Chapter II: The Arian Controversy Until The Extinction Of The Dynasty Of (1)

Constantine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(_a_) Socrates. _Hist. Ec._, I, 5. (MSG, 67:41.)

The outbreak of the controversy at Alexandria circa 318.

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

(_b_) Alexander of Alexandria. _Ep. ad Alexandrum_, in Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, I, 3. (MSG, 88:904.)

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

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

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

(_c_) Arius, _Ep. ad Eusebium_, in Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, I, 4. (MSG, 88:909.)

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

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

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

(_d_) Arius, _Thalia_, in Athanasius, _Orat. contra Arianos_, I, 2. (MSG, 26:21.)

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

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

(_e_) Council of Alexandria, A. D. 320, _Epistula encyclica_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 6. (MSG, 67:45.) _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 353 _ff._

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

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

(_f_) Eusebius of Cæsarea, _Creed_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 8. (MSG, 67:69.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 188.

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

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

(_g_) Council of Nicæa A. D. 325, _Creed_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 8. (MSG, 67:68.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 142.

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

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

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

§ 64. The Beginnings of the Eusebian Reaction under Constantine

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

Additional source material: Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 8 (letter of
Eusebius to his diocese), 14, 28 ff. _Eusebius, Vita Constantini_,
III, 23; Athanasius, _Historia Arianorum_, §§ 4-7.

(_a_) Arius, _Confession of Faith_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 26. (MSG, 67:149.)

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

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

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

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

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

(_b_) Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 23. (MSG, 67:140.)

The attack of the Arians upon Athanasius and his party.

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

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

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

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

Additional source material: Percival, _The Seven Ecumenical
Councils_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV); Socrates, _Hist. Ec._ (PNF,
ser. II, vol. II), II, 19 (Formula Macrostichos); Athanasius, _De
Synodis_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. IV).

(_a_) Athanasius, _Apologia contra Arianos_, 20. (MSG, 25:280.)

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

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

(_b_) Julius of Rome, _Epistula_, in Athanasius. _Apologia contra Arianos_, §§ 26 _ff._ (MSG, 25:292.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(_c_) _Second Creed of Antioch_, A. D. 341, in Athanasius, _De Synodis Arimini et Seleuciæ_, ch. 23. (MSG, 26:721.) Also in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, II, 10. (MSG, 67:201.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 154.

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

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

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

(_d_) _Fourth Creed of Antioch_, Socrates, _Hist._ Ec., II, 18. (MSG, 67:221.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 156.

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

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

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

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

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

(_a_) _Second Creed of Sirmium_, in Hilary of Poitiers, _De Synodis_, ch. 11. (MSL, 10:487.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 161.

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

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

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

(_b_) _Creed of Nice_ A. D. 359, Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, II, 16. (MSG, 82:1049.) _Cf._ Hahn, § 164.

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

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

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

(_c_) Hilary of Poitiers. _De Synodis_, §§ 88, 89, 91. (MSL, 10:540.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under the sons of Constantine a harsher policy toward heathenism was adopted. Laws were passed forbidding heathen sacrifices (_a__, __b_), and although these were not carried out vigorously in the West, where there were many heathen members of the leading families, they were more generally enforced in the East, and heathenism was thereby much reduced, at least in outward manifestations. As to heresy, the action of the emperors and especially Constantius in his constant endeavor to set aside the Nicene faith involved harsh measures against all who differed from the approved theology of the court. Donatism called for special treatment. A policy of conciliation was attempted, but on account of the failure to win over the Donatists and their alliance with fierce revolutionary fanatics, the Circumcellions, violent measures were taken against them which nearly extirpated the sect.

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

This edict of Constantius is of importance here as it seems to
imply that Constantine did more toward repressing heathen
sacrifices than to forbid those celebrated in private. It is,
however, the only evidence of his prohibiting sacrifice, and it
might have been due to misunderstanding that his example is here
cited.

Let superstition cease; let the madness of sacrifices be abolished. For whoever, against the law of the divine prince, our parent [Constantine] and this command of our clemency, shall celebrate sacrifices, let a punishment appropriate to him and this present decision be issued.

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

In the West Constans did not enforce the law against sacrifices
with great severity, but tolerated the existence and even use of
certain temples without the walls.

Although all superstition is to be entirely destroyed, yet we will that the temple buildings, which are situated without the walls, remain intact and uninjured. For since from some have arisen various sports, races, and contests, it is not proper that they should be destroyed, from which the solemnity of ancient enjoyments are furnished to the Roman people.

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

It is our pleasure that in all places and in all cities the temples be henceforth closed, and access having been forbidden to all, freedom to sin be denied the wicked. We will that all abstain from sacrifices; that if any one should commit any such act, let him fall before the vengeance of the sword. Their goods, we decree, shall be taken away entirely and recovered to the fisc, and likewise rectors of provinces are to be punished if they neglect to punish for these crimes.

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

The principal historical writer treating the schism of the
Donatists is Optatus, Bishop of Mileve. His work on this sect was
written about 370 and revised and enlarged in 385. It is of
primary importance not merely for the history but for the dogmatic
discussions on the doctrine of the Church, Bk. II, the doctrine of
the sacraments, the idea of _opus operatum_ as applied to them,
Bk. V; in all of which he laid the foundation upon which Augustine
built. In addition to the passage from Optatus given here,
Epistles 88 and 185 by Augustine are accessible in translations
and will be found of assistance in filling in the account of the
Circumcellions. The latter is known as _De correctione
Donatistarum_ and is published in the anti-Donatist writings of
Augustine in PNF, ser. I, vol. IV; the most important passages are
§§ 15 and 25. It is probable that the party of the Circumcellions
was originally due to a revolt against intolerable agrarian
conditions and that their association with the Donatists was at
first slight.