Christ’s death were constantly applied, not merely to the sin of the world in general, but to specified objects; the believer was brought into closest contact with the great act of redemption, and a centre was placed around which the life of the individual and the authority of the hierarchy could be brought into relation.

Additional source material: The works of Gregory the Great, PNF.

(a) Cæsarius of Arles, Sermon 104. (MSL, 39:1947, 1949.)

Cæsarius presided at the Council of Orange A. D. 529. He died in 543. Not a few of his sermons have been mixed up with those of Augustine, and this sermon is to be found in Appendix to the works of Augustine in the standard editions of that Father. It should be noted that this conception of purgatory is not wholly unlike that of St. Augustine; see his Enchiridion, chs. 69, 109 (v. supra, § 84); also De Civ. Dei, 20:25; 21:13.

Ch. 4. By continual prayers and frequent fasts and more generous alms, and especially by forgiveness of those who sin against us, we diligently redeem our sins, lest by chance when collected together against us at once they make a great mass and overwhelm us. Whatsoever of these sins shall not have been redeemed by us is to be purged by that fire concerning which the Apostle said: “Because it will be revealed by fire, and if any man’s work is burned he will suffer loss” (I Cor. 3:15). If in tribulation we do not give thanks to God, if by good works we do not redeem our sins, we will remain so long in that fire of purification268 until the little, trifling sins, as hay, wood, and stubble are consumed.

Ch. 8. All saints who serve God truly strive to give themselves to reading and prayer, and to perseverance in good works, and building no mortal sins and no little sins, that is, wood, hay, and stubble, upon the foundation of Christ; but good works, that is, gold, silver, and precious stones, will without injury go through that fire of which the Apostle spoke: “Because it will be revealed by fire.” But those who, although they do not commit capital sins, yet are prone to commit very little sins and are negligent in redeeming them, will attain to eternal life because they believed in Christ, but first either in this life they are purified by bitter tribulation, or certainly in that fire of which the Apostle speaks they are to be tormented, that they may come to eternal life without spot or wrinkle. But those who have committed homicide, sacrilege, adultery and other similar sins, if there does not come to their aid suitable penitence, will not deserve to go through that fire of purification to life, but they will be thrown into death by eternal fire.

(b) Gregory the Great, Dialogorum Libri IV, De Vita et Miraculis Patrum Italicorum, IV, 56. (MPL, 77:425.)

The sacrifice of the mass.

See also the selection below on the doctrine of purgatory.

It should be considered that it is safer to do to men, while one is living, the good which one hopes will be done by others after one’s death. It is more blessed to depart free than to seek liberty after chains. We ought, with our whole mind, despise the present world, especially since we see it already passing away. We ought to immolate to God the daily sacrifice of our tears, the daily offerings of His flesh and blood. For this offering peculiarly preserves the soul from eternal death, and it renews to us in a mystery the death of the Only begotten, who, although being risen from the dead, dieth no more, and death hath no more dominion over Him (Rom. 6:9); yet, while in Himself He liveth immortal and incorruptible, for us He is immolated again in this mystery of the sacred oblation. For it is His body that is there given, His flesh that is divided for the salvation of the people, His blood that is poured, no longer into the hands of unbelievers, but into the mouths of the faithful. For this let us ever estimate what this sacrifice is for us, which for our absolution ever imitates the passion of the only begotten Son. For what one of the faithful can have any doubt that at the very hour of the offering [immolatio], at the word of the priest, the heavens are opened, the choirs of angels are present at the mystery of Jesus Christ, the lowest things are united to the highest, earthly things with heavenly, and from the invisible and the visible there is made one?

(c) Gregory the Great, Dialog., IV, 39. (MSL, 77:393.)

The doctrine of purgatory.

Gregory hardly adds anything to Augustine more than a clearer definition after the lines laid down by Cæsarius of Arles.

From these sayings [John 12:35; II Cor. 6:2; Eccles. 9:10] it is evident that as one left the earth so one will appear before the judgment. Yet still it is to be believed that for certain slight sins there is to be before that judgment a fire of purification, because the Truth says that, if one utters blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, his sin will be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the future [Matt. 12:31]. From this saying one is given to understand that some sins can be forgiven in this life, others in a future life.

(d) Gregory the Great, in Evangelia, II, 37, 8. (MSL, 76:1279.)

The application of the sacrifice of the mass to persons in purgatory.

Not long before our time the case is told of a certain man who, having been taken captive, was carried far away [cf. Dialog., IV, 57], and because he was held a long time in chains his wife, since she had not received him back from that captivity, believed him to be dead and every week she had the sacrifice offered for him as already dead. And as often as the sacrifice was offered by his spouse for the absolution of his soul, the chains were loosed in his captivity. For having returned a long time after, greatly astonished he told his wife that on certain days each week his chains were loosed. His wife considered the days and hours, and then knew that he was loosed when, as she remembered, the sacrifice was offered for him. From that perceive, my dearest brothers, to what extent the holy sacrifice offered by us is able to loose the bonds of the heart, if the sacrifice offered by one for another can loose the chains of the body.

§ 103. The Foundation of the Mediæval Penitential System

The penitential system, as it was organized in the Western Church in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, was but the carrying out of principles which had appeared elsewhere in Christendom and were involved in the primitive method of dealing with moral delinquents by the authorities of the Church. [See the epistles of Basil the Great to Amphilochius (Ep. 189, 199, 217) in PNF, ser. II, vol. VIII.] Similar problems had to be handled everywhere whenever the Church came to deal with moral conduct, and much the same solution was found everywhere. There is, however, no known connection between the earliest penitentials of the Western Church, those of Ireland, and the similar books of the East. There is no need of supposing that there was a connection. But in the case of the works attributed to Theodore of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury, himself a Greek and probably a native of Tarsus, there is a provable connection which is evident to any one reading his work, as he refers to Basil and others. The characteristics of the Western penitentials are their minute division of sins, their exact determination of penances for each sin, and the great extent to which they were used in the practical work of the Church. They serve as the first crude beginnings of a moral theology of a practical character, such as would be needed by the poorly trained parish clergy of the times in dealing with their flocks. On account of the nature of these works, it is hardly necessary or expedient to give more than a few brief extracts in addition to references to sources. Much of the matter is extremely offensive to modern taste.

(a) King Æthelberht, Laws. Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes (Rolls Series), 1 Ff

The Early Germanic Codes are full of regulations whereby for an injury the aggrieved party, or his family in case of his death, could be prevented from retaliating in kind upon the aggressor and his family. This was effected by a money payment as compensation for damages sustained, and the amount for each sort of injury was carefully regulated by law, i.e., by ancient custom, which was reduced to writing in the sixth century in some cases. The Laws of Æthelberht are written in Anglo-Saxon and are probably the earliest in a Teutonic language. For a translation of characteristic portions of the Salic Law, which should be compared with the Laws of Æthelberht to show the universality of the same system, see Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, p. 176, London, 1892; also Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, VI, 183, for the Lombard law of Rothari, a little later, but of the same spirit.

21. If any man slay another, let him make bot with a half leod-geld of 100 shillings.

22. If any man slay another at an open grave, let him pay 20 shillings and pay the whole leod within 40 days.

23. If a stranger retire from the land, let his kindred pay a half leod.

24. If any one bind a freeman, let him make bot with 20 shillings.

25. If any one slay a ceorl’s hlaf-aeta,269 let him make bot with 5 shillings.

38. If a shoulder be lamed,270 let bot be made with 12 shillings.

39. If the ear be struck off, let bot be made with 12 shillings.

40. If the other ear hear not, let bot be made with 25 shillings.

41. If an eye be struck out, let bot be made with 50 shillings.

51. For each of the four front teeth, 6 shillings; for the tooth that stands next to them, 4 shillings; for that which stands next to that, 3 shillings, and then afterward 1 shilling.

(b) Vinnian, Penitential. Wasserschleben, die Bussordnungen der Abendländischen Kirche, 108 Ff

This is one of the earliest of the penitentials and belongs to the Irish Church.

1. If one has committed in his heart a sin of thought and immediately repents of it, let him smite his breast and pray God for forgiveness and perform satisfaction because he has sinned.

2. If he has often thought of the sins and thinks of committing them, and is then victor over the thought or is overcome by it, let him pray God and fast day and night until the wicked thought disappears and he is sound again.

3. If he has thought on a sin and determines to commit it, but is prevented in the execution, so is the sin the same, but not the penance.271

6. If a cleric has planned in his heart to smite or kill his neighbor, he shall do penance half a year on bread and water according to the prescribed amount, and for a whole year abstain from wine and the eating of meat, and then may he be permitted again to approach the altar.

7. If it is a layman, he shall do penance for a whole week; for he is a man of this world and his guilt is lighter in this world and his punishment in the future is less.

8. If a cleric has smitten his brother [i.e., a clergyman] or his neighbor and drawn blood … he shall do penance a whole year on bread and water; he may not fill any clerical office, but must with tears pray to God for himself.

9. Is he a layman, he shall do penance for 40 days, and according to the judgment of the priest or some other righteous man pay a determined sum of money.

(c) Theodore of Tarsus, Penitential, I. Haddan and Stubbs, III, 73 Ff

For Theodore of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury, see W. Stubbs, art. “Theodorus of Tarsus” in DCB. That he wrote a penitential is not certain. But that he was regarded as the author of a penitential is clear enough. In fact, his name is attached to penitentials in much the same way as David’s name is attached to the whole book of Psalms. For a discussion of the various works attributed to Theodore, see Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, loc. cit. This is a characteristic penitential and may be regarded as following closely the decisions and opinions of Theodore. Much of it is unprintable in English.

Cap. I. On drunkenness. 1. If any bishop or other person ordained is customarily given to the vice of drunkenness, let him cease from it or be deposed.

2. If a monk vomit from drunkenness, let him do 30 days’ penance.

3. If a presbyter or deacon do the same, let him do 40 days’ penance.

4. If any one by infirmity or because he has abstained for a long time, and it is not his habit to drink or eat much, or for joy at Christmas or at Easter, or for the commemoration of any of the saints, does this, and he has not taken more than is decreed by the elders, he has done no wrong. If the bishop should have commanded, he does no harm to him unless he himself does likewise.

5. If a believing layman vomits from drunkenness, let him do 15 days’ penance.

6. He who becomes drunk against the commandment of the Lord, if he has a vow of holiness let him do penance 7 days on bread and water, and 70 days without fat; the laity without beer.

7. Whoever out of malice makes another drunk, let him do penance 40 days.

8. Whoever vomits from satiety let him do penance 3 days.

9. If with the sacrifice of the communion, let him do penance 7 days; but if out of infirmity, he is without guilt.

Cap. II. On fornication.

Cap. III. On theft.

Cap. IV. On the killing of men. [This should be compared with the secular laws.]

1. If any one out of vengeance for a relative kill a man, let him do penance as for homicide 7 or 10 years. If, however, he is willing to return to relatives the money of valuation [Weregeld, according to the secular rating], the penance will be lighter, that is by one-half the length.

2. He who kills a man for vengeance for his brother, let him do penance 3 years; in another place he is said to do penance 10 years.

3. But homicides 10 or 7 years.

4. If a layman kills another man with thoughts of hatred, if he does not wish to relinquish his arms, let him do penance 7 years, without flesh and wine 3 years.

5. If any one kills a monk or a clergyman, let him relinquish his arms and serve God272 or do 7 years’ penance. He is in the judgment of the bishop. But he who kills a bishop or a presbyter, the judgment concerning him is in the king.

6. He who by the command of his lord kills a man, let him keep away from the church 40 days; and he who kills a man in a public war, let him do penance 40 days.

7. If out of wrath, 3 years; if by chance, 1 year; if by drink or any contrivance, 4 years or more; if by strife, let him do penance 10 years.273

Cap. V. Concerning those who are deceived by a heresy.

Cap. VI. Concerning perjury.

Cap. VII. Concerning many and various wrong acts and those necessary things which are not harmful.

Cap. VIII. Concerning various failings of the servants of God.

Cap. IX. Concerning those who are degraded or cannot be ordained.

Cap. X. Concerning those who are baptized twice, how they shall do penance.

Cap. XI. Concerning those who violate the Lord’s Day and the appointed fasts of the Church.

Cap. XII. Concerning the communion of the eucharist or the sacrifice.

Cap. XIII. Concerning reconciliation.

Cap. XIV. Especially concerning the penance of those who marry.

Cap. XV. Concerning the worship of idols.

(d) Bede, Penitential, Ch. XI. Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, III, 32

The Penitential of Bede is to be distinguished from the Liber de Remediis Peccatorum attributed to him, cf. Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., who print the genuine penitential. It belongs to the period before 725. In not a few points it closely resembles that of Theodore. The concluding passage here given is to be found in many penitentials with but little variation. It is probably as early as the work itself, although apparently not by Bede. It is a method of commuting penances. In place of fasting inordinate or impossible lengths of time, other penances could be substituted. In later ages still other forms of commutation were introduced. Even money payments were used as commutation of penance.

XI. On Counsel to be Given.

We read in the penitential of doing penance on bread and water, for the great sins one year or two or three years, and for little sins a month or a week. Likewise in the case of some the conditions are harsh and difficult. Therefore to him who cannot do these things we give the counsel that psalms, prayers, and almsgiving ought to be performed some days in penance for these; that is, that psalms are for one day when he ought to do penance on bread and water. Therefore he should sing fifty psalms on his knees, and if not on his knees seventy psalms inside the church or in one place. For a week on bread and water, let him sing on his knees three hundred psalms in order and in the church or in one place. And for one month on bread and water, one thousand five hundred psalms kneeling, or if not kneeling one thousand eight hundred and twenty, and afterward let him fast every day until the sixth hour and abstain from flesh and wine; but whatsoever other food God has given him let him eat, after he has sung the psalms. And he who does not know psalms ought to do penance and to fast, and every day let him give to the poor the value of a denarius, and fast one day until the ninth hour, and the next until vespers, and after that whatsoever he has let him eat.

§ 104. The New Monasticism and the Rule of Benedict of Nursia

In the first centuries of monasticism in the West, the greatest variety was to be found among the constitutions of the various monastic houses and the rules drawn up by great leaders in the ascetic movement. This variety extended even to the nature of the vows assumed and their obligation. Benedict of Nursia (circa 480 to circa 544), gave the rule according to which for some centuries nearly all the monasteries of the West were ultimately organized. The first great example of this rule in operation was Benedict’s own monastery at Monte Cassino. For a time the rule of Benedict came into conflict with that of Columbanus in Gaul.274 But the powerful recommendation of Gregory the Great, who had introduced it in Rome, and the intrinsic superiority of the rule itself made the Benedictine system triumphant. It should be noted that the Benedictine cloisters were for centuries independent establishments and only formed into organized groups of monasteries in the great monastic reforms of the tenth and following centuries. It is a question how far the Benedictine rule was introduced into England in the early centuries of the Anglo-Saxon Church, although it is often taken for granted that it was introduced by Augustine. Critical edition of the Benedictine rule by Wölfflin, Leipsic, 1895; in Migne’s edition there is an elaborate commentary with many illustrative extracts and formulæ, as well as traditional glosses.

Additional source material: An abbreviated translation of the Benedictine rule may be found in Henderson, Select Historical Documents, 1892, and in full in Thatcher and McNeal, A Source Book for Mediæval History, 1905.

(a) Benedict of Nursia, Regula. (MSL, 66:246.)

1. Concerning the kinds of monks and their modes of living. It is manifest that there are four kinds of monks. The first is that of the cenobites, that is the monastic, serving under a rule and an abbot. The second kind is that of the anchorites, that is the hermits, those who have learned to fight against the devil, not by the new fervor of conversion, but by a long probation in a monastery, having been taught already by association with many; and having been well prepared in the army of the brethren for the solitary fight of the hermit, and secure now without the encouragement of another, they are able, God helping them, to fight with their own hand or arm against the vices of the flesh or of their thoughts. But a third and very bad kind of monks are the sarabites, not tried as gold in the furnace by a rule, experience being their teacher, but softened after the manner of lead; keeping faith with the world by their works, they are known by their tonsure to lie to God. Being shut up by twos and threes alone and without a shepherd, in their own and not in the Lord’s sheepfold, they have their own desires for a law. For whatever they think good and choose, that they deem holy; and what they do not wish, that they consider unlawful. But the fourth kind of monk is the kind called the gyrovagi, who during their whole life are guests for three or four days at a time in the cells of different monasteries throughout the various provinces; they are always wandering and never stationary, serving their own pleasures and the allurements of the palate, and in every way worse than the sarabites. Concerning the most wretched way of all, it is better to keep silence than to speak. These things, therefore, being omitted, let us proceed with the aid of God to treat of the best kind, the cenobites.

2. What the abbot should be like. An abbot who is worthy to preside over a monastery ought always to remember what he is called and to carry out in his deeds the name of a superior. For in the monastery he is believed to be Christ’s representative, since he is called by His name, the Apostle saying: “We have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry Abba, Father” [Rom. 8:15]. And so the abbot ought not (and oh that he may not!) teach or decree or order anything apart from the precepts of the Lord; but his order or teaching should be sprinkled with the leaven of divine justice in the minds of his disciples.… No distinctions of persons shall be made by him in the monastery. One shall not be loved by him more than another, unless the one whom he finds excelling in good work and obedience. A free-born man shall not be preferred to one coming from servitude, unless there be some reasonable cause. But when it is just and it seems good to the abbot he shall show preference no matter what the rank shall be. But otherwise they shall keep their own places; for, whether we be bound or free, we are all one in Christ, and under God we perform an equal service of subjection; for God is no respecter of persons [Acts 10:34].…

3. Concerning calling the brethren to take counsel. As often as anything unusual is to be done in the monastery, let the abbot call together the whole congregation and himself explain the question before them. And having heard the advice of the brethren, he shall consider it by himself, and let him do what he judges most advantageous. And for this reason, moreover, we have said that all ought to be called to take counsel; because it is often to a younger person that the Lord reveals what is best. The brethren, moreover, ought, with all humble subjection, to give their advice so that they do not too boldly presume to defend what seems good to them, but it should rather depend upon the judgment of the abbot; so that, whatever he decides upon as the more salutary, they should all agree to it.…

4. Concerning the instruments of good works.

5. Concerning obedience. The first grade of humility is prompt obedience. This becomes those who, on account of the holy service which they professed, or on account of the fear of hell or the glory of eternal life, consider nothing dearer to them than Christ; so that as soon as anything is commanded by their superior, they may not know how to suffer delay in doing it, even as if it were a divine command.…

6. Concerning silence. 7. Concerning humility. 8. Concerning the Divine Offices at night. 9. How many Psalms are to be said at night. 10. How in summer the Nocturnal Praises shall be carried on. 11. How Vigils shall be conducted on Sunday. 12. Concerning the order of Matins on Sunday. 13. Concerning the order of Matins on week days. 14. Concerning the order of Vigils on Saints’ days. 15. Concerning the occasions when the Alleluias shall be said. 16. Concerning the order of Divine Worship during the day. 17. On the number of Psalms to be said at these times. 18. Concerning the order in which the Psalms are to be said. 19. Concerning the art of singing. 20. Concerning the reverence in prayer. 21. Concerning the Deans of monasteries. 22. How monks shall sleep. 23. Concerning excommunication for faults. 24. What ought to be the measure of excommunication. 25. Concerning graver faults. 26. Concerning those who without being ordered by the Abbot, associate with the excommunicated. 27. What care the Abbot should exercise with regard to the excommunicated. 28. Concerning those who, being often rebuked, do not amend. 29. Whether brothers who leave the monastery ought to be received back. 30. Concerning boys under age, how they should be corrected. 31. Concerning the Cellarer of the monastery, what sort of person he should be. 32. Concerning the utensils or property of the monastery.

33. Whether monks should have anything of their own. More than anything else is this special vice to be cut off root and branch from the monastery, that one should presume to give or receive anything without order from the abbot, or should have anything of his own; he should have absolutely nothing, neither a book nor tablets nor a pen, nothing at all—for indeed it is not allowed to have their own bodies or wills in their own power. But all things necessary they must receive from the father of the monastery; nor is it allowable to have anything which the abbot has not given or permitted.…

34. Whether all ought to receive necessaries equally. 35. Concerning the weekly officers of the kitchen. 36. Concerning infirm brothers. 37. Mitigation of the rule for the very old and the very young. 38. Concerning the weekly reader.

39. Concerning the amount of food. We believe, moreover, that for the daily refection of the sixth and for that of the ninth hour as well two cooked dishes, on account of the infirmities of the different ones, are enough in all months for all tables; so that whoever, perchance, cannot eat of one may partake of the other. Therefore let two cooked dishes suffice for all the brethren; and if it is possible to obtain apples or fresh vegetables, a third may be added. One full pound of bread shall suffice for a day, whether there be one refection or breakfast and supper. But if they are to have supper, the third part of that same pound shall be reserved by the cellarer to be given back to those when they are about to sup. But if perchance some greater labor shall have been performed, it shall be in the will and power of the abbot, if it is expedient, to increase anything.… But to younger boys the same quantity shall not be served, but less than to the older ones, as moderation is to be observed in all things. But every one shall abstain altogether from eating the flesh of four-footed beasts except alone in the case of the weak and the sick.

40. Concerning the amount of drink. Each one has his own gift from God, one in this way and another in that. Therefore it is with some hesitation that the amount of daily sustenance for others is fixed by us. Nevertheless, considering the weakness of the infirm, we believe that a half pint of wine a day is enough for each one. Those, moreover, to whom God has given the ability of enduring abstinence should know that they will have their own reward. But the prior shall judge if either the needs of the place, or labor, or heat of the summer require more; considering, in all things, lest satiety or drunkenness creep in. Indeed, we read that wine is not suitable for monks at all. But, because in our times it is not possible to persuade monks of this, let us agree at least as to the fact that we should not drink until we are sated, but sparingly. For wine can make even the wise to go astray. Where, moreover, the limitations of the place are such that the amount written above cannot be found, but much less or nothing at all, those who live there shall bless God and shall not murmur. And we admonish them as to this, above all, that they be without murmuring.

41. At what hours the brethren ought to take their refection. 42. That after Compline no one shall speak. 43. Concerning those who come late to Divine Service or to table. 44. Concerning those who are excommunicated and how they shall render satisfaction. 45. Concerning those who make mistakes in the oratory. 46. Concerning those who err in other matters. 47. Concerning the announcement of the hour of Divine Service.

48. Concerning the daily manual labor. Idleness is the enemy of the soul. Therefore at fixed times the brethren ought to be occupied in manual labor; and again at fixed times in sacred reading. Therefore we believe that according to this disposition both seasons ought to be so arranged that, from Easter until the first of October, going out early from the first until about the fourth hour, they shall labor at what might be necessary. Moreover, from the fourth until about the sixth hour, they shall give themselves to reading. After the sixth hour, moreover, rising from table, they shall rest in their beds with all silence; or perchance he that wishes to read may so read to himself that he shall not disturb another. And nones shall be said rather early, about the middle of the eighth hour; and again they shall work at what is necessary until vespers. But if the exigency or the poverty of the place demands that they shall be occupied by themselves in picking fruits, they shall not be cast down; for then they are truly monks if they live by the labor of their hands, as did also our Fathers and the Apostles.

From the first of October until the beginning of Lent, they shall give themselves unto reading until the second full hour. At the second hour tierce shall be said, and all shall labor at the task which is enjoined upon them until the ninth. When the first signal of the ninth hour shall have been given they shall each leave off his work and be ready when the second signal strikes. Moreover, after the refection they shall give themselves to their reading or to the Psalms.

And in the days of Lent, from dawn until the third full hour, they shall give themselves to their reading; and until the tenth hour they shall do the labor that is enjoined upon them. In the days of Lent they shall all receive separate books from the library, which they shall read through completely in order; these books shall be given out on the first day of Lent. Above all, there shall certainly be appointed one or two elders to go around the monastery at the hours in which the brethren are engaged in reading and see to it that no troublesome brother is to be found who is given to idleness and chatting and is not intent upon his reading and is not only of no use to himself but disturbing the others. If such an one (and may there not be such!) be found, he shall be admonished once and a second time. If he does not amend, he shall be subject under the rule to such punishment that others may fear. Nor shall the brethren assemble at unsuitable hours.

On Sundays all shall give themselves to reading except those who are deputed to various duties. But if any one be so negligent and lazy that he will not or cannot meditate or read, some task shall be imposed upon him which he can perform, so that he be not idle. On feeble and delicate brothers such a labor or art is to be imposed that they shall neither be idle nor so oppressed by the burden of labor as to be driven to take to flight. Their weakness is to be taken into consideration by the abbot.

49. The observance of Lent. 50. Concerning brothers who labor far from the oratory or are on a journey. 51. Concerning brothers who do not journey very far. 52. Concerning the oratory of the monastery. 53. Concerning the reception of guests. 54. As to whether a monk should be allowed to receive letters or anything. 55. Concerning the Vestiarius and Calciarius. 56. Concerning the table of the Abbot. 57. Concerning the artificers of the monastery.

58. Concerning the manner of receiving brethren. When any one newly comes for conversion of life, an easy entrance shall not be granted him, but as the Apostle says: “Try the spirits whether they be of God” [I John 4:1]. Therefore if one who comes perseveres in knocking, and is seen after four or five days to endure patiently the insults heaped upon him and the difficulty of ingress and to persist in his request, let entrance be granted him, and let him be for a few days in the guest cell. After this let him be in the cell of the novices, where he shall meditate and eat and sleep. And an elder shall be appointed for him such as shall be capable of winning souls, who shall altogether intently watch him, and be zealous to see if he in truth seek God, if he be zealous for the work of God, for obedience, for suffering shame. And above all the harshness and roughness of the means through which one approaches God shall be told him in advance. If he promise perseverance in his steadfastness after the lapse of two months, this Rule shall be read over to him in order, and it shall be said to him: Behold the law under which thou didst wish to serve; if thou canst observe it, enter; but if thou canst not, depart freely. If he shall have stood firm thus far, then he shall be led into the aforesaid cell of the novices, and again he shall be proven with all patience.

And after the lapse of six months, the Rule shall be reread to him, that he may know upon what he is entering. And if he persist thus far, after four months the same Rule shall still again be read to him. If, after deliberating with himself, he shall promise that he will observe all things and to obey all the commands laid upon him, then he shall be received into the congregation, knowing that it is decreed that by the law of the Rule he shall from that day not be allowed to depart from the monastery, nor to shake free from his neck the yoke of the Rule, which after such painful deliberation he was at liberty to refuse or receive.

He who is to be received shall make in the oratory, in the presence of all, a promise before God and His saints concerning his stability [stabilitas loci] and the change in the manner of his life [conversio morum] and obedience [obedientia],275 so that if at any time he act contrary he shall know that he shall be condemned by Him whom he mocks. And concerning this, his promise, he shall make a petition addressed by name to the saints whose relics are there, and to the abbot who is present. And this petition he shall write out with his own hand; or, if he be really unlearned in letters, let another at his request write it, and to that the novice shall make his sign. With his own hand he shall place it upon the altar. And when he has placed it there, the novice shall immediately begin this verse: “Receive me O Lord according to Thy promise and I shall live; and cast me not down from my hope” [Psalm 119:116, Vulgate version]. And this verse the whole congregation shall repeat three times adding: Glory be to the Father, etc. Then that brother novice shall prostrate himself at the feet of each one that they may pray for him. And already from that day he shall be considered as in the congregation.

If he have any property, he shall first either present it to the poor or, making a solemn donation, shall confer it on the monastery, receiving nothing at all for himself; and he shall know for a fact that from that day he shall have no power even over his own body. Immediately thereafter, in the monastery, he shall take off his own garments in which he was clad, and shall put on the garments of the monastery. Those garments, furthermore, which he has taken off shall be placed in the vestiary to be preserved; so that if, at any time, on the devil’s persuasion, he shall wish to go forth from the monastery (and may it never happen) then, taking off the garments of the monastery let him be cast out. But the petition he made and which the abbot took from upon the altar, he shall not receive again, but it shall be preserved in the monastery.

59. Concerning the sons of nobles and poor men who are presented. If by chance any one of the nobles offers his son to God in the monastery, and the boy himself is a minor in age, his parents shall make the petition of which we have spoken above. And with an oblation, they shall wrap the petition and the hand of the boy in the linen cloth of the altar; and thus shall they offer him. Concerning their property, either they shall promise in the present petition, under an oath, that they will never, either indirectly or otherwise, give him anything at any time, or furnish him with means of possessing it. Or, if they be unwilling to do this, and wish to offer something as alms to the monastery for their salvation, they shall make a donation of those things which they wish to give to the monastery, retaining for themselves the usufruct if they so wish. And let all things be so observed that no suspicion may remain with the boy; by which, as we have learned from experience, being deceived, he might perish (and may it not happen). The poorer ones shall do likewise. Those who have nothing at all shall simply make their petitions; and with an oblation they shall offer their sons before witnesses.

60. Concerning priests who may wish to dwell in the monastery. 61. Concerning pilgrim monks, how they are to be received. 62. Ordination of monks as priests. 63. Concerning rank in the congregation. 64. Concerning the ordination of an Abbot. 65. Concerning the Prior of the monastery. 66. Concerning the Doorkeepers of the monastery. 67. Concerning brothers sent on a journey. 68. If impossibilities are imposed on a brother. 69. That in the monastery one shall not presume to defend another. 70. That no one shall presume to strike another. 71. That they shall be obedient to one another. 72. Concerning the good zeal which monks ought to have.

73. Concerning the fact that not every just observance is decreed in this Rule. We have written down this Rule, that we may show those observing it in the monasteries how to have some honesty of character or beginning of conversion. But for those who hasten to the perfection of living, there are the teachings of the holy Fathers; the observance of which leads a man to the heights of perfection. For what page or what discourse of divine authority in the Old or New Testament is not a more perfect rule of human life? Or what book of the holy and Catholic Fathers does not trumpet forth how by the right road we shall come to our Creator?

Also the reading aloud of the Fathers, and their decrees and lives; also the Rule of our holy Father Basil—what else are they except instruments of virtue for good living and obedient monks? But to us who are idle and evil livers and negligent there is the blush of confusion. Thou, therefore, whoever hastens to the heavenly fatherland, perform with Christ’s aid this Rule written out as the least beginnings; and then at length, under God’s protection, thou wilt come to the greater things that we have mentioned—to the summits of teaching and virtue.

(b) Formulæ

The following formulæ are given to illustrate the Rule in its working. The first group bear upon the vow of stabilitas loci. The case not infrequently arose that a brother wished to go to a monastery in which the observance of the Rule was stricter. In case a new foundation was begun anywhere, the first monks were almost always from another monastery. If therefore the monk is to remove, he must obtain permission of his abbot, and this was not regarded as a violation of the vow of stabilitas loci and obedience to his abbot. These formulæ were not uniform throughout the Church, but the following are given as samples of early practice.

1. Letters dimissory. (MSL, 66:859.)

(a) To all bishops and all orders of the holy Church, and to all faithful people.

Be it known unto you that I have given license to this our brother, John or Paul by name, that where he finds it agreeable to dwell in order to lead the monastic life, he shall have license to dwell for the benefit of himself and the monastery.

(b) Since such a brother desires to dwell in another monastery, where, as it seems to him, he can save his soul and serve God, know then that by these letters dimissory, we have given him license to go to another monastery.

(c) From the Consuetudines of the Monastery of St. Paul at Rome.

I, a humble abbot. You should know, beloved, that this brother, John or Paul by name, has asked us to give him permission to dwell with you. And, because we know that you observe the Rule of the order, we assent to his dwelling with you. I now commend him to you, that you may treat him as I would, and for him you are to render an account to God as I would have had to render.

(d) Another from the same.

To the venerable father the abbot of ( … ) monastery, the abbot of ( … ) monastery greeting with a holy kiss. Since our monastery has been burdened with various embarrassments and poverty, we beseech your brotherliness that you will receive our brother to dwell in your monastery, and we commend him by these letters of commendation and dismission to your jurisdiction and obedience.

Alternate conclusion:

We send him from our obedience to serve the Lord under your obedience.

2. Offering of a child to a monastery. (MSL, 66:842.)

The following forms should be compared with chapter 59 of the Rule. Children so offered were known as oblati, i.e., offered. These forms are from a manuscript of the ninth century.

(a) To offer children to God is sanctioned in the Old and New Testaments as Abraham276 … are related to have done. Moved by the example of these and many others, I ( … ) do now, for the salvation of my soul and for the salvation of the souls of my parents, offer in the presence of the abbot ( … ) this my son ( … ) to Almighty God and to St. Mary His mother, according to the Rule of the blessed Benedict in the Monastery of Mons Major, so that from this day forth it shall not be lawful for him to withdraw his neck from the yoke of this service; and I promise never, by myself or by any agent, to give him in any way opportunity of leaving, and that this writing may be confirmed I sign it with my own hand.

(b) Brief form.

I give this boy in devotion to our Lord Jesus Christ, before God and His saints, that he may remain all the days of his life and become a monk until his death.

3. Ceremony of receiving a monk into a Benedictine monastery. (MSL, 66:829.)

(a) From Peter Boherius, Commentary on the Regula S. Benedicti, ch. 58 of the Rule, v. supra.

When the novice makes his solemn profession, the abbot vests to say mass, and after the offertory the abbot interrogates him saying:

Brother (such a one): Is it your will to renounce the world and all its pomps?

He answers: It is.

Abbot: Will you promise obedience according to the Rule of St. Benedict? Answer: I will.

Abbot: May God give you his aid.

Then the novice, or some one at his request, reads the aforesaid profession, and when it has been read he places it upon his head, and then upon the altar. After this, when he has prostrated himself on his knees in four directions in the form of a cross, he says the verse: Receive me, O Lord, etc. And then the Gloria Patri, the Kyrie Eleison, the Pater Noster and the Litany are said, the novice remaining prostrate on the ground before the altar, until the end of the mass. And the brothers ought to be in the choir kneeling while the Litany is said. When the Litany has been said, then shall follow very devoutly the special prayers as commanded by the Fathers, and immediately after the communion and before the prayer is said, the garments of the novice, which have been folded and placed before the altar, shall be blessed with their proper prayers; and they shall be anointed and sprinkled with holy water by the abbot. After “Ite, missa est”277 the novice rises from the ground, and having put off his old garments which were not blessed he puts on those which have been blessed, while the abbot recites: Exuat te Dominus, etc.

And when the kiss has been given by the abbot, all the brothers in turn give him the kiss of peace, and he shall keep silence for three days continuously after this, going about with his head covered and receiving the communion every day.

(b) From Theodore of Canterbury, ibid., 827.

In the ordination of monks the abbot ought to say mass, and say three prayers over the head of the novice; and for seven days he veils his head with his cowl, and on the seventh day the abbot takes the veil off.

(c) The Vow. From another form, ibid.

I promise concerning my stability and conversion of life and obedience according to the Rule of St. Benedict before God and His saints.

§ 105. Foundation of Mediæval Culture and Schools

Schools never wholly disappeared from Western society, either during the barbarian invasion or in the even more troublous times that followed. Secular schools continued throughout the fifth century. During the sixth century they gave way for the most part to schools fostered by the Church, or were thoroughly transformed by ecclesiastical influences. In the fifth and sixth centuries, the great compends were made that served as text-books for centuries. Boethius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, and Bede represent great steps in the preparation for the mediæval schools. But, apart from the survival of old schools, there was a real demand for the establishment of new schools. The new monasticism needed them. It required some reading and study every day by the monks. As children were constantly being received, ordinarily at the age of seven, these oblati needed instruction. The monastic schools, which thus arose, early made provision for the instruction of those not destined for the monastic life in the external schools of the monasteries. Then again, the need of clergy with some literary training, however simple, was felt, especially as the secular schools declined or were found not convenient, and conciliar action was taken in various countries to provide for such education. In the conversion of the English, schools seem very early to have been established, and the encouragement given these schools by the learned Theodore of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury, bore splendid fruit, not merely in the great school of Canterbury but still more in the monastic schools of the North, at Jarrow and Wearmouth and at York. It was from the schools in the North that the culture of the Frankish kingdom under Charles the Great largely came. There was always a marked difference of opinion as to the value of secular literature in education, as is shown by the attitude already taken by Gregory the Great in his letter to Desiderius of Vienne, a letter which did much to discourage the literary study of the classics.

(a) Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, II, 40 (§ 60). (MSL, 34:63)

The Christian’s use of heathen writers.

The whole book should be examined carefully to see the working out of the same idea in detail. St. Augustine was a man of literary culture, although he was imperfectly acquainted with Greek. He speaks from his own experience of the help he had derived from this culture. The work On Christian Doctrine is, in fact, not at all a treatise on theology but on pedagogy, and was of immense influence in the Middle Ages.

If those who are called philosophers and especially the Platonists have said anything true and in harmony with the faith, we ought not only not to shrink from it, but rather to appropriate it for our own use, taking it from them as from unlawful possessors. For as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens, which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver and clothing which the same people on going out of Egypt secretly appropriated to themselves as for a better use, not on their own authority but on the command of God, for the Egyptians in their ignorance lent those things which they themselves were not using well [Ex. 3:22; 12:35]; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil which each of us, in going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to hate and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which it is well to adapt to the use of truth and some most useful precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the one God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they themselves did not create, but dug, as it were, out of certain mines of God’s providence, which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully misused to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them for their proper use in preaching the Gospel. Their clothing also, that is, human institutions, adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable for this life, it is right to take and to have so as to be turned to Christian use.

(b) John Cassian. Institutiones, V, 33, 34. (MSL, 49:249.)

Cassian, born 360, was one of the leaders of the monastic movement. He founded monasteries near Marseilles, and did much to spread the monastic movement in Gaul and Spain. His Institutiones and Collationes were of influence, even after his monasteries had been entirely supplanted by the Benedictines. The opinion here given is probably that prevalent in the monasteries in Egypt. It is utterly different from the spirit of Basil, and the great theologians of Asia Minor who, in the matter of secular studies, hold the same opinion as the older Alexandrian school of Clement and Origen.

Ch. 33. We also saw the abbot Theodore, a man endowed with the utmost holiness and with perfect knowledge not only of things of the practical life but also of the meaning of the Scriptures, which he had acquired, not so much by study and reading, or secular scholarship, as by purity of heart alone; since he was able only with difficulty to understand or speak even but a few words in the Greek language. This man, when he was seeking an explanation of some most difficult question, continued indefatigably seven days and nights in prayer until, by a revelation of the Lord, he knew the answer to the question propounded.

Ch. 34. This man, therefore, when some of the brethren were wondering at the splendid light of his knowledge, and were asking him some meanings of Scripture, said: “A monk desiring to attain to a knowledge of the Scriptures ought in no wise to spend his labor on the books of the commentators, but rather to keep all the efforts of his mind and the intentions of his heart set on purification from carnal vices. When these are driven out, at once the eyes of the heart, when the veil of passions has been removed, will begin, as it were, naturally to gaze on the mysteries of Scripture, since these were not declared unto us by the grace of the Holy Ghost to remain unknown and obscure; but they are rendered obscure by our vices, as the veil of our sins cover the eyes of the heart, and for these, when restored to their natural health, the mere reading of Holy Scripture is amply sufficient for the perception of the true knowledge; nor do they need the instruction of commentators, just as these eyes of flesh need no man’s assistance to see provided they are free from the dimness or darkness of blindness.”

(c) Gregory the Great, Ep. Ad Desiderium, Reg. XI, Ep. 54. (MSL, 77:1171.)

Desiderius was bishop of Vienne. This letter was sent with several others written in connection with the sending of Mellitus to England; see Bede, Hist. Ec., I, 27, 29.

Many good things have been reported to us regarding your pursuits, and such joy arose in our hearts that we could not bear to refuse what your fraternity had requested to have granted you. But afterward it came to our ears, what we cannot mention without shame, that thy fraternity is in the habit of expounding grammar to certain persons. This thing pained us so and we so strongly disapproved of it that we changed what had been said before into groaning and sadness, since the praises of Christ cannot find room in the one mouth with the praises of Jupiter. And consider thyself what a grave and heinous offence it is for bishops to sing what is not becoming even for a religious layman. And, though our most beloved son Candidus, the presbyter, who was strictly examined on this matter when he came to us, denied it and endeavored to excuse you, yet still the thought has not left our mind that, in proportion as it is execrable for such a thing to be related of a priest, it ought to be ascertained by strict and veracious evidence whether or not it be so. If, therefore, hereafter what has been reported to us should prove to be evidently false, and it should be clear that you do not apply yourself to trifles and secular literature, we shall give thanks to God, who has not permitted your heart to be stained with the blasphemous phrases of what is abominable; and we will treat without misgiving or hesitation concerning granting what you have requested.

We commend to you in all respects the monks whom, together with our most beloved son Laurentius, the presbyter, and Mellitus, the abbot, we have sent to our most reverend brother and fellow-bishop Augustine, that by the help of your fraternity no delay may hinder their journey.

(d) Council of Vaison, A. D. 529, Canon 1. Bruns, II, 183

Vaison is a small see in the province of Arles. The synod was attended by about a dozen bishops. It is, therefore, not authoritative for a large district, but when taken in connection with the following selection indicates a wide-spread custom.

That presbyters in their parishes shall bring up and instruct young readers in their houses. It was decided that all presbyters who are placed in parishes should, according to a custom which we learn is very beneficially observed throughout Italy, receive young readers, as many as they have who are unmarried, into their house where they dwell, and as good fathers shall endeavor to bring them up spiritually to render the Psalms, and to instruct them in the divine readings, and to educate them in the law of the Lord, that so they may provide for themselves worthy successors, and receive from the Lord eternal rewards. But when they come to full age, if any of them, on account of the weakness of the flesh, wish to marry, they shall not be denied the right of doing so.

(e) II Council of Toledo, A. D. 531, Canon 1. Bruns, I, 207

Concerning those whom their parents voluntarily give in the first years of their childhood to the office of the clergy, we have decreed this to be observed; namely, that as soon as they have been tonsured or have been given to the care of appointed persons, they ought to be educated by some one set over them, in the church building, and in the presence of the bishop. When they have completed their eighteenth year, they shall be asked by the bishop, in the presence of all the clergy and people, their will as to seeking marriage. And if by God’s inspiration they have the grace of chastity, and shall have promised to observe the profession of their chastity without any necessity of marriage, let these who are more desirous of the hardest life put on the most gentle yoke of the Lord, and first let them receive from their twentieth year the ministry of the subdiaconate, probation having been made of their profession, that, if blamelessly and without offence they attain the twenty-fifth year of their age, they may be promoted to the office of the diaconate, if they have been proved by their bishop to be able to fulfil it.…

(f) Bede, Hist. Ec., III, 18. (MSL, 95:144.)

Sigebert became king of the East Angles about 631 and died 637. The facts known of him are briefly recorded in DCB.

At this time the kingdom of the East Angles, after the death of Earpwald, the successor of Redwald, was subject to his brother Sigebert, a good and religious man, who long before had been baptized in France, whilst he lived in banishment, flying from the enmity of Redwald; when he returned home and had ascended the throne he was desirous of imitating the good institutions which he had seen in France, and he set up a school for the young to be instructed in letters, and was assisted therein by Bishop Felix, who had come to him from Kent and who furnished him with masters and teachers after the manner of that country.

(g) Bede, Hist. Ec., IV, 2. (MSL, 95:173.)

Theodore arrived at his church the second year after his consecration, on Sunday, May 27, and held the same twenty-one years, three months and twenty-six days. Soon after he visited all the islands, wherever the tribes of the Angles dwelt, for he was willingly entertained and heard by all persons. Everywhere he was attended and assisted by Hadrian, and he taught the right rule of life and the canonical custom of celebrating Easter.278 This was the first archbishop whom all the English Church obeyed. And forasmuch as both of them were, as has been said, well read in sacred and secular literature, they gathered a crowd of scholars and there daily flowed from them rivers of knowledge to water the hearts of their hearers; and together with the books of the holy Scriptures they also taught them the arts of ecclesiastical poetry, astronomy, and arithmetic. A testimony of which is that there are still living at this day [circa A. D. 727] some of their scholars who are as well versed in the Greek and Latin tongues as in their own, in which they were born. Never were there happier times since the English came to Britain; for their kings were brave men and good Christians and were a terror to all barbarous nations, and the minds of all men were bent upon the joys of the heavenly kingdom of which they had just heard. And all who desired instruction in sacred reading had masters at hand to teach them. From that time also they began in all the churches of the English to learn sacred music which till then had been only known in Kent. And excepting James, mentioned above, the first singing-master279 in the churches of the Northumbrians was Eddi, surnamed Stephen, invited from Kent by the most reverend Wilfrid, who was the first of the bishops of the English nation that taught the churches of the English the Catholic mode of life.

(h) Council of Clovesho, A. D. 747, Canon 7. Haddan and Stubbs, III, 360

They decreed in the seventh article of agreement that bishops, abbots, and abbesses should by all means take care and diligently provide that their families should incessantly apply their minds to reading, and that knowledge be spread by the voices of many to the gaining of souls and to the praise of the eternal King. For it is sad to say how few280 in these times do heartily love and labor for sacred knowledge and are willing to take pains in learning, but they are from their youth up rather employed in divers vanities and the affectation of vainglory; and they rather pursue the amusements of this present unstable life than the assiduous study of holy Scriptures. Therefore let boys be kept and trained up in such schools, to the love of sacred knowledge, and that, being by this means well learned, they may become in all respects useful to the Church of God.

Chapter IV. The Revolution in the Ecclesiastical and Political Situation Due to the Rise of Islam and the Doctrinal Disputes in the Eastern Church

In the course of the seventh and eighth centuries, the ecclesiastical and political situation altered completely. This change was due, in the first place, to the rise of the religion and empire of the Moslems, whereby a very large part of the Eastern Empire was conquered by the followers of the Prophet, who had rapidly extended their conquests over Syria and the best African provinces. Reduced in extent and exposed to ever fresh attacks from a powerful enemy, the Eastern Empire had to face new political problems. In the second place, as the provinces overrun contained the greater number of those dissatisfied with the doctrinal results of the great councils, the apparently interminable contests over the question as to the two natures of Christ came to an unexpected end. This did not take place until a new cause for dispute had arisen among the adherents of Chalcedon, due to an attempt to win back the Monophysites by accounting for the unity of the person of Christ by positing one will in Jesus. Monotheletism at once became among the adherents of Chalcedon a burning question. It was finally condemned at the Sixth General Council, Constantinople, A. D. 683, at which Pope Agatho played a part very similar to that played by Pope Leo at Chalcedon, but at the cost of seeing his predecessor, Honorius, condemned as a Monothelete. It was the last triumph of the West in the dogmatic controversies of the East. The Eastern ecclesiastics, irritated at the diplomatic triumph of Rome, expressed their resentment at the Concilium Quinisextum, in 692, where, in passing canons to complete the work of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, an opportunity was embraced of expressly condemning several Roman practices. In the confusion resulting in the next century from the attempt of Leo the Isaurian to put an end to the use of images in the churches, the Roman see was able to rid itself of the nominal control which the Emperor still had over the papacy by means of the exarchate of Ravenna. When the Lombards pressed too heavily upon the papacy it was easy for the Bishop of Rome to make an alliance with the Franks, who on their side saw that it was profitable to employ the papacy in the advancement of their own schemes. In this way arose that alliance between the pontiff and the new Frankish monarchy upon which the ecclesiastical development of the Middle Ages rests. But Iconoclasm suffered defeat at the Seventh General Council, 787, in which the doctrinal system of the East was completed. As this was the last undisputed general council, it may be taken as marking the termination of the history of the ancient Church. In following the further course of the Western Church there is no longer need of a detailed tracing of the history of the Eastern Church, which ceased to be a determining factor in the religious life of the West. The two parts of Christendom come in contact from time to time, but without formal schism they have ceased to be organically united.

§ 106. The Rise and Extension of Islam

Mohammed (571-632) began his work as a prophet at Mecca about 613, having been “called” about three years earlier. He was driven from Mecca in 622 and fled to Yathrib, afterward known as Medina. Here he was able to unite warring factions and, placing himself at their head, to build up despotic authority over the surrounding country. He steadily increased the territory under his sway, and by conquests and diplomacy was able to gain Mecca in 629. Before his death in 632 he had conquered all Arabia. His authority continued in his family after his death, and the course of conquest went on. Damascus was conquered in 635; in 636 the Emperor Heraclius was driven to abandon Syria, which now fell into the hands of the Moslems. In 637 the Persians were forced back. In 640 Egypt was taken, and by 650 all between Carthage and the eastern border of Persia had been acquired for Islam. In 693, after a period of civil war, the work of conquest was resumed. In 709 all the African coast as far as the Straits of Gibraltar was gained, and in 711 the Moslems entered Spain. They at once made themselves masters of the peninsula with the exception of a small strip in the north in the mountains of Asturias, the kingdom of Gallicia. Crossing the Pyrenees, they attempted to possess Gaul, but were forced to retreat from central Gaul by Charles Martel at the battle at Tours and Poitiers in 732. They maintained themselves north of the Pyrenees until 759 when they were driven out of Narbonne and across the mountains.

Additional source material: The Koran, standard translation by E. H. Palmer, in the Sacred Books of the East; Stanley Lane-Poole, Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Mohammed.

(a) Mohammed, Koran (Translation of E. H. Palmer)

Surah CXII

The Unity of God.

The following surah or chapter of the Koran, entitled “The Chapter of Unity,” Mohammed regarded as of value equal to two-thirds of the whole book. It is one of the shortest and most famous.

In the name of the merciful and compassionate God, say:

“He is God alone!
God the Eternal.
He begets not and is not begotten!
Nor is there like unto Him any one.”

Surah V, 73, 76, 109 Ff

The teaching as to the nature and mission of Jesus.

[73.] Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews, and the Sabæans, and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the last day and does what is right, there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

[76.] They misbelieve who say, “Verily, God is the Messiah, the son of Mary”; but the Messiah said, “O Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” Verily he who associates aught with God, God hath forbidden him paradise, and his resort is the fire, and the unjust shall have none to help them.

They misbelieve who say, “Verily, God is the third of three”; for there is no God but one, and if they do not desist from what they say, there shall touch those who misbelieve amongst them grievous woe.

Will they not turn toward God and ask pardon of Him? for God is forgiving and merciful.

The Messiah, the son of Mary, is only a prophet; prophets before him have passed away: and His mother was a confessor.

[109.] When God said, “O Jesus, son of Mary! remember my favors towards thee and towards thy mother, when I aided thee with the Holy Ghost, till thou didst speak to men in the cradle and when grown up.

“And when I taught thee the Book and wisdom and the law and the gospel; when thou didst create of clay, as it were, the likeness of a bird, by my power, and didst blow thereon, it became a bird;281 and thou didst heal the blind from birth, and the leprous by my permission; and when thou didst bring forth the dead by my permission; and when I did ward off the children of Israel from thee, and when thou didst come to them with manifest signs, and those who misbelieved among them said: ‘This is naught but obvious magic.’

“And when I inspired the Apostles that they should believe in Him and in my Apostle, they said, ‘We believe; do thou bear witness that we are resigned.’”

[116.] And when God said, “O Jesus, son of Mary! is it thou who dost say to men, take me and my mother for two gods, beside God?” He said: “I celebrate thy praise! what ails me that I should say what I have no right to? If I had said it, Thou wouldest have known it; Thou knowest what is in my soul, but I know not what is in Thy soul; verily Thou art one who knoweth the unseen. I never told them save what Thou didst bid me, ‘Worship God, my Lord and your Lord,’ and I was a witness against them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst take me away to Thyself Thou wert the watcher over them, for Thou art witness over all.”…

Surah IV, 152

Relation of Islam to Judaism and Christianity.

[152.] The people of the Book will ask thee to bring down for them a book from heaven; but they asked Moses a greater thing than that, for they said, “Show us God openly”; but the thunderbolt caught them in their injustice. Then they took a calf, after what had come to them of manifest signs; but we pardoned that, and gave Moses obvious authority. And we held over them the mountain at their compact, and said to them, “Enter ye the door adoring,” and we said to them, “Transgress not on the Sabbath day,” and we took from them a rigid compact.

But for that they broke their compact, and for their misbelief in God’s signs, and for their killing the prophets undeservedly, and for their saying, “Our hearts are uncircumcised”—nay, God hath stamped on them their misbelief, so that they cannot believe, except a few—and for their misbelief, and for their saying about Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, “Verily we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God,” but they did not kill Him, and they did not crucify Him, but a similitude was made for them. And verily, those who differ about Him are in doubt concerning Him; they have no knowledge concerning Him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill Him, for sure! nay God raised Him up unto Himself; for God is mighty and wise!…

[164.] O ye people of the Book! do not exceed in your religion, nor say against God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, is but the apostle of God and His Word, which He cast into Mary and a spirit from Him; believe then in God and His apostles, and say not “Three.” Have done! it were better for you. God is only one God, celebrated be His praise that He should beget a Son!

Surah LVI

The delights of heaven and the pains of hell.

This description of the future life has been taken as characteristic of the religion of Mohammed, but not quite fairly. It is simply the Bedouin’s idea of complete happiness, and is by no means characteristic of the religion as the whole.

In the name of the merciful and compassionate God.

When the inevitable [day of judgment] happens; none shall call its happening a lie!—abasing—exalting!

When the earth shall quake, quaking! and the mountains shall crumble, crumbling, and become like motes dispersed!

And ye shall be three sorts;

And the fellows of the right hand—what right lucky fellows!

And the fellows of the left hand—what unlucky fellows!

And the foremost foremost!

These are they who are brought nigh,

In gardens of pleasure!

A crowd of those of yore, and a few of those of the latter day!

And gold-weft couches, reclining on them face to face.

Around them shall go eternal youths, with goblets and ewers and a cup of flowing wine; no headache shall feed therefrom, nor shall their wits be dimmed!

And fruits such as they deem the best;

And flesh of fowl as they desire;

And bright and large-eyed maids like hidden pearls;

A reward for that which they have done!

They shall hear no folly there and no sin;

Only the speech, “Peace, Peace!”

And the fellows of the right—what right lucky fellows!

Amid thornless lote trees.

And tal’h282 trees with piles of fruit;

And outspread shade,

And water poured out;

And fruit in abundance, neither failing nor forbidden;

And beds upraised!

Verily we have produced them283 a production,

And made them virgins, darlings of equal age (with their spouses) for the fellows of the right!

A crowd of those of yore, and a crowd of those of the latter day!

And the fellows of the left—what unlucky fellows!

In hot blasts and boiling water;

And a shade of pitchy smoke,

Neither cool nor generous!

Verily they were affluent ere this, and did persist in mighty crime; and used to say, “What, when we die, have become dust and bones, shall we indeed be raised? or our fathers of yore?”

Say, “Verily, those of yore and those of the latter days shall surely be gathered together unto the tryst of the well-known day.”

“Then ye, O ye who err! who say it is a lie! shall eat of the Zaqqum284 tree and fill your bellies with it! a drink of boiling water! and drink as drinks the thirsty camel!”

(b) Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum, VI, 46 Ff. (MSL, 95:654.)

The Advance of the Saracens.

Ch. 46. At that time [A. D. 711] the people of the Saracens, crossing over from Africa at a place which is called Ceuta, invaded all Spain. Then after ten years, coming with their wives and children, they invaded as if to settle in Aquitania, a province of Gaul. Charles285 had at that time a dispute with Eudo, prince of Aquitania. But they came to an agreement and fought with perfect harmony against the Saracens. For the Franks fell upon them286 and slew three hundred and seventy-five thousand of them; but on the side of the Franks only fifteen hundred fell. Eudo with his men broke into their camp and slew many and laid waste all.

Ch. 47. At the same time [A. D. 717], the same people of the Saracens with an immense army came and encompassed Constantinople and for three years besieged it until, when the people had called upon God with great earnestness, many of the enemy perished from hunger and cold and by war and pestilence and so wearied out they abandoned the siege. When they had left they carried on war against the people of the Bulgarians who were beyond the Danube, but, vanquished by them also, they fled back to their ships. But when they had put out to the deep sea, a sudden storm fell upon them and many were drowned and their vessels were destroyed. But in Constantinople three hundred thousand men died of the pestilence.

Ch. 48. Now when Liutprand heard that the Saracens, when Sardinia had been laid waste, had also polluted those places where the bones of the holy bishop Augustine, on account of the devastation of the barbarians, had formerly been transported and solemnly buried, he sent thither and when he had given a large sum obtained them and transported them to the city of Pavia, where he buried them with the honor due so great a father.287 In these days the city of Narnia was conquered by the Lombards.

§ 107. The Monothelete Controversy and the Sixth General Council, Constantinople A. D. 681

The Monothelete controversy was the natural outcome of the earlier Christological controversies. With the assertion of the two complete and persisting natures of Christ, the question must sooner or later arise as to whether there was one will or two in Christ. If there were two wills, it seemed to lead back to Nestorianism; if there was but one, either the humanity was incomplete or the position led to virtual monophysitism. But political causes played even a greater part than the theological dialectic. The Emperor Heraclius, in attempting to win back the Monophysite churches, on account of the war with Persia and later on account of the advancing Moslems, proposed that a union should be effected on the basis of a formula which asserted that there was but one will in the God-man. This had been suggested to him in 622 by Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople [Hefele, §§ 291, 295]. In 633 Cyrus of Phasis, since 630 patriarch of Alexandria, brought about a union between the Orthodox Church and the Egyptian Monophysites on the basis of a Monothelete formula, i.e., a statement that there was but one will or energy in Christ. At once a violent controversy broke out. The formula was supported by Honorius of Rome, but attacked by Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, and after the fall of Jerusalem in 638, by the monk Maximus Confessor. In 638 Heraclius tried to end the controversy by an Ecthesis [Hefele, § 299], and Constans II (641-668) attempted the same in 648, by his Typos. But at the Lateran Council of 649, under Martin I, Monotheletism as well as the Ecthesis and Typos were condemned. For this Martin was ultimately banished, dying in misery, 654, in the Chersonesus, and Maximus, after a long, cruel imprisonment, and horrible torture and mutilation, died in exile, 662. But Constantius Pogonatus (668-685), the successor of Constans II, determined to settle the matter by a general council. Pope Agatho (678-682) thereupon held a great council at Rome, 679, at which it was decided to insist at the coming general council upon the strictest maintenance of the decisions of the Roman Council of 649. On this basis Agatho dictated the formula which was accepted by the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681, which sent its proceedings and conclusions to the Pope to be approved. Along with them was an express condemnation of Honorius. Leo II (682-683), Agatho’s successor, approved the council with special mention of Honorius as condemned for his heresy.

(a) Cyrus of Alexandria, Formula of Union, A. D. 633, Hahn, § 232

The author of this formula, known also as Cyrus of Phasis, under which name he was condemned at Constantinople, A. D. 680, attempted to win over the Monophysites in Alexandria and met with great success on account of his formula of union. The first five anathemas, the form in which the formula is composed, are clearly based upon the first four councils. The sixth is slightly different; and the seventh, the most important, is clearly tending toward Monotheletism. The document is to be found in the proceedings of the Sixth General Council in Mansi, and also in Hardouin. For a synopsis, see Hefele, § 293, who is most valuable for the whole controversy.

6. If any one does not confess the one Christ, the one Son, to be of two natures, that is, divinity and humanity, one nature become flesh288 of God the Word, according to the holy Cyril, unmixed, unchanged, unchangeable, that is to say, one synthetic hypostasis, who is the same, our Lord Jesus Christ, being one of the holy homoousian Triad, let such an one be anathema.

7. If any one, saying that our one Lord Jesus Christ is to be regarded in two natures, does not confess that He is one of the Holy Triad, God the Word, eternally begotten of the Father, in the last times of the world made flesh and born of our all-holy and spotless lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary; but is this and another and not one and the same, according to the most wise Cyril, perfect in deity and the same perfect in humanity, and accordingly only to be thought of as in two natures; the same suffering and not suffering, according to one or the other nature, as the same holy Cyril said, suffering as a man in the flesh, inasmuch as he was a man, remaining as God without suffering in the sufferings of His own flesh; and the one and the same Christ energizing the divine and the human things with the one theandric energy,289 according to the holy Dionysius; distinguishing only in thought those things from which the union has taken place, and viewing these in the mind as remaining unchanged, unalterable, and unmixed after their union according to nature and hypostasis; and recognizing in these without division or separation the one and the same Christ and Son, inasmuch as he regards in his mind two as brought together to each other without commingling, making the theory of them as a matter of fact, but not by a lying imagination and vain combinations of the mind; but in nowise separating them, since now the division into two has been destroyed on account of the indescribable and incomprehensible union; saying with the holy Athanasius, for there is now flesh and again the flesh of God the Word, now flesh animated and intelligent, and again the flesh of the animated and intelligent God the Word; but should under such expressions understand a distinction into parts, let such an one be anathema.

(b) Constans II, Typos, A. D. 648, Mansi, X, 1029. Cf. Kirch, Nn. 972 f

The attempt to end the controversy by returning to the condition of things before the controversy broke out, an entirely futile undertaking. The question having been raised had to be discussed and settled by rational processes. See Hefele, § 306.

Since it is our custom to do everything and to consider everything which can serve the welfare of the Christian State, and especially what concerns our true faith, by which we believe all our happiness is brought about, we perceive that our orthodox people are greatly disturbed, because some in respect to the Economy290 of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ assert that there is only one will, and that one and the same affects both the divine and human deeds; but others teach two wills and two operations in the same dispensation of the incarnate Word. The former defend their views by asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ was only one person in two natures, and therefore without confusion or separation, working and willing as well the divine as the human deeds. The others say that because in one and the same person two natures are joined without any separation, so their differences from each other remain, and according to the character of each nature one and the same Christ works as well the divine as the human; and from this our Christian State has been brought to much dissension and confusion, so that differing from one another they do not agree, and from this the State must in many ways needs suffer.

We believe that, under God’s guidance, we must extinguish the flames enkindled by discord, and we ought not to permit them further to destroy human souls. We decree, therefore, that our subjects who hold our immaculate and orthodox Christian faith, and who are of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, shall from the present moment on have no longer any permission to raise any sort of dispute and quarrel or strife with one another over the one will and energy, or over two wills and two energies. We order that this is not in any way to take anything from the pious teaching, which the holy and approved Fathers have taught concerning the incarnation of God the Word, but with the purpose that all further strife in regard to the aforesaid questions cease, and in this matter we follow and hold as sufficient only the Holy Scriptures and the tradition of the five holy general councils and the simple statements and unquestioned usage and expressions of the approved Fathers (of which the dogmas, rules, and laws of God’s holy Catholic and Apostolic Church consists), without adding to or taking from them anything, or without explaining them against their proper meaning, but everywhere shall be preserved the former customs, as before the disputes broke out, as if no such dispute had existed. As to those who have hitherto taught one will and one energy or two wills and two energies, there shall be no accusation on this account; excepting only those who have been cast forth as heretics, together with their impious doctrines and writings, by the five holy universal councils and other approved orthodox Fathers. But to complete the unity and fellowship of the churches of God, and that there remain no further opportunity or occasion to those who are eager for endless dispute, we order that the document,291 which for a long time has been posted up in the narthex of the most holy principal church of this our God-preserved royal city, and which touches upon the points in dispute, shall be taken down. Whoever dares to transgress this command is subject before all to the fearful judgment of Almighty God, and then also will be liable to the punishment for such as despise the imperial commands. If he be a bishop or clergyman, he will altogether be deposed from his priesthood or clerical order; if a monk, excommunicated and driven out of his residence; if a civil or military officer, he shall lose his rank and office; if a private citizen, he shall, if noble, be punished pecuniarily, if of lower rank, be subjected to corporal punishment and perpetual exile.

(c) Council of Rome, A. D. 649, Canons, Mansi, X, 1150. Cf. Denziger, Nn. 254 Ff

Condemnation of Monotheletism, the Ecthesis, and the Typos, by Martin I.

Text of canons or anathematisms and abstract of proceedings in Hefele, § 307.

Canon 18. If any one does not, according to the holy Fathers, and in company with us, reject and anathematize with mind and mouth all those whom as most wicked heretics the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, that is, the five universal synods and likewise all approved Fathers of the Church, rejects and anathematizes, with all their impious writings even to each point, that is, Sabellius, etc. … and justly with these, as like them and in equal error … Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius of Constantinople, and his successors Pyrrhus and Paul, persisting in their pride, and all their impious writings, and those who to the end agreed with them in their thought, or do so agree, that there is one will and one operation of the deity and manhood of Christ; and in addition to these the most impious Ecthesis, which, by the persuasion of the same Sergius, was put forth by the former Emperor Heraclius against the orthodox faith, defining, by way of adjustment, one will in Christ our God, and one operation to be venerated; also all those things which were impiously written or done by them; and those who received it, or any of those things which were written or done for it; and along with these, furthermore, the wicked Typos, which, on the persuasion of the aforesaid Paul, was recently issued by our most serene prince Constans against the Catholic Church, inasmuch as it equally denies and excludes from discussion the two natural wills and operations, a divine and a human, which are piously taught by the holy Fathers to be in Christ, our God, and also our Saviour, and also the one will and operation, which by the heretics is impiously venerated in Him, and therefore declaring that with the holy Fathers also the wicked heretics are unjustly freed from all rebuke and condemnation, to the destruction of the definitions of the Catholic Church and its rule of faith … let him be condemned.

(d) Sixth General Council, Constantinople, A. D. 681, Definition of Faith. Mansi, XI, 636 Ff

The concluding, more strictly dogmatic portion of this symbol is to be found in Greek in Hahn, § 150, and in Latin and Greek in Denziger, nn. 289, ff. See also PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV.

The holy, great, and ecumenical synod assembled by the grace of God and the religious decree of the most religious, faithful, and mighty Emperor Constantine, in this God-preserved and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the hall of the imperial palace called Trullus, has decreed as follows:

The only begotten Son and Word of God the Father, who was made man, like unto us in all things, without sin, Christ our true God, has declared expressly in the words of the Gospel: “I am the light of the world; he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” [John 8:12]; and again: “My peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you” [John 14:27]. Our most gracious Emperor, the champion of orthodoxy and opponent of evil doctrine, being reverentially led by this divinely uttered doctrine of peace, and having assembled this our holy and ecumenical synod, has united the judgment of the whole Church. Wherefore this our holy and ecumenical synod, having driven away the impious error which has prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its assent to the five holy and ecumenical synods—that is to say, to that of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers assembled at Nicæa against the insane Arius; and the next at Constantinople of the one hundred and fifty God-inspired men against Macedonius, the adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first at Ephesus of two hundred venerable men assembled against Nestorius, the Judaizer; and that in Chalcedon of six hundred and thirty God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscurus, hated of God; and in addition to these the last, that is the fifth, holy synod assembled in this place against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the epistle which was said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian—without alteration this synod renews in all points the ancient decrees of religion, chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our holy and ecumenical synod, inspired of God, has set its seal to the creed of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the one hundred and fifty, which also the other holy synods gladly received and ratified for the removal of every soul-destroying heresy.

Then follow:

The Nicene Creed of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers. We believe, etc.

The Creed of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled at Constantinople. We believe, etc., but without the filioque.

The holy and ecumenical synod further says that this pious and orthodox creed of the divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who in the beginning availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for the accomplishment of his will—that is to say, Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan; Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were prelates of this royal city; and also Honorius, who was pope of Old Rome; Cyrus, bishop of Alexandria, Marcarius, lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen, his disciple—has not ceased with their declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-assembled and holy synod; for according to the sentence spoken of God: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them” [Matt. 18:20], the present292 holy and ecumenical synod, faithfully receiving and saluting with uplifted hands also the suggestion which by the most holy and blessed Pope Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, was sent to our most pious and faithful Emperor Constantine, which rejected by name those who taught or preached one will and operation in the dispensation of the incarnation of Christ293 our very God, has likewise adopted that other synodal suggestion which was sent by the council held under the same most holy Pope, composed of one hundred and twenty-five bishops beloved of God,294 to his God-instructed tranquillity [i.e., the Emperor], as consonant to the holy Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of the most holy and blessed Leo, Pope of the same Old Rome, which was directed to the holy Flavian, which also the council called the pillar of a right faith; and also agrees with the synodical letters written by the blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and addressed to the Oriental bishops.

Following295 the five holy and ecumenical synods and the most holy and approved Fathers, with one voice defining that our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed to be our very God, one of the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in deity and the same perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with His Father as to His godhead, and consubstantial with us as to His manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin [Heb. 4:15]; begotten of His Father before the ages according to His godhead, but in these last days for us men and for our salvation begotten of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, strictly and in truth Theotokos, according to the flesh; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, in two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably, indivisibly to be recognized; the peculiarities of neither nature lost by the union, but rather the properties of each nature preserved, concurring in one person,296 and in one subsistence,297 not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same only begotten Son, the Word of God,298 the Lord Jesus Christ, according as the prophets of old have taught, and as Jesus Christ Himself hath taught, and the creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us;299 we likewise declare that in Him are two natural wills or willings and two natural operations indivisibly, unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary one to the other (which God forbid), as the impious heretics say, but His human will follows, not as resisting or reluctant, but rather therefore as subject to His divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the will of the flesh should be moved, but be subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as His flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of His flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as He Himself says: “I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of the Father which sent Me,” [John 6:38], wherein he calls His own will the will of the flesh, inasmuch as His flesh was also His own. For as His most holy and immaculately animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified [θεωθεῖσα], but continued in its own state and nature, so also His human will, although deified, was not taken away, but rather was preserved according to the saying of Gregory the Theologian:300 “His will, namely that of the Saviour, is not contrary to God, but altogether deified.”

We glorify two natural operations, indivisibly, unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly, in the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, that is to say, a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly says as follows: “For each form does in communion with the other what pertains to it, namely the Word doing what pertains to the Word, and the flesh what pertains to the flesh.”301 For we will not admit one natural operation of God and of the creature, that we may not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited for those things which have been made. We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same person, but of one or of the other nature of which He is, and in which He has His existence, as the admirable Cyril said. Preserving in all respects, therefore, the unconfusedness and indivisibility, we express all in brief phrase: Believing that our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity also after the incarnation, is our true God, we say that His two natures shone forth in His one subsistence [hypostasis], in which were both the miracles and the suffering throughout the whole incarnate life,302 not in appearance merely but in reality, the difference as to nature being recognized in one and the same subsistence; for, although joined together, each nature wills and operates the things proper to it.303 For this reason we glorify two natural304 wills and operations concurring most fitly in Him for the salvation of the human race.

Since these things have been formulated by us with all diligence and care, we decree that to no one shall it be permitted to bring forward or write or to compose or to think or to teach otherwise. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith or to propose, or to teach, or to hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth from the heathen or the Jews or from any heresy any different symbol, or to introduce a new mode of expression to subvert these things which have now been determined by us, all these, if they be bishops or clergy, shall be deposed, the bishops from the episcopate, the clergy from the clerical office; but if they be monks or laymen, they shall be anathematized.

(e) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681, Sessio XIII. Mansi, XI, 1050. Cf. Mirbt, N. 188

The condemnation of the Monotheletes, including Honorius of Rome.

The condemnation of Honorius has become a cause célèbre, especially in connection with the doctrine of papal infallibility. It should be observed, however, that the doctrine of papal infallibility, as defined at the Vatican Council, A. D. 1870 (cf. Mirbt, n. 509), requires that only when the Pope speaks ex cathedra is he infallible, and it has not been shown that any opinion whatever held by Honorius was an ex cathedra definition of faith and morals according to the Vatican Council. The matter is therefore a mere question of fact and may be treated apart from the Vatican dogma. It should be borne in mind, further, that the Sixth General Council was approved by Pope Leo II, A. D. 682 (cf. Mirbt, n. 189), who included Honorius by name among those whose condemnation was approved. That he did so approve it is also stated in the Liber Pontificalis (cf. Mirbt, n. 190), and according to the Liber Diurnus, the official book of formulæ used in the papal business, the Pope took an oath recognizing among others the Sixth General Council, and condemning Honorius among other heretics (cf. Mirbt, n. 191). That Honorius was actually a heretic is still another matter; for it seems not at all unlikely that he misunderstood the point at issue and his language is quite unscientific. The text of the letters of Honorius may be found in Kirch, nn. 949-965, and in Hefele in a translation, §§ 296, 298. On the condemnation of Honorius, see Hefele, § 324.

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise made to your highness,305 the doctrinal letter written by Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God-preserved city, to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis, and to Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, and finding that the documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the definitions of the holy councils, and to all the approved Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics, we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.

But the names of those men whom we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius, sometime bishop of this God-preserved royal city, who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore, sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice-blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we declare are subject to anathema. And with these we decree that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.

We have also examined the synodal letter306 of Sophronius, of holy memory, sometime patriarch of the holy city of our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with apostolic teachings, and with the teachings of the holy and approved Fathers. Therefore, we have received it as orthodox and salutary to the holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the holy churches.

§ 108. Rome, Constantinople, and the Lombard State Church in the Seventh Century

The Sixth General Council was the last great diplomatic triumph of Rome in the East in matters of faith, though two centuries after, in the matter of Photius, Rome played a brilliant part in the internal affairs of the Eastern Church. Immediately after the council of 681, it was felt that the West, of which the Greeks had grown very jealous, had triumphed over the East, especially as several of the leading patriarchs had been condemned. Monotheletism, furthermore, was too strongly intrenched in the East to be removed by a single conciliar action. It was felt necessary to take action to confirm the results of Constantinople in 681. The fifth and sixth general councils had been occupied entirely with doctrinal matters and had not issued any disciplinary canons. A new council might be gathered to complete the work of the Sixth General Council, not only to reaffirm it, but in connection with some much-needed legislation to retort upon the West by condemning some Roman practices. In this way the Second Trullan Council, or Concilium Quinisextum, came about in 692. The Roman see, in the meanwhile, although it had triumphed at Constantinople in 681, did not enjoy an independent political position in Italy. It was still under the Roman Emperor at Constantinople, as had been most painfully perceived in the treatment of Martin I by Constans. Although the Pope had his apocrisiarius, or nuncio, at Constantinople, he came into immediate contact with the exarch of Ravenna, the Emperor’s representative in Italy. In Italy, furthermore, the Arian heresy long persisted among the Lombards, although greater toleration was shown the Catholic Church.

Additional source material: The canons of the Quinisext Council may be found complete in Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils, PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV.

(a) Concilium Quinisextum, A. D. 692, Canons. Bruns, I, 34, Ff

This council was commonly regarded as the continuation of the Sixth General Council, and has been received in the East, not as a separate council, but as a part of the sixth. The West has never accepted this opinion and has only to a limited extent admitted the authority of its canons, though some have been current in the West because, like much conciliar action, they were re-enactments of older canons. Occasionally some of the canons have been cited by popes as belonging to the Sixth Council. The canons given here are, for the most part, those which were in some point in opposition to the Roman practice.

Canon 1. Renewal of the Condemnations of the Sixth Council

We, by divine grace at the beginning of our decrees, define that the faith set forth by the God-chosen Apostles, who themselves had both seen the Word and were ministers of the Word, shall be preserved without any innovation, unchanged and inviolate. Moreover the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, etc.

[Here follows a detailed statement of the first five general councils.]

Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first assembled in this royal city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet what was written, for the security of every future age. And again we confess that we should guard the faith unaltered and openly acknowledged; that in the Economy of the incarnation of our one Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and have condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord, our God, Jesus Christ, there is but one will and operation, that is to say, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city, Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch, Stephen who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth of the communion of the body of Christ our God.…

Canon 2. on the Sources of Canon Law

This canon opposed Rome in two respects: it accepted eighty-five Apostolic Canons, whereas Rome received but fifty; it drew up a list of councils and of Fathers whose writings should have authority as canons, and omitted the important Western councils, except Carthage, and all the papal decrees. With this canon should be compared the decretal of Gelasius, De Libris Recipiendis, v. supra, § 92.

It has also seemed good to this holy synod that the eighty-five canons received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders. And since in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles by Clement, in which, in old time, certain spurious matter entirely contrary to piety was introduced by heterodox persons for the polluting of the Church, which obscures to us the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees; we, therefore, for the edification and security of the most Christian flock, reject properly such constitutions; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles. But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the three hundred and eighteen God-fearing Fathers assembled at Nicæa, and those at Ancyra; further, those at Neo-Cæsarea and at Gangra, and besides these those at Antioch in Syria [A. D. 341], those too at Laodicea in Phrygia, and likewise those of the one hundred and fifty assembled in this God-preserved imperial city and of the two hundred, who assembled for the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and of the six hundred and thirty holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon; in like manner those of Sardica and those of Carthage; those also who assembled in this God-preserved imperial city under Nectarius [A. D. 394], and under Theophilus, archbishop of Alexandria; likewise too the canons307 of Dionysius, formerly archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and of Peter, archbishop of Alexandria, and martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, archbishop of Neo-Cæsarea; of Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory the Theologian;308 of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, archbishop of Alexandria; of the first Theophilus, archbishop of the same metropolis of Alexandria; of Gennadius, patriarch of the God-preserved imperial city; moreover the canons set forth by Cyprian, archbishop of the country of the Africans, and martyr, and by the synod under him,309 which have been kept in the country of the aforesaid bishops and only according to the custom delivered down to them. And that no one be allowed to transgress the aforesaid canons, or to receive other canons besides them, supposititiously set forth by some who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth. But should any one be convicted of innovating upon them, or attempting to overturn any of the aforementioned canons, he shall be condemned to receive the penalty which the canon imposes and so to be cured of his transgressions.

Canon 13. on the Marriage of the Clergy

The following canon permits subdeacons and priests if married before ordination to continue to live in marriage relations with their wives. But they are not allowed to marry a second time or to marry a widow. Neither are bishops to remain married; but if they are married when elected, their wives must enter a monastery at a distance. With this canon should be compared the earlier legislation of Nicæa, v. supra, § 78, and also the law of Justinian, v. supra, § 94.

Since we know that it is handed down in the canonical discipline in the Roman Church that those who are about to be deemed worthy of ordination to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to live maritally with their wives, we, pursuing the ancient rule of apostolic discipline and order, will that henceforth the lawful marriage of men in holy orders remain firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives, nor depriving them of intercourse with each other at a convenient season.… Therefore, if any one shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any one in holy orders, that is, any presbyter, deacon, or subdeacon, of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed; likewise also if any presbyter or deacon, on pretence of piety, puts away his wife, let him be excluded from communion; but if he persists let him be deposed.

Canon 36. on the Rank of the Patriarchal Sees

Rome always rejected the claim of Constantinople to rank as second. Cf. Leo’s opinion, v. supra, § 87.

Renewing the enactments of the one hundred and fifty Fathers assembled in the God-preserved and imperial city, and the six hundred and thirty assembled at Chalcedon, we decree that the see of Constantinople shall enjoy equal privilege with the see of Old Rome, and in ecclesiastical matters shall be as highly regarded as that is, and second after it. And after this [Constantinople] shall be ranked the see of the great city of Alexandria, and after that the see of Antioch, and after that the see of Jerusalem.

Canon 37. on Bishops of Sees Among Infidels

This canon is cited here, though not entering into the controversy between the East and the West, because it is significant of the changed position of the Eastern Church at this time, due to the Moslem and other conquests. The Monophysite bishops in Egypt and Syria were not molested by the Moslems. This canon marks the beginning of the practice of ordaining bishops in partibus infidelium.

Since at different times there have been invasions of the barbarians, and consequently very many cities have come into the possession of the infidels, so that as a consequence the prelate of a city may not be able, after he has been ordained, to take possession of his see and to be settled in it in sacerdotal order, and so to perform and manage, according to custom, the ordinations and all other things which appertain to the bishop; we, preserving the honor and veneration of the priesthood, and in nowise wishing to make use of the heathen injury to the ruin of ecclesiastical rights, have decreed that they who have been thus ordained, and for the aforesaid causes have not settled in their sees, may be kept from any prejudice from this thing, so that they may canonically perform the ordination of the different clerics and use the authority of their offices according to proper limits, and that whatever administration proceeds from them may be valid and legitimate. For the exercise of his office shall not be circumscribed by reason of necessity, when the exact observance of the law is circumscribed.

Canon 55. on Fasts in Lent

As stated in the canon, this enactment is aimed at the Roman usage, and refers to the 64th Apostolic Canon, which Rome rejected. For the Apostolic Canons, see ANF, VII, 504.

Since we have learned that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent, they fast on the Sabbaths310 contrary to the traditional ecclesiastical observance, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the Church of the Romans the canons shall be in force without wavering which says: If any cleric shall be found to fast on Sunday or on the Sabbath except on one occasion only,311 he shall be deposed; and if a layman he shall be excommunicated.

Canon 67. on Eating Blood

This canon is less distinctly aimed at Rome. In the West the prohibition against eating blood seems to have been little observed, as it had been given another interpretation. At the time of the Second Trullan Council the practice was very common. Augustine, it might be said, did not consider the apostolic command as binding except in the special circumstance in which it was issued. Cf. Augustine, Contra Faustum, 32:13.

The divine Scriptures command us to abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Those, therefore, who, on account of a dainty stomach, prepare by any art for food the blood of animals and so eat it, we punish suitably. If any one henceforth venture to eat in any way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Canon 82. on Pictures of the Lamb of God

The custom which is here condemned was prevalent in the West.

In some pictures of the holy icons, a lamb is painted to which the Forerunner312 points his finger, and this is received to serve as a type of grace, indicating beforehand through the Law our true lamb, Christ our God. Embracing therefore the ancient types and shadows as symbols and patterns of the truth, which have been given to the Church, we prefer “grace and truth,” receiving it as the fulfilment of the Law. In order, therefore, that what is perfect may be delineated to the eyes of all, at least in colored expression, we decree that the figure of the lamb who taketh away the sin of the world, Christ our God, be henceforth exhibited according to human form in the icons, instead of the ancient lamb, so that all may understand, by means of it, the depth of the humiliation of the Word of God, and that we may recall to our memory His life in the flesh, His passion and salutary death, and the redemption resulting therefrom for the whole world.

(b) Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, N. 58

Notification to the Emperor of an Election of a Pontiff.

The Liber Diurnus was the book of official formulæ used on occasions such as elections of pontiffs and the conferring of the pallium. It was composed between 685 and 751, and was employed in the papal chancellery down to the eleventh century, when it became antiquated on account of the changes in the position of the popes. The modern editions of the book are by Rozière, Paris, 1869, and by Sickel, Vienna, 1889. The text may be found in Mirbt, n. 195, where may also be found numerous other useful extracts.

Although it has not been without the merciful divine ordering that, after the death of the supreme pontiff, the votes of all should agree in the election of one, and that there be perfect harmony so that no one at all is to be found who would oppose it, it is yet necessary that we ought obediently to pour forth the prayers of our petitions to our most serene and most pious lord, who is known to rejoice in the concord of his subjects, and graciously to grant what has been asked by them in unanimity. And so when our Pope (name) of most blessed memory died, the assent of all was given, by the will of God, to the election of (name), the venerable archdeacon of the Apostolic See, because from the beginning of his life he had so served the same church, and in all things shown himself so able that he ought deservedly to be placed, with the divine approval, over the ecclesiastical government, especially since by his constant association with the aforesaid most blessed pontiff (name), he has been able to attain to the same distinctions of so great merit, by which the same prelate of holy memory is known to have been adorned, who by his words always stirred up his mind, being desirous of heavenly joys, so that whatsoever good we have lost in his predecessor we are confident that we have certainly found in him. Therefore, in tears, all we your servants pray that the piety of the lords may deign to hear the supplication of their servants, and the desires of their petitioners may be granted by the command of their piety, for the benefit of the Empire, that command may be given for his ordination; so that when we have been placed by your sacred and exalted clemency under him as our pastor, we may always pray for the life and empire of our most serene lords to the Lord Almighty and to the blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, to whose church it has been granted that a worthy ruler be ordained.

Subscription of the priests.

I (name), by the mercy of God, presbyter of the holy Roman Church, consenting to this action made by us in regard to (name), the venerable archdeacon of the holy Apostolic See and our elected Pope, have subscribed.

Subscription of the laity.

I (name), servant of your piety, consenting to this action drawn up by us in regard to (name), the venerable archdeacon of the holy Apostolic See and our elected Pope, have subscribed.

(c) Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, Ch. 60

Notification of the Election of a Pontiff to the Exarch of Ravenna.

The text may be found in part in Mirbt, loc. cit.

To the most excellent and exalted lord, graciously to be preserved to us for a long life in his princely office (name), exarch of Italy, the priests, deacons, and all the clergy of Rome, the magistrates, the army, and the people of this city of Rome as suppliants send greeting.

Providence is able to give aid in human affairs and to change the weeping and groaning of the sorrowing into rejoicing.…

Inasmuch as (name), of pontifical memory, has been called from present cares to eternal rest, as is the lot of mortals, a great load of sorrow oppressed us, for as guardians we were deprived of our own guardian. But the accustomed kindness of our God did not permit us to remain long in this affliction because we hoped in Him. For after we had humbly spent three days in prayer that the heavenly kindness might, for the merits of all, make known whom as worthy it commanded to be elected to succeed to the apostolic office, with the aid of His grace which inspired the minds of all; and after we had assembled as is customary, that is, the clergy and the people of Rome with the presence of the nobility and the army, from the least to the greatest, so to speak; and the election, with the help of God and the aid of the holy Apostles, fell upon the person of (name), the most holy archdeacon of this holy Apostolic See of the Roman Church. The good and chaste life of this man, beloved of God, was in the opinion of all so deserving that none opposed his election, no one was absent, and none dissented from it. For why should not men agree unanimously upon him whom the incomparable and unfailing providence of our God had foreordained to this office? For without doubt this had been determined upon in the presence of God. So solemnly performing his decrees and confirming with our signatures the desires of hearts concerning his election, we have sent you our fellow-servants as the bearers of this letter (names), most holy bishop (name), venerable presbyter (name), regionary notary (name), regionary subdeacons (names), honorable citizens, and from the most flourishing and successful Roman army (name), most eminent consul, and (names) chief men, tribunes of the army, begging and praying together that your excellency, whom may God preserve, may with your accustomed goodness agree with our pious choice; because he, who has been unanimously elected by our humility, is such that so far as human discernment is able to see, no spot of reproach appears in him. And therefore we beg and beseech you, by God’s inspiration, to grant our petition quickly, because there are many questions and other matters arising daily which require for remedy the care of pontifical favor. And the affairs of the province and the need of causes connected therewith also seek and await the control of due authority. Besides we need some one to keep the neighboring enemy in check, which can only be done by the power of God, and of the Prince of the Apostles through his vicar, the bishop of Rome; since it is well known that at various times the bishop of Rome has driven off enemies by his warnings, and at other times he has turned aside and restrained them by his prayers; so that by his words alone, on account of their reverence for the Prince of the Apostles, they have offered voluntary obedience, and thus they, whom the force of arms had not overcome, have yielded to the warnings and prayers of the Pope.

Since these things are so, we again and again beseech you, our exalted lord, preserved by God, that, with the aid and inspiration of God in your heart, you may quickly give orders to adorn the Apostolic See by the completed ordination of the same, our father. And we, your humble servants, on seeing our desires fulfilled, may then give unceasing thanks to God and to you, and with our spiritual pastor, our bishop, enthroned in the Apostolic Seat, we may pour out prayers for the life and health and complete victories of our most exalted and Christian lords (names), the great and victorious emperors, that the merciful God may give manifold victories to their royal courage, and cause them to triumph over all peoples, and that God may give them joy of heart, because the ancient rule of Rome has been restored. For we know that he whom we have elected Pope can, with his prayers, influence the divine omnipotence; and he has prepared a joyful increase for the Roman Empire, and he will aid you in this, in the government of this province of Italy, which is subject to you, and will aid and protect all of us, your servants, through many years.

Subscription of the priests.

I, (name), the humble archpriest of the holy Roman Church, have with full consent subscribed to this document which we have made concerning (name), most holy archdeacon, our bishop elect.

And the subscription of the laity.

I, (name), in the name of God, consul, have with full consent subscribed to this document which we have made concerning (name), most holy archdeacon, our bishop-elect.

(d) Paulus Diaconus, Hist. Langobardorum, IV, 44. (MSL, 95:581.)

Agilulf may have been a convert to the Catholic faith, v. supra, § 99. His successors were not. In fact, not until 653, when Aribert, the nephew of Theodelinda, ascended the throne, were the Lombards permanently under Catholic rulers.

44. After Ariwald (626-636) had reigned twelve years over the Lombards he departed this life, and Rothari of the family of Arodus took the kingdom of the Lombards. He was a strong, brave man, and walked in the paths of justice; in Christian faith, however, he did not hold to the right way, but was polluted by the unbelief of the Arian heresy. The Arians say, to their confusion, that the Son is inferior to the Father and, in the same way, the Holy Ghost is inferior to the Father and the Son; we, Catholic Christians, on the contrary, confess that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one true God in three persons, equal in power and glory. In the times of Rothari there were in nearly all the cities of his kingdom two bishops, a Catholic and an Arian.

To this very day there is shown in the city of Ticinus [Pavia] the place where the Arian bishop resided, at the church of St. Eusebius, and held the baptistery while the Catholic bishop was at the head of another church. The Arian bishop, however, who was in this city, whose name was Anastasius, accepted the Catholic faith and afterward ruled the Church of Christ. This king Rothari caused the laws of the Lombards to be reduced to writing and named the book The Edict; the law of the Lombards up to that time had been retained merely in memory and by their use in the courts. This took place, as the king in the preface to his law-book says, in the seventy-seventh year313 after the Lombards came into Italy.

§ 109. Rome, Constantinople, and the Lombards in the Period of the First Iconoclastic Controversy; the Seventh General Council, Nicæa, A. D. 787

By the eight century the veneration of pictures or icons had become wide-spread throughout the Eastern Church. Apart from their due place in the cultus, grave abuses and superstitions had arisen in many parts of the Church in connection with the icons. To Leo III the Isaurian (717-741), and to the army, the veneration of the icons, as practised by the populace, and especially by the monks, seemed but little removed from the grossest idolatry. Accordingly, in an edict issued in 726, Leo attempted to put an end to the abuses by preventing all veneration of the icons. Meeting with opposition, his measures passed from moderate to severe. In Italy, although the use of icons was not developed to the same extent as in the East, sympathy was entirely against the Iconoclasts. Gregory II (715-731) and Gregory III (731-741) bitterly reproached and denounced the action of the Emperor. Nearly all the exarchate willingly passed under the power of the Lombards. Other parts of northern Italy also broke with the Emperor. Leo retaliated by annexing Illyricum to the see of Constantinople and confiscating the papal revenues in southern Italy. From that time the connection between the Pope and the Emperor was very slight. The Emperor Constantine V Copronymus (741-775) was more severe than his father, and in many respects even fiercely brutal in his treatment of the monks. A synod was assembled at Constantinople, 754, attended by three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, who, as was customary in Eastern synods, supported the Emperor. His son, Leo IV Chazarus (775-780) was less energetic and disposed to tolerate the use of icons in private. But his widow, Irene, the guardian of her infant son, Constantine VI, was determined to restore the images or icons. A synod held at Constantinople in 786 was broken up by the soldiery of the capital. In 787 at Nicæa, a council was called at a safe distance and Iconoclasm was condemned.

Additional source material: St. John Damascene on Holy Images, Eng. trans. by Mary H. Allies, 1898; St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, PNF, ser. II, vol. IX; Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils (PNF).

(a) Liber Pontificalis, Vita Gregorii II. Ed. Duchesne, I, 403

Disorders in Italy consequent upon Iconoclasm.

The following passage from the Liber Pontificalis gives a vivid and, on the whole, accurate picture of the confusion in Italy during the last years of the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire in the peninsula. It is hardly likely that the Emperor ordered the death of the pontiff as recorded, and more probable that his over-officious representatives regarded it as a means of ingratiating themselves with their master. The passage is strictly contemporaneous, as the Liber Pontificalis, at least in this part, is composed of brief biographies of Popes written immediately after their decease and in some instances during their lives. For a fuller statement of the whole period, see Hefele, §§ 332 ff., who gives an abstract of the following and also of two letters alleged to have been written by Gregory II to the Emperor, which Hefele accepts as genuine. For a criticism of these letters, see Hodgkin, op. cit., VI, 501-505. Hodgkin gives an excellent account of King Liutprand in ch. XII of the same volume, pp. 437-508, and throws much light on the following passage.

For the events immediately preceding this, see Paulus Diaconus, Hist. Langobardorum, VI, 46-48, given above in § 106. Paulus refers to the capture of Narnia in the last sentence of ch. 48. and his next chapter is apparently a condensation of the following sections of the official papal biography.

At that time [circa A. D. 725] Narnia314 was taken by the Lombards. And Liutprand, the king of the Lombards, advanced upon Ravenna with his entire army, and besieged it for some days. Taking the fortress of Classis, he bore off many captives and immense booty. After some time the duke Basilius, the chartularius Jordanes, and the subdeacon John, surnamed Lurion, conspired to kill the Pope; and Marinus, the imperial spatarius, who at that time held the government of the duchy of Rome, having been sent by the command of the Emperor to the royal city, joined their conspiracy. But they could not find an opportunity. The plot was broken up by the judgment of God, and he therefore left Rome. Later Paulus, the patrician, was sent as exarch to Italy, who planned how at length he might accomplish the crime; but their plans were disclosed to the Romans, These were so enraged that they killed Jordanes and John Lurion. Basilius, however, became a monk and ended his life hidden in a certain place. But the exarch Paulus, on the command of the Emperor, tried to kill the pontiff because he hindered the levying of a tax upon the province, intending to strip the churches of their property, as was done in other places, and to appoint another [Pope] in his place. After this another spatarius was sent with commands to remove the pontiff from his seat. Then again the patrician Paulus sent, for the accomplishment of this crime, such soldiers as he could withdraw from Ravenna, with his guard and some from the camps. But the Romans were aroused, and from all sides the Lombards gathered for the defence of the pontiff at the bridge of Solario, in the district of Spoleto, and the dukes of the Lombards, surrounding the Roman territories, prevented this crime.

In a decree afterward sent, the Emperor ordered that there no longer should be in any church an image315 of any saint, or martyr, or angel (for he said that all these were accursed); and if the pontiff assented he should enjoy his favor, but if he prevented the accomplishment of this also he should fall from his position. The pious man, despising therefore the profane command of the prince, armed himself against the Emperor as against an enemy, rejecting this heresy and writing everywhere to warn Christians of the impiety which had arisen.

Aroused by this, the inhabitants of the Pentapolis316 and the armies of Venetia resisted the command of the Emperor, saying that they would never assent to the murder of the pontiff, but on the contrary would strive manfully for his defence. They anathematized the exarch Paulus, him who had sent him, and those who sided with him, refusing to obey them; and throughout Italy all chose leaders317 for themselves, so eager were all concerning the pontiff and his safety. When the iniquities of the Emperor were known, all Italy started to choose for itself an emperor and conduct him to Constantinople, but the pontiff prevented this plan, hoping for the conversion of the prince.

Meanwhile, in those days, the duke Exhiliratus,318 deceived by the instigation of the devil, with his son Adrian, occupied parts of Campania, persuading the people to obey the Emperor and kill the pontiff. Then all the Romans pursued after him, took him, and killed both him and his son. After this they chased away the duke Peter [governor of Rome under the Emperor], saying that he had written against the pontiff to the Emperor. When, therefore, a dissension arose in and about Ravenna, some consenting to the wickedness of the Emperor and some holding to the pontiff and those faithful to him, a great fight took place between them and they killed the patrician Paulus [exarch at that time]. And the cities of Castra Æmilia, Ferrorianus, Montebelli, Verabulum, with its towns, Buxo, Persiceta, the Pentapolis, and Auximanum, surrendered to the Lombards.319 After this the Emperor sent to Naples Eutychius Fratricius, the eunuch, who had formerly been exarch, to accomplish what the exarch Paulus, the spatarii, and the other evil counsellors had been unable to do. But by God’s ordering his miserable craft was not so hidden but that his most wicked plot was disclosed to all, that he would attempt to violate the churches of Christ, to destroy all, and to take away the property of all. When he had sent one of his own men to Rome with written instructions, among other things, that the pontiff should be killed, together with the chief men of Rome, this most bloody outrage was discovered, and the Romans would at once have killed the messenger of the patrician if the opposition of the Pope had not prevented them. But they anathematized the same exarch Eutychius, binding themselves, great and small, by an oath, never to permit the pontiff, the zealous guardian of the Christian faith and the defender of the churches, to be killed or removed, but to be ready all to die for his safety. Thereupon the patrician [Eutychius], promising many gifts to the dukes and to the king of the Lombards, attempted to persuade them by his messengers to abandon the support of the pontiff. But they despised the man’s detestable wiles contained in his letters; and the Romans and the Lombards bound themselves as brothers in the bond of faith, all desiring to suffer a glorious death for the pontiff, and never to permit him to receive any harm, contending for the true faith and the salvation of Christians. While they were doing this that father chose, as a stronger protection, to distribute with his own hand such alms to the poor as he found; giving himself to prayers and fastings, he besought the Lord daily with litanies, and he remained always more supported by this hope than by men; however, he thanked the people for their offer, and with gentle words he besought all to serve God with good deeds and to remain steadfast in the faith; and he admonished them not to renounce their love and fidelity to the Roman Emperor.

At that time in the eleventh indiction,320 the castle of Sutri was taken by the Lombards by craft, and was held by them for a period of forty days,321 but urged by the constant letters of the pontiff and warnings sent to the king, when very many gifts had been made, as a gift at least for all the towns, the king of the Lombards restored them and gave them as a donation to the most blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. At the same time, in the twelfth indiction [A. D. 729], in the month of January, for ten days and more, a star, called Gold-bearing,322 with rays, appeared in the west. Its rays were toward the north and reached to the midst of the heavens. At that time, also, the patrician Eutychius and King Liutprand made a most wicked agreement, that when an army had been gathered the king should subject Spoleto and Beneventum,323 and the exarch of Rome, and they should carry out what was already commanded concerning the pontiff. When the king came to Spoleto, oaths and hostages were received from both [i.e., the dukes of Spoleto and Beneventum], and he came with all his troops to the Campus Neronis.324 The pontiff went forth and presented himself before him and endeavored to the extent of his ability to soften the mind of the king by pious warnings, so that the king threw himself at his feet and promised to harm no one; and he was so moved to compunction by the pious warnings that he abandoned his undertaking and laid on the grave of the Apostle his mantle, his military cloak, his sword belt, his short two-edged sword, and his golden sword, as well as a golden crown and a silver cross. After prayer he besought the pontiff to consent to make peace with the exarch, which also was done. So he departed, for the king forsook the bad designs with which he had entered into the plot with the exarch. While the exarch remained in Rome, there came into Tuscany to Castrum Maturianense,325 a certain deceiver, Tiberius by name, called also Petasius,326 who attempted to usurp the rule of the Roman Empire and deceived some of the less important, so that Maturianum, Luna, and Blera [Bieda] took oath to him. The exarch, hearing of this, was troubled, but the most holy Pope supported him, and, sending with him his chief men and an army, he advanced and came to Castrum Maturianense. Petasius was killed, his head was cut off and sent to Constantinople, to the prince; nevertheless the Emperor showed no great favor to the Romans.

After these things the malice of the Emperor became evident, on account of which he had persecuted the pontiff. For he compelled all the inhabitants of Constantinople, by force and persuasion, to displace the images of the Saviour as well as of His holy mother, and of all saints, wherever they were, and (what is horrible to tell) to burn them in the fire in the middle of the city, and to whitewash all the painted churches. Because very many of the people of the city withstood the commission of such an enormity, they were subjected to punishment; some were beheaded, others lost a part of their body. For this reason also, because Germanus, the prelate of the church of Constantinople, was unwilling to consent to this, the Emperor deprived him of his pontifical position, and appointed in his place the presbyter Anastasius, an accomplice. Anastasius sent to the Pope a synodical letter, but when that holy man saw that he held the same error, he did not regard him as brother and fellow-priest, but wrote him warning letters, commanding him to be put out of his sacerdotal office unless he returned to the Catholic faith. He also charged the Emperor, urging wholesome advice, that he should desist from such execrable wickedness, and he warned him by letter.327

(b) John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, IV, 16. (MSG, 94:1168.)

John of Damascus (ob. ante 754) was the last of the Church Fathers of the East. He became the classical representative of the theology of the Eastern Church, and his system forms the conclusion and summing up of the results of all the great controversies that had distracted that part of the Church. His greatest work, De Fide Orthodoxa, may be found translated in PNF. In the following chapter John sums up briefly the arguments which he uses in his three orations In Defence of Images (to be found in MSG, 94:1227 ff.; for translation see head of section). By images one should understand pictures rather than statues. The latter were never common and fell entirely out of use and were forbidden. They seemed too closely akin to idols. In the translation, the phrase “to show reverence” is the equivalent of the Greek προσκυνέω.

Since some find fault with us for showing reverence and honoring the image of our Saviour and that of our Lady, and also of the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, let them hear that from the beginning God made man after His own image. On what other grounds, then, do we show reverence to each other than that we are made after God’s image? For as Basil, that most learned expounder of divine things, says: “The honor given to the image passes over to the prototype.”328 Now a prototype is that which is imaged, from which the form is derived. Why was it that the Mosaic people showed reverence round about the tabernacle which bore an image and type of heavenly things, or rather the whole creation? God, indeed, said to Moses: “Look that thou make all things after the pattern which was shewed thee in the mount” [Ex. 33:10]. The Cherubim, also, which overshadowed the mercy-seat, are they not the work of men’s hands? What is the renowned temple at Jerusalem? Is it not made by hands and fashioned by the skill of men? The divine Scriptures, however, blame those who show reverence to graven images, but also those who sacrifice to demons. The Greeks sacrificed and the Jews also sacrificed; but the Greeks to demons; the Jews, however, to God. And the sacrifice of the Greeks was rejected and condemned, but the sacrifice of the just was acceptable to God. For Noah sacrificed, and God smelled a sweet savor of a good purpose, receiving, also, the fragrance of a good-will toward Him. And so the graven images of the Greeks, since they were the images of demon deities, were rejected and forbidden.

But besides this, who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed, and formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is the height of folly and impiety. And therefore in the Old Testament the use of images was repressed. But after God, in the bowels of His mercy, became for our salvation in truth man, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, or by the prophets, but He became in truth man, according to substance, and after He lived upon earth and dwelt among men, worked miracles, suffered, and was crucified, He rose again, and was received up into heaven; since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not present at that time, in order that, though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. But since all have not a knowledge of letters nor time for reading, it appeared good to the Fathers that those events, as acts of heroism, should be depicted on images329 to be a brief memorial of them. Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord’s passion in mind and see the image of Christ’s crucifixion, we remember the passion and we fall down and show reverence not to the material but to that which is imaged; just as we do not show reverence to the material of the Gospel, nor to the material of the cross, but that which these typify.330 For wherein does the cross that typifies the Lord differ from a cross that does not do so? It is the same also as to the case of the Mother of God.331 For the honor which is given her is referred to Him who was incarnate of her. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us to bravery and to emulation and imitation of their valor and to the glory of God. For, as we said, the honor that is given to the best of fellow servants is a proof of good-will toward our common lady, and the honor rendered the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also to show reverence toward the East and to the cross, and very many similar things.332

A certain tale is told also that when Augarus [i.e., Abgarus] was king over the city of the Edessenes, he sent a portrait-painter to paint a likeness of the Lord; and when the painter could not paint because of the brightness that shone from His countenance, the Lord himself put a garment over His divine and life-giving face and impressed on it an image of Himself, and sent this to Augarus to satisfy in this way his desire.

Moreover, that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles writes: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistles [II Thess. 2:14]. And to the Corinthians he writes: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remembered me in all things and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you [I Cor. 2:2].

(c) Basil the Great, De Spiritu Sancto, Ch. 18. (MSG, 32:149.)

Basil is speaking of the three persons of the Trinity, and says that although we speak of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we must not count up “by way of addition gradually increasing from unity to multitude,” but that number must be understood otherwise in speaking of the three divine persons.

How then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak of a king and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The power is not parted nor the glory divided. The power ruling over us is one, and the authority one, and so also the doxology ascribed by us is one and not plural; because the honor paid to the image passes over to the prototype.

Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent upon the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the godhead.

(d) The Seventh General Council, Nicæa, A. D. 787, Definition of Faith. Mansi, XIII, 398 Ff

In addition to Hefele, and PNF, ser. II. vol. XIV, see Mendham, The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicæa, in which the Worship of Images was Established; with copious notes from the “Caroline Books,” compiled by order of Charlemagne for its Confutation, London, n. d.

The holy, great and ecumenical synod which, by the grace of God and the command of the pious and Christ-loving Emperors, Constantine, and Irene his mother, was gathered together for the second time at Nicæa, the illustrious metropolis of the eparchy of Bithynia, in the holy Church of God which is named Sophia, having followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, hath defined as follows:

Christ our Lord, who hath bestowed upon us the light of the knowledge of Himself, and hath redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous madness, having espoused to Himself His holy Catholic Church without spot or defect, promised that He would so preserve her; and assured His holy disciples, saying, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” [Matt. 28:20], which promise He made, not only to them, but to us also who through them should believe in His name. But some, not considering this gift, and having become fickle through the temptation of the wily enemy, have fallen from the right faith; for, withdrawing from the tradition of the Catholic Church, they have erred from the knowledge of the truth, and as the proverb saith: “The husbandmen have gone astray in their own husbandry, and have gathered in their hands sterility,” because certain priests in deed, but not priests in reality, had dared to slander the God-approved ornaments of the sacred monuments. Of whom God cries aloud through the prophet: “Many pastors have corrupted my vineyard, they have polluted my portion” [Jer. 12:10; cf. LXX]. And, forsooth, following profane men, trusting to their own senses, they have calumniated His holy Church espoused to Christ our God, and have not distinguished between holy and profane, styling the images of the Lord and of His saints by the same name as the statute of diabolical idols. Seeing which things, our Lord God (not willing to behold His people corrupted by such manner of plague) hath of His good pleasure called us together, the chief of His priests, from every quarter, moved with a divine zeal and brought hither by the will of our Emperors, Constantine and Irene, to the end that the divine tradition of the Catholic Church may receive stability by our common decree. Therefore, with all diligence, making a thorough examination and investigation, and following the trend of the truth, diminishing naught, adding naught, we preserve unchanged all things which pertain to the Catholic Church, and following the six ecumenical synods, especially that which met in this illustrious metropolis of Nicæa, as also that which was afterward gathered together in the God-preserved royal city.

We believe in one God … life of the world to come. Amen.333

We detest and anathematize Arius and all who agree with him and share his absurd opinion; also Macedonius and those who, following him, are well styled foes of the Spirit.334 We confess that our lady, St. Mary, is properly and truly the Theotokos, because she bore, after the flesh, one of the Holy Trinity, to wit, Christ our God, as the Council of Ephesus has already defined, when it cast out of the Church the impious Nestorius with his allies, because he introduced a personal [προσωπικὴν] duality [in Christ]. With the Fathers of this synod we confess the two natures of Him who was incarnate for us of the immaculate Theotokos and ever-Virgin Mary, recognizing Him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon hath promulgated, expelling from the divine Atrium as blasphemers, Eutyches and Dioscurus; and placing with them Severus, Peter, and a number of others blaspheming in divers fashions. Moreover, with these we anathematize the fables of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, in accordance with the decision of the Fifth Council held at Constantinople. We affirm that in Christ there are two wills and operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Council held at Constantinople taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who are unwilling to be reverent and who agree with these.

To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, written or unwritten, and of these one is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely fantastic, for these have mutual indications, and without doubt have also mutual significations.

We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit dwells in her, define with all certitude and accuracy, that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic, as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in tablets both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless lady, the Theotokos, of the venerable angels, of all saints, and of all pious people. For by so much the more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much the more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honorable reverence [ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν], not indeed that true worship [τὴν ἀληθινὴν λατρείαν] which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, and to the book of the Gospels and to other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honor which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who shows reverence [προσκυνεῖ] to the image shows reverence to the subject represented in it. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, which is called the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all thy heart. The Lord hath taken away from thee the oppression of thy adversaries; thou art redeemed from the hand of thy enemies: The Lord is a king in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace be unto thee forever.

Those, therefore, who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics dare to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received, to wit, the book of the Gospels, or the image of the cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy relics of a martyr, or evilly and sharply to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church, or to turn to common uses the sacred vessels and the venerable monasteries, if they be bishops or clerics we command that they be deposed; if religious335 or laics, that they be cut off from communion.

Footnotes

1 See Eusebius, Hist. Ec., III, 23, who gives quotations from Irenæus. This passage also gives a lengthy extract from the work of Clement of Alexandria, Quis dives salvetur, bearing on St. John’s life at Ephesus (ANF. II, 591-604).

2 Reign of Domitian, 81-96.

3 Pontia was an island near Pandataria. The group is known as Pontiæ Insulæ. See DCB, art. “Domitilla, Flavia;” Eusebius, Hist. Ec., ed. McGiffert (PNF, ser. II, vol. I), III, 18, notes 4-6; also Lightfoot, Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, p. 22, n. 1.

4 There are three leading critical editions of the Apostolic Fathers:

Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, edited by A. von Gebhardt, A. Harnack, and Th. Zahn, Leipsic, 1876, 1877, reprinted 1894 and since.

Opera Patrum Apostolicorum, edited by F. X. Funk, Tübingen, 1881. There is a very inexpensive reprint of the text in Krüger’s Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen-und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften, 2te Reihe, 1 Heft. Funk’s text is used in the following sections, but as the Apostolic Fathers are everywhere accessible no references are given to Migne.

The Apostolic Fathers, edited by J. B. Lightfoot, second ed., part I, 2 vols. (Clement of Rome), London, 1890; part II, 3 vols. (Ignatius and Polycarp), London, 1889; smaller ed. (containing all the Apostolic Fathers), London. 1890.

The most recent edition of the Apostolic Fathers is that of Kirsopp Lake, in the Loeb Classical Library, 1912 (text and translation on opposite pages).

5 Cf. Matt. 24:6, 22; Mark 13:7, 20. These words do not occur in the book of Enoch.

6 The writer quotes Ex. 31:18; 34:28; 32:7; Deut. 9:12.

7 I.e., so that they believed that circumcision should be made in the flesh and not taken spiritually.

8 ΙΗ or Ιη = Ἰησους. T was taken as a picture of a cross. For the Tau or Egyptian cross, see DCA, art. “Cross.” The method of allegorical interpretation here used is that species known as gematria, in which the numerical equivalence of letters composing a word is employed as a key to mystic meaning. This differs somewhat from the ordinary gematria, for which see Farrar, History of Interpretation, 1886, pp. 98 ff., 445 f. Barnabas is by no means singular among early Christians in resorting to Jewish allegorical interpretation.

9 For the same charge brought against the Jews of stirring up hostility against the Christians, see Tertullian, Ad Nationes, I, 14; Adv. Marcionem, III, 23; Adv. Judæos, 13; Origen, Contra Celsum, VI, 27.

10 Cf. Mai. 1:10-12.

11 The Christians at Rome seem, according to this statement, to have been in such a position that they might be able to interfere in the case of prisoners.

12 A possible reference to the presence of Peter and Paul at Rome, but by no means certain, as epistolatory commands would fulfil the conditions better. The connection of Peter with Rome, however, is very significant.

13 It can not be concluded from this that Ignatius was of servile condition. His journey to Rome in chains might be enough here to explain the language, especially when the style of Ignatius is considered.

14 Such were evidently Gnostics, as shown by their rejection of the God of the Jews.

15 Piaculum.

16 Clement alters the passage slightly; see Is. 60:17.

17 The Greek is ἐπισκοπή (episcopē), meaning primarily “oversight.”

18 This seems to be the occasion for this letter to the Corinthians. As they appear to be several, they correspond to presbyters rather than to bishops, and the use of the term “presbyters” in the passage sustains this interpretation.

19 The word rendered daily is ἐπιοὑσιον, the same as that used in Matt. 6:11.

20 Note the doxology also at the end of the other prayers.

21 The sense is: If a prophet speaking in the Spirit commands a meal to be prepared for the poor and should himself eat of it, it would be apparent that he ordered it for himself. But if he eats he must be a false prophet.

22 A most difficult and obscure passage. Various interpretations have been proposed; see the various editions of the Apostolic Fathers, especially Funk’s. The rendering here given is strictly literal.

23 This passage is quoted at length by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, II, 12, 13.

24 The first part of this quotation has not been identified; the conclusion is Matt. 7:23.

25 Cf. Acts 2:9 ff.

26 Probably Palestine is here meant.

27 The great Syrian goddess Atargatis.

28 Reference is obscure.

29 A reference to astrological doctrine.

30 There is good reason for believing that by India is meant what is now understood as India, and not Arabia. There was no little intercourse between India and the West, and we have the direct testimony of Dio Chrysostom, circa 100, that there was intercourse between Alexandria and India, and that Indians came to Alexandria to study in the schools of that city. See DCB, art. “Pantænus.”

31 Probably the Gnostics.

32 He had given his property to his native place.

33 Fronto. See W. Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Biography.

34 Cf. Hermas, Pastor, Sim. V, 3. ANF, II, 34.

35 I.e., the Logos; cf. previous chapter.

36 See Plato, Timæus, p. 28c.

37 For a remarkable passage on the moral influence of Christ’s teaching as a proof of the truth of His message, see Origen, Contra Celsum, I, 67 f.

38 For a discussion of this Helena, see Bousset, Die Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, 1907, pp. 77 ff.

39 Probably to be identified with his Exegetica.

40 Query: the antagonism between good and evil.

41 Very obscure: see ANF, and Routh, ad loc., and Neander, Ch. Hist., I, 402.

42 Routh, loc. cit., proposes as an emendation, “declared to be made.”

43 A mystic name; it is the Hebrew for “line upon line,” see Is. 28:10. It means norm or rule.

44 Cf. the doctrine of redemption among the Marcosians, a branch of the Valentinians, stated in Irenæus, Adv. Hær., I, 215.

45 Generally spoken of as hylics.

46 Cf. introductory note to following selection.

47 The term used for a sending forth is προβολή or emanation, and is constantly used in Gnosticism; hence the objection on the part of the majority of Christian theologians to the use of the term in describing the relations of the members of the Trinity.

48 This negative seems to spoil the sense of the passage, and is omitted in some editions.

49 Simplicity is always regarded in ancient thought as a characteristic of Deity.

50 According to another reading, of this one.

51 A city of Thrace on the Black Sea.

52 See this passage as quoted in Eusebius, Hist. Ec., V, 6, and McGiffert’s notes.

53 By a slight change in the order of the words, as suggested by Neander, the last two clauses might read more clearly: “To judge the quick and also the dead through the resurrection of the flesh.”

54 Reference to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of creation.

55 Probably his wet-nurse was a Christian.

56 On the occasion of his triumphal entry into Rome.

57 From here text in Kirch, nn. 84 ff.

58 Probably the reference is to the privilege of celebrating the eucharist, and not merely the reception of the sacrament from the hands of Anicetus.

59 Here, as elsewhere in Tertullian, the oblation, or sacrifice, or offering, is the prayers of the faithful, and not the eucharist.

60 The word substance as used here in connection with the nature of the Trinity has not taken its later meaning and use.

61 I.e., the followers of Praxeas, who are here introduced as speaking.

62 Not οὐσία, but ὑποκειμένω.

63 Sacerdotes, and so throughout.

64 A person married a second time, i.e., after the death of his first wife.

65 Cf. Acts 2:22.

66 Proverbs 4:8, 9.

67 I.e., having rule over all, not merely able to do all, and so throughout.

68 The Greek is preserved here and throws light on the reasoning. The Latin omnipotens stands for παντοκράτωρ.

69 I.e., it is not certain rites nor certain beliefs that give merit to our worship.

70 The term papa is applied to Cyprian several times in the extant epistles addressed to him.

71 I.e., Rome. There was a vacancy at that time, A. D. 250. in the episcopate of Rome and the clergy administered the affairs of that church sede vacante.

72 I.e., the pure ones.

73 In the next chapter of Eusebius (= VII, 25) there are the critical reasons against the apostolic authorship of the Revelation of St. John, based upon a critical comparison with the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles of St. John, reasons which are still current in radical critical circles.

74 The bracketed phrases are doubtful.

75 Gregory uses the term Trias for Trinity here and throughout.

76 On the whole passage, cf. I Cor. 15:42 ff.

77 Sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis. Paschasius Radbertus quotes this. De corpore et sanguine Domini, ch. II, MSL, 120:1308.

78 Reference to the possibility of detecting Christians in times of persecution by the odor of wine which they had received in the eucharist early in the morning.

79 Ex. 12:6.

80 Psalm. 141:2.

81 I Cor. 11:26.

82 This whole passage is supposed to be addressed to Stephen. Cf. the opening words of § 25.

83 Eph. 4:1-6 follows.

84 Or. Fonnak.

85 The author is a Moslem, and therefore speaks of Jesus with great respect; Mani regarded Jesus as evil.

86 This is undoubtedly a mistake.

87 Important material has been recently recovered from Turfan in Chinese Turkestan, reported by Messrs. Stein, Le Coq, and F. K. W. Müller, in Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Academie, for 1904, p. 348; for 1905, p. 1077; for 1908, p. 398; for 1909, p. 1202; for 1910, pp. 293, 307.

88 By primal man is not meant the first of mankind on earth, but a supernatural being.

89 Bishop of Alexandria.

90 See next selection.

91 Diocletian persecution, A. D. 306.

92 Maxentius.

93 Eusebius.

94 Sicily.

95 A folle was a sum of money, possibly 208 denarii.

96 I.e., as to offering sacrifices.

97 V. infra, § 62, Introduction.

98 V. supra, §§ 59 f.

99 ὑποκείμενον.

100 ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, the phrase which was afterward the foundation of the Arian sect of the Exoukontians.

101 Psalm 24:10; Hebrew, The Lord of Hosts; LXX, The Lord of Powers.

102 Some texts insert “seen nor.”

103 ὑπάρχειν.

104 Homoousios.

105 ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων.

106 I.e., in forcing the Donatists to return to the Church.

107 The temporary defeat of the Donatist party which was celebrated at the Council of Carthage in 348-349. See Hefele, § 70.

108 Tombs built in the shape of altars which were table-shaped.

109 The metatores were those who were sent ahead of a troop of soldiers to provide for quartering them upon the inhabitants.

110 The religion of the pagans.

111 I.e., Christianity.

112 See DCB, art. “Apollinaris the Elder.”

113 As the destruction of the altar of Victory.

114 I.e., by Julian and Valentinian.

115 The rest of the petition is taken up chiefly with a protest against the confiscation of the endowments for the vestal virgins.

116 Allusion to the very brief reign of several.

117 Valerian taken captive by Sapor.

118 Galienus.

119 Reference to the “thirty tyrants.”

120 V. supra, § 63.

121 Hypostasis or ousia; cf. the Nicene definition, § 63, g.

122 The Apollinarian heresy.

123 I.e., following.

124 I.e., of their diocese.

125 In the sense of patriarchal province, following the use of the word “diocese” in the administrative system of the Empire. It should be noted that the patriarchal council seems not to have become well defined in the Church’s system and never to have come into actual use.

126 For the development of the ecumenical council, see below, § 91, a. This scheme of nicely adjusted appeals never took permanent place in the Church owing to obvious difficulties.

127 This sixth canon of Nicæa very early received the title: “Concerning the Primacy of the Roman Church.” and had this addition placed as its first clause: “The Roman Church has always had the primacy.” In this form the canon was cited by the Roman legates at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

128 Here, as generally, parish means diocese.

129 This is the seventh canon of the Latin version of the canons.

130 I.e., Bishop of Rome.

131 I.e., ecclesiastical position.

132 I.e., bishops.

133 I.e., episcopal sees.

134 See Socrates, Hist. Ec., V, 10.

135 In the code of Justinian this reads “Manichæans and Donatists.”

136 For further detail of the history of the Priscillianists, see Sulpicius Severus, Sacred History, II, 46-51. (PNF, ser. II, vol. XI.)

137 I.e., ascetics and monks.

138 Priest, sacerdos, is here used, as so often, not for presbyter but for bishop.

139 As this was addressed to Theodorus, the prætorian prefect, the authority of the decision is rendered of the highest character.

140 In a usufruct the title remained with the grantor, and the grantee merely had the use or enjoyment of the land.

141 On the principle that one who had a life interest in property (and only such the bishop had) could alienate for a period not extending beyond his natural life.

142 The peculium of the slave, property which he was allowed to possess but only by the sufferance of the master.

143 The Constitution ends here in Justinian’s collection.

144 Cf. Paulinus, Vita Ambros. MSL, 14:37.

145 I.e., of returning to her former home and condition.

146 I.e., in distinction from Paulus the eminent Roman lawyer, a contemporary of Papinian.

147 Fabiola (cf. DCB) on whose death Jerome is here writing to her husband Oceanus.

148 See I Cor. 7:1 ff.

149 Cf. Council of Carthage, A. D. 398, Can. 13. “When the bridegroom and bride are to be blessed by the priest they are to be presented by their parents and paranymphs. And let them when they have received the benediction remain in virginity the same night out of reverence for the benediction.”

150 I.e., of Antioch, where Chrysostom was a presbyter and delivered these homilies.

151 The name given to the extensive charitable institutions founded by Basil.

152 For this conception of the value to the giver to be found in almsgiving, see above, § 39, h.

153 “Shut up in the altar” is another reading.

154 Cf. Suetonius, Vita Tiberii, c. 36, expulsit et mathematicos. Probably they were a sort of fortune-tellers, computers of nativities, etc. Cf. Hefele, loc. cit.

155 The title of pope which was not yet restricted even by Latins to the bishop of Rome was in general use as the title of the bishop of Alexandria.

156 Successor of Athanasius in the see of Alexandria.

157 Cf. Apostolic Canons, 6, 27; also Council of Neo-Cæsarea. Can 1.

158 Note the extraordinary form in which the clergy are apparently forbidden to do what in reality the council commands; namely, that they should abandon marital relations with their wives. Cf. Hefele, loc. cit. Can. 80 of Elvira uses the same uncouth phraseology.

159 This last point was considerably modified by the subsequent canon law.

160 See Putzger, Historischer Schul-Atlas, 1905.

161 Stilicho, on whose advice the Senate granted a subsidy to Alarich, in 408 of four thousand pounds of gold.

162 Capture of Rome, A. D. 410, by Alarich.

163 The termination is fragmentary.

164 At the time a bishop.

165 I.e., Simplicianus had baptized Ambrose.

166 This is hardly fair to Victorinus and his pre-Christian religious views.

167 This is the phrase which so deeply offended Pelagius; Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis.

168 This figure of the two cities is the motif of the whole work, in which the idea is developed in the greatest detail.

169 See Augustine’s treatise On the Gift of Perseverance, PNF, ser. I, vol. V.

170 This distinction is of importance in Augustine’s theory of the Church.

171 He has been explaining the significance of the references to the three sons of Noah.

172 Dupin in his edition of Optatus, ad. loc., points out that there were current two etymologies of Catholic; according to one κατὰ λόγον it meant reasonable, and according to the other, κατὰ ὅλον general or universal.

173 The expression opponere obicem became in scholastic theology of great importance in connection with the ex opere operato nature of the sacraments of the New Law. On this whole matter of the sacraments in the Fathers, see Schwanne, Dogmengeschichte, § 93, which is very clear and helpful, especially as showing the basis of scholastic theory of the sacraments in the patristic period, and that, too, without doing violence to his authorities.

174 The basis of the doctrine of the indelible character of baptism. Cf. Augustine, Contra epist. Parm., II, 13. 28. “Each [baptism and the right of giving baptism] is indeed a sacrament, and by a certain consecration each is given to a man, this when he is baptized, that when he is ordained; therefore in the Catholic Church it is not lawful to repeat either.” Cf. next passage.

175 This was written after the conference with the Donatists in 411, in which victory was adjudged to the Catholics.

176 These commentaries were falsely published under the name of Jerome and may be found in his works. (MSL, 30:670.)

177 Some manuscripts add “and death through sin.”

178 For the discussion on appeals across the sea, i.e., to Rome, see Hefele. § 119; A. W. Haddan, art. “Appeal” in DCA.

179 Hermas, Pastor, Man. VI. (ANF, vol. II.)

180 The references are to Augustine, De Dono Perseverantiæ, ch. 23 [64], and to Prosper of Aquitaine’s epistle to Augustine, see Augustine, Ep. 225. Citations from both in PNF, ser. II, vol. XI. p. 158.

181 Reference to the Council of Constantinople, 381, known as the Second General Council, but not yet acknowledged as such; see above, § 71.

182 The elevation of the see at Constantinople to supremacy in the East.

183 Cf. Ep. 14, ad Anastasium, written somewhat later: “From which model [the difference in the rank and order of the Apostles] has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself; but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have priority among the brethren; and again, that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge toward Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its head.”

184 This probably refers to “the four long brothers.”

185 The friendly treatment Nestorius had given the exiled Pelagians, when they came to Constantinople, had led the men of the West to connect Nestorianism with Pelagianism and to condemn the two as if there was some necessary connection between them.

186 I.e., not mere appearance without reality, as in Docetism and Monophysitism.

187 Hefele. loc. cit., interprets the phrase, invicem sunt as a mutual interpenetration.

188 In explanation of this Leo adds further on: To be hungry and thirsty, to be weary and to sleep, is clearly human; but to satisfy five thousand men with five loaves, and to bestow on the woman of Samaria living water … is, without doubt, divine.… It is not the part of the same nature to be moved to pity for a dead friend, and when the stone that closed that four days’ grave was removed, to raise that same friend to life with a voice of command.

189 See PNF, ser. II. vol. XIV; To Nestorius, p. 197; To the Easterns, i.e., to John of Antioch (Cyril, Ep. 39), p. 251.

190 See above, the Tome of Leo.

191 It was charged against Eutyches that he taught that the Son brought His body with Him from heaven. This Eutyches denied.

192 This is the position of Eutyches. Cyril of Alexandria also taught the same; cf. Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, 1906, § 37, 2.

193 Cyril’s phrase was “The one nature of the incarnate Logos”; cf. Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation, 1896, II, 93.

194 The text of this passage, the most important dogmatically, may be found in all the references given above.

195 Against Eutyches, who denied this point, and also against Apollinaris, v. supra, § 88, a.

196 The Nestorians were accused of dividing the person of Christ into two Sons.

197 The present Greek text reads “of two natures,” but “in two natures” was the original reading. For the evidence, see Hefele, § 193 (Eng. trans., III, p. 348, note); see also Hahn, § 146, n. 34. “Of” appears to be an early forgery. On the other side, see Dorner, History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Eng. trans., div. II, vol. I, p. 411; Baur, Dreieinigkeit, I, 820 f.

198 Πρόσωπον and ὑπόστασις are here used as probably not distinguishable; see Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, pp. 275 ff.; Loofs in PRE, V, 637, I. 12.

199 I.e., teaching as to these points in the form of a definition.

200 It is to be noted that condemnation of Eutyches is not confirmed.

201 This left the theological situation precisely as it was after the “Latrocinium Ephesinum” of 449.

202 Matt. 16:18 f.

203 The list is given in the early part of the epistle not here given: see Preuschen, loc. cit.

204 The Twelve Anathematisms of Cyril against Nestorius.

205 Sanctum frenum. Query: Does this refer to the tradition that Constantine made out of the nails of the cross a bit for his horse?

206 Heb. 5:7, 8.

207 Same word used as for ordination of clergy.

208 Hellenic, and so throughout.

209 By hierarch is to be understood in this connection the episcopal order, or the bishop.

210 Cf. Epistula, VIII, 2. (MSG, 3:1092.) “Every order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy has relation to God and is more godlike than that which is further removed from God, and lighter and more illuminating in all that is nearer to the true light. Do not understand this nearness in a local sense: it has reference rather to the ability to receive God.”

211 The highest order of all the consecrated orders is the holy order of monks.

212 The Irish were known as Scots. The name Scotland was given to that country on account of invaders from North Ireland.

213 I.e., not necessarily a pagan, but he did not love God, or was not yet “converted.”

214 In the meanwhile he had escaped to France and lived there.

215 Where Patrick had lived as a slave.

216 This reference to Ninian is the most important there is; in fact, Bede is here the chief authority for the work of this missionary.

217 Whitherne, Galloway.

218 I.e., Irish tongue.

219 Rules for computing Easter.

220 It had been at Soissons after 486, and before that at Tournay.

221 In 465, under the influence of the Visigoths, the Suevi, formerly Catholic, had embraced Arianism.

222 “Let all the churches of Spain and Gallicia observe this rule, that at every time of offering of the sacrifice and before the communion of the body and blood of Christ, according to the custom of the Oriental parts, all should repeat together with a clear voice the most sacred symbol of the faith, that first the people may speak the faith which they hold, and they may bring hearts purified by faith to the reception of the body and blood of Christ. For so long as this constitution be perpetually observed in the Church of God, the entire belief of the faithful will be confirmed, and the false faith of the infidels be confuted, in order that one may be very easily inclined to believe what one hears very often repeated, neither shall any one excuse himself from all blame by pleading ignorance of the faith, when he knows from the mouth of all what the Catholic Church holds and believes.” (From the Speech of Reccared, cf. Mansi, loc. cit.)

223 Here, as very often, the bishops attending a council are spoken of as priests. The term “priest” had not become identified with “presbyter.” The bishop was a sacerdos or priest. The presbyter was also a sacerdos.

224 This testimonial, or certificate of election, was to be presented to the king that he might give his assent; cf. § 94.

225 The kings appear to have attempted to appoint bishops without canonical election. This was never recognized by the Church as lawful on the part of the king and was always opposed. See next selection from Gregory of Tours.

226 Testimonial of election.

227 I.e., Clermont-Ferrand.

228 See Greg. Tour., III. 19. Cf. DCB, art. “Gregorius (29).” He was bishop of Langres.

229 St. Martin of Tours, the patron saint of the church of Tours.

230 Eufronius was the predecessor of Gregory of Tours, the author of this passage.

231 At one time metropolis of Novempopulania; when it was destroyed in the ninth century, the dignity passed to Auch, where it remained.

232 Bishop of Bourdeaux.

233 At Maçon.

234 The formal certificate of election.

235 Guntrum.

236 Bishop Bertchramnus’s.

237 I.e., if he be one of the court chaplains.

238 Sigibert appears to have been born 629.

239 Rather the thirtieth according to some MSS., which seems to be more in accord with what has gone before.

240 Luxeuil.

241 Fontenay or Fontaines.

242 Near Autun.

243 What is now Switzerland was then regarded as a part of Germany, Allemania.

244 This has not been preserved. But Bobbio, subsequently founded, became a stronghold of the Catholic faith against Arianism.

245 Bobbio, twenty-five miles southwest from Piacenza.

246 Evagrius, Hist. Ec., VI. 7.

247 I.e., to be the apocrisiarius at the court of the Emperor.

248 See Gieseler, KG, Eng. trans. I, p. 396, n. 72.

249 Theodelinda held to the schismatic party in Northern Italy. Gregory is careful to touch this point very delicately, and not to allow it to become such a point of contention as might disturb favorable political relations.

250 Gregory is not correct here. In the eighth, ninth, and tenth sessions of the Council of Chalcedon, the cases of Theodoret and Ibas were examined, they were heard in their own defence and were acquitted or excused without censure. See Hefele, §§ 195, 196. The case of Theodore of Mopsuestia, however, did not come before the Council of Chalcedon, because he was dead. v. supra, § 93, the Constitutum of Vigilius.

251 I.e., in communion with the Roman see.

252 Boniface III, 606-607.

253 Boniface IV, 607-615.

254 He was not a professed Catholic. It probably means either that he held fast to his political alliance with Rome, or that he was determined to favor the Catholic faith professed by his spouse.

255 There are several letters written by Gregory to Romanus available in translation, see above.

256 Augustine had been consecrated in Gaul. His successors in the see of London were to be consecrated by the suffragans of that archiepiscopal see.

257 Bishop of Lindisfarne, 652-662.

258 In 645, 647, 648, 651. It would occur again in 665.

259 Bishop of the West Saxons, temporarily in Northumbria.

260 Coming from Rome under the circumstances in which he was sent, this book of the canons can be no other than the collection of Dionysius Exiguus.

261 See below, § 105.

262 Cf. Bede, Epistula ad Egberium Episcopum; Plummer, op. cit., I. 412 f.

263 The Monothelete doctrine, which appeared to be a form of Eutychianism because of its close connection with Monophysitism. v. infra, § 108.

264 A. D. 649, Against the Monotheletes, see Hefele, § 307; v. infra. § 108; see Hahn, § 181, for the Anathematism of the Council; Haddan and Stubbs, op. cit., III. 145-151.

265 Constans II, also known as Constantine IV; see DCB.

266 Matitutinarum vel vespertinarum missarum. The term “mass” is here applied, not to the eucharist, but to Matins and Vespers. See Hefele, § 222, on this canon.

267 Cf. canon 4, Council of Clermont, A. D. 535 (Bruns, II, 188): “The clergy are not in any way to be set against their bishops by the secular potentates.”

268 The employment of the technical term purgatorium to designate the place and fires of purification is very much later, and not defined until the thirteenth century as the official and technical word, although used long before that time in theological discussion.

269 Member of household, a servant.

270 In case of assault and battery.

271 The preceding rules are clearly matter of moral direction, and indicate the transition from general advice to a scale of sins and punishments, such as follows.

272 I.e., in a monastery.

273 Another reading, 4.

274 For the rule of Columbanus, see MSL, 80:209 ff.

275 This with the two preceding are the three vows of the Benedictine monk.

276 Lacuna in text.

277 The conclusion of the mass.

278 V. supra, § 100.

279 Further on, Bede mentions Putta, bishop of Rochester, who was “extraordinarily skilful in the Roman style of church music, which he had learned from the pupils of the holy pope Gregory.”

280 Monasticism had already begun to decline as the monasteries increased in wealth and numbers. The decline continued into the next century, when the Church was at its worst condition about the beginning of the reign of Alfred. The revival of monasticism was not until the tenth century as a result of the Cluny Reform.

281 See Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, c. 46; ANF, viii, 415.

282 Probably banana is meant.

283 I.e., the celestial damsels.

284 An intensely bitter tree.

285 Charles Martel.

286 A. D. 732, Battle of Tours and Poitiers.

287 The shrine of later construction may still be seen in the Cathedral of Pavia. It is not improbable that the genuine relics of St. Augustine are here.

288 Note that this is not “the one nature of the Word of God become flesh,” the formula most commonly employed by Cyril, and to be distinguished from this, though Cyril sometimes appears to use the two contrary to his own distinction.

289 The phrase of Dionysius was not “one theandric energy” but “a new theandric energy.”

290 I.e., the incarnation, term so used constantly in Greek theology.

291 The Ecthesis.

292 From here text in Denziger.

293 Latin reads: our Lord Jesus Christ.

294 For this council, see Hefele, § 314.

295 From here the text may be found also in Hahn, § 150.

296 Prosopon, and so throughout.

297 Hypostasis, and so throughout.

298 Latin: God the Word.

299 The preceding is but a recapitulation of Chalcedon; see above, § 90.

300 I.e., Gregory Nazianzus.

301 Leo, Ep. ad Flavianum, ch. 4: Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium est, Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est, et carne exsequente quod carnis est; unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit iniuriis; v. supra, § 90, b.

302 Greek: economic life.

303 Latin adds: indivisibly and unconfusedly.

304 Here, as elsewhere, “natural will” means such a will as belongs to a nature, divine or human.

305 The Emperor to whom the report is made.

306 The most important parts of this are to be found in Hahn, § 235.

307 Decretal letters.

308 I.e., Gregory Nazianzus.

309 Probably that of 256.

310 I.e., Saturdays.

311 See canon 69 of the Apostolic Canons, which prescribed fasting on the Saturday before Easter, or the Preparation.

312 John the Baptist.

313 The Edict says seventy-sixth year.

314 In the duchy of Spoleto.

315 I.e., a picture, and not a statue, for these had been forbidden long since.

316 Rimini, Pesaro, Fano, Sinigaglia, and Ancona.

317 Duces can hardly mean dukes here.

318 Governor of Naples under the Emperor.

319 These names are not all to be identified. Auximanum, however, is Osimo, south of Ancona; Ferronianus is Fregnano, near Modena; Montebelli or Monte Veglio is west of Bologna; Persiceta is also near Bologna, which Paulus Diaconus says was taken by the Lombards, op. cit., VI, 49.

320 From Sept. 1, A. D. 727, to Sept. 1, A. D. 728.

321 One hundred and forty, according to another reading.

322 Aurifer, or, according to another reading, Lucifer.

323 Both duchies were nominally under the king of the Lombards, but it is very probable that they were attempting to free themselves from his rule.

324 The Campus Neronis was outside the walls of Rome, as they then extended and adjoined the Vatican.

325 Barberino, fifteen miles east of Civita Vecchia.

326 This was his real name.

327 See introduction to this extract.

328 See next selection.

329 I.e., in pictures.

330 John had a strong argument here as the Iconoclasts reverenced the true cross.

331 θεομήτως, not θεοτόκος.

332 Cf. Basil, De Spiritu, ch. 27; v. supra, § 87, for Basil on the force of tradition.

333 The creed of Nicæa is not here recited, only the so-called creed of Constantinople, but without the filioque in the Greek.

334 Pneumatomachians.

335 I.e., monks.