The Imperial Church from Constantine to the Early Middle Ages. // History of the Church. Ed. Hubert Jedin, John Dolan. Vol. II. 846 pp.

 

Content

 

 

PREFACE

 

The work begun on the German original of this volume in the summer of 1963 was unfortunately interrupted for rather long periods by two serious illnesses of the author, and even after his recuperation the weakened state of his health forced on him still longer periods of rest from all exertion. Completion of the work was also delayed by the gradual transition from the character of a mere handbook to a broader presentation of the entire work as something closely dependent on the sources. Special reference should be made to the two themes of this volume, to which a relatively great space has been devoted. Thus far the Church's missionary work has been treated only sketchily or at least inadequately in this series, but in the period here under consideration individual events are collected or organized in full conformity with the results of archeological research, which of necessity succeeds in achiev ing at least a summary characterization and evaluation of the missionary endeavors of the Church of the Empire. The chapters on the develop ment of early Christian monasticism had to try to make immediately clear the results of an intensive research in the preceding years on this relevant and important phenomenon of the Early Church. A later short ening of the finished chapters would have meant the abandoning of quotations from numerous references to sources that had just become known for the first time and of references to literature that had often been collected only with the greatest difficulty. As in Volume I, many a selection from the literary testimonies was felt to be unsatisfactory. The author did not quote about one-third of the secondary literature that he had worked through and decided in doubtful cases to use monographs and articles that, in addition to their factual content, offered an espe cially complete bibliography for their subject.

No one knows the limitations and deficiencies of a handbook better than its author. In part, these are due to the objective lacunae in the state of the research, to the extent that certain questions can be treated either not at all or only inadequately. They are further dependent on various problems connected with the interpretation of the sources in individual question, in which as yet no single interpretation can be achieved within the scope of the research. In accord with the nature of a handbook, only brief references could be made to such lacunae or to the status of controverted questions respectively. Finally, a handbook must also make a selection among the themes that present themselves: it will aim not to slight any really relevant question, but to a great extent remains dependent on the personal viewpoint and valuation of the his torical reactions of the author and hence subjective. And so, despite his. satisfaction over the completion of his work, he still feels as Augustine did earlier in regard to his preaching: mihi prope semper sermo meus dis- plicet (De catech, rud. 2, 2).

 

The author understands his immense debt to the publishing company for its consideration and especially to his friend, Hubert Jedin, for his ceaseless and sympathetic encouragement to keep on with the work. Grateful mention is due also to his pupil, University Assistant Doctor Reinhard Hiibner of Bonn, who again and again took pains to photo copy otherwise inaccessible periodical articles.

 

I also thank my colleagues of this volume, University Professors Hans-Georg Beck and Eugen Ewig, who, out of regard for me, delayed the publication of their long-finished contributions.

 

Finally, the fact that Volume II has been able to appear in print at all, and a lacuna in the entire work has at last been closed, is due especially to my pupil, Professor Hermann Josef Vogt of Tubingen, who was prepared to postpone his own work in order to write the still needed four chapters in which he quickly and surely organized the sources and literature.

 

Karl Baus

PREFACE TO ENGLISH EDITION

 

The long delay in the publication of the second volume of the History of the Church (formerly known as the Handbook of Church History) after the appearance of subsequent volumes has not been without merit. In the interim the publishers of the English edition have decided to resume the entire series which was discontinued after the publication of the German Volume V in 1970. This decision coincided with the comple tion of the project with the final volume covering the period from World War I to the present.

 

Unlike the German original, which appeared in two sections, the present edition combines the two in one volume, without abridgment. The first section (Parts One to Three) deals with the religious and political adjustments that followed the conversion of Constantine, the theological controversies and the inner life of the Church from Nicaea to Chalcedon. In the second section (Parts Four and Five) Hans Beck begins with the Henoticon and reaches through the age of Justinian to the Monotholite heresy. Special attention is given to the organization, theology, and spirituality of the Byzantine Church. What particularly enhances this volume is the treatment of the conversion of the Ger manic and Celtic peoples and the resulting Germanizing of the organi zational forms of Christianity and the beginning of the interplay be tween the imperium and the sacerdotium. As in previous volumes the authors combine narration based upon actual sources with bibliography that includes both sources and literature.

 

Some may criticize the apparent inadvertance of Professor Baus to the findings of Fr. Dvornik on the Roman Synod of 382 and the rele vance of Jerome's Vulgate for the claims of the papacy as explained by Ullmann. Yet it must be recalled that the purpose of this series is to stimulate further investigation rather than present apodictic claims. Its authors subscribe to the Augustinian description of the Christian ex perience as memoria, distentio, and expectatio and with Lord Acton, envi sion the history of the Church as a continuous development and not a burden on the memory, but an illumination of the soul.

 

John P. Dolan xiii

 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 

The Abbreviations from Volume I, pages xiii-xxii, are not repeated here.

 

AHC Annuarium historiae conciliorum, Amsterdam 1969ff. AHP Archivum historiae Pontificiae, Rome 1969ff.

 

AHVNrh Annalen des Historischen Vereins fur den Niederrhein, insbesondere das alte

 

Erzbistum Koln, Cologne 1855ff. AkathKR Archiv fur katholisches Kirchenrecht, Mainz 1857ff. Altaner-Stuiber B. Altaner-A. Stuiber, Patrologie, Freiburg, 7th ed. 1966. AM Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung,

 

Stuttgart 1876ff.

 

AMrhKG Archiv fur mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte, Speyer 19491F.

 

ASRomana Archivio della Reale Societa Romana di Storia Patria, Rome 1878 to 1934

 

(from 1935: AD Romana). AUF Archiv fur Urkundenforschung, Berlin 1908ff. BALAC Bulletin d'ancienne litterature et d'archeologie chretiennes, Paris 191 Iff. BECH Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartes, Paris 1839ff BiblAug Bibliotheque Augustinienne, Paris 1949ff- BNJ Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbucher, Athens-Berlin 1920ff.

 

BRAH Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid. BullInstFrArchOr Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale, Paris 1901ff. CahArch Cahiers archeologiques, Paris 1950ff. CD La Ciudad de Dios, El Escorial 1873ff.

 

COD Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, ed. Centro di documentazione di

 

Bologna, Freiburg-Rome-Vienna 1962. Cod. Just. Codex Justinianus, rec. P. Krueger, Berlin 1906. Cod. Theod. Codex Theodosianus, ed. Th. Mommsen-P. Meyer, Berlin 1905. Coli. Avell. Epistolae imperatorum pontificum aliorum, ed. O. Guenther, CSEL 35,

 

Vienna 1895-98. Coll. Cist. Collectanea Cistercientia, Forges (Belgium). CollMechl Collectanea Mechliniensia, Mecheln 192 3ff.

 

Contes rendus des seances de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris 18571F.

 

Comptes rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Paris 1857ff. Downside Review, Downside Abbey, Bath (England). H. Denzinger-A. Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum et Declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (Barcelona-Freiburg i Br.-Rome- New York 33rd ed. 1965).

 

Dictionnaire de Spiritualite ascetique et mystique. Doctrine et Histoire, ed. M. Viller, Paris 1932ff.

 

Corsi di Ravenna Corso di cultura sull'arte ravennate e bizantina, Ravenna 1954ff. CRAIBL

 

CRAIC DR DS

 

DSp

EvTH Evangelische Theologie, Munich 1956ff.

 

FStud Franziskanische Studien, Werl 19l4ff.

 

GGA Gottinger Gelehrte Anzeigen, Berlin 1738ff.

 

HS Hispania Sacra, Madrid 1948ff.

 

IP Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, congessit P. F. Kehr. Italia Pontificia,

 

I-VIII Berlin 1906-35.

 

1RM International Review of Mission, London 191 Iff.

 

JR The Journal of Religion, Chicago 192 Iff.

 

JRS The Journal of Roman Studies, London 1919ff.

 

LP Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne-C. Vogel, 3 vols., Paris 3rd ed.

 

1955-57.

 

MA Le Moyen-age. Revue d'histoire et de philologie, Paris 1888ff.

 

MG Monumenta Germaniae Historica inde ab a. C. 500 usque ad a. 1500; Indices

 

v. O. Holder-Egger and K. Zeumer, Hannover-Berlin 1826ff. Ab teilungen: MGCAP = Capitularia; MGEp - Epistolae; MGLL = Leges; MGSS rer. Lang. - Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum; MGSS rer. Mer. = Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum.

 

MIOG Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung (Innsbruck) Graz-Cologne 1880ff.

 

MiscHistEccl Miscellanea historiae ecclesiasticae, Louvain 197 Off.

 

MRW Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft, Munster 1938-1941; 1947- 49-

 

NThT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, The Hague 1945ff.

 

NZM Neue Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft, Schoneck, Schweiz 1944ff.

 

OAKR Osterreichisches Archiv fur Kirchenrecht, Vienna 1949fF.

 

PEFQSt Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements, London 1868ff.

 

PJ Palastina-Jahrbuch, Berlin 1905ff.

 

PTS Patristische Texte und Studien, Berlin 1964ff.

 

RBK Reallexikon der byzantinischen Kunst, ed. K. Wessel, Stuttgart 1963ff.

 

RDC Revue du droit canonique, Strasbourg 1950ff.

 

RechAug Recherches Augustiniennes, Paris 1958ff.

 

RHistSudEur Revue d'histoire du Sudest-Europeen, Bucharest 1913ff.

 

RHSp Revue d'histoire de la Spiritualite, Paris 1972ff. (continuation of RAM with retention of volume and year).

 

RhVjBl Rheinische Vierteljahrsblatter, Bonn 193Iff.

 

RM A Revue du Moyen-A.ge latin, Strasbourg 19451F.

 

RMab Revue Mabillon, Liguge 192Iff.

 

RomHM Romische Historische Mitteilungen, Graz-Cologne 1858ff.

 

RPh Revue de philologie, de litterature et d'histoire anciennes, Paris 1926ff.

 

RQH Revue des questions historiques, Paris 1866ff.

 

RSDl Rivista di storia del diritto italiano, Milan 1927ff.

 

RThom Revue Thomiste, Paris 1893ff.

 

SChr Sources Chretiennes, Paris 1940ff.

 

SM Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem Benediktiner- und Zisterzienserorden,

 

Munich 1880ff., Neue Folge 191 Iff.

 

SMSR Studi e materiali di storia dette religioni, Rome 1929ff.

 

SSL Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, Louvain 1922ff. (bisher 28 Bde).

 

Stpatr Studia patristica. Papers presented to the (First . . . ) International Con ference on Patristic Studies held at Christ Church, Oxford, Berlin, TU, 1957ff.

 

StChH Studies in Church History, Cambridge 1964ff.

 

StudMon Studia Monastica, Montserrat 1959ff-

 

ThPh Theologie und Philosophie, Freiburg 1966ff. (continuation of Scholastik).

 

ThStK Theologische Studien and Kritiken, Gotha 1828ff.

 

Tpatrlit Textus patristici et liturgici, Regensburg 1964ff.

 

TQ ThQ.

 

VetChrist Vetera Christianorum, Bari 1964ff.

 

WSt Wiener Studien, Zeitschrift fur klassische Philologie, Vienna.

 

ZBLG Zeitschrift fur Bayerische Landesgeschichte, Munich 1928ff.

 

ZdAdL Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur, Wiesbaden 1869ff.

 

ZGObrh Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins, Karlsruhe 185 lff.

 

ZS Zeitschrift fur Semitistik, Leipzig 1922ff.

 

ZSKA ZSavRGkan.

 

ZWTh Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie (Jena> Halle, Leipzig), Frankfurt a. M. 1858-1913.

 

PART ONE

 

The Development of the Church of the Empire within the Framework of the Imperial Religious Policy

i 1

 

h

CHAPTER 1

 

From Christianity's Position of Equality to One of Privilege

 

by the Favor of the Emperor Constantine I

 

Position of Church and Emperor in 324

 

Although, at the beginning of Constantine's sole rule, the adherents of the Christian religion in the Roman Empire constituted only a consider able minority, they were without any doubt infected by an unbounded optimism in regard to the future. To the Church historian Eusebius and his readers, Constantine was the servant and friend of God, who had had him "shine out of the deepest gloom and the darkest night as a great light and as a deliverer for all." "Now every fear that had once oppressed men was taken from them. Festive days were celebrated with splen dor and pomp; everything was full of light. In the cities as well as in the country, in dancing and singing they gave honor first to God, the King of Kings, as they were instructed, and then to the pious Emperor and his sons, beloved by God." Such a view and valuation of the future must have seemed well-founded to the contemporary Christians. For more than a decade the Emperor Constantine had assured to the Christian religion freedom to profess and proclaim its faith and, after giving it an initial equality with paganism, had shown it an ever more undeniable benevolence. Then, when he gave to his attack on Licinius the appear ance of a war for the freedom of religion on behalf of the persecuted Christians of the eastern provinces, no one need further doubt the Emperor's personal conviction of the truth of Christianity. This was immediately confirmed by the first measures of a religious and po litical nature which Constantine took right after his victory and to which the penultimate sentence of Eusebius's Church history clearly refers. Shortly before there had slipped from him a remark that in dicates that the Bishop of Caesarea was pondering in his heart more far-reaching possibilities, which were no doubt also anticipated by many of his colleagues. He stated that, by his victory over Licinius, Constan tine had again created a single and centralized Roman Empire, in which all the territories of the earth from the east to the farthest west, together

 

THE CHURCH IN THE FRAMEWORK OF IMPERIAL RELLCILOUS POLICY

 

with the north and the south, were subjected to one peaceable scepter. Would this politically united Roman Empire not also profess the one same faith, be united in the exclusive acknowledgment of the God of the Christians? This hour of triumph was not likely to give rise in Eusebius or in his fellow-bishops of East or West any doubt that such a collaboration of Church and State could have for the former any hazardous consequences.

 

It is clear that the sole rule he had gained, which freed him from any concern with a coruler, merely strengthened Constantine's sense of mission: he could, in accord with ancient ideas, in looking back to his way thus far, see himself confirmed at the end of 324 as the Chosen One of God. He did not consider it to be "idle boasting" when, in the first decree after the overthrow of Licinius, he acknowledged to the eastern provinces: "God wanted my service and regarded as appropriate the carrying out of his resolve." Without doubt, for him this God was the God of the Christians, and hence his future attitude in regard to the Christian community could only be more and more cordialЧhe had to feel that he belonged to it in a unique way. But in the course of his consciousness of mission it was quite obvious that, if the Emperor felt a unique place was suitable for himself in or in regard to the Christian Church, this made it impossible for any other event or any other devel opment of importance in the Christian world to be of no concern to him. If he himself stated that he was prepared, after the years of the persecution "to rebuild the most holy house [of God]," then of course the ecclesiastical leadership could hardly bear to deal with important questions of conduct without, not to mention against, the Emperor. Much depended on how far Constantine felt the innermost being of the Church was something so independent that here limits blocked the power of the State. The ineffectiveness of his exertions in the early phase of the Donatist troubles could have been a first lesson for him.

 

The Growing Privileged Position of the Christian Religion

 

Immediately after he had achieved sole rule, Constantine's religious policy entered externally upon a path which now led, circumspectly but nevertheless resolutely, from Christianity's equality with the existing religions, guaranteed as early as 312, to its clear and public preemi nence. This became tangible in a whole series of laws and measures which were issued from time to time during the scarcely thirteen re- rnUM CyUALllI 1U FKlVILtSliK

 

maining years of his reign. They began with the decree to the inhabi tants of the eastern provinces: their principal item can be summarized as regulations on the restitution to be made to the Christians for the injus tices of which they had been the victims. The individual pointsЧ removal of all degrading and damaging judicial sentences, such as priva tion of earlier rank in the public service and reduction to the state of slavery, the restoration to individual Christians or their heirs of property that had been confiscated or sold, the restoration of Christian com munities to their former property rights, even if such property was now in the possession of the fiscus (imperial treasury) or, through purchase or gift, had come into other hands Чmade clear that the Emperor's sym pathy now belonged to the adherents of the Christian religion. The equality of all citizens before the law was abolished in practice when a later decree forbade to the high officials, provincial governors, and their immediate subordinates, if these still belonged to the old religion, the external profession of their faith by means of sacrifice, whereas Christian officials of the same rank could, as Eusebius stresses, "glory in the name of Christian."

 

Constantine's legislation remained thereafter open to Christian influ ence, although the existing social order, which was basically untouched by Constantine, and the esteem for the prevailing Roman law limited this influence. It becomes clearest in the fields of marriage and family life, as, for example, in the decrees which made divorce more difficult and forbade a husband to maintain a concubine, or those which decided that slave families were not to be broken up in a division of an inheri tance. The Christian respect for human life is seen also in the prohibi tion of gladiatorial games, while the abolition of crucifixion as a death penalty also showed regard for the honor due to Christianity in public. Certain laws from the period before 324 which displayed a tone friendly to Christianity were again enacted, for example, the constitution which gave to a convert from Judaism clear legal protection against possible annoyance or persecution on the part of his former coreligionists. The fact that a state was bound to such protectionЧbecause the convert had, by his change of faith, dedicated himself "to the holy worship and opened for himself the door to eternal life"Чclearly expresses the rela tionship felt by Constantine of the supreme legislator toward the re spect due to the Christian faith even in the public sphere. The same

 

THE CHURCH IN IHb tKAMCWUє ur imrcmni. >uiuu.u^^

attitude appears in the comment appended to the ratification of judicial decisions of the bishops in civil suits: the "authority of the holy reli gion," which constitutes the basis of the judgment given by the Catholic bishop, guarantees its fairness and assures it against any appeal. Fi nally, a general law gives to all the privileges assured in the decrees on religion their intrinsic value, of the utmost importance for the future: they were now for the benefit only of adherents of the Catholic faith, not of heretics and schismatics. A decree that left untouched the houses and cemeteries of the Novatians which had long been in their pos session was not inconsistent with this: it proceeded from the principle that heretical or schismatic communities were ordinarily not to remain in possession of property that they had taken from the Catholic Church. This expression of a more positive valuation of the Novatians may have been based on the fact that they recognized the decision of Nicaea; but it may have lain in the hope of the Emperor's ecclesiastical entourage that an easier reconciliation with them was to be anticipated. Hence the decree on the Novatians was an exception in the field of law and, to this extent, a confirmation of the general edict against heretics which Con stantine had published soon after his victory over Licinius. In it "Nova tians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulicians, and Cataphrygians" were sharply attacked and subjected to harsh decrees; any gathering, even in private houses, was forbidden to them, their churches were confiscated and turned over to the Catholic Church, and their other property was awarded to the fiscus. Only one sentence contains the invitation to join the Catholic Church. Eusebius speaks also of a law which permitted the confiscation of heretical writings; according to him, the edict had the desired effect in its entirety, since "nowhere on earth did there remain an association of heretics and schismatics." In contradiction of this statement of Eusebius, both in substance and in tone, it should be noted that Constantine threatened no sanctions against individual members of an heretical community who persisted in their religious conviction, even if the Emperor's language is harsh in regard to heretics, because in his eyes they were already rebel Christians. He thought he had to proceed against heresy as such, because it upset the peace and harmony of Christianity and thereby not only caused great dangers for the calm and order of the Empire, but also impeded Christians on the road to salva tion.

 

The Emperor displayed a greater toleration toward the adherents of paganism, especially since in this case there was a question of prominent persons in public life, such as, for example, the Neoplatonist philoso phers Hermogenes, Nikagoras, and Sopatros or members of old and well-established families in the Roman Senate. But from 324 on, he made no effort to conceal his ever growing contempt for the pagan religion. As early as the autumn of 324 a letter to the inhabitants of Palestine let it be known that the Emperor regarded his victory as also a defeat of paganism; and even if the second edict to the eastern prov inces of the Empire stresses toleration in regard to the adherents of the old faith as governmental policy and even justifies it as "Christian," nevertheless the overall tenor of the document must have made thoughtful pagans aware that the Emperor's clearly expressed sym pathies for ChristianityЧwhose adherents are contrasted as "believers" to "the erring"Чimplied no happy future for the pagan religion. Words were followed by deeds, which could also be interpreted by the pagans in no other way than as a repression of their religion in the public sphere. Here belongs the appointment of a bureaucracy consisting of a majority of Christians, when high administrative posts, left vacant by the change of ruler in the east, had to be again filled, although on the basis of the status of the religious confessions at least an equality in the distribution of positions could have been expected; furthermore, the public offering of sacrifice by the pagan minority among the officials was forbidden. Also the manner in which Constantine in 325 celebrated his vicennaliaЧthe twentieth anniversary of his accessionЧin the East must have made the pagans anxious. The celebration took place in the midst of the bishops who had assembled for the Council of Nicaea and the customary panegyric was composed and delivered, not by a pagan rhetor, but by a Catholic bishop. Thus the Catholic episcopate gradu ally stepped into the place which the pagan upper class had hitherto occupied. The most intimate entourage of the Emperor at court re flected this new picture, an unmistakable sign of a changing world.

 

A special significance belongs, furthermore, to Constantine's mea sures which envisaged a steady suppression of pagan worship. In 324 he expressed the wish that pagans too might enter "into the brilliant house of [Christian] truth," but he clearly contrasted with it "the temples of delusion," which would be left to the pagans if they so desired. Soon, however, laws appeared whereby individual temples lost their revenues, were deprived of their images of the gods, or were completely done away with. In this connection it should be noted that both Christian and pagan writers report these measures with much exaggeration: the latter, in order, in their bitterness, to censure the conduct of the Emperor; the former, especially Eusebius, in order triumphantly to attribute to the first Christian on the imperial throne the complete overthrow of heathen worship. The following facts are sure: the famed and much visited temple of Asclepius in the Cilician Aegae was completely de stroyed, as was the shrine of Aphrodite at Aphaca in Phoenicia, whose cult could have seemed especially offensive to Christians. This motive was all the more present in the elimination of the temple of Aphrodite which had been erected on the site of Christ's tomb. Phoenician Heliopolis (Baalbek) was also long a center of the cult of Aphrodite, which, according to Eusebius, was now forbidden by an imperial law that at the same time made known Constantine's missionary zeal, since it expressly invited the inhabitants of the city to accept the Christian faith. He sought to break down the totality of the pagan atmosphere of the city by erecting a church, which with its numerous clerics should become the center of a Christian community life. Eusebius also knew of a special decree of the Emperor which put an end to the liturgical honoring of the Nile, in whose service there was a priesthood consisting of eunuchs. Also, the oriental cults of Mithra and Cybele conspicuously declined in the years of the reigns of Constantine and his sons. But more than anything else the method by which the Emperor pillaged many a pagan shrine of the East in order to beautify his new capital on the Bosporus must have embittered every convinced heathen. Imperial officials traveled through the provinces and thoroughly searched the temples for suitable materials, especially for usable precious metals; at one temple the bronze doors were dismantled, at another the metal roof-tiles were removed. Statues of the gods were stripped of their jewels and whatever of them seemed usable was confiscated. Especially costly statues were taken to Constantinople and installed in the public squares of the city or in the imperial palace. No consideration was given even to objects so rich in tradition as the tripods of the Pythia in Apollo's shrine at Delphi. Eusebius reports that all this included mock ery and derision of the pagan priesthood; of course whether he is correctly stating the Emperor's intention when he says that out of the idols he "made a toy which served as a laughing-stock and object of mockery" must be doubted. But the bringing of the pagan religion as such into ridicule was unmistakable, since the images of its gods were now reduced to objects of exhibition, and only an artistic significance was thereafter attributed to it. Modern historians sought to derive these measures of the Emperor from purely financial necessities or to ascribe to him an interest in "artistic history." But the bitter reaction of the pagans indicates something different.

The imperial action gains in relief when it is considered against the background of the interest which Constantine devoted to building activ ity for the benefit of Christianity. As with most other rulers who took delight in construction, the Emperor's imagination made itself known here in an especially tangible way. Eusebius was very much attracted by this aspect of the Emperor's solicitude for Christian matters and spoke of it in detail in so far as it extended to the eastern part of the Empire. Constantine's view early turned to Palestine, which clearly played a special role in his religious and political plans, precisely because it could, as the beloved pilgrimage goal of Christians from all parts of the Empire, strengthen their awareness of belonging to one community. He wanted the sites of Christ's burial and resurrection in Jerusalem to be treated with special distinction; hence he had the burial grotto opened and rebuilt and then had a basilica erected, for which he had the money raised by the governors of the eastern provinces, and on the decoration of which he concerned himself even with details. Mount Olivet, as the place of the Ascension, also obtained a basilica, which was at the same time intended as a memorial of the Emperor's mother, Helena, since she had especially encouraged its construction. A decisive role in the erecting of the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem is also attributed to her by Eusebius, and the Emperor likewise generously aided in its adornment. The Emperor, through a special circular, in formed the episcopate of Palestine of his determination to build a basilica at the Oak of Mamre and invited them, together with the bishops of Phoenicia, to foster the work in every way. Precisely in this connection it is noteworthy how the Emperor considered church build ing as his personal concern. No doubt he urged the bishops to intensive cooperation, but since he demanded exact reports on the implementa tion of his orders and reserved the final decision to himself even in regard to details, it becomes obvious that he regarded himself as the real building contractor, who gave instructions through his officials to the chief architects, artists, and craftsmen. Outside Palestine it was espe cially the cities of Antioch and Nicomedia, populous and rich in traditionЧthe latter had been the eastern capitalЧwhich were distin guished by magnificent basilicas.

 

In the West the Christian congregation of the ancient imperial capital could take pleasure in the special generosity of the Emperor, which presented it with an abundance of grandiose church buildings and mag nificently introduced the period of Christian architecture in Rome. The series of Constantinian basilicas was opened here with a church in honor of the Saviour with a nearby baptistery (after 313) which would later receive the name of John at the Lateran. The property on which it was built was a personal gift from the Emperor to the Christian community of Rome. The first church erected as a memorial of martyrs, likewise encouraged by Constantine, was that of Saints Peter and Marcellinus, to which was attached the tomb of the Empress-Mother Helena. It was followed by the immense enterprise on the Vatican Hill, with which, despite all the technical difficulties, a worthy monument was to be erected to the memory of the Apostle Peter over the place of his burial. Even if the beginning of the construction of the first Saint Peter's basilica has not yet been definitely established, nevertheless the in scription which was once mounted on the triumphal arch of the church and has survived makes clear that the initiative was Constantine's. Less pretentious was the memorial over the tomb of the Apostle Paul on the Ostian Way, which the Liber Pontificalis also ascribes to Constantine. The memory of the two Apostles Peter and Paul together was also honored by a special church on the Appian Way near the present basilica of San Sebastiano, where decades earlier Christians had assembled to celebrate their memory. Likewise, the erecting of the great double church in the former western capital of both Constantine and his father, Trier, must be assigned to the Emperor's initiative.

 

Doubts have naturally been expressed as to whether this emulation of Maecenas by Constantine in favor of the Christian religion should be estimated as a characteristic expression of his personal religious convic tion. Such skepticism, however, overlooks the circumstance that the age of Constantine scarcely knew this distinctionЧpossible in a ra tionalistic ageЧbetween inner conviction and external behavior. One more closely approaches historical truth if one attributes Constantine's zeal for building Christian churches to a religious notion, that is, to his idea of the Church, which he intended to express symbolically by the act of constructing a house of God adorned with all splendor. He un derstood, at least after the Council of Nicaea, the Church as the King dom of God, which is ruled by divine law, and the earthly church building with its architectural arrangement and its height pointing heavenward was to him a reflection of that properly ordered kingdom, through which the individual human being and Christian finds the road to heaven. The Emperor aimed, by means of splendid basilicas in all the geographical areas of the Roman Empire, to insert the very Empire itself into the order created by God: the Empire entrusted to him should be Christian.

 

This becomes most clearly apparent in the greatest building enter prise which the Emperor undertook and was able to complete: the establishing of the new imperial capital on the Bosporus, which was to bear his name. There is no doubt that the new imperial residence, which was also the seat of the imperial government, was, by the will of the Emperor, intended from the start to have the character of a Christian city; hence, in contrast to old Rome, it must be free of the elements proper to paganism. It is true that he permitted the older capital in the West to retain its historical rank and hence preserved continuity by

?nc ^nurvv>n 1.J.-N inu l l\i-uїiu w v>iu> _

giving to the new foundation the name of Second Rome. He also borrowed many of its institutions, such as the Senate, the division into fourteen urban regions, and certain administrative forms. But what was really new lay in the religious sphere: the Empire received a Christian centre, which thus in a sense made it an Anti-Rome. The city on the Tiber could cherish the old traditions, and the members of the esteemed senatorial families could still treasure their pagan cults, but the Em peror's interest was simply no longer directed to this city, which he seldom visited. The earliest coins with the Tyche, the personification of the new city, show the globe in her hand on the Cross of Christ. The constructing of new pagan temples was not considered in the planning of the new city, and the pagan priests at the cult sites existing in pre- Constantinian Byzantium lost their revenues. On the other hand, Chris tian churches in honor of the martyrs and several basilicas were, from the first, part of the Emperor's building plan, as, for example, a church in honor of Christ dedicated under the title of Sophia, a church of peace (.Eirene), and especially the Church of the Apostles, intended to corre spond to the basilicas of the Apostles at Rome; it was destined to receive the remains of the Emperor in an adjoining room in the midst of the monuments honoring the twelve Apostles.51 He commissioned Eusebius to have fifty costly manuscripts of the Bible prepared for liturgical use. Monuments with Christian representations, such as that of the Good Shepherd or of Daniel, adorned the public squares of the city, and the sign of the cross was among the ceiling panels of the imperial palace. When, following intensive building activity, the city was solemnly dedicated on 11 May 330, four years after its founding, it had no Capitoline temple, no cult of Vesta, no pagan priestly college. Efforts have been made to play down the pro-Christian religious policy of the Emperor that has just been described, in so far as it shows a positive personal attitude to this religion, by referring to individual traits in the Emperor's character which presuppose a pagan rather than a Christian viewpoint. In this connection mention is made of his cruel behavior toward his son Crispus and his wife Fausta, whom Constantine shockingly had executed in 326. The sources, which do not permit a totally reliable reconstruction of the events, seem to say that the Em peror had been informed that an illicit relationship existed between Crispus and his stepmother. The Emperor, who was personally blame less in the matter, had reacted with the greatest indignation in sternly passing judgment and certainly did not make use of Christian mildness in an effort to restore the honor of his family life. But does this proce dure demonstrate any pagan convictions of the Emperor? Others, on the contrary, have found, following pagan authors, that precisely this crime drove Constantine, in his need of expiation, into the arms of Christianity. Opposed to this, however, is the fact that the Emperor postponed his expiating baptism until he was on his deathbed. It is also pointed out that Constantine was never able to dissociate himself from the pagan imperial cult and therefore was not a convinced Christian. But a more exact examination proves that it was precisely this Emperor who introduced the christianization of the imperial cult. It is certain that the importance which this form of honoring the Emperor had acquired in the course of time was immense: it had become not only an element of court ceremonial, but an expression of the very concept of Emperor itself. For Christianity that ingredient of the imperial cult was thereaf ter unacceptable which saw in the Emperor a man-made-God and hence one deserving of divine honors. But a second ingredient of the cult could be "baptized": that which recognized in the Emperor one chosen and especially guided by God. It was exactly this notion that Constan tine and bishops like Eusebius took up and on which they based the Emperor's special position in the world and in relation to the Church. According to this view, the hitherto customary court ceremonial could be retained to a great extent, for example, adoratio, or genuflection, which was later adopted from here by all western imperial and royal rulers and even by the popes. Other forms of honoring the ruler were modified: thus, the title invictus, which equated the Emperor with the Sun-god, was replaced by the more modest victor. Constantine rejected the title divus for himself, and on the picture on his coins he had the halo around his head replaced by the more neutral nimbus. It was crucial that Constantine rejected for himself the pagan sacrifice as an express act of homage toward a god. When the Umbrian town of Hispellum proposed to build a temple to the Emperor and the gens Flavia, the resolution was as usual approved but with the express prohibition of celebrating pagan rites of worship in it; in other words, the temple for Constantine and his family had the character of a simple monument.

 

Without any doubt, Constantine was interested in seeing his personal position within the ecclesiastical community especially stressed. Hence he fully concurred when Christian writers of the time compared him with Abraham or Moses and addressed him as God's vicar on earth, whose palace was the earthly reflection of the heavenly throneroom. He himself once said that he felt himself to be episkopos ton ektos, a bishop instituted by God to look after the people of his Empire in the religious sphere also, except in the area of the sacramental leadership that pertained to the priesthood of the Church.

 

Constantine's Baptism and Death

 

As already stated, some claim to see a continuation of Constantine's pagan convictions in the fact that he so long deferred the reception of baptism, until he felt his end approaching. To this it must be objected that the Emperor saw daily in his entourage or even on his journeys men of undoubtedly Christian convictions who likewise again and again postponed baptism, even though the Church itself disapproved such a practice. It was partly fostered by Christian teaching in regard to baptism: on the one hand, the sublimity of baptism, the exalted worth of baptismal grace, was extolled, and the difficulty of renewing it when it had been lost by sin was so solemnly described, that many a Christian was unwilling to expose himself to risk by a too early reception of baptism. That such considerations could carry weight with such a tem perament as Constantine's cannot be disputed. But again and again Con stantine stated that he regarded himself as a member of the Church. Perhaps one may even say that the Emperor sometimes entertained the notion that his direct call by the God of the Christians to be sole ruler

 

FROM EQUALITY TO PRIVILEGE

 

established for him so immediate a relationship that he felt himself not obliged to the act of baptism.

 

Furthermore, if one considers the manner in which Constantine pre pared himself for death,85 here too can be recognized a clearly Christian attitude of faith. The thought of his death had early occurred to him, because while he was erecting the Church of the Apostles, as earlier mentioned, he had had his tomb prepared along with it: his coffin was to be placed in a mausoleum attached to the church, between two rows, each of six burial slabs dedicated to the memory of the twelve Apostles so that he could share in the prayers which would be offered here in their honor. The Emperor seems to have celebrated Easter of 337 with out any difficulties. A few weeks later he fell ill and at first sought a cure in the baths of the East. When he recognized the seriousness of the sickness, he called for some bishops to come to Nicomedia and asked them for baptism, which, according to Eusebius, he received in the spirit of the first Christians; then, after the rite, he continued to wear the white garments, "because he no longer wanted to touch purple." And the disposition of his soul was that of an authentic believer. The last words which Eusebius reports from him were uttered shortly after his baptism: "Now I know myself to be truly happy; now I know that I have become worthy of immortal life, a sharer in the divine life." After he had handed over the Empire to his sons and had taken leave of the high officials and the military commanders, he died on Pentecost, 22 May 337. His remains were brought to "his city" and first laid out in the imperial palace and later buried as provided for, in the presence of his second son, Constantinus, after the celebration of the liturgy.

 

With the recognition of Christianity as his own religion and that of the Roman Empire, Constantine had accomplished a deed of world- historical consequences. His memory lived on in East and West, and soon his image, like that of many of the great ones of history, was seized upon and glorified by legend. But in the good as well as in the question able elements of his activity, this ruler continued to operate powerfully through the centuries in which there was a Christian Empire. Each time that a new Emperor ascended the throne at Byzantium, he was thereaf ter hailed by the magnates of the Empire as Neos Konstantinos. Since

 

J.11U v^nun^n ii> i nc riuiivicwuivrk L/r imrCAlAL IUJL1U1UU3 rULlLI

 

very few of his Byzantine successors measured up to the greatness, both as ruler and as man, of this exemplar, this appeal to their predecessor was more often harmful than beneficial to the Church of Byzantium. It also admitted him as the "equal of the Apostles" into its liturgical calen dar and thereby from the start weakened its own position in later con flicts with the throne. In the Latin West, it is true, Constantine's mem ory was also often and at times unscrupulously appealed to in Church- State confrontations,70 but a remarkably surer instinct preserved the Roman Church from enrolling him among the saints. It thereby did the greatest service to itself and to the true significance of the first Christian Emperor.

 

70 See E. Ewig, "Das Bild Constantins d. Gr. in den ersten Jahrhunderten des abendlan dischen Mittelalters," HJ 75 (1956), 1-46; W. Kaegi, "Vom Nachleben Constantins," Schweiz. Zschr.f. Gesch. 8 (1958), 289-326; H. Wolfram inMIOG 68 (1960), 226-243.

 

CHAPTER 2

 

Origin and Course of the Arian Controversy to the Death of Constantine (337)

 

The Origin

 

Very soon after his entry into the eastern capital, Nicomedia, Constan tine learned that the Christian community of the East, like the Church of North Africa, was torn by a conflict which had already reached threatening proportions. Eusebius characterized it as "a mighty fire," which had its beginnings in the Christian congregation of Alexandria, spread from there throughout Egypt, neighboring Libya, and other prov inces of the East, and split both the bishops and the ordinary folk into two camps, which so fiercely attacked each other that the Christian fraternal strife had become the subject of jokes in pagan theatrical productions. This implies that the war in the fall of 324 already had a certain history and hence its beginnings are to be placed in the years before the instituting of measures hostile to Christians by Licinius.

The man under whose name the conflict has come into Church his tory, the priest Arius, was a pastor in the Catholic Church in the part of Alexandria known as Baucalis, but he came from Libya and had ob tained his theological formation, not at the school of Alexandria, but in all probability in Syrian Antioch, since he counted himself among the pupils of the Antiochene priest Lucian, the founder of that city's theological school. These apparently found their former membership in this school a mark of distinction and through it they found themselves united in friendship in later life, when, not without pride, they ac knowledged themselves as "Collucianists" in allusion to their former teacher. Sources not well disposed to Arius attributed to him charming manners, a strictly ascetical manner of life, a general education, and a special talent for "dialectics." From 318 through 319 he expounded in his sermons and teaching an idea of the Logos and his relation to the Father, for which he found a considerable following within his congrega tion, in a part of the clergy, and especially among the consecrated virgins; whereas others decisively rejected it. When his bishop, Alex ander, learned of the special views of his priest, he did not at first regard the matter as cause for alarm but believed that it should be examined in a theological discussion in which both sides could express and justify their ideas. And so, in the presence of Alexander, Arius stated that, in his opinion, "the Son of God was created out of nonbeing, that there was a time when he did not exist, that, according to his will, he was capable of evil as well as of virtue, and that he is a creature and created," while his opponents insisted on the consubstantiality and eternity of the Son with the Father. Alexander, who praised both sides for their theological zeal, finally accepted the second view mentioned and ordered Arius never to propound his opinion again.

 

Since Arius resolutely refused to comply, and Bishop Alexander could only fear that the peace of the Church of Alexandria was seriously threatened, because Arius could count on a certain following among the clergy, he excommunicated him and his clerical adherents. If Alexander believed that Arius was, by this action, condemned, together with his following, to the condition of an insignificant sect, he was greatly mis taken. The originator of the discussion did not intend to recognize the excommunication and leave the Church: instead, he wanted to bring his ideas to victory within the Church. For such an undertaking he could expect success, because he knew that outside Egypt also there was no unanimous opinion in this theological question, and a considerable part of the episcopate sympathized with his theses. Hence, when in a letter to the influential bishop of the imperial capital, Eusebius of Nicomedia, a "Collucianist," he gave an account of the existing confrontation in Alexandria, he took the definitive step which deprived the conflict of its local limitations and could only gain for it an impact throughout the Church. Arius's making contact in this way with the episcopate outside Egypt now forced Bishop Alexander to a more decisive action. He summoned, probably in 319, a synod of all EgyptЧapparently some 100 bishops. He made known the result of their deliberations in an encyclical to all bishops of the Catholic Church: Arius and his suppor ters in the Egyptian and Libyan clergy were excluded from the Church because of their "errors which dishonored Christ;" the supporters were six priests, the same number of deacons, in addition to Bishops Secun- dus and Theonas, both Libyans like Arius; later, two more priests and four deacons were included. The circular gave a concise exposition of the Arian propositions and a somewhat more detailed refutation; it also contained a sharp personal reference to Eusebius of Nicomedia, which declared that Alexander knew who would play a leading role on the opposite side in the now unavoidable expansion of the conflict. Not without alarm, Eusebius had replied to Arius in regard to the latter's letter: "You think correctly, but pray that all may think in the same way;" nevertheless, he at once set to work with energy and became the zealous progagator of the ideas of the Alexandrian priest. Arius had meanwhile left Egypt and finallyЧafter a brief stay with Eusebius of Caesarea, who likewise supported him for a short time Чarrived in Nicomedia, which now became a center of Arian propaganda, very effectively directed by the subtle Eusebius. As early as 320 a Bithynian synod that he had convoked sent a circular to all bishops which called for the restoration of ecclesiastical communion with those who had been

; condemned, since they were orthodox; pressure should be put on Alex

 

ander to receive them back.17 Arius drew up a profession of faith, which, in his own name and that of his friends who had been excom- I municated with him, protested that their faith was that which they had

 

I heard Alexander proclaim within the Church of Alexandria: according

 

I to it, only the Father is eternal, he alone is without beginning, but the

 

I Son is God's perfect creature, he does not possess his being together

 

I with the Father, since the Father existed before the Son.18 Probably at

 

I this time he also wrote a work entitled Thalia, or Banquet, a mixture of

 

I prose and verse, in which he recruited for his ideas in popular form.19

 

I From many sides, Alexander was now pressed to issue a revision of his

 

I judgment on Arius,20 but he felt himself all the more obliged to warn

 

I others about him and his teaching. In a bulky treatise for Bishop Alex-

 

I ander of Thessalonica,21 which was, however, intended as a circular for

 

1 other bishops, Arius and the priest Achilleus were branded as the real

 

i causes of the disturbance, who, with total disregard of the apostolic

 

I tradition, were, following the example of the Jews, waging war against

 

S Christ and denying his divinity. An encyclical sent by Alexander to all

 

S the bishops of the East, and preserved in a Syrian fragment, obtained

 

the assent of some 200 bishops, not only the Egyptians but also those of Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece, and the Balkan Peninsula.22 Also, Pope ' Silvester I in Rome was informed of the events in Alexandria and of the

 

excommunication of the Alexandrian clerics.23 These were merely ex amples of a much more copious correspondence on this question: Epiphanius was acquainted with a collection of some seventy letters of ? Alexander relating to this matter.24

 

As a consequence of the literary feud, which was soon conducted in full vehemence, in which mutual distortions of the teaching and view point of the one side were alleged by the other, and crude accusations of a personal nature were adduced against one another, the fronts quite \ early hardened into clear intransigence. At this stage the split in Eastern

 

Christianity became known to the Emperor Constantine, probably j through the bishops of the East, and it seems that at first, because of a

 

; certain embarrassment, he was not informed about the entire serious

 

ness or about the theological significance of the quarrel. Otherwise, his

 

"Sozomen, HE 1, 15, 10. | 18 G. H. Opitz, op. cit., no. 6.

 

i: 19 Cf. the surviving fragments in G. Bardy, Lucien . . . , 246-274.

 

20 G. H. Opitz, op. cit., nos. 11 and 12. ^ 21 Ibid., no. 14.

 

( 22 Ibid., no. 15.

 

23 Ibid., no. 16.

24

25 Panar. 69, 4.

first attitude is scarcely intelligible, as it appears in a letter to Alexander and Arius, which he had delivered at Alexandria by his western epis copal adviser, Hosius of Cordoba. Here the cause of the quarrel is seen in a completely unnecessary discussion of an unimportant point of the exegesis of a scriptural passage (Prov. 8:22), on which indeed there could be private, differing views, but which should not rashly be made public. Reference was made to the example of the philosophers, among whom quite often disagreement prevailed in individual questions of the systems represented by them without this leading to division among their followers. Hence the two opponents were summoned to become reconciled and to restore peace and unity in the Church so that general harmony, his political goal, could be assured in the Empire. The com parison of the Church with a school of philosophy and the evaluation of the essence of the discussion as an unimportant question of detail make clear how superficially at that time the Emperor had grasped the nature of the Church and the understanding of the figure of Christ; it likewise shows how very much he mistook the situation if he thought that it could be rectified by a summons to the two original spokesmen to become reconciled. In reality, a quite long-standing dispute over a fun damental question of Christian theology had cropped up once again: on its solution depended whether Christianity would lose or retain its deepest religious riches, whether it would remain a revealed religion or not.

 

A half-century before Arius the question of the relationship of Father and Son had been discussed by Greek and Latin theologians, and then too, by a striking parallel, a representative of the Alexandrian school and an Antiochene played a leading role, even though not in direct discus sion. At that time theological terms and formulations which were characteristic of the discussions in the Arian controversy played a special role. At Antioch the bishop of that day, Paul of Samosata, declared around 260 that the biblical expression "Son of God" signified only the Man Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, in whom the Logos had taken up his dwelling, but in order to safeguard the unity of God, Paul acknowl edged in the Logos or divine Sophia no hypostasis of its own, but let it consist in God, "just as the human reason in the human heart." Hence to him the unity of God was the highest principle, and he was to be claimed as the representative of an emphatic Monarchianism. However, he conceded the designation of God to the Man Jesus, because the divine wisdom was operative in him in a special way, just as the prophets and saints were participants in the divine aid. At the Second Synod of Antioch (ca. 268) the expression homoousios played a role in the discussion; its improper use by Paul was condemned, but there was no intention of thereby entirely rejecting it in speculation on the Trin ity. For, shortly before, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria had been blamed by the Roman Bishop of the same name (259-268) because of his excessive reserve in regard to this terminology, and in a letter jus tifying his attitude he had to admit that the expression, even though it was not biblical, was nevertheless acceptable if properly understood. From these two discussions it is clear that in the third century the term homoousios was not yet so amply clarified that it could be used safely and without possible misunderstanding in theological statements on the Trinity; hence no exact terminology was yet available for dogmatic formulation.

 

The question of the relationship of the Son to the Father had also intensively engaged the most important theologian of the third century in the East, and Origen's view became everywhere discernible in its effect on the struggle over the orthodox understanding of the Trinitar ian doctrine in the fourth century. He expressed very clearly and unequivocally that the Logos is a divine being, and when a bishop of his day, Beryllos of Bostra, on the frontier of Arabia, proposed the thesis that Jesus Christ was only a man, whom the Virgin Mary bore, at the request of the bishops of the province of Arabia Origen undertook a journey to Bostra in order to refute this thesis at a synod. But even Origen had not yet achieved the utmost clarity in the same question. There are numerous expressions of his which indicate that, while he ascribed to the Logos a divine dignity, he still subordinated him to the Father, perhaps under the influence of Neoplatonic ideas.

 

Finally, it is to be noted that the intellectual climate of Alexandria could still be under a certain influence of Gnostic ideas, which also taught a graduated hierarchy of divine beings, and, when Arius pro pounded his theology, many an Alexandrian Christian may have been reminded of such Gnostic speculation. Later Athanasius accused Arius of being dependent on the system of the Gnostic Valentine.

 

The Council of Nicaea and its Outcome

 

At Alexandria Bishop Hosius soon had to recognize that the way envis aged by the Emperor for a settlement of the disputeЧreconciliation of Arius with his bishop and cessation of all public discussion of the con troverted pointЧwas not at all practicable. He hardly even encountered the already condemned Arius in the Egyptian capital, and it was not difficult for Alexander to convince the Emperor's theological adviser that the question was of the greatest theological significance and had to be definitively settled. And so Hosius probably went back directly to Nicomedia to see the Emperor in order to report to him on the failure of his mission. Soon both of them understood that there was only one possible way of restoring peace to the Church: to summon the entire episcopate of the Church to a great synod, which, after exhaustive consultation, would have to issue a binding decision.

 

The early sources all attribute to the Emperor Constantine the ini tiative for this solution, and they are to be believed. In the early phase of the Donatist controversy he had hit upon the convocation of the Synod of Aries (314) for a like procedure, so that the manner now chosen represented absolutely nothing new, as is often maintained. Besides, in the meantime the Emperor must have learned that a second question, that of the date of Easter, also needed solving in order to put an end to varying practice in some provinces. It is certain that Constan tine neither had negotiations with Rome on an eventual convocation of the great synod nor did he ask the consent of the Roman Bishop. Only the Sixth Ecumenical Council, held in 680, ascribes a common sum mons to Emperor and Pope, and only the later Legend of Silvester, which tells of the baptism of the Emperor in the Lateran Palace and his being cured of leprosy, pushes the Pope into the foreground when it says that the Synod of Nicaea took place "at his command."

 

The invitations to the bishops of East and West specified Nicaea in Bithynia as the place of meeting and May 325 as the date for beginning the deliberations. Many a bishop may have read in the text of the invitation, not without pleasure, that he might use the public post gratis for the journey and that he was the Emperor's guest during the ses sions. The sources do not indicate whether one or the other of them might have experienced some uneasiness because here the State power was displaying an initiative which, in certain circumstances, could be dangerous for the independence of the Church.

 

The number of participants in the Council is not clearly established. Eusebius says there were more than 250; Athanasius, also an eyewit ness, on one occasion gives the round figure of 300, but elsewhere he gives 318. Later historians uphold this last number, especially since it had a biblical mystical prototype: Abraham's troop of retainers amounted to 318 (Gen. 14:14).

 

Among the Council Fathers were revered figures who, like Paul of Neocaesarea and the Egyptian Paphnutius, had distinguished them selves in the persecution of Diocletian by their constancy, but a leading role in the theological discussion was confined to a minority. To it be longed Alexander of Alexandria, who had hitherto taken the lead in the fight against Arius; Eustathius, bishop of the Syrian capital and splendid theologian, who as a staunch opponent of Arianism would later have to experience exile and would refute the erroneous doctrine in a large work that is unfortunately lost; Marcellus of Ancyra, whose hostility to the teaching of Arius would later drive him to extreme opposition and lead to his own condemnation at the Second General Council in 381. To the group of firm opponents of Arius belonged also Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem. The faction of Arius's friends was led by Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia; right after him is to be mentioned his namesake, the head of the congregation of Caesarea in Palestine, who in dogmatic speculative questions did not reveal any of that special ap titude that would gain for him at Nicaea the favor of Constantine, which he later knew so well how to utilize again and again.

 

The Latin West was only poorly represented, but this is not difficult to understand: the long journey, even with the possibility of using the public post, must have caused many a bishop from Africa or Gaul, Italy or Britain to hesitate, and so only five complied with the Emperor's invitation. At their head stood Hosius of Cordoba, who had long been the Emperor's adviser but was very likely also the representative of the Pope, for he always comes first in the list of names of the bishops. Rome also sent two priests, Vitus and Vincent, who sat with Hosius. Of the remaining four bishops, only one is adequately known to Church history, Caecilian of Carthage,48 whose name is intimately related to the outbreak of the Donatist quarrel.

 

Even at the first general council there were men who would today be called periti, theological advisers of the bishops, as, for example, the youthful deacon Athanasius of Alexandria, who accompanied Alexan der and often intervened in the debates. In addition, there were present a number of interested educated laymen, who eagerly discussed the progress of the discussions among themselves.49

 

Even before the solemn opening of the Council, conversations had started among the Council Fathers on the principal question which had brought them together; naturally in these the representatives of the "pro" and "contra" met and at times sought to strengthen their faction by gaining the as yet undecided. But the embarrassing spectacle of intrigues was also not absent from the first ecumenical council. The Emperor was presented with documents in which this or that bishop was accused of personal lapses, until Constantine called the bishops to gether, displayed the unread and probably also anonymous letters, had them burned before their eyes, gave them a few serious words on fra ternal concord among bishops, and called upon them to turn to the real task that had brought them to Nicaea.

 

Since the church of the congregation of Nicaea scarcely offered ade quate space for all the activities of the Council, the Emperor had placed his own palace in the city at its disposal for the entire period of the sessions. Eusebius enthusiastically and lyrically described the solemn opening, which took place on 20 May 32 5.51 The bishops had taken their seats along the two long sides of the meeting hall and eagerly awaited the entry of the Emperor, for whom a gilded chair had been set up. It made a strong impression on them when the tall figure of the Emperor, adorned in purple, strode through their ranks and did not take his place until by signs he had directed the bishops to sit. After a brief greeting by one of the bishops, the Emperor began a speech in Latin in which the admonition to peace and harmony within the Church was of unmistakable emphasis: an exhaustive discussion of the causes of the conflict should open the way to reconciliation and peace, and in this way the bishops would also render to him, their "fellow servant," a vast favor. Then he turned over the floor to the presidents of the synod. Since the acts of the Council of Nicaea have not been preserved, neither a reconstruction of the order of business or of the exact chronological course of the debates nor an exact number of the sessions or even of the total duration of the Council is possible. Apparently, the faction friendly to Arius at once seized the initiative and proposed a formula of faith into which essential elements of Arian theology seem to have been incorporated. But it encountered the violent protest of the opposition, as did also the passages read aloud from Arius's Thalia, and it quickly became clear that his extreme formulations had no chance of being accepted by the Council. Then the supple Eusebius of Caesarea intervened in the debates with a compromise proposal and recom mended to the Council the acceptance of the baptismal creed in use in his diocese. The bishops recognized fully the orthodoxy of this creed, and Constantine too regarded it as correct, as Eusebius stresses, not without self-satisfaction, but some held that certain supplements were indispensable whereby the statements just discussed should be made precise and an explanation of the creed in the Arian sense should be excluded.

 

It was precisely the supplementary propositions that produced the at times violent discussion to flare up again and again, and in it there was no lack of mutual recriminations on both sides. In particular, the acceptance of the word homoousios ("one in being"), which in the sequel was destined to become the keyword and slogan of Nicene theology, caused long debates. It not only seemed unacceptable to the expressly Arian-oriented bishops, but could produce uneasiness in many another eastern bishop, as its hitherto constantly varying history demonstrated. To the representatives of the Latin Church, on the other hand, it could seem quite appropriate, since they found in it the exact parallel to what in the West since the time of Tertullian was expressed by consubstantialis or eiusdem substantiae. Eusebius ascribes the acceptance of homoousios into the text of the Nicene Creed simply to the initiative of the Em peror, who exerted himself to the utmost in regard to the orthodox interpretation of the term by the Greeks and to the reconciling of the opposing viewpoints.59 It is very probable that it was suggested to Con- stantine by Hosius of Cordoba; but that Hosius was thereby acting on the orders of the Roman Bishop cannot, of course, be proved. The other individual formulas adopted in the definitive text of the Creed Ч "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father"Чassured that the statements concerning Christ would not be susceptible of aay Arian interpretation. The conclusion also contained an unequivocal rejection of the Arian theology: "But some say: 'There was a time in which he was not' and 'Before he was born, he was not' and 'He was created out of nothing,' or they claim that the Son of God is of another substance {hypostasis) or another being {ousia), or he was created or subject to change or alteration. The Catholic and Apostolic Church declares them excluded from its membership." This excommunication affected primarily Arius himself and his two episcopal friends, Secundus and Theonas, since, except for them, all the other Arians signed the Creed which had been unambiguously recommended for adoption by the Emperor. For Arius it must have been a bitter disappointment that the Collucianists had thus abandoned him: for him there now remained the road to exile, and the ban did not spare his own writings and those of his adherents. When Eusebius notes that, through his diplomatic skill and his personal charm, the Emperor had brought it about that the bishops "were of one mind and one view on all points" this was surely not true of all those who had been Arians previously and was probably not true even of himself. Men like Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theog- nis of Nicaea still stood secretly at the side of the condemned Arius, but they did not dare to directly attack the Creed that had been so solemnly approved by the Emperor so long as he lived. However, they soon found ways and means to bring defenders of the Creed into discredit

^Ђu 1UIW1 1U JJ!

 

with the Emperor and thereby began the fierce struggle which the faith of Nicaea had to endure for decades in order that it might be accepted in the Universal Church.

 

After the adoption of the Creed, the Council Fathers took up the other points of the agenda. In the matter of the date of Easter they agreed on the practice of the greater part of the Church, which cele brated the solemnity of the Resurrection on the Sunday after 14 Nisan. Then disciplinary questions were discussed, and the decisions were set down in twenty canons. Finally, the Council decided on a generous solution for the schism caused in Egypt by Bishop Meletius of Lycopolis: Meletius was to retain his position as bishop and his see; the bishops and clerics ordained by him were received back into the Catholic Church after the imposition of hands, and the bishops could be promoted to sees as they became vacant, but only with the consent of the Metropolitan of Alexandria.

 

Constantine tried quickly and effectively to assure the newly won unity in the faith, first by means of a solemn and impressive closing of the Council. Probably after the adoption of the Creed and in connection with the twentieth anniversary of his accession, he gave a splendid banquet for the Council Fathers in his palace at Nicomedia; Eusebius, always so easily enthused, compared it to the glory of the heavenly kingdom.66 The bishops gladly accepted the presents which Constantine gave to each of them on this occasion. Before their departure he asked all of them to come to him once more, admonished them henceforth "to maintain peace among themselves, to avoid the envy that leads to strife," and recommended himself to their prayers. Soon afterwards, he sent a comprehensive report on the Council "to the churches"Чthis probably meant chiefly those not represented at NicaeaЧand in it he unambiguously attributed to himself the initiative for the great Synod. The Emperor assured the faithful that all questions had been carefully examined and unity in the Church had thereby been achieved. He devoted much space to the decree on the uniform date of Easter and stressed in surprisingly sharp words the necessity of holding Christianity at a distance from Judaism. A special letter went to the congregation of Alexandria in which Constantine expressed his joy over the restoration

 

THE CHURCH IN THE FRAMEWORK OF IMPERIAL RELIGIOUS POLICY

 

of unity of faith and once again rejected the errors of Arius. The above-mentioned special synodal letter of the Council probably went to all the larger communities. In the still extant copy to the Christians of Egypt and Libya the excommunication of Arius and his two episcopal friends is made known and especially justified by the condemnation of his teaching.

 

The Council of Nicaea, with its decision on the faith, was an event of the utmost importance for an understanding of Church history as a whole, especially the history of the councils. In it we find the first council in history which without any doubt possessed an ecumenical character, since to it were invited bishops from all the geographical areas of Christianity, and they attended, even though in varying strength. It did not deprive the Council of any legitimacy that the Emperor took the initiative in convoking it, since the Bishop of Rome consented to Constantine's action by sending his own representatives. This first ecumenical council, with its adoption and promulgation of its Creed, made a decision in the area of faith which was equivalent to a dogmatic definition. For the entire course of the Council and the long struggle of the Council Fathers over a formula that as clearly as possible rendered the testimony of faith made clear their intention here to issue a definitive judgment that bound the Universal Church in a con troverted question of belief. The manner of achieving the decision re vealed at the same time a process that would be of the greatest signifi cance in the history of dogma. The Church seeks to assure individual doctrines of faith from misinterpretation or heretical explanation in such a way that it clarifies the testimony hitherto accepted by com plementary additions, elucidates them by more precise formulation, and for that purpose even takes philosophical terms into its service, if these seem appropriate. The guaranteeing of the threatened statement of faith in its orthodox sense is, accordingly, a decisive factor in the devel opment of dogma. The goal of the Council was achieved despite all human shortcomings and meanness, despite all the risks which pro ceeded also from Constantine's pressure, which, while it really threat ened the freedom of individual bishops, did not destroy it. The noteworthy remark in the Emperor's letter to the congregation of Alexandria exactly touches the theological reality here referred to: "What the 300 bishops have decided is nothing else than the decree of God, for the Holy Spirit, present in these men, made known the will of God." The validity of this statement is not lessened by the fact that in the next five decades of the fourth century there raged a struggle over

 

 

 

ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY TO 337

 

the recognition of the Nicene theology, which convulsed the Church to its innermost depths and renewed the fear of its early dissolution into various denominations.

 

The Development to the Death of Constantine (337)

 

Only a few months after the ending of the Council it was plain that the Arian faction would not abandon the struggle for its understanding of the Trinitarian theology. Two of its leading bishops, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, informed the Emperor that they withdrew their assent to the Creed of 325. The Emperor, not accus tomed to seeing decisions which he had solemnly approved treated in this fashion, regarded this step as self-exclusion from the ecclesiastical community, sent the two bishops into exile in Gaul, and gave their former sees to prelates loyal to Nicaea. A letter to the congregation of Nicomedia makes known Constantine's great displeasure with the malicious behavior of its bishop. And an intervention by the Emperor with Bishop Theodotus of Laodicea, who publicly manifested his sym pathy for Arius, let it be understood that he would act energetically for the observance of the Nicene decrees.

 

But from the beginning of 328 a reversal in the Emperor's attitude began to appearЧnot, it is true, in his position with regard to the Council, but concerning individual representatives of the pro-Arian faction. The reasons for the change are difficult to ascertain clearly. In that year the exiled Bishops Eusebius and Theognis were permitted to return from banishment and again occupy their former sees of Nicomedia and Nicaea. And now that same Eusebius, who three years previously had been condemned by the Emperor in the harshest terms, succeeded more and more in gaining the Emperor's ear and favor and finally in occupying that very position whiclx earlier Hosius of Cordoba, who had probably returned to his Spanish see after the Council, had held as theological adviser and which automatically made him the effec tive promoter of the interests of Arius. Here one may probably take into account the influence of Constantine's stepsister, Constantia, who lived in Nicomedia and whose confidence the bishop of the imperial capital, a member of the upper class, had long possessed. Eusebius of

 

 

THE CHURCH IN THE FRAMEWORK OF IMPERIAL RELIGIOUS POLICY

 

Caesarea in Palestine had probably also contributed to the change of attitude, for his culture and his rhetorical talents strongly impressed the Emperor, all the more since his courtliness avoided any uncouth stress ing of opposing views. It is also possible that the Empress-Mother Helena spoke in praise of him at court when she reported on her impressions of her journey to the Holy Land, where of course she met the bishop of the capital of the Province of Palestine.

 

Soon after his return from exile, Eusebius of Nicomedia energetically and methodically assumed the leadership of the Arian faction. He clearly understood that the fight must not be conducted directly against the Nicene Creed, because that would certainly provoke the Emperor's opposition. It was more important first to eliminate the leading per sonalities of the opposition. Following the close of the Council, Bishop Eustathius of Antioch had at first become the dominant figure of this group. Even at Nicaea he had played a strong role, opposing Arius by literary means, and through his sarcasm he had irritated Eusebius of Nicomedia by making fun of his new career. The Emperor was clev erly told that Eustathius was a morally doubtful character, again and again disturbed the religious peace, and had expressed himself disre spectfully in regard to the Emperor's Mother. The Emperor gave his assent to a synod held at Antioch c. 331, at which the friends of Arius deposed Eustathius, whom the Emperor then exiled to Thrace. Before long, he was followed by eight bishops of his group; then, encouraged by this success, the Arian party directed its attack against Athanasius, who had been elected to the see of Alexandria after Alexander's death in 328. At Nicaea itself they had acquired a lasting impression of this new bishop's energy and constancy and could see in him the actual rising champion of the Nicene theology.

 

In his case too the Arians' accusation chose the route of insinuation and represented as the real cause of the still nonexistent religious peace the tyrannical character of the Bishop of Alexandria, who did not trou ble himself about law and order and stopped at no methods of force to make his own interests prevail. Among other things, he was supposed to have murdered Bishop Arsenius, who, as a Meletian, had not submitted unconditionally; he had had other Meletian bishops flogged and had profaned a chalice used in the liturgy. The Emperor was so impressed by these charges that he gave instructions that the bishops whom he had invited to the dedication of the church he had built at Jerusalem over

 

OKKilJN AINU LAUSti Uf 1 Htl AK1AJN CONTROVERSY TO 35/

 

the tomb of Christ should treat the case of Athanasius at a synod in nearby Tyre (335). The Synod was completely dominated by the Arian faction, which admitted almost none but opponents of Athanasius. The Egyptian bishops in his retinue were turned away as uninvited; furthermore, the Emperor's representative, Count Flavius Dionysius, was a declared adherent of the Arian faction. At Tyre there also appeared for the first time two bishops from Pannonia who would often play a changing role in the later confrontations, Valens of Mursa and Ursacius of Singidunum, whom Arius had gained for his views, probably during his exile. At this Synod Athanasius was not only in the role of the accused; he also stood before men who almost without exception were his bitter opponents, so that here he could expect no just verdict and even had to fear for his life. Deciding to leave Tyre secretly, he went to Constantinople to meet the Emperor in person. The Synod at once decreed his deposition. Since Athanasius was not admitted to an audience, he addressed the Emperor directly when the latter had gone riding on horseback, described the proceedings at Tyre, and asked for justice. At first Constantine rendered no decision but commanded the participants of the Synod of Tyre to come to Constan tinople; but only four of them, the two Eusebiuses, Ursacius, and Va lens, appeared. They advanced a new charge against Athanasius, which amounted to high treason: that he sabotaged the imperial decrees in Egypt and prevented the export of the grain necessary for the capital's life. The Emperor could have decreed the death penalty for these crimes, but instead he ordered the exile of Athanasius to Trier. It is by no means clear why Constantine did not have this ridiculous accusation more thoroughly investigated. It seems to have been for him a welcome pretext for finally removing far from the East a troublesome man, who, in his view, stood in the way of reconciliation.

 

Now, of course, the Arian party had a free hand, and they wanted to crown their series of successes thus far with the full rehabilitation of Arius, hence with his absolution from censure and reinstatement in his priestly rights. For him too the situation had improved. It is true that as late as 333 the Emperor had issued an edict against him and his adher ents and in a rather lengthy letter to Arius and his friends he had once more repudiated their doctrine. But at the latest in November 334

 

inc v.nUBV.n 11X xr-IJD riU!RIEWUє Uf IjyLrfiniAL IU1LH11UU3 tVULI

 

Arius received a letter from the Emperor, which urgently invited him to court for an exchange of views.84 Arius on this occasion presented to Constantine a profession of faith, which skillfully evaded the very point at issue but seemed to the Emperor to prove that Arius did not teach what his opponents attributed to him. Hence he referred him to a future synod, which should absolve him from excommunication.85 This possibility presented itself to the Arian bishops at the above-mentioned meeting in Jerusalem. They declared Arius's doctrine to be orthodox and for this purpose appealed to the profession of faith that he had presented. Then they lifted the excommunication pronounced against him at Nicaea and asked the Emperor to reinstate him in his priestly rights. This was intended to take place in a solemn ecclesiastical func tion, but Arius died shortly before.86 The Emperor's death the next year was to mean the beginning of further progress upward for the Arians. The eastern part of the Empire fell to his son Constantius II, who had chosen Arianism as his faith and would procure exclusive recognition for it during the twenty-four years of his reign, when necessary with any means available.

 

84 Socrates, HE 1, 25; from the letter it follows that such an invitation had been issued earlier.

85

86 Text of the profession of faith in Sozomen, HE 2, 27, 7ff.

87

88 Decision of the Synod of Jerusalem: Sozomen, HE 2, 27, 13-14; Athanasius, Apol. contra Arianos, 84; De syn. 21. Death of Arius: Athanasius, Ep. de morte Arii ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae 19. Athanasius saw a divine judgment in the sudden death. Arius probably died, not at Alexandria, but at Constantinople.

89

CHAPTER 3

 

The Struggle over the Council of Nicaea under the Sons of Constantine

 

Constantine the Great believed he had made sufficient provision for the future of the Empire when in 335 he informed his three sons of his planned division of its territory. The oldest, Constantine II, was to receive the Prefecture of Gaul, the East was assigned to Constantius II, and the central part, that is, Africa, Italy, and Pannonia, was to belong to the youngest, Constans. In addition, two sons of Constantine's half- brother Dalmatius were given a share in the government, but in a weaker position. This plan was never fully implemented. For the first months after Constantine's death, the Empire was still ruled in his name. In September 337 his three sons assumed the title of Augustus; at the same time a military revolt in Constantinople produced a blood bath, in which all male relatives of the three Augusti, except for the

 

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

 

brothers Gallus and Julian, nephews of Constantine, were murdered together with several high officialsЧwhether this happened with the consent of Constantius, who was present, or whether he was merely a helpless spectator, cannot be determined. But the incident only too clearly shows how little a Christian spirit had penetrated the army and ad ministration. The division of the spheres of power was somewhat altered: Constantine II retained the West with Trier as his capital; the East continued under Constantius II; Constans took the Balkan peninsula and resided at Sirmium, but his oldest brother was a sort of guardian for him and had an honorary precedence among the three. However, Con stans claimed full equality and had recourse to arms when Constantine II refused. In his preparation for the war, the latter fell into an ambush at Aquileia and lost his life (340). Constans took control of the sphere that had belonged to his dead brother and for the next ten years was ruler of the Balkan Peninsula and the entire West. Constantius had to accept in silence this extension of his brother's power, since he was tied down in the East because of permanent unrest on the Persian frontier.

 

No reaction in favor of paganism or even an attempt at a restoration was to be expected from any of the young Emperors. They had all been raised as Christians, and the Christian faith corresponded to their inner convictions. Both surviving Augusti departed to a great extent from the line of relative toleration maintained by their father toward the adher ents of paganism and the private practice of heathen worship, as a series of legislative measures proves. The year 341 was decisive in this regard, with an edict issued by Constantius, which began: Cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania.1 Of course, it is not entirely clear whether only the excesses of pagan worship or pagan sacrifices in general were here meant. The new harsh tone was unmistakable, and through it Christians were encouraged to a bellicose attitude toward paganism and its manifestations of life. The writer Firmicus Maternus, converted to Christianity not long before, in his neophyte's zeal de manded of the Emperors the closing of the temples by law, the melting down of the statues of the gods, the confiscation of temple property. The Arian Bishop George of Cappadocia, who had been installed at Alexandria in place of Athanasius, pathetically cried out when he passed by a pagan temple: "Hpw long is this tomb to remain standing?" This aggressive attitude exploded here and there in actual measures taken by Christians against individual sanctuaries. In Syria, Bishop Marcus of Arethusa had a pagan shrine demolished and on its site built a church; at

 

1 nr. V. n Lj JAt.. Jn iin Aran rrmmcwuiui wi iiVirci\inL '.J.1V.JIV7UO ruu^i

 

Caesarea in Cappadocia the shrines of Zeus and Apollo were destroyed; in Phrygia the temple in Merus was closed.4 The Christians had a model for their actions in the attitude of the state officials: for example, the Caesar Gallus had the relics of the martyr Babylas solemnly transferred to the shrine of Apollo in Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, in order thereby to proclaim that the power of this once highly esteemed oracle had been broken by the Christian saint; at Alexandria, the strategos Artemius had the Sarapeion plundered by his soldiers.5 It is noteworthy that all these incidents took place in the eastern half of the Empire and apparently remained isolated cases. That the exercise of pagan worship still persisted and was performed at least in secret follows from the repeated decrees of the imperial officials, which again and again en joined the earlier prohibitions. Some refer especially to divination and pagan magic,6 but that many temples were closed on the basis of official decrees is proved above all by the fact that the Emperor Julian had them again opened by special decrees, again permitted the sacrificial rites in them, and restored the property taken from them.7 Occasional com promises made by the Emperor Constantius do not contradict his basi cally hostile attitude toward heathen worship. Moderation especially in regard to the pagan senatorial faction in Old Rome seemed to him to be politically advisable. On the occasion of his visit to the western capital in 356 he permitted the continuation of the privileges of some old cults, but he had the altar of Victory removed from the Senate chamber and by his conduct while visiting the most important monuments of Rome he showed that for these witnesses of the pagan religion he had an interest that concerned the history of art rather than religion.8 It was clear that followers of this religion could exert no influence that carried any weight on the imperial religious policy as a whole.

 

Of course, the Christianity of the Empire must have awaited with great tension the first expressions of the Emperors in regard to the conflict for or against the Nicene Creed, which had split especially the faithful of the eastern half of the Empire into two camps and finally had brought the better prospects of victory to the Arian faction. But at first the adherents of the Creed and of its champion Athanasius could breathe freely. As early as three weeks after the death of Constantine

 

"Theodoret, HE 3, 1, 6; Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 4, 88-91; Sozomen, HE 5, 4, 2; Socrates, HE 3, 15.

 

5 John Chrysostom, In Bab. 12; Julian, Ep. 60 (70 Bidez); Sozomen, HE 4, 30, 2.

6

7 Law of 23 November 353: Cod. Theod. 16, 10, 5; of 1 December 356; ibid. 16, 10, 4-6.

8

9 Ammianus Marcellinus, 22, 4, 3; 22, 5, 2.

10

11 Cod. Theod. 16, 10, 3; Ammianus Marcellinus, 16, 10, 3; Symmachus, Rel. ad Gratianum 3, 7, 6-7.

12

INN JIRUUL.LT OVEK THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

 

the Great, his son at Trier made known in a letter to the Christian congregation of Alexandria that the exile of its bishop was at an end. Soon the other exiled bishops who were loyal to Nicaea received per mission to return to their sees; hence one could assume that these measures were based on an understanding among the dead Emperors sons. Athanasius on his return journey several times met with the Em peror ConstantiusЧat Viminacium, at Caesarea in Cappadocia, at Antioch Чand for the time being nothing indicated any discord be tween them. But the arrival of the former pastors in their sees had less gratifying consequences. Almost everywhere they had been given suc cessors after their banishment, and these were unwilling to yield with out more ado, and hence in several cities there were disturbances and confrontations in the local congregations.

 

The EusebiansЧthe faction surrounding Eusebius of NicomediaЧ were naturally dismayed at the return of their most capable opponent and decidedly denied that the resumption of the See of Alexandria by Athanasius was permissible in canon law: an ecclesiastical synod, that of Tyre in 335, had deposed him by a valid judgment and this act could not be annulled by a unilateral decision of the Emperor. They even sent a priest, Macarius, to Pope Julius at Rome to present to the Pope the synodal acts of Tyre and show the illegality of Athanasius's return. At the same time they recognized as Bishop of Alexandria the former priest Pistus, who had been ordained by a friend of Arius as Bishop of the Meletians. A man of the energy and readiness for action of Athanasius reacted quickly and firmly. A synod of all the Egyptian bishops, summoned by him in 338, solemnly declared its confidence in him as Egypt's lawful chief bishop and demonstrated in a circular to all bishops of the Church that he had been elected bishop ten years earlier in complete accord with canon law, that his deposition by the Synod of Tyre was an act accomplished by naked power, and that he had received no successor at the time of his banishment; hence he had returned to his still vacant episcopal cathedra.13 This encyclical, which went also to Rome and to the three Emperors, provoked the Eusebians to an ill- advised step. They now asked the Pope for the convoking of a synod which should decide the case of Athanasius and thereby abandoned the validity of the decree of the Synod of Tyre, which they had so strongly stressed.14 At the same time they repudiated Pistus, hitherto claiming to be the successor of Athanasius, and decided for a foreigner, Gregory of Cappadocia, who was quickly ordained a bishop and brought to Egypt. Since until now the clergy and people of Alexandria had admittedly possessed the right to elect their bishop, this wholly uncanonical proce dure encountered the most violent resistance from the Catholics of Alexandria, and the new bishop had to enter the Egyptian capital in 339 under military protectionЧthe outcome was violent disturbances, re sulting in a number of deaths. However, Athanasius had to yield to force and left his episcopal city for the second time, not without, in a fiery protest, calling the attention of all bishops to the fate of the Church if people silently tolerated the terror. Meanwhile, invitations were issued by Pope Julius to a synod at Rome, but now the Eusebians declined to go there, even though it was they who had asked for the synod. They again referred to the fact that an eastern synod had already decided the question: a western synod could not even discuss or decide a case which was an internal affair of the eastern Church. This only induced the Pope all the more painstakingly to examine at a Roman Synod (340-341) the matter of Athanasius, who was present with a group of other exiled bishops, on the basis of all the documents obtain able. It reached the conclusion that Athanasius was the lawful Bishop of Alexandria, and Pope Julius communicated this to the eastern bishops in a dignified letter, in which was clearly heard the claim of the Roman Bishop to summon to himself cases involving even eastern episcopal sees and to render decisions binding the Universal Church. He very skillfully reproached them for their inconsistency if they here rejected a second treatment of a question decided by a synod, whereas in the case of Arius they had invariably acted otherwise. But the decision of the Roman Synod had no effect on the actual circumstances: Athanasius had to remain in the West and maintain only by letter his relations with the Egyptian Christians who remained loyal to him. The opponents of homoousios met in the East when the church built by Constantius at Antioch was solemnly dedicated in the fall of 341. At this Dedication Synod they composed a circular in which they were careful not to call themselves adherents of Arius: they would only follow the tradition but

 

illii Oiivuuuix UVEK AMU T-UUJNCIL Of NICAEA

 

in their profession of faith they avoided every formula which had been adopted into the Nicene Creed.

 

The Synod of Serdica and its Sequel

 

Commotion reappeared in the discussion because of the political events which had made the young Constans sole ruler in the West and thereby had increased his power, to which Constantius in the East could not be indifferent. When Constans asked his brother for a clarification of the attitude of the bishops in the eastern part of the Empire, a delegation of four bishops soon appeared at the court in Trier and presented the Emperor with a new creed, in which, it is true, some theses of Arius were rejected without his being named, but the homoousios was not mentioned, as though the Council of Nicaea had not taken place. But meanwhile Pope Julius also had again become active: he had asked the Emperor Constans to obtain his brother's consent to a new synod, to be attended by bishops of both parts of the Empire, which should defini tively end the conflict. Constantius agreed, and so a meeting of all bishops was summoned to Serdica (Sofia) in the Balkan Peninsula; this city was in the dominions of Constans but lay next to the frontier of the Eastern Empire.

 

Both factions arrived there in the fall of 342 or 343. At the head of the approximately ninety western bishops were Hosius of Cordoba, now well advanced in years, and two priests, Archidamus and Philoxenus, as representatives of Pope Julius. The easterners, fewer in numberЧbetween seventy-five and eightyЧwere led by Stephen of Antioch and Acacius of Caesarea in PalestineЧEusebius of Nicomedia, who had become Bishop of Constantinople, had died in 341Чbut, characteristically, they were accompanied by two high officials of Con stantius. Unfortunately, only a single common session of the two groups took place because the easterners laid down a condicio sine qua non: the deposed eastern bishops, Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza, were not to take part in the Synod, since, as the accused, they could have neither seat nor voice in it. Even when Hosius proposed that Athanasius should himself, if proved innocent, remain in the West if his return to Alexandria was undesirable, they remained intransigent. The eastern bishops held a special session, com posed an encyclical for the Universal Church, and left Serdica by night under the pretext that they had just received news of a victory of their Emperor Constantius over the Persians, which they had to celebrate with their congregations. By leaving the Synod they created the im pression that the entire procedure was already completed for them. In a circular to the whole Church body they repeated the old accusations against Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra and condemned the leading western bishops, especially Pope Julius, Hosius of Cordoba, and Maximinus of Trier, because through them "Marcellus, Athanasius, and the other criminals" had been "again received into the ecclesiastical community."

 

The westerners necessarily alone completed the program determined for the Synod. They made a documentary examination of all the accused eastern bishops: the charges against Athanasius and his friends were again shown to be unsupported, whereas their enemies and their succes sors in their sees had committed serious offenses against canon law. Hence the westerners, in their turn, cut off the leading men of the East from the ecclesiastical community. Some bishops also wanted a new creed to be promulgated and presented a sketch of it, but Athanasius rightly opposed this, saying that the Nicene Creed was entirely ade quate and should not be debased by an unending production of further creeds, as the easterners were doing. The members of the Synod then acquainted the bishops of the Universal Church with the decrees they had issued and asked those not present to give their assent.

 

The Synod of Serdica is important in the history of canon law because it promulgated disciplinary regulations in twenty-one canons, which had become necessary in view of the bitter experiences of the recent years. Thus it was expressly established that a deposed bishop had the right to

 

IRTE їIKUTRCLJI OVKR THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

 

appeal against the verdict, which, furthermore, could be made only by the synod of his province and in this form: that his fellow-bishops had to submit the matter to the Bishop of Rome; it was up to the Pope to decide whether the sentence was just or refer the case for further con sideration to the synod of a neighboring province, at which he could have himself represented. It was enjoined on the bishops not to entice any clerics from other dioceses into their own or to ordain them without the consent of their own bishop or to give a parish to one who had been excommunicated by his own bishop.34 The bishops' duty of residence was strictly interpreted, and a transfer to another see was firmly prohib ited. An unambiguous allusion to events of the very recent past was evident in the decrees which forbade lengthy journeys of the bishops to the imperial court.36 The bishops did not go home without appealing urgently to the Emperor Constantius to end the intrigues and violent procedures of individual bishops against their confreres and that gov ernment officials should not interfere in ecclesiastical matters.

 

On the whole, the Synod of Serdica, on which people in the West had set such great hopes, ended without positive result, apart from its can ons. Because of the excommunication of the leaders in East and West the atmosphere was so envenomed that a breach between eastern and western Christianity already became visible, one of the first stages in that long process of alienation which would finally lead to the definitive schism. This alienation must have been especially serious when the political power of a part of the Empire stood from time to time behind the notion that it acted for its episcopate in dogmatic or disciplinary questions. A development of this sort was already under way in the area ruled by Constantius. The Emperor clearly took sides against all who in any manner had demonstrated their sympathy for the decrees of the western bishops at Serdica. Bishops and clerics were banished, and the Emperor had guards posted to prevent the return home of those bishops who had been rehabilitated at Serdica. Then came unexpected help from the West. The six-years-younger Constans did not restrict himself to caring for the peace in the ecclesiastical sphere in his part of the Empire, but exerted on his older brother a clearly visible pressure so that the Athanasians might enjoy their rights in the eastern part of the EmpireЧand Constantius had to reckon with the energy and superior diplomatic skill of Constans, who had already shown in the case of

 

Constantine II that he did not intend to deviate from decisions once made. Around Easter 344 there appeared at the court in Antioch a delegation from the West, of which the Bishop of Cologne, Euphratas, was a member; it brought a letter from the Emperor Constans, in which permission was requested for Athanasius to return to his episcopal city. While the delegation did not achieve the return of the exiled bishop, the persecution of Athanasius's adherents in Egypt was stopped for a while. The influence of Constans remained effective, and when Bishop Gregory died in 345 Constantius by letter invited Athanasius to return to his diocese. But Athanasius bided his time and prepared carefully for his return journey. He solemnly took his leave of the Emperor Con stans and Pope Julius, who gave him a laudatory letter for the people of Alexandria. At Antioch the Emperor himself received him; he did not, however, agree to Athanasius's demand to be confronted with his op ponents so as to be able to defend himself, but he seemed ready to make a definitive peace with Athanasius, since he required the Prefect of Egypt to return all official documents which had been sent to him on the subject of Athanasius. The reception of the long-exiled Egyptian bishop in Alexandria resembled a triumphal procession. With satisfac tion Athanasius pointed out that more than 400 bishops in the East and West were in communion with him; even his two bitter opponents from the Balkan Peninsula, Valens and Ursacius, declared to Pope Julius that they accepted the decrees of the Synod of Serdica, requested admission into the communion of the Church, and in a letter to Athanasius called him their brother. Even if some bishops of the East were not internally in agreement with this development, it still seemed that now the way to a definitive pacification had been entered on. But again a political hap pening frustrated the hope through the death of the very one who had started this development. In January 350 Count Magnentius was acclaimed as Emperor at Autun in Gaul. The Emperor Constans had to flee to Spain, but was overtaken in the Pyrenees by his mutinous troops and murdered. After a war that went in favor of one side and then of the other for three years, Constantius succeeded in overwhelming the usurper. The second son of Constantine became sole Emperor, and the religious policy of the State was again in the hands of one man.

 

THE STKUCIGLE OVER THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

 

The Religious Policy of Constantius II as Sole Emperor (350-361)

 

The apprehensions about Constantius's religious policies by Athanasius and his friends seemed at first to be without foundation. Constantius informed Athanasius that he would take into account the wishes of his dead brother and that Athanasius could always count on his support. The latter was well advised when he maintained a strictly reserved tone with regards to a delegation from the usurper Magnentius, who hoped to gain the Egyptian bishop for his side; he called upon his congregation to pray for the Emperor Constantius. The more Constantius made progress at the expense of the usurper, however, the more strongly the hostility of the opponents of Athanasius became evident, and the Em peror drew ever closer to them. From the beginning of 352 they re proached him for his adherence to Constans and the reception of the delegation from Magnentius and tried to arouse suspicions of his disloy alty in Constantius. They increased their exertions when, through the death of Pope Julius in 352, Athanasius lost one of his most staunch supporters in the West. The new Pope, Liberius (352-366), also re jected their accusations against Athanasius and turned to Constantius, who was then staying at Aries, with the request that he summon a synod to Aquileia, which should reestablish ecclesiastical peace between East and West. It was not a good sign that the Pope's envoys found with the Emperor at Aries the two Pannonian bishops, Valens and Ursacius, who had in the meantime become his theological advisers for the Latin West. The Emperor was ready to hold a synod at once, but at Aries, to which the Gallic bishops were invited (353). However, none of the pending theological questions were presented for their discussion: instead, they received the draft of a decree which contained the condemnation of Athanasius. At first the papal legates demanded the discussion of their theological differences, but in vain. Just as his father had done at Nicaea in regard to the minority, so now the Emperor threatened the western bishops with deposition and exile in the event that they refused to sign the decree. Together with this threat, the crafty eloquence of Bishop Valens of Mursa persuaded one Gallic bishop after another, who besides had only a meager knowledge of the entire prehistory of the case of Athanasius, to give the demanded signature; only one of them remained

 

THE CHURCH IN THE FRAMEWORK OF IMPERIAL RELIGIOUS POLICY

 

unmoved, Paulinus of Trier, who was therefore exiled to Phrygia, where he died. Pope Liberius likewise could not give his assent and de manded of the Emperor the summoning of a new general council.51 Constantius very willingly agreed to this request, since he knew that no serious resistance of his will was to be expected from this episcopate, and named Milan as the meeting place of this Synod. A few easterners and a considerable number of western bishops appeared there in 355. With this Synod began a disgraceful tragedy, for which the Emperor was chiefly responsible, since he did not tolerate the slightest resistance to his will and let himself be induced to ever more severe measures. Again the only thing he wanted from the members was to sign the judgment condemning Athanasius. When Bishop Eusebius of Vercelli proposed, on the other hand, that the bishops present should first add their signa tures to the Nicene Creed, and Bishop Dionysius of Milan prepared to do just that, there were ugly scenes. As a consequence the Emperor had the remaining sessions transferred from the church to the imperial palace, in order better to control the bishops, and again he succeeded, by means of the same threats, in obtaining the same result as at Aries. With three exceptions, all yielded to force: these three were Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Dionysius of Milan, against whom exile was decreed. The Arian Auxentius of Cappadocia was forced upon the Milanese Catholics as their bishop: he could not even preach to his flock in their mother tongue. After the close of the Synod, imperial envoys sought out the absent bishops and extorted their signatures. In Gaul they encountered a certain resistance, the soul of which was soon recog nized as Bishop Hilary of Poitiers, who in the next years would play an important role in keeping the Latin West from succumbing to Arianism. He was now compelled, with other bishops of southern Gaul, to take part in a Synod at Beziers (356), where it was possible to obtain by cunning the assent of most of the participants to the condemnation of Athanasius. Only Hilary and Rhodanius of Toulouse refused and hence had to take the road to exile in Phrygia.

 

There was still really only one western bishop whose attitude could not be a matter of indifference to the Emperor and his advisersЧthe Bishop of Rome, Pope Liberius. When he learned of the outcome of the

 

It-la 51KUUUUI UVtK 1HC CUUJNICli. Uf JN1CAKA

 

Synod of Milan, he wrote at once to the three exiled bishops to express to them his appreciation of their upright conduct and his regret at not sharing their fate. But at first the rank of the Roman Bishop seemed to recommend to the Emperor still another method. The imperial official Eusebius carried rich presents to the Pope, and only when these were firmly rejected did threats follow. When the Pope had the gifts, which had been placed in St. Peter's, removed from the church, the Prefect of the City, Leontius, received the command to bring Liberius to court by force. In order to avoid disturbances among the population, the act had to take place under the cover of night. At the court in Milan there were sharp confrontations between the excessively excitable Emperor and the Pope, who with dignified firmness refused to condemn the "godless Athanasius, whose insolence cannot be described," as the Em peror put it. Finally, the Emperor gave him three days for reflection, after which he was to decide for signing and at the same time for returning to Rome or for exile. But after only two days Liberius was taken into exile in Thrace, where he was entrusted to the care of an Arian bishop. The 5,000 gold pieces which the Emperor gave him for his expenses were rejected, as was also the money which the Empress wanted him to have. Apparently a long resistance by the Pope was expected, since after a while he received a successor: a deacon, Felix, who lacked the character to refuse the office. In this way virtually every voice that could evoke real resistance was silenced. But the Em peror's entourage remembered that in remote Spain there was still Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, who was almost a centenarian by then. This old man still seemed dangerous and when, despite repeated letters from the Emperor, he was not prepared to break with Athanasius, he was brought to the Balkan peninsula and kept in prison, probably at Sir- mium.

 

After the West had thus been intimidated by the Emperor, it was possible to proceed with greater security against Athanasius, who was still in Alexandria. In reply to all efforts to overawe him Athanasius cleverly referred to the Emperor's letters, in which the latter had as sured him of his sympathy and help. The attempt to stage a popular uprising against him also miscarried. Finally, a detachment of soldiers

 

THE CHURCH IN THE FRAMEWORK OF IMPERIAL RELIGIOUS POLICY

 

invaded the Church of St. Theonas during a liturgy at which Athanasius was present in order to arrest the bishop. In the resulting tumult, which claimed several lives, Athanasius escaped (February 356) and betook himself to the monks in the desert, who received him with great joy. Against the will of the people, who had appealed to the Emperor, the congregation of Alexandria in 357 again received an outsider as bishop, after the churches had been taken from the Catholics and given to the Arians. This Bishop George introduced a real regime of terror throughout Egypt, had bishops and priests sent into exile, and in every possible way molested the faithful who remained loyal to Athanasius, until finally after eighteen months the Alexandrians tired of the terror and put to flight the bishop who had been imposed on them. But still Athanasius could not venture to returnЧand so the defenders of the Nicene Creed were driven out of public view. In his hiding place among the Egyptian monks Athanasius wrote some of his most important works of vindication. In the Apologia to the Emperor Constantius he re futed the calumnies then in circulation about him and devoted great care to both content and style. The Apologia for His Flight was addressed to the Universal Church and became one of his most popular writings. The Apologeticus against the Arians is, because of the numerous docu ments it gives, of inestimable value for the history of the years 339- 357. In the History of the Arians, which he dedicated to the Egyptian monks, he pitilessly took his opponents to task, described their in trigues in often violent words, and called the Emperor Constantius a precursor of the Antichrist. Lucifer of Cagliari included the Latin translation with his five often extravagant writings against Constantius, which also had their origin in exile.

 

In all these controversies the question of the orthodox faith was no longer in the foreground; rather, the quarrel had to do with the recogni tion or rejection of bishops, more precisely of Athanasius and his fol lowers in the episcopate. Whoever acknowledged him was an adherent of the orthodox faith, so said his friends; whoever condemned him made a profession of peace and at the same time showed his loyalty to the Emperor, said Constantius. Hence as soon as the opponents of Athanasius achieved political influence, their first concern was not to proclaim to their followers the content of the faith which they rep resented but to drive from their sees bishops who were friends of

 

I Mt 5 IKUbbLE UVEK IMC. LUU1NUL IVlLftEft

 

Athanasius and replace them with their own partisans. Hence it should cause no surprise that it was difficult to find in their ranks at the middle of the fourth century anyone primarily interested in the dogmatic ques tion. But this situation changed from about 356, when the skilled dialec tician Aetius, after a colorful career, entered upon the road to theology and was ordained a deacon by Bishop Leontius of Antioch. He took up again the real purpose of Arius, the question of the relationship of Father and Son, and expounded the hitherto radical solution to it in word and writing. According to him, the Son is neither equal to nor like the Father in substance, but at the most only similar to him; hence he repudiated the terminology discussed up to that time and came out in effect for the formula anomoios. The history of dogma regards him as the founder of the Anomoians or Aetians, the radical Arian wing. But at Antioch Aetius found little approval of his radical theology and so he turned to Alexandria, where Eunomius, eventually Bishop of Cyzicus, later met him and was gained to his views. However, these two intro duced a split among the Arians into different groups and thus became the unwitting cause of a weakening of the entire anti-Nicene move ment.

The view of Aetius was also shared by the Bishop Germanius, who in 351 had been called from Cyzicus to Sirmium. Here in the summer of 357 he sketched a new creed, in which the expressions substantia, con- substantialis, and homoousios were disavowed. They sought to win for this formula the signature of the aged Hosius, who was at Sirmium, and they succeeded. The now 100-year-old man, whose mental vigor had long ago deserted him, still retained enough clarity of mind and energy so that no condemnation of his long-time friend Athanasius could be wrung from him. Far more important was the change of attitude on the part of Pope Liberius, which probably occurred even earlier. There exist four presumably genuine letters of the Roman Bishop in which, made pliable under pressure from Arian bishops in his exile in Thrace, he abandoned his previous attitude and now condemned Athanasius, ac cepted the communion of his opponents, and also signed a creed which he had hitherto rejected, which was probably that of Sirmium of 351 and did not necessarily have to be interpreted in a heretical sense. At the same time he asked that permission for his return to Rome be obtained from the Emperor. Liberius was to suffer bitterly for this weakness, which was more a defect in his character as a man than in theology. When in 358 the Emperor let him go back to Rome, he required that he share with his "successor" Felix the office and dignity of Bishop of Rome. If the sympathies of the Romans were with Pope Liberius, so that Felix saw himself obliged to leave Rome, still outside Rome Liberius's reputation had fallen so low that he no longer played any special role in the theological discussions of the next years.

 

But the radical wing of the young Arians did not meet with the approval which their representatives had expected with their Creed of Sirmium of 357. Not only in Gaul and North Africa, but even in Arian circles in the East there appeared a strong opposition to the attack on the divinity of the Son, clearly represented by this group, and now a moderate trend was able to move more strongly into the foreground; it came closer to the Nicenes than to the radical Eunomians. Its leader was the theologian Basil of Ancyra, who around Easter 358 invited several bishops to his city and then in their name published a document impor tant for the further development of the discussion.78 On the one hand it decisively rejected the Anomoian thesis, and on the other it proposed as a new term the word hornoiousios. The similarity in nature of the Son with the Father that was thereby expressed meant without doubt a great movement toward the view of the Nicenes. Beyond that, they suc ceeded in gaining for this formula the Emperor, who had up until then favored the Anomoians. It was confirmed at a Synod in Sirmium in 358 and also received the signature of Pope Liberius. Both Athanasius and Hilary spoke in a friendly manner of this new terminology, which to them seemed capable of an orthodox interpretation and should be dis cussed in an atmosphere of affability. But Basil of Ancyra exploited the imperial favor he had won only for a sharp attack on the Anomoians, whose leaders in the episcopate now had to experience, for their part, the bitterness of exile. Then he sought the greatest possible solemn sanctioning of his theology, which should occur at a great general coun cil at Nicaea.82

 

The Double Synod of Seleucia-Rimini (359)

 

While Basil busied himself with the preparations for this council, an other group of bishops succeeded in suggesting to the Emperor the notion of two synods, which should meet simultaneouslyЧin the West for the Latin episcopate, in the East for the bishops of the eastern provinces. It is understandable that this plan could seem uncommonly attractive to the Emperor. The eastern synod could, despite the splits, count on a sure "Arian" majority; from the bishops of the West he could assume, on the basis of the experiences of the recent past, that he would gain the signing of one of the creeds recently proposed by him. The city of Seleucia in Isauria was selected as the meeting place for the bishops of the East, while the Latin bishops were to meet at Rimini on the Adriatic. With this double synod began the last act of the distressing drama which the religious policy of Constantius as a whole represents. First, a preparatory commission was summoned to Sirmium in May 359 to draft the outline of a creed which would be laid before both synods. The still extant Greek version of the draft, on which the industrious as well as fickle Valens and Ursacius collaborated, must have been no slight surprise for Basil of Ancyra. For the key word of the new creed was not the homoiousios that he was propagating, but the homoios to patri, which thus expressed only the likeness of the Son to the Father. The representatives of this theology had apparently been able to gain the Emperor's ear with the argument that so vague a formula, which ex cluded the question of substance, could win many participants in the synods who were of the most varied tendencies. The preparatory com mission established the procedure for the double synod; after the con clusion of the deliberations each synod should send a delegation to the Emperor, communicate the results to him, and at court give the decrees their definitive form.

 

And so in the summer of 359 more than 400 western bishops from all

the provinces of that part of the Empire arrived at Rimini. Only Rome was not represented: the Emperor had apparently not had any invitation sent there, because there were two Bishops of RomeЧa sign that the weakness of Liberius in regard to the imperial demands had not been able to enhance his reputation even with the Emperor. At first there was only an Arian minority of about 20 percent, whose leaders were the Pannonians Valens and Ursacius, Auxentius of Milan, and Saturninus of Aries. They confronted an overwhelming orthodox majority, which at first decided the agenda. They did not even consider the most recent Creed of Sirmium, excluded the leaders of the minority from the ecclesiastical community, professed again the Nicene Creed, and ap pointed a delegation to explain their views to the Emperor. Since the opposition did not submit, two delegations at once set out for the East to meet the Emperor in the vicinity of Constantinople. Whereas the Arian group at once obtained an audience, the majority's delegation was told that it might wait for the present at Adrianople, then at Nicaea in Thrace. They were headed by the upright Restitutus of Carthage, who was not equal to the situation. Representatives of the Arian minority soon appeared among them and so complicated the Sirmium formula with further explanations that finally in October 359 they signed and solemnly ratified their union with the formerly excommunicated bishops of this group.

 

Meanwhile, the 400 bishops at Rimini waited for three months for the possibility of returning to their dioceses. The city offered few diver sions, and the imperial officer who was responsible for external order made it even clearer to them that without their signature to the last Creed of Sirmium there would be no permission to leave. Thus the majority inexorably fell to pieces until at last they were even ready to thank the Emperor in a letter for his solicitude for the purity of the faith. A last group of some fifteen bishops who still had hesitations was won over with the indication that, even after signing, they could still make certain explanatory additions. The additions did not interest the Em peror in the least: he now had in his hands an imposing document, the Creed of Sirmium, that, signed by all the bishops of the WestЧthe exiles exceptedЧstood in an irrevocable opposition to the Nicene Creed.

 

While the tragedy of Rimini was drawing to a close, the bishops of the East met at Seleucia at the end of September 359. The approximately 150 bishops were unevenly divided among the three "Arian" factions, the strongest of which was that of the HomoiousiansЧBasil of Ancyra, Macedonius of Constantinople, Silvanus of TarsusЧfollowed by the Homoians, led by Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine and hence called Acacians, while the weakest was the young Arians, represented by George of Alexandria and Eudoxius of Antioch. The majority advo cated the renewed approval of the creed which the dedication Synod of Antioch in 341 had issued, whereas the Acacians at a special session of their faction adopted the last Creed of Sirmium but appended the con demnation of the term anomoios. When the Homoiousians persisted in their refusal, the Acacians left the Synod and began at once to deal with the Emperor, to whom also the Homoiousians sent their own trusted envoys. In the struggle for imperial recognition, the Acacians were finally victorious, since their theology coincided with what had just been signed at Rimini. After a long and bitter resistance, the Homoiousians gave in, when the Emperor declared that he wanted on 1 January 360, the beginning of his tenth consulship, to make known to the inhabitants of the Empire that religious peace had been restored. Thereby the Creed of Nicaea was, at least externally, completely annulled, since with the acceptance of the Homoian theology a clearly Arian view had prevailed.

 

The Emperor now wanted this success to be assured by an ecumenical synod, which met at Constantinople in January 360, but at which, apart from the eastern bishops, only a few from Thrace were rep resented. Once again the Creed of Rimini was ratified, to be valid for all future time. Then judgment was passed on bishops who thought oth erwise: they were, however, condemned not for heterodox doctrine but for alleged disciplinary transgressions while in office. Thus all the lead ing bishops among the Homoiousians lost their sees, and Constantius strengthened the decrees of deposition by exiling those concerned. As formerly in the West, the effort was made to gain the assent of the eastern bishops who had not participated in any of the most recent synods. But the most powerful personality, Athanasius, had not yet been discovered by the imperial police in his hiding place; they could only state that he had sent an encyclical to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, which called upon them to be loyal to the faith and to refuse their

 

THE CHURCH IN THE FRAMEWORK OF IMPERIAL REUGIOUS POLICY

 

signatures.96 And so it happened that Egypt as a whole remained loyal to the faith. In the other provinces of the East also there were everywhere individual bishops who preferred exile to the denial of their faith.97 The vacant sees were filled by Acacius, mostly with men who in the past had not been compromised in any faction. Especially the impor tant ecclesiastical centers of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Caesarea in Palestine, Sirmium in the Balkan Peninsula, and Milan now had convinced Arians as their shepherds, and "Arianism" seemed to have become for all time the only permissible Christian faith. It was in regard to this situation that Jerome made his celebrated remark: "The world groaned and was amazed that it had become Arian."98 Neverthe less, a radical alteration of the total political situation in the Empire led also to a change in the ecclesiastical sphere.

 

96 Athanasius, Ep. encycl. ad epp. Aegypti et Libyae.

97

98 Sozomen, HE 4, 27,7.

99

100 Jerome, Adv. Lucif. 29: "ingemuit totus orbis et arianum se esse miratus est."

101

CHAPTER 4

 

The Attempted Restoration of Paganism by the Emperor Julian (361-363)

In April 360 the Emperor Constantius directed his cousin Julian, who as Caesar was at Paris with the legions of Gaul, to send him immediately the best troops, since without them he could not control the continuing disturbances caused along the eastern frontier by the Persians. The soldiers thereupon acclaimed Julian as Augustus, and after some hesita tion he accepted. He began immediately to prepare for the now un avoidable military confrontation with his imperial cousin, and in the summer of 361 he led his troops to the East. As early as October he was in Sirmium, whose garrison at once recognized him as Augustus. Con stantius also prepared for war, but on the march to the Balkan Peninsula he fell mortally ill at Tarsus. Following the example of his father, he had himself baptized on his deathbed by the Arian Bishop Euzoius; he died, aged forty-four, on 3 November 361, thereby transmitting the rule of the entire Empire to the last member of the Constantinian Dynasty. A few weeks later Julian received homage as Emperor in his birthplace, Constantinople, but the inhabitants of the capital were soon aware that the Empire had obtained a ruler who, in contradistinction to his dead cousin, was a convinced adherent of paganism and at once appointed as his advisers two renowned representatives of this religion, the philoso phers Maximus and Priscus.

 

Although there is a relatively rich mine of sources on the Emperor Julian, it is not easy to form from it an unquestionably objective picture of his character and aims. So far as this comes from the camp of his adherents and admirers, it glorifies him, often extravagantly, as the restorer of the Hellenic religion and of the Greek spirit. Christians, on the other hand, have often drawn a caricature of him and given him the insulting nickname of "Apostate," because in their view he had be trayed the religion in which he was raised. His letters and speeches seek, naturally, if also very subjectively, to justify his change of religion and the corresponding religious policy.

 

Like the sons of Constantine, Julian was raised a Christian, but since he lost his mother a few months after his birth, a decisive factor was lacking in his upbringing. Then the massacre of his father and a brother during the bloodbath in Constantinople in 337 exercised on the seven- year-old a shock that would never be forgotten. The profound antipathy toward his cousin Constantius, whom he readily connected with this episode, had its deepest root there. At first he was entrusted for his education to Eusebius of Nicomedia, Bishop of Constantinople, who of course could not devote himself intensively to this task. Later the con stantly suspicious Constantius had him and his half-brother Gallus taken to the imperial estate Macellum in Cappadocia, and a certain Mar- donius was appointed teacher of the two princes. Here both were also baptized and as devout children they accepted the surrounding Chris tian religious world and atmosphere. They took part in the Christian liturgy and were even appointed to read the sacred texts aloud. By his own admission, Julian was deeply impressed by the Church's charitable activity, and there is no doubt that the growing boy and youth at that time accepted the Christian faith. The intellectually curious Julian satisfied his desire for reading by means of the books which George of

 

Cappadocia, the later Arian Bishop of Alexandria, lent him and part of which he copied.

 

But at Macellum there also occurred Julian's youthful religious crisis, which he had to endure in spiritual loneliness. Above all, he had no friend of his own age to whom he could express himself or an under standing older person who could have shown him the example of a mature Christianity. Neither his stepbrother Gallus, totally different in temperament, nor the Arian George could make up for this lack. And so his seeking spirit and his strong religious gift turned to that world to which Mardonius had first introduced him in his reading of Homer, the Greek religion in its Hellenistic form. When Julian was permitted to leave Macellum c. 347, he took up the study of rhetoric, first at Con stantinople, then at Nicomedia, where he became acquainted with the pagan rhetor Libanius. During a stay at Pergamum he got to know the philosopher Aedesius; then he became at Ephesus a pupil of the Neo- platonist Maximus, who especially introduced him into the mystery cults that he so highly esteemed. Their secret ritual completely captivated the prince, and when in 354 he spent several months in Athens, he did not fail to have himself initiated secretly into the Eleusinian Mysteries. The relationship with the distinguished pagan teacher of the Athenian academy, Priscus, completed his religious transformation: out of the young Christian of Macellum there had developed, not a scoffer like Lucian or a cynical skeptic of a Voltairean stamp, but a convinced fol lower of the Hellenic religion, who was supported by an enthusiastic, mystical ardor. But the formation of Julian's character also ended with this development. Admirers and opponents agree that his was a compli cated nature, marked by strong contrasts. His ascetical outlook made him scorn not only external pomp, especially in court ceremonial, but also personal comfort to an almost repulsive neglect of all care of the body, and preserved him from any sexual excesses. He was stoutly loyal to his few friends, but was otherwise clearly ill at ease, especially toward his subordinates. In public appearances he was nervous and restrained, but his bravery and unpretentiousness in war gained him the respect of his soldiers. He clung stubbornly to measures he had taken and was intolerant of differing views. He was surprisingly eager for the praise of the mob and spoke obtrusively of his virtues. When the people of Antioch with their unrestrained wit ridiculed him for his gloomy avoidance of the theater and spectacles, for his untidy appear ance and his zealous piety, he reacted bitterly and reprimanded them like a schoolmaster but candidly admitted that he had no sense of humor. As a dark shadow on his character must also be reckoned the fact that for almost a decade of public life he carefully concealed his religious change and through continued participation in the Christian liturgy pretended still to hold a faith which he had abjured years before, even when, as Caesar in Gaul, he was relatively independent. This hypocrisy in religion, uncharacteristic of antiquity, cannot be excused by the danger into which a profession of paganism would have brought him with Constantius.

 

With the death of his imperial cousin, Julian removed the mask. He accompanied the remains, at the head of the funeral procession, to the burial services in the Church of the Apostles. But then in rapid succes sion followed measures which made clear a total reversal of the imperial religious policy hitherto maintained. A new appointment of the holders of the more important state offices betrayed a clear preference of the profession of paganism, and it was not softened by an occasional gesture in regard to an individual Christian. The labarum, the standard with the Christian symbols which Constantine had introduced, was replaced by the old pagan banners, the images of the pagan gods soon appeared again on the coins, and its former pagan character was restored to the state. In several "edicts of toleration" all the restrictions to which pagan worship had been subject under his predessors were annulled; hence the temples were reopened, the sacrifices were permitted, the venera tion of the gods was restored. But in Julian's view toleration of paganism included the elimination of the injustice which Constantine especially had inflicted on paganism: in him he saw the real innovator and offender against the traditions of the Empire. This meant the rebuilding of the temples destroyed since Constantine and the return of the shrines which had long ago been given to other hands. The im plementation of this decree led in many places to serious conflicts, on the one hand because many Christians refused, on the grounds of con science, to cooperate thus in the revival of paganism, and on the other hand because some pagans believed that the new situation gave them license now to plunder Christian churches, maltreat priests, violate Christian virgins, and deride Christian worship. In this way several Christians met death and for the future ranked as martyrs. Julian, who refused to countenance a bloody persecution of Christians, very strongly disapproved especially the tumults at Alexandria, but the guilty got off without punishment.

 

It was soon apparent that the Emperor Julian was considering not a mere elimination of the injustice to paganism: he also ordered for it a reform program that should restore to it its former privileges and the leading position as religion of the State. At the head of this program was the reorganization of the pagan priesthood, on which he expressed him self in more detail in two letters to the high priests of Galatia and Asia. He himself not only assumed the title and rank of Pontifex Maximus: he actively exercised the functions of the office. Every province of the Empire was to receive a pagan high priest and, for the goddesses, a high priestess, to whom the priests and priestesses in the cities and in the individual sanctuaries were subject. The names of individual high priests are known; they were for the most part Neoplatonists or Soph ists, but they also included an apostate Christian bishop, Pegasius of Ilium. On this reorganized priesthood Julian forcibly imposed guide lines for its activity and personal conduct. The members were to lead a strictly disciplined life and give the believers an example of piety. He directed their reading through a sort of "Index of Forbidden Books." In the temples they were to preach the pagan doctrines of faith and exactly perform the sacred rites, cultivate a fraternal spirit in their congrega tions, and take special care of the poor and the sick; it was in connection with this last point that Julian alluded to the corresponding practice of the "godless Galilaeans." In some ways this whole program seemed like a copy of the forms of Christian organization and practices, and it has been suggested, perhaps not incorrectly, that Julian was expecting, for this reason, the conversion of some Christians to his renewed pagan religion.

 

With great pains the Emperor also worked to revive the pagan system of oracles and the mystery cults; he thereby reopened the door for the return of the soothsayers, the casters of horoscopes, and the magical forms of pagan folk religion. For himself he implemented the reform program very conscientiously. When he was staying at Constantinople, he performed the daily sacrifices in the shrine of Mithra that he had built; and in the cities to which his duties as Emperor brought him he daily visited the temples and very gladly acted as priest of the sac rifices. He tolerated nothing that seemed injurious to the pagan cults. When, during his last visit to Antioch, he visited the once famed temple of Apollo in the suburb Daphne, he found it sadly neglected and the sacrifices ignored because the senate of the now mostly Christian city was no longer willing to provide any more financial expenditures for it. And the oracle which Julian requested here from Apollo was likewise not forthcoming. It was then pointed out to the Emperor that in the vicinity of the temple his stepbrother Gallus had once had the remains of the martyr Babylas buried in a chapel. Here Julian understood the reason for Apollo's silence and immediately had the relics of the Chris tian dead removed. A few days later the Temple of Apollo went up in flames, and even though the strictest investigation supplied no sure basis, Julian was convinced that the Christians were the authors of the fire. He had the great church in the city, built by Constantius, closed and hence had to endure the mockery of the inhabitants of the me tropolis.

It is of the greatest importance that the Emperor Julian coupled his pagan reform program with a measure against Christianity which, it is true, was unbloody, but which was supposed to affect the esteem of the Christian religion in regard to the public in a manner that in the long run threatened its very existence. The school law of June 362 directed that in the future all appointments of teachers in any school had to be approved by the city authorities and confirmed by the Emperor. A circular with the decrees regarding implementation revealed the real meaning of the law. The examination by the officials was to include not only the pedagogical abilities and moral qualities of the candidate, but especially his religious convictions. It would be intolerable for a teacher to explain Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Demosthenes, and the others without honoring the gods in whom they believed; anyone who believed that they erred in this should go to the Church of the Galilaeans and there explain Matthew and Luke. In this way Christians were in practice excluded from admission to the still highly esteemed rhetorical educa tion, and the positions in public life which they had hitherto occupied were refused them. Their religion had to become gradually the religion of the uneducated. There was no adequate substitute for the ancient cultural values, even if some educated Christians, such as Apollinaris of Laodicea, and his father of the same name, did compose, to replace Homer, a biblical history in twenty-four hymns and reproduced the content of the gospels in Pindaric meters or on the model of Platonic dialogues. The exclusion of even esteemed Christian teachers, for example, Marius Victorinus at Rome or Prohairesius at Athens, from their profession aroused a great public outcry, even though the Emperor was willing to make an exception in favor of the second of those just mentioned. The law was rightly felt by the Christians as malicious and degrading, but it also caused great uneasiness among pagans. Ammianus Marcellinus, otherwise well disposed to the Emperor, was of the opinion that it should be concealed under perpetual silence.

 

It may be assumed that the disappointment over the ill success of his efforts at religious reform drove the Emperor to the path of greater harshness. Only a small circle of educated pagans welcomed the severe initiative in this sector, but the pagan clergy themselves did not enter enthusiastically into the plans of the imperial Sovereign Pontiff, and all the more the common people displayed a notable apathy. Obviously the number of conversions from Christianity to paganism remained far behind the Emperor's expectations. Consequently, the measures in creased more and more: they purposely, it is true, aimed to avoid a bloody persecution of Christians, but as a whole they subjected them to a special law and made them second-class citizens. Julian was entirely in accord with the inner thrust of the school law when he now excluded Christians from the higher posts in the state administration and from the imperial guard and ironically stated that Christian moral doctrine for bade them to draw the sword. It is noteworthy how very much Julian again and again let himself be provoked to petty annoyances by cities that had a Christian majority. Thus he threatened the inhabitants of Edessa and Nisibis that he would refuse them aid against Persian at tacks. In Palestine he punished Maiuma by revocation of its city rights, which he transferred to nearby Gaza. Caesarea in Cappadocia felt the imperial displeasure because people had looked on idly when the tem ples of Zeus and Apollo were destroyed there. Even the Christians' manner of burial repeatedly evoked his anger. In February 363 an edict forbade the burial of corpses by daylight on the ground that pagans were thereby offended and the gods of light were insulted by the sight of such ceremonies. The inhabitants of the Syrian city of Emesa were praised by him because "they had burned the burial places of the Galilaeans." The governor of Caria was ordered to burn or tear down the memorial shrines of the Christian martyrs, since they polluted the air around the temple of Didyma.

Finally, the Emperor's assault was aimed at those who strengthened the Church's life and organization by their influenceЧthe bishops, as leaders of the Christian congregations. Until now he had spared them out of a certain diplomacy. At the very beginning of his reign he had allowed the bishops exiled by Constantius to return home; in so doing, he was also, of course, as Ammianus Marcellinus maliciously remarks, fostering the expectation that conflicts between Arians and Catholics would thereby be renewed and Christian strength would be di minished. Thus Athanasius was able to return to his episcopal city from his six-years' exile among the monks of Egypt and take up his duties again, but, to Julian's displeasure, what had been expected to be new confrontations with the Arians was more like a reconciliation. And so in October 362 he had an edict delivered to Athanasius, which again decreed his expulsion. When the Alexandrian Christians then sent a petition to the Emperor to ask the recall of their bishop, Julian gave full reign to his hatred of Athanasius in an extravagant letter to the inhabi tants of the city: they, the lords of Egypt, had made themselves slaves of the Hebrews and were now interceding for this arrogant monster Athanasius, against whom he could only decree outlawry. Bishop Eleusius of Cyzicus was driven from his city, because he had influenced the pagan inhabitants, desecrated the temples, and built homes for widows and virgins.45 When Bishop Titus of Bostra complained to the Emperor that his clergy were unlawfully subjected to injuries by the officials, he received a sharp reprimand in a letter to the population of the city, which branded the Christian bishops as the scourges of the public order and called upon them to expel the bishop of their city.46 The Emperor could not fail to give vent to his deep hatred of Chris tianity in his literary works. In his The Caesars or the Banquet is found a ridiculing of Christian baptism, penance, and the figure of Jesus, which pushes into the background everything that pagan polemic had thus far offered.47 His Against the Galilaeans, on which he worked at Antioch in the winter of 362-63, was intended to summarize all the negative things which he had to say about the hated religion.48 The trustworthy tes timony of some sources maintains that Julian toyed with the plan of carrying out a radical persecution of Christians after the Persian cam paign of 363 is not to be doubted.49 The invitation issued by him to the Jews to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem certainly had an anti-Christian motive: the newly built temple should give the lie to the word of Jesus on its destruction (Luke 21:5f), which was frequently quoted in Chris tian apologetics, and unmask its author as a false prophet.50

 

The expedition against the Persians, from which the Emperor Julian anticipated glory and honor for the Empire, led to his sudden end. After some initial successes, the imperial army had to retreat, and in a rear guard action Julian was mortally wounded by a soldier's arrow. He died on 26 June 363 in the presence of his Neoplatonist friends Maximus and Priscus, only thirty-two years old; in accord with his own wish, he was buried at Tarsus, the birthplace of the Apostle Paul.51

 

The sudden downfall of the Emperor occupied the thought and imag ination of pagans and Christians in the succeeding decades. The inci dent led a pagan, as Jerome reports,52 to this bitter reflection: "How can the Christians claim that their God is long-suffering? What is more violent and more swift than this anger, which could not defer its inter vention for a second?" On the Christian side a twofold legend early

 

45 Sozomen, HE 5, 15, 5.

46

47 Julian, Ep. 114.

48

49 Caesares, 336A-B.

50

51 The extant fragments are in C. J. Neumann, Juliani imperatoris librorum contra Cbris- tianos quae supersunt (Leipzig 1880).

52

49J. Bidez Julian, 315f.

 

50 See J. Vogt, Kaiser Julian und das Judentum (Leipzig 1939), pp. 46-59.

51

52 J. Bidez, op. cit., -349; Ammianus Marcellinus 25, 3, 10-23; Zosimus, Hist, nova 3, 29, 1; Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 5, 13-18.

53

w Jerome, In Habacuc 2, 3 (PI 25, 1329D).

 

Х58 . II ,,LMML<MI|MG||MIII embellished this death with colorful details. In one version Julian turned, complaining, to the Sun-god, whom he had so highly honored: "Helios, you have abandoned me."53 The second version has the Em peror die with the words: "O Galilaean, you have conquered!"54 Both versions express in their separate ways an historically apt perception. It was an illusion when Julian thought that paganism could at that time be returned to the primacy it had once held by official promotion and the work of his uncle Constantine could be wiped out. It was an even greater misjudgment of reality if he thought that in his time an attack on Christianity with the aim of destroying it, even by means of recourse to the power of the State, had a prospect of success. The failure of his twofold undertaking decisively weakened further the position of paganism.

 

53 See the statements in Philostorgius, HE 7, 15.

54

55 Theodoret, HE 3, 25, 6-7.

56

CHAPTER 5

 

Collapse of Arianism and Definitive Recovery of the Nicene Theology at the Council of Constantinople (381)

 

Perilous though the situation of Nicene Christians must have seemed after the victory of Arianism at the double Synod of Seleucia-Rimini in 359, a change quickly began when the death of the Emperor Constan- tius withdrew State support from the Arians. In the West, as in the East, bishops loyal to Nicaea undertook to heal the injury done and to rally again the strength of their congregations. In the West, Gaul quickly became the central area of orthodoxy, the soul of which was Bishop Hilary of Poitiers. Constantius himself had let him return home from banishment because he felt that there he would stir up less unrest than in the East. At his suggestion the Gallic bishops met in synod at Paris, probably in 360, and composed a letter to the eastern bishops, in which they deplored their earlier conduct, separated themselves from the adherents of the false teaching of Valens, Ursacius, Auxentius, and Saturninus of Aries, and made an unambiguous profession of the Nicene faith. It is to be attributed to Hilary's influence especially that the Latin West was never again seriously threatened by Arianism.

 

In the East, Alexandria naturally became a center of ecclesiastical restoration when Athanasius, on the accession of Julian, left his hiding place among the Egyptian monks to return to his congregation. With undiminished energy he consulted the Egyptian and other bishops in 362 in regard to the situation and the necessary steps for the restoration of unity of faith. The question of again filling the sees hitherto occupied by Arian bishops proved to be especially delicate. Those bishops who in the past had clearly professed the Arian faith could, after doing pen ance, be again received into the ecclesiastical communion, but in each case they were reduced to the lay state; one who had been led astray by coercion or deception should retain his rank and office, but he had to subscribe in writing to the Nicene Creed. The implementation of the decrees often encountered the greatest difficulties in individual cases. Especially precarious was the situation at Antioch, whose Christians had split into three groups. The first believed that they had to remain loyal to the dead Bishop Eustathius, who had clung to Nicaea, and they gathered around the priest Paulinus. The largest faction upheld Meletius, the lawfully elected successor of Eustathius, but he had not yet returned from exile. The head of the third community was the Arian Euzoius, whom the Emperor Constantius had summoned to Antioch. The Synod of Alexandria, just mentioned, sent a delegation with its decrees to the Syrian capital in order to bring about a meeting of the Paulinians and Meletians, but meanwhile the impulsive Lucifer of Ca- gliari, who was in Antioch, had ordained Paulinus as bishop. This rash step brought about the so-called Schism of Antioch, which not only split the Christians of the city, but was also going to compromise relations between the East and Rome for years. Even the authority of an Athanasius did not suffice to overcome the division. When he was in vited to Antioch by Julian's successor, the Emperor Jovian, he probably offered ecclesiastical communion to Bishop Meletius; since the latter hesitated, he decided for Paulinus, whose following thereby obtained a great moral boost, while the division between Meletians and Alexandria became ominously deeper. For their part, the Meletians asserted that they had always held the faith of Nicaea, and hence gained ever more recognition from the remaining Nicenes. Arian groups also strove for the favor of the new Emperor; in so doing, the Homoiousians with Basil of Ancyra showed the greater readiness to reach agreement, whereas the Alexandrian "Arians" again tried, in accord with the old methods, to gain the Emperor against Athanasius, but without any success. The disunion among the Arians promised a better future for the adherents of Nicaea.

 

The Religious Policy of the Emperor Valens

 

As early as February 364 Emperor Jovian was succeeded by an officer of the guard, Valentinian I (364-375), who at the demand of the army selected as second Augustus his brother Valens (364-378), to whom he gave the eastern part of the Empire, while he assumed control of the Balkan Peninsula, western Europe, and North Africa. In a striking reversal, the religious-political situation again changed, just as it had under Constantius and Constans. Valentinian in the West was personally an adherent of Nicaea, but he avoided any favoring of a specific view and left to the bishops of his area complete freedom in dealing with ecclesiastical questions, whereas Valens followed the "Arian" confes sion and, in alliance with his influential court bishop, Eudoxius of the Homoian faction, sought to promote it to exclusive recognition in the East. At first the Homoiousians provoked his anger when, at a Synod of Lampsacus, probably in the fall of 364, they rejected the Creed of Rimini, declared the homoiousios essential for distinguishing the divine Persons, and demanded the restoration of the bishops exiled by the Anomoians in 360. When a delegation wished to report to the Emperor at Heraclea on the decrees of Lampsacus, the members were told to follow Bishop Eudoxius; when they refused, they were sent into exile. After repeated discussions at various places in Asia Minor, the Homoiousians sent a delegation of three to the West in order to ask help from Pope and Emperor. Valentinian I was then staying in Gaul; Pope Liberius received the three bishops, but required of them the repudiation of the Creed of Rimini and the profession of that of Nicaea. When they agreed, the Pope gave them letters for their principalsЧ there were sixty-four bishopsЧand for all orthodox bishops of the East. They also received letters of communion from bishops of Italy, Sicily,

 

North Africa, and Gaul. When the delegates had reported the results of their journey at a Synod at Tyana in Cappadocia, the members ap proved the effecting of unity of faith with Rome and decided to act in the same sense at an expanded Synod at Tarsus. But Bishop Eudoxius had this meeting forbidden by the Emperor. A promising develop ment toward the restoration of a uniform confession was thereby abruptly cut short. Hard times came again for the Nicenes also. During a stay at Antioch, Valens sent Bishop Meletius again into exile and had the churches made inaccessible to all who declined to have communion with Bishop Euzoius. An edict of 365 decreed that all episcopal sees again filled under Julian were to be vacated by the Nicenes. Athanasius was affected by this law, but since disturbances broke out in Alexandria the Emperor yielded and let him return: now the bishop was able to work unmolested in his episcopal city until his death in 373.

 

In the years 365-69 the attention of the Emperor Valens was so taken up, first by the struggle against the usurper Procopius and then from 367 by the Gothic War that he had to let the religious question rest. This breathing-space gave the Nicenes the possibility of considerably strengthening their position, since they were able to fill vacated epis copal sees in Asia Minor and Pontus, such as Ancyra, Caesarea, and Nazianzus, with men of their confidence. The work begun at the Synod of Lampsacus for a merger of Catholics and Homoiousians, how ever, made no progress. The latter split again, this time because a part rejected the reconciliation with Pope Liberius and again repudiated the homoousios, but mainly because a new theological question, that of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, moved ever more to the foreground of the discussion and began again to divide minds.

 

The Nicene Creed had stated quite simply the Church's faith in the Holy Spirit. Later Athanasius had taken up the topic in his Letters to Bishop Serapion of Thmuis and had rejected the thesis that the Holy Spirit is a creature only and distinct from the angels only in degree. And the Synod of Alexandria of 362 confirmed the conviction of the true divinity of the Holy Spirit. Some pastorally outstanding bishops among the Homoiousians had, however, hesitations about this doctrine and came out against it with varying nuances. Among them was Bishop Eustathius of Sebaste (since 356), who played a role in the struggle against the Anomoians and was held in high esteem among his people because of his strictly ascetic life and his unselfish works of charity. With Basil of Ancyra and Eleusius of Cyzicus he constituted the leader ship of the Homoiousian faction and was part of the three-man delega tion which had discussed the restoration of unity of faith with Pope Liberius. Besides Eustathius and Eleusius, Marathonius of Nicomedia also belonged to the group that denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. But in the years around 365 one cannot yet speak of a faction of "Pneumatomachoi."

A sharp persecution of Catholics and non-Homoians was instituted by Emperor Valens by means of the events which occurred in Constan tinople in connection with a new appointment to the see of that city in 370. After the death of Eudoxius the Catholics decided on Evagrius, who was at once ordained, but was sent into exile by Valens together with the consecrating prelate. When the Catholics firmly rejected the candidate of the Arians, Demophilus, the Emperor proceeded with great harshness against them and immediately extended the persecu tion to the provinces. After his victorious campaign against the Goths, he regarded the time as ripe to do away, once and for all, with the multiplicity of Christian factions in his part of the Empire and to compel religious unity through the exclusive recognition of the Homoian con fession. All bishops were to profess the Creed of Rimini-Seleucia by means of their signatures, and the recalcitrant lost their sees. Officials saw to the implementation of the imperial commands everywhere with military assistance and used it also against the lesser clergy and the monks, whose opposition was punished by imprisonment or deporta tion. Syria was especially hard hit by the wave of persecution: Valens usually resided in its capital. Bishop Meletius had to go into exile for the third time, Catholic churches were given to Euzoius and his clergy, and Nicene Christians were constantly vexed by the officials. The bishops of Laodicea, Edessa, Batna, and Samosata were also exiled, and the congregations of Beroea and Chalcis were subjected to the severest oppression. During the lifetime of Athanasius, no persecution was undertaken in Egypt, but after his death in May 373 it broke out all the more violently against the successor he had designated, Peter. The Pre fect Palladius had the Church of Saint Thomas occupied under tumul tuous circumstances and, by means of police power, inducted the Arian Bishop Lucius into office. Clerics and monks were imprisoned and then exiled or sent to the mines. Eleven bishops and 126 clerics were de ported to Diocaesarea in Palestine, and not infrequently an effort was made to break the opposition by executions. Bishop Peter abandoned Egypt secretly and went to Pope Damasus I in Rome, from where he informed the episcopate of the Universal Church about the happenings in Alexandria.

 

The Work of the Young Nicenes

Cappadocia was the province of Asia Minor in which the moral reputa tion of Bishop Basil of Caesarea caused the Emperor Valens to limit substantially the persecution of the Catholics. Since 370, Basil, as met ropolitan, had guided the destinies of this important ecclesiastical prov ince as the one best acquainted with the religious questions of the age, since he had been the adviser of his two predecessors. His descent from an esteemed Christian family, his splendid education gained at the academies in Constantinople and Athens, his unflinching loyalty to the long established faith, were combined with the gift of leadership and diplomatic skill and provided him with a strength of character which impressed everyone who came into close contact with him. It could only be of great importance to the government to gain this influential man for its ecclesiastical political goals, a task to which the Prefect Modestus dedicated himself. The meeting of the two men found a powerfully resounding echo through the artistically impressive and dramatic description which Gregory Nazianzen gave of it in his eulogy at the death of his friend. Basil, in a sure and superior attitude, re pulsed both the at first very courteous attempts at persuasion as well as the minister's threats made in mounting anger. To the remark of the astounded prefect, that up to now no one had ever dared speak so candidly to him, came the proud and cool reply: "Perhaps you have never yet had to deal with a bishop." As a result of his minister's report, the Emperor Valens during a tour of the provinces of Asia Minor attended Mass on Epiphany 372 in Basil's church and was so impressed by his religious seriousness that he gave up all his exertions to gain him to the Homoian confession, left him in his position, and even gave him large amounts of landed property for the charitable institutions which Basil was having built. Thus the Bishop of Caesarea more and more became the protector of the persecuted Catholics for wide areas of the East, to whom people looked for the encouraging and guiding word. Basil tried in every way to profit by the possibilities open to him and worked tirelessly for the strengthening of the Catholics and the union of all groups that acknowledged Nicaea. Thus when episcopal sees became vacant, he filled them with Nicenes or established new sees in order to enlarge the number of his suffragans: he did not always find the antici pated sympathy, as, for example, with Gregory Nazianzen, who never forgave his friend for having destined for him "the miserable village of Sasima" as an episcopal see. A bitter disappointment was caused him by Bishop Eustathius of Sebaste, with whom Basil had once been joined by a common enthusiasm for the ascetical and monastic ideal. Eustathius had, after a struggle, accepted the Nicene Creed, but then, through his denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, he had rendered impossible the union of the Homoiousians with the Catholics and he finally accused Basil of sharing the erroneous doctrines of Apollinaris of Laodicea. But Basil had been hurt the most deeply by the fruitlessness of his efforts to liquidate the unfortunate Schism of Antioch. He could in good conscience see Meletius as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch, who was properly chosen, ordained by the bishops of his province, and had been exiled three times for his gradually achieved conviction of the truth of the faith of Nicaea, whereas Paulinus, the bishop of the minor ity that continued loyal to Eustathius, was compromised by an election and an ordination that were not free of canonical irregularity. But Alexandria clung to Paulinus from emotional rather than theological grounds, and since Rome obtained its information on the ecclesiastical situation in the East exclusively from Alexandria, the West was not inclined to intervene on behalf of Meletius and the efforts of Basil. With increasing bitterness, Basil could not but understand that his letters and

 

THK LHUKLH UN IMC rRAMCWUlUV ur uvircivmi. miuviwuo i Wi-iv. 1

 

messages with the request for help through the dispatch of Roman delegations or letters of recognition for the leaders of the movement for unity found no corresponding echo in Pope Damasus I. It was not only wounded self-consciousness that induced Basil to write that Damasus was a proud man, and that from the arrogance of the westerners no real aid should be expected. It was a misfortune that, because of one-sided reporting from Alexandria and Antioch people in Rome did not under stand that in the East it was really no longer a question of the Arian factions, which were dissolving, but that the newly appearing theological trend, which denied the faith in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, deserved the greatest attention.

 

Hence people in the West were in no position to evaluate the theolog ical work of the so-called Young NicenesЧthey were, in addition to Basil, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, and their common friend, Amphilochius of Iconium. The Young Nicenes un derstood two things: 1) that by the fundamental adherence to the state ments of Nicaea a precise definition of terms for its correct understand ing was achieved, and 2) the question of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit must be decided. They resolved the first task, Basil especially, by giving to the hitherto loose and hence still inter changeable concepts ousia and hypostasis an unambiguously defined content. Ousia now became exclusively the expression for the "nature" of God, whereas hypostasis was reserved as an indication of the special being in which the divine nature is expressed in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit: mi a ousia, treis hypostases became the classical formula in the theology of the Trinity. Each of the three hypostaseis has its characteristic features: the first, that of fatherhood {patrotes), the sec ond, that of sonship (hyiotes), the third, that of sanctifying (hagiasmos). For the distinctions among the three persons there are already found in Gregory Nazianzen the terms "Unbegottenness" (agennesia), "Going

Forth" (poreusis), and "Mission" (ekpempsis). If Basil also does not assert the homoousios expressly of the Holy Spirit, he nevertheless in fact clearly declares his divinity and equality of nature, while Gregory Nazianzen formally teaches this. In the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit the Young Nicenes preferred the formula "from the Father through the Son." It was the undeniable merit of the Young Nicenes to have prepared through their theological work for the deci sions on the faith at the Council of Constantinople, to have brought the theology of the Trinity to a first settlement, and thereby to have assisted the Nicene theology to its permanent break-through. A more external presupposition for this was, it is true, created by the political develop ments of 378-79- Because of a new Gothic mutiny in the Balkan Penin sula, the Emperor Valens was compelled to go to war, for which he asked the help of his nephew Gratian, Emperor in the West since 375. Before his departure for the area of disturbance, he rescinded the sen tences of exile against the Catholic bishops, and hence Antioch and Alexandria again received their Bishops Meletius and Peter. Without waiting for the help sent by Gratian, Valens rushed into a decisive battle and on 9 August 378 lost throne and life near Adrianople. In January 379 Gratian elevated the Spanish general Theodosius to co-Augustus and assigned him the East as his sphere of rule. Both Emperors pro fessed the Nicene Creed, for which a more peaceful future seemed now to open up.

 

The Council of Constantinople (381)

 

In a treatise of 377, To the WesternersЧPope Damasus I is envisaged chieflyЧBasil of Caesarea had said that East and West would have to come to necessary decisions "in a common consultation" on questions of faith which had been raised by the doctrines of Eustathius of Sebaste and Apollinaris of Laodicea and through the sympathy of Paulinus of Antioch toward the ideas of Marcellus of Ancyra. But he had to admit that the reign of the Emperor Valens did not offer the kairos for so comprehensive a synod.44 In the autumn of 379, on the initiative of Meletius, who had become the leader of the orthodox majority since Basil's death on 1 January 379, 153 bishops met at Antioch for a synod at which they declared their unity of faith with Rome. Such a step was entirely in keeping with what was to be expected of the religious policy of the Emperor Theodosius I; at the same time it was also the prerequi site for achieving an acceptable solution in the matter of the Schism of Antioch. Shortly before the Synod of Antioch there appeared an edict of the Emperor Gratian and his imperial colleagues, Valentinian II and Theodosius I, which forbade all heresies and conferred validity on only decrees issued in favor of the Catholic religion. The personal "official explanation" of the religious policy of the new Emperor was not long in coming. The celebrated edict Cunctos populos of 28 February 380, ad dressed to the inhabitants of Constantinople but of interest to the entire population of the Empire, declared it was the wish of the Emperors that all the peoples ruled by them should live in the religion which the Apostle Peter had handed down to the Romans and which the Pontiff Damasus as well as Bishop Peter of Alexandria professed: "hence that we believe in the one divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in equal majesty and holy Trinity." Only the adherents of this confession were to bear the name of Catholic Christians: the rest were branded with the infamy of heresy, they must not call their sects churches, and they had to expect not only divine but also imperial punishment. This decree of Theodosius has received the most ex treme interpretations, from the private creed of the Emperor to a decla ration that, in the language of an almost insane religious fanaticism, made Christianity the exclusive State religion, and indeed autocrati cally, without any ecclesiastical collaboration. But a private creed of an Emperor would hardly have been taken into the official legal collections of the Codes of Theodosius II and Justinian I and would not have threatened sanctions for possible offenses against it. More surely, with this edict the Emperor was making known that he would tolerate and promote only the profession of faith in which he had been raised and which had meanwhile become that of the majority of the Empire's inhabitants. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the imperial edict was intolerant in the modern sense of the word, but the question of toleration, as today understood, presented itself as little to Theodosius as it did to the other Emperors of the fourth century. That he intended to enforce his religious and political program, not autocratically, but with the ecclesiastical representatives of the Nicene faith, is seen in this edict, which characterizes the religion of Pope Damasus and of Bishop Peter of Alexandria as the norm against which the genuineness of every creed must be measured. It was no disavowal of this norm or even a "change of course," but a clarification and an application to the special situation of the eastern part of the Empire when an edict of January 381 identified this profession with the Creed of Nicaea. When, perhaps in 380Чthe exact date is not clearly establishedЧa potentially mortal ill ness attacked him, Theodosius had himself baptized by an unambiguous supporter of the Nicene faith, Bishop Acholius of Thessalonica. And when he came to Constantinople in November 380, here too he quickly made the situation clear. The Arian Bishop Demophilus, in a conversa tion with the Emperor, refused to go over to orthodoxy and had to give way to the Nicene, Gregory Nazianzen, who the previous year had been appointed to care for the combined congregations of the orthodox and whom the Emperor now pointedly accompanied to his installation in the Church of the Apostles.

 

The notion of a council, at least for the eastern part of the Empire, could not but intrude itself powerfully after the death of Valens, and Theodosius, as early as the spring of 380, had made known his intention in this regard, most probably first to Bishop Acholius of Thessalonica, who then for his part informed Pope Damasus of the imperial plans. The problems which recommended a settlement by a synod were espe cially urgent for the East; the Schism of Antioch and the question of the Holy Spirit. The Emperor's letters, which invited the bishops to the capital of the East for May 381, must have been sent a few weeks after the beginning of the year, so that those who would participate could have time for preparations and travel. The extant lists of participants, which of course are not free of mistakes, give the number of those attending as about 150; of these, almost halfЧseventy-oneЧcame from the Diocese of the East alone and constituted, under the leadership of Meletius of Antioch, the strongest group. He himself had gone early to Constantinople and perhaps even influenced the selection of the bishops to be invited.57 For the other participants, among whom the Young NicenesЧthe two brothers of Basil of Cappadocia and their friend Amphilochius of IconiumЧstood out prominently, maintained cordial relations with Meletius. Meagerly represented were the coastal areas of Asia Minor, where were situated most of the bishoprics headed by "Pneumatomachoi"; also absent at first were the Egyptian bishops, and even Bishop Acholius did not arrive until after the opening of the Council. The "Opposition" was invited to the SynodЧonly on the initia tive of the Emperor, because it was so difficult to settle the negotiations with the thirty-six "Pneumatomachoi" bishops under Eleusius of Cyzicus in the course of the discussions. A decision on the question of the position of the Holy Spirit would have been hardly credible unless at least an attempt at a clarification in discussion with the opposition had been undertaken. In accord with the Emperor's intention, the Council of Constantinople was certainly not to be merely a synod of one faction, namely, the Meletian.

 

Before the sessions began, the participants were received by the Em peror, who singled out Bishop Meletius by an especially deferential greeting and hence, so to speak, suggested him as president of the Council. The sessions did not take place, however, in the imperial palace, and Theodosius neither took pan in them personally nor had himself represented by officials, so that freedom of discussion was fully guaranteed. Since, as in the case of Nicaea, no records of the sessions of the Council of Constantinople are extant, the exact course of the discus sions cannot be determined with certainty. But probably first on the agenda came the question of the recognition of Gregory Nazianzen as legitimate shepherd of the congregation of Constantinople, because his call to the see of the capital could possibly be regarded as opposed to canon 15 of Nicaea,58 which forbade the transfer of a bishop. But since Gregory had never taken possession of the see of Sasima, the Synod could declare his election canonical and permit his solemn enthrone ment.59 Probably connected with this matter was canon 4 of the Synod, at least in substance: it declared the ordination of the adventurer

 

57 Cf. A. M. Ritter, op. cit., 38f.

58

59 Text in J. Alberigo, COD 12. Socrates, HE 5, 8; Sozomen, HE 7, 7, 2-5; see A. M. Ritter, op. cit., 68, note 1.

60

61 Sozomen, HE 7, 7, 6; Theodoret, HE 5, 8, 2; Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen de vita sua 1305ff., 1525ff.

62

Maximus, at the instigation of Alexandria, as invalid; it had taken place without Gregory's knowledge. In the first days, however, the Council's president, Meletius, died unexpectedly; he had been preeminently suited for the position because of his reputation and his diplomatic skill. It was suggested that now the presidency of the Synod be given to the Bishop of Constantinople: of course, the new president would at once be confronted with the thorny problem of the succession of Meletius at Antioch. Gregory was unable to put through his motion that the settlement of the question be left open until the death of Paulinus, that is, that Paulinus be recognized as the single orthodox bishop, but the Council reached no agreement.

 

In the first weeks of the Council must be put the discussion of the orthodox teaching on the Holy Spirit, which, in keeping with the situa tion in the eastern part of the Empire, had to constitute a central point in the synodal debates. An agreement between the orthodox majority and the Pneumatomachoi or Macedonians was of the deepest concern to Theodosius too. His hopes were, of course, thoroughly disappointed. Despite all exertions, especially by Gregory Nazianzen, the faction with Eleusius of Cyzicus could not be moved to recognize the divinity of the Holy Spirit and immediately left the Council: in so doing it had warned its members in a circular against recognition of the faith of Nicaea.

 

The Creed of Constantinople (381)

It would have corresponded to the example given at Nicaea, but also thoroughly to the situation of 381, if in the negotiations with, the Homoiousians at Constantinople the effort had been made to induce them to agree to a creed in which the content of the Nicene Creed was accepted but through which also the question of the Holy Spirit would have been adequately declared. In fact it is now revealing to see this formula in the text which was taken into the Latin Mass from the late sixth century as the "Creed of the 150 Fathers of Constantinople" and is today known by the not entirely apt name of "Creed of Nicaea- Constantinople." The scholarly discussion on the background and time of origin of this text has not yet reached a unanimous agreement. The Council of Chalcedon (451), it is true, saw in the Fathers of Constan tinople the authors of this Creed, who wished by it to comment on the Creed of Nicaea through antiheretical additions on the Incarnation of the Logos and the divinity of the Holy Spirit Чand this remained the traditional view until the second half of the nineteenth century. How ever, this was decisively rejected with the claim that the so-called Creed of Constantinople was older, since it was quoted almost verbatim by Epiphanius of Salamis in his Ancoratus, written in 374, and on closer examination was proved to be the baptismal creed of the Church of Jerusalem, which Cyril of Jerusalem used as the basis of his catecheses held after 350; it could have been made known to the Fathers of Constantinople through Cyril or through the bishops of Cyprus who were represented at the Synod of 381. The strongest grounds, how ever, are represented by the view that the work of Epiphanius originally contained the Creed of Nicaea and that at Constantinople a special creed must have been composed, especially since there are repeated references to its existence in the sources before 451, even if only by hints, as in Gregory Nazianzen or more clearly in Theodore of Mop- suestia. Thus the testimony of the acts of the Council of Chalcedon maintains its weight, that the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople really goes back to the Synod of 381. To the question why the Fathers of Constantinople set up still another creed beside that of Nicaea the answer is only probable: that because of the discussion of the Trinitarian doctrine, lasting for decades, into which the Holy Spirit was ever more drawn, they regarded this procedure as unconditionally necessary. In favor of the assumption that its text originated in connection with the negotiations for union with the Macedonians, desired by the Emperor, is the fact that on the one hand the term homoousios was given up in regard to the Holy Spirit, while on the other hand related formulas were employed which assured the results achieved by the theology of the Young Nicenes.

An exhaustive analysis of the text of the Creed of Constantinople makes clear that the statements of that of Nicaea were left intact. For the additions in the first and second article that went beyond thisЧ "maker of heaven and earth," "eternally begotten," "by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man," "for our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate," "is seated at the right hand of the Father," "his kingdom will have no end"Чare found here and there earlier in other formulas or texts and hence are not new creations of the Fathers of Constantinople. It is rather the new statements on the Holy Spirit in the third article on which the great theological impor tance of this creed is based. Whereas Nicaea said simply, "We believe in the Holy Spirit," the following amplifications are found here: "the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets." With the profession of "Lordship" (to kyrion) with the title kyrios, the divine character is claimed also for the Holy Spirit, as for the Father and the Son, just as Basil of Caesarea had already concluded from 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 2 Thessalonians 3:5, and 2 Corinthians 3:17. And the designation "giver of life" intends to affirm that the One so designated is God, as the Young Nicenes often stressed. By means of the formula "who proceeds from the Father" it was intended to oppose the thesis of the Macedonians, that the Holy Spirit is a being created by the Son; that the procession from the Father is instead an argument for his divinity had been stressed by Gregory Nazianzen in connection with John 15:26. However, the most decisive statement on the divinity of the Holy Spirit is: "With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified." The same worship (proskynesis, as the proper act of divine adoration) and the same honor (doxa, as the more ritual honoring in the liturgy) which belong to Father and Son are proper also to the Holy Spirit. Since the time of Cyril of Jerusalem the orthodox theology had fought precisely for the inclusion of the Holy Spirit in the doxology as the ritual liturgical formula of divine worship. The ap proval by means of the Creed of Constantinople was therefore basically equivalent to a profession of the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, and no convinced Macedonian could have signed this formula. Why the term bomoousios was, then, not adopted for the Holy Spirit can only be surmised. Perhaps it was hoped to make the Pneumatomachoi better disposed toward union by means of an argument closer to Scripture. After the failure of the efforts for union such deference could be disre garded. The next year a new synod at Constantinople spoke unambigu ously of the "one divinity, power, and substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and again rejected "the blasphemy of the Eunomians, Arians, and Pneumatomachoi." But the Council of 381 had already issued such a condemnation in a special canon (1) when it said that "especially the heresy ... of the Pneumatomachoi" was to be anathematized. The Emperor's edict of 30 July 381 immediately drew the consequences of this judgment: it ordered the immediate surrender of all churches to the bishops "who confess that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one majesty and power, of the same honor and dominion." The criterion of the orthodox faith of these bishops consisted in their communion with Nectarius of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria, Diodoris of Tarsus, Amphilochius of Iconium, Helladius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and some othersЧhence the representatives of the defenders of orthodoxy at Constantinople.

 

Thus the Council of 381 effectively brought to a close the long discus sion of the Trinitarian question and thereby assisted the theology affirmed at Nicaea to a definitive triumph. Within the Church of the Empire Arianism of every sort no longer meant any serious danger. Perhaps a threat could still come from the German Goths, who, to gether with Christianity, had received the Arian creed. But among them it had become their tribal religion, and no recruiting missionary strength proceeded from it; hence it maintained itself only so long as the tribal prince of the moment professed it.

 

Apart from canons 1 and 4, already mentioned, a special importance in canon law and Church history attaches to the two other decrees of the Council of Constantinople, composed in the form of canons. Canon 2 has to do with the ecclesiastical organization in the eastern part of the Empire and indirectly makes known that the pertinent decrees of the Council of Nicaea (canons 4-7) had often been disregarded in the con fusion of the recent decades. Hence it was again inculcated that the affairs of one ecclesiastical province were to be dealt with by the corre sponding provincial synod. With a clear reference to Alexandria it was declared that the bishop there was responsible only for Egypt, and in this regard must proceed "in accord with the canons." It can scarcely be doubted that the interference by Peter of Alexandria through the secret ordination of Maximus (cf. supra on canon 4) was in this way being censured. It was decreed for the entire Church that no bishop might exercise ecclesiastical functions outside the political diocese to which his see belonged. In this connection all the political dioceses of the eastern part of the Empire were named: the East, with a confirmation of the privileges granted by Nicaea to the Church of Antioch, and Asia, Pon- tus, and ThraceЧthese last three with no mention of a church whose bishop had the direction of the respective sees belonging to them. Here one can see the development which was one day to end with the estab lishing of the eastern patriarchates. The canon concluded with a refer ence to the churches in missionary lands, which were to be cared for in accord with the prevailing practice, hence by the centers from which their missionaries came.

 

Canon 3 of the Synod of Constantinople was with its concise text by far the one most heavy with consequences: "The Bishop of Constan tinople should have the Primacy of Honor after the Bishop of Rome, for this city is the new Rome." Hitherto the special rank of Antioch and Alexandria had been seen rather in the apostolic origin of their congre gations than in the political importance of these cities. Here the exces sive elevation in rank of the episcopal see of ByzantiumЧuntil now a simple bishopric under the Metropolitan of HeracleaЧwas unambigu ously founded on the political importance of the new capital of the eastern part of the Empire, while indirectly the special position of the Roman Bishop was reduced to the political rank of Old Rome. It cannot be said that only an eastern principle was applied to Constantinople;83 rather, a concurrence of different tendencies were in effect. One such was surely the antagonism between Alexandria and Constantinople, which led to a victory of that faction of bishops at the Synod who were hostile to Alexandria. To this may probably be added the desire of the Emperor to gain and secure for the bishop of his residence a position which raised him above all the bishops of the East. In this canon, how ever, one can hardly discover any anti-Roman spite, since it did not question Rome's proper rank, and there seems not to have been any direct reaction from Rome.84 Such would have been expected rather from Alexandria and Antioch, even if the canon had been issued before the arrival of the Egyptian bishops at Constantinople.85 But Alexandria had too strongly compromised itself through the intrigues with Maximus, and Antioch was without a spokesman since the death of Bishop Meletius. Besides, many bishops from other provinces of the East may have taken comfort in the idea that in question was not a claim to jurisdiction by the Bishop of Constantinople, but only a Primacy of Honor. That this latter would eventually grow of its own great weight into a jurisdictional primacy is easier to understand with historical hindsight than was possible in the days of the Synod of 381.

 

The Synod of Constantinople as an "Ecumenical" Council

 

The question as to whether the participants in the Synod of Constan tinople understood their meeting as a Council of the entire Church of the Empire must be answered with a clear "no" on the basis of the indications in the extant sources. It was not such a Council of the Empire by virtue of its actual composition: the western episcopate had not been invited and was also not represented at it.86 Even more impor tant is the characteristic which the members themselves attributed to their meeting when in their closing report to the Emperor Theodosius they designated it as "Synod of the bishops assembled from the various eparchies" (namely of the East).87 Correspondingly, the Emperor had

 

83 Thus A. M. Ritter, op. cit., 93: the quoted canon 9 of the Synod of Antioch of 341 speaks only of the responsibility of a Metropolitan for the entire "Eparchy," because so many men gather in his city for their "business."

84

85 The first official protest by the Roman See came only at the Council of Chalcedon: ACO II, III, 3, 114. Both Leo I and Gregory I maintain that the canons of 381 were not made known to Rome: Leo, Ep. 106, 5; Gregory, Ep. 34.

86

87 An exact date for the enacting of the individual canons cannot, in my opinion, be deduced from the sources.

88

89 The later participation of Bishop Acholius of Thessalonica does not contradict this, since he was hardly an official representative of the West.

90

91 Text in Mansi III, 557-560.

92

7A .

the decrees of this Synod published only in the eastern part of the Empire, and the Synod itself apparently sent no report of its work to Rome or to the western episcopate. The Synod of Constantinople of 382, it is true, in its letter to Rome characterized the assembly of bishops of the previous year as an "ecumenical synod," but, in accord with the linguistic usage of the fourth century, "ecumenical" here did not intend to express a qualification of canon law but only to assert that its participants came from the Greek-speaking oikumene and had been summoned by the Emperor.89 To this then corresponds also the estima tion of the Synod of Constantinople in East and West until the Council of Chalcedon. Western sources in general no longer speak of it after 382 and eastern testimonies are sparse and they never refer to it as they do, for example, to the surpassing value of the Council of Nicaea, while from 431 the Council of Ephesus was regarded as the "second synod." The reappraisal of Constantinople first occurred at Chalcedon, when an emphatic recognition was given to the Creed of Constantinople, and in justification of the so-called canon 28 on the prerogatives of the bishop of the imperial capital the canons of 381 were cited as "Synodikon of the Second Synod."90 In an edict of the Emperor Justinian I of 545, then, "the four holy synods" constitute a firm unit, whose dogmas are as esteemed as the Holy Scriptures. In the west Pope Gregory the Great found a similar formulation when he wished to accept and honor "the four Councils"ЧNicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and ChalcedonЧas the four books of the "holy gospel." In this way the gradual recogni tion of the Council of 381 as an "ecumenical" Council reached its con clusion. The answer to the question of whether all the assumptions of canon law were at hand in the sense of the canonical understanding of the ecumenicity of a council must not be given by the Church historian.

 

CHAPTER 6

 

Development of the Relationship of Church and State in the Fourth Century: The "Church of the Empire"

 

The presentation thus far of the discussion within the Church concern ing the recognition of the Creed of Nicaea has already made abundantly clear that at that time the idea of neutrality toward the Church was totally foreign to the Roman State in its fourth-century leadership. The Emperors of this period showed instead a lively interest in the contem porary problems of the Church, especially the questions of unity of belief, of uniformity of organization, and of missionary work among pagans and often intervened with the greatest intensity in the search for a solution of these problems. However, for this very reason there was presented with growing urgency the question of the right relationship of Church and State, which pressed more and more for a solution tolerable to both sides. It is advisable, in a summary glance back at the contempo rary attitude of the individual Emperors to this problem and its evalua tion on the part of the Church, to follow the route which was pursued in the search for a solution until the end of the fourth century. It will thus be seen that this was a long and circuitous process, at the end of which stood the Christian "Church of the Empire" of late antiquity, which was, however, differently understood and evaluated in East and West.

 

Church and State under Constantine I

 

Earlier in the comment regarding the "Constantinian Turning-Point"1 it was pointed out that, even after the victor of 312 had turned to this religion, Christianity did not have to undertake a thoroughly radical examination and reorientation of its attitude to the Roman State as such. Long before Constantine there were weighty voices among the Christians which had a positive estimation of the Roman State, as for example Origen,2 who ascribed to it a providential mission for the spread of the Christian faith, and, with Tertullian, many others for whom prayer pro salute imperatorum was a duty.3 The two long periods of peace in the third century even made possible repeated positive contacts of Christian personages with Emperors or relatives of the impe-

 

1 See vol. I, chap. 31.

2

3 Origen, Contra Celsum 2, 30; Tertullian, Apol 30, 1; see H. U. Instinsky, Die Alte Kirche und das Heil des Staates (Munich 1963), 41-60.

4

5 See finally K. Aland, "Kirche und Staat in der alten Christenheit," Festschr.f. H. Kunst (Berlin 1967), 19-49, especially 33-37.

6

^uiv o A jm x JJ A J."* lliu t V7UJ\in V-E1N 1 UKI

 

rial family, which intimated the reconciliation between State and Church that was under way. Then when Constantine gave the Church complete freedom of belief and of preaching and, with the start of his sole rule, Christianity began to be ever more privileged, in the en thusiastic exuberance of these years the problem of Church and State did not yet present itself to either side in its full precision. Constantine's awareness of mission4 demanded for the Church a special position, but this did not yet lead to a situation which made necessary a clear delinea tion of boundaries laid down for a Christian Emperor. When the Em peror set out to bring the Church closer to the State and to gain it for a close collaboration in the interest of imperial unity, only regard for the pagan majority of the inhabitants of the Empire bade him not to overex- tend his special position and not to permit serious conflicts to arise. That in this regard Constantine shrank from intervening in specific internal affairs of the Church in an authoritarian manner and with full power to impose his decision is demonstrated by his reluctant reaction when he was approached by the Donatists for an imperial judgment in their conflict with the Catholics of North Africa: he referred them to an ecclesiastical court or to a synod (Aries 314).5 Only when its judgment was presented, did he direct measures according to it. Even in the growing Arian controversy, the Emperor saw himself only as qualified to urge peace and unity, not as the Lord of the Church, to whom pertained the final decision. At Nicaea he permitted full freedom of speech and debate and strove by means of persuasion and diplomacy for the greatest possible unanimous acceptance of the creed formulated by the majority of the bishops. Only once did he overstep, in our modern view, the limits hitherto observed by him: when he threatened the representatives of the opposition with exile and hence limited their freedom of decision, but the protest that might have been expected from the bishops did not occur.6 Hence the phrase attributed to ConstantineЧthat he was the episkopos ton ektosЧseems to be a valid paraphrase of the attitude that he claimed and exercised in regard to the Church.7

 

In Constantine's lifetime ecclesiastics had not yet struggled hard and bitterly over the problem of Church and State and the position of the Emperor vis-a-vis the Church respectively. The right of the Emperor to summon synods was in no way questioned, and his efforts to steer the course of the theological discussions through his ecclesiastical advisers were accepted as self-evident; the punishment of exile repeatedly de-

 

7 See supra, chap. 1.

8

9 Cf. W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church, 147f.

10

11 Philostorgius, HE 1,9-

12

13 See supra, chap. 1.

14

creed by him for adherents of the opposition, who were unwilling to submit to the verdict of council or synod, encountered no decisive resistance, apparently not even among those directly affected, such as Arius and his friends. This attitude of the Church was to a certain degree motivated by the sacred evaluation of the position of the ruler in antiquity, which was gradually transposed into the Christian view. Even more importance in Constantine's case derived from the glorifying at mosphere of the recognition and the boundless gratitude in which his victory over his pagan opponents, his official legitimation of the Chris tian religion, and, not least, his personal conversion to Christianity had placed him. Finally, the heaping of privileges on the Church, especially when he was sole ruler, with their special effect on the position of the bishops in public life, had lulled rather than sharpened the critical conscience of some bishops in regard to such connections with the State.

 

However, it was of enormous significance for the future that this first of all Christian Emperors served as the model when Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea undertook to establish theologically the position of the Chris tian imperial office in relation to and in the Church. In the panegyrical writings of Constantine, which belong to the last period of his life, Eusebius outlined a political theology to which appeal was later made, again and again, especially at Byzantium, when people sought to justify the uniqueness of the Emperor's position in the Church. He expounded its fundamental idea in his festive discourse on the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine's accession, delivered in the latter's presence in 335. According to it, the earthly Imperium is a reflection (eikon) of the heavenly kingdom, and as the latter has only one Lord, the Father, so also the reflection has only one Emperor, who receives his sovereign power and his virtues as ruler from the Father through the Logos Christ. His task as ruler is to deliver mankind from the power of the demons, from idolatry, from polytheism, and to lead it to recognition of the true God. Hence the Emperor is called to promote the realization of God's plan of salvation with human beings: and so he becomes God's vicar (hyparchos) on earth. With the elimination of polytheism, monotheism achieved the victory, and hence the earthly Imperium is also monarchical in principle. In his writings Eusebius applied this basic theory to the changes of his own time, experienced by him with a grateful heart. The

Emperor Constantine, converted to Christianity, has become the "new Moses," since, as the other once freed the Jewish people, he has now brought freedom to the Church. His turning to Christianity was not only a personal profession: he proclaims this Christianity to be the only true religion and thereby becomes its great missionary. Therefore, he may be called shepherd, bringer of peace, teacher, physician of souls, and father; in fact, he enters upon a new relationship to God, he be comes "friend and beloved of God," who is always near him, who gives him his protection in war, enlightens him in the carrying out of his office, reveals himself to him in visions, and discloses the future to him. From such an evaluation of the Christian Emperor Eusebius now deduces his position in the Church. Since Imperium and Church are both reflections of the heavenly kingdom, they are in practice identical in the now Christian Imperium Rotnanum, but this has only one supreme head, the Christian Emperor, God's vicar, who thus becomes in a certain sense Lord of the Church. He becomes not only its protecting Lord but "a sort of universal bishop" whose full power over the Church has a quasi-priestly character; for it extends also to the right performance of worship and to the preaching of the gospel. Fundamentally he is also over the bishops: only the Emperor's personal modesty lets him behave "as one of them," even though he can give them commands and admoni tions and is the arbiter of their conflicts.

 

This political theology of Eusebius far surpasses, of course, what Constantine had actually claimed for his own position in relation to the Church. But it supplied many a building stone for the Byzantine State-Church system and fostered a serious development which is al ready discernible in its beginnings under Constantine: all ecclesiastical factions or interest groups of the fourth and fifth centuries sought to gain the favor of the ruler of the moment. They turned spontaneously to the State for aid in order to impose their view, even in theological questions. In accord with the character of the Emperor who was ad dressed, this could at any time easily expand into something with no limits, depending on his awareness of his special position and his rights relative to the Church.

 

Efforts to Subordinate the Church to the State by the Emperors Constantius and Valens This limitless power became a reality under Constantine's second son, Constantius, in whose reign is to be placed the second step in the

 

progress of the problem of Church and State that pressed for a solution. This Emperor's inclination to exercise a strict control over the Church became apparent for the first time on the occasion of the Synod of Serdica (342). Whereas the group of western bishops arrived and functioned without an escort provided by the State, there were in the delegation from the East two high State officials, whom Athanasius sarcastically referred to as "their school masters and attorneys." When the western episcopate dared in an impressive letter to refer to the moral constraint which State officials were exercising on the faithful of his dominions and implored him to end this abuse and to guarantee complete freedom of judgment also in the religious sphere, Constantius reacted sharply, especially since he could not but feel the decisions of some of the canons issued at Serdica as a criticism of the methods of his religious policy, those, namely, whereby the frequent visits of some bishops to the imperial court were forbidden, an abuse which Athanasius had earlier censured. The petition that he would permit the exiled bishops to return to their sees was answered by the posting of sentries to prevent this. For his part he exiled clerics who made known their sympathies with the decrees of the Synod. He undertook to subject the Church completely to his control when, after the death of his brother Constans, he had assumed sole rule. In the fall of 353 he submitted for their signatures to the bishops of Gaul meeting at Aries and to the legates of Pope Liberius a prepared decree, which con demned Athanasius and punished any resistance with banishment, while he rejected from the start any discussion of the question of faith. "With whip and pastry" he succeeded in obtaining the signatures of all the Gallic bishops, except that of Bishop Paulinus of Trier, who there fore was exiled to Phrygia. Constantius's claim to direct the Church reached its climax two years later at the Synod of Milan (355), called by him, at which he again demanded the condemnation of Athanasius by the bishops, whereas they demanded a clear decision in favor of the Nicene Creed. To achieve his end, this time he had recourse to methods which dishonoured him as Emperor. He had the sessions of the Synod transferred from the church at Milan to his palace and, hidden behind a curtain, listened to the bishops' discussions. The resistance of the bishops finally elicited from him the ominous word that reproduced exactly his innermost attitude to the problem of State and Church: "What I want must be regarded as canon law." Thus was the complete subjection of the Church to the State demanded: it was to be a State- Church incorporated into the Imperium, whose absolute sovereign was the Emperor. No Emperor of the fourth century expressed or outdid such a claim with the same precision. This expression made Constantius the unequivocal champion of the most extreme solution, which in the succeeding years he steadfastly tried to realize with the same methods as before, that is, in changing from despotic harshness to coaxing per suasion, which cleverly avoided only one thing: to permit a bishop of independent mind to become a martyr by shedding his blood. Again exile was the fate of the few upright bishops, while the papal legates were shamefully ill treated. Even Pope Liberius, after a long, fruitless discussion with the Emperor, was exiled to Thrace. Likewise, the con sent of the Gallic bishops who had not been present at Milan to the condemnation of Athanasius was extorted at the Synod of Beziers (356), and the two inflexible ones, Hilary of Poitiers and Rhodanius of Toulouse, followed the other opponents into banishment. The Synod of Rimini (359) offers the same picture: again a prepared creed is sub mitted to the bishops, not for discussion but for unconditional surren der. In the Emperor's letter to the members of the Synod occurs the statement: "No decree can have the force of law anywhere, if our will denies it any importance and obligation." It contains the same claim to power in regard to the Church as the dictum of Milan and degrades the synod of bishops to a mere farce. The minority of bishops subservient to the Emperor at Rimini also frankly admitted that Contantius claimed for himself the right of asserting his will, even in theological questions, when they exuberantly thanked him for having stricken the homoousios from the Nicene Creed: "Through the authoritative decision of Your Piety, we see all those defeated who use that word for God's Son."

Lucifer of Cagliari reproached the Arian bishops with having acceded to Constantius's claim to be episcopus episcoporum.

 

In its confrontation with the claims of the Emperor Constantius to a leading role, the Church had to endure bitter disillusionments and an often distressing collapse of its own episcopate. But it was precisely the harshness and vehemence of this Emperor that also summoned the first men from its ranks to the battlefield for the defense of the irrevoc able independence and freedom of the Church. The resistance was led by Athanasius of Alexandria, who, soon after his return from his first exile, in an encyclical to the Universal Church referred to the threat to the Church's freedom, which arose from the fact that forces external to the Church interfered, contrary to custom, in the filling of episcopal sees; hence he summoned all Catholic bishops to unanimous resistance. Thus Athanasius was the first bishop of the fourth century to formulate the Church's claim to freedom vis-a-vis the State. Pope Julius joined him when he complained that the freedom of ecclesiastical decisions was jeopardized by the threat of exile and death. The letter of the western members of the Synod of Serdica to Constantius drew an un mistakable line of separation between Church and State when they attributed to the latter only concern for the public well-being and re jected any interference in the ecclesiastical sphere; a deviation from this line takes liberty from men and leads necessarily to slavery. Equally spirited was the reply of the aged Hosius of Cordoba to the Emperor, when the latter still sought to gain him, after the tragedy of Milan, for his procedure: "Do not meddle in ecclesiastical matters . . . God has entrusted to you the imperial power, but to us the things of the Church ... It does not behoove us to rule on earth, nor you, Emperor, to offer sacrifice." This letter was followed by the fiery protest of Hilary of Poitiers, who in his exile wrote of his indignation of soul since the Emperor did not give him the opportunity to explain it to him in person. Above all, he pitilessly exposed the methods which Constantius em ployed to achieve his ecclesiastical political aims: he overwhelmed the bishops with honors in order to enslave them; he did not have them beheaded but killed with gold; he flattered in order to dominate; he exempted the Church from taxation but he thereby seduced it into denying Christ. The often fanatical polemics of Lucifer of Cagliari accurately revealed especially the questionable character of Constan- tius's arguments whereby he sought to justify his religious policy: if his persecution of the Nicenes was wrong, he claimed, God would have had to sweep away him and his Imperium long since. No similarly strong opposition to any Christian Emperor of the fourth century had ap peared on the side of the Church. Certainly the effort of Constantius to incorporate the Church into the State and to subject it to it was shat tered not only on this resistance, but in the jubilation with which people greeted the bishops banished by him on their return from exile after his death; the joy resounded because of the newly acclaimed freedom of the Church, so bitterly fought for.

 

Under the Emperor Valens (365-378) the Church in the eastern part of the Empire was again exposed for a time to similar stresses as in the days of Constantius. Again the creed of an ecclesiastical faction, this time that of the Homoians, was to achieve exclusive recognition by the means proper to the State's powerЧimprisonment, deportation, and various types of coercion. And again there was resistance to this imped ing of the Church's freedom, not only on the part of the genuine Nicenes but also of some bishops who were inclined to the homoiousios, but preferred exile to yielding to imperial dictation. It is significant for the Emperor's attitude that by direct interference he even forbade a planned meeting of the Homoiousians at Tarsus, when the latter in tended to discuss a union with the supporters of Nicaea. If he finally left Athanasius and Basil, the two champions of orthodoxy, in their sees, this was due not to any change of heart by the Emperor but to fear of possible political disturbances, which banishment could have evoked. Occasionally Basil had expressed his theory of the problem of Church and State. In connection with Romans 13:1-4, the Bishop of Caesarea was convinced that all the power of the State comes from God and therefore the Christian owes obedience to it, when its laws promote the welfare of society. But since the earthly Imperium is always subordi nated to the divine law, the Christian's duty of obedience to it finds its limits at the spot where the State's power oversteps its competence and makes demands which oppose God's law. Therefore he let the Emperor

 

Valens know that neither torture nor threats could induce him to put his signature, as commanded by the Emperor, to the Homoian creed. He thereby encouraged clerics and laymen to resist the State's might, if it aimed to force them to the Arian faith. The events and experiences of his days stood behind his words when he wrote to an official that he was grateful to God for a ruler who was a Christian, an upright character, and a conscientious guardian of the laws which order human life. The calmness of these words is far removed from the excessive glorification of the Christian imperial power from the pen of Eusebius of Caesarea. Gregory Nazianzen insisted on the right of the Church to prefer its own marriage legislation to that of the State and regarded it as intolerable that, for example, the defining of the boundaries of bishoprics should be decided by a secular power. And Gregory of Nyssa had serious reser vations in regard to the State-Church system then developing in the East.45 Hence both Latins and Greeks raised their voices for the liberty of the Church in the face of the power of the State.

 

Ambrose and Theodosius

The problem of Church and State entered a new and decisive phase when in the last quarter of the century two men confronted it: each in his own sphere tended to represent categorically and firmly his notion of the freedom of the Church or of the sovereignty of the State: Ambrose of Milan and Theodosius the Great. The Bishop of Milan had already made clear, in the confrontation between the Emperor Gratian (375- 383) and the pagan faction at Rome, that he did not hesitate to appeal even to the conscience of an Emperor if it was a question of protecting the rights of the Church. He felt himself impelled to this all the more when Gratian's younger brother, Valentinian II (383-392), came under the influence of a faction of officials and clerics who strove to procure a strong position for Arianism in Milan at the expense of the Catholics. In resisting this effort, Ambrose took so fundamental a stand on the rela tionship of imperial power and Christian Church that he exercised the greatest influence on the future. First, Ambrose compelled the Emperor to cancel his decrees whereby he had ordered the sequestration of two Catholic churches, to be handed over to the Arians. When the Em peror then called upon the bishop to agree to an imperial court of arbitration, which should decide whether Ambrose or the Arian Auxen- tius was the lawful Bishop of Milan, the Catholic bishop twice in succes sion expressed his basic idea of the limits of the State's power in relation to the Church. In a letter to the Emperor he informed him in unam biguous language that he would not appear before the imperial arbitra tion court, because laymen cannot sit in judgment on clerics in ques tions of faith. On the contrary: according to custom, in such cases bishops would correct Christian Emperors, but Emperors would not correct bishops; he, the Emperor, who still had to earn admittance to baptism, arrogated to himself a decision in questions of faith for which only a synod of bishops in a church was proper. Even more decisive are the statements in the sermon in which Ambrose rejected the plan of Auxentius to make himself Bishop of Milan with the help of the State's power. For an Emperor who professed to be a Christian there was no greater honor than that he be called "son of the Church." "The Emperor is in the Church, not over the Church." This expression, which would never have occurred to a Eusebius, was, it is true, uttered as part of a concrete situation, but at the same time it proclaimed a principle which Ambrose and after him the Latin Church would always defend: the Christian Emperor is not the master of his Church but its beneficent patron; questions of faith, the discipline of the clergy, the form of the liturgy, the administration of ecclesiastical property, are, according to Ambrose, withdrawn in principle from the competence of even the Christian State.

 

For his principle that the Christian Emperor is not the master of the Church, but its son, Ambrose had to stand up to an Emperor of the stature of Theodosius the Great, who, like Constantine, was filled with an exalted consciousness of his sovereign position and who, because of his earlier unflinching stand for the Catholic creed, possessed the bound less sympathy of the Church. A first occasion for conflict arose when in 388 a group of fanatical Christians in the town of Callinicum on the Euphrates frontier, with the consent of their bishop, burned the Jewish synagogue, and the Emperor ordered the rebuilding of the synagogue at the expense of the Catholic bishop. Bishop Ambrose, however, saw in this command an unreasonable encouragement of a religious group hostile to Christianity and demanded that the Emperor annul his de cree. When the latter hesitated, Ambrose spoke to him during Mass in the Milan cathedral and declared that he would not continue the Mass until the Emperor solemnly promised to act as Ambrose had re quested. Theodosius finally yielded, but he long retained a deep re sentment because of this humiliation at the hands of the bishop of his residence. On surer ground Ambrose made use of another incident to prove to him that a Christian Emperor is subject to the moral demands of his Church. When the people of Thessalonica murdered an unpopu lar imperial official, the Emperor, in a first fury, gave the brutal com mand to proceed with cold steel against the people assembled in the stadium. The Emperor, it is true, soon rescinded his order, but the counterorder arrived too late and a large number of inhabitants of the city were slain. For this serious crime Bishop Ambrose demanded public penance of the Emperor; he left Milan and declared in a letter to Theodosius that he would remain away from his episcopal city until Theodosius should accept the penance. Once again the Emperor sub mitted. The highest holder and representative of the power of the State subjected himself to the penitential discipline of his Church, which a bishop uncompromisingly required of him. Again a line was drawn which even an Emperor might not overstep. Questionable as Ambrose's argumentation was in individual cases, notably that of Callinicum, with his basic viewpoint he had created a sort of model which was to remain valid in the Latin West for the relations of the Church and the Christian State. Both powers stood in a basically posi tive relationship to each other, but the innermost sphere of the Church's lifeЧfaith, the moral order, ecclesiastical disciplineЧremained with drawn from the State's influence. Of course, not every Latin bishop of the future was an Ambrose, but in the West people held fundamentally to the solution achieved at the close of the fourth century and only formulated it more precisely in the course of time, as, for example, was done by Pope Gelasius I. The customarily humble formulas in connec tion with the Emperors of late antiquity, found in episcopal and papal documents, for example, in those of Leo the Great, are, despite their often flowery character, no proof to the contrary.

In the East the development followed another route. It is true that here there was later no lack of people who pointed clearly to the limits of the State's power in relation to the Church, as, for example, John Chrysostom, who in a striking parallel to Ambrose said that "the holy laws have subordinated the head of the basileus to the hands of the priests," who defended the Church's right of asylum against the minister Eutropius, and who, when the Gothic leader Gainas, demanded a Catholic church of the capital for Arian worship, candidly reminded the Emperor Arcadius that it would be better to lose his imperial dignity than to become guilty of surrendering a church. But here finally the theocratic valuation of the imperial power, which Eusebius had intro duced with his excessive glorification of Constantine, proved to be stronger and under Justinian I reached a height never again surpassed.

 

The "Church of the Empire"

 

To express the real situation of the Church in the constant ups and downs of the imperial religious policy of the fourth century the term "Church of the Empire" was coined, but this makes necessary some clarifying remarks in order to avoid possible misconceptions of the situation concerned. The term aims to characterize in compact form that total situation in the relations of Church and State which came to a first preliminary conclusion under the Emperor Theodosius I. Fundamental to this relationship was the fact that the State's power and the Church agreed in principle on a close collaboration in the public sphere. This became possible because the Emperor, personally and as representative of the State's authority, professed the faith which the Church preached and the majority of the Empire's inhabitants accepted. Since this faith had been proclaimed as the official religion of the Empire, the State accorded the Church manifold privileges and encouragement. It sup ported the Church's social and charitable activity; it exempted the clergy from certain offices, from military service, and from some taxes; the bishops were included in the State's administration of justice. Other religious communities, such as the still surviving remnant of paganism, Judaism, and especially such Christian sects as the official Church re garded as heretical, could not be encouraged by this Christian State, nor was it tolerant or even only neutral in their regard.

 

For its part, the Church basically approved this Imperium that was now Christian and recognized the independence of the State's sphere. In its preaching it stressed that the power of this State came from God and depended on God. In its liturgy it prayed for the holder of this State- power and thereby conceded to him a religious importance and guaran tee. The criticism of ecclesiastical writers in the religious and political conflicts of the fourth century was directed not against the State as such and not against the imperial power as such: it was concerned with the interference by individual representatives of the State in the inner life of the Church. The extraordinarily close union of the two was not questioned, especially since in the thought of the day an alternative to it was not known and could scarcely be understood.

 

But the enormous dangers which such an alliance of the two partners of the Church of the Empire implied were indeed seen and expressed by several representatives of the Church. They knew very well that the State's power was exposed to the constant temptation to abuse in rela tion to the Church. Others felt clearly that the privileges granted by the State and often all too eagerly claimed and sought by some bishops compromised the credibility of their preaching, as, for example, Jerome, when he wrote: "Since the Church has come under Christian Emperors, it has indeed grown in power and wealth, but it has decreased in moral strength."

 

Finally, it is to be noted that the expression "Church of the Empire" reproduces only a very external aspect of the total reality of the Church at that time. It would, above all, be a serious misunderstanding, if one were to assume that the self-evaluation of the contemporary Church was expressed fully in what is included in "Church of the Empire." The best theologians of the time knew well that the Church in its innermost essence belonged to another area, namely to that reality of the order of grace which was bestowed on mankind through Christ's redemptive act.