MA S TER 
 NEGATIVE 
 
 NO 
 
 92-80708-4 
 
MICROFILMED 1993 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the 
 "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 fthlr reproductions of copyrighted matenal. 
 
 under certain conditions specif^d in J^he law j^^b^^ 
 archives are authorized to fumsh a pnot^^^^^^^ .^ ,1^^, j^^ 
 reproduction. One of *''«se specmea co ^^^ 
 
 phWopy or other ^eprf "fj^^ schola°ship, or 
 purpose other than private siuoy =>^ , , ^ ^^^s, a 
 
 research." If a user makes a r^q^^j'' ~^' °;,,,ess of "fair 
 
 5sT"hTutLrTfberb":Torco''pyright infringement, 
 copy order it, in "p "uy coovright law. 
 
 would involve violation of the copyr y 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 WHITHAM, ARTHUR R. 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 HISTORY OF THE CRIS 
 TIAN CHURCH... 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 LONDON 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 1920 
 
I* 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 Master Negative U 
 
 M 
 
 BIDLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 DKS/8AVE Books 
 
 FUL/BIB 
 
 NYCG92-B39253 
 
 Acqu isi tions 
 
 NYCG-PT 
 
 FI\\\ ID MMUGRUI:l23581032-B 
 -I- 
 
 ID;:NYCG92-B39253 
 
 CC 119665 BLTsam DCF 
 
 L ;: enq I NT 
 
 PD:\ J. 920/ 
 0R«' POLs 
 
 ^^Bcord 1 of 1 - EiAVb record 
 
 CP i; enk 
 PCss 
 
 RTYP-„a ST SB 
 CSCsu MOD-" 
 GPCs BlOr. 
 REP: CP 1:0 
 DM: RR: 
 
 FRMr. 
 SNR: 
 F I C : 
 FBJsG 
 
 \^ %V L> M 
 
 040 
 100 1 
 2 45 14 
 
 260 
 300 
 650 
 LDG 
 QD 
 
 N1\K> I cNMC 
 
 Whi tham , Arthur Ri chard , ••= I d 1863- 
 The history of the Christian church to the 
 •- I h L m i c I" c!) f G r \y\ J « 
 
 Lc3!-.dan : :--• I b T s . n - 1 , ^^ I c 1 920 , 
 9 ^ 354 p . : ~ 1 bdoubie map ; - I c20 cm « 
 (!; 1 1 u r c h h i s t c> r y , 
 fU._ I M 
 07-08-92 
 
 M[-^ 
 
 -3 ,". EL : 
 
 AD: 
 
 ATC: 
 
 UD: 
 
 COM : 
 
 
 1 1... C; : b 
 
 11 : 
 
 EML. : 
 
 GEN : 
 
 : 07-08-92 
 07-08-92 
 
 
 
 vciir. E 
 
 Beparation of east 3.nd west 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 REDUCTION RATIO:_^X 
 
 FILM SIZE: ^J^j;^^ 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA/HA^ IB IID 
 
 DATE FILMED: J0lC/3i_ INITIALS 
 
 RLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUDLICATIONS, INC WOODDRIDGE. CT 
 
 
 J.--., 
 
 / 
 
r 
 
 Association for information and Image Management 
 
 1 1 00 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1 1 00 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 1 
 
 iiii 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 
 
 Inches 
 
 1 
 
 mini 
 
 TTT 
 
 8 
 
 TTT 
 
 9 10 11 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 TTT 
 
 12 13 14 15 mm 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 
 
 U^ 2.8 
 
 |2.5 
 
 u& 
 
 
 |5* 3.2 
 
 2.2 
 
 ■ 63 
 
 JT |3.6 
 
 
 L ^ 
 
 2.0 
 
 i& 
 
 
 •* u 
 
 aui^u, 
 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 I I I 
 
 TTT 
 
 MfiNUFRCTURED TO fillM STONDRRDS 
 BY fiPPLIED IMRGE, INC. 
 
I 
 
 i^gsgRS!!*!'''-'--"' •^afilS-'gqtfe^^''-^^^^ 
 
 mn:-'.:. 
 
 ; f j^rfKsuir'rt*! 
 
 <w'>r 
 
 
 ■ . , . 
 
 .... -.:.:.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 liaminn) 
 
 11^ 
 
 *« 
 
 Ex^on 
 
 miitii 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ii 
 
 imii| 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 
 4f: 
 
 
 
 
 
 If 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 • 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 bI^ 
 
 r 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^^^^^^Bi 
 
 » 
 
^■Hltt«-^v'!.^. -^.'^Bjilfcr 
 
 \'"^ ^ . !tll,. V.v^. '^^^ 4*< ^^ 
 
 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 ^/. 
 
 FROM THE LIBRARY OF 
 CHARLES SEARS BALDWIN 
 
 1867-1935 
 
 A.B. 1888, Ph.D. 1894, Litt.D. 1929 
 
 Professor of Rhetoric and English Composition 
 
 1911-1935 
 
 Presented by his family, 1936 
 
 
 LXaaaAa/^ ci t 
 
 (T 
 
 r 
 
THE HISTORY OF 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 TO THE 
 
 SEPARATION OF EAST AND WEST 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. A. R. WHITHAM, M.A 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF CULHAM COLLEGE, 
 
 RECTOR OF EAST ILSLEY, HON. CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH 
 
 AND EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE PRIMUS OF SCOTLAND 
 
 
 • • . > < r 
 
 * » 
 
 ^ . ./tni/f/ufn, 'xqt'.iresfe^ Mctr^m 
 
 % , i ■> i 
 
 
 « * 
 
 ■ t 
 
 • • <r * > 
 t 
 
 y 
 
 RIVINGTONS 
 
 34 KING STKEE7\ CO VENT GARDEN 
 
 LONDO.N 
 I 920 
 
/: 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 
 H/V\ 
 
 •%^.^U. ,i^>,;... 
 
 , ' • , » 
 
 • • ,• « » 
 
 « \ 
 
 
 « T 
 
 • » 
 
 • » 
 
 331 .G 
 
 r- 
 
 6',' 
 
 l^i 
 
 
 This book is an attempt to provide in a popular and read- 
 able form a history of the Christian Church from the 
 Apostolic age to the separation of East and West. It is 
 based upon a course of lectures formerly delivered at 
 Cuddesdon, which some of the hearers were good enough 
 to desire to have in a more complete and permanent 
 form. The author has always felt that Church History 
 has suffered from the tendency to divide it into periods, 
 either for examination purposes, or through ecclesiastical 
 prejudice. Before detailed study is attempted, it is surely 
 better to gain a connected view, if only in outline, of a long 
 stretch of history ; the whole if possible, but at least as 
 far as the point where modem conditions begin. 
 
 The encouragements and warnings of Church History 
 were perhaps never more needed than at the present time, 
 when doctrinal restatement and ecclesiastical reconstruction 
 are so much in the thoughts of Christians. 
 
 The questions appended to each chapter will serve in 
 any case for drawing attention to the main points of interest. 
 If the book is used for class purposes, they may be used for 
 essay subjects or for written answers. The books suggested 
 under the 'subjects for further study' are not in any sense 
 intended as a bibhography, for which larger works like 
 Schaff's History of the Church or Smith and Wace's Dictionary 
 of Christian Biography may be consulted. They are merely 
 
 111 
 
iv THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 mentioned as helps to the student, in most cases easy of 
 access. 
 
 The author's grateful thanks are due to Mr. C. H. Turner of 
 Magdalen College, and to Dr. B. J. Kidd. Vicar of St. Paul's, 
 Oxford, for their kindness in reading the proofs and making. 
 many valuable criticisms and suggestions. 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 MapJto Illustrate the History 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 V 
 
 i; 
 
 L The Way Prepared. 
 
 The preparation of Israel— The theology of Israel— The idea 
 of an ecdesia — The wider influence of Judaism — The Hellenists 
 — The preparation of Greece — The Greek mysteries — Greek 
 failure — The preparation of Rome — The Empire— The roads — 
 Roman ideas •.•..,♦ 
 
 II. The Apostolic Period. 
 
 The Acts — Eusebius — The Church in the Acts— Catholic and 
 Jewish Christianity — Traditions of S. Paul — S. Peter — S. John 
 — S. James — The Neronian persecution — Hostility of the 
 Empire and its causes — Christian intolerance — Organisation — 
 Secrecy — ^Jealousy of Pagan priesthood — Christianity a crime — 
 Fall of Jerusalem and its effects — Domitian's persecution 
 
 Hi. The Age of Transition. 
 
 Perils of the Church — Safeguards — The Gospels — The 
 Epistles— Apocalypse— Canon of O. T.— Of N. T.— The Creed 
 — Christian worship — The Eucharist — Ritual — The Agape — 
 The Ministry — N. T. evidence — Episcopacy in N. T. — 
 S. Clement — S. Jerome's legend — 'Charismatic' ministry — 
 Church discipline ...... 
 
 IV. Early Christian Writings. 
 
 I S. Clement — 2 S. Clement — The Shepherd of Hernias — 
 Barna])as — The Didachi ..... 
 
 V. The Beginnings of Christian Defence. 
 
 Golden age of the Empire — Trajan — Pliny's letter — Trajan's 
 reply — S. Ignatius — His letters — Teaching — Unity— The 
 ministry — The Eucharist — His theology — Knowledge of Scrip- 
 tures — Hadrian — Letter to Fundanus — Legal position of the 
 Church — The last Jewish rehellion — The Apologists — Quadratus 
 — Aristides — Epistle to Diognetus — Antoninus — S. Justin 
 Martyr — His Apology — The Sacraments — The Liturgy — 
 Dialogue with Trypho ...... 
 
 x-xi 
 
 I-I2 
 
 ^yi^ 
 
 32-53 
 
 5463 
 
 64-84 
 
i 
 
 VI THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 VI. Persecution and Protest under the Antonines. 
 
 S. Polycarp — I lis letter — Martyrdom — Marcus Aurelius — 
 The Medifafiofis — Melito — Apollinarius — Atlienagoras — I'er- 
 secution in South Gaul — The Martyrs — Christian literature — 
 The Ociiwius — Literary attacks — Celsus . . . ^5-97 
 
 VII. Early Heresies. 
 
 Heresy — Judaizing — Gnosticism — Spirit of the Age — 
 Gnostic problems — Monism — Dualism — Gnosticism anti- 
 Christian — I*ractical effects — Simon Magus — Cerinthus — 
 Menander — Saturninus — Basilides — Gnostic sects — Encra- 
 tites — Elkasaites — Valentinus — Marcion — His Biblical criti- 
 cism — Marcionites — Failure of Gnosticism — Its survivals — 
 Pistis Sophia — Ptolemaeus and Flora . . . 98- 1 1 5 
 
 VIII. The Church's Reply to Heresy. 
 
 Christian defence — In the West — At Alexandria — S. 
 Irenaeus — The Faith of the Church — The Church of Rome 
 — North Africa — African theology — Martyrs — TertuUian — 
 His Apology — De Praescriptionc — On Baptism — Montanism 116- 127 
 
 IX. Alexandria : Constructive Reply to Heresy 
 
 and Heathenism. 
 
 The school of Alexandria — New attitude towards heathen- 
 ism — New heathen attack — Apollonius of Tyana — Neo- 
 platonism — Porphyry — Pantacnus — Clement — Origen — His 
 teaching — Supposed errors — Allegorising — The greatness of 
 Origen ....... 128-140 
 
 X. The Early Church of Rome. 
 
 S. Peter — Obscurity of early period — Quartodecimanism 
 — Growing influence of Rome — Monarcluan controversy — 
 Adoptionism — Modalism — Weakness of the Popes — S. Ilip- 
 polytus — His writings — Paul of Samosata . . . 141 -1 50 
 
 XL Third Century Persecutions and their Results. 
 
 Varying imperial policy — Maximinus — Decius — The 
 * Lapsi ' — S. Cyprian — Novatian — Baptismal controversy — 
 Settlement — Valerian — *The Unitv of the Church' — Roman 
 primacy ....... 151-161 
 
 XII. Diocletian: the Great Persecution. 
 
 Imperial changes — The peace of the Church — Martyrs in 
 the Aiiny — Tlbc great pefsecotion — The £<lict5 — Riv**! 
 ETnpero«5 — The end ol 0«1cnu» — Mnximiafm — Eilkt oC 
 MiUii — Roirw of p(«MCiition — >f ^rtyr»— RfTociS ol pcwecu- 
 tii>ft— Ccmvcntionii ....•« 16^17^ 
 
 h 
 
 XIV. 
 
 XV. 
 
 XVL 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 XIH. CONSTANTINE. 
 
 Vision of the Cross— Constantine's Christianity— Licinius— 
 Gradual establishment of Christianity — \'aried results — 
 Meletian schism— The Donatists— Council of Aries— The 
 Circumccllions— Later history of Donatism . 
 
 AR I AN ISM. 
 
 Forerunners— Ls Christ eternal ?— Arianism not Christianity 
 but Polytheism— The Arian claim— Difficulty of refutation 
 —Appeal of Arianism— Antioch—Arius—Constantine and 
 
 Arius — A Council summoned 
 
 • • • 
 
 The Council of Nicae.a. 
 
 Constitution and aim— Constantine's welcome— Parties— 
 The question of a Creed— The Homooiision—hfic^^Kwci/it of 
 Nict^K- Creed— The Mclotun sclitsm— I\ikIiii1 CMMnxrersy-- 
 CanocK— Qcrkal mirrii^ • . . , 
 
 Arianlsm ajttkk NiCAKA. (i.) The Arian ArrACK. 
 
 Ariin methods — Si. Athnnnsiudi— Kctum of ArUn exile*— 
 Fir^t *tt»dc oa Athomvius — Eusxjktliiwt — Fint exile of 
 AtlwiuiMm— Nfarccllus of Ancyra— Chinijw in the Rin|»r«^ 
 Arinn intr^c*— Kct«m of Al»uinsniu5— S. .XnCDoy— Sccotf>il 
 exile of AthuuL^iii&^The Pope .ood the Aiiim— l^cfter 0^ 
 J"^"*** 
 
 xviL Arlx.n'ism after NiCARA, (iL) Tub Arian COUNCILS 
 
 AND CRBBDSL 
 
 Couftcti <»r the Dedicntion— New creeds— Co«ndl of Sardw:* 
 — AthaniisuK nMtcircd — iVruu |xirtic$ : Sciiii-Aiiuw — 
 Euvcl>«:mK-.Ano«K>0UW — Keir oitAck cm Atl»iki>»u5^ His 
 third exile — Fall of U!>criii» — Of Hctfaiu— Tlic Cl^arch 
 Arianbcd — Creed <if Sirmiuiti — Tli« Scmi-ArUns in the 
 asccnihmt— TwinCouTidl of Sclcuck ami Ariniin^m— Both 
 Couf>ctU MlNiut to AiimUni— The Kuicl)ian triuiupli-^ 
 Imi>eriA! clwjic« — Convcwirtn of tlve Goil« — Catl^lic 
 chaiijpions . . , . . 
 
 xviii. Julian and thp. Pagan Reaction. 
 
 Jultxn the Apostate— Ca«M« of ftpoMtifc^y— His clmnictcf^ 
 Unn^^tl tolcrdtioo— Attrtck on Chri«ianity— Attempt to 
 rcirtore jxigaimm— Julian's new rcl%;ion- Dijillusioniiicm- 
 Tlic TcmpSe of JcrutjiUrni— Athoadwtei retwm— Conncil of 
 AlcxAiiilm— Schosmsof Amioch— Fourth exile of Athmuiit^ 
 —Death of JuliMi— Ediects of hk» policy— Jovun 
 
 Vll 
 
 l'A(,K 
 
 173-183 
 
 184-194 
 
 195-201 
 
 20J.2IJ 
 
 214-226 
 
 227.235 
 
viii THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 XIX. The Triumph of Catholicism. 
 
 Valentinian and Valens— Fifth exile of Athanasiiis— End 
 of Semi-Arianism— rersecution of Valens— Damasus — The 
 Cappadocian Fatliers— S. Basil's conversion— Monasticisni— 
 Ecclesiastical career— Basil and Valens— Basil's reforms- 
 Writings— Sorrows— Two Catholic Emperors— S. Gregory 
 of Nyssa— S. Gregory Nazianzen — The turn of the tide — 
 Council of Constantinople— A poll inarianism— The schism at 
 Antioch— Retirement of S. (Gregory— Nectarius— Doctrinal 
 work of Constantinople— The Creed of Jerusalem— Collapse 
 of Arianism ..••••• 
 
 XX The West : S. Ambrose and S. Augustine. 
 
 Amhrose hishop— Gratian— Justina— Am])rose triumphs- 
 Decretal of Siricius — Priscillian — Theodosius and Amhrose — 
 Penance of Theodosius — Theodosius sole Emperor — Character 
 and work of S. Amhrose — S. Augustine's early life — 
 Writings— Controversy— Donatism—Manichaeism—Telagian 
 controversy— The British Church— Pelagianism — Augustine's 
 arguments — Position of the Pope— Death of Augustine 
 
 XXI. S. Jerome and S. Chrysostom. 
 
 Jerome's early life— Bethlehem— ^Jovinian — Vigilantius — 
 Origenism and Rufinus — The Vulgate— S. Chrysostom— 
 Early life — Constantinople — Unpopularity— First attack on 
 Chrysostom — The wrath of Eudoxia — Exile — Death of 
 Chrysostom— His sermons— Theophilus—Synesius . 
 
 XKII. 
 
 xxni. 
 
 Nestorius and Eutyches. 
 
 Outstanding problems — Christological controversies — 
 Nestorius— 7y/<?^/^/lw— Nestorius and S. Cyril— Appeal to 
 j^ome — Council of Ephesus — The Nestorians — Eutyches — 
 Dioscorus — The Tome of Leo — The Robber-Council — 
 Council of Chalcedon — Theodoret — Canons — Creed of 
 Chalcedon — The Qiiiciinqiie .... 
 
 The Fall of the Western Empire : Rise of the 
 Papacy. 
 
 Barbarian menace — Decay of the Empire — Alaric takes 
 Rome — Barbarian advance — Attila — End of the Western 
 Empire — Stedfastness of the Church — Clovis — Leo the Great 
 
 Gregory the Great — His difficulties — Mission to the English 
 
 — Gregory and the East ..... 
 
 pa(;k 
 
 CHAI'. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 IX 
 
 I'ACiK 
 
 236-251 
 
 252-268 
 
 Monasticism. 
 
 Asceticism— The Egyptian Monks— Monks of the West— 
 S. Benedict — The Rule — Monastic influences — Missionaries 
 — The English Church — Amalgamation of Roman and Celtic 
 Missions — Conversion of Europe .... 3c>^'3i5 
 
 XXV. The East after Chalcedon. 
 
 Opposition to Chalcedon — Monophysitism — Schism of 
 East and West— Justinian's conquests — Plis code — His Church 
 policy — Theodora and the Papacy — The ' Three Chapters '— 
 Vigilius — Fifth General Council— Survival of the Mono- 
 physites — Monothelitism — Pope Martin — Sixth General 
 Council— Growing strength of the Papacy— Adoptionism . 316-326 
 
 XXVI. Mohammedanism and Iconoclasm. 
 
 Rise of Islam — Mahomet — Mohammedan theology — Its low- 
 standards — Its advance — Iconoclasm — Iconoclastic Emperors 
 — Seventh General Council — Iconoclasm deserved to fail — 
 S. John of Damascus ..... Z'^l-ZZ^ 
 
 xxvii. East and West. 
 
 Growing hostility of Rome and Constantinople — The 
 Filioque — Differences in practice — Claims of Rome — 
 Nicholas \. and Photius — The Holy Roman Empire — 
 Coronation of Carl — Final schism of East and West — 
 Attempts at Reunion .... 
 
 jj 
 
 7-345 
 
 269-280 
 
 Index 
 
 347-354 
 
 281-294 
 
 295-305 
 
Map to illustrate 
 HISTORY OF THE CHURCH 
 
 English Miles 
 o loo 200 ^00 41X) 500 
 I I I 1 l-J 1 — 
 
 Boundaries of the Roman Empire 
 
 Imperial Provinces " ' "p^ 
 
 Senatorial Provinces '. Y/v/A 
 
 Temporary Provinces 
 
 Emery W.i!k<r ;.t<l. sc 
 
THE HISTORY OF 
 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 CHAPTER I. THE WAY PREPARED 
 
 t 
 
 The birth of the Christian Church was a new thing in history. 
 The student, whatever his standpoint, can scarcely fail to find 
 in it an incalculable element which defies analysis. Neverthe- 
 less, like all historical events, the Church had its roots in a soil 
 prepared long before. It is comparatively easy to trace in the 
 previous course of religion, politics, society, and thought certain 
 predisposing causes, without which, humanly speaking, the 
 Church could not have been. These antecedents do not really 
 explain the origin of so new and amazing a development, though 
 they made it possible. The non-Christian inquirer will have to 
 be content to make the most he can out of them. To the 
 Christian they fall into their place as part of a Divine plan. 
 He believes that all history, like the whole of nature, is one 
 continuous and purposeful progress, and that the wisdom of 
 God so directed the world's course that the Church, at the 
 appointed time, found all things ready for her appearance. 
 
 First among such preparations, and most direct, stands the 
 history of the Jewish people and their religion. Religion was 
 the one great contribution of that mysterious and The prepara- 
 gifted race to the development of humanity. Jewish tion of Israel, 
 sacred literature laid the foundations of Christianity. The 
 books of the Old Testament, written at various times during 
 a period of at least eight centuries, and from curiously varying 
 points of view, had combined to teach the highest conceptions 
 of God and His requirements which the world had known. And 
 Christianity, springing as it did directly out of Judaism, adopted 
 and developed this teaching, but did not change it. 
 
 A 
 
2 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 The first dogma of Judaism was the unity of God. In contrast 
 with the competing divinities of the heathen world, national 
 The theology and tribal gods, gods of the sky and the sea, the 
 of Israel. river and the woodland, gods of the great natural 
 processes of birth and death, gods of the works and ways of 
 men, the Jew had learned that there was one only God, universal, 
 almighty, supreme, eternal, a personal living God who had 
 direct relations with mankind. It may be that this * ineffable 
 Name ' had as a matter of history been a development from the 
 original tribal God of the Hebrews — whom they knew as 
 * Jahweh.' But the result is far greater and more important 
 than the processes. 
 
 Again, this one God was recognised as a moral being. God 
 is ' holy.' This was as profound a distinction between the God 
 of the Jews and the divinities of the nations as His unity. For 
 the Gentile gods, though philosophers and poets might attribute 
 to some of them moral qualities like truth and justice and bene- 
 volence, were, as generally understood and worshipped, either 
 immoral or non-moral. They were propitiated or made enemies, 
 not by the righteousness of the worshipper but by his sacrifices 
 and ritual observances. In contrast with all that, God was to 
 the Jew essentially holy and righteous. And He had imposed 
 on His creatures a like law of holiness and righteousness, for 
 He had made man ' in His own image. '^ Although, as the Jew 
 believed. He had revealed to Moses a system of worship and 
 sacrifice which bore considerable resemblance to the systems 
 current in the heathen world, yet sacrifices, as the prophets had 
 taught, were valueless unless accompanied by purity and justice 
 on the part of those who offered them. Jehovah might have a 
 chosen people, but He had no favourites and no respect of 
 persons. He could not be pacified for wrong-doing by offerings 
 of bulls and goats. 
 
 Again, the God of the Jews was a God of loving purpose. 
 He was preparing * redemption,* * salvation ' for Israel, and 
 through Israel for mankind at large. And in many different 
 ways, with varying distinctness, the hope of Divine redemption 
 from the evils of the world was gradually connected in the Old 
 
 i 
 
 THE WAY PREPARED 3 
 
 Testament with the figure of a personal Redeemer, a Messiah, 
 an anointed King and Prophet and Priest, whose triumph 
 would be achieved through suffering. 
 
 Most important of all, from the point of view of Christian 
 history, the Jewish religion was embodied in a religious society. 
 At first this was conceived as a nation, united by The idea of 
 common ties of blood and history, ruled by a king of an ecc/esia. 
 her own. When the Jews lost their monarchy and their 
 national independence, though the national idea persisted, and 
 indeed tended in some ways to become narrower and more 
 exclusive, yet a wider and a more spiritual conception is to 
 be noted, that of a sacred congregation, an ecclesia, marked 
 off from the worid by outward observances like circumcision 
 and other ritual, and) by the strict observance of the Mosaic 
 Law, but a theocracy rather than a monarchy. Without 
 question it was this conception which dominated the minds 
 of those who first preached Christianity. To the first Jewish 
 recipients of the Gospel of Him who was Himself a Jew of 
 the royal tribe and fine, the organisation of believers as an 
 ecclesia, a Church, was, apart from all question of revelation, an 
 obvious and natural thing. The new ecclesia with its distinctive 
 sacraments and social life was the continuation and development 
 of the old. So S. Paul, writing to the Gentile Christians in 
 Rome (Rom. xi.), describes their position as that of branches 
 from a wild olive-tree, grafted upon a cultivated olive, as a com- 
 pensation for the loss of some of the original branches. The 
 Gentile Church is not regarded as a new creation, but an addition 
 to the already existing ecclesia. The same thought occurs 
 in a Roman writer of the second century. In the ' Shepherd ' 
 of Hermas (p. 57, n.) the vision is seen of a very aged woman, in 
 glittering raiment, holding a book, and sitting on a great white 
 chair. The seer thinks her at first to be ' the Sibyl,' but is told 
 that she is the Church. ' Why then,' he asks, ' is she so aged ? ' 
 ' Because,' is the reply, ' she was created before all things : and 
 for her sake the world was framed. ' 
 
 (Before the birth of Christ, these splendid and characteristic 
 conceptions of Jewish rehgion had spread far beyond Palestine. 
 
4 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Ever since their captivity in Babylon the Jewish race had 
 found a home, without losing individuality, in other countries 
 The wider and among other races. / Large numbers never 
 influence of returned to Palestine, )^t remained in Assyria 
 Judaism. and Babylonia. The conquests of Alexander the 
 Great had not only spread Greek culture over the near East, 
 but had also carried the Jews into new centres. Both Alexander 
 and the successors of his^ rule in Syria and Egypt had shown 
 special favour to the Jews. Their industry, aptitude for trade 
 and finance, and law-abiding ways (when out of their own 
 country) seem to have made them acceptable as colonists.' 
 A large number w^ere settled by Alexander in his new capital 
 at .rUcxiindria and by Selcucus at Antioch. /Vhey spread also 
 westwards, and established tlfcemselves ia Rome. Almost 
 wherever S. Paul journeyed, lie found in tlje towns a synagogue 
 when: the Gospel had its first hearing, Altliough the Jews were 
 never a jx^pular element in society, and tlieir exclusivencss and 
 peculiar customs made tliem a nuirk for the satirists, and often 
 objects of suspicion to their neighbours, they maintained their 
 position and their stjxarateness in a remarkable way. They 
 scvm to have won tlie privilege eveiy^whcrc of practising their 
 o^^•n religion witliout hindrance, and. as a rule, without much 
 attempt to make them conform to the established lieatln^ 
 cults. The one instance to the contrary, the deliberate attempt 
 of Antiochus Epiplianes, the Greek King of Syria in the second 
 century B.C.. to abolish the Jewish religion and worr^iip, was a 
 conclusive failure. It only siKcecdod in raisinig up an extra- 
 ordinary national and religious opposition, ending in the re- 
 establishment of the Temple, the dcepenii^ of the national .spirit, 
 and abnost a re\ival of an independent Jewish monarchy in 
 Palestine, in the family of the Maccahees or Hasmonaeans. The 
 rulers of Rome were too nnicli of statesmen to risk a repetition 
 of such a blunder. ^'Therc can be no doubt that at the time of 
 Christ, tlie Jews had made the Graeco-Roman world familiar 
 with the phenomenon of a nation \*itlun a nation, a religious 
 community holding its<^lf largely aloof from ordinar>* society. 
 And what is still more important, it seems clear that the cb;u> 
 
 THE WAY PREPARED 5 
 
 acteristic features of Jewish rehgion, in spite of its curious 
 observances, had made a great impression on many of the 
 more thoughtful and religious-minded heathen. Ahnost every 
 synagogue, outside Palestine, seems to have had its fringe of 
 Gentile hearers, ' the God-fearers,' who without actually seeking 
 incorporation into Israel, looked to Israel and her scriptures 
 for guidance and inspiration. J And it is notable that the 
 preaching of S. Paul and his companions in the Act.s was 
 usually rejected by the Jews, and welcomed by the God- 
 fearers. 
 
 These widely scattered Jews hving outside Palestine were 
 known as the Diaspora or Dispersion. Those in Syria. Greece, 
 Asia Minor, and Egypt were called ' HelU-nijits.' Th« 
 as tliey liad adopted the Greek language ami often Hciuaiau. 
 bore Greek names. Tlie Grc?ek they used wan tliat popular 
 form, knoM-n as * the Common Dialect/ which had sprcs^d, through 
 the coiiqiK^sts of Alexander, all over the near East The most 
 notable monument of Greek->i>eaking Judaism i.s tl>e transla- 
 tion of the Okl Testament made at Alexandria in the course of 
 the third and second centuries B.C. , called tla^ Scptuagint. Greek, 
 as these leani<;d translators used it, naturally to some <'xtent 
 adopted tlie idioms of JlebrewJ ^/Another feature of these Helical* 
 i&ts proved of great importance in the spread of Christianity. 
 I-iving. as they did, far away from Jeriisiik'm and the Temple 
 and the leading rabbinicd school and in close contact with the 
 heathen world, they naturally tended, notwitlistanding their 
 real loyalty to Judaism, to develop a wider aiKl raorc liberal 
 outk)ok than that of the Jeu^ of Palestine. The latter, especially 
 under the influence of tlui Pliarisecs. became more and more 
 narrow, and more bitter in their fcnJings towards the Gentiles 
 and tlieir Roman masters. But the Hellenist saw point.s uf 
 agreemejU as well as discord. A Jewisli iichuol grew up, especially 
 
 ^ The Greek of the Xew Testament visu p^robaUy not induenciMi by 
 Hebrew or Aramaic as mucb «« was locriiieriy suppcMod Iw scholar*. 
 It !«««n» Dou- to be proved by itKcni.itioD5 and corrc?;ix)ivtcncc\ltwovef«d 
 on Eg>'ptiaD papyri and otiraMi^ <pot*sbcniji) thai Ibo Neu- Testamcot 
 dictioD, for tiM moot part, rcpreapenti the cohuixhei sotn-bterary Crock a$ 
 ipolccn by tine common people. 
 
6 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 at Alexandria, which thought of and taught Judaism as a philo- 
 sophy, having features of agreement with the Greek philosophic 
 systems./ Such tendencies are seen in the Book of Wisdom, and 
 especially in the writings of the great Alexandrine Jew, Philo, 
 of the first century a.d., who may be well described as a Jewish 
 Platonist. 
 
 From the beginning of the Church, it was the Hellenists who 
 were most attracted to the Gospel. Its first preaching on the 
 HeUenists ^^Y ^^ Pentecost moved the foreign Jews ' from 
 and the every nation under heaven,' much more than the 
 
 Church. narrower-minded inhabitants of Jerusalem. The 
 
 Hellenists became ardent missionaries. S. Stephen and probably 
 all the Seven of Acts vi. belonged to this class. (^S. Paul himself, 
 though his education at Jerusalem had imbued him with the 
 strict principles of Pharisaism, belonged by birth to the Hellenists, 
 as his home was at Tarsus in Cilicia.^ And Antioch, the great 
 Hellenistic city of Syria, soon oversh^dov^ed Jerusalem as the 
 centre of Christian activity and progress. Thus, both by the 
 great truths of their religion, by their dispersion over the civiHsed 
 world, by their separation as a sacred nation from Gentile society, 
 as well as by the attraction they exerted upon some of the most 
 thoughtful elements of that society, the Jews prepared for the 
 coming of the Christian Church. ^As a whole, indeed, they 
 repudiated the Gospel ; and they proved the most bitter enemies 
 of the Church, most of the earUer persecutions being stirred up 
 by them. But a man's foes are usually those of his own house- 
 hold, and it was just because the Church owed so much to 
 Judaism that it had to suffer so much at the hands of the 
 Jews. 
 
 But besides this direct preparation through the religious genius, 
 the institutions, and the literature of Israel, there are at least 
 The prepara- ^^'^ other Hues of preparation to be noticed, indirect, 
 tionof but to the Christian not undesigned. There was 
 
 Greece. the influence of Greek thought and culture, and the 
 
 more outward and palpable influence of Roman rule and 
 organisation. 
 
 The greatness and the brilliancy of Hellenic achievement 
 
 ,1 
 
 THE WAY PREPARED 7 
 
 need neither description nor comment. Though its active 
 period was comparatively short, its fruits last through all time. 
 
 * Her citizens, imperial spirits, 
 Rule the present from the past : 
 On all this world of men inherits 
 Their seal is set' 
 
 Greece provided the language, the most graceful and subtle 
 tongue in the world, for the writings of the New Testament, 
 and for the Church's earliest appeal to men. The clearness of 
 Greek thought, Greek skill and acuteness in the use of words, were 
 of the greatest service in providing the Church with a vocabulary 
 and in defining Christian doctrine. The width and liberahty 
 of Greek culture helped to preserve the Church, almost from 
 the first, from the narrowness and exclusiveness which generally 
 mark a persecuted sect. 
 
 Before the Church came into being at all, Greek philosophy 
 had done much to prepare men's minds. The philosophers, 
 especially the Stoics, had Hfted the thoughts of the better sort 
 of people above the common superstitions of mythology and 
 idolatry. Educated religious thought was setting generally 
 towards monotheism. Indeed, for many in the educated classes, 
 philosophy had practically taken the place of the old religions. 
 And even though it had little definite to offer the religious instinct, 
 philosophy had at least tended to make men serious and compel 
 them to think. The great problems of the nature of God, His 
 relation to the universe, the meaning and end of human life, the 
 ideals of human society, were all earnestly and persistently 
 discussed. The Church found men at least prepared to hear 
 what answer she had to give to such insistent questions. 
 
 But the Greek religions were by no means dead ; and in one 
 remarkable development they had to some extent anticipated 
 Christianity. The Greek * mysteries ' were akin The Greek 
 to the sacramental system of the Church ; and myateries. 
 the ideas that they represented reappear in a purified form 
 in the Church's teaching. These * mysteries ' were secret 
 rites revealed only to those who had passed through a course of 
 initiation and instruction. Originally, perhaps, the private 
 
8 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 THE WAY PREPARED 
 
 religious ceremonies of certain families, they became wider in 
 their appeal and influence. They were found in different shapes 
 in the various countries bordering on the Eastern Mediterranean : 
 the most important and best-known being those performed at 
 Eleusis in Attica. Other important ' mysteries ' were those of 
 Phrygia and Samothracia. At Eleusis they were connected 
 with the worship of the divinities of the lower world, especially 
 Demeter and her daughter Persephone. Their leading aim 
 apparently was to cast light and hope upon the life beyond the 
 grave and to prepare men for it. Their celebration was preceded 
 by fasting, sacrifice, confession of sin, and ritual washings. 
 Then a species of play or pageant was performed, in which the 
 loss of Persephone, carried off by Pluto, and her restoration to her 
 sorrowing mother set forth the hope of some ultimate triumph 
 over death. Other * mysteries ' of Asiatic origin were of a more 
 directly sacramental character. The leading feature was a sort 
 of pagan Eucharist. The sharing in a sacred meal or in the 
 eating of a sacrifice was believed not only to bring the worshippers 
 into some direct communion with the Deity, but to prepare and 
 enable him to pass through death and attain to life hereafter. 
 
 We need not, with some early Christian writers, think of 
 such religious rites as an imitation of Christianity by demons, 
 in order to draw men away from it. Rather we may recognise 
 in them an expression of fundamental human aspirations which 
 were to find their satisfaction in Christianity. 
 
 But after all, it was as much by its failures as by its high 
 attempts that Greek thought prepared for the Gospel. The 
 Greek interminable discussions of philosophy proved singu- 
 
 faiiure. larly barren in practical result. They neither 
 
 satisfied the intellect nor purified the soul. The philosophers 
 never appealed to the poor and ignorant who form the mass of 
 mankind. Nor did Greek culture or its masterpieces of literature 
 and art succeed in exerting any deep influence on character. 
 The upper classes, on the contrary, became profoundly immoral. 
 Similarly the high ideals of Greek statesmen and political thinkers 
 ended in disappointment. Strife and faction and party-spirit 
 ruined the promise of the free city-states. Plato himself, in a well- 
 
 I 
 
 known and memorable passage, had spoken of his ideal common- 
 wealth as but an unrealisable pattern laid up in heaven. Without 
 doubt many at the time of Christ were eagerly desiring some 
 revelation of certainty with regard to the mysteries and problems 
 which hedge round man's earthly life ; some more potent force 
 to mould man's character for good ; some more binding cement 
 for human society. The promises and gifts of Christianity 
 would often be best appreciated by those who had been dis- 
 ciplined by failure to know their own need. 
 
 If Greece had taught men to think great thoughts, to ap- 
 preciate beauty, to see visions, Rome supplied practical genius. 
 Her vocation was to rule, to organise, to unify, to Preparation 
 make visions possible by perseverance, energy, of Rome, 
 severity. Hers was the first great empire in history in which the 
 spectacle was seen of vast numbers of different races and languages 
 brought under one central rule, organised and defended, not merely 
 in the interests of the ruler, but for the common good, and, on 
 the whole, with a view to the promotion of peace and justice. 
 
 At the time of the foundation of the Christian Church, the 
 Roman Emperor ruled over all the countries surrounding the 
 Mediterranean. The northern boundaries were the 
 line of the Rhine, and the Danube, and the 
 Euxine or Black Sea : the southern, the long stretch of the 
 African deserts. The western limit was the Atlantic ; the 
 eastern the upper Euphrates and the Arabian desert. The 
 different provinces of this Empire were ruled by imperial officials ; 
 the older and more settled ones by proconsuls, ex-magistrates 
 of Rome, nominally appointed by the Senate ; the others by 
 legates or procurators directly appointed by the Emperor and 
 supported by his soldiers. But all alike looked to the Emperor 
 for their instructions and authority. 
 
 But even more important perhaps than these concentrated 
 lines of government were the actual Roman roads. These 
 highways connected every part of the Empire with ^^ ^^^^^ 
 the capital ; and there was a remarkable system of 
 posts and means of travel. Consequently the civihsed world 
 was knit together in common intercourse and trade to a degree 
 
 The Empire. 
 
10 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 impossible before, and after the fall of the Roman Empire, 
 never realised again till the nineteenth century brought the 
 railway, the steamship, and the telegraph. Travelling was swift 
 and easy ; and every one travelled. Books were common and 
 cheap. New ideas spread quickly. 
 
 This wonderful organisation suppHed involuntarily just the 
 setting that was needed for the origin of the Christian Church. 
 The first teachers and missionaries advanced easily along the 
 Roman highways. They established themselves quickly in 
 the great Roman centres of trade and civilisation. The sacred 
 books were readily copied and passed from hand to hand, and 
 from one country to another. 
 
 Moreover, Rome herself supplied a stimulus and an inspira- 
 tion to the early teachers of the Church. The spectacle of her 
 Influence of unity of law, and to a large extent of language and 
 Roman ideas, religion, helped to the realisation of the fundamental 
 ideal of Christianity, one Church and one faith, in which all 
 nations and classes might equally find their share. At the 
 same time the dignity and privileges of the Roman * citizen ' 
 illustrated the Christian teaching of the value of the individual 
 soul and the dignity of the Christian, whatever his station, 
 who had been admitted by Baptism into the privilege of the 
 Church. 
 
 We find that the first strongholds of the expanding Church 
 were just in those places where Roman government and Greek 
 culture had most combined ; at places like Antioch, Ephesus, 
 and Corinth. The Jewish synagogues gave, indeed, the first 
 opportunities as a rule for teaching ; but very soon a wider 
 field was touched, where much more success was won. 
 
 It is indeed one of the most interesting aspects of the New 
 Testament, to study the influence of Roman organisation on the 
 course of Christian events ; as, for example, in S. Paul's use of 
 his position as a Roman citizen, his appeal to Caesar, the in- 
 fluence won by him and other apostolic labourers among cen- 
 turions, soldiers, and officials, the ease with which his letters 
 were taken from place to place, and the remarkable way in which 
 Christian envoys and workers found their way between places 
 
 THE WAY PREPARED 
 
 11 
 
 as far distant as Colossae, Ephesus, Troas, Corinth, Rome. Nor 
 can we fail to notice the growth in S. Paul's own mind of the 
 conception of the Church, as his work developed and the field of 
 his labours grew wider. The idea of the essential unity of the 
 Church was not indeed imported from without ; it is found even 
 in Judaism, and it is inherent in the teaching of Christ and the 
 first instructions of the Apostles. The Church was from the 
 first preached as a body with many members, and one head, 
 Christ. But the idea of the Church as one society, of which every 
 separate congregation or church was but the local embodiment, 
 certainly becomes more prominent in those epistles which were 
 written from Rome (Eph., Phil., and Col.). 
 
 Thus in many ways the providence of God was vindicated ; 
 and S. Paul's expression as to ' the fulness of the time,' in which 
 the Incarnation took place, was justified at once. The title 
 on the cross of Christ, in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, the three 
 great languages of learning, government, and religion, was an 
 involuntary prophecy. Christianity was rooted in Judaism ; 
 it appealed to the lofty aspirations of human desire, and the 
 pathetic depths of human need, as the Greek mind had reaUsed 
 them ; and it found the machinery and ideals of the Roman 
 Empire in harmony with its own methods, an instrument fitted 
 to its purpose. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What were the leading and permanent features of Jewish religion? 
 
 2. What changes are to be noted in (i) the political conditions and 
 (2) the thought of the Jews, during the later period of their history 
 before Christ ? 
 
 3. What was the position of the Jews in the Roman Empire ? 
 
 4. What was the condition of Greek religion at the time of Christ .? 
 
 5. Describe concisely the extent and constitution of the Roman Empire. 
 
 6. What features of the Roman Empire proved most advantageous to 
 the spread of the Christian Church ? 
 
12 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Subjects for further Study. 
 
 All the above questions might form a starting-point for study. 
 Among a multitude of authorities, the following may be suggested : 
 
 Lux Miindi : Essay on The Preparation in History for Christ, 
 
 Edersheim. Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah^ Book i. 
 
 Bruce. Apologetics^ Book ii. 
 
 Dollinger. The Gentile and the Jew. 
 
 Duchesne. Early History of the Christian Church. 
 
 Ramsay. S. Paul^ Traveller and Roman Citizen. 
 
 ,, The Church in the Roman Empire. 
 
 „ Articles on the Diaspora and The Religion of Greece in 
 Hastings' Bible Dictionary (extra vol.). 
 Westcott. The Gospel of Life. 
 
 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. 
 
 m 
 
 Pater. Marius the Epicurean. 
 
 CHAPTER II. THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD 
 
 The Christian Church was founded on the Day of Pentecost, 
 probably in the year 29 a.d. For its progress during the first 
 thirty years the Acts of the Apostles is almost the ^^^ ^^^^ 
 sole authority, though there are of course a number 
 of incidental allusions to the course of history in the epistles. 
 The authenticity and general accuracy of the Acts are now 
 established beyond reasonable doubt. But it is clearly a selected 
 history, arranged with considerable art and hterary power, to 
 illustrate especially the careers of the two chief Apostles, S. Peter, 
 who is the principal figure in chapters i.-xii., and S. Paul, with 
 whose imprisonment at Rome, a.d. 58-60, the book somewhat 
 abruptly concludes. Possibly the author had in view a third 
 book to complete his trilogy. 
 
 After the Acts there is no extant history of the Church till 
 the great work of Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea, 
 in ten books, completed about a.d. 323. Eusebius The History 
 was not only a man of wide learning and sound of Eusebius. 
 judgment ; he had unique opportunities for collecting informa- 
 tion, owing to his friendship with the Emperor Constantine. 
 He certainly had access to some authorities now no longer 
 extant, and he gathered together traditions which otherwise 
 would have been lost. For example, Eusebius had before 
 him the Memoirs of Hegesippus (Eus. ii. 23, etc.), a Christian 
 Hebrew of Palestine who visited Corinth, and hved for 
 some time at Rome. These Memoirs, in five books, were 
 written probably before the year 189 (the end of the Roman 
 episcopate of Eleutherus, the last Bishop of Rome he mentions). 
 They seem to have been a collection of personal reminiscences, 
 and traditions gleaned from Jewish and other sources, arranged 
 on no particular system. Eusebius also had the Chronicon of 
 
14 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Julius Africanus (Eus. vi. 31). This author has much more 
 claim to be considered a Church historian than Hegesippus. 
 His Chronicon is a history of the world from a Christian point 
 of view from the creation to the year 221 a.d. Julius was a 
 friend and elder contemporary of Origen, and he may have 
 survived till nearly the middle of the third century. He hved 
 for some time at Emmaus, and was instrumental in persuading 
 the Emperor HeHogabalus to rebuild the village under the name 
 of Nicopolis. He was evidently a man of weight and position, 
 and a considerable scholar and traveller. He was also the author 
 of a work called Cesti (perhaps = ' stitchings * or ' embroideries '), 
 a compilation of notes on many subjects, such as medicine and 
 agriculture. 
 
 Another early Christian writer, the subject of much con- 
 troversy, of whom Eusebius made use, was Papias of Hierapolis 
 (Eus. iii. 39). He was the author of five books called Expositions 
 of the Oracles of the Lord, written in the early part of the second 
 century. This was not a history, but apparently a sort of com- 
 mentary on the Gospel history. Papias endeavoured to get 
 information by questioning those who had known the Apostles ; 
 and though Eusebius considers him a man of ' limited intel- 
 ligence,' some of the most interesting ancient traditions with 
 regard to the Apostles and Evangehsts are contained in his work. 
 
 It is the use and preservation of such authorities as these, 
 rather than any great ability as a historian, that make the 
 work of Eusebius so valuable. It is a mine of collected informa- 
 tion for the student, and probably on that account more valuable 
 than if Eusebius had made more philosophic use of his materials. 
 
 After the writings of the New Testament, we possess a very 
 thin but fairly continuous stream of Christian writings, such as 
 other the Epistle of S. Clement (first century) and those of 
 
 authorities. S. Ignatius, and the works of S. Justin Martyr and 
 S. Irenaeus in the second century. To these must be added 
 the great work of the Jewish historian. Flavins Josephus, 
 who wTote after the fall of Jerusalem his fewish War and his 
 Antiquities of the fews ; and the contemporary allusions in the 
 heathen writers, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny [see pp. 21, 65). 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD 
 
 15 
 
 From the beginning of the third century the information 
 becomes fuller, and the Church writers more lengthy. But at 
 the best the period from the end of the Acts to the close of the 
 second century is obscure, and we can often only conjecture 
 from what we see of the Church in the New Testament, compared 
 with its condition when it emerges to fuller view in the third 
 century, as to what had happened in the interval. 
 
 The results of the expansion of the Church as recorded in the 
 Acts may be briefly summarised as follows. A new and most 
 important centre was estabUshed at Antioch, through The Church 
 the efforts of Hellenistic Jews who had embraced in the Acts, 
 the Gospel. Here Gentile converts were freely admitted 
 to the Church without circumcision. Here, too, the name of 
 ' Christians ' was first given, probably at first as a popular 
 nickname, and was afterwards adopted by believers themselves. 
 This may seem a small matter, but it really impHes the recogni- 
 tion of the independence of the Church. It was no longer thought 
 a mere sect of Judaism. From Antioch we see the Gospel 
 spreading into the very centre of Asia Minor, the Roman province 
 of Galatia. Crossing into Macedonia, the pioneers carried their 
 message along the western coast of the ^gean, estabhshing 
 churches at Philippi and Thessalonica, and elsewhere ; and 
 finally at Corinth, the most important centre of the commerce 
 of the Mediterranean. A little later the Church was established 
 at Ephesus, the greatest port of Asia and a very stronghold of 
 heathenism ; and also in the cities of the Tycus valley, Colossae, 
 Hierapolis, and Laodicea. Before the end of the Acts, it is clear 
 that, in addition to the far inland churches of Asia Minor, there 
 was a fringe of Christians on every shore of the Eastern Medi- 
 terranean. The Acts ends with S. Paul's two years' sojourn 
 in Rome itself, where, although a prisoner, he was busily em- 
 ployed in building up a church of which the foundations had 
 already been laid some years before. From i S. Peter we may 
 conclude that the Gospel had been preached also in the northern 
 and central provinces of Asia Minor, probably by S. Peter 
 himself. 
 
 It is also easily gathered from the Acts that the Gospel was 
 
i6 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 never preached except as embodied in a society, bound together 
 by sacraments and by adherence to the apostolic teaching. 
 It is this fact that distinguishes Christianity from a philosophy, 
 or even from a mere system of religious belief and worship. 
 These scattered congregations, though not at first brought under 
 any fixed common organisation, were evidently regarded as 
 parts of a larger whole ; they looked naturally to their apostolic 
 founders for guidance and rule, and for the appointment of their 
 owTi local officials. 
 
 The most important problem which emerges in the course of 
 the Acts is the relation of the Gentile converts to the Jewish 
 Catholic and Christians. The latter continued to practise the 
 Jewish Law of Moses, keeping Jewish feasts and Sabbaths, 
 
 Christianity, practising circumcision, and observing Jewish rules 
 of food. The stricter members of the Church of Jerusalem 
 wished to impose their rules on the Gentile converts. In 
 their eyes such converts were to be treated still as proselytes 
 who desired admission into the sacred society of Israel. The 
 question of the admission of these Gentiles into full Christian 
 privileges was in effect settled at a fairly early date by S. Peter 
 himself, who baptized at Caesarea the centurion Cornelius and 
 his household (Acts x.). But the missionary work of S. Paul 
 and others from the Antioch base brought the larger question 
 to a head. At the Council of Jerusalem, about the year 47 a.d., 
 a preliminary settlement was made (Acts xv.). Although 
 some uncertainty attaches to the exact significance of the 
 ' necessary things * which were imposed on the Gentile Christians, 
 the main question was settled on lines agreeable to S. Paul and 
 the Church of Antioch. Gentile converts need not be circum- 
 cised nor consider themselves bound to observe the Mosaic 
 Law. It was, however, only the beginning of a long struggle for 
 freedom and catholicity. Not only was S. Paul for the rest of 
 his Hfe pursued by the animosity and intrigues of the * Judaising ' 
 Christians of Palestine ; Judaic Christianity, as it has been 
 called, outUi5.tcd the first generation of Jewish bclic\xrs. The 
 latter continued to keep the seventh day Sabbath, as well as 
 tlic Christum ' I-ord's Day ' on the fii^t day of tl>c week — 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD 
 
 17 
 
 whereas these Gentile brethren kept only the Lord's Day. But 
 the two destructions of Jerusalem (pp. 27, 75) and the scattering 
 of the Jews tended to make an end of Judaic Christianity ; and 
 gradually the Church, as a whole, realised and practised her 
 inherent independence and catholicity. 
 
 In the Acts also we see the anticipation of later persecution. 
 S. James, the brother of S. John, suffered death at the hands 
 of Herod Agrippa i., and S. Peter narrowly escaped the same 
 fate (Acts xii.). Everywhere the Apostles suffered from Jewish 
 slander and intrigue, and were in danger of their hves from the 
 same unscrupulous Pharisaic spirit which had attacked the 
 Founder Himself. And the first brush of conflict with the 
 imperial power is seen significantly enough in the words of the 
 people of the Roman colony of Philippi, as they dragged Paul 
 and Silas before the duumvirs. ' These men, being Jews, do 
 exceedingly trouble our city, and set forth customs which are 
 not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans ' 
 (Acts xvi. 20, 21). 
 
 For the history of the Apostles and their immediate companions 
 after the Acts there are no materials except a few allusions in 
 the latter part of the New Testament, and some Traditions 
 traditions collected by Eusebius and others. The of the 
 Pastoral Epistles (i and 2 Tim. and Titus) seem to Apostle 
 necessitate a second period of missionary work for ^* ^*^ 
 S. Paul after his release from his two years' imprisonment 
 in Rome. Eusebius states this as a tradition in his time, and 
 illustrates the fact of a second imprisonment by quotations 
 from 2 Tim. iv. Perhaps, after leaving Rome, the Apostle 
 fulfilled his old intention of visiting Spain. S. Clement of Rome 
 speaks of him as reaching the ' farthest hmit of the West,' and 
 the Muratorian fragment ^ expressly mentions Spain. Then 
 apparently he revisited the East, preaching in Crete, where he 
 left his companion Titus in general charge of the Christian 
 congregations ; and visiting Ephesus, where Timothy was 
 
 * An imperfect docameot ol the Uitcr part of the soecond century^ 
 conuinintg a list of the auKNtical bookii of tht? New Tc«umeat and vahoas 
 noto». It u caliod alter the Italian !»cholar MurAtoh, wba discovered it at 
 ^tiUn aixl palilislied it in 1740. 
 
 B 
 
S. Peter. 
 
 i8 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 appointed to the oversight. Perhaps he also went inland as far 
 as Colossae— where, in writing from Rome to Philemon, he had 
 expressed the hope of staying for a time. He alludes also 
 to a stay at Corinth, at Miletus and at Troas, and to his in- 
 tention of spending a winter at Nicopolis in Epirus. He was 
 again arrested, probably in connection with the Neronian 
 persecution (p. 20), tried twice at Rome, and put to death by 
 beheading (as a Roman citizen). A constant and trustworthy 
 tradition places the scene of his martyrdom at Tre Fontane on 
 the Ostian Way, about three miles outside the city. 
 
 Very early and constant tradition connects S. Peter also in his 
 later years and his martyrdom with Rome (see pp. 141-2). 
 Eusebius (ii. 25) quotes the statement from Gains, a 
 Roman Christian of the early third century (perhaps 
 the same person as S. Hippolytus) , that the bodies of S. Peter 
 and S. Paul were preserved at the Vatican, and on the Ostian 
 Way. It was believed that the surviving Apostles decided 
 to leave Jerusalem after twelve years' residence, and arranged 
 among themselves for a division of their sphere of labour. 
 Parthia, it is said, was assigned to Thomas, Scythia to Andrew, 
 Asia to John ; Bartholomew is said to have preached in India. 
 Thaddaeus ^ had previously been sent shortly after the Ascension 
 by Thomas to Edessa, in N. W. Mesopotamia, where he converted 
 King Abgarus. Eusebius preserves two apocryphal letters, 
 one written by Abgarus to Jesus Christ, inviting him to come to 
 Edessa and heal his disease, and another purporting to be our 
 Lord's answer, promising after His Ascension to send a disciple to 
 
 him (Eus. i. 13). 
 
 S. John is the subject of some interesting legends. He is 
 
 said to have laboured in the province of Asia, and to have been 
 banished in the persecution of Domitian to the 
 island of Patmos, in the ^gean, where he saw the 
 
 vision recorded in the Apocalypse [see pp. 31, 38). TertuUian {de 
 
 Praescr. 36) states that he was first sentenced to death and was 
 
 1 Eusebius calls Thaddaeus one of the Seventy : but there is probably 
 some confusion. Thaddaeus himself appears in the Gospel under his other 
 names, Lebbaeus (in some MSS. of S. Matthew only), and (?) Judas (the 
 son) of James. 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD 
 
 19 
 
 S. John. 
 
 plunged into a cauldron of boiling oil, but was miraculously 
 preserved. (This was said to have happened outside the Latin 
 gate at Rome, hence the commemoration in the Church Kalendar 
 for May 6.) When released from exile he took the oversight of 
 the Church of Ephesus, where he died in extreme old age, having 
 survived until the reign of Trajan (98-117). He was buried at 
 Ephesus ; but a fantastic story, whiclf was beheved even as late 
 as the fourth century, told that he was not really dead, but only in 
 a trance, and that the ground where he was buried still heaved 
 with his breath ! This no doubt arose out of a mistaken interpre- 
 tation of our Lord's words in S. John xxi. 21. Eusebius (iii. 
 31) quotes a mysterious statement about S. John from Polycrates, 
 a later Bishop of Ephesus, to the effect that ' John, being a priest! 
 wore the high-priest's mitre ' (literally, the plate of gold which 
 the Jewish high-priest wore on the front of his mitre). S. John 
 was not a Jewish priest, and if the story is Hterally understood, 
 we must conclude that he wore this as a Christian bishop. 
 
 Other beautiful stories of S. John, which may well be true, 
 are those of his constant repetition in his old age, when he was 
 unable to preach, of the words, ' Little children, love one another,' 
 of which he said, ' It is the Lord's command, and it is enough ''; 
 and of his conversion of the robber chieftain. This robber was 
 a Christian who had fallen away through evil companions. 
 S. John had noticed him when a young man, at some church 
 which he was visiting, and had specially commended him to 
 the care of the bishop. On returning at some later time he 
 inquired what had become of the trust committed to the bishop. 
 He was told of the man's lapse, and of his present wicked hfe. 
 S. John asked for a horse, and rode away to the mountains 
 to find the lost sheep. He found him, and besought him to 
 repent. The robber wept bitterly, confessed his sin, and was 
 led back by S. John to the Church. The Apostle did not leave 
 him until by most earnest prayer and fasting and exhortation 
 he had made sure of his repentance and restoration. 
 
 S. James, not one of the Twelve, but the first cousin or half- 
 brother of our Lord, had, as we see from the Acts, received the 
 charge of the Church of Jerusalem. The story of his martyr- 
 
 i 
 i 
 
\\ ( I 
 
 S. James. 
 
 20 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 dom is recorded by Hegesippus and is preserved by Eusebius 
 (ii. 23). It is also alluded to by Josephus. James was much 
 venerated for his strictness and holy life of prayer, 
 even by the unconverted Jews, being called by them 
 * the Just.' He was a life-long Nazirite, and was permitted even 
 to enter the ' holy place ' in the Temple, where he was so con- 
 stantly at prayer that his tnees became, it is said, as hard as those 
 of a camel. But at one Passover feast, as Jewish animosity 
 against the Christians increased, he was seized by Scribes 'and 
 Pharisees and placed upon the pinnacle of the Temple, and 
 ordered to dissuade the people from ' being led astray ' by 
 Jesus. But he bore witness with a loud voice to Jesus, and 
 was thrown down and stoned, and finally despatched by a 
 blow from a fuller's club. (There is perhaps here a combination 
 of two traditions, as to the exact manner of his death.) He 
 prayed for his murderers in the words of our Lord Himself, 
 ' Forgive them, for they know not what they do.' His martyr- 
 dom was regarded as the final crime of the Jews, and Eusebius 
 notes that immediately after that Vespasian began the siege 
 of Jerusalem. This, however, seems an exaggeration ; S. James 
 
 was murdered in 61. 
 
 S. Mark is said to have preached m Egypt, and founded and 
 presided over the Church of Alexandria (Eus. ii. 16). He was 
 certainly also for a time the companion of S. Peter at Rome. 
 Philip the Apostle is stated by Polycrates to be buried at 
 Hierapolis, but the allusion he makes to PhiHp's virgin daughters 
 makes it probable that this was the PhiUp ' the evangehst,' 
 one of the Seven, mentioned in Acts xxi. 8. 
 
 In the year 64 or 65 came the first outburst of heathen per- 
 secution. It was the direct act of the Emperor Nero. A 
 The g^'^^t fi^^ h^^ destroyed a large part of Rome, 
 
 Neronian of which the mad Emperor was himself suspected 
 persecution, ^q \)q the author. He wished, it was said, to have 
 a scenic background for the recitation of his poems on the 
 burning of Troy. To divert this suspicion he made scape- 
 goats of the Christians, though it is not stated that he 
 actually charged them with incendiarism. They were evidently 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD 
 
 21 
 
 by this time a large and prominent body, and had fallen under 
 popular disHke, for reasons which will be presently suggested. 
 Probably also the Jews, who were in favour with Nero, through 
 his wife Poppaea, seized the opportunity to lay fresh charges 
 against the Christians. A large number were seized and put 
 to horrible deaths, dressed in skins and worried by wild beasts, 
 crucified, or burnt to death in the Vatican gardens — to serve as 
 torches while the Emperor, dressed as a charioteer, took part 
 in circus performances for the admiration of the mob. 
 
 This is recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus (Ann. xv. 
 44). His description, written about half a century later, displays 
 a curious aloofness and want of sympathy, quite worthy of 
 Gibbon. Tacitus probably reflects the fashionable attitude of 
 the cultivated Roman world of his time towards Christianity. 
 Nero inflicted, he says, ' the most elaborate punishments upon 
 those people, hated for their crimes, who were commonly styled 
 " Christians." The author of this name was one Christus, who 
 had been put to death, during the reign of Tiberius, by the 
 procurator Pontius Pilate. The deadly superstition, checked 
 for the moment, was beginning to break out again, not only 
 in Judaea, the original source of the evil, but even in the capital 
 itself, the centre where all horrible and shameful things 
 converge and find supporters.' The first to be apprehended, 
 he says, turned informers (this is probably false ; unless these 
 were Jews arrested on suspicion), * and on their evidence a 
 vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge 
 of incendiarism but as haters of the human race.' Nero's 
 conduct, however, he adds, even though those punished were 
 guilty, and worthy of the most extreme measures, raised some 
 feeling of pity ; it was felt that they were suffering not so 
 ' much for the public good, as to gratify the cruelty of an in- 
 dividual. It was apparently in the course of, or as the outcome 
 of, this persecution, that S. Peter and S. Paul both suffered 
 martyrdom. 
 
 Although it is clear that Nero's attack was not directly on 
 religious grounds, it set a precedent for persecution which lasted 
 for two and a half centuries. During this period the Roman 
 
I* 
 
 22 . THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 government endeavoured at intervals to stamp out Christianity, 
 and Christians were regarded as more or less outlaws who 
 Hostility of were a fair mark for attack, either by the populace 
 the Empire Or by Roman officials. The causes of this long 
 to the and deep-seated enmity between the Empire and 
 
 Church. ^Yie Church require careful study. The incon- 
 
 sistency between the atmosphere of the New Testament and 
 the tone of Tacitus might well seem preposterous and ludicrous. 
 Even if the high spiritual level of primitive Christian life had 
 not been maintained, it might reasonably be asked, how could 
 the innocent meetings of innocent people at one another's houses, 
 for prayer and sacrament and encouragement in good works, 
 be possibly associated with * crimes ' and * hatred of the human 
 race ' ? 
 
 I. No doubt the first cause of suspicion in the eyes of Roman 
 society and Roman officialism was the refusal of Christians to 
 Christian take part in the state religion. What this religion 
 intolerance, was in itself is difficult to define. Its foundation 
 no doubt lay in primitive Italian superstitions and nature- 
 worship, and in religious rites associated with certain families 
 or guilds. The worship of the sun and the heavens and 
 the reproductive powers of nature are almost universal 
 features of primitive religion. Moreover, the early Italian 
 peoples associated every act of man's life from birth to death, 
 and every operation of agriculture or war, with some tutelary 
 deity. The chief god of Rome was Jupiter (originally the god 
 of the sky), ' the father of gods and men,' and other deities of 
 great repute were Mars and Venus. These and all the inhabitants 
 of the heavens had been identified by the poets with the gods of 
 Greece. The philosopher regarded all gods as either identical 
 or different aspects of the One. The man of the world believed 
 in none of them ; any elevating or moral influence which they 
 might have had in early times had long vanished, except in 
 remote country districts. 
 
 Nevertheless, the Roman religion figured largely as an in- 
 stitution bound up with the history and greatness of the Empire. 
 Its priests were state-officials ; its guilds and confraternities 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD 
 
 23 
 
 were encouraged by the state ; public functions and service in 
 the army were connected with sacrifices to the state-gods. 
 To refuse to recognise the state-gods was thought equivalent 
 to being a traitor to Rome. 
 
 In other respects, however, Rome was very tolerant of foreign 
 worships. The Greek gods had long been familiar, even the 
 strange cults of Isis from Egypt, or of Cybele from Asia Minor, 
 were permitted. The Persian worship of the sun-god Mithras 
 took a wide hold, especially in the army. Mithras, represented 
 as a warrior slaying a bull, seems to have become the favourite 
 deity of the legionaries. Nor was any attempt made by Roman 
 state-craft to interfere with the rehgions of the provinces. To 
 this, however, there was one exception. The importance of 
 religion in binding together a community was recognised by 
 the Emperors ; but instead of attempting to force Jupiter or 
 other Roman gods on the Empire, a new religious bond was 
 established in the worship of the Emperor himself. From 
 the time of Augustus onwards, temples were erected in the 
 provinces to the reigning Emperor, and sacrifices were offered 
 to him as the embodiment of the genius of Rome. For a pro- 
 vincial to refuse to take part in such worship would certainly 
 cast doubt on his loyalty. CaHgula even endeavoured to trans- 
 form the Temple at Jerusalem into a shrine for his own statue, 
 but Jewish resistance proved too strong for him. 
 
 But provided that a man acquiesced, even with a sneer of 
 contempt, in the state-worships, he might be a devotee of any 
 other worship, which the law of the Empire was willing to re- 
 cognise as a religio licita ; a permission which seems to have 
 been liberally given, and only refused if a religion were thought 
 to be of a flagrantly immoral or seditious tendency. 
 
 The adherents of the foreign worships had no objection to a 
 formal recognition of the state-gods. Not so the Jew and the 
 Christian. The former, however, seems so to have impressed 
 the Roman world with his national belief in the unity of 
 Jehovah, and to have made himself so necessary to trade and 
 society that, though unpopular and sometimes attacked, he 
 was permitted to be exclusive in his worship. The Christian 
 
 i 
 
1 
 
 1^: 
 
 24 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 had gained no such footing. Had he indeed been content to 
 sprinkle a few grains of incense on the altars of the Emperor, 
 he might have worshipped Christ with impunity. But to the 
 Christian his God could never be placed in the same category 
 as Isis or Mithras or Augustus. Christ was all in all, and every 
 other religion was false. Moreover, the Christians were less 
 tactful and fuller of missionary spirit than the Jews. They 
 were bound before long to be regarded not merely as intolerant 
 ' cranks,' but as people dangerous to society ; and Christian de- 
 nunciation of the sins of heathenism, their vivid predictions 
 of the Second Advent and the approaching judgment of the 
 world by fire, may have contributed to the belief that they were 
 really * enemies of the human race.' 
 
 2. A second cause of persecution is found in the nature and 
 methods of the Church herself. Christianity was not a system 
 Church of philosophy taught to inquirers, nor merely a 
 
 organisa- method of worship. It was essentially a social 
 ^^^' religion. The Church was an organised society with 
 
 her officials and her rules. It is true that, so far from being in 
 opposition to the state, she had been taught by the Apostles 
 to submit to * every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake,' 
 to pay tribute and taxes willingly, and to regard the civil power 
 as itself divinely sanctioned. But this the Emperors could not 
 believe. They suspected the Church of being imperium in 
 imperio ; a dangerous and powerful secret society, with the seeds 
 of rebeUion in it. It is indeed difficult to understand the extra- 
 ordinary fear and jealousy with which the imperial government 
 looked upon every sort of private organisation, however harmless. 
 No clubs were permitted except for burial or other charitable 
 purposes. Trajan, one of the most enlightened Emperors, 
 even forbade a fire-brigade of 150 members in Nicomedia. These 
 suspicions were aggravated in the case of the Christians by their 
 exclusiveness, their refusal to offer sacrifice, and even sometimes 
 to serve in the army. Moreover, there must come sometimes 
 a real coUision between the claim of the state and the law of 
 Christ, and when this occurred, the faithful Christian had to 
 obey Christ and take the consequences. It is a remarkable 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD 
 
 25 
 
 evidence, however, of Christian sincerity that they never (unhke 
 the Jews) were guilty of rebeUion, nor attempted to rid them- 
 selves of tyrants by assassination. 
 
 3. The secrecy of the Church, the pains taken at first to 
 conceal Christian behefs and Christian worships, excited, as 
 secrecy always will, the suspicions of the vulgar, christian 
 The worst was imagined, and it took centuries to secrecy, 
 eradicate the absurd charges of witchcraft, cannibaHsm, and 
 other horrible practices, which were constantly brought 
 against the Church by the heathen. Except in the case 
 of a systematic persecution by the Emperor, attacks on 
 Christians were usually caused by some outbreak of the mob, 
 attributing disaster to the spells of the Christians, or to the 
 anger of the gods at their supposed crimes. 
 
 4. Persecution was often fomented by the Jews at first, and 
 later by the heathen priests and magicians, sometimes, to their 
 shame, even by the philosophers. The whole jeaiouByof 
 elaborate system of heathen superstition, with its pagan 
 magic, its oracles, its soothsayings, its necromancy Priesthood, 
 and spiritualism, arrayed itself against the Christians. An 
 early example of this is seen in the case of Elymas in Cyprus 
 (Acts xiii.). There is probably an allusion to the way in which 
 heathen priests and magicians helped on the official attacks 
 on Christianity in the remarkable pictures of the two beasts in 
 Rev. xiii. The second beast 'with horns like a lamb,' who 
 performs miracles and plays into the power of the first beast, 
 is pretty clearly intended to represent the heathen priesthood. 
 
 5. The Christian believer will recognise another cause of 
 persecution in the very nature of Christian truth. It inevitably 
 produces a conflict. Like some chemical solvent it a battle 
 separates mankind into two camps. This seems inevitable, 
 to have been abundantly foretold by the Lord Himself, when 
 He spoke of bringing ' not peace on earth but a sword,' and 
 of setting even the closest relationships of fife at strife with 
 each other. 
 
 The heathen world felt instinctively that in the presence of 
 such claims as those of Christ and His Church, no half-measures 
 
 h 
 
26 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 or laissez-faire policy could be adopted. It must be a fight to 
 the finish. And so from this point of view persecution was 
 inevitable, as indeed, in one form or another, it is inevitable 
 
 still. 
 
 It seems clear that for the first attacks on the Christians, 
 various charges of crime were made the pretext. But at some 
 Christianity little time after Nero's persecution, such charges do 
 In itself a not seem to have been considered necessary. No 
 cri^®- formal official pronouncement on the subject was 
 
 made by the Emperor [see p. 65) but the mere profession of the 
 name of Christ became sufficient for a capital sentence. And 
 this seems to have become the regular attitude of official Rome. 
 Professor Ramsay gives about a.d. 80 as the probable date for 
 this new policy. But a good deal depends on the date assigned 
 to S. Peter's First Epistle, which seems to contain (iv. 14-16) 
 a clear allusion to the distinction between suffering as an evil- 
 doer and suffering simply for ' the Name.' 
 
 The year 70 saw the most momentous event in the Apo- 
 stolic period, the siege of Jerusalem, and the destruction of 
 Thefauof city and Temple. The turbulence and rebellious 
 Jerusalem. temper of the province of Judaea had grown worse 
 and worse, until in 66 the Roman garrison were slain, and 
 the attacks of Cestius Gallus, the prefect of Syria, were 
 beaten off. Vespasian, afterwards Emperor, then began, by 
 Nero's authority, the final war with the Jews. He wreaked a 
 terrible vengeance on Galilee ; but Jerusalem itself was not 
 finally invested till 70, by Titus, the son of Vespasian. The delay 
 was partly due to the troubled times through which the Roman 
 Empire itself was passing. Nero's death was followed by a year 
 of civil strife and bloodshed, during the brief reign of three 
 Emperors, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Vespasian himself became 
 Emperor in 69, and committed the reduction of the Jewish 
 revolt to Titus. Meanwhile, the Christian Church in Jerusalem, 
 remembering the Lord's warning, or receiving, as Eusebius relates, 
 some supernatural guidance at the time, made good their escape 
 from the city, and retired to Pella, a city in Decapolis some 
 50 miles away. 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD 
 
 27 
 
 The final siege lasted only five months, a very short time 
 considering the almost impregnable strength of Jerusalem and 
 the slow nature of ancient sieges. It ran its course amid in- 
 conceivable horrors of famine, bloodshed, and party strife, as 
 vividly described by Josephus. The defenders were divided into 
 two opposing factions, one commanded by John and Eleazar, 
 and the other by Simon, who, instead of making the most of 
 the natural advantages for defence, fought furiously with one 
 another. The narrow confines of the city were crowded with 
 the multitudes which had assembled for the Passover. So great 
 was the mortality within the walls that it was impossible to bury 
 the dead, and they were thrown over the ramparts, even moving 
 the horror of the besiegers themselves. The city was practically 
 the prey of robbers and murderers within, while the Roman 
 engines were battering the walls. Supernatural terrors added 
 to the awfulness of the scene — a sword-shaped comet hung over 
 the city, visionary armies were seen fighting in the skies, a mad 
 prophet appeared who ceaselessly cried, ' Woe, woe to Jerusalem ! ' 
 the Temple doors were opened by no hand of man ; the sound of 
 the final departure of the angel-guardians, with the mysterious 
 words, ' Let us depart hence,' was heard by the priests as they 
 entered on the feast of Pentecost. All the terrible predictions 
 of judgment both of the Old Testament and the Gospel seem to 
 pale before the realities of these last and awful days of the Jewish 
 nation. The Temple was taken and burnt on the very anni- 
 versary of its first destruction by the soldiers of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar (July 15, 586 B.C.) ; but it took nearly another month of 
 desperate fighting before the city was completely reduced. 
 Its remains were levelled with the ground ; and its miserable 
 survivors were either put to death or reduced to slavery. Many 
 were sent to the mines of Egypt, and many others to Rome, where 
 they were employed in building the Colosseum. The well-known 
 Arch of Titus still shows on its rehefs the seven-branch candle- 
 stick and the table of shewbread borne in the conqueror's triumph. 
 Vespasian is said to have also endeavoured to seek out all 
 survivors of the line of David and to put them to death (Eu3, 
 iii. 12), 
 
1 
 
 ., 
 
 28 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 The effects of this terrible catastrophe on the Christian Church 
 must have been great and permanent. In the first place it was 
 Its effects on a vindication of prophecy, written in blood and fire, 
 the Churcli. It was well known that Christ Himself had pre- 
 dicted unparalleled sufferings for the Jewish nation, the 
 total destruction of the Temple, and the preservation of His 
 own followers. His words were fulfilled to the letter. This 
 could not fail to make a deep impression both on the Christian 
 Church, and those who were inquiring into her claims. Re- 
 tribution had visibly fallen on those who crucified the Lord ; 
 and His own words had come terribly true. 
 
 A still more important result was that the Christian Church 
 was now visibly and finally separated from Judaism. While 
 Jerusalem stood with its Temple and its round of sacrifice and 
 festival, the old dispensation could still claim to be in possession. 
 Christianity might be plausibly represented by the Jew as a 
 mere pretender, or be misinterpreted by the heathen as a mere 
 sect. But now evidently a new era had begun. The Temple 
 was never rebuilt ; though Jewish nationalism was still to make 
 another desperate struggle in the reign of Hadrian (p. 74). 
 
 Judaic Christianity was now doomed to extinction. Its ad- 
 herents either gradually merged in the catholicity of the Gentile 
 Church, or drifted into the obscure heresy of the Ebionites (p. 99). 
 
 The Christian Church of Jerusalem may have returned from 
 Pella, but when a bishop is again found at Jerusalem, it was 
 when even the very name of the city had been changed. A tradi- 
 tion indeed is recorded by Eusebius (iii. 11), that the surviving 
 Apostles, after the martyrdom of S. James the Just, reassembled 
 and elected as his successor Symeon, the son of Clopas, another 
 relative of our Lord. But it is uncertain whether this was 
 before or after the fall of the city. It has been conjectured with 
 some probability that the Apostles at this Council took other 
 steps for the organisation of the Church, her ministry and her 
 forms of worship (Ragg, Church of the Apostles, pp. 91-93). 
 
 Similarly the exiled Jewish rabbis who had survived the great 
 overthrow endeavoured at Jamnia in the same year (70) to 
 gather up the fragments of Judaism, and here they settled finally^ 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD 
 
 29 
 
 from the strict Palestinian point of view, the Canon of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures. 
 
 The Roman Empire from 69 to 96 was governed by the Flavian 
 dynasty (Vespasian, 69-79 > Titus, 79-81 ; Domitian, 81-96). 
 Without doubt the Neronian persecution had set The perse- 
 a precedent for regarding the mere profession cution by 
 of Christianity as a crime to be punished with i>omitian. 
 death. But there is no evidence of active persecution until 
 the closing year of Domitian, though the Flavian Emperors 
 viewed Christianity with disfavour. Probably the calamities 
 which had fallen on the Jews prevented them endeavouring 
 with any success to stir up popular feeling against their 
 rivals. 
 
 But Domitian is universally represented as the second great 
 persecutor of the Church, and as a second Nero, whom he certainly 
 resembled in his mad vanity and the arbitrary cruelty of his 
 later years. Opinions, however, differ as to whether his persecu- 
 tion about the years 95-96 was merely aimed at a few prominent 
 individuals, or at a total proscription of the name of Christ. It 
 may have arisen partly out of his attempt to enforce the taxation 
 of the Jews, which Vespasian had inaugurated, and partly from 
 his eagerness to promote the worship of himself in the provinces, 
 especially in Asia. Like Vespasian he is said to have endeavoured 
 to search out and kill the descendants of the hne of David. He 
 discovered, says Hegesippus (Eus. iii. 20), the grandchildren of 
 S. Jude. He found on questioning them that they were very 
 poor, with hands hardened by toil, and that they looked not 
 for a temporal kingdom, but for a heavenly one which Christ 
 would establish at the end of the world. He dismissed them 
 with contempt. 
 
 But he put to death his own cousin, Flavins Clemens, and 
 banished the wife of the same, Flavia Domitilla, apparently 
 on a charge of ' atheism.* That by this is meant Christianity 
 is now regarded as practically certain, as the tomb of Domitilla 
 was regarded as that of a Christian martyr (Ramsay, Ch. in 
 R, E., p. 261). Another victim was a man of the highest official 
 rank, M'Acilius Glabrio, who was first exiled and then put to 
 
m 
 
 
 30 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 death. The tomb of his family has also been discovered among 
 the Christian catacombs. 
 
 Early and unanimous tradition makes the banishment of the 
 Apostle S. John to Patmos one of the events of this persecution. 
 If so the vivid picture of the blaspheming and persecuting beast 
 in Rev. xiii. was probably coloured by the efforts of Domitian 
 and his official and priestly sateUites to stamp out Christianity 
 in Asia. Many modern scholars, however, refer this banishment 
 and the writing of the Apocalypse to the reign of Nero. It 
 has also been suggested that the explanation of the early tradition 
 is that Domitian, long before he became Emperor, banished S. 
 John, in the year 70, when he was acting for his father, Vespasian, 
 as ruler of Rome : and that Ukewise it was Nerva (afterwards 
 Emperor) who, as fellow-consul with Vespasian in 71, recalled 
 the exile (Edmundson, Early Church of Rome). Hence may 
 have arisen the tradition that it was in the course of Domitian's 
 persecution that S. John was banished, and that it was Nerva 
 when he came to the throne who restored him among those whom 
 his predecessor had unjustly punished. 
 
 If the earher date is adopted, and the unity of the Apocalypse 
 is assumed, we must then consider that the primary allusion in 
 S. John's description of the warfare of the beast against the 
 saints is to Nero's persecution and not to that of Domitian. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. Summarise briefly the history of the expansion of the Church as 
 contained in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 2. What early authorities are made use of by Eusebius in his history 
 of the Church ? 
 
 3. What traditions are there respecting the Apostles outside the New 
 Testament ? 
 
 4. Describe the first persecution of the Church by the Roman Empire. 
 
 5. What was the general attitude of the Emperors towards the religions 
 of the provinces ? 
 
 6. What reason can you suggest for the hostility of the Emperors 
 towards the Christian Church ? 
 
 7. Describe the fall of Jerusalem, and show its importance in the 
 development of Christianity. 
 
 8. What was the character of Domitian's persecution of the Church ? 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD 
 
 3t 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. The Church History of Eusebius : 
 
 Greek text of Eusebius, edited by Bright. (Clarendon Press.) 
 English translation with (very valuable) notes. SchafiPs Mcene 
 
 and Post-Nicene Fathers. 
 * Eusebius of Caesarea,' in Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
 
 2. The conflict between the Judaic and the Catholic conception of the 
 Church : 
 
 Hort. Judaistic Christianity. 
 
 3. The character of the imperial persecutions of the Church : 
 
 Ramsay. Church in the Roman Empire. 
 
Wi 
 
 CHAPTER III. THE AGE OF TRANSITION 
 
 The close of the first century was a moment of special danger 
 and trial for the Church. The death of the last of the Apostles 
 TiieperUs confronted her with the problem of her future 
 of the continuance. The enthusiasm of the first genera- 
 
 churcii. |.JQj^ Qf teachers and witnesses had passed. Was 
 
 the Church herself to change, to break up, to suffer the 
 usual fate of human institutions? The outlook was certainly 
 dark. There was the constant menace of persecution. It 
 might have seemed most improbable when the first burst of 
 courage had cooled, that the members of a widespread and 
 scattered society could stand the strain, if not always of constant 
 attack, at least of the sense of isolation and outlawry; the 
 knowledge that home, and property, and Ufe were always liable 
 to forfeit at the word of an informer, the caprice of the mob, or 
 the zeal of an official. 
 
 Again, would Christians continue in the same faith ? It 
 is a human tendency to change, and the intellectual atmosphere 
 of the age was restless and favoured change. The Church was 
 surrounded by competing philosophies and religions— one at 
 least, the worship of Mithras, was a most formidable competitor. 
 Was it hkely that her witness would remain intact ? Was it not 
 much more Hkely that she would gradually merge in her surround- 
 ings, and survive only as a tendency, a school, or an attitude ? 
 
 Once more, what guarantee was there for her unity ? How 
 could the apostoHc ' fellowship ' possibly continue in anything 
 but name or sentiment among congregations as far apart as 
 Egypt, Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul ? 
 
 It is one of the unconsidered miracles of history that the 
 Church did, as a matter of fact, hold tenaciously to her faith 
 and her unity, and that persecution only riveted tighter the bonds 
 
 82 
 
 THE AGE OF TRANSITION 33 
 
 of fellowship. To the Christian it may seem sufiicient explana- 
 tion to point to the promise of the Lord that ' the gates of Hades ' 
 should not prevail against His ecclesta, and that the Holy Spirit 
 would be continually present to guide and keep her. Indeed, 
 apart from such supernatural assistance the history of the 
 Christian Church presents an insoluble riddle. 
 
 But granting this as the ultimate explanation, it is still quite 
 possible to point out certain secondary causes for the preservation 
 of the Church's faith and feUowship during this safeguards 
 time of transition. We may rightly find such of the 
 causes in (i) the Apostolic writings ; (2) the forma- Church, 
 tion of the Creed ; (3) the growth of hturgical forms of worship ; 
 (4) the settlement of the ofiicial ministry. The Scriptures and 
 the Creed proved a safeguard against any alteration in the faith ; 
 the ministry preserved unity of organisation and discipHnc ; and 
 the liturgy preserved the norm of worship, which again is in 
 itself one of the strongest forces making for unity. And all 
 these things in the intense and eager life of the primitive 
 Church developed with remarkable rapidity. As students get 
 away from the influence of mere theory, and recognise facts, 
 still more as they endeavour sympathetically to reconstruct in 
 imagination the actual conditions of the Church life of the first 
 century, they tend to assign much earHer dates than was once 
 the fashion to the New Testament and to the characteristic 
 institutions of the Church. 
 
 All the writings of the New Testament were probably produced 
 in the course of the first century ; though, as will be seen, not all 
 were at first universally recognised by Christians as authoritative. 
 Some, indeed, seem from the first to have been generally accepted. 
 Others, from uncertainty as to their authorship, were for a time 
 in some doubt. 
 
 It is probable, notwithstanding the poverty and illiterate 
 character of perhaps the majority of the first Christians, that 
 there was a considerable amount of writing even in 
 the early years of the Church. NaturaUy one of the ""^ ^'''^^^'* 
 first subjects of such writmg would be the life and words of the 
 Lord Himself. ' Many,' says S. Luke (i. i), had already ' taken 
 
 C 
 
i ill } 
 
 ii|ii 
 
 i\ 
 
 Mi 
 1 ' 
 
 34 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 in hand to draw up a narrative of those things which had been 
 certainly accompHshed. ' None of these narratives survive in 
 any complete form except the four Gospels which the Church 
 has unanimously and consistently recognised. There are 
 indeed allusions to and fragments of other Gospels ; but in most 
 cases they were current only among heretical sects. There 
 was a so-called ' Gospel according to the Hebrews ' which is 
 said to have been used by Jewish Christians, and of which some 
 interesting fragments remain. A ' Gospel according to the 
 Egyptians ' is also mentioned, of which only a few quotations 
 are found. And a considerable fragment dealhig with the 
 Passion has recently been discovered of a so-called ' Gospel 
 according to Peter.' But these are all that have any claim to be 
 compared with the canonical Gospels. The other apocryphal 
 Gospels are clearly of a much inferior standard and of later date. 
 The four Gospels are finished and artistic productions, in which 
 even earlier writings have been probably incorporated. For 
 example. New Testament scholars have traced with some degree 
 of certainty a document containing discourses of Christ (usually 
 referred to as = Ouelle, * source,' or 'the non-Marcan docu- 
 ment ') to which S. Matthew and S. Luke had access, and which 
 they interwove with materials derived from S. Mark. And again, 
 a large part of S. Luke seems to rest upon some independent 
 narrative describing the latter part of our Lord's ministry. 
 
 S. Mark's Gospel is now usually considered the earliest. It 
 is the work of John Mark, probably the cousin of S. Barnabas, 
 who accompanied him and S. Paul on the first 
 missionary journey (Acts xiii.), who afterwards went 
 to Cyprus, and is found later as the companion of S. Peter, and 
 who was beheved to have been the founder of the Church of 
 Alexandria. Early tradition ^ states that S. Mark wrote this 
 Gospel at the request of the hearers of S. Peter, to put on record 
 what he had told them ; and that S. Peter himself gave his 
 approval afterwards to the work (Eus. ii. 15 ; iii. 39). This 
 
 * First given by Papias of Hierapolis, who quotes it from the mysterious 
 and much disputed person whom he cajls * John the Presbyter.' Perhaps 
 no other than S. John himself. 
 
 S. Mark. 
 
 THE AGE OF TRANSITION 35 
 
 may be accepted as correct ; and the date of the Gospel may 
 be not much later than 50 a.d. We know, however so little of 
 the movements of S. Peter after his release from Herod's prison 
 m 44, or of S. Mark's connection with his work, that any date 
 previous to S. Peter's martyrdom may be correct ; but not 
 improbably it was some considerable time before that/ 
 
 S. Matthew's Gospel presents problems which need not be 
 discussed here. Early tradition, beginning with Papias (Eus 
 m. 39), states that S. Matthew first wrote a Gospel 
 in Hebrew for the benefit of those of his own nation. ^' ™^^"^®^- 
 But as the present Gospel has no appearance of being a trans- 
 lation, and the Hebrew original has entirely disappeared it is 
 now generally believed that the Greek Gospel is an independent 
 work, perhaps not as it stands the work of S. Matthew the 
 Apostle. But the earlier document of our Lord's discourses 
 (already alluded to, ' Q ') may have been the original S. Matthew's 
 Gospel, especially as Papias described this Gospel as the XSyta 
 which may mean ' discourses.' 
 
 S. Luke, the Gentile physician, friend and travel companion 
 of S. Paul, wrote the Gospel that bears his name, and the Acts 
 Recent investigations have confirmed the accuracy 
 of the latter in a remarkable way ; its abrupt ending ^' ^''^®* 
 suggests that it was finished very shortly after the release of S 
 Paul from Rome, 60 a.d. ; in which case the Gospel, which is 
 clearly prior, may have been written several years before this, 
 perhaps during S. Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea 55-57. The 
 care and accuracy shown in the Acts suggest that the Gospel 
 was also the result of painstaking study and investigation 
 In addition to the use of S. Mark, of ' O,' and of the independent 
 record already alluded to, S. Luke probably had personal ac- 
 quaintance with the Blessed Virgin, with other women mentioned 
 and with the officials of Herod's court ; and he diligently collected 
 and selected his materials. He states in his preface that he 
 has ' traced the course of all things accurately from the verv 
 first.' -^ 
 
 As often pointed out, these three ' Synoptist Gospels ' (so 
 called because they follow the same general lines of arrangement) 
 
11 i 
 
 S. John. 
 
 36 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 bear the marks of the individuaUty of their writers, and were 
 intended for different types of readers ; especially, S. Matthew 
 evidently has in view the Jewish Christians, and the fulfilment 
 of Old Testament Messianic prophecy. But too much stress 
 should not be laid on these differences. The figure of Christ 
 is the same throughout ; the course of His ministry is described 
 in much the same way, and all give extraordinary prominence to 
 His Passion and Death. 
 
 The problems of the authorship and historical accuracy of 
 the Fourth Gospel are beyond the scope of the present history. 
 It is sufficient to say that the universal belief of the 
 Church is that it was the work of S. John the Apostle, 
 written in the last years of the first century. This. ' the most 
 wonderful book that was ever written ' (Ramsay), differs widely 
 in its contents and style from the other three Gospels. It 
 describes for the most part the work of our Lord in Judaea and 
 Jerusalem rather than in Galilee ; it contains discourses of a 
 more theological character, and its purpose is plainly to emphasise 
 the Divinity of Christ, as not only the Messiah but the Incarnate 
 Logos or Word. But it seems to assume the narrative of the 
 Synoptists not only by its extraordinary omissions, but by its 
 occasional corrections. And it bears the marks of an eye- 
 witness in a high degree. These are quite as vivid and more 
 subtle than those which characterise S. Mark's Petrine reminis- 
 cences. They repay the closest study, especially in those pas- 
 sages which repeat matters already recorded by the Synoptists 
 — e.g., the narrative of the Passion. It is impossible to over- 
 estimate tlic importance of such a book in deepening and steady- 
 ing the faith and devotion of the primitive Church towards 
 its Founder and the witness of His Apostles. 
 
 It must always be remembered that these Gospels were not 
 intended for primary instruction (see S. Luke i. 1-4), but for 
 confirming and instructing those who were already within the 
 Church. This accounts for many puzzles— things left unsaid, 
 knowledge assumed, selection of a limited number of events for 
 a particular purpose. Especially the disproportionate space 
 given to the Lord's Passion and Death is only explicable when 
 
 THE AGE OF TRANSITION 
 
 37 
 
 The Epistles. 
 
 we remember that the first readers had already been taught of 
 that Death as the Sacrifice and Atonement for human sin. 
 
 The same consideration appHes to the Epistles. They are 
 all in the first instance addressed to behevers ; they were read 
 in the Christian assemblies, and passed on from 
 one congregation to another. As the Uving voice 
 of the Apostles ceased, their letters naturally became standards 
 of faith and life, and perhaps even in the lifetime of their writers 
 they came to be ranked as ' Scripture.' 
 
 All the thirteen Epistles of S. Paul were soon recognised as 
 authoritative : so, too, were i S. Peter and i S. John. Early 
 opinions differed as to S. James, 2 S. Peter, S. Jude, 
 and 2 and 3 S. John (Eus. iii. 25). Again, there was 
 some uncertainty as to Hebrews and the Apocalypse. These 
 two require some separate consideration. The splendour, the 
 width, the originahty of the Epistle to the Hebrews obviously 
 place it in the very first rank of Apostolic writings. Its 
 Christology and its teaching of the essential unity of the Old 
 and New Covenants were contributions of the highest value to 
 the thought of the first generation of Christians. But both 
 its destination and its authorship are unknown. It was this 
 latter fact which caused the Church long to hesitate as to full 
 acceptance : for a writing to be accepted must be, it was thought, 
 the genuine work of one of the original Apostles. But Hebrews 
 was long attributed in the West to S. Barnabas (still one of the 
 most likely conjectures) ; in the East it was thought to be the 
 work of either S. Luke or S. Paul. But finally the East accepted 
 it as the work of S. Paul, and by the fourth century this view 
 had become current also in the West. Without doubt the 
 epistle emanated from the Pauline circle, and equally without 
 doubt, the actual author was not S. Paul. In it we see the 
 process of some other mind, working out with real originality 
 on new lines the thoughts of S. Paul. As to its destination, 
 the most probable supposition is still that it was addressed to 
 the Christians of Jerusalem during the fateful years immediately 
 preceding the final siege. It is quite possible, on the other hand, 
 that it was addressed to the Jewish Christians of the Church 
 
ifH' I 
 
 III! 
 
 ti 
 
 It ^ 
 
 h 
 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 38 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 in Rome. S. Clement of Rome makes so much use of it that he 
 was even suggested as its author. But the allusions to sufferings 
 which have fallen short of actual martyrdom (cp. xii. 4) do not 
 suit the Neronian persecution ; and it is difficult to see how a 
 letter addressed to Roman Christians could so entirely ignore the 
 Gentile majority in that Church. In any case, however, the 
 allusions to the Levitical system as still existing seem to necessi- 
 tate a date before a.d. 70. 
 
 The Apocalypse, as already noted, may belong cither to the 
 time of Nero or that of Domitian. (It is possible that writings 
 of both periods may be combined in it.) Accepted 
 originally as the work of the Apostle S. John, some 
 doubt was cast upon it in the third century by the fastidiousness 
 of the Alexandrians, especially Dionysius (Eus. vii. 25), and 
 Eusebius speaks of it (iii. 25) as rejected by some. This doubt 
 was, however, only a phase or a fashion, and the general judg- 
 ment of the Church attested the book. Its importance from 
 our present point of view is very great. The Book of Daniel, 
 whatever its original date, was one of the most important factors 
 in strengthening Jewish resistance to the pre-Christian anti- 
 Christ, Antiochus Epiphanes. The Apocalypse is coloured 
 throughout with reminiscences of Daniel and of that great 
 Maccabean struggle which the seer finds repeated on a more 
 terrific scale in the battle between heathenism and the Church. 
 He calls his work a 'prophecy,' and it merits this title not 
 merely in the sense of prediction, but as a pictorial setting forth 
 of the great recurring- principles of history from the Divine 
 standpoint. In vivid and startling figures, which have stamped 
 themselves indelibly on Christian thought and imagination, 
 the Apocalypse describes the eternal sovereignty and triumph 
 of Christ and His saints : the hostile forces marshalled against 
 Him and them ; the dragon, * that old serpent,' the beast 
 who persecutes and blasphemes, and the second beast who 
 deceives ; the Divine judgments on sin, the rewards of 
 faithfulness and sanctity, the eternal moral purpose which 
 runs through all man's history, of which Christ alone has the 
 key, the heavenly ideal, the new Jerusalem which is even now 
 
 THE AGE OF TRANSITION 
 
 39 
 
 being realised — * coming down from God out of heaven,' in 
 the Church of the redeemed — these compelling, entrancing 
 pictures must have done much to console and hearten Christians 
 in * the great tribulation,* to enable them to confront successfully 
 those mighty forces of the world which seemed about to crush 
 the Church out of existence. Each successive Christian genera- 
 tion has read its own lesson in the Apocal3rpse, but the believer 
 will recognise a special fitness in this gift of the ascended Lord 
 to His struggHng Church at such a momentous period of her 
 history — when first love was cooling, when the pilot stars seemed 
 dim, and the beast was making war upon the saints and ' pre- 
 vailing ' against them. 
 
 The recognition by the Church generally of an authorised 
 list or ' canon ' of sacred books, in a special sense ' inspired ' 
 by the Holy Spirit, was, as we have seen, a matter of The canon 
 gradual growth. But the foundation was present of the 0. t. 
 already in the Canon of Old Testament writings which the 
 Church inherited from Judaism. At first these and these 
 only were alluded to as * Scriptures.' But even here there 
 was not quite the same hard and fast line between the 
 canonical and the uncanonical as in later ages. There were two 
 canons current among the Jews, the shorter Palestinian canon 
 and the longer Hellenistic or Alexandrian canon, which contains 
 the Apocrypha. It seems clear that it was the latter which the 
 early Christian Church for the most part accepted. The writers 
 of the New Testament never indeed quote the Apocryphal 
 books expressly as ' Scripture,' but they make considerable 
 use of them indirectly, not only in a Hellenistic writing like 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, but even in such an entirely Judaic- 
 Christian writing as the Epistle of S. James. 
 
 In view, then, of this vagueness even about the Old Testament 
 books, we need not be surprised that there was for long some 
 uncertainty among Christians as to the exact limits Formation 
 of the canon of the new ' Scriptures ' which they of n. t. 
 added to the old. No doubt the majority of Canon, 
 our present books, as we have already seen, were classed as 
 Scripture before the end of the first century, as the Epistles 
 
 u>J 
 
fl 
 
 N 
 
 II 
 
 40 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 of S. Paul are in 2 S. Peter iii. But doubts remained well into 
 the fourth century. In the time of Eusebius there were still 
 evidently three classes of current Christian writings claiming 
 to be * Scripture * : (i) those generally accepted by the whole 
 Church — 6/jLo\oyovfjL€va {' admitted ') ; (2) those on which a 
 difference of opinion existed, dpTiXeyofJLeva (* attacked *) ; 
 (3) those which were generally considered spurious, voOoi — 
 either as being forgeries, or heretical. Finally some of the 
 second class were excluded, though still held in high repute, 
 such as the Epistle of Clement, the ' Shepherd ' of Hermas, 
 and the Epistle of Barnabas {see p. 61) ; and others definitely 
 accepted. The earhest known list is that of the Muratorian 
 Canon (p. 17). Its date is about a.d. 170 and it contains all 
 our present books except i and 2 Peter, S. John's Epistles, 
 S. James, and Hebrews, and adds 'the Apocalypse of Peter.' 
 But its fragmentary condition makes its omissions of httlc 
 account. The Syriac translation of the second century contained 
 all except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 S. John, S. Jude, and the Apocalypse. 
 Origen in the third century gives all except S. James and S. 
 Jude. S. Athanasius enumerates our Hst exactly in 367, and the 
 Third Council of Carthage (397) definitely sanctions the same list. 
 The stability of the Church did not rest alone on the actual 
 writings of the Apostles. She owed her very existence to the 
 necessity of bearing witness to definite truths about 
 God, and His great manifestation of Himself in 
 human life through the Incarnation, which she had received 
 from the Apostles. The Triune nature of the Godhead; the 
 Deity and Humanity of Jesus Christ ; His Birth of the Virgin ; 
 His Death, Resurrection, and Ascension ; the new mission of 
 the Holy Ghost ; the certainty of forgiveness ; the new life, and 
 the resurrection of the dead, as conferred on man through the 
 Church, must all have been parts of that * teaching of the 
 Apostles ' in which behevers * continued stedfastly ' from the 
 beginning (Acts ii. 42). And it is certainly to be noted in the 
 New Testament that there is evidence that this teaching was 
 regarded as a coherent whole called ' the Faith,' and was sum- 
 marised in more or less settled forms. (Cp. Rom. vi. 17 ; 2 
 
 The Creed. 
 
 THE AGE OF TRANSITION 
 
 41 
 
 Tim. 1. 13 ; S. Jude, 3.) Such forms were especially used in 
 connection with Baptism. The candidate for Baptism was 
 entering a society pledged to a definite faith and witness, and 
 a primary condition of entrance was the profession of this faith. 
 Hence naturally arose the Baptismal Creeds. They varied in 
 language in the various centres of the Church ; but were all 
 the same in substance, usually short, and based on the baptismal 
 formula. Those about to be baptized in the Name of Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost were required to profess their faith in this 
 Name, according to the recognised form, or Creed, which was 
 known as the irapaOt^Krj, or ' trust,' or the * symbolum,' or * pass- 
 word.' 
 
 There is no reason to suppose that the additions which were 
 made by degrees to these original epitomes of Christian belief 
 were in any real sense new. They were either Additions to 
 traditional parts of the Apostles' teaching which the the Creeds, 
 needs of the time brought into prominence and which were 
 therefore added to the Creed, or they were explanations 
 to prevent the sense in which the Church understood her formula 
 being perverted by false teaching. The merely affirmative 
 Creed of the first days of simple faith tended to become defensive 
 as errors grew and threatened. This process will be clearly seen 
 in the construction and development of the ' Nicene Creed.' 
 
 The Apostles' Creed is the developed form of the Baptismal 
 Creed of the Roman Church. Its earliest known form ^ cannot 
 be later than the first half of the second century, and doubtless 
 rests upon a much earlier original. The additions with which 
 we are familiar have been traced for the most part to the Churcli 
 of Southern Gaul, and to a time in which the Nicene Creed had 
 temporarily replaced the older Creed at Rome in the administra- 
 tion of Baptism (between the fifth and eighth centuries). About 
 
 ^ I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Christ Jesus His 
 only Son, our Lord, who was born from the Holy Ghost of the Virgin 
 Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried : the third day rose again 
 from the dead ; ascended into the heavens, sitteth at the right hand of 
 the Father, whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. And 
 in the Holy Ghost, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection 
 of the flesh. 
 
 (' 
 
 
I.I) 
 
 i: 
 
 1 
 
 II 
 
 42 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 the middle of the eighth century the Creed, as we know it, appears 
 complete. 
 
 These historical changes in the contents of the Creed must not 
 be allowed to obscure the practical certainty that from the days 
 of the Apostles onwards there existed in the Church everywhere 
 a well-known and traditional summary, not committed to 
 writing, of the teaching which they had deHvered. The 
 Scriptures directly or indirectly illustrated and confirmed this 
 ' Creed,' and naturally its phrases tended to be accommodated 
 to the language of the Scriptures ; but the Creed was in itself 
 an independent and primary witness and safeguard of Christian 
 belief and Christian unity. 
 
 Few things could have had more influence in binding together 
 the Church than its common acts of worship. And from the 
 Christian first these tended to follow regular and settled forms. 
 Worship. Among the marks of tlie infant Church was its 
 
 stedfastness in ' the breaking of the bread and the prayers ' 
 (Acts ii. 42), phrases which seem to imply some common and 
 well-known order. The frequency of the gift of * prophecy ' 
 at first no doubt prevented the crystallisation of the Church's 
 devotion in written formulas. But it is clear from S. Paul's 
 Epistles that he felt the necessity of keeping even ' the prophets ' 
 in order (cp. i Cor. xiv.), and that he desired a settled and orderly 
 style of conducting the Christian assemblies. Christians in- 
 herited from Temple and synagogue the use of the Psalter and 
 other liturgical forms, and the Founder Himself had given a form 
 of prayer in the Lord's Prayer. 
 
 But the distinctive Christian rite from the first was the Lord's 
 Supper or Eucharist. It is not recorded that Christ had Himself 
 The Service ^^^^ down any form of service for this, though 
 of the such is not impossible ; but at least His own 
 
 Eucharist. words of institution formed a liturgical nucleus. 
 And it seems clear that as early as the apostolic age the 
 general fines which the service was to follow were laid down 
 and accepted. At first indeed the service is \^Tapped in mj^ter}', 
 for no written records survive, and the greatest secrec>* was 
 observed lest the heatlien should gain access to the Cliristian 
 
 THE AGE OF TRANSITION 
 
 43 
 
 'mysteries.' But when the earhest account of the service is 
 found in writing in the First Apology of S. Justin Martyr about 
 A.D. 150 (p. 79), it is already elaborate, and shows the same 
 general construction with which later Christian usage makes us 
 familiar. The same may be said of the instructions given in 
 the Church Order of Hippolytus, less than a century later, and 
 in the Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril of Jerusalem (about 
 347) • When the Church emerges to fuller view we find established 
 various groups of ' liturgies,* or forms of the service of the 
 Eucharist. These, although used in quite different regions of the 
 Church,^ all present the same general features, though varying 
 in detail. The conclusion seems obvious that there must have 
 been one common original ; and this in all probabiHty was 
 arranged by the Apostles themselves. We may reconstruct 
 with some degree of certainty this archetypal service of the 
 Eucharist. It no doubt consisted of two parts ; the first in- 
 cluded psalmody and the reading of the Scriptures (at first the 
 Old Testament only, but soon extracts from the apostolic writings 
 were added), followed by a sermon and prayers. After this, 
 those who were not yet baptized withdrew ; and then followed the 
 second part, the actual Communion service. The elements of 
 bread and wine for the service were brought forward ; the cele- 
 brant addressed the worshippers, bidding them * lift up their 
 hearts ' and * give thanks unto the Lord ' ; he then in a lengthy 
 prayer offered intercessions for all, both living and departed, and 
 proceeded to a recital of the work of God's redemption tlirough 
 Christ : this found its climax in the repetition of Christ's own 
 words at the Last Supper, and the invocation of the Holy Spirit's 
 blessing upon the bread and the cup. To this prayer all responded 
 ' Amen ' ; its phraseology at first was left to the inspiration of 
 the celebrant, but it tended naturally to fall into fixed forms. 
 Another feature common to all such services was the angehc 
 
 * I. The Oriental Liturgy — wliich includes the liturgy of S. James and 
 the Byzantine. 
 2- Tlw Ak'xandnan -or liturgy of S. Mark. 
 .V Uk? Kom.*iii or liturgy oi S. lAitci. 
 4. Tbc GaUican. 
 5 I'tic Xob^toriaii. 
 
 I< 
 
Ritual. 
 
 44 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 hymn from Isaiah vi., * Holy, Holy, Holy.* All the worshippers 
 exchanged ' the kiss of peace/ men with men, and women with 
 women, and partook of the consecrated bread and cup ; and 
 some form of thanksgiving, probably a psalm, no doubt 
 followed. 
 
 Ceremonial developed rapidly in the early ages of the Church. 
 Symbolism is a natural method of religious expression, and 
 there were both precedents in Judaism, and ex- 
 amples which may have had some influence, in the 
 various heathen cults. From the very fu^t. Christians had no 
 use for a bare and merely intellectual style of worship. Even 
 the ' many Hghts ' which S. Luke specially notes at the apostohc 
 Eucharist at Troas (Acts xx.) were probably not only for the 
 purpose of giving light (why mention them if that were all ?), 
 but were intended to express joy and a festal gathering. The 
 sign of the Cross is of very early origin, and w^as not merely used 
 in prayer and w^orship, but as a symbolical pass-word by which 
 one Christian knew another, and as a visible consecration of every 
 action of life. Incense appears in Christian worship at a fairly 
 early date.^ 
 
 The origin of the use of distinctive vestments at the Eucharist 
 is still a disputed and obscure problem. Vestments, which bear 
 a family resemblance in spite of their variations, have been 
 used throughout the Christian Church for many centuries. It 
 has been supposed by some that these were suggested by the 
 dress of the Jewish high-priest, by others that they were in- 
 tended to represent the garments of Christ, or to be symbolical 
 of the events of the Passion. At present the accepted though 
 somewhat prosaic theory is that they are simply a survival of 
 the official dress, or even of only the ordinary * best clothes * 
 of the society of the later Roman Empire. The earliest allusions 
 to the dress for celebrating the Eucharist seem to imply merely 
 the best and cleanest ordinary garments. On the other hand, 
 the natural and proper feeling which prompted this led in fairly 
 early lim^^ to the use of more splendid garments, usually of 
 
 > It wa-w ]Kn(il>a1)lv iiscd »t Komc In Uic fouitli ccdttiry. Soc LiUw 
 PvititjtAoJn (Liic uf iiyl voter). 
 
 THE AGE OF TRANSITION 
 
 45 
 
 white, though Constantine is said by Theodoret (Hist. Eccl. ii. 23) 
 to have given to Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, a * sacred gar- 
 ment ' of gold thread. 
 
 Whatever uncertainty may surround the liturgical develop- 
 ment of early days, there can be no doubt of the importance 
 of the Eucharist, and the powerful influence of the Eucharistic 
 service in holding together the Christian body. It was the 
 centre of the common life of the Church. Without question it 
 was the one characteristic act of worship on the Lord's Day. 
 It preserved the mysterious and joyous sense of Divine Presence 
 and Divine union ; making the Christian feel that for him aU 
 things had become new, that he was in possession of secrets 
 hidden from the world, and for which he could count the w^orld 
 well lost. Similarly, the Eucharist was a power equally great 
 in maintaining the one faith. The words of institution them- 
 selves enshrine the central Christian beliefs in the Incarnation and 
 the Atonement. And the whole progress of tlie ancient liturgies 
 kept in a vivid manner before the eyes and minds of the wor- 
 shippers the priestly intercession of Christ, His enduring sacrifice, 
 His present gifts of grace, and the common hope of the resurrec- 
 tion of the body and the life eternal. 
 
 A still more obscure subject is that of the Agape (* Love '), 
 the common meal in which early Christians joined. At first 
 there appears to have been some confusion between 
 this and the Eucharist, which at Corinth led to 
 scandals severely rebuked by S. Paul (i Cor. xi.). But a few 
 years later the distinction was clearly drawn, and the Agap6 
 was placed after the Eucharist. But it early fell into disuse, 
 tljough curious parallels to it may be noted in the * pain beni ' 
 of the French Church, and the attempts of the Methodists to 
 restore it, in their ' love- feasts.' 
 
 The continuance of any society is impossible without order 
 and rule, and to ensure these there must of necessity be re- 
 cognised officers. One of the most interesting The Ministry 
 questions in the early history of the Church w oftte 
 the origin and development of her ofiiciul ministry* ; ciiurth. 
 an institution wliich must have been one of the n>ost 
 
 The Agape. 
 
 (' 
 
 J 
 
h ■ 
 
 46 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 powerful factors, humanly speaking, in maintaining unity and 
 stedfastness. 
 
 The problem has been sadly complicated by controversy ; but 
 it is perhaps not so difficult as it has often been made to appear 
 by party-spirit, and by lack of historical sense, or even of common 
 sense. To begin with, it is unquestionable that from the time 
 that fuller information comes to hand, i.e. from the end of the 
 second or beginning of the third century, we find an official 
 ministry established universally in the Church, responsible not 
 only for teaching, presiding at acts of worship, and administer- 
 ing sacraments, but also for government and discipline. These 
 officials do not hold office by heredity (Hke the Jewish priests), 
 or by mere popular election ; nor merely because of their personal 
 eminence. They are definitely set apart for it by Ordination ; 
 the laying on of hands by other already existing officials, with 
 prayer for the spiritual gift which is held necessary for the due 
 performance of their office. They are understood in this way 
 to derive their power from above and not from beneath, and to 
 be in direct and continuous succession from the Apostles. More- 
 over three ranks or orders of this ministry are ever5A\'here re- 
 cognised, those of episcopus or bishop, presbyter or elder, and 
 deacon. The bishop is regarded as supreme, and as the one 
 really responsible ruler of the Christian flock committed to him. 
 Presbyters and deacons are his deputies. The bishop in liis own 
 sphere is the normal unit of Church organisation. He is the 
 direct representative of the Apostles and of Christ. He alone 
 has the power to ordain to any of the orders of ministry. 
 
 This ministry of the three orders, in which the apostolic office 
 was believed to be continuously handed on and exercised, has 
 Evidence been in possession since the third century at the 
 of N. T. latest. How far can its origin be traced in the 
 
 earliest period of the Church's history ? Clearly the Apostles 
 believed themselves and were acknowledged to be the 
 divinely appointed teachers and rulers of the Church. But there 
 would naturally be- almost from the first some devolution of 
 office. Even if Christ Himself had left behind no instructions 
 on this matter, precedents would be readily suggested from the 
 
 THE AGE OF TRANSITION 
 
 47 
 
 Old Testament, e.g. from the appointment of subordinate officials 
 by Moses in the wilderness, or that of the seventy elders (Exod. 
 xviii. ; Num. xi.). 
 
 The first recorded step in this devolution is the appointment 
 of the Seven (Acts vi.). These men were by command of the 
 Apostles chosen by the general body of Christians, but received 
 their office by the hands and prayer of the Apostles. Their 
 work was primarily administrative, to ensure the right distribu- 
 tion of the alms of the Church, but it seems also to have included 
 authority to preach and baptize (Acts vi.; viii.). 
 
 Later in the Acts we meet with another class of officials, 
 called by a double name, ' presbyters,' i.e. ' elders,' or ' episcopi ' ; 
 the first derived from the well-known officers of the Jewish 
 synagogue ; the second implying general ' oversight,' from 
 Gentile civil officials (cp. Acts xi. 30 ; xiv. 23 ; xx. 17, 28). 
 No explanation of this office is given ; S. Luke evidently assumes 
 it to be well known to his readers. These elder-episcopi appear 
 in the New Testament both as forming a ruling and consultative 
 body in conjunction with the Apostles (Acts xv.), and as put in 
 charge of Christian congregations, whether as a body or as in- 
 dividuals (Phil. i. I ; Col. iv. 17). They become very prominent 
 in the Pastoral Epistles (i and 2 Tim. and Titus), where their 
 qualifications and duties are described. Some, but not apparently 
 all of them, preached and taught (i Tim. v. 17) ; all of them had 
 to some extent authority to rule. It has been conjectured with 
 much probability that one function common to all of the elder- 
 episcopi was, in the absence of the Apostles, to preside at and 
 consecrate the Eucharist, ' the breaking of the bread.' This 
 Sacrament was so intimately bound up with the very existence 
 of a Christian congregation that it seems only natural that its 
 ministration should have been from the first safe-guarded, and 
 committed only to duly authorised persons. 
 
 In conjunction with the elder-episcopi appear the ' deacons,' 
 a subordinate office, which the Church of later days generally 
 assumed to be the same as that of the Seven already described. 
 
 Thus the New Testament presents us with a system of Church 
 government through the Apostles and officials appointed by them ; 
 
 a 
 
 M \ 
 
H 
 
 111 
 
 ! 1 
 
 .;/ 
 
 48 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 and, indeed, with something analogous at first sight to the three 
 orders. The apostle seems to be in the place of the bishop of 
 later days ; the elder-episcopi naturally suggest the second 
 order, that of the presbyter or priest ; the deacons are clearly 
 the third order. 
 
 But the crucial question is this. Did the supreme office of 
 the Apostles end with themselves ; or did they take any steps 
 Episcopacy to perpetuate it, as distinct from and superior to 
 in N. T. that of the elder-episcopus ? If so we have clearly 
 
 the origin of the later 'bishop/ If not, then the primitive 
 form of Church government after the death of the Apostles was 
 simply that of the elder-episcopi and the deacons. The bishop 
 must have been only a development for convenience' sake out 
 of the elder. He was merely a ruling elder, and there was no 
 real distinction in office. That is the Presbyterian contention, 
 and it appeals to the evident identity of elder and episcopus in 
 the New Testament and in the eadiest Christian writings, and 
 also to the fact that no bishop is mentioned at some Church 
 centres, e.g. in the letter of S. Clement to the Corinthians. 
 
 But, on the other hand, the universal belief and practice of 
 the later Church is strong presumptive evidence that there were 
 from the first three orders and not merely two, in spite of 
 the vagueness of the titles, and that the Apostles intended this. 
 In the New Testament itself it is clear that the title ' Apostle ' 
 was extended to more than the original Twelve. It was not 
 only claimed by S. Paul on the ground of a direct Divine mission : 
 it was borne by men like S. Barnabas who were pioneers in 
 missionary work, or like S. James who appears as the head of the 
 Church in Jerusalem. Again, both Timothy and Titus appear 
 in Ephesus and Crete as taking the place of an Apostle, with 
 full power of rule and administration, and with authority to 
 ordain elders and deacons. In their office we have something 
 very closely corresponding to that of a later bishop. In these 
 cases the Apostles clearly appointed men to an office correspond- 
 ing to their own, and with authority over the elders and deacons. 
 It may be that this apostolic precedent developed with great 
 rapidity (as did other Church ordinances) after the death of 
 
 THE AGE OF TRANSITION 
 
 49 
 
 tlie Apostles. As early perhaps as 107 the letters of S Ignatius 
 (p. 68) assume without any question that the three orders exist and 
 are distinct. The bishop to Ignatius is the supreme representa- 
 tive of Christ and the centre of Church unity : the elder and the 
 deacon have no status apart from him. 
 
 But how are we to account for the fact that the same 
 official is described both as * elder ' and ' episcopus ' ? There 
 are two considerations that help to understand this. First, 
 the Apostles during their lifetime must have overshadowed 
 every other sort of official. In the narrow limits of the New 
 Testament, with its merely incidental references to Church order, 
 we could scarcely expect to see clearly defined any permanent 
 organisation capable of acting apart from the Apostles. Secondly, 
 institutions invariably precede terminology. Things come before 
 names. It was natural that in the apostoHc age titles of office 
 should be used somewhat loosely. The Apostles speak of them- 
 selves as ' elders,' and even as ' deacons.' The elder might 
 naturally be called ' episcopus ' from the point of view of his own 
 congregation. 
 
 If due allowance is made for these peculiar conditions of the 
 time, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude, in view of later 
 developments, that the Apostles not only delegated some of their 
 powers to subordinate officials (the elder-episcopi and the 
 deacons) , but that they really laid the foundation of the three 
 orders ; and that the apostolic representative, the bishop, existed 
 as distinct from and superior to the elder, before his office had a 
 fixed and exclusive title. As the Apostles passed away the 
 bishop rapidly became recognised as their successor, endowed 
 with their authority of teaching and ruHng and ' laying on of 
 hands.' The concluding steps would be (i) the stereotyping of 
 the title ; (2) the universal extension of the episcopate over the 
 Church ; (3) the settling of the bishop in a defined sphere or 
 diocese. 
 
 Such an origin and development of the bishop's office seems 
 to harmonise best with all the facts. It explains as nothing 
 else can the remarkable unanimity of the later Church as to 
 the official ministry and its three orders. And it is in 
 
 D 
 
 (( 
 
50 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 accordance with the weighty statement of S. Clement of Rome 
 in the first century (p. 54) : * Our Apostles knew througli our Lord 
 Evidence of Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name 
 s. Clement. . of the bishop's office. Therefore, having received 
 perfect foreknowledge, they established the aforesaid (elder- 
 episcopi and deacons), and afterwards they gave an injunc- 
 tion, so that in case of death other approved men might in 
 succession receive their ministration/ He goes on to speak of 
 ministers * appointed either by them (i.e. the Apostles), or by 
 other men of reputation with the consent of the whole Church/ 
 S. Clement plainly believed that there is a ministry of regular 
 succession appointed by the Apostles, and though he calls the 
 same officer both * eldi^r ' and ' epi-vcopus/ his ' other men of 
 reputation ' seem i)ract)c;illy to be what the Uiter Cluirch 
 called exclusively ' episcopi/ or bidiopj. Anotlker piece of 
 evidence that S. Clement, dtspile tlic toosaoessof liis terminology, 
 recognised tha*c orders is that he quotes as an Old Testament 
 analog)' to the Cliristian ministry' tbc tlircc offices oi high-pricbt, 
 priest, and levitc. 
 
 May wc not fairly conclude (1) that the official ministry* given 
 ordination is of apostolic origin, and (2) tliat episcopacy as ttie 
 later Church knew it was not a mere human dcvelopmeiit out 
 of the office of the cldcr-episcopus, but was part of the original 
 apostolic institution ? 
 
 Two other objections remain to be considered: the first, 
 igalnst the conclusion just stated that elder and bishop ha\x 
 alwaj's been in essence distinct orders ; the second, against 
 tlie more fundamental belief that ordination by the laying 
 on of hands to an official ministry was the rule in the carlict^t 
 times. 
 
 S. Jerome {Cofmn. on Titus 1.) states that bishop and elder 
 were originally the same office ; and f urtlKT (Ep, cxlvi.) that for 
 a. Jerome'i some two hundred years the presbyters of Alexandria 
 ior«sd. simply elected one of their nimiber to be bishop. 
 
 appiutfUtly without any further consecration. But this latter 
 Statement is entirely unsupported by other writers, and it is 
 difficult to harmonise with the wonk of eminent Alexandrines 
 
 THE AGE OF Tl^NSITlON 
 
 51 
 
 like Origen and S. Athaniibius. Moreover, S. Jerome makes it 
 with a distinct animus ; he was anxious to exalt the presbyteratc 
 and show its importance, us a counterblast to the arrogance of 
 the deacons of Rome (p. 270). If it is historically true, it may 
 only mean that the presbyters of Alexandria were really bishops, 
 and had been so ordained on the understanding that any one of 
 them might be called upon by his brethren to assume the supreme 
 office. In any case such an exception to the universil rule makes 
 that universality all the more remarkable. 
 
 The other obj('c1ion is concerned with what .some Gcmuui 
 scholars have styled ' the charismatic ministry.' It is urged that 
 side by side with the official ministry there existed tuo 'cuart*- 
 also the fi-eer ministry exercised by men of eminent ^^^^ 
 ^spiritual gifts, who M'erc recognised ius lawful "^• 
 ministers in the Church without any special ordination, and 
 were allowed to celebrate tlie Eucharist. It is pointed out tluit 
 S Paul in liis list of spiritual gifts docs not speak of apostles, 
 ciders, and deacons, but of * apostles, prophets, teacliers/ etc. 
 But it is by no means clear thikt lie is speaking of offic€s ; his 
 words refer rather to * gifts/ which vary with the individual 
 \gain U>c celebration of the Eucharist appears in 1 Cor. xiv. to 
 be part of tlie olTice of the ' prophet ' ; and in the Didach^ (p. 62) 
 tlie ' prophet ' is recognised as a lawful celebrant. It is mdeed 
 quite ix)55iblc that in some cases individual gifts (chaminaia), 
 espcciaUy in the way of prophcn^y, may in the apostohc age 
 liavc been recognised as cairying vnih them the right to nnnister 
 in the congregation. But there is really very little evidence fof 
 this apart from the Didache (which is of doubtful value) : 
 and' in any case such a ministry disappeared rapidly, and gave 
 place to the R-^ularly ordained ministry. ^ 
 
 But the whole conception of a ^charismatic ministry is 
 l>robably based on a misconception. The primitive Church 
 assumed that a ' charisma/ or special spiritual gift, was rcqmrcd 
 for any sort of office or N^wk in the Church. The bfehop. pres- 
 byter. or deacon t^quaUy required a ' charisma ' ^ith the prophet 
 or teadier. Nor was the gift of prophecy at first regarded as 
 constituting any sort of distinct class or order. Prophecy might 
 
 '« 
 
52 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 THE AGE OF TRANSITION 
 
 53 
 
 be the endowment of any one in the Church, from the Apostles 
 downwards. 
 
 As a matter of history there are no definite cases of individuals 
 being recognised as lawful ministers without the laying on of the 
 hands of an Apostle, or of one commissioned by an Apostle, or in 
 succession to an Apostle. On the contrary, there are very de- 
 finite instances, such as those of CoUuthus and Aerius in the 
 fourth century, where the ordination by an elder instead of a 
 bishop was declared by the Church to be null and void. 
 
 The existence of this ordered system of Church government 
 carried with it from the first a strict and regular disciphne, 
 Church which again tended to preserve unity and stability, 
 
 discipline. Candidates for Baptism were kept for a long time 
 under instruction and probation, during which they were 
 known as * catechumens.' If after Baptism they failed in their 
 new obligations either by a lapse into idolatry, or by any grave 
 moral offence, they were suspended for a time from Christian 
 privileges and especially from Holy Communion. Nor could 
 they be restored until they had professed penitence, performed 
 penance, and received absolution. At first this took place 
 publicly ; but in later days private confession and absolution 
 became the recognised way of return to communion with the 
 Church. But in either case it was probably the regular officials of 
 the Church who would both pronounce sentence, and remove it 
 after confession and penance ; thus exercising the power given 
 by the Lord to His Apostles of ' remitting and retaining.' ^ The 
 severest penalty the Church could inflict was total excommunica- 
 tion. The impenitent sinner was thus regarded as being de- 
 livered to Satan (i Cor. v. 3-5), i.e. sent back into the world of 
 darkness and evil from which his baptism had set him free. 
 
 ^ From this use of confession and absolution was developed the 
 universal use in the later Church of the * sacrament of penance,' as a 
 preparation for Holy Communion. Originally intended only as the means 
 of restoration for those under penance, it gradually became imposed as 
 of obligation upon all members of the Church. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What were the internal perils of the Church after the death of the 
 Apostles ? 
 
 2. What safeguards against these were developed ? 
 
 3. What are the characteristics of the four Gospels ? 
 
 4. Trace briefly the formation of the Canon of the New Testament. 
 
 5. What is the origin of the Creeds ? 
 
 6. What was the distinctive act of worship of the Church ? Describe 
 its main features. 
 
 7. How does the official ministry of the Church appear in the N. T. ? 
 
 8. What difficulties arise in a comparison between this and its later 
 development ? 
 
 9. What is the probable history of the development of the Three Orders ? 
 10. Sketch the disciplinary system of the primitive Church. 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. The Problem of the Gospels : 
 
 Gospe/s in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 Westcott. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. 
 
 J. A. Robinson. The Study of the Gospels (useful for beginners). 
 
 M. Jones. The New Testament in the Twe7itieth Century, 
 
 2. The Formation of the N. T. Canon : 
 
 Westcott. Canon of the New Testament. 
 
 New Testament Canon in Hastings' Dictionary. 
 
 3. The nature and development of the Christian Ministry : 
 
 Lightfoot. Philippians, Dissertation i. 
 Gore. The Church and the Miinstry (ed. by Turner, 1919). 
 Whitham. Holy Orders, in Oxford Library of Practical Theology. 
 Swete. Essays on the Early History of the Church and the 
 Ministry (recent and most valuable). 
 
 4. The History of the Creeds : 
 
 Creed in Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
 Gibson. The Three Creeds. 
 Swete. The Apostles' Creed. 
 
 5. The Liturgical Worship of the Church : 
 
 Duchesne (S.P.C.K.). Christian Worship. 
 Brightman. Liturgies, Eastern and Western. 
 
EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS 
 
 55 
 
 1 S. Clement. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS 
 
 Several important Christian writings have survived, which 
 with more or less certainty have been attributed to the first 
 century, and which were held in such esteem that they were 
 for a time on the margin of the New Testament Canon. 
 
 The Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians. This letter is 
 written in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church of 
 Corinth. The factious spirit which S. Paul had 
 condemned (i Cor. i., etc.) had broken out again 
 and produced a serious quarrel, in which several presbyters 
 had been wrongfully expelled. The letter in a tone of some 
 authority exhorts the Corinthians to peace and to the restoration 
 of the presb3i:ers. Early and universal tradition says that the 
 actual writer was S. Clement, who was Bishop of Rome in the 
 last years of the century. Hence the epistle is usually dated 
 about 95 A.D. But it is also argued that the date may be earUer, 
 even before 70 a.d., for apparently the Temple in Jerusalem 
 was still standing. Possibly Clement wrote it before he was 
 made bishop, and when he was acting as a sort of secretary to 
 the Roman Church.* 
 
 The epistle must have been widely read in the Church services, 
 and not merely at Corinth ; for it is included in one great MS. 
 of the New Testament (in the British Museum — Codex A — 
 Alexandrian of the fifth century). This was for long the only 
 ancient copy of the epistle known, and the ending is defective. In 
 1875 the whole epistle was discovered in an eleventh century MS. 
 
 The epistle is lengthy and much more inclined to be ' wordy ' 
 than the New Testament epistles ; but it is full of interest. 
 The waiter quotes largely from the Old Testament (LXX version) ; 
 
 ' See Edmundson, Bampton Lectures, viii., and cp. Eus. iv. 23, where 
 the letter is said to liave been written ' through Clement.' 
 
 S4 
 
 seldom directly from the New Testament.* But he was evidently 
 well acquainted with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and uses much 
 of its language and its thoughts. He also refers to ' the Epistle 
 of blessed Paul the apostle-which he wrote first unto you at the 
 beginning of the Gospel.' He aUudes to the martyrdom of S. 
 Peter and S. Paul as belonging to ' our generation ' ; and also to 
 the (Neronian) persecution, in which suffered ' a vast multitude 
 of the elect, who, through many indignities and tortures, set 
 a brave example among ourselves.' _ 
 
 The contents may be briefly summarised. The wnter speaks 
 of the piety and zeal of the Corinthian Church, and contrasts 
 with it their present strife. He warns them from p^^^^^tg 
 Scripture, and from the recent persecutions, of the 
 awful effects of jealousy and envy. (Probably it was Jewish 
 intrigues that stirred up the Neronian persecution and the 
 final attacks on S. Peter and S. Paul.) He confronts them with 
 the great examples of Old Testament faith and repentance 
 Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot, David, and the prophets, and 
 especially with the lowliness of Christ Himself (quoting Isa. 
 liii ) Then he appeals to the order and harmony of nature, the 
 heavenly bodies and the seasons. All these are incentives, he 
 says, to put away strife, to repent and return to peace and 
 unity and hoUness. He reminds them of the certamty of judg- 
 ment and the resurrection. Further illustrations of the im- 
 portance of unity and discipline he finds in the example of he 
 Roman armies, and (like S. Paul) in the unity and subordmation 
 of the different members of the body. , t .u^ 
 
 Coming to matters of Church order, he quotes the order of the 
 Old Testament ritual, the Temple and the sacrifices and the 
 ranks of the priesthood. Then (as already described p. 50) he 
 traces the ministry of the Church to the inspired institution o 
 the Apostles themselves. It was they who not only appom ed 
 the first ' bishops and deacons,' but made provision for the future 
 of the Church that these offices should continue. 
 
 . Twice from the Lord's words =/ passage very sta to to S^ Luke vL 
 
56 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Then comes some plain speaking. ' It is disgraceful, beloved, 
 and too disgraceful, and unworthy of the life in Christ, to hear 
 that the most stedfast and ancient Corinthian Church, because 
 of one or two individuals, is in revolt against her presbyters.' 
 He prefers indeed to make appeal to the highest of all principles, 
 Christian love, of which, like S. Paul (i Cor. xiii.), he says many 
 noble and beautiful things. But there is a distinct note of 
 severity in the epistle. ' If certain persons are disobedient to 
 the things spoken by us, let them know that they will fetter 
 themselves in transgression and no small peril.' The letter was 
 sent by the hand of three envoys who are mentioned by name. 
 There is no record of its effect, but apparently it had great 
 weight, and more than half a century afterwards it is referred to 
 in a letter of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, in writing to Rome 
 (Eus. iv. 23). 
 
 In spite of its prolixity and superabundance of quotations, 
 the letter is weighty, and breathes the spirit of deep piety and 
 Character- largeness of mind. It is worthy of the Roman Church, 
 iBtics. and the influence of the imperial atmosphere is not 
 
 wanting in it. The writer clearly looks upon the discipline 
 of the Christian society as divinely ordered, and its ministry 
 as appointed from above. And the Old Testament analogies 
 he quotes, and the language he uses of the ministry, show also 
 that he considered the Christian ministry as a priestly office. 
 ' It will be no small sin to us if we cast out those who have 
 without blame and hoHly offered the gifts of the bishop's office.' 
 
 Clement plainly alludes to the faith in the Trinity, as, for 
 example, in the words, ' As God liveth, and the Lord Jesus 
 Christ Hveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope 
 of the elect.' Such words are practically a summary of the 
 Creed. But perhaps the most beautiful feature of the letter is 
 the reverence and devotion which the writer constantly shows 
 to the Saviour Himself. He is ' the guardian and helper of our 
 weakness,' the ' high-priest and guardian of our souls,' ' in love 
 He took us unto Himself. He gave His blood for us by the 
 will of God, and His flesh for our flesh, and His life for our lives.' 
 And the recently recovered ending of the letter contains what 
 
 
 EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS 
 
 57 
 
 is perhaps a quotation from, or an adaptation of the Eucha- 
 ristic prayer of the Hturgy, giving thanks to the Father for 
 creation and redemption, and interceding in Christ's name for 
 all the needs of His people. 
 
 The so-called Second Epistle of S. Clement was long known 
 only as a fragment ; but the full text was recovered in the same 
 MS. as that of the First Epistle. It was then at once ^ g element, 
 seen to be a sermon, not a letter, and in fact, the 
 first Christian sermon extant after the New Testament. 
 Lightfoot assigns it to the period a.d. 120-140. The sermon is 
 spoken of as ' read,' and apparently its author was a presbyter, 
 who preached it from manuscript in the Church service, 
 after the reading of the Scriptures— (' after the God of truth hath 
 been heard ') — the place for the sermon both in ancient and 
 modern times. It contains frequent quotations from New 
 Testament as well as Old Testament, and also two unrecorded 
 sayings of Christ. Its purpose is twofold, to give glory to Christ, 
 who is spoken of in words of glowing affection and gratitude, 
 and to exhort the congregation to repentance. Already the 
 Church was in danger of a mere external profession of Christianity, 
 which thought Hghtly of sin, and temporised with the world. 
 The congregation, addressed as ' brothers and sisters,' are 
 warned not merely to give heed while they are being ' admonished 
 by the presbyters,' but to remember after they get home, and 
 also to come to church more frequently than they do. And 
 repentance is to be shown by good works. ' Fasting is better 
 than prayer, but almsgiving better than both.' 
 
 The moral dangers of the Church, the failure to maintain a 
 high standard of Hfe. the tendency to fall away to the level of 
 the heathen society around them, and consequently The 
 to deny Christ when persecution came, seem to have Shepherd of 
 been much in the mind of the teachers of the second Hennas, 
 generation of Christians. They inspired one of the most re- 
 markable and most popular books of the primitive Church, The 
 Shepherd. This was written by one Hermas, who is said in the 
 Muratorian fragment to have been a brother of Pope Pius of 
 JRome (140-155). It has, however, been placed considerably 
 
58 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 earlier by some scholars,^ especially as it alludes to a Clement, 
 who may have been the author of the epistle. The Shepherd 
 has been compared to Pilgrim's Progress ; perhaps a better 
 comparison would be to Piers Plowman. Hermas speaks in his 
 own person, and describes a series of ' visions ' which he has 
 received in the neighbourhood of Rome. The burden of the 
 book is the need and value of repentance for sins committed 
 after baptism. It begins with the story of a sinful thought 
 conceived by Hermas himself. The book is divided into 
 three parts — (i) a series of five visions, in which Hermas 
 is convinced of his sin, repents, and is forgiven. He converses 
 with the Church, which appears to him in the form of a very 
 aged" woman in glittering robes, seated on a white throne of 
 snowy wool. He is told, in answer to his question, that she 
 appears very old ' because she was created before all things, 
 and for her sake the world was made.' In subsequent visions 
 she appears to grow younger and more beautiful, because re- 
 pentance brings the renewal of youth. He is also shown the 
 Church under another figure. A great tower is being built up 
 four square, founded upon the waters (of baptism). The builders 
 are angels. Out of a vast number of stones some, being cracked, 
 mildewed, or broken, are rejected and some are chosen, while 
 others in various ways are reserved — as, for example, certain 
 round stones, which are explained as being the rich, who must 
 be cut square, by casting away their riches, before they can fit 
 into the tower. 
 
 Hermas is then handed over to one who appears in the form 
 of a shepherd, and is described as ' the Angel of Repentance.' 
 The Com- The second part of the book consists of twelve 
 mandments. commandments given by this shepherd. (i) The 
 faith and fear of God. (2) Simplicity in speech, in work, and in 
 almsgiving. (3) The love of truth. (4) Purity: divorce is 
 permitted, but not re-marriage after divorce, because the guilty 
 partner, if penitent, must be taken back. Under this head, too, 
 
 * Edmundson, Bampton Lectures^ viii., considers that it must have 
 been written well within the first century, and that thq, Muratorian 
 fragment is wrong — having perhaps confused the writer with one ' Pastor ' 
 (* Shepherd ') wHo was also a brother of Pope Piui^. 
 
 EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS 
 
 59 
 
 it is laid down that only one repentance and restoration is allowed 
 to Christians who sin grievously. (5) Longsuffering. (6) Re- 
 sistance to temptation and decision for righteousness. (7) Fear 
 of God. (8) Temperance. (9) The putting away of a doubtful 
 mind. This, like the following precept, is one of the characteristic 
 lessons of the shepherd. Doublemindedness (cp. S. Jas. i. and 
 Bunyan's ' Mr. Facing-both-ways ') ' fails in all the works which 
 
 it doeth.' 
 
 (10) The putting away of sorrow—' the sister of doubtful- 
 mindedness and anger '— * most fatal to the servants of God.' 
 This is probably the most original contribution which Hermas 
 makes to Christian ethics. Sorrow, he says, crushes out the 
 Holy Spirit, except that sorrow for sin which brings repentance. 
 But even that must give place to a habit of cheerfulness ; ' for 
 the sad man is always committing sin,' and his prayer is never 
 able to ascend to the throne of God. Sadness in prayer is like 
 vinegar mixed with wine, which spoils it. ' Therefore cleanse 
 thyself from this wicked sadness, clothe thyself with cheerfulness, 
 thou shalt live unto God.' 
 
 (11) Beware of false prophets, who prophesy to men for money, 
 only to please them, and whose Hfe is not m accordance with the 
 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 (12) Conquer evil desires by good ones. 
 
 The third part consists of ten Parables, which develop more 
 elaborately the thoughts contained in the first part, of the 
 different elements in the visible Church, the saints The Parables 
 who persevere, the impenitent sinners who are of Hermas.^ 
 finally rejected, and the middle class, to whom the shepherd's 
 warnings are principally directed, who are in various ways im- 
 perfect, and in danger of faUing away altogether, but may still 
 be restored by repentance. 
 
 One parable describes the Church under the figure of a great 
 willow tree, from which a multitude are given branches by an 
 angel. These branches are afterwards given back. The most 
 of them are still green (Hermas regards the majority of the 
 Church as still living in grace) ; some even have sprouted and 
 borne fruit ; but other recipients have their branches withered 
 
Go THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 wholly or in part ; some of those Hermas is told have still hope 
 of repentance, but others are hopeless and apostate. The 
 parable of the building of the tower also reappears in a more 
 elaborate form. The tower when built is inspected by its lord ; 
 he examines each separate stone, and finds some decayed or 
 faulty, which are taken out. Of these some will be entirely 
 rejected, but others may be repaired and still fitted into the 
 masonry. 
 
 Hermas very rarely quotes the Scriptures, but his work is 
 fuU of imagery and phrases derived from Scripture. Nor docs 
 he aUude much to Church ordinances. While his theme is re- 
 pentance, he says nothing of confession and absolution, though 
 it would be unsafe to deduce from this that there was not some 
 recognised method of penance and restoration within the Church 
 of his time. He alludes however to ecclesiastical fasts, called 
 * stations,' and these are disparaged, not in themselves, but 
 because of the unprofitable way in which they are kept. First 
 he is told by the shepherd (in the spirit of Isa. Iviii. 3-1 1) that 
 true fasting means purity of heart and life ; and then that on a 
 fast day he must take only bread and water, and give what is 
 thereby saved to the widow, the orphan, and the poor. 
 
 Hermas was not a theologian, and some of his doctrinal state- 
 ments are very loosely expressed. He apparently even confuses 
 Theology of the Son and the Holy Spirit. But it is not safe 
 Hennas. to base any conclusion on this as to real laxity of 
 
 belief. Theology had not yet arrived at an exact terminology 
 and precision of statement. When Hermas speaks of the Holy 
 Spirit as becoming incarnate, he probably only means to dis- 
 tinguish between the spiritual nature of the Divine Son and His 
 incarnate life. It is clear that Hernias was not regarded as un- 
 orthodox ; for though his statements were caught hold of by 
 the Arians in later days, his book was not only a great favourite 
 in the early Church, but specially recommended to catechumens. 
 Hermas was concerned not with the teaching of doctrine, but 
 with the maintenance of a high moral standard in the Church 
 in a time of great danger when many Christians were tempted 
 to be gloomy, half-hearted, and morally lax. 
 
 EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS 
 
 ()i 
 
 Barnabas. 
 
 The so-called Epistle oj Barnabas probably belongs to the 
 
 first century. It is not a work of great value. Its main thought 
 
 is indeed of high importance, the truth that the 
 
 Christian Church is the real inheritor of the Old 
 
 Testament Scriptures. The Jews, with whom the writer displays 
 
 a great lack of sympathy, have entirely misinterpreted them, as 
 
 is seen in the fact that their Temple has been destroyed. But 
 
 to illustrate this he interprets the Old Testament in a strange 
 
 and fantastic manner, as e.g. the ordinance of the Sabbath means, 
 
 he says, not the hallowing of the seventh day, but of the thousand 
 
 years of Christ, which come after the six thousand years which 
 
 liiiish the period of the first creation. In the same mystical 
 
 \\ ay he interprets the ordinances of the sacrifices, of circumcision, 
 
 of the distinction of clean and unclean meats. Like the later 
 
 Alexandrian scholars (p. 137) he fails to understand the liistorical 
 
 value of the Old Testament ordinances as part of the gradual 
 
 Divine education of the people of God. The treatise thus 
 
 stands on an entirely lower level than the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 
 which is concerned really with the same subject, and is perhaps 
 
 the genuine work of S. Barnabas. 
 
 The greatest historical problem of this early Cluistian Uterature 
 is the date and position of the little treatise called the Didcuhc, 
 or ' The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the ^^ uidach^. 
 Nations.' It was known in antiquity, and given to 
 catechumens to read : Eusebius speaks of it as belonging to the 
 class of writings rejected as uncanonical. It was lost for many 
 centuries, but rediscovered in the same MS. which gave the full 
 text of S. Clement. It consists of two parts. The first is a 
 moral treatise describing the * two ways ' of life and of death. 
 The idea clearly proceeds from the Sermon on the Mount, which 
 is quoted. (Cp. also the concluding part of the Epistle of 
 Barnabas.) It is a warning to Christians against heathen sms, 
 and an exhortation to Christian unity and charity. The second 
 part is exceedingly interesting, as it gives instructions concernmg 
 the administration of baptism, fasting, prayer, the Eucharist, 
 and the treatment of ' apostles and prophets.* 
 
 Baptism by affusion, pouring water thrice on the head, ib 
 
62 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS 
 
 5^ 
 
 permitted in case of necessity— immersion being the normal 
 practice. The Lord's Prayer is to be used three times a day, and 
 Wednesday and Friday to be observed as fasts. The Eucharist is 
 to be celebrated on * the Lord's own day/ preceded by confession of 
 sins. It is called a * sacrifice/ and identified with the ' pure offer- 
 ing ' of Mai. i. II ; and very beautiful forms of Eucharistic blessing 
 and thanksgiving are given. No one who is not baptized is to par- 
 take of it, nor those who are not reconciled with their brethren. 
 A regular ministry of * bishops and deacons ' is spoken of, but 
 evidently a ministry exercised by ' prophets ' was still recognised. 
 Prophets may use what form of Eucharistic thanksgiving they 
 wish. But a false prophet or apostle is to be known by his hfe. 
 and by his asking for money. Prophets are to receive food and 
 to be given the first fruits of one's wealth and stores. But a 
 traveUing apostle or prophet, if he asks for hospitality for more 
 than two days, is a false prophet ; so too is he false if he, under 
 pretence of Divine inspiration, asks for elaborate entertainment 
 or for silver for himself. Evidently the order of prophets, 
 though still recognised and respected, was on the wane. It 
 gave too much opening to itinerant impostors and self-seekers. 
 Thus the Didache, whatever its date, is an interesting illustration 
 of the reasons why the prophetic ministry gave place entirely 
 to the official ministry of ' order.' Christians were evidently also 
 liable to be imposed upon by travellers who tried to get enter- 
 tainment as fellow-behevers. They are told to entertain such 
 for a day or two if necessary, but those who wish to stay longer 
 must work for their bread. Those who wish to five in idleness 
 are * making merchandise of Christ.' 
 
 The Didache has been dated variously from the first century 
 to the fourth. The primitive character of its instructions and 
 the existence of the ' prophets ' point to an early date. Those 
 who refer it to later times consider that it may have emanated 
 from some Jewish sect of Christians who were trying to preserve 
 the customs of the first days of the Church. It has been well 
 described as ' a backwater in the development of Christian 
 thought, lying outside the main current of the literature. ' (Ragg, 
 Church of the Apostles, p. 291.) 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What was the occasion of the First Epistle of Clement to the 
 Corinthians ? 
 
 2. What are its chief arguments ? 
 
 3. What evidence does it contribute to the problem of the origin of the 
 Christian ministry? 
 
 4. Describe the Second Epistle of Clement. 
 
 5. What is the purpose of the ' Shepherd' of Hermas ? 
 
 6. What Christian virtue does it specially emphasise ? 
 
 7. Describe the contents of the Didache. 
 
 8. What value can be assigned to its teaching ? 
 
 Subject for Study. 
 
 A study of the text of these writings : 
 
 Greek text in one \olume, with English translations. T/ie 
 Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot and Harmer. 
 
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE 65 
 
 CHAPTER V. THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 The Roman Empire with the assassination of Domitian and 
 the accession of Nerva (a.d. 9O) entered upon its most prosper- 
 The Golden ous and splendid period. Five virtuous and high- 
 Age of the minded emperors in succession, three of whom were 
 Empire. certainly also men of great abiUty, ruled the 
 
 world for nearly a century (96-180). Gibbon gives his 
 opinion that this was the period in history in which ' the con- 
 dition of the human race was most happy and prosperous ' ; 
 and of the last two emperors, the Antonines, he thinks their 
 united reigns were ' possibly the only period in which the 
 happiness of a great people was the sole object of government.' 
 
 For the Churcli it was a time on the whole of growth and 
 tolerance, though broken by martyrdoms, and ending in a bitter 
 burst of persecution. And it was the age in which we first find 
 the Church breaking her secrecy, and uttering formal protests 
 to the imperial govermnent against the ban placed upon her. 
 
 The aged and gentle Nerva reigned for less than a year and a 
 half (96-98). No definite policy as regards the Church can be 
 assigned to him. He endeavoured to reverse the tyrannical 
 acts of his predecessor, and among the sentences he annulled 
 tradition (p. 30) places that of S. John exiled to Patmos. 
 
 Nerva was succeeded, at his own choice, by one who had no 
 claim of family to the throne, the Spaniard Trajan (98-117), 
 the most distinguished of the imperial generals. 
 He was a brilhant soldier and able administrator ; 
 the first after Augustus who materially advanced the frontiers 
 of the Empire. His conquest of Dacia (the modem Rumania) 
 is commemorated in the rehefs of the great column (erected 113) 
 which still stands almost intact in Rome in the centre of the 
 
 (i4 
 
 Trajan. 
 
 ' Forum of Trajan.' His name became proverbial with the 
 
 Romans for goodness. ' Mayest thou be more prosperous than 
 
 Augustus, and better than Trajan,* was the highest good wish 
 
 that one man could give to another. Medieval legend told how 
 
 Pope Gregory i. , touched by the story of the Emperor's kindness 
 
 to a widow's appeal, prayed for his soul until it was translated 
 
 from hell to heaven, where Dante places him {Par. xx. ; cp. 
 
 Purg. X.). 
 
 * Now doth he know 
 How dear it costeth not to follow Christ : 
 Both from experience of this pleasant life, 
 And of its opposite.' 
 
 From Trajan came the first definite imperial regulation with 
 regard to the Christian Church. Hitherto Christianity had 
 certainly not been a religio licita, and the mere profession of 
 Christ had been considered a capital crime, but there was no 
 imperial statute constituting it such. Its proscription was a 
 matter of custom and precedent, dating back to the days of Nero. 
 
 Matters came to a head in the famous correspondence between 
 the Emperor and the distinguished scholar Pliny the younger, 
 who was governor of Bithynia some time between puny's 
 the years 103 and 113. Pliny wrote to the Emperor letter, 
 to ask for guidance as to procedure in the case of those 
 accused of being Christians. He states that Christianity is 
 widely spread, and attracts a great number of all ages and ranks ; 
 it affects the country districts as well as the towns ; the temples 
 of the gods have been almost deserted, and the market for 
 fodder for the sacrificial animals has fallen very low. What 
 is he to do ? He has no experience, and has never been present 
 at the trials of Christians ; he is not certain whether they are to 
 be executed for the mere profession of the name of Christ, or for 
 the ' crimes ' which are intimately connected with it. His own 
 procedure hitherto, he says, has been to ask the accused three 
 times whether he were a Christian or not, warning him of 
 the consequences ; if he persisted he was ordered to execution, 
 or if he was a Roman citizen he was sent to Rome to be judged. 
 Matters had become more serious through anonymous accusations 
 
66 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 involving a large number of persons. Some of these denied they 
 had ever been Christians ; others were ready to renounce Christ 
 and sacrifice to the gods and the Emperor. What is to be done 
 
 in these latter cases ? 
 
 The most interesting part of Pliny's letter to us is what he 
 says he has discovered by examining prisoners, as to the practices 
 Christian of Christians. They told him that their crime was 
 practices. no more than this. They had been accustomed 
 on a fixed day to meet before dawn and to recite by turns 
 a hymn addressed to Christ as a God; they bound them- 
 selves by a ' sacramentum,' not indeed to commit any crime, but 
 to abstain from theft or robbery or adultery, not to break faith, 
 nor to repudiate a debt. After this was done it was their custom 
 to depart, and again to assemble to take food, but food of an 
 ordinary and innocent kind ; and even this they had given up 
 after PHny had published Trajan's edict forbidding clubs. 
 
 This was all that Pliny had been able to discover, even though 
 he had put to the torture two women-servants whom the Chris- 
 tians called * ministrae ' (no doubt, deaconesses). But reading 
 between the lines, it discloses a good deal. ' Sacramentum ' 
 may have meant to Phny merely an ' oath,' or some solemn 
 religious rite. There seems Uttle doubt, however, that it was 
 for the Christians a veiled allusion to their 'mystery,* the 
 Eucharist. The fixed day on which it was celebrated was, 
 no doubt, Sunday ; the time was no longer night, but in the 
 early morning, preceded by antiphonal psalmody; possibly 
 the Commandments were recited, but at any rate Christians 
 were solemnly admonished not to commit any sin unworthy of 
 Christ. Then later in the day followed the Agape or love- 
 feast, now definitely separated from the Eucharist, and which 
 Christians had been willing to discontinue, to avoid as far as 
 possible falHng under the Emperor's edict. 
 
 The reply of Trajan is terse and definite ; but clearly of the 
 nature of a compromise between the common sense of a ruler 
 Trajan's who felt that there was not much danger in 
 
 reply. Christianity, and the necessity, as he thought, 
 
 of maintaining the precedents set by previous Emperors. 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE 67 
 
 No fixed rule, says Trajan, can be laid down to suit all 
 cases. Christians are not to be sought out, but if accused 
 and convicted they must be punished. Those who recant and 
 sacrifice must be acquitted. Anonymous charges are to be 
 ignored. They form a very bad precedent and are an anachron- 
 ism (alluding to the evil of * informers ' under some previous 
 Emperors). 
 
 This letter or rescriptum of the Emperor would have the force 
 of an imperial law. Christianity is now clearly a crime in itself, 
 but systematic persecution is discouraged — a somewhat illogical 
 piece of state-craft. The rescript seems to have had some effect 
 in checking official persecution. The great danger for Christians 
 now lay in the hatred and suspicion of the heathen populace, 
 excited by Jews, heathen priests, or those whose Hvelihood was 
 threatened by the spread of Christianity. Christians accused de- 
 finitely before a magistrate, and confessing Christ, could hardly 
 escape sentence of death. 
 
 One most eminent Christian suffered martyrdom under 
 Trajan, though the date and circumstances are somewhat un- 
 certain. This was Ignatius, surnamed Theophoros 
 (bearer of God), Bishop of Antioch. Scarcely 
 anything is known of his early life ; some fragments of tradition 
 alone have been preserved, as, for example, that he was one of 
 the little children whom our Lord blessed, that he had learned 
 the faith from the Apostles themselves, and had been placed 
 in the bishopric of Antioch, in succession to Euodius, by S. 
 Peter himself. He is said to have been accused by the populace 
 of Antioch of having caused an earthquake, and brought before 
 the Emperor himself while he was staying at Antioch. The 
 bishop boldly confessed his faith, and explained his name, 
 Theophoros, by saying that he carried the Crucified within his 
 heart. Trajan sentenced him to be sent to Rome and thrown 
 to the lions in the Colosseum. The martyr publicly thanked 
 God for the sentence, which, he said, ' bound him to the Apostle 
 Paul with bonds of iron.' The date of this is variously estimated 
 between 107 and 117. Trajan was in Antioch in 114 ; but 
 opinion now inclines to the earlier date. 
 
 S. Ignatius. 
 
68 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 So far, however, all is legendary, but the journey to Rome 
 brings the martyr into full historical view. It Hlustrates also 
 The journey the remarkable way in which different centres of 
 to Rome. the Church communicated with one another, and 
 how easHy and constantly messages and delegates passed between 
 them. Ignatius, with two fellow-prisoners, was conducted from 
 Antioch via Philadelphia to Smyrna, and thence to Troas, by 
 a guard of ten soldiers, whom he himself describes as ' ten leopards 
 who only grow worse as they are kindly treated.' Apparently 
 the Christians of Tralles, Magnesia, and Ephesus had expected 
 that he would be taken along the more southern road which 
 passed through these places. But when it was found that 
 another route was being taken, delegates from these churches, 
 including in each case the bishop, were sent to Smyrna to greet 
 the martyr. He received them and sent back to each church a 
 letter. He also at the same time despatched a letter to the 
 Church of Rome, to prepare the Roman Christians for his 
 martyrdom, and to beseech them not to use their influence to 
 deliver him from death. 
 
 He was then conducted to Troas, whence he wrote three more 
 letters, one to Philadelphia where he had stayed on the journey 
 to Smyrna, another to Smyrna, and a third to his late host, 
 Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. 
 
 From Troas he was taken partly by sea and partly by land to 
 Rome. The only other stopping place known to us on his 
 journey is PhiHppi. At Rome he suffered martyrdom as he 
 desired, being thrown to the lions in the great amphitheatre, 
 as a spectacle to the idle crowds of Rome— the traditional date 
 
 being December 20. 
 
 These seven letters, in their two groups (Ephesus, Magnesia, 
 TraUes, Rome, and Philadelphia, Smyrna, Polycarp), were 
 ^g ' known to Eusebius, but, though apparently much 
 Letters of read, are comparatively Uttle quoted in antiquity, 
 s. Ignatius, ^th the exception of that to the Romans. 
 
 A long and remarkable controversy on the subject lasted 
 from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, but it 
 may now be regarded as practically certain that we possess 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE 69 
 
 correct copies of all the seven. The question of their authenticity 
 had been compUcated by the labours of both forgers and abbrevi- 
 ators. At some early date, probably not long after the time of 
 Eusebius, some ingenious person expanded the seven letters, 
 and wrote six more. This set, which is known as the ' Longer 
 Recension,' became familiar to the Western Church in the later 
 Middle Ages. But in the seventeenth century the seven genuine 
 epistles were rediscovered, first in a Latin translation made in 
 England in the thirteenth century, and then in Greek in a MS. 
 found at Florence by Voss. 
 
 The matter was however again complicated by the discovery 
 in the nineteenth century by Cureton of a still shorter set of letters 
 in Syriac, only three (Polycarp, Ephesians, Romans), and these 
 abbreviated. For some time these were maintained to be the 
 original letters, the source of the seven as well as of the longer 
 recension. But the labours of the great scholar. Bishop Lightf oot 
 of Durham, have now pretty conclusively proved that the seven 
 are after all the genuine ones, and that the three are only an 
 abridgment probably made by some heretic for his own purposes. 
 It is interesting to note the great part that English learning has 
 played in this matter. The correct text was preserved in the 
 Latin translation of the thirteenth century, probably made 
 by Bishop Grosseteste of Lincoln. It was Archbishop Ussher 
 who discovered this, and used it to confound Milton and other 
 Puritans, who for obvious reasons (as will be seen) wished to 
 prove the whole of the Ignatian writings to be spurious. In the 
 later seventeenth century. Bishop Pearson again vindicated the 
 seven letters ; and, lastly, it was Bishop Lightfoot who enabled 
 the Church to feel confident that these great treasures of the age 
 of the early martyrs are indeed authentic. 
 
 There is no mistaking the importance and the value of these 
 seven letters. Not only are they of thrilling human interest ; 
 they throw a flood of light on the teaching, organisa- The teach- 
 tion, and tone of the Church in Asia Minor, in the ing of 
 years immediately following the death of S. John. »• i&J^atius. 
 They are quite the most valuable early Church hterature after 
 the writings of the New Testament. The writer was a repre- 
 
Unity. 
 
 70 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 sentative Christian, and occupied the position of head of the 
 most important Church centre of the age. Probably he had been 
 personally acquainted with the Apostles. 
 
 What, then, is the message which Ignatius gives at the cnsis 
 of his hf'e to the Church of East and West ? The key-note of his 
 letters is unity. This is not only the safeguard 
 against false doctrine within and persecution with- 
 out ; it is essential to Christian loyalty to Christ. The ex- 
 pression ' the CathoHc Church ' occurs for the first time in Ignatms 
 {Smyr. 8). But the epistles are full of Christ, and aU that the 
 writer has to say about Church organisation and Ufe centres in 
 Christ. If either circumcised or uncircumcised * speak not con- 
 cerning Jesus Christ, I look upon them as tombstones and graves 
 of the dead, on which are inscribed only the names of men. ' 
 
 The unity of the Church in Christ must carry with it unity 
 of ministry, of sacraments, of doctrine. As to the official ministry 
 ' the testimony of Ignatius is most significant. He 
 has no confusion of bishop and presbyter. He 
 speaks perfectly definitely of the three orders, bishop, presbyter, 
 and deacon, and not as a new thing which needs explaining, but 
 as an estabUshed and fundamental institution which only needs 
 loyal acceptance. ' Without these (three orders) ' there is not 
 even the name of a church (Trail. 3). To be subject to the 
 bishop is to be subject to Christ. No one is to do anythmg m 
 the Church without the bishop (Smyr. 8, Phil. 7, Magn. 7, Trail. 
 3, 7). It is not lawful to baptize or celebrate the Eucharist or 
 even hold a ' love-feast,' without the consent of the bishop 
 (Smyr. 8). ' Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is 
 under the bishop, or one to whom he himself commits it.' The 
 presbyters are the council of the bishop ; to obey them is to obey 
 the Apostles, and they are to the bishop as the strings to the 
 
 harp (Eph. 4). ^ , 1 
 
 The sacraments and especiaUy the Eucharist figure largely 
 in Ignatius. The ' bread of God,' ' the medicine of immortality ' 
 The (^M- 20), is evidently the central feature of the 
 
 Eucharist. Hfe of Christians in the Church. The bread is * the 
 flesh of the Saviour, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which 
 
 The Ministry. 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE 71 
 
 the Father raised up ' (Smyr, 7) : the cup is ' for union with His 
 
 blood ' (PhU. 4). 
 
 The doctrinal statements of Ignatius are vivid and original in 
 expressions, but perfectly in harmony both with the New Testa- 
 ment and with later definitions. He speaks of Theology of 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; the Deity of Christ is s. Ignatius, 
 a constant refrain : ' Jesus Christ our God,' ' the blood of God,' 
 are characteristic phrases. The Virgin-birth receives remarkable 
 testimony in more than one passage. ' Hidden from the prince 
 of this worid were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing 
 and the death of the Lord : those mysteries of shouting (i.e. 
 to be now proclaimed aloud) which were wrought in the silence 
 of God ' (Eph. 19). ' Jesus Christ was with the Father before 
 the ages, and in the end was made manifest ' (Magn. 6). * He 
 is the Word of the Father, proceeding forth from silence ' (Magn. 
 8). 'He died for us that, beheving in His death, we may escape 
 
 death ' (Trail. 2). 
 
 Ignatius uses remarkable language in describing the union of 
 the two natures in the one person of the Saviour. ' There is 
 one physician, fleshly and spiritual, born and unborn, God in 
 man, true life in death, born both of Mary and of God, first 
 passible, and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord' 
 (Eph. 7). (Cp. also Polyc. 3.) The errors against which he warns 
 the churches are (i) the spirit of schism and faction ; (2) Judaiz- 
 ing; (3) Docetism, i.e. the error which was to appear pro- 
 minently in a few years' time in the teaching of the Gnostics, 
 the denial of the physical reality of our Lord's flesh, and of His 
 bodily Ufe, death, and resurrection. * He suffered truly, as also 
 He raised Himself truly, not as certain unbeUevers say that His 
 sufferings were in appearance only ' (Smyr. 6). He goes on to 
 illustrate this by reference to the bodily appearance of the Lord 
 after the resurrection, the touching of His body by the disciples, 
 and His eating and drinking with them ' though spiritually 
 
 united with the Father.' 
 
 The attitude of Ignatius towards the Scriptures is also lull ui 
 interest. The prophets of the Old Testament hoped in Christ 
 and pointed to Him, and are saved by Him (Phil. 5, 9)- The 
 
72 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Gospel is the completion of their preaching and superior to it. 
 He alludes apparently to a written Gospel, whose authority 
 Knowledge some factious persons were trying to disparage in 
 of the comparison with the ancient writings. He quotes, 
 
 Scriptures. somewhat sparingly, from the Scriptures himself, 
 but his whole language is simply interfused with that of S. 
 Paul's Epistles— pointing to constant study, and almost uncon- 
 scious reproduction. There are remarkable traces also of a 
 knowledge of S. John's Gospel, e.g. ' the bread of God,' ' the Uving 
 water,' Christ ' the Word,' and ' the Door ' ; ' the world ' and ' the 
 prince of this world,' in S. John's sense, and a quotation from 
 
 S. John iii. 
 
 The style of Ignatius is all his own ; it bears marks indeed of 
 the hurry and tension of a journey in chains to death, but it 
 glows and sparkles with life and zeal. There is something of 
 the Oriental love of imagery and of piHng up phrases ; but there 
 is also terseness, vigour, and epigrammatic power. 
 
 The personahty of the writer comes out most briUiantly in the 
 Epistle to the Romans. In this case alone, curiously enough, 
 Ignatius does not mention the bishop of the church addressed ; 
 but he certainly assigns a supremacy (of ' love ') to the Roman 
 Christians, and he crowds adjective upon adjective to express 
 his admiration for them. But he fears lest they may in their 
 mistaken love try to rescue him from death. Ignatius is on 
 fire for martyrdom : death will be the crown of his endeavour 
 and the attainment to Christ and to true discipleship. ' I am 
 God's wheat,' he says, ' and I am ground by the teeth of wild 
 beasts that I may be found pure bread,'—' It is good for me to 
 die for Jesus Christ's sake rather than to reign over the lords 
 of the earth. Him I seek who died for us : Him I desire who 
 rose again. The pangs of birth are upon me— hinder me not 
 
 from life.' 
 
 Trajan was succeeded in 117 by his relation and adopted 
 
 heir, AeUus Hadrianus. The Emperor Hadrian proved one 
 
 of the ablest rulers and most remarkable 
 
 Hadrian. personalities who ever wore the purple. One of 
 
 the most cultured scholars of his age, poet and philosopher. 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE 73 
 
 he seems to have been skilled in almost every branch of art 
 and learning. He had a passion for travel, and no part of the 
 Empire was unvisited or uncared for by him. He was a most 
 able and economical administrator ; and with the exception of 
 the last few months of his life, when he was suffering from 
 painful disease, he showed himself merciful, sympathetic, and 
 large-minded. He left enduring memorials of himself, in Britain, 
 in the great wall from Carlisle to Newcastle, built with the 
 intention of keeping the Scots in their own country ; at Rome 
 in the great mausoleum, which in the Middle Ages became a 
 fortress, and is now known as the Castle of San Angelo ; and 
 at Tivoli in his magnificent villa, with its enclosure of ten miles 
 circuit, in which he collected memorials and representations of 
 all the art and civiHsation of his Empire. 
 
 But Hadrian's disposition was fickle, moody, and superstitious. 
 The lines he is said to have composed on his gloomy and painful 
 death-bed, an address to his ' poor little soul,' seem well to fit 
 both his genius and the characteristic heathen outlook into the 
 
 unknown. 
 
 ' Fickle, roving, charming sprite, 
 The body's guest and comrade bright, 
 Whither goest now ? To what shore ? 
 Naked, chilly, deathly white,— 
 All thy youthful jests are o'er.' ^ 
 
 The Church had reason to be grateful to Hadrian, for his 
 moderation and his philosophic attitude, which discouraged 
 persecution. Though its authenticity has been Letter to 
 doubted, it seems now sufficiently established that Fundanus. 
 Hadrian was the author of a second rescript regarding the 
 Christians. Probably about 124 he wrote this letter to Fundanus. 
 Proconsul of Asia, to protect them against popular clamours, 
 which had resulted in grave outrages. The rescript is on the 
 same fines as that of Trajan, discouraging active persecution, 
 but quite vague as to whether the profession of Christianity is 
 
 1 Animula vagula, blandula, 
 Hospes comesque corporis ; 
 Quae nunc abibis in loca 
 Pallidula, rigida, nudula, 
 Nee ut soles dabis jocos. 
 
74 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 in itself a crime, thus leaving a loophole for mercy or policy. 
 Definite evidence, the Emperor says, must be brought forward 
 that the accused have broken the laws. Mere outcries are 
 not evidence. Moreover, any prosecutor who fails to make 
 out his case is himself to be put on trial for ' calumnia '— 
 
 slander. 
 
 The somewhat cynical tone of the rescript is characteristic 
 of Hadrian, and its vagueness does not appear Hke the work of 
 a forger. It points undoubtedly to the increasing difficulty which 
 good emperors felt in continuing the old poHcy,. while at the same 
 time they did not dare to reverse it in the face of precedent and 
 popular feehng. They evidently wanted the Christians to be 
 left alone, if they would keep themselves quiet and did not 
 commit any other crimes. 
 
 From this time to the reign of the Emperor Gallienus (p. 
 159) the Church occupied an anomalous legal position. In 
 theory, Christianity was absolutely illicita, and liable to ex- 
 Legai posi- treme penalties. And yet for considerable periods 
 tion of the the Church was left undisturbed, and even to some 
 Church. extent had legal recognition. Christians occupied 
 
 important positions in the State ; the clergy held property in 
 trust ; Christian appeals were taken to the Emperor. Yet at any 
 moment a popular outburst or a fanatical Emperor might bring 
 about an attack on a prominent Christian, or even on the 
 Christians of a whole district. 
 
 For the most part, under Hadrian and his successor, the 
 Church as a whole enjoyed peace. Not only the attitude of the 
 Emperors themselves, but possibly two other causes contributed 
 to this : the final scattering of the Jews, and the rise of the 
 Christian ' Apologists.' 
 
 The Jews, during the latter years of Trajan, had revolted in 
 Egypt, Cyrene, Cyprus, and Mesopotamia. These revolts had 
 The last been mercilessly suppressed, but in 131 another 
 
 Jewish took place in Judaea, under a false Messiah, who 
 
 rebeUion. called himself Bar-cochab (' son of a star,' in allusion 
 to Balaam's prophecy of the star rising out of Jacob). The 
 rebels seized Jerusalem, which Hadrian was apparently rebuild- 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE 75 
 
 ing, and they were not finally crushed, nor without terrific 
 bloodshed, till 135. The old city was completely razed to the 
 ground, and Hadrian gave one of his own names to the new city, 
 caUing'it AeUa Capitolina. A temple of Jupiter was erected 
 on the site of the Jewish Temple, and no Jew was allowed to 
 enter the city under pain of death. A Christian Church arose 
 in Aelia, which was entirely composed of Gentile Christians, 
 the first bishop being one Marcus. 
 
 The Jews everywhere fell under the cloud of imperial dis- 
 pleasure, and their malice and accusations against the Christians 
 must henceforth have had Uttle influence. Indeed, in showing 
 some favour or toleration to the Christians, the Roman officials 
 would know that they were adding one more drop of bitterness 
 to the cup of Jewish calamity. 
 
 The rise of the Apologists about this time was a significant 
 phenomenon. Hitherto Christians had suffered without pro- 
 test, and had striven only to keep the veil drawn The 
 closely over their own institutions and beUefs. But Apologists, 
 now, not only was the Emperor known to be a man of moderation 
 and justice, but the Church was beginning to include among 
 her members many men of learning and literary power, especially 
 those drawn from the ranks of the ' philosophers.' So in the 
 reign of Hadrian begin to appear written defences of Christianity 
 addressed— not officially, but by individual Christians— to the 
 Emperors or to leading state officials. 
 
 The first known apologies are those of Quadratus and Aristides, 
 who are said to have presented them to Hadrian while at Athens, 
 about A.D. 126, when he was being initiated into the Q^^^ratus. 
 Eleusinian mysteries. The apology of Aristides is 
 perhaps later, and addressed not to Hadrian but to his successor. 
 M. Antoninus Pius. Quadratus was apparently a man of con- 
 siderable importance and influence, though probably not to 
 be identified with the Quadratus whom Eusebius mentions as 
 a ' prophet,' nor with a third who was afterwards Bishop of 
 Athens. The apology, now lost, was knoNMi to Eusebius, who 
 quotes from it one striking sentence respecting the miracles ot 
 Clirist. Quadratus says that these were ' always present (i.e. 
 
Aristides. 
 
 76 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 they could be examined and tested, unlike the works of sorcery), 
 for those whom He healed or raised from the dead, Uved on after 
 the Ascension, and some of them ' even to our own day/ 
 
 Aristides was a converted philosopher. His apology, long 
 thought to be lost, was discovered in 1890, in a Syriac 
 translation. It was then identified with an 
 already well-known passage in the early Chris- 
 tian romance called Barlaam and Josaphat. The author of 
 the latter— perhaps in the sixth century— had worked Aristides' 
 apology into a speech in the mouth of one of his characters. 
 
 Aristides attacks vigorously the religions of Barbarians, 
 Greeks, and Egyptians for their folly and immoral tendencies. 
 He is particularly severe on the beast and vegetable divinities 
 of Egypt. Of the Jews he writes with more forbearance. They 
 are nearer the truth, believing in one God, and doing works of 
 charity to the poor, ransoming captives and burying the dead. 
 He finds fault with them because he says they worship angels 
 rather than God, and are devoted to outward observances. 
 But the Christians are, he says, a new people, with which some- 
 thing divine is mingled. * They have found the truth, and the 
 world itself stands by their intercession. They live pure and 
 holy lives, full of humiUty and charity. They do not count 
 death as an evil, but sin only. They are the followers of Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God most high, who came down from heaven 
 and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh.' 
 He is to be the judge of all mankind. The greatest interest of 
 Aristides lies in the fact that it is easy to reconstruct from his 
 statements an outline of a Creed, which corresponds very closely 
 with our Apostles' Creed. The virgin-birth of our Lord is as 
 clearly believed by him as by S. Ignatius. 
 
 On somewhat the same lines as the Apology of Aristides, 
 though of much greater Hterary power and beauty, is the Epistle 
 Epistle to to Diognetus — probably written about 150. The 
 DiognetuB. author is unknown ; so, too, is the Diognetus to whom 
 it is addressed, though he has been conjectured to have been 
 the tutor of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. The epistle seems 
 to have been Httle known in antiquity, it is unmentioned by 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE 77 
 
 Eusebius or other writers, and only one manuscript of it sur- 
 vived. ^ It is thoroughly Pauline in language and thought, and 
 in the glow of its refined enthusiasm. 
 
 Diognetus is addressed as one who is searching to know the 
 truth about Christianity. He is warned at the outset to put 
 away preconceptions, and to approach the subject as an entirely 
 ' new man.' He is shown (much in the manner of Aristides) 
 the folly of idolatry. Next is unfolded the folly of Judaism— 
 a passage something in the spirit of the Epistle of Barnabas, 
 very hostile and by no means doing justice to the facts of Old 
 Testament revelation. Then follows a most beautiful descrip- 
 tion of the Christian society, in the world, but not of it, to which 
 every country is alike its own, and yet a strange land ; a society 
 which is like the soul of the world, everywhere recognised, though 
 unseen, immortal amidst mortal surroundings, hated, and yet 
 loving,' oppressed Hke the soul in the body, and yet Hke the 
 soul sustaining the whole. 
 
 Christianity is no human invention, but revealed by God, 
 unknown before, through His Son, who is Himself the designer 
 and maker of the universe. God sent His Son, not to tyrannise 
 and terrify but ' in gentleness and meekness, as a king sending 
 his royal son. He sent Him as God. He sent Him as a man 
 to men, intending to save, to persuade, not to compel. ... He 
 sent Him as one caUing, not pursuing, as one lovmg and not 
 judging ' The writer's devotion rises to a climax of eloquence 
 when in a passage worthy of S. Paul, he describes the love of the 
 Atonement : ' O the sweet exchange, O the unsearchable work, 
 the unlooked for benefits ; that the wickedness of many 
 should be hidden in one righteous man, and the righteousness 
 of one should justify many wicked.' FinaUy he discusses what 
 it means to be a Christian. It means to love God, to imitate 
 God to behold and know Him, and to be able to take the true 
 measure of human hfe and its destiny. In a passage to be com- 
 mended to the admirers of Nietzsche, he says, ' Happmess con- 
 sists not in lording it over one's neighbours, nor m desiring to 
 
 1 Even this has now perished, having been burnt at Strasburg in the 
 Franco-German war of 1870. 
 
78 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 get the advantage over the weaker, to become rich and to do 
 violence to those who lack ; not in these things can one be an 
 imitator of God ; these things lie outside His greatness. But 
 whoever bears the burden of his neighbour, and wills to benefit 
 the inferior out of his own advantages, whoever supphes to 
 the needy the things which he has received from God, he 
 becomes as God to those who receive, and is an imitator of 
 
 God.' 
 
 This epistle is tliroughout a splendid example of the effect 
 of the Christianity of the New Testament when it fell on 
 the congenial soil of a noble disposition, that of a lover 
 of truth trained and cultivated by Greek learning and 
 philosophy. 
 
 The epistle is apparently imperfect at the end, the two con- 
 cluding sections being by another but not unworthy hand, 
 one who describes himself as ' a disciple of the Apostles and a 
 teacher of the Gentiles.' He had studied deeply S. John as well 
 as S. Paul, as we see from this striking phrase, ' This Word, 
 which was from the beginning, who appeared new and was 
 found old, and evermore is begotten young in the hearts of the 
 
 saints.' 
 
 In 138 Hadrian was succeeded by Antoninus Pius (138-161), 
 whom he chose for the throne on grounds of merit alone. There 
 is Httle to record about Antoninus except his virtues : 
 not a warrior like Trajan, nor a versatile scholar 
 like Hadrian, he studied peace, and practised charity, Hving a 
 quiet and unostentatious home-hfe at his country-seat in Etruria ; 
 he was pre-eminently a ruler to whom the defenders of the 
 Church felt they could with some confidence make their 
 
 appeal. 
 
 The most important and interesting of the Apologies was 
 addressed to him, about the year 150, by the philosopher Justin, 
 s. Justin sumamed afterwards ' the Martyr.' Justin was the 
 Martyr. author of several books. In addition to this Apology, 
 
 called the first, he wTote a shorter second Apology addressed 
 to the Roman Senate, and a Dialogue with a Jew called Trypho. 
 These* (are extant and authentic. Eusebius mentions several 
 
 Antoninus. 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE yq 
 
 other works of his (iv. 18). The Dialogue with Trypho opens 
 with an interesting statement by Justin about his own con- 
 version. He was of Greek race, though born in Palestine (about 
 103 A.D.), and embraced the study of philosophy, being earnest 
 in his search after truth and the knowledge of God. He tried 
 in succession all the most popular systems of philosophy of the 
 day, but without satisfaction. First he attached himself to a 
 Stoic teacher, but soon left him, for he found that he neither 
 knew anything about God nor valued such knowledge. Then 
 he began to study with one of the Peripatetics, the school of 
 Aristotle, but left him in disgust at the man's eagerness for 
 payment' in advance. Next, he went to a cek^brated 
 Pythagorean ; but this man required a preliminary study of 
 music, astronomy, and geometry, before anything could be 
 taught of what Justin wished to know. The Platonists. finally, 
 he found more promising, and in studying with them he felt 
 himself lifted up by the contemplation of the ' ideas,' and thought 
 he would soon arrive at the knowledge of God. But at this 
 point he met one day by the sea-shore a mysterious old man, 
 of venerable appearance, who first questioned him in Socratic 
 manner about his studies, and then directed him to the study 
 of the prophets and to Christ. Christianity, he found by ex- 
 perience, to be the true philosophy ; and, still retammg his 
 philosopher's gown, he travelled about as a Christian teacher, 
 settUng finally in Rome. Here to the Emperor and his family 
 (addressed as 'philosophers'), to the Senate and the Roman 
 people, he directed his Apology on behalf of those ' who are 
 
 unjustly hated.' . 
 
 The Apology is not a great literary production, being badly 
 arranged, but it is bold and large-minded. He appeals to 
 the justice of the Emperor, and demands that ^ne Apology. 
 Christianity should no longer be considered as a 
 crime He vindicates the Christian against the charges ot 
 atheism, immorality, and disloyalty, and dwells strongly upon 
 the moral fruits of Christianity in contrast with the effects ot 
 heathen religion. These topics are the commonplaces of the 
 Apologists But Justin strikes out a new line by proceeding 
 
8o THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 to explain to the Emperor both the belief and the worship of 
 Christians, matters hitherto kept secret from the heathen. He 
 testifies to the Godhead and pre-existence of Jesus Christ, and 
 the preparation for His advent through the Jewish prophets. 
 His statements, like those of Hermas, are not always expressed 
 with the exactness of later theology, but there can be no doubt 
 of their real orthodoxy. And he originates a thought (implicit 
 in S. John i.), which the great teachers of Alexandria after- 
 wards developed, that the Word who became incarnate in Christ 
 had been in the world through all history, and that all of good 
 and true in heathen thought and character had been due to His 
 indwelHng; so that Socrates and others might be described 
 as Christians before Christ. But the most interesting part of 
 his Apology to us is his account of the Christian observances of 
 Baptism and the Eucharist. 
 
 As to Baptism, he says, ' As many as are persuaded and 
 beheve that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to 
 The Sacra- be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray 
 ments. and to entreat God, with fasting, for the remission 
 
 of sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then 
 they are brought by us to where there is water, and are re- 
 generated in the same manner in which we ourselves were 
 regenerated. For in the name of God the Father and Lord 
 of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the 
 Holy Ghost, they then receive the washing with water. For 
 Christ also said, '* Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven." ' Justin also states that 
 this washing is called ' illumination,' and that by it the 
 baptized who has repented receives the remission of his past 
 
 sins. 
 
 The baptized are then received in the Christian assembly, 
 and permitted to receive of the ' food called Eucharist,' which 
 none may receive except they beheve Christian teaching to be 
 true, have been baptized, and are so hving as Christ commanded. 
 This consecrated food, consisting of bread and a cup of mixed 
 wine and water, is described by him in remarkable words : ' For 
 not as common bread or common drink do we receive these 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE 8i 
 
 things, but even as Jesus Christ our Saviour was by the word of 
 God made flesh, and took both flesh and blood for our salvation, 
 so also have we been taught that the food for which thanks 
 have been given through the prayer of the word that comes 
 from him (by which food our blood and flesh are nourished by 
 transmutation), is both the flesh and the blood of that Jesus 
 who was made flesh.' This somewhat complicated statement 
 is partly explained by the context. ' The prayer of the word 
 that comes from him ' refers apparently to the vvords of in- 
 stitution which formed the basis of a prayer : for Justin proceeds, 
 ' For the Apostles in the memoirs made by them, which are 
 called Gospels, have thus handed down that Jesus enjoined 
 them when He had taken bread and given thanks, " Do this 
 for the remembrance of me, this is my body " ; and similarly 
 having taken the cup and given thanks. He said, " This is my 
 blood," and that he shared it with them alone.' 
 
 In a somewhat disconnected way, Justin also describes the 
 form of service in which this consecration of the Eucharist took 
 place. Putting together the two accounts he gives, we may 
 arrive at the following outline of the service, the first statement 
 on the subject we possess from a Christian writer. 
 
 On the ' so-called day of the Sun ' (so chosen because it was 
 the first day of creation, the day of light, and because on it the 
 Saviour rose from the dead), Christians assemble, ^iie Liturgy. 
 The memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the 
 prophets are read aloud as time permits. The ' president ' 
 then dehvers a sermon exhorting obedience to what has been 
 read. Then follow prayers to the same end, on behalf of all 
 Christians everywhere, which all present take part in, standing. 
 At the conclusion of these prayers they salute one another with 
 a kiss. Then bread and a cup of wine and water are brought 
 to the president ; ' he takes them and offers up praise and 
 glory to the Father of the universe through the Name of the 
 Son and the Holy Spirit, and to the best of his power makes 
 a long thanksgiving because God has deigned to bestow these 
 things upon us.' All the people present express assent to this 
 thanksgiving by the Hebrew word ' Amen.' Then those who 
 
82 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 are called ' deacons ' distribute the bread and the cup for which 
 thanksgiving has thus been offered, to all present, and carry a 
 portion also to those who are absent. Further, a collection 
 of alms is made, of which the president takes charge, to reheve 
 orphans, widows, strangers, and those in want through sickness 
 
 or any other cause. 
 
 The Liturgy thus consisted of the following parts at least : 
 
 Reading of Scriptures. 
 
 Sermon. 
 
 Intercessory Prayer. 
 
 Kiss of Peace. 
 
 Presentation of the Elements. 
 
 Long Prayer of Thanksgiving. 
 
 The Amen. 
 
 The Communion. 
 
 (Collection of Alms.) 
 
 The First Apology, which was accompanied by a copy of 
 the rescript of Hadrian to Fundanus (p. 73), had apparently no 
 effect Shortly afterwards the prefect of the city, Urbicus. 
 condemned summarily to death three Christians, who were not 
 convicted of any other crime. Justin then addressed his second 
 and much shorter Apology to the Roman Senate. In the 
 course of this he speaks of the plots made against himself by 
 a certain Cynic philosopher, one Crescens, a bitter and ignorant 
 enemy of the Christians, with whom Justin had held a public 
 disputation. The latter seems after this to have left Rome 
 foi: a time, but returned a few years later, and some time between 
 163 and 167 was put to death by beheading, by the prefect 
 Rusticus, along with six other Christians. 
 
 The Dialogue with the Jew Trypho was probably based on 
 an actual controversy, but developed and written out at a later 
 Dialogue time between the Apologies and the martyrdom, 
 with Trypho. It is especially interesting, as showing the exhaustive 
 use of the Old Testament made by the Christians, and then 
 methods of interpretation. It also, no doubt, illustrates the 
 usual style of Jewish attack on Christianity at that period. 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN DEFENCE 83 
 
 Trypho's arguments and Justin's replies may be thus sum- 
 marised. 
 
 1. The doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to that Unity of 
 God which is taught in the Old Testament. 
 
 To this, Justin makes the suggestive reply that the theophanies 
 or appearances of God in Old Testament were really appearances 
 of the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, before the In- 
 carnation. He also points out various suggestions of a plurality 
 of Persons in the Godhead which are to be seen in the Old 
 Testament, e.g. in Gen. i. 26 ; Prov. viii. 
 
 2. The Crucifixion is contrary to the glory of the Messiah 
 promised in the Old Testament. 
 
 To this, Justin is able to adduce the remarkable predictions 
 of a suffering Messiah, e.g. Ps. xxii. 
 
 3. The Christians disobey the Law of God by not observing 
 circumcision. Sabbath, and other Old Testament rules. 
 
 To this, Justin answers that the Law was temporary and has 
 been fulfilled in Christ ; and that the Eucharist, which is the 
 ' pure offering ' foretold by Malachi (i. 10-12), has taken the 
 place of the sacrifices of the Law. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1 . Who were the Antonines ? Describe the period of their rule. 
 
 2. What was Pliny's question to the Emperor, and how was it 
 answered ? 
 
 3. What facts did Pliny discover about Christian observances ? 
 
 4. Who was S. Ignatius ? 
 
 5. Enumerate the letters of S. Ignatius, and describe the controversy 
 respecting them. 
 
 6. What was the teaching of S. Ignatius as to (i) the Christian 
 Ministry, (2) the Incarnation, (3) the Sacraments ? 
 
 7- Describe the character of the Emperor Hadrian and his attitude to 
 the Church. 
 
 8. Who were the Apologists ? 
 
 9. What do you know of Quadratus and Aristides ? 
 
 10. What is the epistle to Diognetus and its value? 
 
 1 1. Summarise the contents of S. Justin Martyr's first Apology. 
 
 12 What account does he give of the Eucharistic service } 
 
 13 What is the interest of the Dialogue with Trypho? 
 
\\v 
 
 HI 
 
 I I 
 
 84 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. The attitude of the Roman government at this period towards the 
 Church. 
 
 Ramsay. T/ie Church in the Roman Etnpire, 
 
 2. The Epistles of Ignatius : 
 
 Text and translation in Lightfoot and Harmer's Apostolic 
 
 Fathers. 
 Lightfoot. The Apostolic Fathers^ part ii. 
 
 3. The writings of S. Justin Martyr : 
 
 *Justinus' in Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
 
 S. Polycarp. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. PERSECUTION AND PROTEST 
 UNDER THE ANTON INES 
 
 It is impossible to say whether the policy of Antoninus Pius 
 towards the Christian Church was affected at all by the 
 ' Apologies ' addressed to him ; but he seems to have made 
 some effort to restrain mob violence against Christians, by 
 writing to various cities in Greece, and also perhaps to Ephesus 
 (Eus. iv. 13 and 26), forbidding any change of procedure, i.e. 
 anything different from what Trajan and Hadrian had ordered. 
 
 Nevertheless, it was during his reign, about 155 a.d., that 
 one of the most eminent bishops of the Church suffered 
 martyrdom as the result of a popular outbreak. 
 This was S. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, a stately 
 and venerable figure, who appears as a link with the apostolic 
 age, having been himself probably the disciple of S. John. He 
 had entertained, nearly half a century before, the martyr S. 
 Ignatius, when he stopped at Smyrna on his way to Rome and 
 death. One of S. Ignatius' seven epistles is addressed to Polycarp 
 exhorting him to perseverance and courage, and asking him to 
 send an envoy to Antioch, and see that other churches did 
 the same, in order to comfort and establish the church which 
 was thus losing its bishop by martyrdom. 
 
 There is also extant a letter from Polycarp himself written 
 shortly afterwards to the Philippians, with whom Ignatius had 
 stayed ; forwarding them at the same time by their 
 request copies of Ignatius' own letters, and asking 
 them for further news of the martyr. From Polycarp's letter 
 we see him as one whose mind was stored with the Scriptures. 
 He quotes repeatedly from the New Testament, especially from 
 I S. Peter and from the Pastoral Epistles, which he follows 
 closely in bis exhortations to deacons, presbyters, and widows. 
 
II 
 
 I f 
 
 86 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 He alludes to S. Paul's own ministry among the PhUippians, 
 and his special love for them. Polycarp seems to combine the 
 sweetness and the fire of S. John, his master. The man who 
 perverts the Scriptures and denies the resurrection and the 
 judgment, he pronounces to be 'the first-born of Satan.' 
 a vigorous phrase which tradition tells that Polycarp used 
 personally to the heretic Marcion, when afterwards he met him 
 in Rome. Polycarp shows a special horror of covetousness, 
 and in his letter he laments the fall of a PhiUppian presbyter, 
 Valens and his wife, through this sin. 
 
 In his old age he visited Rome, another significant witness 
 to the close inter-communion of far distant parts of the Church. 
 He came to confer with the Roman bishop, Anicetus, as to the 
 proper time for keeping Easter, in which the Eastern Christians 
 differed from those of the West (p. 142). The two bishops could 
 not come to an agreement, but parted in perfect friendship, 
 as was shown by Anicetus inviting Polycarp to celebrate the 
 Eucharist in his presence. 
 
 We are fortunate to possess a contemporary account of 
 
 Polycarp's martyrdom, the earliest of such documents, in the 
 
 form of a letter written by one Evarestus, on behalf of 
 
 Martyrdom. ^^^ Smyrnaean Church to the Church of Philomelium 
 
 in Phrygia, and * to all the colonics of the holy CathoUc Churcli 
 
 in every place.' 
 
 Eleven Christians had been tortured and thrown to the wild 
 beasts at the annual games provided by the Asiarch Philip. 
 One only, Quintus, a Phrygian, who had shown over-zeal for 
 martyrdom, failed, and was persuaded by the Proconsul to 
 offer incense. The mob were not satisfied, and clamoured for 
 another victim, Polycarp. He had escaped to a farm in the 
 vicinity, but his hiding-place was betrayed. When the officers 
 found him, he received them with courtesy, offered them 
 hospitality, and asked only for time for prayer. He stood up 
 and prayed continuously for two hours, ' remembering all whom 
 at any time lue had met. small and gnMt, high and low. and all 
 the CathoUc Church throughout tln^ world.' to tlir wonder of aU 
 that heard him. He was then brouglit to th€ city, and arraigned 
 
 PERSECUTION AND PROTEST UNDER ANTONINES 87 
 
 before the Proconsul, or rather before the mob of heathen and 
 Jews, who seem almost to have overriden the magistrate. The 
 latter made various efforts to persuade Polycarp to recant. 
 He asked, for example, that he should say ' Away with the 
 atheists/ meaning the Christians. But Polycarp with solemn 
 irony waved his hand towards the howling mob of heathen, 
 and then, looking up to heaven, he said, in a different sense, 
 ' Away with the atheists ! ' ' Swear the oath/ said the magistrate, 
 ' and I will release thee— revile Christ.' The noble and memorable 
 answer followed, ' Eighty and six years have I served Him, 
 and He has never wronged me ; and how can I blaspheme my 
 King and Saviour ? ' Threats of the wild beasts and of death 
 by fire could not shake his calm and constancy. 
 
 The Proconsul, evidently a weak man, still hesitated to pro- 
 nounce sentence, and seems practically to have throwTi the onus 
 of killing Polycarp on the mob, by sending his herald to pro- 
 claim three times in the theatre, where the assembly was held, 
 ' Polycarp hath confessed that he is a Christian.' The crowd 
 clamoured for a lion to be let loose upon him, but this the Asiarch 
 refused, on the ground that the games were over. They then 
 hurried to collect materials to burn the martyr ahve. the 
 Jews (as usual, so the writer says) bemg especially eager. He 
 was tied to a stake, and raised his voice in thanksgiving, pray- 
 ing that his sacrifice might be accepted— in words which seem 
 to be modeUed on the Eucharistic prayer, which he himself no 
 doubt was in the habit of using at the altar. But when the 
 flame was kindled, it refused to touch him, but spread round 
 him, like ' a sail fiUed by the wind.' Finally he was stabbed 
 to death with a dagger, and his body was burned, as a further 
 insult to the Christians, lest, said the heathen. ' they abandon 
 the Crucified and begin to worship Polycarp.' But when all 
 was over, the faithful gathered his charred bones, as being ' more 
 valuable than precious stones or refined gold,' and buried them, 
 intending, as the writer says, to assemble with gladness and joy. 
 and celebrate this day of martyrdom as being liis true birthday. 
 
 The whole narraUvc indeed is in tl>c tone of one wlio records 
 not a miserable tragedy, but a royal triumph. The very dating 
 
8S THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 of the letter lifts the event from time to the eternal world. ' He 
 was apprehended by Herodes, when Philip of Tralles was high- 
 priest, in the proconsulship of Statins Quadratus, but in the 
 reign of the everlasting King, Jesus Christ/ 
 
 On the death of Antoninus Pius, his two adopted sons, Lucius 
 Verus and Marcus Aurelius, for a time reigned in partnership. 
 Marcus But the death of the former when returning from 
 
 AureUuB. a campaign in the north in 169, left his more famous 
 colleague to rule alone. Heathen wisdom and heathen virtue 
 seemed to have reached their height and to have combined in one, 
 and him the master of the world. Plato's famous saying was for 
 once on its trial, that the world would not go right till philo- 
 sophers were kings and kings philosophers. Marcus was devoted 
 to the Stoic philosophy ; his character showed both benevolence 
 and firmness ; his life was full of works of charity ; personally 
 he was pure, ascetic, and conscientious. The noble bronze 
 equestrian statue which still stands intact, though its gilding 
 is gone, on the Capitol at Rome, is a worthy memorial of the 
 great Emperor, who is represented with raised hand, as if blessing 
 his city and people. Yet ' the world by wisdom knew not 
 God,' and Marcus not only failed to understand the Christians, 
 but his treatment of them on one terrible occasion has branded 
 his memory for ever in Christian records as a persecutor of the 
 Church. 
 
 In literature, Marcus stands out as the author of one of the 
 world's greatest books. His Meditations or Self -Communings are 
 The a record of his inner life, written in scrappy and 
 
 Meditations, difficult Greek, mere notes, often jotted down in 
 his tent, when on campaign. They possess a mysterious and 
 haunting beauty of their own ; they are the thoughts of a noble 
 and sincere, if somewhat ' academic ' spirit as he contemplates 
 the mysteries of the world, of human life, and the hereafter. 
 Yet they have the weakness of philosophy as well as its calm 
 and strength. There is upon them a settled sadness as of the 
 utterances of one wlw 
 
 * Cakes dejectedly 
 His scat upon the intellectual (hronc* 
 
 PERSECUTION AND PROTEST UNDER ANTONINES 89 
 
 And they have certainly no Gospel for the world at large. 
 Stoicism, with its rehgion of duty for duty's sake, could only 
 appeal to a few finer spirits ; and, despite the Emperor's bene- 
 volent attitude towards mankind, there is an aloofness, almost 
 a ' priggishness,' which prevents one being really surprised to 
 find that the only allusion to the Christians in the Meditations 
 is in a tone of lofty contempt. The soul, he says, ought to be 
 ready at any moment to part from the body, whether its fate 
 is to be quenched or scattered, or to continue, but such readiness 
 must proceed from one's own decision, and not out of mere 
 opposition, hke the Christians ; it must be reasoned and dignified, 
 and if it is to have any influence over others, it must have about 
 it nothing theatrical. [Med. xi. 3.) 
 
 The character of the Emperor and his devotion to philosophy 
 tempted more than one philosophic apologist for Christianity 
 to address him. Melito, Bishop of Sardis, a man of ^^^^ 
 great learning, who had travelled in Palestine, and 
 investigated the Old Testament Scriptures, wrote an Apology 
 in 175, some sentences of which are quoted by Eusebius (iv. 26). 
 The special occasion which moved him to address the Emperor 
 was a new outburst of persecution in Asia, resulting from what 
 he describes as * new decrees.' What these were is uncertain, 
 but clearly they were supplying an oi)portunity to informers 
 and unprincipled persons to harry and rob the Christians. 
 Melito mquires whether this is bemg done by the Emperor's will 
 or not ; if it is, Christians will submit, even to death, only they 
 crave an unbiassed judgment as to their guilt from the Emperor 
 himself. But if not, then Christians appeal to his protection 
 against this lawless and barbaric plundering. Melito proceeds 
 in even bolder stniin to claim that Christianity, which he calls 
 * our philosopliy,' has been a blessing to the Emi)ire, and has 
 assisted its glory and progress, ever sinci; the days of Augustus ; 
 and that only Nero and Doniitian had persecuted it. Melito 
 seems to ignore the fact that Christianity was in itself a crime 
 by imperial law. and tries lo claim both Tladiian and Antoninus 
 as its protector:*. 
 
 About the same time Apollinarius, Bislwpof Hierapolb, also 
 
'I 
 
 Apollinarius. 
 
 90 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 appealed to the Emperor. Nothing survives of his Apology, 
 but it is probable {see Euseb. v. 5) that he quoted to the Emperor 
 the well-known story of how, in 164, the prayers 
 of the Christian soldiers of the ' Thundering Legion * 
 won the gift of abundance of rain, when the Emperor himself 
 and that legion were in danger of dying of thirst in a campaign 
 against the Quadi. 
 
 Another philosophic Apologist about this time was Athe- 
 nagoras, an Athenian. His work was confused in antiquity 
 Athena- apparently with that of Justin Martyr, and he 
 
 goras. is little mentioned by other writers. His Apology, 
 
 written in very scholarly style, is addressed to Marcus Aurelius 
 and his son Commodus. It follows the usual lines of exposure 
 of the folly of polytheism, of protest against the gross criminal 
 charges made against the Christians, and of assertion of the 
 superiority of Christian belief and the purity of Christian life. 
 The Christians are not atheists — they worship Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost. They live far better lives than their accusers. 
 And he concludes : * And now do you, who are entirely in every- 
 thing, by nature and by education, upright and moderate and 
 benevolent and worthy of your rule, now that I have refuted 
 the several accusations and proved that we are pious and gentle 
 and temperate in spirit, bend your royal head in approval.' 
 
 But the royal head was far from bending. The Emperor 
 was utterly unsympathetic to the Christians. His very virtues 
 seemed to turn him more against them. His respect for his 
 predecessors, his conservative regard for all the ancient traditions 
 and ritual of the Roman religion, his dislike of what seemed 
 to him ignorant and theatrical in the Christian attitude, all 
 tended to make him ready to be a persecutor. 
 
 A grim comment on the ' Apologies ' was supplied in 177. 
 The worst persecution probably which the Church as yet had 
 Persecntion had to suffer broke out in the prosperous towns 
 in South Gaul, of Lyons and Vienne in Southern Gaul. It was a 
 perfect carnival of hideous cruelty, and the philosophic Emperor 
 actually expressed both consent and approval. The story is 
 told in a letter, most of which Eusebius has preserved, written 
 
 PERSECUTION AND PROTEST UNDER ANTONINES 91 
 
 by the two churches to their fellow-Christians in Asia and 
 Phrygia, between which districts and Southern Gaul there 
 appears to have been some special connection. The letter, 
 terrible though its record, is one of the most precious monuments 
 of Christian antiquity. It breathes the very spirit of the New 
 Testament, in its devotion to Christ, its patience and forgiveness, 
 its atmosphere of supernatural grace. 
 
 The persecution seems to have arisen without any special 
 cause, but through some mysterious wave of heathen suspicion 
 and hatred, in which the Christians not unreasonably recognised 
 the direct instigation of Satan. First, a number of Christians 
 were ill-used by the mob ; and then they were brought before 
 the chief magistrate, who seems himself to have been a monster 
 of cruelty. Most of them persisted in the confession of Christ, 
 in spite of all sorts of tortures, but some few failed, though of 
 these some again repented and finaUy bore their witness. The 
 household slaves of the Christians were also tortured, and some 
 of them in terror made false accusations against their masters 
 of horrible crimes, which of course roused the mob to greater 
 fury. (This was really an illegal act ; Roman law did not allow 
 the evidence of slaves against their masters.) Many of the 
 accused died in prison, through the iU-treatment and the foul 
 air, among them being the Bishop of Lyons, Pothinus, a man 
 of more than ninety years of age, already worn out, but as the 
 letter says, ' his Ufe was preserved that Christ might tnumph 
 through it.' Those who did not so perish were subjected day 
 after day to torments too horrible to describe, and were finally 
 burned or devoured by wild beasts in the amphitheatre. 
 
 Foremost among these noble witnesses stands the slave- 
 girl Blandina, who suffered such a round of tortures that even 
 her tormentors confessed themselves baffled. Her ^he Martyrs, 
 only utterance was ' I am a Christian, and there is 
 nothing vile done by us.' After torments of fire and scourgmg 
 and crucifixion, she was finally enclosed in a net and gored to 
 death by a wild bull in the amphitheatre. Others, whom the 
 diaboUcal fury of the heathen failed to move from their joyful 
 confession of Christ, were Sanctus a deacon, Attalus a man o\ 
 
 L\ 
 
I I 
 
 I 
 
 92 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 eminence and a Roman citizen, Alexander a physician, Ponticus 
 a boy of fifteen. In all, some forty-five suffered death, praying, 
 like Stephen, for their persecutors, and humbly deprecating 
 for themselves the title of ' Martyr ' ; Christ Himself, they said, 
 was the ' faithful and true witness ' (' Martyr '), and those who 
 in previous times had suffered for Christ might also so be called, 
 but as for themselves ' we are lowly and humble confessors.' 
 The rage and malice of the persecutors were not satisfied even 
 with torture and death. The greatest care was taken to prevent 
 the bodies of the martyrs being buried ; they were burnt, and 
 their ashes thrown into the Rhone, in order, as the heathen said, 
 to prevent their having the resurrection which they hoped for. 
 
 More widely spread and more deliberately planned persecutions 
 were in store for the Church in the coming years, but probably 
 none more furious and brutal than this, none that more 
 marvellously illustrated Christian patience and self-sacrifice 
 for the love of Christ, and certainly none that showed up more 
 terribly the failure of heathen rehgion and philosophy to redeem 
 men from the lowest that human nature can sink to. 
 
 The age of the Antonines was full of many books, though few 
 of them were great. The Christian Church, too, began to have her 
 Christiaii share in literary activity. Some of the Apologists by 
 Literature. no means confined themselves to the conventional 
 defence of Christian beliefs and morals. Athenagoras was the 
 author of a remarkable treatise on the Resurrection of the body, 
 which is still extant. He defends the behef not so much as a 
 teacher of Christian doctrine, but as a philosopher, showing its 
 inherent probabiHty, from the nature and the true end of man. 
 Man is intended for the contemplation of his Creator ; and man 
 is essentially a twofold being, body as well as soul. God is able 
 to restore him to attain his true end, but this will involve the 
 restoration of the body. This is a great advance on earlier 
 Greek philosophy in its speculations on immortality. 
 
 Mehto, the Apologist, was a voluminous writer. Eusebius 
 mentions some seventeen distinct treatises of his on religious 
 and philosophical subjects (iv. 26). Apollinarius of Hierapolis 
 wrote many books besides his Apology. Dionysius, Bishop 
 
 1 1 
 
 i 
 
 vil 
 
 PERSECUTION AND PROTEST UNDER ANTONINES 93 
 
 of Corinth, wrote a number of Epistles to different churches of 
 Greece and the East, and also one to Soter, Bishop of Rome. 
 Hegesippus (p. 13) set himself to record the history of the Church. 
 Besides the formal apologies addressed to the Emperor, this 
 period produced other interesting defences of Christianity 
 addressed to the general public, or to individuals. Among 
 such is the work by Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, written for 
 the benefit of one Autolycus, his friend, but an opponent of 
 Christianity. It is a somewhat narrow production, dealing 
 chiefly with the Old Testament and its superiority to all the 
 cosmogony and mythology of the ancients. All that was true 
 in Greek philosophy he attributes to plagiarism from the 
 Scriptures ; and he is singularly unfair in the way in which he 
 belittles the greatness of Greek thought and literature. He is 
 the first writer to employ the word Trinity (Trias). An attack 
 on paganism in much the same spirit is the Address to the Greeks, 
 written by Tatian, the disciple of Justin Martyr, who afterwards 
 
 fell into heresy (p. 107). 
 
 But the most interesting of these defensive writings is the 
 Odavius of Minucius Fehx, the first Latm writer of the 
 Church. Greek was not only the general language THe 
 of the East, but it was the fashionable literary Octauius. 
 tongue of most of the Empire. But the age of the Antonines 
 saw the beginning of a reaction in favour of Latin, and 
 Minucius Felix writes in a Ciceronian style which, as Milman 
 says, reminds us of * the golden days of Latin prose.' The 
 Odavius is a dialogue, its scene is the sea-shore of Ostia, 
 described with that delicate and joyful appreciation of natural 
 beauty which marks the later Latin writers. The characters are 
 Minucius, his Christian friend Octavius, and a heathen CaeciUus. 
 
 The Christians reprove Caecilius for an act of worship to the 
 image of a heathen God. He is vexed at this, and proceeds to 
 deUver an attack on Christianity. The reader cannot but 
 admire the boldness with which a Christian writer has put m 
 the mouth of CaecUius the worst that could be said, and was 
 being said, about the Christians. Caecilius attacks them first 
 as a philosopher, for their conceit of knowledge concemmg the 
 
i 
 
 I' I 
 
 f 
 
 94 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 unknowable mysteries of the universe ; then as a defender of the 
 ancient estabhshed rehgions ; again as a man of the world who 
 despises the ignorance and the poverty of Christians, and con- 
 siders their whole conduct of life as miserable and unworthy. 
 He recounts the usual fables about the crimes of Christians 
 at their secret meetings, infanticide, cannibalism, impurity, 
 and asserts that they worship the head of an ass, or at best a 
 crucified evil-doer. Especially he pours scorn on their belief 
 in a resurrection : they will never rise again, and they make 
 this life as wretched for themselves as possible. 
 
 Octavius, in reply, has not much difficulty in exposing the 
 inconsistency of Caecilius, who on one side is an Epicurean 
 agnostic, and on the other an upholder of the conventional 
 heathen worship, which is more ridiculous and immoral than 
 anything of which he accuses the Christians. The moral charges 
 against Christians he dismisses with scorn : they are the insinua- 
 tions of demons, and they are refuted by the plain facts of the 
 purity and goodness of Christian lives. They worship Him 
 who died on the cross as God. The sufferings and poverty 
 endured by Christians are their glory. With regard to what 
 might most appeal to a modern in Caecihus' tirade, his accusa- 
 tion of conceit of knowledge against Christians, Octavius asserts 
 that God may be known from His works and His providence, 
 their beauty and their order ; moreover, even the ignorant 
 have the faculty for knowing God ; and one must not judge 
 of the truth by the poverty and lowliness of those who 
 maintain it, otherwise some of the philosophers themselves 
 would be despised. And though he attacks heathen philosophy 
 and religion, yet he is careful to point out that the greatest of 
 the philosophers have come to much the same conclusion as the 
 Christians as to the nature of God,' the future destruction of 
 this world, and the probabiUty of a resurrection. And what 
 philosophy sought after, Christians have found. The philo- 
 sophers, he says in conclusion, with a touch of satire, are even 
 eloquent against their own vices: ' We bear \sisdom not in our 
 dress but in our mind ; wc do not speak great thingii, but wc live 
 them,' 
 
 PERSECUTION AND PROTEST UNDER ANTONINES 95 
 
 No doubt, then as now, Christians laid themselves open to 
 attack as meddlesome and conceited innovators. They irritated 
 the philosopher and the superior person by their certainty as 
 to revealed truth. Nevertheless, they were able to point with 
 real effect, first, to the fact that philosophy at its best was on 
 their own side, and also to the moral revolution that Christianity 
 was working in human life. 
 
 The dialogue ends with Caecilius confessing his defeat, and 
 his readiness to become a Christian. 
 
 By this time Christianity was evidently attracting con- 
 siderable notice among the intellectuals. They felt that it 
 could no longer be dismissed with an epigram. Literary 
 Literary attacks on it begin. Lucian of Samosata, attacks on 
 the greatest satirist of the age, who mocked both Chnatlamty. 
 at philosophy and at the ancient religions, is sometunes thought 
 to have intended a direct attack on Christianity in his Peregrinus 
 Proteus, in whom some have seen a satire on S. Ignatius. But 
 Peregrinus was a historical personage, a well-known charlatan, 
 who for a time embraced Christianity, and then, being excom- 
 municated, became a Cynic philosopher. Lucian attiicks hmi 
 merely as a typical impostor and humbug, and the Christians 
 appear in the story only as people of fooHsh creduUt y who wore 
 taken in by Peregrinus, and treat hun as a prophet and a con- 
 fessor Lucian describes how when this clever rogue was un- 
 prisoned for tlie Christian faith wliich he professed, his prison 
 was thronged with admirers, and liis every want provided for. 
 'Nothing; he says, 'can exceed their eagerness in such cases, 
 or their readiness to give away all they have ' . . . ' adoring 
 their crucified Sophist whose laws they follow, they are careh^ss 
 of the goods of life and have them all in common.' Lucian. 
 indeed, seems to have liad some tinge of respect for the Christians. 
 He laught^d at them, but he thought them sincere. 
 
 The first definite and reasoned literary ultack on Chnstumity 
 was the True Word of Celsus. written about tlu^ time of the 
 persecution at Lyons and Vienne. Notliing what- ^^^^ 
 ever is known of Ccbus, and prob;il>!y wc should 
 have known nothing ;xbout »iis book, had not the great Origen. 
 
'.! t 
 
 96 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 some sixty years later, set himself to answer it. He did this with 
 such care and detail, stating and replying to every argument 
 and scofi of Celsus, that it is possible from his work practically 
 to reconstruct the True Word. The motive of Celsus was chiefly 
 poUtical. He wanted to demohsh the Christian claim to an 
 exclusive and universal religion, in order to prevent them being, 
 as he thought, a party dangerous to the unity and common life 
 of the Empire. The method and tone of Celsus' attack are 
 deplorable. No argument or sneer is too bad to use, and he 
 utterly fails to appreciate the greatness and moral force of the 
 Christian faith. Nevertheless, it is a powerful book, and a 
 perfect storehouse of weapons such as the scoffers, deists, and 
 atheists of all ages since have used to belabour Christians and 
 Christianity. 
 
 Celsus was fairly well acquainted with the Scriptures, and he 
 uses every sophism and quibble in order to prove their falsehood 
 and inconsistency. He attacks the Mother of our Lord, and the 
 Lord Himself. Christ was a criminal who had learned sorcery 
 in Egypt. His claims were refuted by His crucifixion. His 
 whole career was a failure, and His resurrection an invention 
 of excitable women. But Celsus also endeavours to discredit 
 the whole conception of the Incarnation. He pours scorn on 
 the idea that the human race should think itself superior to the 
 animals, and more worthy of being taken into union with God. 
 He draws satirical pictures of ants, or frogs, imagining that the 
 world was made for them, and that they were the favourites of 
 God, and would be redeemed. That the Gospel should specially 
 appeal to the poor and to the sinful seems to Celsus to disprove 
 its value. The Cross was to him but foolishness. 
 
 Throughout the criticisms of Celsus show a lack of the attempt 
 or the power to understand or enter into what he is attacking, 
 and this is just the reason why it both fails as an attack and is 
 so difficult to answer. The Christian feels he has no common 
 ground with the writer. Origen, in answering the True Word 
 laboriously Hne by hne, was perhaps exerting his talents un- 
 necessarily. The best hne of defence may be found in his own 
 words in the Preface. ' Jesus is at all times assailed by false 
 
 PERSECUTION AND PROTEST UNDER ANTONINES 97 
 
 witnesses, and, while wickedness remains in the world, is ever 
 exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues silent 
 before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places 
 His defence in the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre- 
 eminent testimony, and one that rises superior to all false 
 witness.' Or again, * The name of Jesus can still remove dis- 
 tractions from the minds of men and expel demons and take 
 away diseases, and produce a marvellous meekness of spirit 
 and complete change of character. ' 
 
 The True Word does not appear to have been much read, 
 but its production shows that the enemies of Christianity by 
 this time, at least, found it necessary to examine its credentials, 
 and to attempt a systematic refutation. Philosophy, priest- 
 craft, and magic alike felt their empire threatened. The Church 
 was already much more powerful than might at first be ima- 
 gined from its openness to persecution. And this persecution 
 owed much of its desperate bitterness to fear. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What do you know of S. Polycarp prior to his martyrdom .^ 
 
 2. How does the martyrdom of S. Polycarp illustrate the heathen 
 attitude towards Christianity ? 
 
 3. Describe the character of Marcus Aurelius. 
 
 4. What Apologies were addressed to him ? 
 
 5. Describe the persecution at Lyons and Vienne. 
 
 6. Describe the Octavius of Minucius Felix. 
 
 7. Who was Celsus ? What sort of arguments did he employ against 
 Christianity ? 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 The Christian writings alluded to in this chapter : 
 
 The letter of Polycarp, and the description of his martyrdom, 
 
 are contained, with translations, in Lightfoot and Harmer's 
 
 Apostolic Fathers. 
 The letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne is in Gwatkin's 
 
 Early Christian Writings. 
 The Octavius is translated in Clark's Antc-Nicene Library, Cyprian, 
 
 vol. ii. : a translation is published also by S.P.C.K. 
 
 G 
 
f 
 
 THE EARLY HERESIES 
 
 99 
 
 Heresy. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. THE EARLY HERESIES 
 
 Persecution was not the greatest danger to which Christians 
 were exposed. Indeed, the attitude of such martyrs as Ignatius 
 and Polycarp, or those of Lyons and Vienne, was 
 powerful for consoUdating and strengthening the 
 Church. A more subtle peril lay in the various attempts and 
 teudenci<?s to alter the Christian faith. For it must never be for- 
 gotten that the Churcli from tlio firet rcgarck<l herself as put in 
 trust with a definite body of truth which she luid received from 
 the Apot^tles. From the earliest days * her«y ' liad to be met, 
 f.f. the attempt deliberately to cliange or reject some part of 
 this deposit. The word ' heresy ' literally means a ' self-willed 
 choice * ; properly it is only used of those who have actually 
 become members of the Churcli, and wish to tam|>er with what 
 they have received, but it is sometimc-s applied in a wider sense 
 to attempt^ at reconstruction of Christianity made by those 
 
 outside. 
 
 The lieginnings of heresy are manifest even in the New Testa- 
 ment. S. Paul carried on a life-long conflict with the Judaizcrs 
 Btr«fl7in who. if not actually heretics, by their narrownc» 
 K. Testament, of \aew^ and bitter temper certainly displayed the 
 heretical spirit. In i Cor. xv. he alhules plainly to some at 
 Corinth who denied the resurrection of the body. In Colowiaiis 
 his exposition of the full meaning of the Incarnation is evidently 
 aimed at those who were not only Judaizers, but were intrcxluc- 
 ing the worship of angels as in ^me way mediators between 
 God and creation, and were by the stress they laid on asceticism 
 practically making matter to be evil and outside the sphere 
 of Christ's rcdi-mptive work. The Pastoral Epistle point to 
 more less developed systems of erroneous teaching. (Cp. i 
 Tim. iv. 1-7 ; 2 Tim. ii. 16-18 ; Titus, i. 10. 11 : iii. 10.) The 
 
 Apocalypse mentions twice the Nicolaitanes, the first appearance 
 of a sect called after the name of its founder. The First Epistle 
 of S. John also alhidc^ io those who were denying the verity of 
 our Lord's manhood. 
 
 These New Testament allusions show pretty plainly a two- 
 fold tendency to error, about the Incarnation : first, a Judaistic 
 view which failed to grasp (liat Christianity was more than a 
 new stage of Judaism, and Christ more tlum a i)roplict or a 
 Jewish Messiah ; and secondly, a dualism which denied the true 
 humanity and the universally redenipti\'(' j^ower of the Saviour. 
 The first tendency would naturally be ronnccted with the 
 Pharisaic teaching ; the second (in its origin ;ii least) was more 
 akin to the asceticism and superstition.^ of the Ks.^eiKS, or to the 
 more speculative developments of Judaism as s<H.*n at Alexandria 
 4nd elsewhere out of Palestine. 
 
 This division corresponds to the two erroneous systems 
 conflicting with Christianity, which are first encountered after 
 I lie close of tl»e New Testament writings— those of the Ebionites 
 and the GnosJics, 
 
 Tlie F.hinnites (Eus. iii. 27). a name probaWy derived from a 
 Hebrew word meaning * poor,' R^<dly i>epflresc'nt the logical de- 
 velopinent of tl>e Judaizcrs of S. Paul's day. They jvidfttaint 
 not only strictly maintained the obligation of ii^rwict. 
 circumcision, the Scd)bath, and tl>e whole Mosaic I^w; tl^ey 
 regarded the Saviour Himself as hut the last and greatest of the 
 prophets, the natural son of Jcseph and Mary, not the Word 
 or the Eternal Son. The Ebionites arc an obscure sect, and 
 produced no great names, and probably did not attract any 
 considerable number of followers. But they linj:(ered on for a 
 long period, the renmants being absorbed in ^lohammcdanism, 
 a system which no doubt hannontsed with their tlicok^'. 
 But their imixrfect conception of Chri.st lias reappeared in numy 
 different sects and tendencies throughout Christian history. 
 
 Tlie Gnostics were a very different sort of foe. Widely 
 spread, almost infinitely varied, and possessing many attractions 
 for their own age, their opposition was one of the grwitest perils 
 wbicJi the Church lias ever ..n ountercd. and their failure one 
 
 *S ^ 
 
t ^1 
 
 I 
 
 Gnosticism. 
 
 100 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 of the greatest evidences to the strength of her faith and 
 fellowship. * Gnostic * is a general name applied to a type of 
 teachers and schools of religion or religious philo- 
 sophy, which became prominent early in the 
 second century. The name was probably self-chosen and is 
 significant of their temper and their attitude towards Christianity. 
 It implies an affectation of intellectual superiority (yv(oaTLK6<;= 
 able to know). Superior knowledge, rather than penitence, 
 faith, and love, was the keynote of the Gnostic movement. The 
 spirit of Gnosticism is already seen in the New Testament. 
 
 * Knowledge puffeth up, charity buildeth up,' says S. Paul to 
 the Corinthians ; and at a later date he warns Timothy to turn 
 away from * the knowledge falsely so called ' (i Tim. vi. 20). 
 
 .The Gnostic teachers were attracted by Christianity. It 
 was a new and startling phenomenon. The age loved novelty, 
 and they themselves felt that the appearance and claim of 
 Christ demanded some explanation. Some of the Gnostics 
 were not far from being Christians ; they treated Christ with 
 respect, they imitated Christian practice, and expounded 
 Christian Scripture. But one and all, they refused to submit 
 themselves to the yoke of the faith, or enter the Church as 
 penitents and behevers. Rather they tried, on certain common 
 lines, to reconstruct the Christian system to their liking, or to 
 combine parts of it with inconsistent elements drawn from 
 other religions and philosophies. 
 
 Thus in the strict sense the Gnostics can hardly be called 
 
 * heretics.* But they were clearly attempting to set up as rivals 
 of the Church, or even claiming themselves to be the true ex- 
 ponents of Christianity. To this end, many of them professed 
 to have secret traditions derived from the Apostles, of a higher 
 value than those current in the Church. 
 
 It was an age of intellectual unrest. On all sides there was a 
 restless search after new knowledge and new experience, and 
 The Spirit continual speculation on moral, reUgious, and 
 of tiie Age. philosophical problems. There were few original 
 thinkers, but many subtle and restless intellects, with a great 
 talent for combining and systematising. This spirit of eclecticism 
 
 THE EARLY HERESIES 
 
 lOI 
 
 was favoured by the circumstances of the period. The easiness 
 of communication between different parts of the world, and the 
 cheapness of books, the cosmopoHtanism of the Empire, and the 
 opening of the East to the West, brought into the common 
 fund of the scholars and the talkers, elements drawn from 
 Persia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Palestine. And, as in most ages 
 of scepticism and reconstruction, superstition was rife. It was 
 an age that loved magic and mystery. All sorts of occult arts 
 and fantastical speculations were followed up eagerly. In this 
 strange intellectual atmosphere, the Gnostic teachers and systems 
 flourished with hothouse profusion. 
 
 It is very difficult to describe the Gnostic systems except in 
 general terms. Not only is their variety great, but scarcely 
 any Gnostic writings have survived, and we depend for most 
 of our knowledge upon their orthodox opponents who answered 
 them. Much that is recorded in this way is not only difficult 
 but often appears nonsensical and extravagant. Nevertheless, 
 we must conclude, from the popularity of some of the Gnostics 
 and the similarity of their main principles, that the problems 
 with which they tried to deal were of real interest to their con- 
 temporaries, and that their methods also had some attractiveness. 
 
 Two problems seem more or less common to all the Gnostic 
 systems. First, what connection or relation can there be between 
 an infinite and spiritual God and a finite and material Gnostic 
 world ? Secondly, what is the origin and nature problems. 
 of evil ? Christianity, of course, has its own definite answer 
 to the first question, in its teaching of creation by the Word, 
 and the Incarnation. The second lies outside its province. 
 The Christian answer to that is practical rather than theological. 
 The Gospel teaches only how evil may be overcome, and promises 
 its final destruction. 
 
 In their endless circling round these two problems, the Gnostics 
 seem to have been influenced by two different conceptions, 
 inconsistent with each other, and both irreconcilable with the 
 Christian faith. 
 
 I. God, the spiritual principle of the universe, was conceived 
 as an absolute unity. The logical tendency of this, as of all 
 
Monism. 
 
 102 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Unitarianism, is to make God impersonal and unapproachable ; 
 for personality is really inconceivable unless it carry with it 
 relations with other persons. Consequently the 
 communications of such a God with the world 
 as man knew it could only be indirect. The Gnostics usually 
 imagined that they were effected by means either of angels 
 or of what they called aeons, or emanations from the God- 
 head. By these they tried to explain creation, revelation, and 
 redemption. 
 
 The earliest type of Gnostic theory seems to have been domi- 
 nated by this kind of conception. It originated probably in 
 the speculations of Jewish Platonists, or of the Essenes. Its 
 beginnings appear in such errors as S. Paul warns the Colossians 
 against (Col. ii. 8, 9, 18, 19). Jewish imagination, throwing off 
 the strict orthodoxy of Pharisaism, was trying to combine its 
 own faith with Greek philosophy. The Old Testament re- 
 velation is indeed theologically incomplete, and without the 
 Incarnation naturally leads to some such conclusions. 
 
 2. The second theory assumed the existence of two absolute 
 and eternal and opposing deities or principles in the universe. 
 This duaHsm was not Jewish, nor properly Greek, 
 but Oriental. It is seen clearly in the good and 
 evil deities of the ancient Persian religion, Zoroastrianism — 
 i.e. Ahriman, the god of evil and darkness, and Ormuz, the god 
 of light and goodness. The attempt to explain in this way 
 the mystery of the universe has had a singular fascination for 
 many minds ; it is plausible at first sight, but only explains 
 immediate difficulties, Hke the existence of pain and evil and 
 imperfection, by the introduction of a greater difficulty. 
 Dualism makes what the Christian believes to be only a temporal 
 puzzle into an eternal contradiction, and Christianity throughout 
 its history has repudiated such an explanation. It is the in- 
 troduction of this dualistic theory which seems to mark the 
 dividing line between Jewish and anti- Jewish Gnosticism, and 
 probably explains why speculations which originated in Judaism 
 passed for the most part into systems violently opposed to 
 Judaism. 
 
 THE EARLY HERESIES 
 
 103 
 
 Dualism. 
 
 From one or other of these two theories, or from the attempts 
 to combine them, the Gnostic teachers raised up their fantastic 
 explanations of the universe and of human life. Gnosticism 
 including the appearance of Christ— explanations anti- 
 often full of romance, and rendered still more Christian, 
 mysterious by the teaching of magic, but fundamentally non- 
 Christian. This is seen clearly by the fact that all Gnostics, 
 whether Judaic or not, were at one in certain conclusions which 
 the Church rejected. 
 
 [a) All the Gnostics were incUned to believe that matter is 
 in itself evil. On the monistic theory it was evil, in the in- 
 tellectual rather than the moral sense, because it was so far 
 removed from God that it was regarded as contrary to His 
 nature. Being material and limited, it was opposed to what is 
 purely spiritual and infinite ; and therefore incapable of harmony 
 with spirit. On the dualistic view, matter belongs to the domain 
 of the evil principle, and is ethically bad, and incapable of 
 redemption. Therefore, on either theory God could not have 
 directly created the world, as both orthodox Jew and Christian 
 believed. The Gnostics imagined the creation to have taken 
 place through the work of angels or aeons, or through some 
 other divinity, usually called the Demiurge, or 'workman,^ 
 whom they often identified with the Jehovah of the Old 
 
 Testament. 
 
 [h) Consequently, the Church's doctrine of the Incarnation 
 was rejected. No single Gnostic believed that the Word was 
 made flesh. Not only was there no pluraUty of Persons m the 
 Unity of the Godhead, but the Godhead could not have united 
 itself in anv real sense with what is limited and material and 
 
 evil. 
 
 Hence the ingenious explanations which the Gnostics pro- 
 posed for the appearance of Christ upon earth. Some supposed 
 that an ' aeon ' descended upon the man Jesus, the son of Joseph 
 and Mary. Others denied the reality of His human nature. 
 His bodily hfe they considered an iUusion, a mere phantom. 
 Hence they were called Docetists {hoKelv, to appear). 
 
 (c) Necessarily, all the Gnostics denied also any real redemp- 
 
104 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 tion or resurrection of the human body. Besides these anti- 
 Christian conclusions, the whole tone and attitude of Gnostic 
 speculation was profoundly opposed to the Gospel. They 
 made ' salvation * to depend on intellectual rather than moral 
 standards. For goodness or faith they substituted ' knowledge. ' 
 Especially they lacked the real sense of sin, and of the need of 
 cleansing and pardon, though they often talked about it. They 
 substituted for these the ideas of ignorance and illumination. 
 
 It remains to say something of the effects of Gnosticism on 
 practical hfe. These went in two opposite directions. Some 
 Practical of the Gnostics, keeping the tradition of the Essenes. 
 effects of endeavoured to escape from the supposed evil of 
 Gnosticism, matter by strict asceticism, hving very sparely, 
 abstaining from marriage, and refusing to take flesh or wine 
 (cp. Col. ii. 20-23, and i Tim. iv. 1-5). 
 
 But others, probably a large number, followed the course that 
 logic as well as human desires suggested. Matter being hope- 
 lessly evil, one was as much enslaved to it by a diet of bread and 
 water as by a rich banquet. Therefore one might as well enjoy 
 oneself. A Hfe of licence and immoraUty was no more un- 
 righteous than one of strictness. This ' antinomianism ' was 
 fostered too by the Gnostic conceit of ' knowledge,' which did 
 away with the necessity of moraUty (just as in S. Paul's day, 
 his teaching as to ' faith ' was wrested in the interests of im- 
 morality). And in the case of those Gnostics who took a vio- 
 lently anti- Jewish line, immorality almost appeared as a virtue, 
 because the Commandments were Jewish and the work of the 
 Demiurge ! 
 
 The traditional founder of Gnosticism was Simon Magus, the 
 sorcerer of Samaria, of Acts viii. He was believed to have 
 Simon gone to Rome, and there actively opposed the 
 
 Magus. teaching of S. Peter, by his heretical doctrine and 
 
 magical acts. His career was said to have been cut short by the 
 prayers of S. Peter, in answer to which the magician, while 
 attempting to fly in the air, was brought to the ground and 
 killed. Justin Martyr states that Simon was worshipped 
 throughout Samaria as a god, and that an altar had even been 
 
 THE EARLY HERESIES 
 
 105 
 
 erected to him in Rome on the island in the Tiber. He was 
 probably mistaken on this latter point : the altar he had seen 
 was apparently one erected to Semo Sancus, a Samnite deity, 
 which Justin mistook for ' Simon Sanctus.' It is impossible 
 to state, with any certainty, what the teaching of Simon was, 
 beyond his undoubted practice of magic. He is said to have 
 taught a theory of * aeons,' the greatest of which emanations 
 from the Divine he asserted to be himself ! He was accom- 
 panied by a woman of Tyre, called Helen, who also had a place 
 in his theological system, being the Divine ' Intelligence ' which 
 proceeded from Simon himself. Eusebius (ii. 13) asserts that 
 the followers of Simon pretended to be Christians, that they 
 had existed down to his own day, lived immoral lives, and 
 worshipped images and pictures of Simon and Helen, honouring 
 them with incense and sacrifices. 
 
 Side by side with the figure of Simon Magus, the opponent 
 of S. Peter, there looms through the mist of tradition that 
 of Cerinthus, the opponent of S. John at Ephesus. ^,^^^^^^^3 
 He is apparently a type of the Judaic Gnostic ; 
 whereas Simon was probably only a sorcerer of unusual powers 
 and effrontery, who had added the name of Christ to his 
 repertory of spells. Cerinthus taught that the world was not 
 made by the supreme God, but by some lower power who was 
 far separated from and ignorant of Him : that Jesus was the son 
 of Joseph and Mary, on whom ' Christ ' descended at His bap- 
 tism. Thus Cerinthus combined Ebionite theology with Gnostic 
 speculation. He is also said to have taught a very carnal and 
 material conception of the Millennium, as a reign of Christ on 
 earth, when the faithful would be able to indulge unchecked in 
 all the pleasures of the flesh ! 
 
 The disciple and successor of Simon Magus was Menander, 
 also a Samaritan magician, who taught at Antioch, professing 
 himself to be the Saviour sent down by the aeons, j^^^^^j^^^^ 
 and pretending to be able to confer the gifts of 
 power over the angels of creation, and of immortal life. From 
 this man, according to Eusebius, Gnostic heresy spread out into 
 two branches, ' a serpent-Hke power, double-tongued and double- 
 
 M\ 
 
 aas 
 
f^'i 
 
 Basilldes. 
 
 106 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 headed,' at Antioch and Alexandria, under Saturninus and 
 Basilides. 
 
 Saturninus followed his masters in the practice of magical 
 arts. He was apparently a dualist, holding matter to be evil, 
 asserting that marriage was the creation of Satan, 
 and teaching a * Docetic ' conception of Christ. 
 BasiUdes, though he had few followers, seems to have been 
 one of the most important and interesting Gnostic teachers. 
 He explained creation by a theory of downward 
 emanations from the Divine. This world was 
 formed by the angels of the lowest or 365th heaven. God is 
 impersonal : He can only be defined in negative terms ; He is 
 ' the God who is not ' ; obviously a Divinity who can neither 
 be known, loved, or worshipped. The world was redeemed by 
 Christ, who was really ' Nous,' or * Understanding,' the first and 
 highest of the emanations from the Godhead. He appeared 
 as Jesus, but was not crucified, for Simon of Cyrene suffered in 
 his stead, and Christ, as either Basilides or his followers pro- 
 fanely said, stood by and laughed. There was no dualism in 
 Basilides' scheme ; all was part of one system, though the 
 redemption by Christ was ultimately to rearrange into order all 
 that was out of place in the world. The final state of blessed- 
 ness would be, he thought, * a great ignorance,' a conception 
 that suggests the Nirvana of the Buddhist. His teaching was 
 practically non-moral, knowledge was the key to salvation ; 
 he knew nothing of sin and repentance. Austere in life him- 
 self, his followers were very lax, and they were able to escape 
 persecution as Christians by their theory that it was right 
 to deny the ' Crucified,' inasmuch as Christ had not really 
 suffered. 
 
 Christian writers who attacked the Gnostics, record the names 
 and doctrines of various strange sects. The Carpocratians, 
 Gnostic called from Carpocrates, a follower of Cerinthus, are 
 
 sects. said to have been grossly immoral, and to have 
 
 held the monstrous doctrine that perfection is to be attained 
 by breaking in every particular the moral law ! 
 
 The Ophites were so called from their devotion to the sequent 
 
 THE EARLY HERESIES 
 
 107 
 
 of Gen. iii., whom they regarded as the first liberator of mankind. 
 A sect of the Ophites were styled Cainites. They regarded the 
 God of the Old Testament as evil ; hence with pleasing logic 
 they reversed all the moral judgments of the Bible. Cain 
 became the great exemplar of righteousness, in which he was 
 ably followed by the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. Judas 
 Iscariot similarly became the one true and enlightened apostle. 
 
 If such doctrines were really carried out into practice, it is 
 probable that the Gnostics were to some extent responsible, 
 as the Christian fathers assert, for the evil stories respecting the 
 crimes of Christians. 
 
 An example of the opposite attitude is seen in the sect of the 
 Encratites (the ' self-restrained '), who in their fear of the evil 
 of matter went to the extremes of asceticism. They ^j^^ratites. 
 appear to have been an anti- Jewish sect. One dis- 
 tinguished name is connected with them, Tatian. once a disciple 
 of Justin Martyr. He was a considerable writer, but he is best 
 known as the compiler of the Diatessaron, the first attempt 
 to combine extracts from the four Gospels into one narrative. 
 It was intended for Church reading, and was probably com- 
 posed before 172, when Tatian left Rome for the East. There 
 it became extremely popular in a Syriac version, and afterwards 
 in Latin in the West. The original work is lost, but from a 
 commentary on it and from Latin and Arabic versions, attempts 
 have been made to reconstruct it. 
 
 Another ascetic sect was that of the Elkasaites, which first 
 appears early in the third century. They possessed a pretended 
 revelation to a certain Elkasai, and were strongly ^ij^j^aaites. 
 Jewish in their attitude, from which they are some- 
 times classed with the Ebionitcs. They practised magical 
 rites and held circumcision and the observances of the law to 
 be necessary. ' A distinctive and interesting feature of then- 
 system was the remission of sins after baptism by a sort of 
 repeated baptism performed by thc^ penitent himself. The 
 extravagances of the book of Elkasai remind one of the Koran. 
 Christ was supposed to have appeared to Elkasai as an angel 
 ninety-six miles high ! 
 
 <i i >-*^^^~ 
 
io8 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 The interest of the Elkasaites lies not so much in themselves 
 as in the connection between their book and certain well-known 
 works stiU extant, which were circulated in the name of S. 
 Clement of Rome, the Homilies and Recognitions. These are 
 really productions of the Judaic-Gnostic School. They tell 
 the stories of the supposed wanderings and adventures of S. 
 Clement, and of the conflict between S. Peter and Simon Magus. 
 Under colour of the latter name S. Paul is attacked, and S. 
 James is represented as the real head of the Church. These 
 romances have gained more importance in recent years than 
 they are entitled to, because they were used by the Tiibingen 
 school of theologians to support a theory, now discredited, 
 that S. Paul was entirely out of harmony with S. Peter and the 
 other leaders of apostolic Chri.stuinity. 
 
 We pass from the consideration of tliese lKdf-lc^cndar>' and 
 elusive sects in which there is a strange tangle of Judaism 
 and Orientalism, asceticism and antinomiani^m, to consider in 
 conclusion the t^^x) most important and influential Gnostic 
 teachers, about whom much fulkr information is to hand : 
 V(Uenti$tfis, the best representative of true eclectic and intel- 
 lectual (Gnosticism ; and Marcion, tln^ mwt religious and also 
 most anti-Jex\isli Gnostic. 
 
 Valentinits x^-as a student of Alexandria, but about a.d. 140 
 he was teaching in Rome. He developed the aeon-theory of 
 VAiftnii ^^^ universe with considerable power of imagina- 
 
 tion, constructing an elaborate and romantic story 
 of tl»e nc^Uition and intermarriage of the aeons, which are half- 
 personified al)stractionSL From the marriage of * Abyss ' and 
 
 * Silence ' were lx>ni ' Intellect ' and * Truth/ and from their 
 union, ' Word * and * Life.' and from them again ' Man ' 
 and 'Churcli/ These eight Ike called the Ogdoad. From 
 
 * Word * and * Life * again came ten aeons, calied the Decad. 
 and from ' Man ' and * Church.' twelve more called the Dodecad. 
 These tliirty fonncd the * Fuhicss ' or * Pleroma.' Valentinus 
 then proceeds to elaborate the adventures of * Sophia ' (Wisdom), 
 the lowest of the Pleroma. She desired to know * Abj-ss,' but 
 wa.s jirrv* nled by ' Horo2» ' (Limit), and gave birth to a 
 
 THE EARLY HERESIES 
 
 X09 
 
 
 mysterious being called Hachamoth, or * Desire of Wisdom/ 
 who was cast out from the Pleroma and wandered weeping and 
 disconsolate. To keep the other aeons in order, ' Intellect ' and 
 'Truth' now produce 'Christ' and the * Holy Spirit.* The 
 whole of the aeons, now thirty-two in number, unite to produce 
 the thirty- third. * Jesus/ in whom all perfections combine. He 
 consoles Hachamoth, and she gives birth to the Demiurgi\ tht» 
 creator of the visible world and of mankind. Men nrc divided 
 into three classes, according to Valentinus : the ' spiritual/ re- 
 presented by Scth, who are destined (or the highest blessedness ; 
 the ' psychic/ of whom Abel is the type, who are only capable 
 of a lower perfection ; and the ' material/ n^presi-nted by Cain. 
 
 who are lost. 
 
 Tlie teaching of ValentiniK as to the position of tlMi Saviour 
 and His redemptive work was couclied in a high strain, but as 
 usual his conception of redemption was intellecttuil rather than 
 moral. It » difficult to understand the Valentinian teaching 
 about His birth and His relations with tlfce Demiurge and the 
 Old Testament. Some \''alentinians taught that the Dcmiutige 
 liad prepared a Messiah to save the Jews, but at His baptism 
 the aeon Jesus descended on Him for a season, unknown to the 
 Demiurge. $0 that He became a real Saviour for tlMJse of mankind 
 who were capable of salvation. The M.>siah. produced by the 
 Demiurge, was born of Mary, but ii was uiily a Docetic birth. 
 He was of ethereal substance, which He did not derive from His 
 
 mother at all. 
 
 This s>-stem of Valentinus. difficult and complicated as it M*as. 
 and fundamentally non-Cliristian, though fwU of Christian \^x>rds. 
 seems for a time to have exercised a gre-at fascination ; to wliich 
 perhaps its secrecy, the long course of initiation Rxjuircd and 
 even the large pa>Tnents exacted, may have contributed. It 
 appealed to tlie sentimental and the curious, it ftottexed self- 
 conceit, and made no inconvenient demands for self-discipline. 
 It was a thoroughly eclectic system, containing elements that 
 might appeal to the heathen, the Jew. the Platonist. and the 
 Christian inquireis. And like all such system*, it feU to pieces 
 through its 0\^n liberality and lack of backbone. 
 
110 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 THE EARLY HERESIES 
 
 III 
 
 Marcion. 
 
 Marcion was a Gnostic of very different type, and more properly 
 styled a ' heretic/ for he had been brought up a Christian, the 
 son of a bishop, it is said, or even once a bishop 
 himself, but was excommunicated and became the 
 founder of an heretical sect. He was a wealthy man, a ship- 
 owner in Pontus ; but he came to Rome about the middle of 
 the second century, became the disciple of Cerdon, a duaHstic 
 Gnostic, and developed the teaching of his master. There 
 were neither ' aeons ' nor magic in the system of Marcion. He 
 started from the basis of the Scriptures and Christianity, and 
 tried to reconstruct these in order to get rid of what seemed 
 to him a fundamental crux. This was the problem of evil. 
 How could God, whom Marcion beheved to be personal and a 
 God of love, have directly created a world in which there is so 
 much sin and suffering ? Such seemed to him a contradiction 
 of the Lord's word that * a good tree cannot bring forth corrupt 
 fruit,' a text which he is said to have propounded to the Roman 
 presbyters. He took refuge in duaUsm. It is uncertain whether 
 he himself or only his followers assumed the existence of a 
 positively evil God, as well as the God of goodness. But he 
 certainly invented a Demiurge, or God of ' justice * rather than 
 goodness, who was the God of the Old Testament. Matter 
 and the created world were essentially evil, though Marcion 
 apparently did not say that these were actually created by his 
 * judicial God.' The latter, however, was the author of the 
 Old Testament revelation, the Jehovah who gave the law and the 
 prophecies and punished sinners. 
 
 Consequently Marcion thought that Christians must entirely 
 reject the Old Testament. Christ was not the Messiah whom 
 Marcion's the Demiurge had foretold in prophecy, but one sent 
 BibUcai by the God of goodness to deUver men from the 
 
 criticism. Demiurge. He was not bom of Mary, nor took 
 flesh, but appeared in a phantom humanity suddenly among 
 men in the synagogue at Capernaum. 
 
 One of the most interesting features of Marcion's teaching was 
 his bold attempt to alter and mutilate the Scriptures so as to 
 fit in with these theories. He was the first of a long line of so- 
 
 called critics who apply purely subjective canons of criticism 
 to the Scripture. Of course the Old Testament found no place 
 in Marcion's Bible. And S. Luke was the only Gospel he ad- 
 mitted, but he rejected. the opening chapters describing our 
 Lord's birth, and he made omissions and alterations, to avoid 
 giving any sanction to the Old Testament. The rest of his 
 canon was exclusively Pauline, but even here he rejected the 
 Pastoral Epistles, and the last two chapters of Romans. But 
 so inextricably is the New Testament bound with the Old, that 
 it seems to us that Marcion ought logically not even to have 
 retained what he did. Indeed, like all dualistic theorists, he 
 landed himself in hopeless inconsistencies and contradictions. 
 
 Nevertheless, Marcion was the founder of the only serious 
 schism which (Gnosticism caused in the Christian Church. V.x- 
 communicatc d by the Roman Church, he established The 
 himself as bishop of a ' Marcionite ' sect, which was Marcionites. 
 organised on the Christian model. A severe asceticism was the 
 rule, marriage and the eating of flesh were forbidden ; a Eucharist 
 was celebrated with water instead of wine. Saturday, being the 
 Jewish Sabbath, was observed as a fast. The Marcionites 
 were very stedfast in their opinion, and were ready to suffer 
 martyrdom as Christians. Their succession of bishops lasted 
 a long time ; they spread widely over the Empire. They fell 
 under Constantine's persecuting zeal, who confiscated their 
 churches and tried to suppress them. Nevertheless they lasted 
 on certainly till the sixth century, and traces are said to have 
 remained of them as late as the tenth. 
 
 One fact stands out clearly in the study of Gnosticism. The 
 Gnostic teachers failed to break down or seriously to impair tlu^ 
 solidity of the Church and the definiteness of the Failure of 
 Christian Faith. This is one of the most significant Gnosticism, 
 features of eariy Church history. The Gnostics were clever, 
 and attractive to their age. The vast majority of Christians 
 were quite unable to cope with them in learning and ingenuity, 
 and the Church had no long traditions behind her. It would 
 not seem surprising if many Christians had been bewildered and 
 shaken in their faith. But such was not the case. The common 
 
hf 
 
 112 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 conscience of the Christian body held tenaciously to the Scriptures 
 and the Incarnation. Christian Hfe was too fresh and vigorous 
 to be infected by the microbe of Gnosticism. The Christian 
 victory was seen not only in the brief hfe and rapid decay of the 
 Gnostic systems, but also in the positive strengthening of the 
 Christian witness by the assaults made upon it. In answer to 
 these, the Church produced both great Hterary champions and a 
 Christian philosophy which answered the Gnostics on their own 
 ground. 
 
 Though Gnosticism as a series of formal systems passed away 
 (with the exception of the Marcionites) by the fourth century, 
 SurviTalBof it is an interesting study to trace how both its 
 OnoaticiBm. characteristic attitude and some at least of its 
 doctrines tend to reappear through later history. Dualism 
 reappeared in the Manichaean heresy, and though it has lost 
 its attraction for philosophers, it still remains a favourite refuge 
 for many who are impatient of the standing mysteries of strife 
 and evil in the world, who, with Tennyson's dying king, are 
 constrained to cry out : 
 
 * O me ! for why is all around us here 
 As if some lesser God had made the world 
 But had not force to shape it as he would, 
 Till the high God behold it from beyond, 
 And enter it, and make it beautiful ?* 
 
 Pantheism, in all its forms, not least that which underlies 
 a merely evolutionary conception of the world, offers a God 
 who is as unapproachable and unknowable as that of Basilides, 
 a mere x^ to whom prayer is meaningless. 
 
 And in the * modernist * tendency to separate the Christ of 
 history from the Christ of theology—/.^, the Christ of Christian 
 belief and experience — ^we again catch an echo of the Gnostic 
 idea of the combination of an ' aeon ' with Jesus of Nazareth, 
 rather than the union in one Person of God and man. Nor is 
 ' Docetism ' quite dead. It is no longer possible indeed to regard 
 the body of Jesus as a phantom, but the miracles, and especially 
 the Resurrection and Ascension, are often regarded in a way which 
 is fundamentally ' Docetic' The ancient Gnostic could not 
 
 THE EARLY HERESIES 
 
 113 
 
 endure to think of this material body of our mortal limitations 
 as united with God. The modern Gnostic shrinks from the idea 
 of a physical resurrection. He may regard the Resurrection 
 appearances as divinely purposed to convey truth to men, but 
 they are not to him objective realities in the sense in which the 
 Church has always witnessed to them. • 
 
 Thus the study of ancient Gnosticism is no mere groping amid 
 the folHes and fantasies of past ages. It illustrates tendencies 
 which beset the path of the Church to-day as much as in the 
 second century. 
 
 The absence of Gnostic litcratme has already been noticed. 
 Two writings, however, have been preserved which merit some 
 comment, and it must be admitted that, while they Pistis 
 show some of the characteristic failings of Gnostic Sophia. 
 theory, they are not without reUgious vahu\ The first is the 
 hook known by the barbarous title of Pistis Sophia ('Faith- 
 wisdom '). It is a long and rather bewildering allegory of the 
 redemption of the soul, but throughout it Jesus Christ is the 
 l)rominent figure as the great world Redeemer. He is repre- 
 sented as after His resurrection giving instructions for eleven 
 years to His disciples, then returning to heaven to complete 
 ilis redemptive work, and again, on the following day, coming 
 to His disciples and teaching them all mysteries. These relate 
 to ' the kingdom of light,' the origin, probation, redemption, 
 and punishment of human souls, and the final destruction of all 
 evil. The book stands much above the ordinary level of Gnostic 
 teaching, as far as we know it, in its strong moral tendency, its 
 elaborate teaching of penitence, and its sense of the evil of sin. 
 And it lays great stress upon the value of sacraments. The 
 Eucharist is regarded as a sacrifice potent for the forgiveness 
 of sins. But in its extravagant and comphcated mythology, 
 its profession of secret knowledge imparted by Christ, over and 
 above the accepted belief of the Church, and its Docetic de- 
 scription of the Incarnation, the book is essentially Gnostic 
 rather than Christian. (For full description of its contents 
 see Dictionary oj Christian Biography.) 
 
 The letter of Ptolemaeus, a disciple of Valentinus, to a lady 
 
 H 
 
114 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 named Flora is a very interesting and able production. Flora 
 had inquired as to the interpretation of the Law of Moses, which 
 PtoiemaeuB the Gnostics ascribed to some other author than 
 andnora. the God of goodness. Ptolemaeus tells her that 
 it cannot be wholly His work, as it contains much that is im- 
 perfect, neither can it be the work of the evil one, for its purpose 
 is to establish righteousness. It must be ascribed to a third 
 and intermediate being, the Demiurge. The analysis of the 
 Law as given by Ptolemaeus is exceedingly acute. He finds 
 in it three sorts of contents, (i) That which is good, and consists 
 of commandments really given to Moses by the Demiurge. 
 (2) That which Moses himself added, e.g. the precept about 
 divorce for ' the hardness of men's hearts.' (3) Traditions 
 which the Jewish elders invented. The first part, which is the 
 really important one, again consists of three parts — (a) the moral 
 precepts fulfilled in Christ ; (b) imperfect precepts adapted to 
 human weakness, such as the law of retaUation, which the 
 Saviour abolished ; (c) typical ordinances, such as sacrifices 
 and the Sabbath, which have also been abolished, while their 
 spiritual meaning remains. 
 
 In these divisions there is shown a close study of the Gospels, 
 and a sincere attempt to grapple with difficulties. The error, 
 of course, which pervades the whole, is the inability of the 
 writer to comprehend that a revelation, though imperfect 
 and adapted only to early stages of religious education, may 
 still proceed from the one God who is supreme over all history, 
 and who deals with man as he is, in order that He may make him 
 what he ought to be. Hence, Ptolemaeus, like so many of the 
 Gnostics, takes refuge in dualism. But his letter certainly 
 shows how profoundly Christianity and the teaching of Christ 
 had attracted and influenced some at least who could not bring 
 themselves to accept the faith as it was taught by the Church. 
 The whole production stands on a much higher level than either 
 the anti- Judaism or the irreverent fables of many of the 
 Gnostics. It suggests that Gnosticism may have had a 
 better side to it than we should perhaps imagine from the 
 attacks of its opponents. 
 
 THE EARLY HERESIES 
 
 115 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What is the meaning of 'heresy'? 
 
 2. Who were the Ebionites ? 
 
 3. What was the relation of the Gnostics to the Church ? 
 
 4. What were the problems which the Gnostics endeavoured to solve ? 
 
 5. Show that their answers were fundamentally opposed to Christianity. 
 
 6. What were the practical results of Gnosticism upon life ? 
 
 7. Who is the traditional founder of Gnosticism ? 
 
 8. Describe the chief Gnostic sects. 
 
 g. Summarise and criticise the system of Valentinus. 
 
 10. What unique and interesting features are to be seen in the teaching 
 and career of Marcion ? 
 
 1 1. Why did Gnosticism fail ? 
 
 1 2. What writings of the Gnostic teachers survive ? 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 Gnosticism and the Gnostic systems : 
 
 Hort. Judaistic Christianity, 
 
 ' Gnosticism ' in Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
 
 Harnack. History of Dogma. 
 
 Mansel. Gnostic Heresies. 
 
 Simcox. History of the Church, 
 
THE CHURCH'S REPLY TO HERESY 
 
 117 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. THE CHURCH'S REPLY 
 
 TO HERESY 
 
 'Catholic Christianity has never passed, humanly speaking, 
 through any other crisis of such utter peril/ says Dr. Turner 
 Christian ^^^ ^^^ conflict \vith Gnosticism. Nevertheless, 
 defence— the Climch's consciousness of her faith was too 
 
 (1) In the strong and definite for the Gnostics to shake it. 
 ^®®^* She did not by any means endure them in silence. 
 A considerable part of the Christian literature of the end of the 
 second and beginning of the third centuries is directed against 
 the would-be innovators. This Christian defence proceeded on 
 two distinct lines. The \mters of the West, generally speaking, 
 including those of N. Africa, took their stand on the unity 
 and solidarity of the Christian tradition. Against the secret 
 traditions professed by the Gnostics, they laid stress on their 
 own well-known and easily verifiable continuity of teaching. 
 They appealed to the succession of Catholic bishops in every 
 part of the Church, who held the same faith. In contrast 
 with this, they exposed, without much mercy, the endless 
 variations and inconsistencies of the Gnostics. They held up 
 to ridicule the loves of the aeons, and the sorrows of Hachamoth ; 
 the contradictions in which behef in the evil of matter involved 
 the ascetic; the childish spells and incantations in which the 
 Gnostic delighted. They insisted on the dignity and un- 
 changeableness of the Catholic Faith. Such was the line adopted 
 by Irenaeus, TertuUian, and Hippolytus. 
 
 On the other hand, the great teachers of Alexandria, particularly 
 Clement and Origen, while equally firm in their insistence on 
 
 (2) At Alex- the apostolic tradition, preferred to view the faith 
 andria. of the Church, not so much in isolation, as the one 
 rock of truth amid the sea of human error, as in its relation to 
 
 116 
 
 all true human knowledge, to which they held it suppUed the 
 
 key. 
 Thus the Alexandrines began to build up a Christian 
 
 philosophy, which taught the unity of God's work and purpose 
 
 in nature and in all history as well as in revelation. The theories 
 
 of the Gnostics were overthrown by showing that the Church 
 
 really possessed a rational answer to all their problems. It 
 
 was the appeal not merely to faith, but to reason as enlightened 
 
 and guided by faith. 
 
 In the West, the first and chief opponent of the Gnostics 
 was Irenaeus. His monumental work ' Against Heresies ' 
 still survives in a very old Latin translation, some ^ irenaeus. 
 part also of the original Greek having been preserved. 
 It is one of our chief authorities, both for the system of Valentinus 
 and the teaching of the other Gnostic sects. S. Irenaeus himself 
 is an interesting figure. He succeeded to the bishopric of Lyons, 
 after the death of Pothinus in the great persecution of 177, 
 but by birth and training he was an Eastern, and carried on the 
 direct fine of tradition from S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp, having 
 been the pupil of the latter. He was born between 120 and 130, 
 and lived on till the opening years of the next century. 
 
 He had studied in detail the teaching of the Gnostics, and, 
 indeed, is somewhat wearisome in his descriptions of their 
 absurdities. The value of his work as a defence The Faith of 
 lies in the stress he lays on the unity of God, and the Church, 
 of His revelation in Old and New Testaments; the unity of 
 Christ's person. His eternal pre-existence and deity ; the reality 
 of the Incarnation, by which He gave a new beginning to the 
 human race, and the reality of the Atonement. He insists on 
 the definiteness and certainty of the Catholic tradition, and 
 he gives a statement of Christian behef as follows, the similarity 
 of which to the Apostles' Creed is evident :— 
 
 ' The Church, although now scattered over the face of the 
 world, still guards the faith which it received from the Apostles 
 and their immediate disciples, the faith in one God. the Father 
 Almighty, who made heaven and earth and the sea and all 
 things in them, and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God. who 
 
Ii8 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 was incarnate for our salvation ; and in the Holy Spirit . who by 
 the prophets had proclaimed the dispensations and the advents 
 and the birth from the Virgin, and the suffering and the resurrec- 
 tion from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the 
 beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his manifestation from heaven 
 in the glory of the Father ... to raise up anew all flesh of the 
 whole human race . . , and that he should execute just judg- 
 ment towards all.' 
 
 This faith, Irenaeus says, is one and the same all over the 
 world, illuminating all men who will to come to a knowledge 
 of the truth, even as one and the same sun shines everywhere. 
 It can neither be added to nor diminished by any supposed 
 * knowledge ' (i. lo). But the faith is no mere lifeless tradition 
 of orthodoxy ; ' by the Spirit of God, it renews its youth, 
 and. like some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, 
 causes the vessel which contains it to renew its youth also ' 
 (iii. 24). 
 
 This faith is attested by the four Gospels and by the apostolic 
 tradition preserved in the Church, along with the succession of 
 The Church bishops from those who were consecrated by the 
 of Rome. Apostles. Consequently in the Church alone is 
 
 to be found the truth and the true interpretation of Scripture. 
 This tradition is open and well known. There is no secret 
 teaching of the Apostles, revealed to superior intellects, such as 
 the Gnostics invented. In this connection Irenaeus uses some 
 remarkable language respecting the Church of Rome. 
 
 It would be tedious, he says, to examine all the lists of episcopal 
 succession in the different churches ; error is sufficiently refuted 
 by taking the example of the * very great, ancient, and uni- 
 versally known Church founded and organised at Rome by the 
 two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul' He gives the 
 succession of Roman bishops from Linus, the first, down to 
 Eleutherus, the twelfth. And he says, ' with this Church, 
 on account of its more powerful leadership, every church, that 
 is, those who are in every region faithful {i.e. Christians), must 
 of necessity agree; for here the tradition of the Apostles has 
 been always preserved by those who came from every 
 
 THE CHURCH'S REPLY TO HERESY 
 
 119 
 
 region.' * In the absence of the original Greek it is difficult to 
 estimate the exact force of these words, but it seems that in the 
 mind of Irenaeus this evident authority of the Roman Church is 
 due, in the first place, to its continuity of tradition from the two 
 great Apostles, and secondly, to the fact that it was the meeting 
 point of Christians from all parts of the world. Roman tradition 
 was not only directly apostolic, but represented the common 
 consent of Christendom. 
 
 Irenaeus uses remarkable language about the Eucharist. 
 It is that ' pure sacrifice ' which was foretold by Malachi (i. 
 lo-ii). When the bread receives the invocation of God, it is 
 no longer common bread, but ' Eucharist,' consisting of two 
 realities, earthly and heavenly ; so also our bodies, when they 
 receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the 
 hope of the resurrection to eternity (iv. 18). 
 
 The Church in North Africa is one of the most remarkable 
 phenomena of early Christianity. The splendour The North 
 of its brief bloom, the swiftness of its decay, and African 
 the vast influence of its writers and saints on church, 
 the Western Church generally make its career a unique episode 
 
 of Christian history. 
 
 The Roman provinces of Africa and Mauretania extended 
 over the district of the modern Tunis, TripoU, Algeria, and part 
 of Morocco. Carthage, the greatest city of Africa, originally 
 a Phoenician colony, was for long the serious rival of Rome. 
 But the Punic Wars had brought her downfall in 146 B.C. Juhus 
 Caesar restored Carthage a century later, and added to the 
 original small province of proconsular Africa the kingdom of 
 Numidia. And Mauretania became, too, a Roman provmce 
 in A.D. 40. The province of Africa was rich and populous, 
 crowded with cities, and its fields supplied Italy and Rome 
 with corn. Roman civilisation and institutions had taken 
 deep root. Latin became the chief language, and there was a 
 vigorous intellectual life. But the religion of Rome, though 
 
 1 Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem P"f ^^Pf *^*f ™ "f^^f -^ 
 est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt ^"^^^;^^, ^f^^"' ^^^ 
 qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae ^s* ab apostol.s 
 traditio (iii. 3). * Convenire ad ' may also be translated resort to. 
 
120 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 THE CHURCH'S REPLY TO HERESY 
 
 121 
 
 it had overthrown the original African and Phoenician worships, 
 never took much hold. Consequently the Church planted in 
 Africa, in some unknown ways in the first century, found here 
 a congenial and comparatively unoccupied soil. 
 
 A type of Christianity grew up very different from that of 
 the East or of Alexandria. It was less philosophical, more 
 narrowly logical, full of hot African emotion and zeal. Its 
 faults lay in the excess of its good quaUties, in intolerance, 
 and the spirit of controversy. The Africans had neither the 
 practical wisdom and liberality of the Roman Church, nor the 
 broad view of the Alexandrians. The decay and fall of African 
 Christianity were due largely to internal dissensions and schisms, 
 and probably also to moral failure. More attention was given 
 to controversy than to the pursuit of practical hoHness. Hence, 
 African Christianity proved like the seed sown on stony ground. 
 It fell irrevocably before the succession of barbarian invasions 
 that swept North Africa from the fifth to the eighth centuries. 
 
 Nevertheless, Africa had her great contribution to make to 
 the development of Christian thought and institutions. No- 
 African where perhaps so clearly as in Africa was grasped 
 theology. the definiteness and unchangeableness of the faith. 
 Where Alexandria saw the similarities between Christianity and 
 heathen religions and philosophies, Africa saw the differences ; 
 she felt the finality and unity of the Christian revelation, and 
 was ready to carry these to their logical conclusions. 'And 
 this has left a permanent mark on Western theology. Indeed, 
 it would scarcely be an exaggeration to say that Latin Christianity 
 grew up not in Italy or Gaul but in North Africa. Here arose 
 the great Latin writers of the Church. Tertullian, Cyprian, and 
 Augustine were all Africans, and these three ever since have 
 exercised a paramount influence in the West. 
 
 Even the characteristic language of the Western Church came 
 from Africa rather than Italy. Greek was apparently the 
 original official language of the Roman Church, and of her 
 services, and Greek forms still survive like fossils embedded in 
 the Latin rites, in such popular devotions as the Trisagion. 
 But the Latin of Africa and her ecclesiastical writers gradually 
 
 drove out Greek, and estabHshed itself as the tongue of the 
 Western Church. It is probable, though not certain, that the 
 earlier Latin Bible of the Church, the veins Latina, which pre- 
 ceded S. Jerome's Vulgate, sprang from Africa. 
 
 Africa, as might be expected from the warmth and zeal of its 
 Christianity, contributed early to the roll of martyrs. In i8i, 
 at the beginning of the reign of Commodus, there African 
 suffered for Christ, Namphamo and his three com- martyrs, 
 panions, and in the same year the better known martyrs of 
 Scilla ; these were a little band of twelve, three of whom were 
 women, who were beheaded at Carthage by the Proconsul 
 Saturninus. Their testimony is recorded : * We render honour 
 to Caesar as Caesar, but worship and prayer to God alone. ' 
 
 Some twenty years later came the persecuting edict of the 
 Emperor Severus. Though for long he had been regarded as 
 favourable to the Christians, he finally turned against them, 
 and forbade all further conversions either to Christianity or 
 Judaism. In the persecution that followed, and lasted spas- 
 modically till 211, S. Irenaeus suffered martyrdom at Lyons 
 with others, but the heaviest blows fell on Egypt and Africa. 
 At Alexandria, Leonides, the father of Origen, suffered. In 
 Africa, probably at Carthage, S. Perpetua, a young matron of 
 good family, with S. Felicitas and several others, was put 
 to death on March 7, 202 or 203. This martyrdom is de- 
 scribed in a contemporary narrative, part of which purports to 
 have been written by Perpetua herself and her fellow-martyr 
 Saturus. It is a singularly beautiful story. The martyrs, 
 while confined in their dark and suffocating dungeons, saw 
 heavenly visions. Perpetua found herself in the gardens of 
 Paradise, fed by the Good Shepherd, amidst a white-robed throng. 
 She also saw her dead brother (who had died at the age of seven), 
 Dinocrates, suffering in ^ a place of gloom, tormented by thirst, 
 and then reheved by the earnest prayers of the Church. Saturus, 
 too, had a vision of the after-death, when he was borne by angels 
 
 ^ It is very doubtful whether this condition can be described as 
 * purgatory ' in the later sense. Probably Dinocrates was unbaptized ; 
 Perpetua herself was only a catechumeq. 
 
122 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 TertuUian. 
 
 to Paradise, and saw the throne with its four-and-twenty elders 
 and heard the Thrice Holy Song. 
 
 These martyrs were thrown to wild beasts. Perpetua, after 
 being tossed by a wild cow, was despatched with the sword. 
 
 The persecution broke out again with increased cruelty under 
 the Proconsul Scapula in 210 or 211. 
 
 These African martyrdoms are brought vividly before us in 
 the writings of the great TertuUian. This extraordinary man, 
 the first great Latin writer of the Western Church, 
 illustrates in his own character and career both the 
 strength and the weakness of African Christianity. He was 
 born about 160, of heathen parents, and showed brilliant abilities. 
 A man of wide reading, he became also a trained lawyer. In 
 192 he was converted to Christianity, and, first as a layman 
 and afterwards as a priest, he wrote a series of powerful treatises. 
 He showed himself a master of satire, epigram, and special 
 pleading ; never so happy as when fighting, whether his attacks 
 were directed against the heathen persecutor, the heretic, or 
 the Christian whose hfe did not come up to his own severe ideal. 
 He has well been called ' the fierce TertuUian.' There is in him 
 a touch of Dean Swift's saeva indignatio. He knew his faiUng. 
 ' Most wretched am I,' he writes, * ever sick with the heats of 
 impatience.' But self-knowledge failed to keep him from the 
 results of his own temper. In middle hfe, out of heart with the 
 laxness, as he thought it, of the Church, he feU into the schism 
 of * the Montanists ' (p. 125), the earliest of the puritanical sects 
 who disregarded the parable of the wheat and the tares. Of 
 the thirty-six treatises attributed to TertuUian, some were 
 written whUe he was still a CathoUc, beginning with the ' Address 
 to the Martyrs ' in 197 : others after he became a Montanist. 
 AU are vigorous, fuU of interest, and none of them reaUy conflict 
 with CathoUc theology on fundamental questions. Among the 
 most important are the Apology, the De Praescriptione, and 
 the Treatise on Baptism. 
 
 The Apology is addressed to the Proconsul of Africa, probably 
 at the time of Severus' persecution. It is an impassioned 
 appeal for justice, brilliantly written, on fire with passionate zeal. 
 
 THE CHURCH'S REPLY TO HERESY 
 
 123 
 
 TertuUian dweUs on the rapid spread of the Church. * We are 
 but of yesterday, and we have filled all that you possess — only 
 the temples have we left you ! ' He insists not only, TertuUian's 
 with the other apologists, on the moral fruits of Apology. 
 Christianity, and on Christian loyalty to the Emperor, and their 
 constant prayers for him and the Empire, but on the inherent 
 truth of Christianity itself. It is the faith that is in harmony 
 with man's true nature and deepest needs. In a remarkable 
 passage he speaks of * the witness of the soul.' ' Though it be 
 confined in the prison of the body, trammelled by evU institutions, 
 weakened by lusts and desires, enslaved to false gods, yet when 
 at length it comes to itself, as it were after drunkenness or slumber, 
 or some disease, and feels its own true health, then it names 
 God.' And it is conscious, he goes on, that God is great and 
 good, and the judge of right — * O witness of the soul which by 
 nature is Christian ! ' 
 
 He pours scorn on the futile cruelties of those who are trying 
 to stamp out Christianity. ' The more you mow us down, the 
 fuller is the harvest ; the blood of Christians is the seed.' And 
 he holds up to ridicule the chUdish superstitions which attributed 
 horrid crimes to Christians. ' How great would be the glory 
 of that governor who could find out a Christian who has eaten 
 already a hundred infants ! ' * 
 
 The tone of this * Apology ' is not always agreeable, but it is 
 the outburst of one who felt he was on the winning side. 
 
 The De Praescriptione ^ is a treatise of great and lasting im- 
 portance. It clears the ground in the great controversy between 
 the Church and the * heretics,' by laying down with TertuUian 
 clear-cut logic the primary principle of the relation agrainst 
 of the Scriptures to the faith. Men had already Heresy, 
 discovered that it was possible to adduce texts from the Bible 
 in support of any heresy. Many of the Gnostics, moreover, 
 had pretended to the possession of secret writings and traditions 
 handed down from the Apostles; as if the Apostles, like the 
 
 * A legal phrase meaning the * Hmitation ' of an inquiry ( = * a demurrer *). 
 The controversy with heretics is hmited to one point — the legitimacy of 
 their appeal to the Scriptures. 
 
124 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 heathen philosophers, had taught one thing to the multitude 
 and another to the 'intellectuals.' Others, like Marcion, had 
 refused to accept any Scriptures which they thought contrary 
 to their own teaching. 
 
 TertuUian sweeps the board clean by laying down that there 
 must be no argument at all with heretics respecting the Scriptures. 
 The Scriptures belong to the Church, to those who possess the 
 rule of faith handed down from the Apostles and Christ Himself. 
 By this rule alone can the Scriptures be rightly interpreted. 
 He summarises its contents (xiii.) in words which suggest the 
 Apostles' Creed, with some additional clauses on the pre-existence 
 and creative work of the Logos, the Son of God, who was born 
 at last into the worid as Jesus Christ. This rule of faith is 
 final and complete, the standard of truth, and it is to this, rather 
 than to the Scriptures, that the primary appeal in all controversy 
 
 must be made. 
 
 He then deals with various objections which might be raised 
 as to the trustworthiness of this rule of faith ; such as the 
 ignorance or dissensions of the Apostles, or their failure to com- 
 municate the whole faith to the Church. By far the most 
 effective answer TertuUian makes is to the suggestion that the 
 Church herself may have failed to transmit the faith correctly. 
 He appeals triumphantly to the unanimity of all the Churches 
 founded by the Apostles. ' Is it hkely,' he asks, ' they would 
 all have gone astray into one and the same faith ? ' This 
 argument has not lost its weight with the process of time. The 
 tendency of error is to produce diversity. The practical agree- 
 ment of Catholic Christendom on the fundamentals of the faith 
 is still an impressive fact. 
 
 A further objection might be raised as to the right of certain 
 churches to be considered ' apostolic' Had not the heretics 
 their churches ? There are two tests, he replies, of apostoHcity. 
 Unbroken succession from the apostolic founder, and identity 
 of teaching with the Apostles. Let the heretics produce the 
 origin of their churches, and the list of their bishops. They 
 cannot do this, for they are all of later origin than the Apostles, 
 and their teaching is certainly different. For the rule of faith 
 
 THE CHURCH'S REPLY TO HERESY 
 
 125 
 
 Baptism. 
 
 and the true interpretation of the Scriptures, let them refer 
 to such churches as those of Corinth, PhiUppi, Thessalonica, 
 or pre-eminently Rome ; where Peter and Paul and John 
 taught and suffered, where the faith, the Scriptures, and the 
 sacraments are preserved. 
 
 Thus, to TertuUian, the Creeds of the Church would be no 
 mere summaries of Scriptures, which later ages might modify 
 or reconstruct, but an independent and primary line of witness, 
 and the Christian's guide and key to the interpretation of the 
 Bible. 
 
 TertuUian's treatise on Baptism is noteworthy as the first 
 Christian monograph on this subject. He points out the uni- 
 versal use of water in God's methods of revelation, 
 ' Nunquam sine aqua Christus.' That Baptism 
 is the instrument of regeneration is stated quite definitely. 
 ' Blessed is the sacrament of water, by which we arc washed 
 from the sins of our former bUndness, and are set free and attain 
 life eternal.' Faith without baptism, he holds, is not sufiicient 
 for salvation. 
 
 It was a strange irony of human perversity that led TertuUian 
 to forsake the Church, whose claims he had so strongly and 
 clearly vindicated in the De Praescriptione, and jy^^j^^^^gm 
 to become a leader at Carthage of the sect of the 
 Montanists. The development of this schism, for it can scarcely 
 be caUed a heresy, is among the most remarkable phenomena 
 of the second century. It began in Phrygia, always the home 
 of strange and fanatical religions, with the preaching of Montanus, 
 a convert to Christianity, once, it is said, a priest of Cybele.* 
 He, with his two women disciples, Prisca and MaximiUa, claimed 
 prophetic inspiration. They professed to be the mouthpieces 
 of the Paraclete, and announced the immediate Advent of 
 Christ, and the estabUshment of His reign of a thousand years 
 on earth. They even pointed out the spot in Phrygia where 
 the new and heavenly Jerusalem would descend from heaven to 
 earth. Soon they had a numerous and excited foUowing, 
 who reUnquished their earthly business in view of the coming 
 1 The date is disputed, and placed variously from 130 to 170. 
 
126 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 millennium, broke off their family ties, and distributed their 
 possessions. With frenzied zeal they endeavoured to purify 
 the Church. They adopted strict asceticism, condemned second 
 marriages, and denied that deadly sin after baptism could 
 receive forgiveness on earth. 
 
 But the outstanding feature of Montanism was its revival 
 of * prophecy.' It was an attempt to return to what were 
 imagined to be the conditions of the first days of the Church. 
 But this involved a reaction against the fixed ecclesiastical order 
 which had developed so rapidly since the days of the Apostles. 
 The ' prophet ' was regarded by the Montanists as ipso facto 
 superior in authority to any bishop or priest. He was the 
 immediate mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Such 'revivals' with their strange ecstatic or hysterical 
 accompaniments have been seen often since ; usually beginning 
 within the Church, aiming with fanatical impatience at an 
 impossible spiritual standard, and then ending in a schism. 
 The Montanist prophesying created a great impression in the 
 West as well as the East. The bishops at first were doubtful 
 how to deal with it. as its adherents were not guilty of any 
 formal denial of the Faith. But both its excesses of zeal and 
 its whole attitude were soon felt to be contrary to the spirit 
 and the order of the Catholic Church. Montanist leaders began 
 to be excommunicated, and from the third century onwards 
 the movement became definitely a schism, and sank into dis- 
 credit. But its influence and its religious vagaries lasted a 
 considerable time. In Africa there were still Montanists in 
 S. Augustine's time. In Phrygia the village of Pepuza was 
 for long the headquarters of Montanism, the reputed New 
 Jerusalem to which pilgrimages were made. A new ministry 
 of five orders, with * patriarchs ' at its head, took the place of 
 the ' prophets/ Women were admitted to be bishops and 
 priests, and sacred virgins clothed in white and bearing torches 
 figured prominently in the Montanist festivals. 
 
 Montanism was not unconnected with the Church protest 
 against Gnosticism. Its moral fervour was directly opposed to 
 the laxity of the Gnostics. And the whole movement was an 
 
 THE CHURCH'S REPLY TO HERESY 
 
 127 
 
 attempt to narrow and stiffen the legitimate Christian claim 
 to an absolute and exclusive possession of revealed truth. By 
 the severity of its discipline it endeavoured to drive out all 
 elements of error and laxity. Its claim to a direct spiritual 
 authority for its ' prophets ' was after all only an exaggeration of 
 that supernatural authority of which the Church has always 
 been conscious, and which justified her refusal to admit the 
 Gnostic innovations. 
 
 It was doubtless in this way that Montanism succeeded in 
 winning Tertullian. To his impatient temper, and his zeal for 
 strictness both of disciphne and definition, Montanism would 
 seem to supply that which he thought was lacking in the Church 
 at large. In his very eagerness to maintain the faith, he fell 
 himself into the trap which his own arguments had done so 
 much to warn men against. The champion of ecclesiastical 
 tradition and order became himself a leader of schism. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What methods of defence were adopted by the Church against 
 
 Gnosticism ? 
 
 2. What is the teaching of S. Irenaeus as to the Christian faith ? 
 
 3. Describe the characteristics of the North African Church. 
 
 4. What contributions did the North African Church make to the 
 development of the Western Church ? 
 
 5. Describe the early martyrs of Africa. 
 
 6. How is the character of Tertullian reflected in his writings and his 
 
 career ? 
 
 7. What is the Dc Pracscriptione and its value ? 
 
 8. Who were the Montanists? Describe their tenets, and the con- 
 nection of them with their times. 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. The teaching of S. Irenaeus as to the Roman Church : 
 
 Puller. Primitive Saints and the See of Rome. 
 
 2. Montanism : 
 
 Duchesne. Early History of the Church. 
 Ramsay. Church in the Roman Empire. 
 
CHAPTER IX. ALEXANDRIA: CONSTRUCTIVE 
 REPLY TO HERESY AND HEATHENISM 
 
 A VERY different style of Christian defence against Gnosticism 
 from that of Irenaeus and Tertullian was developed at 
 Alexandria. It has already been noted how the cosmopoli- 
 tanism and the intellectual activity of the great Graeco-Egyptian 
 city and its university had favoured the growth of Jewish and 
 licathen Gnosticism. But the same influence which had helped 
 to produce a Pliilo, a Basilides, or a Valentinus led, under the 
 guidance of those who had definitely accepted the Christian 
 Faith, to a new and most important development of Christian 
 thought. At Alexandria, Gnosticism was met on its own ground 
 and refuted by its own weapons. 
 
 From carlv Christian times there had existed here a notable 
 catechetical school, traditionally founded by S. Mark. Intended 
 The school originally for the instruction of candidates for 
 of Alex- baptism, it rapidly became much more — a place of 
 
 andria. training of Christian teachers, a centre of apologetic 
 
 and missionary work. During its most brilHant and original 
 period, the later years of the second and the first half of the third 
 century, the heads of the school were men in advance of their 
 age, whose influence has been far wider in later times than it was 
 even on their own contemporaries. 
 
 Briefly speaking, the Alexandrine school, instead of merely 
 condemning all other philosophic and religious systems or 
 teachers, by simply contrasting them with the clear-cut and 
 unchanging faith, or by exposing their inconsistencies and 
 absurdities, was ready to recognise parts and aspects of truth 
 in non-Christian thought, and to bring them into connection with 
 the Gospel. Nevertheless, the Alexandrines were neither 
 Gnostics nor mere ' liberals. ' They started on the basis of the 
 
 128 
 
 REPLY TO HERESY AND HEATHENISM 129 
 
 revealed faith. They had themselves made the great surrender. 
 They had submitted to the rule of the faith as the guide to their 
 speculation. This fact marks them off by an impassable barrier 
 from Valentinus or any other Gnostic teacher, as well as from 
 much that in other times has described itself as liberal theology. 
 It is true that their speculations were much freer than the 
 Church was inclined to tolerate in later times of more exact 
 definition. Some of their statements were certainly incorrect, 
 and some of their characteristic methods fell into discredit ; but 
 the guiding principle of their work was just as essentially Christian 
 as that of the Gnostics was fundamentally non-Christian. 
 
 The Alexandrines agreed with the Gnostics in laying stress 
 on ' Knowledge.' But knowledge to them was not the opposite 
 of faith, nor was it the possession of the intellectuals ^ew attitude 
 in contrast with the simple belief of the ordinary towards 
 Christian. It was the rightful development of lieathenlsm. 
 faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the ' wisdom of 
 the perfect ' in S. Paul's sense. So instead of merely regarding 
 all the gods of the heathen as devils, who had usurped the place 
 of the Creator, the Alexandrines adopted a sympathetic attitude 
 towards the heathen systems. They believed that, though 
 imperfect and full of error, these really led up to and prepared 
 for the fuller light of Christianity, and were to some degree the 
 utterances of the indwelling Logos. The Church, they felt, 
 could find some place in her own system for all that was good 
 and true in Pythagoras or Plato. This new attitude towards 
 heathenism had been hinted at by Justin Martyr and Melito, 
 and though at present it was confined to a few Christian scholars 
 and thinkers, it was doubtless a sign of a growing width of 
 outlook. The Church was rising to the greatness of her heritage. 
 She was beginning to feel that all history belonged to her, and 
 all sides of man's development. She was not merely the Divine 
 witness to revealed truth in the midst of a world given over to 
 Satan, but the heiress of the ages, and the key-bearer of the 
 future. So the Alexandrines were the pioneers of Christian 
 philosophy ; the effort to see all things in one, as a rational and 
 connected whole. 
 
130 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Heathenism herself was now becoming conscious of the 
 seriousness of the struggle with the Church, and was making strenu- 
 New heathen ous efforts. The philosophers could no longer dis- 
 attack. miss their rival with contempt or silence. There 
 
 was the line of direct attack. The True Word of Celsus has 
 already been described (pp. 95-6). Narrow, abusive, and un- 
 sympathetic as it was, its production shows that philosophy 
 was feeling some apprehension as to the growing influence of 
 Christianity. Men like Celsus were particularly irritated at the 
 idea that the Church should put forward a revelation as absolute 
 and exclusive. By philosophy, just as by state-craft, it was 
 the universal claim of the Gospel that was felt to be its most 
 disquieting feature. Yet it is a claim which follows inevitably 
 from Christian premises ; and though later opponents may have 
 stated their case more gently and with more refinement than 
 Celsus, this claim still remains the world's greatest stumbling- 
 block. 
 
 The attack on Christianity took also the milder form of imi- 
 tation. The Pythagorean philosopher, ApoUonius of Tyana, 
 Apouonius an historical personage of the first century, was 
 of Tyana. put forth as a rival to Christ. A mythical hfe of 
 him was written by Philostratus at the instigation of the wife 
 of the Emperor Severus. It is not a work of any great power, 
 being full of imaginary miracles and historical impossibilities 
 —a sort of philosophical romance. Nevertheless, it presents 
 interesting features, some of which show the influence of the 
 Gospels. ApoUonius is represented as miraculously born, as 
 an incarnation of Proteus, the god of nature. When he grew 
 to manhood he distributed most of his property to others, and 
 devoted himself to the strict asceticism and silence of the disciples 
 of Pythagoras. In middle life he journeyed to Babylonia and 
 India, where he met the Brahmins, and learned from them 
 their doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Then returning 
 westwards ho performed many fantastic miracles at Ephesus, 
 Athens. Sparta, and Rome. He is rcpR^tit^^d as being 
 honourably reoiived by Vespasian and Titus, but suspected 
 and imprisoned by Domitian. He escaped miraculously, an* 
 
 REPLY TO HERESY AND HEATHENISM 131 
 
 retired to Ephesus. His death was unseen and mysterious, and 
 after death he appeared again to a young inquirer, to convince 
 him of the immortahty of the soul. 
 
 Such an effusion as this cannot have been taken very seriously, 
 nor have had much influence, whether it was intended as a 
 counterblast to Christianity or as a sort of compromise with it. 
 Its chief importance perhaps is that it shows the feeling that 
 the life of Christ was one of the strong forces of Christianity, 
 and that some ideal of personal purity and benevolence, com- 
 bined with miraculous powers, was necessary for its opponents, 
 if they were to compete on equal terms with it. 
 
 More serious than the legends of Pythagorean powers and 
 holiness were the new efforts made by philosophy herself in 
 the second and third centuries. The older schools even at 
 their best had failed to influence any wide circle. Neo- 
 Stoicism, with its stem, cold ideals of duty, could piatonism. 
 only appeal to a few, and it had not succeeded in inspiring 
 even its imperial devotee with either sympathy or humanity. 
 And philosophy at her worst had degenerated into mere quib- 
 bling and disputations, into that craving for novelty which 
 S. Luke has stigmatised in one memorable sentence (Acts 
 xvii. 21). But at the beginning of the third century arose a new 
 philosophy with more serious and noble aims. Neoplatonism 
 was a direct attempt to compete with Christianity, and there 
 was much in it which calls forth both interest and respect. 
 Neoplatonism has been described as ' the last effort of Greek 
 philosophy to explain the mystery of the world.' Based on the 
 teaching of Plato, it mingled with his philosophy a strong 
 element of mysticism. It was essentially, however, a religious 
 movement. It resembled Gnosticism in its eclectic character, 
 in its attempts to combine different systems, and in its tendency 
 towards mystery and magic. But it vv;js not, like Gnosticism, 
 an attempt to remodel or reconstruct Christianity. Its reputed 
 founder] was Ammonius Sacca»> a porter in the market of 
 Ale.xandria. He wits followed by several men of great ability 
 and influence, notably Plotinus and PorphjTy. Men of religious 
 fervour, they taught that the human soul and the vi^orld had 
 
Porphyry. 
 
 132 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 gone wrong, and needed restoration by the practice of virtue and 
 by asceticism. It was possible for an elect few to attain even 
 in this Hfe to immediate communion with the Absolute. Plotinus 
 was a profound thinker and a man of the strictest life, ' a saint 
 in heathendom.' 
 
 Porphyry, his disciple, was a formidable opponent of Christi- 
 anity. His treatise Against the Christians was more damaging 
 than that of Celsus. He apphed severe criticism 
 to the Scriptures ; it is notable that he was the first 
 to argue that the Book of Daniel was not the work of the prophet, 
 but belonged to the period of Antiochus. Like the Tubingen 
 school in later days, he made much of the supposed opposition 
 between S. Peter and S. Paul. He professed a great ad- 
 miration for Christ Himself, but hated S. Paul, and the 
 Christian Church generally, and approved of the persecution 
 
 of Christians. 
 
 Against this manifold attack of Gnosticism and neo-paganism, 
 the great teachers of the Christian school of Alexandria shaped 
 their broad-minded and constructive defence ; setting forth 
 Christianity as the one final truth which could combine in itself 
 
 all lesser truths. 
 
 The first recorded head of the school was Pantaenus the SiciHan, 
 
 a converted Stoic philosopher. Nothing certain is known of 
 
 him ; but he is said to have been so distinguished 
 
 Pantaenui. .^ ^/^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ Gospel that he was sent forth on 
 
 missionary labours, and even preached in India, in the time of 
 Marcus AureUus, where he found that S. Bartholomew had pre- 
 ceded him and left a Hebrew copy of the Gospel (supposed 
 by the ancients to have been S. Matthew's). 
 
 His most distinguished pupil at Alexandria was 5. Clement, 
 who succeeded him about 180. Clement was a man of vast 
 and varied learning ; a master of ancient literature, 
 which he quotes profusely in his writings. His 
 most important works are the Exhortation to the Greeks, the 
 Paedagogus or Instructor, and the Stromateis or ' Patchwork.' 
 The last sets forth at the outset the leading principles of the 
 author's thought. ' The barbarian and Greek philosophy has,' 
 
 Clement. 
 
 REPLY TO HERESY AND HEATHENISM 133 
 
 he says, ' torn off a fragment of eternal truth from the theology 
 of the ever-living Word. He who brings together again the 
 separate fragments and makes them one, wiU without peril 
 contemplate the perfect Word, the Truth.' Thus, he thinks, 
 by an eclectic process the true ' knowledge ' can be built up. 
 Clement's theology, Hke that of Justin Martyr, is not always 
 accurately worded, and he has been accused of such heretical 
 teaching as the eternity of matter, and that the Son is a created 
 being. But without doubt he intended aU his teaching to be 
 based on the Christian revelation, which he regarded as of a 
 higher order than any of the partial truths taught by the 
 philosophers. Indeed, he imagined that much of the heathen 
 philosophy was reaUy derived from the Old Testament. He 
 calls Plato, ' Moses talking Greek.' The weak point of Clement's 
 writing is the absence of system. His teaching is disconnected 
 and fuU of digression. The most constructive and original 
 feature is the development of his portrait of ' the true Gnostic,' 
 in whom knowledge, hfe, and love have become one, and who 
 is gradually admitted to the perfect knowledge of God. 
 
 Clement was driven from Alexandria by the persecution of 
 202, and his last years were spent perhaps in Cappadocia, but 
 there is no authentic record of them. He was suc- 
 ceeded at Alexandria by his greater pupil, Origen, 
 the most gifted and remarkable man that the Church had pro- 
 duced since S. Paul. 
 
 Origen was by birth an Egyptian, and had been brought up 
 a Christian. His father, Leonides, suffered as a martyr in the 
 Egyptian persecution which had scattered the school and sent 
 Clement to Syria. Origen, only about seventeen years of age, 
 was most eager to follow his father to martyrdom, and was only 
 restrained by his mother, who is said to have hidden his clothes. 
 A little later he was entrusted, in spite of his youth, with the 
 headship of the school, by the bishop, Demetrius. Here he 
 taught and studied tiU 215, winning a great reputation for learn- 
 ing, and sanctity, and spiritual power. He was a keen ascetic, 
 and with characteristic zeal he endeavoured to foUow too 
 Uterally the Saviour's words (S. Matt. v. 29-30 and xix. 12), 
 
 Origen. 
 
134 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 and actually mutilated himself, an unfortunate act which later 
 gave his enemies a handle against him. During this period 
 he also travelled considerably, even making a visit to Rome, 
 in his desire of seeing ' that most ancient Church. ' From 
 215 to 219 he taught at Caesarea, and, though only a catechist 
 in ecclesiastical rank, he was invited by the bishop to preach in 
 the churches. This was displeasing to his old patron, Demetrius 
 of Alexandria, who recalled him. 
 
 The second period of his headship of the school lasted till 
 230, where, assisted by a staff of secretaries, he produced much 
 of his great Uterary work. But a stormy time was at hand. 
 He was invited to Achaia to use his influence against heresy, 
 and on the way was ordained priest by the bishops of Aeha 
 (Jerusalem) and Caesarea. Demetrius strongly objected to this 
 as an irregular act, and on Origen's return to Alexandria was 
 actually instrumental in getting him deposed from the priest- 
 hood, and from the headship of the school. He took refuge 
 at Caesarea, where his deposition was ignored, and he continued 
 to write and teach, and exerted an immense influence. His 
 last years were passed amid the storm of the Decian persecution 
 (PP- 153-4)- He was imprisoned and tortured, and finally died at 
 Tyre in 253, where his tomb was long visited by Christian 
 pilgrims. His writings and his very name became a centre of 
 bitter controversy. No man ever made more devoted friends 
 and followers, or excited more opposition. The controversy 
 as to whether his teaching was heretical lasted for centuries. 
 The Fifth General Council (553) is said to have actually con- 
 demned him (p. 321). But his reputation suffered from the 
 misunderstanding and misguided zeal of his own followers in 
 later time. 
 
 Origen was a deep and daring thinker, a widely-read 'and 
 versatile scholar. Had he not been a Christian, he would have 
 Origen's been far the greatest of the Gnostics. As a teacher 
 
 teaching:. he has never been surpassed either in the grandeur 
 of his ideals or the skill of his methods. Gregory Thaumaturgus, 
 his pupil and convert, afterwards Bishop of Neo-Caesarea in 
 Pontus, in his ' Farewell Address,' has left us an enthusiastic 
 
 REPLY TO HERESY AND HEATHENISM 135 
 
 appreciation of his work. Origen believed that the Church 
 should claim all hterature and all learning as her rightful heritage. 
 The results of heathen wisdom were, he said, Hke the gold and 
 jewels of which the Israelites spoiled the Egyptians, and used 
 for the building of the Tabernacle. He led his pupils through 
 courses of mathematics, science, and philosophy up to theology 
 as the crown of the edifice. He made of each pupil an mdividual 
 study and adapted his teaching to each. 
 
 Origen was a pioneer in the critical study of the Bible text. 
 His Hexapla is a monumental work in this direction. It was 
 an exhibition of the text of the Old Testament in six paraUel 
 columns Hebrew in the original writing, the same in Greek 
 character, the Septuagint, and three other early Greek versions. 
 He also produced commentaries on all the books of the Bible- 
 extant now only in fragments. His knowledge and love of the 
 Scriptures were marvellous, though, as will be seen, his explana- 
 tions of them were often vitiated by an erroneous method. His 
 most remarkable work, however, which was largely the cause 
 of his being regarded as a heretic, was his De Pnnctptis, one 
 of his earliest books, which has been described as the first attempt 
 to form a philosophy of the Christian faith. It is short and 
 consists of four books, which deal with what he considered the 
 preHminary problems of theology-God, nature, man, and revela- 
 
 '"with regard to his supposed errors, it must be remembered 
 that he certainly never intended to teach anything contrary 
 to the Bible and the accepted faith of Christians : supposed 
 his speculations are always put forth with humility errors of 
 and reverence. Moreover, there was as yet httle ^ ^ • 
 theological definition in the Church. The facts of the Creed 
 were accepted by aU, but as to the interpretation of them 
 and their relation with phUosophy, the third century naturally 
 felt itself much freer to speculate than would have been 
 possible or right for an orthodox teacher in the Nicene and 
 
 later ages. . r x f 
 
 For example, he has been accused of an imperfect grasp ot 
 
 the Divinity of Christ and of the Incarnation, of subordmatmg 
 
 i, . 
 
I 
 
 ♦ 
 
 136 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 the Son to the Father even in His Godhead, and of denying 
 that prayer may be made directly to the Son. It is true that 
 The Divinity isolated Statements of this sort may be produced; 
 of Christ. but they can be balanced by others, and there is 
 little doubt that he held firmly the Godhead and manhood as 
 united in the person of the Saviour. He certainly believed 
 in the eternity of the Son, and he was even the author of a phrase 
 which has never been improved on, and which became of great 
 value in the Arian controversy, to express the sense in which 
 the titles Son and Father are applied. ' The Son,' he says, ' is 
 eternally being begotten.* (See p. 185.) In later controversies 
 both Arians and CathoHcs claimed Origen on their side ; 
 but his real orthodoxy has been sufficiently vindicated by 
 the great Bishop Bull in his ' Defence of the Nicene Creed ' 
 (1685). 
 
 Again, Origen certainly held views on the nature of the soul 
 which the Church generally has been unable to accept, and in 
 Pre-exist- which he shows an affinity with some of the Gnostic 
 ence of souls, teachers. He thought a certain number of souls 
 had been created once for all, with the power of progressing or 
 deteriorating. Hence came on the one side the evolution of 
 angels, and on the other that of devils. And in this way also 
 he explained the puzzles of the differences in character and 
 circumstances among men in this hfe. They were due, he thought, 
 to sin or to virtue in previous stages of the soul's existence. 
 But this theory of transmigration differed from that of Oriental 
 teachers, in that he denied that the soul of a man could become 
 that of an animal or vice versa. Speculations of this sort have 
 always had a peculiar fascination for romantic and imaginative 
 minds. But Origen's theories do not seem reconcilable with 
 what the Church has usually taught about human individuaHty 
 and responsibility. The study of heredity and evolution suggests 
 other reasons for the manifold differences in human beings as we 
 know them. In particular, Origen's behef in the creation of all 
 souls in the beginning would seem to necessitate tlie pi^existcncc 
 of the human soul of Cluist, whkli would introduce a new dif- 
 ficulty into the theology of the Incarnation* 
 
 REPLY TO HERESY AND HEATHENISM 137 
 
 Connected with Origen's theories of creation and progress 
 is (i) his teaching of a pluraUty of worlds, before and after this 
 present world, in which transmigration is worked out from stage 
 to stage ; and also (2) his belief that punishment is remedial 
 only, and not final, and consequently his hope that all in the 
 end, even Satan himself, might be saved. But he also taught 
 as a practical lesson that Scripture concentrates our attention 
 upon the next stage only, that of resurrection and judgment ; 
 even though after these may follow (and who can say whether 
 he may not be right ?) other unknown and unrevealed cycles 
 of probation and development. 
 
 Probably all to-day would agree that the weakest point in 
 Origen's teaching was his excessive allegorising of Holy Scripture. 
 This was a common fault of the Alexandrine School. Allegorising 
 He was no doubt right in teaching that the htcral of Scripture, 
 sense does not exhaust the meaning of the Bible, may even 
 sometimes mislead ; but he and his school went further than 
 this. The literal, liistorical sense was denied altogether when 
 it seemed to involve moral difliculties, e.g. the polygamy of the 
 patriarchs, or the giving of such commandments as the ex- 
 tirpation of the Canaanites or the sacrifice of Isaac. Such 
 things, it was argued, never took place at all ; the Holy Spirit 
 only intended by them to convey spiritual lessons which a 
 true ' knowledge ' would understand. 
 
 It is interesting to compare with this the treatment of the 
 same difficulties by the Gnostics. They met them by denying 
 that the Old Testament was the direct work of God. They 
 ascribed it usually to a Demiurge or some inferior deity. In 
 other words, they took refuge in dualism or polytheism. (Cp. 
 the teaching of the Gnostic Ptolemaeus, p. 114.) 
 
 Both methods show a lack of historical sense. The true 
 explanation of the moral difliculties of the Bible is doubtless to 
 be found in the progressive character of revelation. The Old 
 Testament is the history of the Divine education of man, in 
 which God adapts Ills teaching to the moral ideas of the child- 
 hood of the human race— only gnidtuilly leading men to higher 
 conceptions. 
 
138 TH£ HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Both the beauty and the peril of Origen's method are set 
 forth in Isaac WiUiams' suggestive lines in the Lyra Apostolica. 
 
 * Into God's word, as in a palace fair, 
 Thou leadest on and on, while still beyond 
 Each chamber, touched by holy wisdom's wand, 
 Another opes, more beautiful and rare : 
 And thou in each art kneeling down in prayer, 
 From link to link of that mysterious bond 
 Seeking for Christ : but oh, I fear thy fond 
 And beautiful torch, that with so bright a flare 
 Lighteth up all things, lest the heaven-lit brand 
 Of thy serene Philosophy divine 
 Should take the colourings of earthly thought. 
 And I, by their sweet images o'erwrought, 
 Led by weak Fancy, should let go Truth's hand. 
 And miss the way into the inner shrine.' 
 
 Whatever may be thought of Origen's errors, there can be 
 no real question as to the splendid and permanent value of his 
 The great- characteristic ideas. He taught the unity of 
 ness of nature and man, as the work of the love of God. He 
 
 origen. grasped the truth of moral progress, as worked out 
 
 from one stage to another, not in this world alone, but in the 
 past and the future. He clearly stated the great truth of human 
 free will. The purpose of man's creation is that he may gradually 
 attain to the Divine hkeness, through voluntary appropriation 
 of God's gifts. He believed in the unity and goodness of all 
 knowledge, and he showed the liberaHty of his outlook by attend- 
 ing even the lectures of Ammonius Saccas, while he himself 
 was head of the Christian school. And his great ideal was the 
 unification of all knowledge under the rule of theology. His 
 reverence for Holy Scripture and for revealed truth are again 
 remarkable features in such a free and unresting intellect as his. 
 And his whole hfe was dominated by devotion, the love of God, 
 and the desire of Divine knowledge. Life, he said, ought to be 
 ' one continuous act of prayer. ' 
 
 Origen's immediate successors in the school of Alexandria 
 were also men of eminence and power, Heraclas, Dionysius the 
 Great, Pierius. But after the third century the school ceased 
 to be the commanding feature of the Alexandrian Church. Its 
 
 REPLY TO HERESY AND HEATHENISM 
 
 139 
 
 independent work was done, but its mark and the influence of 
 its greatest teacher remained on Christian thought. Eusebius, 
 the historian, was an enthusiastic defender of Origen ; S. Gregory 
 of Nazianzus and S. Basil collected, under the title of Philocalia, 
 a book of extracts from his writings. In later days, one illuminat- 
 ing sentence of the great master suggested to Bishop Butler 
 the whole idea of the Analogy : * He who beUeves the Scripture 
 to have proceeded from Him who is the Author of Nature may 
 well expect to find the same sort of dilhculties in it as are found 
 in the constitution of Nature.' 
 
 And to-day the human needs which have heard the voice of 
 a prophet in Robert Browning find a strangely similar note 
 in the profound hopefulness of Origen, and his insistence on the 
 continuity of life and progress, and that ' perfect round ' of heaven 
 which makes perfect the ' broken arcs ' of earth. Students of 
 Browning will hardly fail to recognise the likeness to his char- 
 acteristic teaching in such a passage as the following : ' Even 
 in this life those who devote themselves with great labour to 
 the pursuits of piety and rehgion, although they obtain only 
 some small fragment from the numerous and immense treasures 
 of divine knowledge . . . yet are they made fitter for receiving 
 the instruction that is to come ; as if, when one would paint an 
 image, he were first with a Hght pencil to trace the outlines of the 
 coming picture, and this preliminary sketch is found to prepare 
 the way for the laying on of the true colours of the painting ; 
 so in a measure an outline and sketch may be traced on the 
 tablets of our heart by the pencil of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . 
 hence to those who possess in this life an outline of truth and 
 knowledge shall be added the beauty of a perfect image in the 
 future ' (De Princ. 11. xi.). 
 
140 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What was the School of Alexandria ? 
 
 2. Describe the Neoplatonists ? How did they differ from the 
 Gnostics ? 
 
 3. On what lines did the teachers of Alexandria meet the attacks of 
 heathenism? 
 
 4. Sketch the life and work of Origen. 
 
 5. What features of Origen's teaching are of great and permanent 
 value ? 
 
 6. Of what errors has he been accused ? 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. Neoplatonism. 
 
 I nge. Plotinus. 
 
 * Porphyry ' and other articles in Dictionary of Christian Bio- 
 
 graphy. 
 
 Kingsley. Hypatia, 
 
 2. The School of Alexandria. 
 
 Bigg. Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 
 
 3. The teaching and influence of Origen. 
 
 * Origenes ' in Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
 Westcott. Religious Thought in the West, 
 
 CHAPTER X. THE EARLY CHURCH OF ROME 
 
 The student must as far as possible dismiss from his mind the 
 
 idea of ' the Roman Church ' as later ages have known it, a 
 
 world-wide institution, political as well as religious, claiming 
 
 to be alone and exclusively the CathoUc Church of Christ, 
 
 exercising a charm or awakening an antagonism both without 
 
 parallel in history. The early Roman Church means simply 
 
 the Christian community estabhshed in the imperial city, and 
 
 in her suburban towns and districts. Even the College of 
 
 Cardinals, ' the princes of the Church,' retains the mark of this 
 
 early limitation. The cardinal bishops, priests, and deacons 
 
 are the successors of the local clergy of Rome, and their ' titles ' 
 
 are stiU those either of churches in the city, or (in the case of the 
 
 cardinal bishops) of neighbouring towns hke Ostia, or Praeneste. 
 
 All the roads of the Empire led to Rome, and it was inevitable 
 
 that the Church should soon find her way there. But a deep 
 
 obscurity still hangs over the first preaching of s. Peter and 
 
 Christ in the capital. Christian merchants or traders the Roman 
 
 hke Aquila and Priscilla may have been the pioneers. ^Hurch. 
 
 But it is impossible to ignore the early tradition that makes 
 
 S. Peter the founder and first organiser of the Roman Church. 
 
 A continuous episcopate of twenty-five years is indeed impossible. 
 
 S. Peter disappears from view after his release from prison 
 
 (Acts xii.), when he went to ' another place,' but he is at 
 
 Jerusalem again in Acts xv. In later years he, writes his first 
 
 epistle from 'Babylon,' which is almost certainly Rome. Tradition, 
 
 ancient and universal, makes him suffer martyrdom at Rome. 
 
 He may possibly have been at Rome when S. Paul wrote in 
 
 54 to the Roman Church, and stated his own practice ' not to 
 
 build on another man's foundation.' But he cannot have been 
 
 there during S. Paul's first imprisonment, nor even when he 
 
 141 
 
 'i' 
 
142 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 wrote 2 Timothy. None of the epistles written from Rome 
 allude to his presence. Moreover, in the early hsts of Roman 
 bishops Linus occupies the first place. But none of these con- 
 siderations would prevent the possibility of S. Peter paying 
 more than one visit to Rome during the last twenty years of his 
 life, and finally suffering there. 
 
 The early history of the Roman Church is almost as obscure 
 as its foundation. For long it was an ahen Greek-speaking 
 Obscurity of community, guarding its belief and its worship 
 early period, from an unsympathetic heathen environment. 
 For some years even it seems to have been regarded only as 
 a Jewish sect, and this fact may have preserved the Roman 
 Christians from direct persecution, for the Jews in Rome occupied 
 a powerful and privileged position ; having made themselves 
 by their wealth and industry indispensable to society. The 
 early Roman bishops were, for the most part, men of no great 
 note in the world : nearly all of them have Greek names. The 
 Church produced no Hterature except the Epistle of Clement 
 and the ' Shepherd ' of Hermas. Not till nearly the middle 
 of the third century did it take a prominent part in the affairs 
 of Christendom. Yet from the beginning it was certainly 
 distinguished for the devotion of its members, and its firm 
 hold of the apostoHc faith. (Cp. S. Paul's commendation in 
 Rom. i., and the glowing praise of S. Ignatius, p. 72.) 
 
 The only exceptions to this early obscurity are seen in S. 
 Clement, and the tone of authority which he certainly adopts 
 towards the disturbers of the peace of the Church of Corinth 
 (p. 54) ; in Anicetus, who was visited by S. Polycarp with a view 
 to a common practice in the keeping of Easter, and in Victor 
 (190-202), who made himself undesirably prominent in the same 
 Paschal controversy. 
 
 All Christians everywhere from the beginning had observed 
 the feast of the Lord's resurrection preceded by a solemn 
 Quarto- fast, but there had been considerable divergence 
 
 decimanism. as to the actual time and manner. The Christians 
 of Asia, professing to follow the tradition of S. John, followed 
 closely the Jewish Passover observance. They ended the fast 
 
 THE EARLY CHURCH OF ROME 
 
 143 
 
 on the eve of Nisan 14, the first Jewish month, and then pro- 
 ceeded to keep the festival, irrespective of the day of the week. 
 This practice was called quartodeciman ('fourteenth'). The 
 other churches always kept Good Friday and Easter on the 
 Friday and the Sunday next after Nisan 14, and maintained 
 the fast until the Sunday. The quartodeciman practice em- 
 phasised, though perhaps unintentionally, the last supper and 
 death of the Lord. The rival practice (attributed to S. Peter and 
 S. Paul) was less tied to Judaism ; it made the Christian Sunday, 
 the day of the Lord's resurrection, more prominent. 
 
 The two schools held tenaciously to their respective practices, 
 and in a place like Rome, where there were often Asiatic Christians 
 residing, the unedifying spectacle ensued of Christians keeping 
 their greatest commemoration on different days. Neither Anice- 
 tus nor Polycarp was able to persuade the other, though they 
 parted in peace. A few years later the controversy became 
 prominent in Laodicea, and produced treatises from Melito 
 and ApoUinarius of HierapoHs. 
 
 At the end of the second century Victor of Rome, the first 
 Roman bishop to adopt an attitude which foreshadows the later 
 papacy, called upon the Asiatics to reconsider their practice. They 
 were obdurate, and Polycrates of Ephesus addressed a remarkable 
 letter to Victor in favour of adhering to the quartodeciman use, 
 as sanctified by the use of so many saints and martyrs in the 
 past. Yet without doubt the general opinion of the Church 
 went the other way, and Victor took the unprecedented step 
 of breaking off communion with the Asiatics. But here he 
 did not win support. Eminent Christians, notably S. Irenaeus, 
 protested, and he had to withdraw his excommunication. 
 
 Time gradually healed men's differences ; the Western use, 
 which was really more in accordance with Catholic Christianity, 
 prevailed, and quartodecimanism became extinct.^ 
 
 1 The Celtic Church differed from Rome in the time of the observance 
 of Easter, but was not properly ' quartodeciman ' It always kept Easte^^ 
 on a Sunday. The present difference between the Eastern and Western 
 Churches is not the result of any difference in prmciple, but only 
 in the calendar; the Eastern adhering to the unreformed Julian 
 calendar. 
 
 ( 
 
 '): 
 
144 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 By the third century the Roman Church must have been 
 a large and well-organised community, and even long before 
 arowine ^^'^^ have exercised a great and growing influence. 
 
 Influence of This was due to more than one cause. The Church 
 Roman was honoured before all others as the scene of the 
 
 Church. labours and martyrdom of the two greatest Apostles, 
 
 SS. Peter and Paul. Its soundness in the faith had been specially 
 commented on by Irenaeus and TertulUan. Its Baptismal Creed 
 was noted and valued, and the use of it spread in the West. But 
 bevond these ecclesiastical influences, the Church of Rome 
 was the Church of the imperial city. No other city in history, 
 not even Athens, exercised such a fascination over the thoughts 
 of men. It was the centre of an organised rule such as the world 
 had never known before ; and had impressed on all its subjects 
 the sense of the majesty of unity and law. Rome — not merely 
 her monuments and temples, but Rome as an idea — ^seemed 
 eternal. Western men could not shake themselves free from 
 her spell, nor indeed have they ever done so. And the glamour 
 of the eternal city naturally invested also the Church of Rome 
 in the eyes of Christians. It was an easy transition for the 
 Bishop of Rome in later days to assume the place and stjde of 
 the Emperor, and for the Roman Church to exert, even without 
 any set purpose of state-craft, the old influence and prestige 
 of the Empire. But this was not to be till secular Rome had 
 fallen. At the period we are dealing with, the Bishop of Rome, 
 despite isolated efforts to play the ecclesiastical Emperor, was 
 not more than primus inter pares. He was certainly revered 
 for the eminence of his see ; the decision of Rome was already 
 regarded as a great asset in any controversy, but other bishops 
 addressed the Pope as * brother,* and did not fail to admonish him 
 with brotherly candour when they thought he was in the wrong. 
 
 Though Rome was renowned for its orthodoxy, it was always 
 the place that attracted heretics and religious ' cranks.' Just 
 The as the earlier part of the second century had seen 
 
 Moiurchian (Jnostic teachers congregating there, the later 
 oo(B«roTikT«y. years of the same century and tl)e beginning of the 
 next Mi^ere at Rome the period of the first great theological cchi- 
 
 THE EARLY CHURCH OF ROME 
 
 145 
 
 troversy within the Church. Monarchianism was imported 
 to Rome from the East. Its problem was one that sooner or 
 later was bound to arise. The foundation truth of the unity 
 of God had been inherited from Judaism. But the Church 
 had always worshipped Jesus Christ as God. How was this 
 Divinity of Christ, the Son, to be reconciled with the unity, or, 
 as it was expressed, the ' Monarchy ' of God ? The question 
 of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not prominent at first ; 
 but here again a similar problem was latent. It was in fact the 
 mystery of the Trinity in Unity, which was beginning to vex 
 the subtle reasoners or quibblers of Alexandria and the East, 
 that lay in the background of the Monarchian disputes. The 
 simple believer at Rome, as elsewhere, had been content 
 to acquiesce in the teaching of the faith that the Father was 
 God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, without straining 
 after a philosophic explanation. At the same time, in contrast 
 with all the polytheism he saw around him, he firmly held to 
 the unity of God. But the question of the reconciliation of 
 these beliefs, once raised, demanded some answer, though that 
 answer was only gradually to be defined by the great Councils 
 of the fourth and fifth centuries. 
 
 These new teachers in Rome suggested two different hues of 
 heretical explanation. The first was Adoptionism, an error as 
 old as the Ebionites (p. 99), and which to this day is 
 the underlying principle of all forms of Unitarianism. 
 The Father alone, it was asserted, is truly God. He has adopted 
 as His Son the perfect man, Jesus Christ, and has raised Him 
 to the position of Godhead. It is obvious, of course, that such 
 an adopted Son can only be called God in some limited or meta- 
 phorical sense, such as often appiars in Giiosticism. Adop- 
 tionism made its entrance into Rome in the days of Pope Victor, 
 and was taught by one TluHxlotus, a leather merchant of 
 Byzantium with an inclination to philosophy, who was ex- 
 communicated by Victor, and by Artcmon, an Aristotelian 
 philo;<oj)lier, of mathematical learning but little reverence. 
 They a.^^sirled that their teaching was really the prinjitivc faitL 
 Tlic only excuse for thiji stateiuent lay in the vagueness of some 
 
 AdoptionlBxn. 
 
 Ill 
 
Modalism. 
 
 146 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 early teachers, like Hermas, who had used language about the 
 Son and the Holy Spirit which later and more accurate theology 
 would have repudiated. 
 
 The other answer to the problem has been called Modalism. 
 In its eagerness to vindicate the Divinity of the Three Persons, 
 it practically ignored the distinction of Persons in 
 the essence of the Godhead, and made the Three 
 only ' modes ' or differences of operation of the One God. Its 
 earUest form was Patripassianism, which taught that God the 
 Father Himself became incarnate and suffered on the cross. 
 It was first promulgated at Rome by the Asiatic Praxeas, in 
 the time of Eleutherus, the predecessor of Victor ; and at Smyrna 
 by one Noetus, who declared, ' I know but one God ; it is no 
 other than He who was born, who suffered, and died.' A little 
 later the same error was taught in a more developed form by the 
 Egyptian presbyter, Sabellius, who asserted that Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost are but successive phases of the manifestation 
 of one God. While calling them three ' Persons ' [prosopa), he 
 took advantage of the ambiguity of the Greek word to mean 
 by this only three aspects, not eternally distinct personalities. 
 
 One of the remarkable features of the controversy was the 
 apparent inability of the bishops of Rome to deal with it. 
 Weakness of Zephyrinus (201-219) was an unlearned person, 
 the Popes. and soon got out of his depth. He excommunicated 
 Artemon, but seemed himself inclined to the opposite error 
 of SabelUus. His protege and successor, Callistus, was a much 
 abler man in practical matters, but lax and vacillating in doctrine, 
 and, it was said, in morals also. He had certainly had a 
 chequered and somewhat disreputable career in early life, 
 having been involved as a slave in various money scandals, 
 and sent to penal servitude in the mines. He was, however, 
 released and became eminent in the household of Zephyrinus. 
 Elected Pope, he excommunicated Sabellius, but his own ex- 
 planation of the problems at issue seems to have been an attempt 
 to combine both errors. 
 
 The real defence of the Catholic Faith was conducted not by 
 the offtcial leaders of the Church but by those who were rather 
 
 THE EARLY CHURCH OF ROME 
 
 147 
 
 of the nature of free-lances. Tertullian demolished Praxeas 
 in a treatise which was inspired by a double grievance. Praxeas 
 was a strong anti-Montanist as well as a Patripassian, and 
 Tertullian, in a characteristic epigram, says that at Rome he 
 accomplished two works of the devil, he * put to flight the 
 Paraclete and crucified the Father.' A generation later, when 
 the language of the Roman Church had changed from Greek 
 to Latin, the presbyter Novatian, better known as the originator 
 of a schism, dealt with the whole problem in an able and scholarly 
 work on the Trinity. 
 
 But the greatest contemporary champion of orthodoxy 
 at Rome, against the Monarchian errors, was 5. Hippolytus. 
 His is a strangely indistinct and elusive figure, s. Hip- 
 A man of great learning, of fervid personality, a poiytus. 
 voluminous writer, he seems to have become almost forgotten 
 at Rome, and even his chief work, the Philosophumena or ' Re- 
 futation of all heresies,' was for long attributed to Origen. More- 
 over, he occupies the probably unique position of being both a 
 leader of schism and a canonised saint of the Roman Church. By 
 birth probably a Western, the pupil of S. Irenaeus, in character 
 and tone he resembled Tertullian. His work is spoiled and 
 robbed of much of its historical value by his controversial bitter- 
 ness and narrowness. He attacked unsparingly the rulers of the 
 Roman Church, notably Callistus, whom he accuses of favouring 
 heresy and of general laxity of morals and discipline. Callistus 
 offended both him and Tertullian by his readiness to give ab- 
 solution even for the greatest offences, and by his toleration of 
 second marriages and of the marriage of the clergy. At the 
 accession of Callistus, Hippolytus seems to have broken away 
 from the Church in protest, and become for some time the head 
 of a schismatical congregation. This raises one of the most 
 difficult questions in the history of the early Roman Church. 
 DoUinger goes so far as to call Hippolytus the ' first anti-pope * : 
 others have suggested that he was the bishop of a Greek-speaking 
 congregation in Rome, just at the time of transition when Latin 
 was becoming the official language of the Roman Church. 
 Another but untrustworthy tradition makes him the bishop of 
 
 ' 
 
 i 
 
148 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Portus Romanus. He was probably confused with a martyr 
 of the same name, who suffered at that place. Other and later 
 legends make him a Roman official, converted at the time of the 
 Decian persecution and dying a martyr. 
 
 The works of Hippolytus include many commentaries, 
 especially one on Daniel, and a treatise on Antichrist. He also 
 Writings of constructed a Paschal cycle, for the purpose of de- 
 s. Hip- termining the date of Easter independently of the 
 
 poiytus. Jewish calendar. This, though of no permanent 
 
 value, was for a time in great regard, and so much was Hippolytus 
 admired by his contemporaries that after his death a statue 
 was erected to him, which bore his cycle engraved on the chair 
 in which he was represented as sitting. This statue was re- 
 discovered in 1551, and is now in the Lateran Museum. A 
 nearly full text of the so-called Philosophumena was discovered in 
 1842 at Mount Athos. It is a refutation of heathen philosophies, 
 Gnostic systems, Judaism, and the various Christian heresies 
 down to those of his own day. The writer lays great stress on 
 the importance of interpreting Holy Scripture as a whole, and 
 not by the use of isolated texts, the favourite method of heretics. 
 He demonstrates the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity from 
 both Old and New Testaments, and he supports the true divinity 
 of the Saviour both from Scripture, from early writers, and from 
 
 the hymns of the Church. 
 
 Hippolytus and indeed all the orthodox controversiahsts of 
 the period find the key to the Monarchian difficulties in the 
 Johannine teaching of the Word or Logos. Their opponents 
 twitted them in consequence with being ditheists, and it is 
 interesting to note also the existence of a sect in Asia, called the 
 Alogi, opponents of Montanism, who denied the authenticity 
 of the Gospel of S. John and of the Apocalypse. 
 
 The persecution of Maximinus (p. 152) seems to have put an 
 end to these doctrinal controversies at Rome. The orthodoxy 
 of the bishops of Rome was sufficiently restored by Dionysius, 
 Pope from 259 to 269, who appears as writing on the orthodox side 
 and remonstrating with another Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, 
 a pupil of Origen, who in his zeal against the Sabellians had 
 
 THE EARLY CHURCH OF ROME 
 
 149 
 
 1 1 
 
 run into the opposite extreme of subordinating the Son to the 
 Father. His Roman namesake wrote to him, warning against 
 any representation of the Son of God as a created being, or 
 against any statement about the Trinity which might imply 
 that they were three Gods. 
 
 But the controversy, though lulled for the time, was by no 
 means dead. Adoptionist tendencies were strong at Antioch, 
 and found a champion of very extreme views in pauiof 
 its bishop, Paul of Samosata (260-274). This is samosata. 
 one of the most curious episodes in the early history of the 
 Church. Paul was a man of great ability and a popular preacher, 
 though neither a profound theologian nor apparently of any 
 great spirituality. He was worldly and conceited, amassed a 
 great deal of wealth, and was a court favourite with Zenobia, 
 the ambitious queen of Palmyra. It was probably to please her 
 and the Judaism which she favoured that Paul began to teach 
 Adoptionism. He represented the Son of God as only a man, 
 who progressed towards divinity through the Logos which dwelt 
 
 in Him. 
 
 Three Councils in succession were held at Antioch to consider 
 this teaching, and finally, in 270, Paul was declared to be deposed. 
 But he would not go. The Church took the extreme step of 
 appealing to the Emperor AureHan, who had just defeated 
 Zenobia's armies and driven her to take refuge in Palmyra. 
 The Emperor handed over the question to the bishops of Italy, 
 and when they condemned Paul he ejected the heretic from the 
 bishop's residence at Antioch. 
 
 It was a strange and ominous precedent for Christians to appeal 
 to a heathen Emperor against their own bishop. Paul no doubt 
 deserved the sentence, his teaching was clearly contrary to the 
 recognised faith of the Church, but the results of such secular 
 interference appeared in later generations. 
 
 Adoptionism still lingered on at Antioch and in the East. 
 Both to the worldly and to the shallow thinker it presented an 
 easy explanation of the central mystery of the faith, and its 
 sequel remained to be seen in the Arian controversies of the 
 nej^t century. The faith, though held correctly and loyally 
 
 * 
 
 n 
 
150 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 enough by the mass of believers, needed some further definition 
 if it was to escape the one-sided errors of either Adoptionism or 
 Sabellianism. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What was the connection of S. Peter and S. Paul with the Church 
 of Rome ? 
 
 2. What was the Quartodeciman controversy ? 
 
 3. What part did Rome play in it ? 
 
 4. What circumstances favoured the pre-eminent influence of the 
 Roman Church ? 
 
 5. Describe the controversies of the third century concerning the nature 
 of the Godhead. 
 
 6. What share did the Roman Church take in these controversies ? 
 
 7. Who was Paul of Samosata ? 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 The character and growth of the early Church of Rome. 
 
 Edmundson. Bampton Lectures on the Early Roman Church. 
 Duchesne. Early History of the Churchy vol. i. 
 Puller. Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, 
 
 CHAPTER XL THIRD CENTURY PERSECUTIONS 
 
 AND THEIR RESULTS 
 
 The attitude of the imperial authorities towards the Church 
 in the second century had been ruled chiefly by the letter and 
 the spirit of the ' rescripts ' of Trajan and Hadrian, varying 
 Christianity was a capital offence, but it was more imperial 
 or less tolerated, except when local passions or the voWcj. 
 intolerance of some individual official brought Christians to the 
 dreadful alternative of sacrificing or martyrdom. 
 
 But beginning with Septimius Severus (193-211), whose 
 persecution has already been mentioned (p. 121), the attitude 
 of individual Emperors became the dominating factor. There 
 were considerable periods in the third century of peace and 
 compromise, sometimes even of imperial favour, but these 
 were always liable to be broken by a definite edict against the 
 Christians, issued by some Emperor, who considered them a 
 peril to the State. This lack of continuous policy is partly 
 explained by the fact that most of the Emperors of the third 
 century were military adventurers, often of foreign birth, raised 
 to the purple by the soldiers, and as hghtly deposed or assassi- 
 nated. 
 
 The most extraordinary example of this sort of government 
 was the accession of Heliogabalus (218-222), a Syrian priest of 
 the Sun. His religious pohcy consisted chiefly in ^^^^^^^^^^ 
 furthering the worship at Rome of the Syrian 
 and Phoenician deities. His reign was an orgy of fantastic 
 extravagance ; his madness showed itself, among other ways, 
 in devising and collecting elaborate and magnificent methods 
 of committing suicide, jewelled ropes with which to hang himself, 
 and golden staircases to fling himself down from ! But in the 
 end he had not the courage to employ any of these refinements, 
 
 
152 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 but perished miserably at the hands of the praetorian guard. 
 As far as the Christians were concerned this madman's reign 
 seems to have been harmless enough. 
 
 His successor, Alexander Severus (222-235), also an Eastern 
 by birth, was more definitely tolerant of the Church. He was 
 mild and gentle in character, and patronised religions of all 
 sorts. His * undenominational ' sympathies led him to adorn 
 his oratory with images of various gods, including in them 
 Abraham, Apollonius of Tyana, and Christ. The Emperor's 
 mother, Mammaea, is said to have received Christian instruction 
 from Origen himself. 
 
 Alexander was murdered by his soldiers, and Maximinus 
 the Thracian succeeded him (235-237). In his eagerness to 
 Maximinus' reverse the policy of his predecessor, he issued an 
 persecution, edict of persecution against the Christians. It is 
 uncertain how far this was carried out. Persecution was severe 
 in Cappadocia. Origen had to hide himself, and at Rome both 
 the bishops, Pontianus and S. Hippolytus, were sent into exile, 
 where apparently they both died. 
 
 The reign of PhiHp the Arabian (244-249) was specially 
 favourable to the Church, and it was widely beheved that the 
 Emperor himself had accepted the faith in secret. 
 
 It may be said that upon the whole the first half of the century 
 was a period of peace and expansion for the Church. The 
 Progress of numbers of the clergy increased. In the year 
 the Churcn. 251, the Roman Church had 46 priests and 7 deacons, 
 besides nearly 150 in the minor orders. And its wealth and 
 charity is seen in the fact that 1500 widows and orphans were 
 officially supported. Christian churches were built, and the 
 Church, although theoretically an illegal body, was allowed 
 to hold property in trust. The catacombs, as places of Christian 
 burials, were no longer merely the private property of Christian 
 families, but were administered by the Church and extended 
 their myriad ramificfitions for miles around the capital. But 
 the results of this time of prosperity were not altogether good. 
 Christians began to lose their early fortitude, and their clear 
 vision of the unseen. The great persecutions which mark 
 
 THIRD CENTURY PERSECUTIONS AND RESULTS 153 
 
 the middle of the century burst Hke a thunderbolt upon men 
 who were no longer of the stuff of which martyrs are made. 
 
 The Emperor Decius (249-251) was a thorough Roman, 
 and intended to reform society on what he thought the ancient 
 Roman lines of severity. He determined to suppress persecution 
 Christianity altogether, and set about the task with of Decius. 
 thoroughness. It was the first attempt of the kind, at least 
 since the days of Domitian. He issued an edict, commanding 
 all to offer sacrifice ; commissioners were appointed in the chief 
 towns to superintend this, and to punish those who refused 
 with confiscation of goods, exile, torture, and even death. Those 
 who complied with the edict were granted certificates {libelli). 
 The persecution lasted for a year, and was brought to an end 
 by the death of Decius in battle on the Danube. Its immediate 
 results were significant enough. A great number of professing 
 Christians, the majority even, it is said, including clergy as well 
 as laity, gave way, and either denied that they were Christians, 
 or endeavoured to obtain the certificate, many by actually sacri- 
 ficing or offering incense to the Roman gods, and others by 
 bribing the officials. Nevertheless, the prisons were crowded with 
 ' confessors,' who accepted torture and the loss of all things 
 rather than abjure Christ, while others, including some of the 
 leading bishops, suffered even to the death. Fabian, Bishop 
 of Rome, was put to death ; Babylas, Bishop of Antioch, and 
 Alexander of Jerusalem died in prison ; Origen suffered the 
 extremes of torture short of actual martyrdom. So great was 
 the terror of Christians in Rome, that for more than a year no 
 successor to Fabian was elected. 
 
 But the after results of the great attack were far-reaching. 
 Those who in their weakness had apostatised in one form or 
 another (sacrificati, the offerers of sacrifice ; thurifi- ^^^ , ^^^^^, 
 cati, those whose sprinkling of incense on a heathen 
 altar had been accepted by the officials ; libellatici, those who 
 had managed in some way to obtain certificates), for the most 
 part repented as soon as the storm had lulled, and were eager to 
 return to Church communion. According to the usual practice 
 of the early Church, such apostasy as theirs was counted as one 
 
 il; 
 
 If 
 
 ii 
 
154 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 of the gravest offences of which a Christian could be guilty, 
 and there were many who urged that such sinners could never 
 be formally restored. A serious controversy ensued as to the 
 treatment of the * lapsed/ Must the ancient severity of disci- 
 pline be upheld, or was indulgent concession to be shown to the 
 penitent ? The question was complicated by the attitude of 
 some of the ' confessors ' themselves. A custom already existed 
 in the Church of martyrs who were under sentence of death 
 for Christ's name interceding with bishops for Christians who 
 were under penance and cut off from communion, and, indeed, 
 writing on their behalf a formal letter asking that they might be 
 restored. This privilege, due to the great veneration paid by 
 the Church to those who suffered for Christ's sake, was exploited 
 by the crowd of penitents after the Decian persecution. The 
 confessors seem to have been but too ready to intercede, and 
 the letter of appeal to the bishop in some quarters became a sort 
 of ' indulgence,' an actual order for the penitent's restoration 
 rather than a mere request. The situation was difficult. The 
 bishops were in many cases separated from their flocks. There 
 was a large and clamorous multitude of * lapsed ' Christians, 
 who were suspended from Church communion and anxious to 
 be restored. There was a party in favour of severe measures, 
 and on the other side there was the influence of those who had 
 actually suffered for Christ, an influence which might easily 
 be fatal to all Church discipline, while to oppose it would be 
 represented as a shameful slur upon the * confessors ' them- 
 selves. Here were all the elements of serious disunion and 
 possible schism. The two storm-centres were Carthage and 
 Rome. 
 
 At Carthage, the bishop was the great S. Cyprian, one of the 
 most remarkable figures in the history of the Church. He had 
 been a heathen till middle life, of high position, 
 wealthy, and in much repute for his learning, 
 eloquence, and legal attainments. He was converted and 
 baptized in 246, and speedily became the most influential 
 Christian not merely in Africa but in the whole Church. Rapidly 
 promoted to the priesthood, he was elected Bishop of Carthage 
 
 THIRD CENTURY PERSECUTIONS AND RESULTS 155 
 
 in 249. He was a great admirer of Tertullian, whom he always 
 spoke of as * the Master,' and whom he resembled in his clearness 
 of thought and vigour ; but he was a man of wider outlook, 
 and of much more practical abiUty. He brought the quahties 
 of wise statesmanship to the guidance of the Church in this 
 critical time. But he had many enemies, and he was attacked 
 on all sides both for personal and ecclesiastical reasons. During 
 the persecution, beUeving that he was following the advice 
 of our Lord, ' When they persecute you in one city, flee ye to 
 another,' he retired from danger, and guided his flock from his 
 place of hiding. He was severely attacked for this by those 
 who were in favour of severity, and a series of intrigues agamst 
 him followed. Letters complaining of his conduct were sent 
 to the Roman Church, and for a time apparently the Roman 
 presbyters (the see was vacant owing to the martyrdom of 
 Fabian) were persuaded that Cyprian had really deserted his 
 post through cowardice. A further grievance against him was 
 found in his attempt to discourage the * confessors ' from granting 
 their indulgences broadcast to the lapsed. Matters even went 
 so far that an attempt was made at Carthage to set up a rival 
 bishop, in the person of one Fortunatus. These intrigues 
 against Cyprian came, however, to nothing. His own letters 
 to Rome turned the feeling of that Church in his favour. When 
 he returned to Carthage, he summoned a council of bishops, 
 in 251, and the whole question of the lapsed was apparently 
 settled in a wise and generous manner. Those who had offered 
 sacrifice were allowed, if penitent, to be received back into 
 the Church at least on their death-beds, but clergy who had 
 apostatised must be permanently deposed from their office. 
 
 But meanwhile other intrigues had been in progress at Rome. 
 Novatus, a priest of Carthage, had gone there and succeeded 
 but too weU in stirring up a fresh attack on Cyprian, particularly 
 on the ground of his supposed opposition to the privileges of 
 confessors. Futile attempts were made to obtain the election 
 of a Pope hostile to Cyprian. These failed, and the new Pope, 
 CorneUus, showed himself on the side of Cyprian and the African 
 bishops. 
 
Novatian. 
 
 156 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 A new line of attack was now manifested, this time from the 
 side of those who advocated severity to the lapsed. Cyprian, 
 first opposed as being too severe, inasmuch as he 
 had not allowed the confessors to give general indul- 
 gences and absolutions, was now accused, along with Cornelius, 
 of culpable leniency. The leader of this rigorist movement was 
 found in Novatian, a Roman presbyter, who during the vacancy 
 of the see had been the most influential cleric in Rome. He 
 was a man of strict orthodoxy and high abiUties, but with a 
 tinge of rehgious madness. Through the machinations of 
 Novatus the Carthaginian, he was consecrated as opposition 
 Bishop of Rome, and became the head of the first great schism 
 of the Church, called, as such schisms generally are, after its 
 founder's name. Novatianism soon had a considerable follow- 
 ing. Like Montanism, it aimed by severity of discipHne at the 
 impossible task of making a perfectly pure and spiritual Church 
 on earth. Its followers called themselves ' Cathari ' (puritans). 
 They remained orthodox in faith ; their schism was entirely 
 based on discipUnary grounds. It was partly healed at Rome 
 by the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, on the efficacy of 
 repentance even for grave sins after baptism. The leading 
 presbyters of Rome returned to their allegiance to Cornelius ; 
 though a succession of Novatian bishops of Rome lasted till 
 the fifth century. But the schism found a more lasting home 
 in the East, especially in Phrygia. It lasted for several centuries, 
 having its bishops all over the Christian world, ' its saints, its 
 hermits, its monks.' It was sufficiently important at the end of 
 the fourth century for S. Ambrose to write against it. 
 
 The opposition to Cyprian had broken down ; he not only 
 had the support of Rome in his favour, but his own strong and 
 wise personality. His splendid devotion, and his works of 
 charity during a great plague that visited Carthage in 252, 
 did much to shut the mouths of his enemies. Persecution was 
 briefly renewed by the Emperor Callus. This time Cyprian 
 did not leave the city; and the African Church took still 
 further steps in clemency by restoring all penitents to 
 communion, 
 
 THIRD CENTURY PERSECUTIONS AND RESULTS 157 
 
 Shortly after these troubles, Cyprian figured prominently 
 in another controversy, important not only in itself, but because 
 of the light it throws on the attitude of bishops Baptismal 
 in general towards the Bishop of Rome. The controversy, 
 difficulties arising out of the apostasy and schism which were 
 by-products of the persecutions forced to the front the problem 
 of the vaUdity of baptism as administered by those outside the 
 Church If those who had been baptized by some deposed 
 cleric or by those who were in schism, wished to be reconciled 
 to the Church, was it necessary to rebaptize them ? To do so 
 had been for long the practice of the African Church, and indeed 
 of most other parts of the Church, except at Rome. Cyprian 
 maintained the logical position (in which it is easy to see the 
 influence of his study of TertuUian), that the sacraments are 
 indissolubly bound up with the Church. Hence those baptized 
 by outsiders have not been admitted into the Catholic Church, 
 but only into some particular schism. He appealed to the 
 question addressed in Africa to candidates for baptism, 'Dost 
 thou beUeve in the Hfe everlasting and the remission of sins 
 through the holy Church ? ' A great council of bishops 
 at Carthage in 255 followed his lead and decided m favour of 
 re-baptism At Rome, however, it had been the custom not to 
 re-baptize such persons, but to restore them only by the im- 
 position of hands. When Cyprian communicated to Pope 
 Stephen the African decision, without however wishing to 
 impose it upon the Roman Church, Stephen took a very high 
 Une He not only denounced Cyprian, but insisted that all 
 must conform to the Roman practice, on pain of bemg excluded 
 from communion with Rome. The Africans were obstinate^ 
 Another council of eighty-seven bishops was held, m which 
 Cyprian protested against any one setting up himself as a 
 bishop of bishops.' The previous decision was reaffirmed, and 
 for nearly a year Rome and Carthage were at variance, and 
 practically separated in communion. 
 
 It was clear that neither Cyprian, nor those who agreed with 
 him either in Africa or in the East, were ready to recognise a 
 papal autocracy. The utmost that can be said by the supporters 
 
 Oi 
 
Settlement. 
 
 158 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 of papal claims is that the question was only one of different 
 practice rather than of disagreement in doctrine. The difficulty 
 was got over for the moment, through the death 
 of Stephen, and the mediation of Dionysius of 
 Alexandria. Pope Xystus removed Stephen's excommunica- 
 tion, and for a time, just as in the case of the Paschal controversy, 
 each side continued its own practice, with mutual toleration. 
 The matter was finally settled, as far at least as the West was 
 concerned, by the Council of Aries in 314, in favour of the Roman 
 practice. To this the Western Church has since generally 
 adhered. Baptism is regarded as always valid if administered 
 with the proper matter, water, and the proper form, ' In the 
 Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' 
 The irregularity of an unorthodox or schismatical minister is 
 not held to destroy the validity of the sacrament. 
 
 Another severe attack was made on the Church by the Emperor 
 Valerian in 257-8. Though he had been associated with 
 Persecution Decius in the task of purifying society by the 
 of Valerian. aboHtion of Christianity, the first years of his reign 
 (253-7) were a time of peace. But the pressure of many enemies 
 on the frontiers of the Empire, and the influence of a fanatical 
 minister, Macrianus, led the Emperor again to attempt to restore 
 the ancient religion of Rome. Two edicts aimed at the total 
 extirpation of the Church. The first ordered all the clergy to 
 worship the gods of the Empire on pain of exile, and forbade all 
 Christian meetings in public. The second, a year later, condemned 
 all the clergy to death, all Christians of the rank of senators 
 or knights to confiscation and loss of rank ; all women of the 
 same position to confiscation and exile ; and all Christians who 
 were serving in the imperial household or estates to penal 
 servitude. Under this edict, the Bishop of Rome, S. Xystus 
 (or Sixtus), with five deacons, including the famous S. Laurence, 
 were put to death ; so, too, was the Bishop of Tarragona and 
 two deacons and probably many others. Cyprian was arrested, 
 and a year later was brought before the Proconsul of Africa. 
 Calmly and courteously he faced the tribunal and refused to 
 obey the imperial edict to sacrifice. The proconsul, with evident 
 
 THIRD CENTURY PERSECUTIONS AND RESULTS 159 
 
 reluctance, sentenced him to death by beheading, September 
 
 14, 258. 
 
 The persecution ended with the death of Valerian, who was 
 captured by the Persians, against whom he was making war, 
 and executed by order of the Persian king. Sapor. His was the 
 last attempt for many years to crush the Church by persecution. 
 
 His son, Gallienus (260-268), restored to the Christians their 
 churches and property, including the catacombs. This change 
 of poUcy has been represented as in effect constitutmg 
 Christianity a religio licita. At any rate it was a confession 
 of the failure of persecution, and a recognition that the Christians 
 had the right to exist. The rest of the century was practically 
 undisturbed by persecution, though there were threatemngs 
 of its renewal in the last years of Aurelian. 
 
 The age of Cyprian, with its struggles and complicated con- 
 troversies, is of great importance. It drew together the cords 
 of ecclesiastical unity; especially as regards the 'The unity 
 authority of bishops and of councils of bishops. Re- oftne 
 action against the attacks of persecutors, and against church.' 
 the disintegrating influence of lapses and schisms, inevitably 
 strengthened the permanent organisation of the Church. A 
 significant proof of this is seen in Cyprian's short treatise on 
 The Unity of the Church. It is an appeal to those Roman 
 ' confessors ' who were being led away by the schism of Novatian. 
 The writer insists on the essential oneness of the Church of Christ, 
 and the wickedness of schism. Neither martyrdom nor good 
 works wfll profit those who depart from this unity. But he 
 lays the most special stress on the need of unity in the episcopate. 
 This unity he finds to have been prefigured in the fact that our 
 Lord bestowed the fulness of the apostolic powers upon one 
 apostle, S. Peter. Nevertheless, he does not draw from this 
 the conclusion which has seemed so obvious to later Roman 
 Catholics. He does not identify the ' primacy of Peter ' with 
 that of the successors of S. Peter at Rome. It seems to him 
 only a symbol of the indissoluble unity of the apostolic ofiice, 
 in which all the apostles equally shared. And he proceeds, 
 in remarkable words, to teach the unity of the episcopate. 
 
i6o THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 THIRD CENTURY PERSECUTIONS AND RESULTS i6i 
 
 Episcopahis unus est, cujus a singulis in solid urn pays tenetur. 
 (' The bishop's office is one, each individual bishop holding a 
 part of it in which the whole is included.') All bishops are 
 essentially equal, as successors of the apostles, and therefore all 
 ought to agree in maintaining apostolic unity. 
 
 There can be no question of the primacy assigned by general 
 consent in S. Cyprian's time to the Bishop of Rome. Conciliar 
 Roman decisions are communicated to him ; each side in 
 
 primacy. controversy desires to have the support of his 
 
 authority. S. Cyprian's own language towards the Pope, in 
 times of ecclesiastical peace, might easily be interpreted as a 
 full admission of * papal claims.' Nevertheless, we see from 
 the actual conduct of controversy, that much of this must be 
 discounted as mere politeness ; and that bishops generally 
 resented any attempt of the Pope to exert universal supremacy 
 over the Church, or to alter received practice. Cyprian addresses 
 the Pope as brother and colleague, he protests against appeals 
 being carried from Africa to Rome, he clearly regards the 
 authority of an African Council as equal to that of the Roman 
 Church. And Stephen's action in the baptismal controversy 
 evidently did not bind his successors. It seems to have been 
 treated as a personal matter and left for time to heal. Cyprian 
 not only died in peace with Rome, but he is a canonised saint 
 of that Church, and his name even appears in the Canon of the 
 Mass. Doubtless his efforts for unity tended in the long-run 
 to strengthen the papacy as the ecclesiastical centre and bulwark 
 of Christianity in the West, but he can scarcely be regarded as 
 a supporter of papal claims. Indeed, Roman controversialists 
 of a later day unhappily thought it necessary to insert inter- 
 polations into the text of the ' De Unitate,' and to make explicit 
 what they thought S. Cyprian must have meant to say, rather 
 than content themselves with recording what he did say. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. Trace the variations in imperial policy towards the Church in the 
 third century. 
 
 2. What was the effect of the persecution of Decius upon the Church ? 
 
 3. What is meant by * confessors ' ? What privilege did they claim ? 
 
 4. What different measures were adopted in the Church towards those 
 who had lapsed in the persecution ? 
 
 5. What was the Baptismal controversy, and how was it settled ? 
 
 6. What was the attitude of S. Cyprian towards the bishops of Rome ? 
 Describe the treatise De Unitate Ecclesiae, 
 
 Subjects for Study, 
 
 1. The life and influence of S. Cyprian. 
 
 Benson. S. Cyprian. 
 
 Article by same author in Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
 
 2. The position of the Roman See in the third century. 
 
 Puller. Primitive Saints and the See of Rome. 
 Duchesne. Early History of the Church. 
 
 3. Novatianism. 
 
 Bright. Wayinarks in Church History. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 DIOCLETIAN : THE GREAT PERSECUTION 
 
 The accession of the Emperor Diocletian in 284 marks a turning 
 point in the history of the Roman Empire. Diocletian, the 
 Imperial commander of the imperial guards, was, like so 
 changes. many of his predecessors, elected by the army. 
 
 A man of low origin, but of great practical abiHty, he set himself 
 to a reconstruction of the whole imperial system. He aimed 
 at more effective government and greater stability for the 
 throne. ' Ostentation and division ' is Gibbon's description 
 of the new policy. The words are not very happily chosen. 
 
 * Division * was intended to make the empire more united, 
 because better organised. * Ostentation ' aimed at the greater 
 security of the Emperor's person. But the two words express 
 the external aspect of the changes. The old fiction dating from 
 Augustus, of the Emperor being merely the first citizen of the 
 commonwealth, which was still supposed to be governed by the 
 Senate and the ancient officials of the republic, was finally 
 given up. The Emperor assumed the splendour and the unap- 
 proachableness of an Eastern despot. He forsook the old capital 
 with its traditions of freedom, and made Nicomedia the new 
 imperial residence. And he divided the government of the vast 
 empire : * to avoid rivals, he gave himself colleagues ' (Duchesne). 
 He associated another Emperor with himself, bearing also the 
 title of ' Augustus,' and he appointed two subordinates, entitled 
 
 * Caesars ' with right of ultimate succession. The new Augustus 
 was Maximianus, a rude and haughty soldier. The two Caesars 
 were Galerius, a man of the same type, and Constantius Chlorus. 
 All the three were men of provincial origin. The Caesars were 
 made to divorce their wives and ally themselves with the 
 Augusti. The wife whom Constantius thus put away was 
 
 I6S 
 
 DIOCLETIAN : THE GREAT PERSECUTION 163 
 
 Helena, afterwards famous as mother of the Emperor Constan- 
 tine, and as a Christian saint. (Legend makes her a British 
 princess and the daughter of Coel of Colchester, the ' Old King 
 Cole ' of nursery fame !) 
 
 The new division of the Empire was well thought out. The 
 two Caesars were made responsible for the perilous northern 
 frontier, the line of the Rhine and the Danube. Constantius 
 had also Britain, Gaul, and Spain. Maximian Augustus ruled 
 Italy and Africa, and Diocletian himself retained Thrace and the 
 wealthy East. One momentous consequence of the new arrange- 
 ment was the removal of the seat of government from Rome. 
 The Empire's new capitals were fixed at Milan, much more 
 suitable than Rome for watching the barbarians of the north, 
 and at Nicomedia. 
 
 The provinces were also rearranged, increased in number, 
 but grouped under dioceses, an interesting change, for this 
 arrangement was followed in the organisation of the Christian 
 Church. The bishop of the city of the imperial ' diocese ' in which 
 the governor resided became the head of all the bishops of the 
 district. 
 
 The period from the edict of Gallienus to the nineteenth year 
 of Diocletian was one of peace and expansion for the Church. 
 Diocletian, though himself a devoted worshipper The peace of 
 of the gods of Rome, was too much of a statesman the church, 
 to attack the Christians. Important places in the State and 
 even in the imperial household were occupied by Christians. 
 Diocletian's wife and daughter favoured Christianity. Galerius, 
 though a narrow-minded and bitter enemy of the Church, was 
 kept in restraint by his master. Constantius was a friend to 
 the Church. 
 
 Eusebius, now a contemporary authority, describes (viii. i) 
 the high regard in which Christians were held, the building 
 of large churches in every city, the crowds of worshippers. In 
 some parts of the Empire, notably in Asia Minor, Christians 
 were probably in the majority. Egypt, Africa, central and 
 southern Italy, and southern Gaul were also largely Christianised. 
 But not all was well with the Church. Peace and progress, 
 
i64 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 says Eusebius, had produced laxity and sloth ; especially he 
 deplores the strife and party quarrels among Christians them- 
 selves. 
 
 There were signs too, on the other hand, that the old hatred 
 and suspicion were by no means dead. Isolated martyrdoms 
 Martyrs in took place, especially in the army. Military 
 the Army. discipline was bound up with the worship of the 
 gods of Rome ; and to a sensitive conscience even the Roman 
 eagles seemed to savour of idolatry. In 295, Maximilian 
 suffered at Theveste for refusing to serve. A little later Maximian 
 put to death a centurion, Marcellus, at Tangier. 
 
 Legend also ascribes to Maximian the massacre of the Theban 
 Legion and their commander S. Maurice, whose name is preserved 
 in S. Maurice in the Valais. And in 302 an imperial sacrifice was 
 supposed to have been rendered unpropitious by Christians 
 making the sign of the cross. This irritated even Diocletian to 
 such an extent that orders were given to remove from the 
 army all soldiers who would not sacrifice. 
 
 The fateful year of 303 saw the beginning of a general per- 
 secution, the longest and most severe attempt of paganism 
 The Great to stamp out the Church. For six years previously, 
 Persecution. Diocletian had been at war with Persia. Victory 
 brought a large increase of territory to the Empire, including 
 Mesopotamia. He spent with Galerius the winter of 302-303 
 at Nicomedia, and it was here that the plot was hatched. The 
 real author was Galerius, who succeeded in overcoming the 
 opposition of his aged colleague. But feminine influence was 
 also at work ; the mother of Galerius was an ignorant and super- 
 stitious pagan, who was enraged at the refusal of Christians 
 to attend her sacrificial functions, and probably jealous of the 
 Empress and other court ladies who looked with approval on 
 Christianity. Other ostensible motives for the persecution 
 were the pretended fear of treachery in the army, and the 
 dislike of the growing wealth and influence of Christians. And 
 without doubt the bitter hostihty of the pagan priesthood, the 
 soothsayers, and those who managed the ' oracles ' had been 
 only waiting for an opportunity during the years of toleration. 
 
 DIOCLETIAN : THE GREAT PERSECUTION 165 
 
 « 
 
 To these must be added the intrigues and jealousies of the 
 officials and eunuchs who surrounded the imperial court. 
 
 The persecution began with a dramatic stroke on February 
 23, 303, the festival of Terminalia. At dawn the prefect of the 
 praetorian guard went to the principal church of Nicomedia, 
 broke it open, ransacked the interior, and burnt all copies of the 
 Scriptures. The Church was then razed to the ground by the 
 
 soldiers. 
 
 Next day appeared on the palace gate the first of the imperial 
 edicts for the suppression of Christianity. It was at once torn 
 down by a too enthusiastic Christian, who has ^j^^ g^ji^j^g 
 been by some identified with S. George, and who at 
 once paid the penalty of death. Eusebius only states that he 
 was well known and of high temporal dignity (viii. 5). The 
 edict commanded (i) churches to be destroyed, and Church 
 property confiscated ; (2) the sacred books to be surrendered 
 and burnt ; (3) Christians who held any official position to be 
 degraded. The new feature in this edict was the destruction of 
 sacred books. It is significant of the fact that Christianity 
 was already regarded as ' the religion of the book.' A new 
 word came into Church usage ; one who obeyed the edict and 
 surrendered a sacred book was called a ' traditor ' (cp. ' traitor '). 
 Irreparable damage was certainly inflicted upon the earlier 
 manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 
 More severe edicts soon followed, the pretext being the out- 
 break of some disorder and of two fires at the palace, all ascribed, 
 probably without ground, to the Christians. The second edict 
 evidently aimed at preventing any Christian gatherings for 
 worship, for it ordered the arrest of all clergy and teachers. 
 The third, intended apparently as a relaxation, though it led 
 in practice to the most fearful atrocities, directed that all should 
 be compelled to sacrifice, by torture if necessary. The penalty 
 of death was not added, but many died under torture. The 
 object of this edict was to weaken the Christian resistance by 
 making as many apostates as possible. It was a clever stroke, 
 but it largely failed. The fourth edict, the work of Maximian, 
 was intended to finish the matter ; it forbade the profession of 
 
i66 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Christianity on pain of death. A Spanish monument of this 
 period has been discovered which compHments Diocletian 
 Augustus for having * aboHshed the superstition of Christ.' 
 This general persecution lasted in the West less than three years, 
 and its severity was abated through the influence of Constantius ; 
 but in the East it raged almost continuously for ten years, 
 owing to the mahce of Galerius and his successor Maximin. 
 Its course was bound up largely with the political changes and 
 revolutions of the period. The history of the years 306-324 
 is the history of the rise of Constantine to sole power, and the 
 turning point in this brought the end of the persecution. 
 
 In 305 Diocletian took the unprecedented step of resigning 
 the throne, influenced by long illness and the fear of assassination. 
 Rival His colleague Maximian was persuaded to do the 
 
 Emperors. same at Milan. Constantius and Galerius now 
 became Augusti ; the latter unfortunately appointed both the 
 Caesars, men of his own type, Severus, and Maximinus Daza, a 
 savage and superstitious soldier, a special foe of the Christians. 
 But a new aspirant to the purple was soon manifest in the 
 person of Constantine the son of Constantius and Helena. 
 He was summoned by his father from Nicomedia to Britain. 
 Crossing Europe with amazing rapidity, he reached York before 
 his father's death in 306, and was acclaimed Emperor by the 
 legions. Galerius was compelled to acknowledge him, but only 
 with the title of ' Caesar,' Severus being raised to the vacant 
 office of ' Augustus.* In the same year the claim of a son to 
 succeed liis father was again made. Maxentius, the son of the 
 retired Maximian, was declared Emperor by the Senate and the 
 praetorian guard at Rome. Romans and Italians were annoyed 
 at the new regime which had taken away the position of capital 
 from the imperial city, and reduced Italy to the level of the 
 provinces. Maximian reappeared from his retirement as the 
 colleague of his son. The two took Severus prisoner at Ravenna 
 in 307 and put him to death, and proclaimed themselves and 
 Constantine as * Augusti. * Galerius similarly promoted Maximin 
 and associated with him an old friend Licinius. 
 
 Thus East and West iiad each three Emperors all claiming 
 
 DIOCLETIAN : THE GREAT PERSECUTION 167 
 
 the highest title. One by one they fell. Maximian quarrelled 
 with his son, took refuge with Constantine, and then plotted 
 against him in his absence. Constantine captured him at 
 Marseilles and put him to death (310). In 311 Galerius died 
 at Nicomedia. In 312 Constantine invaded Italy, with a dash 
 and briUiance that recalled the exploits of Julius Caesar, and 
 defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, near Rome. In his 
 retreat Maxentius was drowned in the Tiber, leaving Constan- 
 tine sole Emperor of the West. In 313 Maximin and Licinius 
 quarrelled; the former was defeated and died miserably at 
 Tarsus. In 314 there was war between the two surviving Augusti, 
 Constantine and Licinius; in which the latter was defeated 
 and ceded all Europe except Thrace to his rival Peace lasted 
 till 323, when Licinius, again defeated at Adrianople and 
 ChrysopoUs by Constantine, surrendered, and died shortly 
 afterwards, leaving Constantine sole Emperor. 
 
 This brief summary of poUtical events has interrupted the 
 description of the persecution. It had, as we have seen, soon 
 abated in the West through the influence of Constantius and 
 Constantine, and, though it was revived by Maximian and Severus, 
 Maxentius showed himself very favourable to the Christians. 
 That the Church was soon able to proceed on her normal course 
 in the West was shown by the holding of a great Council in 
 Illiberis (Elvira) in 305. But in the East, Galcriu,s and Maximin 
 went on with unrelenting severity for several years, and even 
 when the death penalty was relaxed Christians were l)linded 
 and maimed, and sent to penal servitude in the mines. 
 
 A significant change came through the fatal and terrible 
 disease which overtook Galerius. When neither soothsayers 
 nor physicians could help him, he turned to the The ond of 
 Christians, in 311 he published, in the name of caioriuB. 
 himself, Licinius, and Constantine, an edict ol toleration, whicli 
 was practically a confession of defeat. After blaming the 
 Christians for their obstinacy in leaving the ancient worship, 
 and refusing to obey tlie well-intentioned efforts of the Emperors 
 to restore order, and abo for tlieir ovm failure to obey the Chris- 
 tian God (whatever that may luive meant !). the edict graciously 
 
l68 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 allows the Christians again to exist, and to rebuild their churches. 
 And it ends strangely enough with this request : ' Wherefore 
 on account of this indulgence of ours, they ought to pray to their 
 God for our safety, and that of the people, and their own/ 
 
 Galerius died shortly after — a death like that of Herod 
 Agrippa i. (Acts xii. 23), and the persecution was revived with 
 Maximin's bitter animosity by Maximin. This must have been 
 persecution, in some ways the sharpest trial which beset the 
 Christians of the East ; coming as it did on the top of the joy 
 of a relaxation, and being organised with peculiar malice. A 
 heathen hierarchy, in imitation of that of the Church, was set 
 up, with its ' bishops ' in all the chief cities. By intrigue and 
 corruption the authorities of various districts were induced to 
 petition the Emperor that Christians might be expelled from 
 among them. This was done at Tyre, at Nicomedia, and generally 
 in Asia Minor. But worst of all, a systematic attack was made 
 on Christ Himself. * Acts of Pilate ' were forged, full of blas- 
 phemies against the Saviour, and were not only widely circulated 
 but were actually forced into the schools as a text-book for 
 children. A boastful edict of Maximin's has been preserved 
 (Eus. ix. 7) in which he points to the absence of war and 
 calamities as a proof of the favour of the gods, in answer to the 
 attack on the Christians. But it was noted that soon after, 
 both war, famine and pestilence broke out, in which Christians 
 returned good for evil by their works of charity towards their 
 oppressors. This war is remarkable because it was against the 
 Armenians, a nation which appears in Christian history for the 
 first time, and as already converted. (This was no doubt due to 
 the labours of ' Gregory the Illuminator,' who a few years before 
 had converted the Armenian king, Tiridates, and many of his 
 people.) In the Armenian war Maximin was defeated ; and 
 in 313 the death of Maximin, after his further defeat at the 
 hands of Licinius, ended the persecution. But Maximin's reign 
 of terror had added many to the army of martyrs, among 
 them Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, and the learned and famous 
 Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch. Maximin's end was terrible. 
 His evil life, his drunkenness, and his disasters made his last hours 
 
 DIOCLETIAN : THE GREAT PERSECUTION 169 
 
 full of madness. He turned against all his pagan priests and 
 advisers, and had them massacred. In his dehrium he declared 
 that he saw God, and the martyrs in white robes, coming to 
 execute judgment upon him. One last act of tardy reparation 
 he performed before his death. He issued an edict proclaiming 
 full Hberty to the Christians to rebuild their churches and to 
 worship unmolested, and ordering the restitution of their 
 property. 
 
 The way was now clear for the course which the state-craft 
 of Licinius and the personal sympathies of Constantine suggested. 
 The grand attack on the Church had failed ; instead The Edict 
 of strengthening the commonwealth, it had proved of Milan, 
 a source of disunion and weakness. The time had come to make 
 an end, and to begin a new era. The two Emperors published 
 in 313 the famous edict of Milan, proclaiming Hberty to all to 
 worship according to their own choice. The language was 
 studiously guarded. There is nothing in it which favours 
 Christianity above other religions ; indeed, any such favour for 
 any religion is expressly repudiated. The vaguest periphrasis 
 is used to describe God, * whatever divinity is on the throne of 
 heaven,' so that neither pagans nor philosophers might feel 
 themselves offended. Each is to follow ' the religion which he 
 feels to be most adapted to himself.' The churches belonging 
 to individual Christians, or to ' the society of Christians as a 
 whole,' are to be restored at the cost of the State. 
 
 The battle was won, and the storm stayed. Though the 
 Church would have to endure further attacks both from heathen 
 and from Emperors themselves, so momentous a step as the 
 publication of the edict of Milan was bound to have a lasting 
 effect. It has well been called ' one of the turning points in the 
 history of the world.' 
 
 It is impossible to estimate the number of those who perished 
 in the persecution by the actual death penalty, or as a result 
 of their tortures and sufferings. It may be that Review 
 Christian accounts were sometimes exaggerated : of the 
 yet Eusebius was an eye-witness of the persecutions, persecution, 
 and a sober historian, and he writes of the ' thousands ' who 
 
 
li 
 
 170 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 suffered in Egypt, especially in the Thebaid, where, he says, 
 as many as thirty, sixty, or a hundred suffered in a single day ; 
 and of multitudes of martyrs in Arabia, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia. 
 Gibbon, with an obvious desire to minimise, suggests that 
 somewhat less than two thousand altogether suffered death. 
 This is most certainly an under-statement, but even if correct, 
 it would be no guide to the real severity of the persecution. For 
 the persecutors' policy as a rule was one of ' fright fulness,' 
 rather than the mere infliction of legal penalties. Its object 
 was to make apostates rather than martyrs. Multitudes (of 
 whom Gibbon takes no account), as we learn from Eusebius' 
 descriptions of the ' Martyrs of Palestine,' were cruelly tortured, 
 with every refinement of malice and contempt, and spent the 
 rest of their lives crippled and Winded. Many were condemned 
 to labour in the mines. And what are we to say of the universal 
 reign of terror, the hourly fear of the informer and the torture, 
 of the loss of goods, the breaking up of family life, the suspension 
 of Christian worship ? The ' unknown agonies ' must have been 
 far greater than those recorded in the martyrologies, and if 
 comparatively few names of martyrs have been preserved, 
 Christ had many witnesses among the poor, the obscure, the 
 women, and the children. At Caesarea, Eusebius describes 
 from personal knowledge the almost inconceivable atrocities 
 perpetrated by one Maxys, who refused burial to his victims, 
 and allowed the whole city to be scattered with the fragments 
 of their bodies. The portent of rain which fell from a clear 
 sky made it, he says, a common saying that even the very 
 heavens were weeping over such an abominable spectacle. 
 
 Among the names of other distinguished martyrs were 
 Anthimus, Bishop of Nicomedia, and Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis, 
 
 distinguished for his learning and piety, beheaded ; 
 
 Tyrannion of Tyre, and Zenobion, a presbyter of 
 Sidon, thrown into the sea ; Silvanus, Bishop of Emesa, 
 devoured by wild beasts ; another Silvanus, of Gaza, be- 
 headed with thirty-nine others ; two Egyptian bishops, 
 Peleus and Nilus, burnt to death ; Romanus, a deacon 
 of Antioch, burnt to death for his attempt to restrain 
 
 Martyrs. 
 
 DIOCLETIAN : THE GREAT PERSECUTION 171 
 
 apostate Christians from offering sacrifice ; Pamphilus, an 
 eminent presbyter of Caesarea, the teacher and friend of 
 Eusebius himself (from whom he took his own surname, 
 * Pamphili'), who after two years in prison was put to death 
 by tortures. With him also suffered in hideous ways, Valens, 
 an aged deacon, who knew the Scriptures by heart ; Paul of 
 Jamnia, who in the midst of his sufferings spoke of the heavenly 
 Jerusalem as his true city, and Porphyry, a servant of Pampliilus, 
 who suffered his death of fire in silence, save for calling once 
 upon the name of Jesus. 
 
 The persecution was of course a time of testing. If some 
 who suffered were over-zealous and provocative, and rushed 
 fanatically to death ; there were many others. Effects of the 
 who, as in the Decian terror, either apostatised persecution, 
 or gave up the sacred books, or in some underhand way en- 
 deavoured to obtain the libelli, or certificates of sacrifice ; some 
 too who feigned madness in order to escape. And such conduct 
 brought sad results of controversy and schism in the after-days, 
 notably in the Meletian and Donatist schisms, which will be 
 spoken of in the next chapter. 
 
 Nevertheless, as a whole, the persecution provided Christian 
 evidence of a high order. It won a new respect and admiration 
 for Christians. A courage unknown to the world before was 
 revealed in the endurance of torture even by women and children ; 
 in the patience and fortitude with which death itself was faced 
 and overcome, and above all in the absence of resistance. It 
 may have been that here and there hot indignation blazed out, 
 and a cruel magistrate was reproved or a heathen altar kicked 
 over, as was done by a woman at Gaza (Eus. Mari. Pal. 8) ; but 
 there were no reprisals, no insurrections, no outcry for vengeance. 
 Aeterna Christi munera, the conduct of the martyrs and con- 
 fessors is for all time a witness to a new power at work in human 
 nature which nature never gave. * They overcame him by the 
 blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and they 
 loved not their lives unto the death.' 
 
 One remarkable instance of the influence of Christian witness 
 under persecution is seen in the conversion of Arnobius. He 
 
172 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 t 
 
 was an African, a philosopher, and professor of rhetoric at Sicca, 
 
 and noted for his devotion to pagan rehgion and for his attacks 
 
 on Christianity. The sieht of the martyrdoms 
 Conversions. ^ o j 
 
 is said to have turned him to Christ. He presented 
 himself as a candidate for baptism. So astonished was the 
 Church at Sicca, that before he was accepted he had to write 
 his book in defence of Christianity — ' Disputations against the 
 Gentiles.* He was baptized and afterwards became a priest 
 
 A similar conversion was that of Lactantius, also an African, 
 and said to have been a pupil of Amobius. Invited by Diocletian 
 to Nicomedia to set up a school of rhetoric, he was converted 
 by the sight of the constancy of the Christian martyrs. This 
 meant to him at once the loss of his worldly prospects, and 
 great poverty. He employed his talents in writing in defence 
 of the Christian faith and in attacking two of the prominent 
 enemies of the faith, an unnamed sophist who lectured against 
 the Christians, and the governor of Bithynia, Hierocles, who had 
 written a book with the same object. Later on, Lactantius 
 was appointed by Constantine tutor to his son Crispus. A 
 work attributed to him is the treatise, * On the Death of the Per- 
 secutors,* in which he shows how miserable was the end of all 
 those who had used their imperial powers to persecute the 
 Church. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What changes in the imperial system were made by Diocletian? 
 
 2. What causes led to Diocletian's persecution ? 
 
 3. Describe the methods of this persecution ? 
 
 4. Sketch the rise of Constantine to sole power. 
 
 5. What was the character of Maximin's persecution ? 
 
 6. What was the Edict of Milan and its importance ? 
 
 7. What were the effects of the great persecution upon — 
 
 (i) the Church, (2) the heathen world? 
 
 Subject for Study 
 
 The Emperor Diocletian. 
 
 Mason. Persecution of Diocletian. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. CONSTANTINE 
 
 The same generation that saw the fires of martyrdom burn 
 through the length and breadth of the Empire saw the marvel 
 of a Christian Emperor, and Christianity established as the 
 favoured religion. Such a transformation is without parallel 
 in history. But Uke all great changes it needed first the gradual 
 preparation of men's consciences and thoughts, and secondly, 
 the hand of some powerful individual to give the final turn to 
 an issue which had long been shaping. Christianity had been 
 slowly but surely establishing itself ; the last persecution had 
 only shown the firmness of its roots, and the impossibihty of 
 either destroying it, or compromising with its claim. The 
 time was ripe for the umpire's decision. And that umpire 
 
 was Constantine. 
 
 Constantine, the son of Constantius and Helena, had been 
 brought up among circumstances and people that The vision of 
 prepared him to look favourably on the Christian tne Cross. 
 Church. His father was at least no enemy to the faith ; 
 his mother had probably adopted it. At Nicomedia, where 
 he had lived as an imperial hostage from about 292 to 
 305, he must have been surrounded by Christians; he ex- 
 perienced the hatred of Galerius, the champion of paganism, 
 and he saw the beginnings of the great persecution, probably, 
 like his father, with disgust. But the turning point of his Hfe 
 was the mysterious vision he saw before the decisive battle of 
 the Milvian Bridge (312) . We have the account of this practically 
 from the Emperor himself, for Eusebius, his personal friend, 
 states that Constantine described it to him and confirmed it 
 with an oath. The Emperor had been thinking deeply over 
 the failure of the heathen gods and oracles to help the rulers 
 who had so devoutly worshipped them, and he prayed for 
 
 173 
 
174 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 guidance to the God of his father Constantius. The prayer 
 was immediately answered. Just after noon he saw in the sky 
 ' the trophy of a cross of Hght, above the sun, and bearing the 
 inscription, iv tovtw vUa, '' In this conquer ! '' ' In a dream 
 on the following night, Christ Himself appeared to him, bearing 
 the same sign of the cross, and commanding him to use it as his 
 standard of victory. This was immediately done, and the 
 armies of Constantine marched to their great victory over 
 Maxentius, led not by the eagles but by the new ensign, i 
 Christian priests had been summoned to explain the vision, 
 and Constantine having had clq^rly put before him the facts 
 of the Christian Creed, decided, it is said, henceforth to worship 
 no other God save Him who had thus appeared to him. He 
 commemorated his victory and his conversion to Christ in the 
 statue which he erected in Rome, a figure of himself bearing the 
 cross, with an inscription stating that by virtue of this sign 
 of salvation he had liberated the city, the Roman Senate and 
 people, and restored to them their ancient dignity. 
 
 The truth of this vision and the sincerity of Constantine's 
 conversion have been often questioned. But both seem proved 
 Constan- by their actual results. Whatever psychological or 
 
 tine's physical explanations may be offered for the former, 
 
 Christianity, ^he fact remains that Constantine believed that he 
 saw it, and in making the cross the standard of his armies 
 henceforth he made a daring and momentous break with the 
 past. As to his sincerity, though he delayed his baptism till 
 the approach of death in 337, it is clear that he was profoundly 
 convinced of the importance of religion, and convinced too of 
 the power of Christ, as exerted in his behalf. His steps for the 
 furtherance of Christianity and the extirpation of heathenism 
 may have been slow and tentative, but a prudent ruler could 
 
 1 This ensign, usually called the Labarum, is exactly described by 
 Eusebius. It was clearly a Christian adaptation of the old eagle ensign 
 A spear of gold was crowned with a wreath of gold and jewels, within 
 which was set the trophy of the vision ^ , the first two Greek letters of 
 the name of Christ. Beneath this was a portrait of the Emperor and then 
 a bar (making the spear into a cross), from which was suspended a richlv 
 embroidered banner. ^ 
 
 CONSTANTINE 
 
 175 
 
 scarcely have gone faster, and his whole attitude towards the 
 faith and the Christian Church is that of a convinced if not 
 always consistent believer. That he retained the old title of 
 pontifex maximus, as head of the Roman State religion, meant 
 really very little. So completely had the religious offices of 
 Rome been identified with mere civil dignities that even before 
 his time Christians had actually held the office of flamen, or 
 priests of the Roman gods, as well as other offices of State. The 
 chief blot on Constantine's practical Christianity has been held 
 to be his execution, in 326, of his own wife and son. But the 
 whole question is wrapt in obscurity ; and if he was guilty, 
 it was not as a mere murderer, but as supreme judge of the 
 Empire. As to the ' miracle ' involved in such a conversion 
 as his, all that need be said is that such things must be judged 
 on their evidence and the results that flowed from them, and 
 to a Christian both the whole circumstances and the greatness 
 of the issues involved will surely seem not unworthy of a super- 
 natural interposition. He who spoke from heaven to Saul 
 of Tarsus may well also have shown a sign which would render 
 such persecution as that of 303-313 impossible again, and turn 
 to the faith the man who held in his hands the destiny of the 
 
 world. 
 
 So long as Licinius shared the Empire with Constantine, 
 no very definite or universal measures for the establishment 
 of Christianity were possible. Licinius was a Persecution 
 heathen; moreover, his increasing jealousy of his and Licinius. 
 colleague tended to render him more and more adverse to the 
 religion his colleague favoured. In spite of the edict of toleration 
 of 313, Christians in the East were dismissed from the court, 
 and then from the army. Meetings of bishops were forbidden, 
 and Christian worship was not permitted within the walls of 
 towns. This attitude grew into something very like a general 
 persecution, and a number of martyrdoms took place. Among 
 these tradition places that of the famous forty martyrs of 
 Sebaste in Armenia. These were soldiers who refused to offer 
 sacrifice, and were immersed all night in a pond of icy-cold 
 water. One of them apostatised, but his place was taken by 
 
 If 
 
 i I 
 
/ 
 
 176 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 the sentry, who was converted by the prayers and patience of 
 the sufferers. 
 
 But the growing sufferings of Christians were brought to an 
 end by the final quarrel between the two Emperors. Licinius, 
 defeated by Const antine at Adrianople and then at Chrysopolis, 
 in 323, was put to death at the demand of the army. Con- 
 stantine's first act, as sole Emperor, was to reverse his rival's 
 anti-Christian policy, and to restore to Christians their positions 
 and property. 
 
 Before this the principal acts of Constantine in the interests 
 of Christianity had been the building of churches in Rome, 
 Gradual ^^^ several significant legal enactments. Among 
 
 establish- these were, in 316, the permission for the emancipa- 
 ment of tion of slaves to take place in churches ; in 319, 
 
 Christianity. ^^^^ prohibition of private sacrifices and magic ; 
 and, most important, in 321, the command for the general 
 observance of Sunday as a holiday throughout his dominions. 
 Other enactments of this period have also been thought to show 
 the growing influence of Christian ideals on the Emperor. Such 
 were various relaxations with regard to criminals, debtors, and 
 prisoners ; the abolition of crucifixion ; the removal of taxes 
 which Roman law had attached to celibacy ; and, on the other 
 hand, the infliction of the death penalty on adultery. 
 
 But the removal of his rival enabled Constantine in 324 to 
 take a more decided line. He issued an edict to the Eastern 
 provinces, in which he stigmatised the persecutions, acknow- 
 ledged God and the sign of the Cross as being his own helpers, 
 and prayed his subjects to become Christians, though com- 
 pelling none of them. All were to have, he said, equal privileges. 
 Those who still ' delighted in error,' might still continue to 
 have their ' temples of lies. ' Neither party was to molest the 
 other. 
 
 It was impossible to suppress heathen worship, but various 
 measures were taken in the years that followed both to curtail 
 it and to exalt that of the Christians. Emperor worship was 
 forbidden ; a great visitation of the various temples of note 
 was made, and some were destroyed. Christian churches of 
 
 CONSTANTINE 
 
 lyy 
 
 great splendour were erected, notably at Jerusalem, Bethlehem, 
 Hebron, and Antioch. At Jerusalem, the site of the Crucifixion 
 was crowned with a magnificent basilica. Christian tradition 
 had probably preserved the memory of the sacred spot through 
 all the vicissitudes of sieges and rebuildings. Here, too, it was 
 said that the remains of the actual cross on which the Lord had 
 suffered were discovered, and identified by miracles of heaUng. 
 In this work of honouring the holy places of Palestine, the 
 Emperor's mother, Helena, took a prominent part. 
 
 But the greatest memorial of the change of the religion of 
 the Empire was the foundation of a new Christian capital at 
 Byzantium. This city was henceforth to be called Constantinople 
 or ' New Rome. ' It was enlarged and beautified, and new churches 
 were built in it, notably one dedicated to Sophia, i.e. Christ, 
 the heavenly ' Wisdom '—afterwards replaced by the Emperor 
 Justinian by the magnificent cathedral, now used as a mosque 
 and still waiting its restoration to Christian uses. In this new 
 capital there were to be henceforth no heathen temples or gladia- 
 torial shows. 
 
 In some places popular feeling followed the Emperor's lead, 
 and the temples were destroyed. In others the old worship 
 was clung to obstinately. Gradually expelled from the cities 
 of the Empire, it retamed its hold for long on the rural districts 
 (hence the name ' paganism,' the religion of the pagani or rustics). 
 It was not till the reign of Justinian, two centuries later, that 
 the last reUcs of public heathen worship and teaching were 
 destroyed. As late as the ninth century, the mountaineers of 
 Greece still worshipped Aphrodite and Poseidon, and indeed 
 heathen rites and superstitions, and even traces of sacrifice 
 still exist among the Christians of the Balkan regions. 
 
 Nevertheless the tide had turned with the conversion of 
 Constantine. The impossible had happened. The Church 
 henceforth was the dominant religious power in varied re- 
 the Empire. Results of mingled good and evil suits of con- 
 foUowed inevitably. Persecution could never again stantine's 
 threaten the very existence of the Church. The conversion, 
 civil government closely alHed with the Church was bound to 
 
 M 
 
 I J 
 
 f 
 
178 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 be influenced more or less by Christian ideals. And yet the 
 Church herself suffered by the change in many ways. We may 
 regard it as an exaggeration to represent all the failures of 
 Christianity as due to this alliance with the State. Dante was 
 influenced by the beUef in the genuineness of the ' Donation of 
 Constantine ' (p. 339) when he wrote his famous denunciation : 
 
 * Ah, Constantine ! to how much ill gave birth 
 Not thy conversion, but that plenteous dower 
 Which the first wealthy father gain'd from thee.' 
 
 {Inf. xix.) 
 
 But insincerity and worldliness became now the foes of the 
 Church. It paid to be a Christian, and converts, uninstructed 
 and desiring chiefly to be in the fashion, poured into the Church. 
 Consequently it became much more diflicult to exert discipHne 
 and maintain a high Christian standard. Bishops and clergy, 
 dazzled by their unaccustomed honours, grew often worldly, 
 avaricious, and time-serving. Moreover, the spiritual character 
 of the Church and of her authority was imperilled as never 
 before. Both ancient imperial precedent and Christian gratitude 
 tended to invest the Emperor with powers to which he had no 
 claim under the law of Christ. Constantine, still unbaptized, 
 was encouraged to intervene in ecclesiastical matters, as if a 
 sort of Christian pontifex maximtis. It is only fair to Constantine 
 to say that such intervention was largely forced upon him, and 
 that in his attempts to settle ecclesiastical questions he was not 
 so much desirous of playine: the theologian as of enforcing 
 peace and unity. He was statesman enough to foresee the 
 disastrous consequences to the commonwealth of religious 
 divisions. Nevertheless, in the position of Constantine we see 
 the foundations laid of the unhappy domination of the Eastern 
 Emperors in matters ecclesiastical, of the medieval confusion 
 of Church and State, and of the constant tendency for the 
 secular power to fetter the spiritual liberty of the Church. The 
 evils of the ' estabhshment ' of religion as well as its benefits 
 have their roots far back in Christian history. 
 
 The great persecution, hke that of Decius in the previous 
 century, resulted in grave dissensions and schisms in the Church, 
 
 CONSTANTINE 
 
 179 
 
 and for the same reasons. Many Christians, in one way or 
 another, failed to stand firm, and either denied their faith or 
 compromised with the persecutor. They were eager to return 
 to Church fellowship when the storm was passed, some no 
 doubt genuinely penitent, others with less perfect motives. 
 The question whether such should be treated with mercy or 
 severity divided the Church into two camps. Where feeling 
 ran especially strong, as in Africa and Egypt, actual schisms 
 resulted, and Constantine found them in existence when he 
 came to power, and seriously hindering the unity of the 
 
 Church. 
 
 The Meletian schism in Egypt arose about 306. Meletius, 
 Bishop of Lycopolis, was a fanatical rigorist, and also a busy- 
 body and intriguer. Bishop Peter of Alexandria Meletian 
 showed himself on the side of clemency, though schism, 
 certainly not of weakness. Meletius protested, and when, on 
 the revival of persecution in the East, Peter was imprisoned, 
 he went about Egypt stirring up disaffection, and ordaining 
 priests and bishops of his own way of thinking. He was ex- 
 communicated by Peter. The latter died a martyr, the former 
 was sent by the persecutors to the mines. Even here he em- 
 ployed his leisure, such as it was, in intrigues and strife, and 
 on his return started a definite schism in Egypt, with bishops and 
 churches. The trouble was dealt with unsuccessfuUy at the 
 Council of Nicaea in 325, and the schism lasted for a century. 
 J^he Donatist schismT^which arose about the same time in 
 Africa, out of the same causes, ^was the most important and 
 long-lived of all the ancient schisms^jand in the The 
 attempt to end it Constantine played a prominent Donatists. 
 part. Tit is a melancholy story of bitterness, insincerity, and 
 bigotry, which left wounds in African Christianity from which 
 
 it never recovered.^ 
 
 tt^roubles began in 305, soon after the cessation of the per- 
 secution. Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage, was unpopular 
 with the party of zealots, because he had tried to discourage 
 Christians from rushing on martyrdom and provoking the 
 officials. His archdeacon, Caecilian, was even more disHked. 
 
 / 
 
i8o THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 He was charged with checking the excessive devotion paid to 
 those who were in prison or awaiting martyrdom, and even with 
 standing at the prison doors to intercept the presents of food 
 brought to them by the faithful. Moreover, Mensurius was 
 under suspicion of being himself a * traditor,' i.e. of having 
 given up the sacred books to the persecutors, a form of apostasy 
 which seems to have been most common. As a matter of fact. 
 Mensurius, on his own admission, had pretended to do this, but 
 had substituted heretical writings, and so had satisfied the 
 officials. 
 
 In 311, on the death of Mensurius, Caecilian was elected to 
 succeed him, and consecrated in a somewhat private manner by 
 Felix of Aptonga and two other neighbouring bishops. A 
 rebellion was at once stirred up against him. The general 
 dislike of Caecilian 's past conduct was fanned by personal 
 animosity. He made enemies by demanding back the Church 
 treasures which his predecessor had entrusted to two persons of 
 doubtful honesty. And there was, of course, a woman also in 
 the case. Lucilla, a rich and self-willed devotee, was angry with 
 CaeciUan, because he had forbidden her to kiss the bone of 
 a supposed martyr before receiving Holy Communion. She 
 lent her influence to stir up the bishops of Numidia against 
 Caecilian. Seventy bishops met, presided over by Secundus 
 of Tigisi. They summoned Caecihan to appear before them, 
 and on his refusal pronounced his consecration invalid, on the 
 ground (probably false) that Felix, his chief consecrator, was 
 a ' traditor.' This council had little moral claim to judge such 
 cases, for both Secundus and several other members had been 
 ' traditors ' themselves ! Majorinus was declared to be bishop 
 in the place of Caecilian ; and a definite schism was begun. 
 Majorinus claimed the allegiance of the party of severity ; 
 Caecilian, in the eye^of the Church at large and of the Emperor, 
 was still the lawful bishop, and in possession of the churches. 
 
 The next and most unfortunate step was an appeal to the 
 Emperor by the party of Majorinus. Constantinc was asked to 
 appoint judges from among the bidiops of Gaul, on tlie ground 
 that that district had l>fcn outride the area of persectilion. 
 
 CONSTANTINE 
 
 181 
 
 The Emperor agreed, and three Gallic bishops were summoned 
 to Rome. To them the Emperor added fifteen from Italy, 
 and the council was presided over at the Lateran, by Miltiades, 
 Bishop of Rome. The schismatics were represented chiefly 
 by Donatus, Bishop of Casae Nigrae>^ (It is uncertain whether 
 it was his name, or that of another ^nd greater Donatus, that 
 led to the schismatics being called Donatists.) [^The decision 
 was that no case had been made out against Caecilian, and that 
 he was still the lawful Bishop of CarthageTA 
 
 The malcontents appealed again to Constantinc and demanded 
 a fresh trial. All Africa was in an uproar, and the Emperor 
 agreed, in the hope of peace. In 314 one of the councilor 
 most important Church Councils which had yet Aries, 
 been held since the days of the Apostles assembled at Aries. 
 A large number of bishops are said to liave been present, in- 
 cluding at least three from Britain (London, York, and Lincoln). 
 The decisions of this Council were most weighty. Not only 
 was Caecihan vindicated, but the whole question at issue was 
 dealt with. ' Traditors,' it was laid down, ought to be removed 
 from the clerical office, but ordinations performed by them must 
 be allowed as valid. [This is the important principle laid down 
 in Article XXVI. of the Church of England that the unworthiness 
 of ministers does not hinder the validity of their ministerial 
 acts, a principle without wliich an official ministry would be 
 practically impossible.] The Council also dealt with the earlier 
 question of Cyprian's day (p. 157), and declared that heretical or 
 schismatic baptism is valid, if performed with water and in the 
 name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Council requested 
 the Bishop of Rome to publish their decrees. 
 
 The schismatics were irreconcilable, and again appealed to 
 the Emperor. After various attempts to heal the quarrel, 
 he summoned the heads of the two parties in 317 to appear 
 before him, and he gave his personal decision in favour of 
 Caecilian. It was of no avail, and Constantinc now tried the 
 effect of a little persecution. He ordered the cJiurcl>cs wliich 
 the schismatics had m-i/xhI in Carthage to be taken from them. 
 Tlii^ was ac<:oinj>lished with a certain aniuunt of bloodtjlied, 
 
 i )i 
 
i82 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 but the schism raged more furiously than ever, especially as now 
 it had as its head a man of power, Donatus the Great, who had 
 succeeded Majorinus in 316. Constantine now seems to have 
 given up the attempt to end the troubles by force, and contented 
 himself with writing severe edicts against the schismatics, and 
 exhorting their opponents to patience under their sufferings. 
 
 The Donatists grew in numbers until they were a larger 
 and more powerful body than the Catholics. They regarded 
 The Circum- themselves as alone constituting the true Church, 
 ceuions. and the rest of Christendom as apostate. A few 
 
 years later, an extreme party of fanatics developed who 
 called themselves 'Agonistae' ('champions'), but were nick- 
 named * Circumcellions/ * vagabonds.' They roamed about 
 Numidia, yelhng their war-cry, ' Praises to God,' committing 
 all sorts of outrages on their opponents, and eagerly seeking 
 martyrdom (as they called it) for themselves. They were 
 armed with heavy clubs, which they called ' Israels,' and even 
 proved formidable antagonists to the imperial armies. 
 
 The Emperor Constans again attempted, about the middle of 
 the century, to reunite the Christians of Africa. He sent two 
 Later commissioners, Paul and Macarius, who first tried 
 
 history of by bribery and then by force to compel the Donatists 
 Donatism. ^q abandon their schism. Donatus replied to them 
 in words curiously unsuitable to those who a few years before 
 had pestered Constantine with their appeals : * Wliat,' he asked, 
 * has the Emperor to do with the Church ! ' The commissioners 
 then proceeded to suppress the Donatists by military power. 
 Battles were fought, and finally Donatus and the leading bishops 
 of the schism were sent into exile, and a great council in 348 
 attempted to settle finally all the outstanding disputes. For a 
 time the Catholics were triumphant, but the Emperor Julian, 
 to annoy them and injure the Church, restored the exiled 
 -Donatists, and the weary strife began again^ ) 
 J**Optatus, Bishop of Milevi, and the great S. Augustine of 
 Hippo wrote against the schismatics. Tlic former address^^d 
 a treatise to Parmenian. the successor of Donatus. appealing 
 to him in a very temperate manner, on the ground of a common 
 
 CONSTANTINE 
 
 183 
 
 ,-^wO/^ 
 
 faith and Church and sacraments and ministry, to be reconciled. \ ' 
 rxfter the time of .\ugustine the Donatists declined in numbefst^^ 
 T)ut they lasted on till the extinction of Africaji CJiristiafiiW , 
 in the seventh century, a calamity for which t Key must-'beheld^ 
 largely responsible^ 
 TThe chief characteristics of the Donatists were their bitter 
 and fanatical intolerance, which regarded all Christians as 
 apostate except themselves, and their narrow puritanism. The 
 holiness of the Church, they thought, must be enforced in all 
 her members. But the hoHness which passed muster among 
 the Donatist leaders was often of a curiously non-moral character 
 (a phenomenon not without parallel among later puritanical 
 sects). In the attack on Felix, forgery was made use of to 
 prove that he had l)een a * traditor' At a later date some of 
 the Donatist bislKiixi wl)o had taken a prominent purl in the 
 agitation were found guilty of thieving, and receiving bribes. 
 And, like all purituiuJ. Uie Donatists were inveterate persecutors* ^^ 
 
 QUKSTIONS; 
 
 1. How w;is Consuniinc influenced to become a Climcun ? 
 
 2. Trace tlwi stejMt by which Oinsiaiitirtc fiffadittlly established 
 Christianity as ihc imperial religion. 
 
 3. What were the effects on the Church of Con.staii*.:r.L - .nn version? 
 
 4. What waji the Melclian sichi^m? 
 
 5. Who were the DonatUt:*. and bow did they affect African 
 Christianity.'^ 
 
 6. What is ihc importance of the Council oi Arlcs? 
 
 Subjects for Stvdy. 
 
 1. The character of Constantine 
 
 * Constanlinus L* in Dictionary ofCkfistian Bio^raphw 
 Stanley. History of the FMttm Church, 
 
 2. The Vision of Constantine 
 
 Newman. Essays on MiracUj. 
 
 L. 
 
 ^ 
 
 is 
 
i 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. ARIANISM 
 
 Scarcely had the Church attained her new position as the 
 favoured rehgion of the Empire, when she found herself plunged 
 into a life and death struggle concerning the very fundamentals 
 of the faith ; a struggle which lasted acutely for more than half 
 a century. Arianism, which took its name from Arius, a Christian 
 priest of Alexandria, attacked the central doctrine of Christianity, 
 the Incarnation. It appeared suddenly, but its seeds had long 
 been germinating. 
 
 The Church had always believed in and worshipped Jesus 
 Christ as God, who for man's salvation had become man, but 
 Forerunners without in any way impairing His essential Godhead. 
 of Arianism. That this was from the beginning the normal and 
 dominant belief there can be no reasonable question. But 
 side by side with this orthodox or CathoHc behef, there were 
 other attempts to explain in what men thought to be simpler 
 or more philosophical ways the mystery of Christ. There was 
 a long line of rationahsing tradition which called itself Chris- 
 tian, by which He was regarded as a holy man who had been 
 * adopted ' by God as His Son, who might be worshipped and 
 given divine titles, but was after all a created being, and not 
 truly and eternally God. Such was perhaps the teaching of 
 the obscure sect of the Ebionites ; it became more prominent 
 for a time in the third century in the theories of the Monarchian 
 heretics, like Theodotus and Artemon (p. 145) ; it made a bolder 
 bid for existence in the effrontery of Paul of Samosata at Antioch. 
 
 Again, the various Gnostic theories had endeavoured to fit 
 the figure of Christ into their systems as a mysterious and 
 exalted being, who was far above man, and stood in some inter- 
 mediate position between him and the supreme and impersonal 
 God. 
 
 X84 
 
 ARtANISM 
 
 185 
 
 The teaching of Arius had no doubt affinities with that of the 
 Adoptionists, in its exaltation of the unique divinity of the 
 Father and the subordination of the Son. But it was not so 
 frankly humanitarian. Arius taught that Christ was pre- 
 exist ent before His human birth, though not eternal : that He 
 was more than a mere man, but less than God. Thus Arianism 
 was really more akin to Gnosticism. It interposed between 
 God and man this indefinable being, half-God and half-man, as 
 a mediator and redeemer. It did not, like most of the Gnostics, 
 deny the true human hfe and flesh and blood of Christ, but it 
 touched the fringe at least of Docetism in substituting the God- 
 head for a soul, an error which afterwards took a different form 
 in ApoUinarianism. 
 
 It was on the question of the eternity of Christ that the quarrel 
 first arose. Arius, with his favourite affectation of logic, seized 
 on the title ' Son of God,' and asked, ' how can is Christ 
 a son be as old as his father ? ' From the human eternal ? 
 impossibility of this, he proceeded to argue that the Son of 
 God cannot be eternal. He may be the highest of all creatures, 
 invested with divine dignity and attributes, but not God in the 
 same sense as the Father. He must have had a beginning and 
 be, in the last analysis, a created being. Shrinking from making 
 the Son a mere creature of time, Arius used a vague phrase, 
 ' There was a then when the Son was not.' But there can be 
 no doubt that he taught that the Son was created before the 
 worlds, out of what was not previously existent (e^ ovic ovtwv). 
 
 The Catholic reply to this Arian quibble is simple. In thinking 
 of the Godhead, we must divest our minds of the ideas of ' before ' 
 and ' after.' The word ' Son ' is apphed to the Second Person 
 of the Trinity, the Logos or Word, incarnate in Jesus Christ, 
 not because it is fully adequate, but because it most nearly 
 conveys, in the ordinary language of finite beings, the nature of 
 the relation between Him and the Father. But it must not 
 be understood as implying any act of generation, or priority 
 of one Person to another. It expresses a relation which is 
 unchanging and eternal. As Origen himself had taught, * The 
 Son of God IS always being begotten/ 
 
i86 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Clear-sighted Christian thinkers recognised at once, and the 
 Church as a whole went with them, that such a conception of 
 Arianiamnot Christ as was taught by Arius was entirely irrecon- 
 Christianity. cilable with the Catholic Faith. It destroyed the 
 very essence of Christianity. For to the Christian, Christ is 
 the full and final expression of the Father ; who knows the 
 Father fully, and is able to reveal Him to men, only because 
 of His own identity of nature with the Father. For the 
 same reason He is the true and only mediator. Being truly 
 God, -arid by His incarnation truly man, in one person. He 
 has, bridged the gulf, otherwise impassable, between Creator 
 and creature. He has hfted the veil and unlocked the 
 door that barred man's approach to his Maker. And again, 
 for the same reason, in Christ is the only Atonement. He 
 alone could perfectly reconcile God and man, for His self- 
 oblation, consummated on the cross, was the effort of the 
 very divine love itself, espousing man's cause, bearing man's 
 sin, and offering for man a perfect penitence and an 
 acceptable sacrifice. 
 
 But the Church had a further quarrel with Arianism. She 
 rightly saw in it nothing but a disguised polytheism. In no 
 Arianism sense could the Christ of Arius be called ' God,' 
 reauy except on principles which were fatal to monotheism. 
 
 Polytheism. Yot the Arian Christ was but a demigod, a sort of 
 inferior deity, tricked out in the divine attributes, but essentially 
 different from the Supreme and Eternal. Indeed, there could 
 be no logical stopping place between the recognition of the 
 Arian Christ as God and a heathen pantheon of competing or 
 subordinate deities. And if Arianism had triumphed, its char- 
 acteristic view could have been no more than a temporary 
 phase. The world's thought was bound to outgrow polytheism. 
 The next stage would have been humanitarianism. The fancy 
 of an exalted demigod appearing on earth as the redeemer would 
 have had to give way (as iq modern Unitarianism) to the 
 Adoptionist view of Christ as a man, pre-eminent among his 
 fellows, endowed more richly with the Divine Spirit, but not 
 essentially differing from them. Such a Christ could not bring 
 
 ARIANISM 
 
 187 
 
 to men any certain or final revelation, and to worship him would 
 be idolatry. 
 
 Thus, from every point of view, there was no compromise 
 possible between the teaching of Arius and the orthodox faith. 
 One or the other must go. 
 
 Clear as the issues seem to us, the strength and the attractive- 
 ness of Arianism must not be under-estimated. Its supporters 
 had much to say for themselves, and they appealed in subtle 
 ways to their own age. 
 
 First of all, Arianism claimed to represent the original faith 
 of the Church, and maintained that its opponents were the real 
 innovators. It is quite possible by judicious The Arian 
 manipulation of texts of Scripture, or of the simple, claim to be 
 unguarded statements of early Christian writers, primitive, 
 to make out a plausible case for this statement. The Deity of 
 Jesus Christ was only gradually apprehended by the Apostles 
 themselves while the Master was on earth. In their appeal to 
 Jews, after His Ascension, they naturally laid stress on the 
 humanity of Christ, as the chosen and anointed Saviour of Israel 
 and the world. This aspect is certainly prominent in the speeches 
 recorded in the Acts. Christ's own words in the Gospels as to 
 His human subordination to the Father might easily be pressed 
 into the support of Arianism. And a favourite Arian quotation 
 from the Old Testament was the Septuagint mistranslation of 
 Prov. viii. 22, where, in the great description of the eternal 
 Wisdom, which Christians identified with the Logos, that version 
 reads ' The Lord created me before his works of old ' (instead of 
 
 * possessed me '). 
 
 The orthodox might well, in reply to this, appeal to the general 
 tenor of Scripture and the continuous witness of the Church. 
 They might rightly maintain that nothing short of the absolute 
 Deity of Christ and His co-eternity with the Father could satisfy 
 or harmonise all the statements of Scripture. ' I and my 
 Father are one ' has an equal claim for consideration with ' my 
 Father is greater than I.' Nor could Christians hold themselves 
 justified in offering Divine worship to Christ if He were in any 
 sense less than God. 
 
 ti 
 
i88 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Nevertheless, the confutation of Arianism was not easy. 
 Though the general conscience of Christendom revolted against 
 Difficulty of it, as inconsistent with the faith once received, 
 refuting the faith which was bound up with Christian hopes 
 
 Arianism. ^^d efforts, there was no formulated statement 
 of that faith of sufficient authority to be appealed to generally 
 with regard to the points in dispute. Nor was theological 
 language sufficiently elaborated for deahng with the subtle 
 distinctions of Arian dialectic. 
 
 Creeds there certainly were, but not of the sort required. 
 A simple confession of faith was made by each catechumen 
 at his baptism, and most of the great Christian centres had 
 already provided a formulary for that purpose. But these 
 baptismal creeds were the creeds of the believer ; simple positive 
 statements of belief, not intended for the disputant. They 
 made, for the most part, little or no attempt to guard against 
 error, and the Arian might profess his acceptance of them 
 as well as the orthodox. The most notable of these early creeds 
 is that of Rome, which at a later date became expanded into 
 the * Apostles' Creed ' of the Western Church (p. 41). The Deity 
 of Christ and of the Holy Spirit is no doubt implicit in this as 
 in the other baptismal creeds, but it is not expressly stated nor 
 safe-guarded against misinterpretation. 
 
 Besides these attempts to claim Scripture and antiquity in 
 its favour, Arianism could appeal in various ways to various 
 The appeal types of mind. I he simple believer it always tried 
 of Arianism. to intimidate by the charge of Sabellianism. It 
 is remarkable how much this heresy was feared ; and indeed it 
 is one into which those unaccustomed to theological definition 
 may very easily and unconsciously sHp. In anxiety to avoid 
 tritheism or polytheism, uninstructed persons are prone to 
 speak of the Godhead as if the three Persons were but phases 
 or aspects of the One God. Heresies are almost always a one- 
 sided and exaggerated presentation of one side of the truth ; 
 and it has always been characteristic of heretics to charge their 
 opponents with the opposite error. Consequently, as we shall 
 see^ many of the more cautious of orthodox Christians were 
 
 ARIANISM 
 
 189 
 
 afraid to take a decided line in opposition to Arianism, lest they 
 should be accused of being Sabelhans. 
 
 Again, Arianism attracted the shallow logician and the ration- 
 alist by its apparent simplicity and by relieving them of the 
 awful mystery of the Trinity in Unity. The woridly and the 
 compromiser found it easier to accept the Christ of Arius than 
 the stupendous claim of One who was equal with the Father, 
 and yet humbled Himself to become man. Lacking the deep 
 Christian sense of sin, such persons failed to realise that none 
 less than God Himself could make atonement for it. A defective 
 view of what redemption means made them the more ready 
 to accept an inadequate explanation of it. 
 
 But especially Arianism attracted the crowds of converts 
 from heathenism who were flocking into the Church because 
 it was fashionable. Arianism was the child of its age. It offered 
 the multitude an easy transition from the rehgions they were 
 abandoning. The centre of its worship appeared to the common 
 man much on the same level as Mithras ; the philosopher would 
 find in the Arian Christ only one more personification of the 
 far-off and elusive Divine principle of the universe ; and the 
 Gnostic would see in Him no more than a Christian * aeon.' 
 And Arianism gained an easy popularity with the multitude 
 for still another reason. It does not seem to have made any 
 strong claim on character or conduct. It easily sanctioned 
 laxness of life and irreverence of speech. Its methods were 
 thoroughly worldly, and it produced few saints. 
 
 Though Arianism first appeared in Egypt, it owed much 
 to Antioch. Here Arius and others of his supporters had 
 studied under Lucian, the head of a Christian Arianism 
 school, a man of somewhat obscure history and sprang from 
 opinions, but evidently of personal power and Antioch. 
 charm. He died a martyr in 312 ; his disciples called them- 
 selves * Collucianists,' and regarded him as their patron saint. 
 Lucian may have been influenced by Paul of Samosata, though 
 his teaching was more reverent and less crudely humanitarian. 
 The whole atmosphere of Antioch was favourable to the growth 
 of Arian doctrines. Jewish influence was strong, so too was 
 
 r^- 
 
190 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 that of the Sophists, the professors of ' dialectic/ the art of 
 subtle argumentation. The Antiochene style of interpreting 
 Scripture was Hteral and logical, unhke the mysticism of 
 Alexandria and elsewhere. In the hands of an irreverent 
 controversialist, eager only to prove his point and overthrow 
 his adversary, such a method apphed to such ineffable mysteries 
 as the Nature of God and the Incarnation might easily lead 
 to conclusions which, like those of Arius, might appear more 
 logical than the Cathohc teaching, but were really one-sided 
 and profane. The Arians indeed were always fond of playing 
 with words, of trying to score a verbal triumph, and of battering 
 their adversaries with isolated texts divorced from their con- 
 text and from the general tenor of Scripture. At Antioch too 
 there still existed the remnants of the party who had been 
 led away by the eloquence and showy brilliance of Paul of 
 Samosata. 
 
 Nor must we forget among the tendencies antecedent to 
 Arianism the widely-spread influence, both at Antioch and 
 elsewhere in the East, of the supposed teaching of Origen as to 
 the subordination of the Son to the Father and of the Holy 
 Spirit to both. Origen's Christology, without the safeguards 
 of the reverence, the width of mind, and the humility of the 
 great master, might easily be misinterpreted. Indeed, Arianism 
 has sometimes been described as an attempt to combine 
 Origenism with the Adoptionism of the heretical teachers at 
 Rome in the previous century. 
 
 Taking into view all these peculiar conditions of the early 
 part of the fourth century, there is nothing very surprising 
 in the suddenness with which the cloud of Arianism darkened 
 the Church's horizon. It was a battle which had to be fought 
 out. We may regret that it was necessary to go beyond the 
 simple statements of faith which satisfied an earHer age, but 
 after all the simplicity of early Christian belief had within it 
 implicitly the profound convictions which Arianism denied. 
 The course of the struggle added nothing new, but only brought 
 out to light, and safeguarded by clear statement, what Christianity 
 really is and always has been. 
 
 ARIANISM 
 
 191 
 
 Arius. 
 
 Arius began to make himself prominent in Alexandria about 
 the year 318. He was a man of interesting appearance, grave 
 and ascetic ; attractive in utterance. His undoubted 
 powers were only spoiled by vanity and intellectual 
 pride. He soon won a following in Alexandria, not only among 
 the clergy, but among the common people, and he was a special 
 favourite with women, notably among the consecrated virgins 
 of the Church. In 319 he deliberately charged his bishop, 
 Alexander, with teaching Sabellianism in an address he had 
 dehvered to his clergy on the Unity of the Trinity. The bishop 
 treated him at first with great gentleness, but, as the matter 
 became serious, he called a council of the bishops of Egypt to 
 consider it. Arius was heard and condemned. He himself, 
 with eleven others of the Alexandrian clergy, were deposed from 
 the priesthood and excommunicated, and also two bishops who 
 took his side, Theonas and Secundus. These all withdrew 
 from Egypt, and found a welcome in Caesarea. The Bishop of 
 Caesarea, the great Eusebius, the historian, was really at heart 
 an Arian, though he managed afterwards so to trim his course 
 as to appear orthodox. Arius soon found another and more 
 thorough-going supporter in the Bishop of Nicomedia, who 
 also bore the name of Eusebius, a crafty and powerful person, 
 in high favour at the time with the Eastern court, and especially 
 with Constantia, the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. 
 Both he and Arius employed themselves busily in writing letters 
 of protest to various bishops and in trying to intimidate Alexander 
 into altering his decision. Alexander too wrote from his point 
 of view to the leading bishops of the Church— to Rome, and 
 Antioch, and elsewhere, stigmatising the Arian error as the 
 forerunner of Antichrist. The type of mind of Arius himself, 
 and the sort of methods which he and his party thought worthy 
 of such a stupendous controversy, may be gauged from the fact 
 that he at this time wrote a poem called Thalia (a name appro- 
 priate to a drinking song), in a rollicking metre, praising himself 
 and the correctness of his views, and intended to be sung by the 
 populace. Arius, whether he had a zeal for truth or not, was 
 out to win his cause, and he certainly succeeded in stirring up 
 
 i 
 

 f 
 
 192 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 the passions and party-spirit of the Alexandrians. The most 
 sacred names and phrases were bandied about by the rabble 
 of the streets and the docks. 
 
 This was the position of things when Constantine attained 
 sole power and came prominently into the life of the East. He 
 Constantine had been distressed enough already by the dissension 
 andArius. of Christians both in Africa and Egypt, and he 
 imagined that it was his duty to act as arbiter between Arius 
 and Alexander and make peace. It was not that Constantine 
 took no interest in theological discussion, but his view was that 
 of the statesman, who thinks that peace is the most important 
 thing, and that controversies on fundamental questions can be 
 stopped by the simple method of ordering them to stop. He 
 wrote a wordy and rather remarkable letter to the two chief 
 disputants, in which he blamed them both, Alexander for pro- 
 pounding an * unprofitable question,' and Arius for obstinately 
 insisting on a view which he ought either never to have con- 
 ceived or kept buried in silence. How little Constantine at this 
 time understood either the importance of the controversy or 
 the temper of the two parties is shown by some words that 
 follow : * The cause of your difference has not been any of the 
 leading doctrines or precepts of the Divine Law, nor has any 
 new heresy respecting the worship of God arisen among you. 
 You are in truth of one and the same mind ; you may therefore 
 well join in communion and fellowship ! ' 
 
 This well-intentioned epistle was despatched to Alexandria 
 by the hands of Hosius, Bishop of Cordova. Its effect was 
 A Council what might have been expected. The exhortations 
 Bummoned. of Hosius were equally futile. Returning to the 
 Emperor at Nicomedia, he reported his failure, and probably 
 gave Constantine the memorable advice to summon a general 
 council of the whole Church to settle the controversy. At 
 the same time other outstanding questions, like the Meletian 
 schism and the dispute about the time for keeping Easter, might 
 be dealt with. A council was the traditional and proper method 
 for settling such disputes. The pattern had been set in the 
 apostolic age itself by the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.), which 
 
 ARIANISM 
 
 193 
 
 arbitrated between the Jewish and Catholic conceptions of the 
 Church. In the second century councils had been held to deal 
 with Montanism and the Paschal controversy ; in the third, 
 very frequently — as, for example, that of Iconium about 
 230, on the question of heretical baptism ; and those which 
 dealt with Novatian and Origen, and with the teacliing 
 of Paul of Samosata. In the early fourth century, llliberis 
 in Spain had seen an important council which passed eighty- 
 one discipUnary canons ; the Council of the Lateran in 313 had 
 discussed Donatism ; that of Aries in 314 has already been 
 described (p. 181). About the same time councils at Ancyra and 
 at Neocaesarea in Pontus had dealt with the questions of the re- 
 admission of the lapsed, with ordinations, and with the marriage 
 
 of the clergy. 
 
 There was therefore abundant precedent for that council which 
 Constantine summoned to meet at Nicaea (near Nicomedia) in 325. 
 It was the natural method of theChurch's appeal to that perpetual 
 guidance of the Holy Ghost which the Lord had promised. 
 
 But the council at Nicaea was to differ from its predecessors 
 in some important particulars. It was summoned by an 
 Emperor who had the power to compel attendance— even 
 though he did not impose his own views on the members. It 
 was an attempt for the first time to represent all parts of the 
 Christian Church. And, as the event proved, its decisions were 
 generally accepted as final and authoritative by tlie general 
 body of Christians. For these last two reasons the Council 
 of Nicaea is called ' Oecumenical,' representing the whole world, 
 and it marks not only a great crisis, but a new development in 
 the history of the Church. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What was the Arian heresy? 
 
 2. What causes made it difficult to refute ? 
 
 3. Show the inconsistency of Arianism with Christianity. 
 
 4. How can you explain the popularity of Arianism ? 
 
 5. Trace the origins and early stages of the Arian heresy. 
 
 6. What was Constantine's attitude towards the Arian controversy? 
 
 7. What step was taken towards dealing with the Arian problem ? 
 
 N 
 
 ^?1 
 
 '''•^'i^ mimmmmmmmtmem!' 
 
■^1 
 
 194 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Subject for Study. 
 
 Arianism and the Catholic Faith. 
 
 Newman. Arians of the Fourth Century, 
 Gwatkin. 7^he Arian Controversy. 
 
 „ Studies of Arianism, 
 
 Robertson. Prolegomena to * Athanasius' in Schafif's Nicene and 
 Post-Nicene Fathers. 
 
 The chief original authorities for this period of the definition of 
 Catholic doctrine are S. Athanasius himself, and the Church Histories 
 of Socrates (extending from 306 to 439), Sozomen (from 323 to 423), 
 and Theodoret (322-427). All these are translated in Schaff's Nicene 
 and Post-Nicene Fathers. 
 
 
 I" 
 
 CHAPTER XV. THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA 
 
 This memorable assemblage met on June 19, 325, at Nicaea, 
 a place probably chosen for its nearness to Nicomedia, the 
 imperial residence ; perhaps also for the augury constitution 
 of its name, 'City of Victory.' Its authentic and aim of 
 ' Acts ' are no longer extant ; but its proceedings *^® Council, 
 can be learned from several trustworthy sources, e.g. from 
 Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, Eusebius of Caesarea, and from 
 Athanasius, all of whom were present. The number of bishops 
 who attended is variously given from 220 to 318 ; the latter 
 number, that of Abraham's household, has become (probably 
 for that reason) the prevailing tradition. Nearly all of these 
 were from the East ; the West was scantily represented by one 
 bishop from Gaul, one from Calabria, Caecihan of Carthage, 
 Hosius of Cordova, and the aged Sylvester of Rome, who, being 
 unable to come himself, sent two priests. Many of those present 
 had been confessors in the persecution, and some, hke Paphnutius 
 and Potamon from Egypt, bore in their blinded eyes and maimed 
 limbs the marks of their fortitude under torture. 
 
 By far the greatest man at the council was Athanasius, at 
 that time only a deacon in attendance on Alexander of 
 Alexandria. He had no vote, but by his eloquence and spiritual 
 force, as well as his learning and acuteness, he really led the 
 council to its decision. He is the most prominent figure of the 
 next half-century; the rare combination of the ecclesiastical 
 statesman, the theologian, and the saint ; one whom writers 
 of every school have combined to honour, ' royal-hearted 
 Athanase, with Paul's own mantle blest.' 
 
 The council was an appeal to the conscience of the universal 
 Church. The bishops had assembled, not to devise new articles 
 of faith, nor to impose new terms of communion, but to bear 
 
 195 
 
II 
 
 196 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 their witness at a great crisis to the faith which they had them- 
 selves received. The spirit which animated most of the council 
 is illustrated by a remarkable scene which occurred during the 
 preliminary discussions. Many others besides the bishops 
 were present at these, and among them both laymen and even 
 heathen dialecticians. One of these, according to the historian 
 Sozomen (i. 18), was jibing at the statements of the bishops, 
 and reducing them to confusion by his clever tricks of argument, 
 when an old man of no learning (said to have been Spiridion, 
 the shepherd-Bishop of Cyprus) silenced and finally converted 
 him by these words : ' In the name of Jesus Christ, O philosopher, 
 hearken unto me. There is one God. the maker of heaven, and 
 of all things visible and invisible. He made all things by the 
 power of the Word, and estabHshed them by the holiness of His 
 Spirit. The Word, whom we call the Son of God, seeing that 
 man was sunk in error and living like unto the beasts, pitied 
 him and vouchsafed to be born of woman, and to hold inter- 
 course with men and to die for them. And He will come again 
 to judge each of us as to the deeds of this present Hfe. We 
 believe these things to be true with all simplicity. Do not 
 therefore spend your labour in striving to dispute facts which 
 can only be understood by faith, or in scrutinising the manner 
 in which these things did or did not come to pass. Answer me, 
 dost thou beheve ? * The philosopher, overcome, as he said, 
 by some inexplicable impulse, replied, ' I believe,' and became 
 himself a preacher of the faith. 
 
 The meetings were held first in the cathedral, and then, after 
 Constantine's arrival, in the great hall of the palace. The 
 Constan- Emperor, at the first of these sessions, presided 
 
 tine's himself, magnificent in purple and gold. He 
 
 welcome. addressed the Council in a speech which Eusebius 
 records, and though he took no actual part in the discussion, 
 nor attempted to influence its course, he followed it with the 
 keenest interest. It must well have seemed one of the great 
 miracles of history to those who looked back upon the recent 
 persecution, to hear the lord of the world, the inheritor of the 
 throne of Diocletian and Decius, of Marcus Aurelius, of Domitian 
 
 THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA 
 
 197 
 
 and Nero, thus address the assembled bishops : * Delay not, 
 dear friends, delay not, ye ministers of God and faithful servants 
 of our common Lord and Saviour : begin from this moment to 
 discard the causes of the disunion which has existed among you, 
 and remove the perplexities of controversy by embracing the 
 principles of peace. For by such conduct you will at the same 
 time be acting in a manner most pleasing to the supreme God, 
 and you will confer an exceeding favour on me your fellow- 
 servant ! ' 
 
 It has been estimated ^ that the members of the council 
 consisted of the following parties. First, there was a distinctly 
 Arian party of about fifteen, headed by Eusebius parties in 
 of Nicomedia, and the Bishops of Nicaea and tiie council. 
 Chalcedon. Next came an equally decided body of anti-Arians, 
 about thirty in number, led by Alexander and Athanasius. 
 This party included all the Western bishops, and the anti- 
 Origenists of the East. The third party, the vast majority, 
 sometimes called ' Conservatives,' were represented by Eusebius 
 of Caesarea. They were ready to condemn Arius, but too 
 cautious, too uncertain in their theology, or even, like Eusebius 
 himself, too much incHned to a modified Arianism, in their fear 
 of being SabeUians, to desire to do more than condemn the 
 individual heretic. They shrank from imposing any test of 
 CathoHcity ; but, as usually happens in such circumstances, they 
 found themselves compelled to follow the lead of a few clearer- 
 sighted men who had made up their minds and knew exactly 
 wjiat they wanted. 
 
 The work before the council was first of all to deal with the 
 doctrine of Arius himself. He was twice examined, and boldly 
 declared his belief that the Son of God was a created being, made 
 * out of nothing,' as the current phrase went, and that He might 
 have sinned. The council almost unanimously condemned this 
 as heresy and approved Alexander's deposition of Arius. 
 
 But a more difiicult matter was to formulate some standard 
 of faith which would be a safeguard for the future. There were 
 materials to hand in the baptismal creeds, and it was proposed 
 * Cf. Robertson, Prolegomena to Athanasius. 
 
i 
 
 I 
 
 198 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 to make use of one of these. Eusebius of Caesarea presented 
 the creed which was in use in his own Church. It was more 
 The question doctrinal than the creeds of the West, and might 
 of a Creed. have been accepted as quite satisfactory, if the Arian 
 question had not arisen. It stated of Jesus Christ, that He is 
 ' the Logos of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, 
 His only Son, the First-born of aU creatures, begotten of the 
 Father before all time, by whom also everything was created.^ 
 This creed was, as a matter of fact, adopted as the groundwork 
 of the Nicene statement ; but it was felt not to be expHcit 
 enough on the eternal relationship of the Son to the Father. 
 Hence came the necessity of adding some phrase which could not 
 be misunderstood or quibbled with. Various suggestions were 
 made, which proved futile in face of the obvious collusion and 
 sophistry of the Arian party. Athanasius has described vividly 
 how they were noticed nodding and winking at each other as 
 each proposed test from Scripture was brought forward, and evi- 
 dently suggesting ways of evading it. For example, the phrase 
 * from ' or ^ of God ' was capable of being explained in the sense 
 that aU creation is of God ; ' the power of God ' was ambiguous 
 because even the army of locusts is spoken of in the Scriptures 
 in similar language ; ' the image of God ' is appUed in the 
 Scriptures to man himself. 
 
 Finally the great phrase was produced, which no Arian could 
 accept or explain away, the Son is ' of one substance (SfMoovaco^) 
 The with the Father. ' It is difficult to say who originaUy 
 
 Homoousion. proposed it. It exactly expressed the views of 
 Alexander and Athanasius, but it may (as Duchesne suggests) 
 have emanated from the Roman legates, for it had been in 
 regular use in the Church of Rome for the past sixty years. 
 The word certainly marked the fundamental difference between 
 the CathoHc conception of the Son of God, and aU Arian teaching. 
 But it was not accepted without a struggle. A large number 
 were opposed to it for various reasons ; it was suspected of 
 being SabeUian ; it was not found in Scripture ; philosophicaUy 
 it was thought to imply a ' substance ' prior to both Father and 
 Son in which they both shared, and historically it was under a 
 
 THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA 
 
 199 
 
 cloud, as having been proposed and rejected in the previous 
 century at a council at Antioch, when Paul of Samosata had 
 astutely suggested that it impHed that Father and Son were the 
 same Person. Nevertheless, tlie fathers of Nicaea ultimately 
 accepted it. The Creed of Caesarea was carefully revised 
 clause by clause, the homoousion was inserted, and other 
 expressions introduced to guard the personal pre-existence and 
 eternity of the Son ; ' Son ' was substituted for ' Logos ' ; * came 
 down ' (from heaven) was added, also the word ' was-made-man,' 
 safeguarding the mystery of the Incarnation. The phrase 
 ' first-begotten of all creation,* though Scriptural, was omitted, 
 as Hable to Arian misconstruction. Finally certain ' anathe- 
 matisms ' were added as follows, stigmatising the special errors 
 of Arius : ' As to those who say. There was a time when the 
 Son was not : before He was begotten He was not : He was 
 made out of nothing, or of another substance or essence : the 
 Son of God is a created being, subject to change— such persons 
 the CathoUc Church anathematises.' 
 The completed Creed ran as follows : 
 
 We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, 
 
 Maker of all things both visible and invisible ; 
 
 And in one Lord Jesus Christ 
 
 The Son of God, 
 
 Begotten as the only-begotten of the Father, 
 
 that is, of the substance of the Father, 
 
 God oif God, 
 
 Light of Light, 
 
 True God of true God, 
 
 Begotten, not made. 
 
 Of one substance with the Father ; 
 
 Through whom all things came to be, both 
 
 those in heaven and those in earth ; 
 Who for us men and for our salvation 
 Came down, 
 And was incarnate, 
 And was made man, 
 Suffered, 
 
 And rose again on the third day. 
 Ascended into the heavens. 
 And Cometh again 
 To judge living and dead ; 
 And (we believe) in the Holy Ghost. 
 
^ i 
 
 200 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Hosius signed this creed first, apparently as president, and 
 the next signatures were those of the two Roman legates. Seven- 
 Acceptance teen of the bishops at first refused to sign it, but 
 oftheNicene pressure ultimately reduced the number to two 
 Creed. Egyptians, Secundus and Theonas. These the 
 
 Emperor banished along with Arius to lUyria. Eusebius of 
 Nicomedia, to his discredit, signed it ; he cannot have been 
 sincere, but shortly afterwards he too was banished, for reasons 
 which are not very, clear. ' The creed was sent round to the 
 various churches of the East, and at once accepted by them as a 
 true statement of the Catholic Faith. Eusebius of Caesarea 
 seems to have found it a tough morsel, and the letter to his 
 Church accompanying the creed is very disingenuous. He 
 actually quibbles with the anathematism on those who say that 
 before the Son was begotten He was not, by asserting that 
 ' begotten ' appHes to Christ's temporal birth as man, an inter- 
 pretation which was palpably incorrect, as he must have 
 known. 
 
 The council also dealt with the Meletian schism and the 
 Paschal controversy. With regard to the former, very mild 
 The Meletian measures were adopted, which Athanasius found 
 Schism. cause to regret. Meletius himself was to remain a 
 
 bishop, but not to exercise his functions. Those whom he 
 had ordained were to be re-ordained. The Meletian bishops 
 were to give way to those appointed by Alexander, but 
 might succeed them in the event of the death of any 
 of the latter. This arrangement, made in the interests of 
 peace, proved futile. 
 
 It was agreed that Easter should be kept by the whole Church 
 on the same day, viz. the Sunday after the full moon which 
 The Paschal occurs next after March 21. Thus the quarto- 
 Controversy, deciman practice was finaUy abohshed. It was also 
 settled that the Bishop of Alexandria was to send year by year 
 a ' Paschal letter ' to Rome declaring the right day for the 
 festival. This was probably a tribute to the well-known skill of 
 the Egyptians in astronomy. 
 
 The council also passed twenty canons of discipline, which 
 
 THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA 
 
 201 
 
 LI 
 
 are interesting and important, though not of the same per- 
 manent character and authority as their doctrinal decisions. 
 Men were not to be ordained immediately after ^^^^^^ 
 their baptism (2). The ancient rights of metro- 
 politans were to be maintained, the Bishop of Alexandria 
 having jurisdiction over the churches of Egypt, Libya, and 
 Pentapolis, 'since this is also customary for the Bishop 
 of Rome' (the phrase is ambiguous; Rufinus quotes the 
 canon as giving the Bishop of Rome authority over the 
 * suburbicarian ' churches, i.e. those dioceses bordering on 
 Rome) (6). Dying men, even though excommunicate, are 
 not to be denied the Holy Communion, if they desire 
 it (13). Clergy, including bishops, are not to move from 
 city to city, but to remain where they were ordained (15). 
 Deacons, having no authority 'to offer' (i.e. to celebrate the 
 Eucharist), are not to minister the Holy Communion to 
 
 priests (18). 
 
 The council also discussed the question of clerical marriage. 
 The rule already existed that men should not marry after ordina- 
 tion to the priesthood. There were those who de- clerical 
 sired greater strictness, and wished that married Marriage, 
 men when ordained should separate from their wives. This 
 proposition was defeated, largely through the influence of 
 Paphnutius, who, though himself a celibate, pleaded the cause 
 of the married clergy. Those priests who were already married 
 were stiU allowed to retain their wives. The question was 
 laid to rest for the present, but it was to be raised again, and 
 prove a fruitful cause of controversy. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. Describe the constitution of the Council of Nicaea. 
 
 2. What parties existed in the council ? 
 
 3. What was the chief work of the council ? 
 
 4. What test-word was adopted by the council, and why ? 
 
 5. Compare the Creed of Nicaea with the earlier creeds. 
 
 6. What other matters were discussed by the council ? 
 
 
202 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Subject for Study. 
 
 The Council and its Work. 
 
 Stanley. History of the Eastern Church. 
 
 Robertson. Prolegomena to Athanasius. 
 
 Bright. Age of the Fathers, 
 
 * Athanasius' by Bright in Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
 
 «' 
 
 li 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 I.— The Arian Attack 
 
 The council, though apparently final, was only the beginning 
 of the battle. The great majority of the orthodox bishops, 
 though at the crisis of decision they had accepted the homoousion, 
 had not yet reached a clear grasp of its necessity. The Arians 
 were only checked, not crushed. The next half-century shows 
 a strong reaction, during which they used all their efforts to 
 
 undo the work of Nicaea. . a i^\ 
 
 Among the characteristics of this period are to be noted (i) 
 the multiplicity of phases through which Arianism passed. 
 At first lareelv a personal movement, to vmdicate Arian 
 The orthodoxy'of Arius himself, after his death in 336 . --ds . 
 it enlarged its designs and methods. Arians divided into parties, 
 which agreed only in their common dislike of the }wn^oous^on. 
 Each party produced creeds which it wished to substitute for 
 that of the council, creeds for the most part heretical only in 
 their studied omissions. On the other side the Cathohcs steadily 
 adhered to the Nicene formula, and ultimately brought round 
 the great body of the undecided to accept it. 
 
 (2) The unscrupulousness of the Arians was very marked^ 
 From the beginning their leaders showed themselves masters of 
 intrigue Not one of them was eminent as a rehgious character 
 (Harnack). They were ready to employ unworthy means to 
 compass their ends. Their influence at the imperial court was 
 strong, especially among women and eunuchs and the back- 
 ftairs ' powers of an Oriental palace. They pressed into their 
 ervice the discontents and the plots of Donatists Meletians, 
 Judaizers, and even heathen. Nor did they scmple to make 
 use of cruelty, false witness, and persecution. Such weapons 
 
r 
 
 I 
 
 204 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 had not hitherto^been used by one body of Christians against 
 another, and it is to the credit of the CathoHcs that they ab- 
 stained from them, and won their cause, as Christians had done 
 in the face of heathen persecution, by patient suffering and non- 
 resistance. 
 
 (3) The period of struggle was also remarkable for the de- 
 fenders who were raised up on the Cathohc side. Most notable 
 s. Athana- of all was the great Athanasius, the centre and 
 si^s. protagonist of the conflict. During the earher 
 
 part of the period he practically stood alone. His magnificent 
 personahty shines out in clear contrast with the motley crew of 
 intriguers, time-servers, and persecutors who gained the ear of 
 the Emperors. He was the one great man of the age, supreme 
 in every line, great in intellect, in sanctity, in courage, in wisdom, 
 in patience ; never wavering in that devotion to the Nicene 
 faith which was inspired by his own personal loyalty to Christ. 
 He stood firm even though saints and confessors and the Bishop 
 of Rome himself fell victims to Arian subtleties. He stood firm 
 even in that terrible moment when Arianism seemed to have 
 tnumphed. He was not unworthy even of the praise which 
 Milton gave to his stedfast Abdiel. 
 
 * faithful found 
 Among the faithless, faithful only he : 
 Among innumerable false, unmoved, 
 Unshaken, unseduced, unterrified. 
 His loyalty he kept, his love, his zeal : 
 Nor number, nor example, with him wrought 
 To swerve from truth, or change his constant mind, 
 Though single ' {P, L. v.). 
 
 Constantine was at first zealous in his determination to uphold 
 the decisions of a council in which he himself had been so deeply 
 Return of interested. But he was before long induced to 
 Arian exUes. take a different view about the Arian exiles. First, 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia, the evil genius of the period, was 
 allowed to return (about 327). This marks the beginning of 
 the establishment of Arian influence at the court. Eusebius 
 resumed his course of intrigue, which continued to the end of 
 his life. 
 
 ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 205 
 
 1 I 
 
 Meanwhile, Alexander of Alexandria had died. On his 
 death-bed he called on the name of the absent Athanasius as 
 his successor, adding significantly, ' You think to escape, but 
 it cannot be.* Athanasius was elected by the bishops of 
 Egypt, and consecrated in 326. The lists were set, and the 
 great conflict was about to begin. 
 
 The policy of Eusebius was at first not to attack openly the 
 Nicene decision, but to obscure the real issue under various 
 personal matters. He aimed first at the recaU of Arius and his 
 recognition by the Emperor and the Church as orthodox ; and 
 next at the gradual removal of the leading bishops who defended 
 the homoomion, especially Athanasius. The Emperor was in- 
 fluenced through his sister, Constantia, the widow of Licinius, 
 to reconsider the case of Arius. He was summoned from his 
 lUyrian exile along with one Euzoius, and examined privately 
 by the Emperor. The two heretics presented a creed with 
 which the judge declared himself satisfied. Its statements were 
 correct enough as far as they went, but of course they ignored 
 the vital problem. Jesus Christ was said to be ' Lord, the Son 
 of the Father, begotten by Him before all worlds, God, Logos, 
 through whom all things came to be, both in heaven and 
 in earth' (It is interesting to note that this creed added 
 further clauses after belief in the Holy Ghost—' the resurrec- 
 tion of the flesh, the life of the world to come, the kingdom of 
 heaven, and one Catholic Church of God.') Constantine, per- 
 suaded' that Arius was himself orthodox, revoked the sentence 
 
 of exile. 
 
 But Athanasius had to be dealt with before there was any 
 hope of an ecclesiastical recognition of Arius. Eusebius found 
 ready tools at hand in the Meletians, who had The first 
 broken loose from the compromise of Nicaea ; and attack on 
 after the death of Meletius had defiantly elected Athanasius. 
 another patriarch of their sect, John Arcaph. With their 
 assistance a series of charges were laid against Athanasms 
 before the Emperor in 331. He was accused of extortion, of 
 having compelled the Egyptians to contribute linen garments 
 (variously described by historians as vestments and shirts !) ; 
 
2o6 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 of treason, in having assisted an enemy of the Emperor with 
 money ; and of sacrilege. This last charge referred to the 
 famous incident of the ' Chalice of Ischyras.' It was alleged 
 that Athanasius had sent a priest, Macarius, to stop the services 
 performed by a Meletian priest or bishop called Ischyras. The 
 envoy was said to have entered the church during Mass, broken 
 the altar, and flung the chalice on the ground. 
 
 The Emperor dismissed all these charges as trivial or non- 
 proven. The case of the chalice of Ischyras, though it appeared 
 again in the next attack made on Athanasius, was particularly 
 groundless. Isch3Tas was proved to be not in orders, for he 
 had been ordained only by CoUuthus, a presbyter (an interesting 
 sidelight on the view taken by the Church about non-episcopal 
 ordination) ; there was no Eucharist on the day in question, 
 for Ischyras was ill in bed ; there was not even a chalice at all 
 in the village, and lastly, Isch3n'as himself confessed the story 
 to be an invention ! 
 
 About the same time a more successful attack was made on 
 Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch. He had been a strong supporter 
 of the homoousion at Nicaea, and was an enemy 
 of Eusebius of Caesarea — a man of strong principles 
 and of somewhat unguarded words. He was accused before a 
 council at Antioch of being a Sabellian, and also of impure life. 
 The latter accusation was certainly false ; and the first was the 
 stock charge to bring against a supporter of the Nicene faith. 
 However, the council condemned him, and the Emperor, having 
 given him a hearing, banished him to Thrace. It is said that 
 there was a personal question involved ; that Eustathius had 
 spoken disparagingly of the Emperor's mother, Helena. It 
 is possible that this was true, for Helena had a devotion to 
 the martyr Lucian of Antioch, the special patron saint of the 
 Arians. Antioch was handed over to one Paulinus of Tyre ; but 
 a strong Eustathian party refused to acknowledge him as 
 bishop, or any of his successors ; and Athanasius and his 
 supporters looked upon these Eustathians as the true Church 
 of Antioch. 
 The attack on Athanasius was resumed in 335. A second 
 
 Eustathius. 
 
 ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 207 
 
 set of charges was brought against him. The old one of the 
 chalice of Ischyras reappeared ; but a new one was fabri- 
 cated of murder and magic. He was accused of First exile of 
 killing Arsenius, a Meletian bishop, and cutting Athanasius 
 off his hand for magical purposes. Athanasius was (Treves), 
 solemnly arraigned before a council at Tyre, presided over, 
 to his discredit, by Eusebius of Caesarea. A human hand was 
 actually brought forward in evidence. But Athanasius by 
 a dramatic stroke produced in court Arsenius himself, alive, with 
 both hands intact. The Meletians fled in confusion, but the 
 Arians turned on Athanasius with a charge of being a sorcerer, 
 and he was actually in danger of his life. The council then 
 appointed commissioners to go through Egypt and hunt for 
 fresh evidence. The proceedings of these were shameless and 
 violent, and when the supporters of Athanasius at Alex- 
 andria protested, a mob of heathen soldiers was let loose on 
 
 them. 
 
 Next, the council condemned Athanasius, in his absence, 
 to deposition ; and restored the Meletians to communion. 
 From Tyre the members of the council proceeded to Jerusalem 
 to attend the festival of the Dedication of the Church of the 
 Holy Sepulchre built by Helena, and here they put the crown 
 on their acts by admitting Arius to communion. 
 
 Athanasius fled to Constantinople, met the Emperor as he 
 was riding into the city, and laid his case before him. Constantine 
 summoned the members of the Council of Tyre ; some of them 
 came, headed by Eusebius of Caesarea. They had another 
 charge ready. Athanasius, they said, had threatened to stop 
 the corn-ships saiHng from Alexandria to Constantinople. The 
 Emperor, whether he believed the charge, or whether it seemed 
 the easiest ending for the moment to the controversy, banished 
 Athanasius to Treves in Gaul. No attempt, however, was made 
 
 to fill up his see. 
 
 Athanasius out of the way, the Arian ringleaders now en- 
 deavoured to get Arius formally readmitted to communion. 
 The attempt failed at Alexandria ; the presbyters refused, in 
 the absence of their bishop. At Constantinople a more 
 
V 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 208 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 determined attempt was made. The Emperor was induced 
 again to hear Arius, and upon his declaration on oath that 
 Death of he held the Catholic Faith, commanded Alexander, 
 Ariufl. the aged Bishop of Constantinople, to admit him. 
 
 Alexander is said to have prayed, prostrate before the altar, 
 that God would take away either Arius or himself before such 
 a sacrilege was committed. The sequel was at least a strange 
 coincidence ; to many it appeared a special judgment of God. 
 Arius, on the eve, as it seemed, of his triumph, died with extra- 
 ordinary suddenness (336). 
 
 The Arian attack was now directed against another of the 
 prominent defenders of the Nicene Creed, Marcellus of Ancyra. 
 Marceuus of He had made the mistake of writing a book against 
 Ancyra. his adversaries, for which he was evidently not 
 
 sufficiently equipped as a theologian. Eusebius of Caesarea 
 discovered in it traces of SabelHanism. Marcellus apparently 
 was vague as to the eternal and distinct personality of the Son 
 and the Holy Spirit. He was declared deposed, the Emperor 
 banished him, and a successor was appointed to his see. 
 
 Constantine died in 337. He seems to have fallen completely 
 under the domination of Eusebius of Nicomedia. It was he 
 Changes in who baptized the Emperor a few days before his 
 the Empire, death. He had not till then even become a 
 ' catechumen,' although he had lectured Christian bishops 
 and pretended to decide on the orthodoxy of Arius. 
 
 The Empire was once more divided. The three sons of 
 Constantine, all of them brought up as Christians, shared out 
 the provinces, after nearly all the other claimants to the throne, 
 including the brother of the late Emperor, had been massacred. 
 Constantine 11. received all that lay West of the Alps ; Constantius 
 had Egypt and the East ; Constans, Italy and Africa. 
 
 The Arian policy continued. Catholic bishops were attacked : 
 vacant sees were filled, if possible, by Arian sympathisers. 
 Arian About 338, Eusebius of Nicomedia got himself 
 
 inirirMR. UuJii.Utod to Constantinople, and for tlic next 
 forty-tvrx) yea» tli<- see was held by a succession of likr- minded 
 bisliops (Eu.s^hius. 33S-341 ; .Mactulonius. 341-3^0 ; Eudoxius, 
 
 ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 209 
 
 LS ' 
 
 360-370, an irreverent and intriguing place-hunter ; Demophilus, 
 370-380). In 340, Eusebius of Caesarea was succeeded by 
 Acacius, a man of somewhat similar type. At Antioch, Leon- 
 tius became bishop— a time-server, though with some sense of 
 humour. He was careful, in repeating the Doxology in church, 
 to pronounce the first and last words very loudly, but to slur 
 over, or cough at the intervening ones, so that it could not be 
 told whether he was repeating it in the Arian or Catholic 
 manner. (The former said, ' through the Son,' the latter, ' to 
 
 the Son.') 
 
 Constantius, a young man of twenty, was completely under 
 the dominion of eunuchs and Arian intriguers. His elder brother 
 Constantine ii., however, was of a different mind. Return of 
 and insisted on the recaU of Athanasius, who re- Athanasius. 
 turned to Alexandria with great popular rejoicings after more 
 than two years' exile. The Tenth Festal letter, written from 
 Treves, breathes the spirit of a saint who rejoices in tribula- 
 tion ; and throughout it is most characteristically animated 
 by intense devotion to the person of the Saviour. 
 
 The Arians, or Euscbians, as they came to be called, recom- 
 menced of course their plots against him, but at first without 
 success. He had powerful supporters — Constantine 11., the 
 churches of Egypt generally, and the influence of the mysterious 
 hermit of the desert, S. Antony. An Egyptian council in 338 
 acquitted Athanasius of aU charges, and wrote a circular letter 
 to the Church to that effect. S. Antony, to welcome the re- 
 turned exile, left his solitudes, though now in his ninetieth year, 
 and visited Alexandria for two days, where he is said to have 
 performed many miracles. 
 
 S. Antony is the traditional founder of the solitary religious 
 life. He Hved in the deserts of Egypt for more than eighty 
 out of his hundred and five years of Ufe— in prayer ^ ^j^^^j^y^ 
 and labour and lonely wrestling with evil spirits. 
 Only twice he visited Alexandria, the first occasion being during 
 tlic grwit pereecution in 311, wIkju he appeared to comfort and 
 strengthen the confct^sors and martyrs. Against his wiU l»e was 
 compdied to receive disciples ; but breaking off from them »♦ 
 
I 
 
 ,210 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 last, he retired to a more distant solitude. His influence 
 was always on the side of the orthodox faith; and 
 Athanasius himself wrote his Ufe. Both the authenticity of 
 this, and the very existence of such a person as Antony, 
 have been doubted by some scholars, but both seem now to 
 
 be established. 
 
 The next set of accusations which were fabricated by 
 Athanasius' enemies was cunningly devised to put him wrong 
 second exile both with Church and Emperor. He was charged 
 ofAthana- with having returned to his diocese on secular 
 Bius (Rome), authority alone, after a canonical deposition by the 
 Church at the Council of Tyre. And he was said to have em- 
 bezzled a bounty of corn which the Emperor had sent to the 
 widows of Egypt ; and to have used force and cruelty to re- 
 establish himself at Alexandria. The accusers endeavoured 
 to gain over JuHus of Rome to their side, by sending a deputation 
 to complain of Athanasius having returned uncanonically to 
 his see. While their negotiations were going on at Rome, 
 Eusebius (now of Constantinople) and his friends managed to 
 win the ear of Constantius ; and to persuade him to appoint 
 a new Bishop of Alexandria. This was rather cool from the 
 supporters of canonical election and deposition ; but for the 
 moment thev succeeded. One Gregory, a Cappadocian, was 
 consecrated "and dehberately forced, without any election, 
 and simply by imperial authority, upon the Christians of 
 Alexandria. The intruder, supported by soldiers, took forcible 
 possession of his see, amid scenes of fire and bloodshed. 
 Athanasius wrote an indignant protest to the bishops of the 
 whole Church, fled from Alexandria, and made his way to 
 Rome, accompanied by two priests and two Egyptian 
 
 monks. , t- 4. 
 
 Pope Julius received them and other refugees from the East, 
 
 and was ready to act as arbiter. After long delays, the delegates 
 
 Tue Pope and he had sent to the East returned, bearing a very 
 
 the Arians. high and mighty letter from Eusebius and his friends. 
 
 After elaborate comphments to the Church of Rome, they 
 
 proceeded to claim their own equahty with Juhus : they com- 
 
 ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 211 
 
 f 
 
 plained bitterly that he had admitted Athanasius to communion 
 and reversed their decrees. Julius held a formal synod, at 
 which not only Athanasius was pronounced guiltless, but 
 Marcellus of Ancyra (p. 208) was freed from the charge of heresy. 
 This latter decision was much more dubious than the former. 
 Men on both sides held Marcellus to be a Sabellian, and it is 
 recorded that Athanasius himself, when questioned years after 
 by Epiphanius as to the orthodoxy of Marcellus, refused to 
 commit himself and replied only with a smile. However, 
 Marcellus was astute enough to accept from the Pope a creed 
 which, though worded in Greek, is really identical with the 
 Baptismal Creed of the Roman Church, i.e. the earher form of 
 the Apostles' Creed. 
 
 JuUus then addressed a long and dignified reply to Eusebius 
 and his supporters [Ath. Apol. ii.). It is one of the weightiest 
 productions of the Arian controversy. Its whole The letter of 
 tone speaks well for the temper and the ability of its Pope JuUus. 
 author. Its contents are really a smashing blow at the methods 
 and intrigues of the party of Eusebius. Julius shows that they 
 themselves are the real transgressors against ecclesiastical law, 
 especially by their readmission of the Arians to communion 
 in defiance of the Nicene Council ; that their whole proceedings 
 against Athanasius have been unfair and irregular ; that the 
 appointment of Gregory of Cappadocia was an utter scandal 
 to the Church and against all ecclesiastical order ; and that the 
 deposition of Athanasius had not been, as ancient precedent 
 required, first communicated to the Roman Church, for its 
 approval. This last point, of course, opens another question ; 
 but it can scarcely be thought from the whole spirit of Juhus' 
 letter that he would have made such a claim for his see, if he 
 had not been convinced, rightly or wrongly, that it was according 
 to ancient custom. 
 
 Julius' indignation is throughout tempered by courtesy and 
 Christian charity, but it is none the less heavy. Some of his 
 phrases must have stung those who received the letter, if men 
 like Eusebius were not past feehng shame : ' in ecclesiasticd 
 matters, it is not a display of eloquence that is needed, but the 
 
212 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 213 
 
 III 
 
 I 
 
 observance of the apostolic canons and an earnest care not 
 to offend the Httle ones of the Church ' ... or after describ- 
 ing the entrance of Gregory into Alexandria, ' You write that 
 perfect peace prevailed in Alexandria and Egypt. Surely 
 not, unless the work of peace is entirely changed, and you call 
 such doings as these peace . . . O beloved, the decisions of 
 the Church are no longer according to the Gospel, but tend only 
 to banishment and death.' 
 
 The Roman exile of Athanasius lasted for seven years (339- 
 346). It is for many reasons an important episode. The 
 Western Church now definitely entered into the Arian con- 
 troversy, and on the side of Nicaea. The Bishop of Rome 
 appears as the champion of the faith, and that in an impressive 
 and entirely worthy manner. Athanasius himself here learned 
 Latin, and was accepted as representative of the Catholics of 
 West as well as East, so that when, in later days, the orthodox 
 definitions were worked by some unknown hand into the great 
 hymn of the Western Church, Quicimque vult, it seemed natural 
 to inscribe it as Fides Catholica Sandi Athanasii. The monks 
 who accompanied Athanasius, and the ascetic ideals of the 
 saint himself, introduced also into the West the conception of 
 the monastic life, already famihar in Egypt, and destined to a 
 great development later under S. Benedict [see Chapter xxiv. 
 and Montalembert, Monks of the West, iii.). 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. By what methods did the Arian party endeavour to overthrow the 
 decision of Nicaea ? 
 
 2. Sketch the history of Arius himself after Nicaea. Who was his 
 chief supporter ? 
 
 3. Describe the events leading up to the first exile of S. Athanasius. 
 
 4. What other eminent bishops were attacked by the Arians ? 
 
 5. How was S. Athanasius' exile to Rome brought about by the 
 Arians ? 
 
 6. Show how that exile strengthened the cause of the defenders of 
 Nicaea. 
 
 7. What do you know of S. Antony, and of Gregory of Cappadocia? 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. The Roman exile of S. Athanasius. 
 
 ' Athanasius ' in Schaff s Niccne and Post-Nicene Fathers, 
 
 See translation of Pope Julius' letter in that volume. 
 ' Athanasius ' in Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
 
 2. The Life of S. Antony. 
 
 See translation of S. Athanasius' * Life of Antony' 
 in Schaff s Athanasius. 
 
ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 215 
 
 ( 
 
 I I 
 
 Ni 
 
 i 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 II. — ^The Arian Councils and Creeds 
 
 In 340, Constantine 11., the protector of Athanasius, was slain 
 in battle near Aquileia, fighting with his brother Constans. 
 The councu The latter now became Emperor of the West, 
 of the For the next ten years the Arians pressed on their 
 
 Dedication. attack, now not merely against individual bishops, 
 but against the Creed of Nicaea itself, which they definitely 
 endeavoured to get rid of. It is the period of doctrinal reaction. 
 In 341 came the Council of the Dedication, at Antioch, on the 
 occasion of the dedication of the new cathedral, begun by 
 Constantine, called * the Golden Church.* No Western bishops 
 were present among the ninety-seven who attended. A large 
 minority of Arians carried the council with them. They were 
 led by Eusebius of Constantinople, whose last public appearance 
 happily it proved to be, for he died shortly afterwards. ' The 
 memory of this intriguing prelate,* says Duchesne, ' in whom 
 one can find no single sympathetic feature, remains weighted 
 with a heavy responsibihty.* 
 
 The council considered the letter of Pope Julius ; but re- 
 enacted the sentence of Tyre against Athanasius, pretending 
 that he had been canonically deposed and that his return was 
 illegal. They passed twenty-four canons, some of them of 
 permanent importance, as they afterwards became part of the 
 regular canon law of the Church. The aim of these canons was 
 to strengthen episcopal authority against the Emperor, and the 
 authority of provincial synods against outside interference, 
 probably aiming at preventing appeals being taken to Rome. 
 If a synod was unanimous there was to be no appeal from it. 
 Bishops ordaining out of their diocese were to be deposed. 
 
 214 
 
 But the most characteristic work of this council was the 
 adoption of three creeds ; thus setting the type of controversy 
 for some years to come. Hitherto no attempt had ^^^ ^^^^^^ 
 been made, except by Arius and Euzoius (p. 205) , to 
 substitute a new creed for that of Nicaea'. The Creeds of Antioch 
 were intended apparently to conciliate the moderates, who did not 
 sympathise with Arius, but disHked the homoousion : men who 
 were more frightened of Sabellianism than of Arianism. Indeed, 
 the council began its statement of faith by definitely stating ' we 
 are not followers of Arius : how could we, being bishops, be led 
 by a priest ? *— a statement which sounded well, but meant Httle. 
 The creeds are studiously vague on the crucial question, but 
 evidently aim at condemning Marcellus of Ancyra, who is de- 
 finitely anathematised in the third of these statements. The 
 second said to have been the work of the martyr Lucian, is 
 usually called the Creed of the Dedication. It describes the 
 Son of God by all manner of splendid titles, and repudiates the 
 idea that He is a creature, but it is careful of course not to say 
 that He is of ' one substance with the Father.' It makes indeed 
 one contribution to theological language, which the Church 
 ultimately accepted, by calling the Three Persons distmct 
 hypostases (see pp. 216, 232), who are one in harmony. 
 
 In 343 a great council, intended to be oecumenical, was 
 summoned at Sardica in Thrace (now Sofia), at the wish of the 
 Emperor Constans, to decide on the Athanasian councUof 
 question. There were present 170 bishops, of whom sardica. 
 100 were Westerns, and a Western presided, the famous Hosms 
 of Cordova, the probable President at Nicaea. Athanasius 
 and his fellow-exiles were present. This led at once to a protest 
 from the Easterns (which had been previously engineered). 
 They all withdrew from the council, and held an opposition 
 synod at Philippopolis in Thrace, within the territories of Con- 
 stantius. Here they excommunicated Athanasius, Marcellus. 
 Julius of Rome, and others, and adopted a creed on much the 
 same lines as that of the Dedication. 
 
 The bishops who remained at Sardica acquitted Athanasius 
 and others, including Marcellus, and excommunicated their 
 
2i6 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 opponents. They proposed to put forth a statement of faith ; 
 but this was withdrawn, fortunately, for it stated that in the 
 Godhead is only one hypostasis, (Of course the difference was 
 one. merely of definition ; by hypostasis the Easterns meant 
 * Person ' : the Westerns ' Substance. ' But to have proclaimed 
 one hypostasis would have only further embittered the theological 
 quarrel.) Instead of a new statement the bishops, through the 
 influence of Athanasius, simply confirmed the Nicene Creed. 
 They also enacted twenty-one canons, of which the third, fourth, 
 and seventh are something of a landmark in the development 
 of the papacy. An appeal is allowed to the Bishop of Rome 
 in the event of the decision of a local council being disputed. 
 The Pope is to have power to stay proceedings until the case has 
 been judged again by the bishops of some neighbouring province, 
 at whose s}mod the Pope is to be represented by legates. 
 
 The Council of Sardica, called to make peace in Christendom, 
 had only succeeded apparently in increasing the tension. East 
 and West were now definitely estranged over the case of 
 Athanasius, an ill omen for the future of Christendom. Bad 
 feeling was still further increased over the case of one Photinus, 
 Bishop of Sirmium, a disciple of Marcellus. (His name means 
 * Bright ' : his opponents nicknamed him Scotinus, 'Dark.') 
 He was plainly a heretic with affinities to Paul of Samosata. 
 He was condemned by a council, but, like Paul, refused to budge. 
 Athanasius had no sympathy with such a person ; but it was 
 unfortunate that Photinus should in any way be classed, like 
 Marcellus, in the same category with him. 
 
 The Emperor Constans, in spite of the failures of Sardica, 
 was determined that Athanasius should be restored, and pre- 
 Athanasius vailed upon his brother to do this. His return 
 restored. was rendered easier by the fact that the usurper 
 
 Gregory was dead. And for the moment the Arian party 
 were somewhat discredited by the discovery of an infamous 
 plot by Stephen, Bishop of Antioch, to destroy the reputation 
 of Euphrates of Cologne, who had come on a mission from 
 Constans to Constantius. Permission to return was given to 
 Athanasius, who was then at Aquiloia. He proceeded by a 
 
 ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 217 
 
 i 
 
 circuitous route to Egj^t, staying at Antioch, where he com- 
 municated with the Eustathians (p. 206), and at Jerusalem, where 
 he was received by a council of bishops. At Alexandria he was 
 welcomed with great popular rejoicings. Both the Pope and 
 the Emperor Constans wrote to the Alexandrians to congratulate 
 them. Two of the bitterest enemies of Athanasius, Valens 
 and Ursacius, retracted, promised to have nothing more to do 
 with the controversy without the consent of Rome, and wrote 
 to Athanasius an apology. For several years peace was secured, 
 and it seemed as if the great quarrel was gradually being com- 
 posed. But darker days were at hand. The year 351 proved 
 a fatal turning-point. Constantius became sole Emperor, for 
 Constans was assassinated (350) in the course of a conflict with 
 a usurper, Magnentius. The latter was defeated in 351, near 
 Mursa in Hungary, the sec of Valens, who now gained a complete 
 ascendancy over Constantius, and began again, in spite of his 
 promises, a new campaign against Athanasius. 
 
 This third period of Arian reaction (351-363) marks a further 
 advance of Arian principles, pushed on not only by intrigue 
 but by direct persecution. Constantius had the worst possible 
 qualities for an autocrat ; obstinately self-willed and conceited, 
 cruel and weak, he was the prey of courtiers and plotters. Under 
 his sole rule, Arianism apparently triumphed over the faith 
 
 of Nicaea. 
 
 From this time, however, there can be traced three distinct 
 parties among the opponents of Athanasius and Nicaea. (i) 
 The semi-Arians ; as they are called by Epiphanius. Arian 
 These were the theological descendants of the parties: 
 waverers at the Council of Nicaea. They were for semi-Arians. 
 the most part conscientious, and desirous of holding the true 
 Catholic Faith, but they were afraid of Sabellianism, and afraid 
 too, as most bishops are, of taking a decided line. They included 
 men like the learned and pious Basil of Ancyra, Mark of Arethusa, 
 and for a time perhaps even S. Cyril of Jerusalem. They would 
 have liked to substitute homoiousios for homoousios [i.e. of like 
 substance, instead of the same substance). A single letter marks 
 the difference between the spelling of the two words, a fact over 
 
 I 
 
Eusebians. 
 
 2i8 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 which Gibbon and others have made merry, but there is a 
 world of difference between their meaning. The semi-Arian 
 formula might be interpreted to mean almost anything; the 
 Nicene formula means one thing and one only, the absolute 
 identity of Divine nature in the Father and the Son. The 
 semi-Arians were gradually driven by their disgust at the extreme 
 party into the ranks of the Catholics. 
 
 (2) The original * Eusebians/ men without serious convictions, 
 and not distinguished for piety. They disHked principles of 
 
 any sort. Their Arianism was poUtical, personal, 
 traditional, rather than doctrinal. Their test- 
 word was the vague homoios, * like,' which was asserted to be 
 more Scriptural, and might indeed be used in an orthodox sense, 
 as even Athanasius had used it in his earUer writings, but clearly 
 was no criterion of orthodoxy. The leader of this party was 
 now Acacius of Caesarea, a man of great learning and persuasive 
 style, but a real Arian at bottom. 
 
 (3) The Anomoeans, the ' extreme left ' of the Arians. They 
 maintained that the Son was ' unhke ' [anomoios) the Father. 
 Anomoeans ^^^^ ^^^ certainly a logical deduction from the 
 
 teaching of Arius, and had the merit of making 
 the issue between Catholics and heretics perfectly clear. The 
 founder of this new school of Arianism was one Aetius, a sophist 
 and an adventurer, who had a strangely chequered and dis- 
 reputable career. First a traveUing tinker, then a quack-doctor, 
 he became a philosopher, and employed his abiHties in dialectic, 
 and his ungovernable tongue in refuting both heretics, Cathohcs 
 and semi-Arians. He was ordained deacon by Leontius of 
 Antioch, but proved too heterodox even for that easy-going 
 Arian, and was deposed. After various exiles he even became 
 an Arian bishop, and was held in great regard by his disciples. 
 First among these was Eunomius, after whom the party were 
 sometimes styled Eunomians. Other prominent Anomoeans 
 were Theophilus ' the Indian,' a pupil of Eusebius of Nicomedia, 
 who passed for a saint among the Arians ; Eudoxius, whose 
 idea of theology was to proclaim that the Father is ' impious,' 
 because He worships none, the Son ' pious ' because He worships 
 
 ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 219 
 
 the Father ; Valens, who seems now to have taken the place 
 of Eusebius of Nicomedia as an irreconcilable intriguer; and 
 another Athanasius, Bishop of Anazarbus, who is credited 
 with having said that the Son is but one of the hundred sheep 
 of the parable. 
 
 The next attack on Athanasius began in 353 at a council at 
 Aries, where he was arraigned in his absence, before Constantius. 
 He was defended by Vincent, a legate from Pope New 
 Liberius, who had succeeded JuUus in 352, but attack on 
 Vincent was terrified into submission. The charges Athanasius. 
 against Athanasius were (i) that he had influenced Constans 
 against Constantius ; (2) that he had corresponded with the 
 usurper, Magnentius ; (3) that he had used without permission 
 at Easter a church which was being built by the Emperor at 
 Alexandria, and had not yet been dedicated. Any stick would 
 do to beat Athanasius with, and these charges were flagrantly 
 political rather than religious. The first two were certainly 
 false ; the third comparatively harmless ; at the worst the use 
 of the church was a mere lapse from discretion. But they 
 were enough for Constantius, whose pride was wounded. 
 Athanasius was condemned ; the Western bishops were carried 
 away by the efforts of Valens and by their respect for Constantius. 
 The Pope protested, and another council was held in 355 at 
 Milan. Here Constantius is said to have behaved hke a wild 
 beast, asserting that whatever he willed was a canon of the 
 Church. Athanasius was again condemned, in spite of the 
 efforts of the papal legates and Eusebius of Vercellae. Valens 
 succeeded in making nearly all present sign the sentence of 
 deposition against Athanasius. Only three refused, and were 
 sent into exile. The Roman deacon Hilarius, in answer to his 
 protests, was publicly scourged in the palace. 
 
 The Emperor hesitated for some time, in spite of all this, to 
 interfere with Athanasius. But early in 356, Syrianus, governor 
 of Egypt, was sent to Alexandria to eject him. A Third exueof 
 dramatic scene ensued. In the night of February Athanasius. 
 8, the Church of S. Theonas, where Athanasius was presiding 
 at a vigil-service {panny chides) , was beset by soldiers. Athanasius 
 
220 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 remained seated on his throne, and bade the deacon intone 
 Ps. cxxxvi. with its significant verses — ' who smote great kings 
 . . . Sihon, king of the Amorites — Og, the king of Basan — 
 for his mercy endureth for ever/ The soldiers forced the doors 
 and began to shoot arrows, and slay and outrage the faithful. 
 Athanasius would not leave the Church until he had ensured the 
 escape of as many as possible ; and then succeeded himself 
 in slipping away, unnoticed, or at any rate unmolested. He 
 at once left the city and fled to the deserts of Egypt. S. Antony 
 had died a month before ; but the monks of the desert sheltered 
 the great bishop now in this place and now in that. 
 
 One story is preserved of how his ready wit extricated him in 
 a very tight place. He was being hotly pursued by an imperial 
 barge on the Nile. At a bend in the river he directed his boat to 
 turn and meet the pursuers, who had not actually recognised 
 him. ' Have you seen Athanasius ? ' was the challenge. * Yes,' 
 the bishop repHed, * he is not far away, row on quickly.' So 
 they did, and pursued and pursuers were soon far distant. 
 
 Athanasius was searched for incessantly ; hunted like EHjah 
 by Ahab ; a price was set on his head, but Egypt was absolutely 
 loyal to him. He was never betrayed ; though he remained in 
 hiding some five or six years. He spent the time living the 
 ordinary religious life of a monk, and writing some of his most 
 important works, including his masterpiece, the four great 
 Orations against the Arians. He was quite unconquerable, and 
 his exile was more disastrous to his enemies than his years 
 of victory. ' In Athanasius we never see the panic-stricken 
 outlaw ; he is a general always meditating his next movement, 
 and full of the prospects of his cause ' (Robertson, Proleg. to 
 Athanasius, li). 
 
 After the Council of Milan, the Arians proceeded to aim at 
 the overthrow of the highest and most venerable supporters of 
 Fan of Pope Athanasius. Pope Liberius had clearly shown 
 Liberius. himself on his side. Liberius must go. At first he 
 was approached in a concihatory manner through the eunuch 
 Eusebius. Large money was offered, which the Pope promptly 
 refused. He was then carried off to Milan for a personal inter- 
 
 ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 221 
 
 view with the Emperor, who charged him with disturbing the 
 peace of the world, and threatened him with exile if he would 
 not condemn Athanasius. ^ The laws of the Church,' he 
 boldly replied, ' are dearer to me than Rome.' ' If you do not 
 assent in three days, consider what other place you desire to be 
 sent to.' ' Not three days nor three months will change my 
 mind. ' He was banished to Beroea in Thrace. Here he remained 
 two years, and an antipope FeUx reigned at Rome. But Liberius 
 was not able to maintain this splendid consistency. He con- 
 demned Athanasius in 357, apparently signed some Arianising 
 creed, and humihated himself to ask the Arian leaders to re- 
 admit him to their communion. It was a melancholy downfall, 
 and, though it may be regarded as a temporary and personal 
 lapse, it constitutes an awkward problem for the defenders of 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 The aged Hosius of Cordova was next attacked. More 
 than a hundred years old, he had sat in the Councils of lUiberis, 
 Aries, Nicaea, and Sardica. Decency might have Fail of 
 left him alone. He refused emphaticaUy to condemn Hosius. 
 Athanasius, and was removed to Sirmium. Here, after a year's 
 exile, he too broke down under constant pressure. He is even 
 said ' to have been scourged by the Emperor's orders. He 
 signed a declaration which seems to have been distinctly Arian ; 
 but he remained absolutely loyal to Athanasius, and refused 
 to the end to condemn him. He was aUowed to return to 
 Cordova, where he shortly afterwards died, repenting, as 
 Athanasius bears witness, of a lapse, for which senile decay 
 rather than cowardice was responsible. 
 
 Meanwhile, Alexandria was given up to Arian and heathen 
 outrages. The churches were profaned, the faithful were 
 tortured and murdered. The Arians had appointed The Church 
 as bishop one George of Cappadocia, who has been Arianised. ^ 
 sometimes confused with his predecessor Gregory. His quaU- 
 fications for episcopacy seem to have been only that he was 
 an Arian, and a man of vigour and business capacity. He had 
 originaUy been a pork-contractor to the army. He was, accord- 
 ing to Athanasius, a great proficient in plundering and kiUing, 
 
222 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 and he used his new office to enrich himself by various commercial 
 enterprises. Similar scenes were going on at Constantinople 
 under Macedonius, and at Toulouse. Gaul was being brought 
 under Arian rule, the great S. Hilary of Poitiers having 
 been banished to Phrygia for daring to remonstrate with 
 Constantius. About the same time S. Cyril of Jerusalem was 
 expelled from his see by Acacius. 
 
 The year 357 saw a bold stroke on the part of the extreme 
 Arian party. At Sirmium a declaration was put forward in 
 Creed of Latin by Bishops Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius 
 Sirmium. which was definitely Arian and ' Anomoean.^ It 
 declared the unique Godhead of the Father, the subjection and 
 mferiority of the Son ; and it repudiated both terms homoousios 
 and homowusios, and indeed all discussion of ' Ousia ' or the 
 Divine substance. This, the second Sirmian Creed. ^ called by 
 the Catholics * the Sirmian blasphemy/ was apparently the 
 document which the unfortunate Hosius was induced to sign. 
 It was not well received by the Church at large. It disgusted 
 the semi-Arians and aU moderate men, and ultimately reacted 
 on the extreme Arians. They had shown their hand too 
 definitely. 
 
 The events of the next two years are complicated and puzzling. 
 They saw a conflict between the two Arian parties of the Eusebians 
 The Semi- and the semi-Arians, ending in the defeat of the 
 Arians in the latter. The Eusebians were led bv Acacius of 
 ascendant. Caesarea, the semi-Arians by Basil of Ancyra. 
 The latter, a mihtant person, held a council at Ancyra in 358, 
 in which a determined attempt was made to avoid the Iwmoousion, 
 and at the same time to escape from the extreme Anomoeans.' 
 This council adopted the watchword of homowusios, and con- 
 demned the two rival formulas. Constantius at this moment 
 inchned to the semi-Arians, and followed up the action of the 
 council by banishing Aetius. It seemed now a favourable 
 opportunity to Basil to make peace in Christendom on semi-Arian 
 lines. He proposed an oecumenical council ^o be held at Nicaea. 
 
 and Photi^s^'™'^^ ^"^^"^ ^^"^ ^'^ ^""^ ^""^^ '° ^^' ^^^^^ Marcellus 
 
 ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 223 
 
 The place was changed to Nicomedia ; but the plan was frustrated 
 by an earthquake in the city. This gave the Eusebians time 
 for fresh intrigues, and Acacius hit upon the expedient of divid- 
 ing the council, the Western bishops to meet at Ariminum, 
 the Eastern at Seleucia in Isauria. Meanwhile, his party 
 produced a third Sirmian formula, usually known as ' The Dated 
 Creed, ' because it bore the names of the two consuls of the year 
 359. The test-phrase in this creed was the expression that the 
 Son ' is Hke to the Father in all things, as also the Scriptures 
 teach ' ; a formula quite capable of being used in an orthodox 
 sense. It was proposed to thrust this creed upon the two councils. 
 
 At Seleucia, 160 bishops met. It was a struggle between the 
 three Arian parties, and the semi-Arians scored a partial victory. 
 They refused the Dated Creed with its homoios ; ^win- 
 and also one proposed to them by Leonas, an officer councu of 
 of the imperial household, who presided. They seieucia and 
 refused also both the formulas homoousios and Ariminum. 
 anomoios ; but they were unable to accept unanimously any 
 creed of their own. The council broke up in confusion, but 
 before this Acacius and a party had separated themselves, 
 and gone to lay their case before the Emperor. 
 
 At Ariminum no fewer than 400 bishops assembled, includ- 
 ing some from Britain. The leader on the Arian side was 
 Valens. Rome was unrepresented. Liberius had indeed re- 
 turned, but his rival Felix was still partly in possession. The 
 council refused the Dated Creed, and confirmed the Nicene 
 Creed, and excommunicated Valens and Ursacius. Without 
 breaking up, they despatched ten envoys to Constantius to 
 inform him that nothing but the Nicene Creed would bring 
 peace to the Church. The defeated party also sent their envoys. 
 
 The Emperor was in Thrace, on his way to Persia. He 
 received the Arian envoys at once, but declined to see the others. 
 While they were waiting the imperial pleasure, submission 
 every effort was made by Valens and his party of both 
 to turn them from the purpose for wliich they had councils to 
 been sent. Strangely enough, these efforts proved Ariamsm. 
 successful. The very men who had been sent from Ariminum 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 t 
 
 \\ 
 
224 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 to champion the Nicene Creed were prevailed upon to sign a 
 new and worse form of the Dated Creed ! This took place at 
 Nice in Thrace, a place whose name gave the unscrupulous 
 Arians the opportunity to delude the ignorant into the idea 
 that this was a decision of Nicaea. Both sets of envoys, now 
 unanimous, returned to Ariminum. The Emperor was now 
 determined to make the whole council apostatise. They were 
 told falsely that the council at Seleucia had also signed the 
 Dated Creed. They were exhorted not to separate East and 
 West in a quarrel about words. They were threatened with 
 exile if they would not sign. The bishops were weary with 
 waiting, and far from their homes, and the severe winter of 
 Northern Italy was coming on. They wavered, and one by one 
 they yielded. Finally, after seven months' sitting, the Council 
 of Ariminum broke up, after all its remaining members had 
 given in to Eusebianism. Ten delegates were once more sent 
 to the Emperor at Constantinople, where they joined the party 
 of Acacius. 
 
 The final scene of the tragedy or farce was enacted at 
 Constantinople in a council of fifty bishops (among them the 
 constanti- famous Ulfilas, the Apostle of the Goths), in which 
 nopie ; the Acacius was predominant. The party of Acacius 
 STm T' ^^^ ^^^ gained the Emperor's ear. Constantius had 
 
 ^^^ ' become a Eusebian. The council adopted the Creed 
 of Ariminum, proclaiming merely that the Son is like the Father, 
 and repudiated all other creeds. The Nicene Creed was thus 
 definitely rejected, and Arianism in its vaguer but equally mis- 
 chievous form had triumphed. As a compromise, the council 
 deposed Aetius, the leading Anomoean ; and also all the leading 
 semi-Arians, including Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil of 
 Ancyra, and Cyril of Jerusalem. Eudoxius, most profane of 
 the Arians (p. 218), became Bishop of Constantinople. Hilary 
 of Poitiers made an indignant protest both to the council and to 
 the Emperor, but in vain. Constantius enforced the Creed of 
 Ariminum on the Church. In the famous words of S. Jerome, 
 ' the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian.' 
 For twenty years the official creed of Eastern Christendom, 
 
 ARIANISM AFTER NICAEA 
 
 ^1.3 
 
 at least, was not that of Athanasius and Nicaea, but that of 
 Constantius and Ariminum. 
 
 But at any rate the air was cleared. It was evident that the 
 final conflict would be between two parties only— that of 
 Athanasius, and that of official and state-favoured imperial 
 Arianism. The semi-Arian waverers would have changes, 
 to make up their minds. Meanwhile, Athanasius remained 
 hidden in Egypt, biding his time. And great changes in the 
 State were at hand. Murmurs of civil war were heard. Julian, 
 the Emperor's cousin, whom he had made Caesar of the West,' 
 was proclaimed Augustus by the soldiers at Paris. He announced 
 himself a pagan, and marched against Constantius. The latter 
 left his Persian campaign, and Inirried westward. But death 
 struck him in Cihcia : he was baptized by the Arian Euzoius, 
 Bishop of Antioch. A heathen Emperor was once more lord 
 of the world. 
 
 Against its melancholy catalogue of intrigues and intriguers, 
 Arianism must be credited with one spiritual achievement. 
 The Goths, who had begun in the previous century conversion 
 to be a danger to the Empire, and were now settled of the Goths, 
 in Dacia, owed both their conversion and the beginning of their 
 literature to Ulfilas, an Arian bishop. His history is wrapped 
 in much obscurity. He was consecrated about 340, possibly 
 by Eusebius of Nicomedia, at the Council of the Dedication, 
 and he laboured in Dacia and Moesia from then till 380. His 
 greatest work was the invention of the Gothic alphabet, and 
 the translation of the Scriptures into that language, all except 
 the four books of Kings, which he omitted as tending to en- 
 courage the Goths in war, an exercise in which they were already 
 too proficient. 
 
 But with this exception, Arianism was not a spiritual power, 
 and it produced no great men in the least comparable to the 
 protagonists of the Catholic side. It had no cathoUc 
 Athanasius, of whom Hooker has well said, ' there champions, 
 was nothing observed in the course of that long tragedy other 
 than such as very well became a wise man to do and a righteous 
 to suffer.' S. Cyril of Jerusalem soon cleared himself from the 
 
 H i 
 
 ii 
 
226 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 taint of semi-Arianism, and his Catechetical Lectures, deHvered 
 about the middle of the centurv. are monuments of Christian 
 instruction, especially on the Sacraments. The Catholics, too, 
 had S. Hilary of Poitiers, the bulwark of the faith in Gaul ; a 
 clear and eloquent writer and speaker, ' the Rhone of Latin 
 eloquence/ Hilary's disciple, S. Martin of Tours, became even 
 more famous. A favourite saint with the English, he was born 
 in Pannonia in 316, and served as a soldier ; baptized after that 
 vision of Christ which followed his well-known gift of his military 
 cloak to a shivering beggar at Amiens in 334, he became a 
 monk at Tours, and in 371 bishop of that city. He is said to 
 have been the great evangeliser of the rural districts of Gaul, 
 and had much influence with the Emperors. He died in 397. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What was the characteristic of the second period of Arian 
 reaction ? 
 
 2. Describe the Council of Sardica. 
 
 3. What was the line taken by the Emperor in this period ? 
 
 4. Who were the semi-Arians ? 
 
 5. What were the key-words of the different parties in this contro- 
 versy? Show their importance. 
 
 6. Describe the third exile of S. Athanasius. 
 
 7. Describe the Arian attack on Pope Liberius, and its results. 
 
 8. What events led up to the apparent triumph of Arianism ? 
 
 9. What were the characteristics of the most prominent Arian 
 champions ? 
 
 10. What other eminent supporters of the Nicene Creed are to be 
 noted besides S. Athanasius. 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. The position of the Papacy during this controversy. 
 
 Puller. Priiniiive Saints and the Sec of Rome. 
 * Liberius ' in Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
 
 2. Ulfilas and the Goths. 
 
 Hodgkin. Italy and her Invaders^ vol. i. 
 Duchesne. Early History of the Church, vol. ii. 
 C. A. A. Scott. Ulfilas. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION 
 
 The eighteen months of the brief reign of Juhan are a memorable 
 epoch in the history of the Church. The new Emperor, baptized 
 in his childhood and brought up strictly as a juUanthe 
 Christian, had secretly been long in revolt from Apostate, 
 his faith, and he now stood declared as a pagan. He was a 
 strange and eccentric man, a compound of curious httlenesses 
 and prejudices, and of really great abihty. He was a pedant, 
 a visionary, and a prig ; on the other hand, during his office 
 as Caesar in Gaul he had shown himself capable of reorganising 
 the army and winning victories over the Germans, and as 
 Emperor he was a conscientious and untiring administrator 
 and reformer. 
 
 Julian's apostasy from Christianity was due to a combination 
 of causes—his perverse and restless intellect ; his infatuation 
 over Greek learning and philosophy ; his mysticism causes of Ms 
 and love of the marvellous. Moreover, brought apostasy, 
 up as he had been, he had seen imperial Christianity in its 
 most unfavourable aspects. He hated' Constantius, the patron 
 and would-be ruler of the Church, with a bitterness that finds 
 some justification. Constantius had treated him in his child- 
 hood with severity and suspicion. He had trapped and murdered 
 Julian's only brother, the Caesar Gallus, and Juhan had anti- 
 cipated a like fate for himself. And the Christian guides and 
 teachers who had been given liim were such men as Eusebius 
 of Nicomedia and Aetius. The Arians that surrounded and 
 dominated the court were largely responsible for Julian's mis- 
 understanding and contempt of Christianity. 
 
 Julian's own hfe was pure and strict. He even affected the 
 meanness and untidiness of an ascetic philosopher. His character 
 
 227 
 
 I, 
 
i 
 
 228 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 was spoiled by his inordinate intellectual vanity, his spiteful 
 narrowness towards those who differed from him, his lack of 
 His sense of humour, and his superstition. It was this 
 
 character. last trait that separated his paganism from that of 
 the great imperial philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, on whom 
 he tried to model himself. Julian's philosophy incHned rather 
 to the mystic and occult, to the Neoplatonists and to lambhchus 
 rather than Plato. He was the ready gull of every sort of traffic 
 with the unseen— astrology, necromancy, and the Hke. He 
 eagerly followed oracles and soothsaying, and all the mysterious 
 and even disgusting ceremonial of the different pagan cults. 
 He had submitted, as an antidote to his Christian baptism, 
 to undergo the Tanroholuim — the shower-bath of a bull's blood 
 which was part of the solemnities of the worship of Mithras. 
 
 He set himself at once to discredit Christianity and to restore 
 or reconstruct a heathen reUgion for the Empire. His first 
 Universal step was to declare universal toleration. He 
 toleration. informed the various Arian, heretical, and schis- 
 matical Christians, as well as the orthodox, that there would be 
 henceforth no favouritism. All were equal. And all rehgious 
 exiles were recalled. Athanasius, of course, returned to his see, 
 but the exiled Donatists returned to Africa, with results that 
 may be imagined. The purpose of Juhan was not to administer 
 even-handed justice, but to create confusion in the Church by 
 allowing the different parties to rend each other. 
 
 Next, the attempt was made to lower the prestige of the 
 Church' by taking away aU the civil honours and privileges of 
 Attack on the bishops and clergy, by removing Christians 
 Christianity, from all office in the imperial household and else- 
 where, and by generally casting ridicule on the faith. For 
 example, it was ordered that Christians should be spoken of 
 only as ' Galilaeans.' Julian not only encouraged sophists 
 and philosophers to write against Christianity, but he did so 
 also himself. In collaboration with the sophist Libanius he 
 composed an anti-Christian treatise, now only known to us by 
 the fragments preserved in the reply written to it by Cyril of 
 Alexandria. 
 
 KJl"'. II ii^lUlElil 
 
 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION 
 
 229 
 
 The severest measure under this head was the prohibition 
 (in 362) of Christians acting as teachers or exercising any learned 
 profession. JuUan cynically pointed out to them the incon- 
 sistency of lecturing on the classics, when they did not believe 
 in the gods of whom Homer and Hesiod had written. ' Let them 
 go,' he said, * to the Galilaean churches and expound Matthew 
 and Luke.' Even the pagans themselves were shocked at this 
 narrow bigotry. It touched some of the most distinguished 
 scholars of the age, such as Proaeresius at Athens, and 
 Victorinus at Rome, whose conversion and pubhc profession 
 of Christianity in his old age had only recently startled the 
 capital, and who now preferred to renounce his chair rather than 
 apostatise (S. Aug., Conf. viii.). 
 
 But Julian's constructive pohcy towards paganism is more 
 interesting than his direct blows at Christianity. He ordered 
 as a preliminary the temples to be reopened, and Attempt to 
 the sacrifices, which Constantius had forbidden, restore 
 to be restored. And whenever possible he com- paganism, 
 pelled Christian bishops to rebuild temples which they had 
 helped to destroy. He endeavoured to seek out and restore 
 the now silent oracles, including that of Delphi ; and to call 
 to life again every obsolete superstition and method of divination. 
 But he had grander schemes than these. There was to be a 
 new universal religion to take the place of Christianity, and a 
 new pagan organisation to supersede the Church and the 
 Christian hierarchy. It was here in his two most ambitious 
 schemes that he most conclusively failed, as might have been 
 expected. Both schemes showed the influence of Christianity 
 and paid it the unconscious flattery of imitation. 
 
 The new religion was to be a sort of spiritualised sun-worship. 
 Corresponding to the sun of the material world, Julian's new 
 Julian conceived a sun of the ' intelligent^^ world,' religion, 
 which was the central object of human worship, being the medi- 
 ator between things that are seen and the unknowable mysteries 
 of the highest world. This ' intelligent sun ' was clearly JuHan's 
 substitute for the Christian Logos, the mediator between God 
 and man. 
 
 ii'^ 
 
 i 
 
» 
 
 230 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 And as a substitute for the Church of Christ he proposed 
 organising into unity all the different pagan priests and priest- 
 hoods, with division into something Uke dioceses. And this 
 new hierarchy was to be distinguished for holiness, strictness of 
 life, and good works, such as the care of the poor and the sick. 
 
 But Julian's schemes and dreams brought him little but dis- 
 appointment. His new religion did not appeal to men's con- 
 Juiian dis- sciences, and a pagan priesthood zealous of good works 
 uiusioned. and living a holy Ufe was a contradiction in terms. 
 Just as he over-estimated the good in paganism, he misunder- 
 stood and under-rated the power of Christianity. Men either 
 laughed at him, or followed his lead for what they could get. 
 At Antioch his personal appearance and his unkempt philosophic 
 beard were held up to derision ; and he was foolish enough to 
 reply by a treatise defending himself, called the ' Misopogon ' 
 (beard-hater). At Antioch too he was compelled to recognise 
 by the logic of facts that paganism was really defunct, and 
 Christianity in possession. On a high festival of Apollo which 
 he desired to keep, only one priest appeared, and the only 
 sacrifice he had been able to raise was a single goose ! The 
 oracle in the grove of Daphne which he tried to revive gave him 
 great trouble. The oracular voice was indeed heard in answer 
 to the Emperor's incantations, but all it would say was ' The 
 dead, the dead.' This was interpreted to mean that its precincts 
 were defiled by the presence of the bones of the Christian martyr, 
 Babylas, buried there. Julian ordered the Christians to remove 
 them. But it was made the occasion for a great procession, 
 which translated the relics, chanting the Psahn — * Confounded 
 be all those that worship carved images and delight in vain 
 gods.' The Delphic oracle, the great centre of ancient Hellenic 
 reverence and superstition, remained obstinately dumb. The 
 temple was deserted and in ruins. A late tradition records, 
 however, that Julian had his answer in three hexameter lines, 
 in the ancient style of the Pythian priestess : 
 
 * Tell ye the king that to earth hath fallen the glorious dwelling ; 
 Phoebus no more hath his cell, no more his oracular laurel ; 
 No, nor his babbling fount : the water that spake is quenched.' 
 
 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION 231 
 
 A more authentic and still more remarkable story is that of 
 his attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. It would have 
 been a pretty bit of vengeance on the Christians, The Temple 
 who pointed to the end of Temple and sacrifice ofJerusaiem. 
 as the fulfilment of the Master's prophecy. Preparations were 
 made on a great scale, but flames burst forth from the founda- 
 tions when these began to be excavated : the workmen fled 
 in terror, and the work was never resumed. This event is re- 
 corded not only by Christian writers, but by the heathen historian 
 Marcellinus, the admirer of JuUan. Probably natural causes 
 may be found for the mysterious flames, but the coincidence 
 was at least remarkable ; and preparations begun on the im- 
 perial authority could hardly have stopped so suddenly and 
 finally had there not been some cause which was interpreted 
 as supernatural. Julian made no direct attempt to suppress 
 Christianity : he did not destroy churches or punish Christians 
 for following their religion. A considerable number of Christians 
 suffered torture and death during his reign, but it was ostensibly 
 for insulting the Emperor or for attacking pagan worships ; 
 or else it was due to the exulting pagans taking the law into 
 their own hands, as, for example, at Alexandria and Gaza, where 
 priests and consecrated virgins were cruelly murdered. Mark 
 of Arethusa, the Arian, who had protected JuUan during the 
 massacre of Constantine's relations after his death, was 
 abominably treated by the mob. He had destroyed a heathen 
 temple, and refused to rebuild it when ordered. Julian did not 
 punish these outbreaks ; at most he only lectured the evil- 
 doers. 
 
 One of the first results of Julian's act of toleration was the 
 return of Athanasius. The intruder, George of Cappadocia, 
 had been seized by the populace only four days Athanasius 
 after Julian's accession, imprisoned, and then returns, 
 dragged out and lynched. Another Arian, Lucius, succeeded 
 him, but he was compelled to give way to the rightful bishop, 
 who returned amid great popular rejoicings. 
 
 Athanasius and his friends at once set themselves to re- 
 organise the party which remained loyal to the faith of Nicaea. 
 
 II 
 
 Is, 
 
 If i1 
 
 '/ ^■■'''^fy*;*^ -^^';a> 
 
232 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 An important council was held in 362 at Alexandria. In striking 
 contrast to Novatians and Donatists, tlie Athanasians were 
 Council of ready to treat those who had given way to Arian 
 Alexandria, pressure with great leniency. All that was asked 
 of them, if they wished to be in communion with Athanasius, 
 was to accept the Nicene Creed and to abjure another kindred 
 error to Arianism which was now becoming prominent. This 
 was the denial of the equal divinity of the Holy Spirit with the 
 Father and the Son, and is known as Macedonianism, from 
 Macedonius, the Arian Bishop of Constantinople, The question 
 of the divinity of the Holy Spirit had not been raised at Nicaea ; 
 but it called for definition, as to deny it would be a logical de- 
 duction from Arianism. 
 
 Another step towards reconciliation of differences was taken 
 at the same Council of Alexandria. An agreement was reached 
 by the efforts of Athanasius as to the use of the word hypostasis 
 {see p. 216). It was recognised henceforward that the Eastern use 
 of the word as equivalent to ' persona ' was correct, and that 
 siihstantia might be used in Latin as equivalent to the Greek ousia. 
 Both Greeks and Latins could speak of the Trinity as meaning 
 three hypostases or personae in one substantia or ousia. 
 
 The council also addressed itself to the healing of the schisms 
 in the Church of Antioch. Here it will be remembered there 
 The Schisms was a long-standing division between the orthodox 
 of Antioch. party, who called themselves after the exiled 
 Eustathius, and the official Arian party. The matter had been 
 compHcated by the fact that Meletius, whom the Arians had 
 introduced into the see, proved himself on the side of orthodoxy 
 by preaching in defence of the Nicene Creed. The Arians had 
 got rid of him, and Euzoius had succeeded. Now Meletius 
 had returned, and a party of the orthodox adhered to him. 
 The Council of Alexandria directed that the two orthodox 
 parties, the original Eustathians and the followers of Meletius, 
 should now unite under the latter. But this was frustrated by 
 the over-zeal of Lucifer of Caharis in Sardinia. He had been 
 one of the leading sufferers for the faith under Constantius, 
 and had now returned from exile. He went to Antioch and 
 
 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION 
 
 233 
 
 consecrated for the Eustathians another bishop, Paulinus. 
 Thus the schism was perpetuated. Lucifer returned to his dio- 
 cese and started a schism on his own account, which came to be 
 called Luciferianism, and which lasted for half a century. Lucifer 
 represented the same type of mind which, after the great per- 
 secutions, had wished to exclude all who had given way from 
 any further communion with the Church, even if they repented. 
 The Council of Alexandria also condemned an error with regard 
 to the human soul of our Lord, which seems to have been an 
 anticipation of that of ApoUinaris, if not identical with it (p. 247). 
 
 The prominence and influence of Athanasius soon attracted 
 JuUan's notice and anger. At the end of 362, the bishop was 
 again banished, this time as ' the enemy of the gods.' Fourth exile 
 He took it calmly enough, assuring his flock that of Athana- 
 it was but ' a little cloud which would soon pass,' sius. 
 and remained in concealment until the Emperor's death. 
 
 He had not long to wait. In 363 Julian set out on his Persian 
 campaign. At first he was successful, won a victory on the 
 Tigris, and pressed to the gates of Ctesiphon. But Death of 
 here he was played false by Persian spies, and had Julian, 
 to retreat. In the course of this he received during a skirmish his 
 death wound by a thrust from a spear. There are various stories 
 of the manner of his death. Ammianus, the historian, who was 
 with him, puts in his mouth a theatrical speech, in which he 
 asserted that his Hfe gave him confidence that he was to be 
 taken ' to the islands of the blest, to converse with heaven and 
 the stars.' Christians believed that he cried out * Galilaean, 
 thou hast conquered ! ' 
 
 His reign was the last effort of the ancient paganism to make 
 head against Christianity. Its failure is the more significant 
 because Julian attempted to fight the Church not Effects of his 
 by direct persecution, but by trying to rally what poUcy. 
 he thought were the noble and permanent forces of Hellenism, 
 its philosophy, and its high ideals of conduct. But these had 
 already failed to influence the mass of mankind, and they were 
 powerless against the ' Galilaean. ' The dreams of a scholar, even 
 on a throne, could not raise the dead past, nor overthrow the 
 
 M 
 
 '■'\\ 
 
 
Jovian. 
 
 234 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 spiritual influence of the religion of the Cross : where Arianism 
 had failed, Julian could scarcely hope to succeed. 
 
 Probably Julian's brief reign was of great value to the Church. 
 It turned men for a little from controversy to consider their 
 foundations. And it removed the pestilent influence of a 
 court which, like that of Constantius, was trying to pull all the 
 wires of ecclesiastical influence, and to reduce the Church and 
 the hierarchy to a mere department of the State. It proved 
 what has many times since been experienced, that the sincerity 
 and spirituality of the Church flourish more when she has to 
 stand by herself than when she is in the sunshine of royal favour. 
 
 It is not surprising that the period of reaction against Arianism, 
 which led to the final vindication of the Nicene Creed in 381, 
 must be dated from the reign of Julian. 
 
 Julian was succeeded at once by Jovian, the head of the body- 
 guard, who was elected by the soldiers. He was a blunt good- 
 natured warrior, a Christian who had refused to 
 conform to Julian's paganism, and a Catholic who 
 had' no sympathy with Arianism. He restored the cross as the 
 standard of his armies, concluded peace with Persia, and on his 
 return to Antioch did what he could in his brief reign of eight 
 months to undo his predecessor's work, destroying temples and 
 building churches. But his first desire was peace : he took no 
 ecclesiastical side, but proclaimed general toleration. He had, 
 however, a special respect for Athanasius, and recalled him in a 
 compHmentary letter, asking for a statement of the orthodox 
 faith. Athanasius, as might be expected, set down the Nicene 
 Creed as the one standard to which, he said, it was ' needful for 
 all men to adhere, as being divine and apostolic* Jovian then 
 invited Athanasius to visit him at Antioch. The Arians of 
 Alexandria and Lucius, their intruding bishop, attempted in 
 vain to prejudice the Emperor against him. A number of Arian 
 prelates, notably Acacius, went so far now as to advise that the 
 Nicene Creed should be accepted, as the homoousion was now 
 better understood. But they were still the personal enemies 
 of Athanasius, and refused to receive him to communion. 
 Jovian declined to take any further action in ecclesiastical 
 
 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION 
 
 235 
 
 quarrels. In the next year, 364, he died suddenly in Galatia, 
 on his way to Constantinople. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. Describe the character of the Emperor Julian. 
 
 2. What causes probably led him to forsake Christianity ? 
 
 3. What methods did he adopt (i) to bring Christianity into contempt, 
 (2) to restore Paganism ? 
 
 4. What was the nature of Julian's proposed new religion ? 
 
 5. What was the peculiar character of the schism at Antioch ? 
 
 6. How was S. Athanasius affected by the policy of Julian ? 
 
 7. What was the effect of Julian's policy on the Church and on 
 Paganism ? 
 
 8. What was the religious policy of the Emperor Jovian ? 
 
 Subject for Study. 
 
 The Emperor Julian. 
 
 * Julianus ' in Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
 Boissier. La Fin du Paganisme, 
 
 ': 
 
 mt» HI 
 
 iJULLMLy._ 
 
CHAPTER XIX. THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLICISM 
 
 On the death of Jovian, in 364, the Empire was once more 
 divided. The soldiers elected Valentinian to the purple, and 
 New about a month afterwards he gave the Eastern 
 
 Emperors: provinces to his brother Valens. Valentinian was 
 Valentinian ^ Catholic, but not much interested in theology, 
 and very desirous of peace. Unfortunately one of 
 his first acts was to confirm the Arian Auxentius in the see of 
 Milan, in spite of the protests of S. Hilary, ' the Athanasius 
 of the West.' Auxentius managed to clear himself of Arianism 
 by a clever statement of his faith, which might be read in either 
 sense. S. Hilary wrote the last of his indignant protests against 
 princes who support heresy, solemnly warning bishops against 
 state interference ; after which he withdrew to Poitiers and died 
 there in 368. 
 
 Valens, the Emperor of the East, was a thorough Arian and 
 under the influence of Eudoxius. It was some time before he 
 Valens an commenced his career of active persecution, but he 
 Arian. showed himself at once hostile both to Catholics 
 
 and semi-Arians. The latter party had obtained his permission 
 to meet in council at Lampsacus in 365. Here they rejected 
 not only Nicaea but Ariminum, and adopted the homoiousion. 
 They sent delegates to the Emperor to announce this, but he 
 declared himself in favour of the Creed of Ariminum, and followed 
 up this by an edict exiling afresh all the bishops who had been 
 deposed by Constantius. 
 
 Athanasius of course fell under this new condemnation. It 
 was his fifth and last exile, lasting for about four months. 
 Fifth exile Tradition says that he hid in his father's tomb, 
 and death of Valens, in fear of the populace of Alexandria, allowed 
 Athanasius. j^j^i to return early in 366. He spent the remain- 
 ing seven years of his life in comparative peace, in writing and 
 
 236 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLICISM 
 
 237 
 
 endeavouring to heal the dissensions of the Church, and in 
 affectionate intercourse with S. Basil of Caesarea. 
 
 On May 2, 373, the great defender of the faith passed away, 
 'after many agonies and many crowns of suffering.' He had 
 been Bishop of Alexandria for forty-six years, of which some 
 sixteen had been spent in exile. It is almost impossible to 
 over-estimate the value and the influence of his life-work. His 
 writings, especially his early treatise on the Incarnation and his 
 four great orations against the Arians, arc permanent contribu- 
 tions to the standard theology of the Church ; but it was above 
 all the power of Athanasius' personaHty, his sincerit}^ his de- 
 votion and his courage that ensured the final victory of the 
 Nicene Creed. His life might be well summed up in the 
 words of S. John (i Ep. v. 5) : ' Who is he that overcometh 
 the world, but he that bolicveth that Jesus is the Son of 
 God? ' 
 
 The semi-Arians, defeated in their attempt at Lampsacus, 
 now began to draw towards the Catholics. They were afraid 
 of Valens ; they disliked intensely the official Arian- End of semi- 
 ism which held sway in the East ; their own com- Arianism. 
 promise had failed, and they desired the support of Valentinian 
 and communion with Rome. Delegates were sent to Pope 
 Liberius who were prepared to signify the adherence of their 
 party to the Nicene Creed. Almost the last official act of 
 Liberius was to accept their submission, not to himself, but to 
 the faith, and to write a letter to this effect to all the orthodox 
 bishops of the East. The successor of S. Peter had, like him, 
 as a fruit of his penitence, ' strengthened his brethren.' The 
 semi-Arian party now practically disappears. The remnant 
 of it becomes merged in the party of * Macedonians,' or Pnen- 
 matomachi, i.e. ' fighters against the Holy Spirit.' These 
 ' moderates ' confined their Arianism to a general haziness 
 as to the personality and divinity of the Third Person of the 
 Trinity, a very illogical position if they were really orthodox 
 as to the Second Person. 
 
 Valens in the troubled East took up the role of Constantius, 
 and endeavoured to propagate Arianism by brutal and oppressive 
 
 1 
 
 mi 
 
w 
 
 238 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 methods. At Antioch many supporters of the faith of Nicaea 
 were drowned in the Orontes. When the see of Constantinople 
 The became vacant in 370, Demophilus, a well-known 
 
 persecution Arian, in spite of protests, was made its bishop by 
 ofValens. imperial order. And when a deputation visited 
 the Emperor at Nicomedia to expostulate, he put eighty of 
 them on board ship, and there had them burned to death. 
 The Creed of Ariminum was forced upon bishops and clergy, 
 and their refusal meant exile, loss of privileges, and in many 
 cases the handing over of the churches to heathen licence. 
 At Alexandria, after the death of Athanasius, shameful scenes 
 were enacted in the Cathedral. The Emperor refused his 
 sanction to the election of Peter, whom Athanasius had desired 
 as his successor, and an Arian, Lucius, was forced upon the 
 Church, and those who protested were sent to prison or the 
 mines. The malice of Valens was only checked by his occupa- 
 tion in wars against the Goths, and to some extent by the in- 
 fluence of S. Basil. 
 
 The West was largely untouched by these troubles. Liberius 
 was succeeded in 366 by Damasus, who was strong on the Catholic 
 Pope side and gave a refuge to Peter, the exiled Bishop 
 
 DamasuB. of Alexandria. The accession of Damasus to the 
 papal throne, which he held for eighteen years, was unhappily 
 marked by scenes of riot and bloodshed, through the rivalry 
 of an ' anti-pope,' Ursinus, who remained for years a thorn 
 in the side of Damasus. This rivalry was the after effect of 
 the state interference which had superseded Liberius by Felix. 
 The position of Bishop of Rome was already much coveted, and 
 loomed large in the eyes of men. ' Make me Bishop of Rome,' 
 said the prefect of the city, ' and I will turn Christian at once.' 
 Already the withdrawal of the Emperor's residence from Rome 
 was tending to make its bishop the most important man in the 
 ancient capital, and was preparing the way for the imperial 
 papacy of the centuries to come. Indeed, in Damasus we see the 
 first example of a papal type which later history has made 
 familiar; a stately figure, learned himself and a patron of 
 learning, an antiquary and a lover of art and poetry, a builder 
 
 1^ 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLICISM 
 
 239 
 
 and a beautifier of the monuments of a Christian Rome. His 
 secretary and friend was the great S. Jerome, whom he encouraged 
 in his noble enterprise of a new and more accurate translation 
 of the Scriptures into Latin. One of the most remarkable works 
 of Damasus was the investigation and opening out of the Cata- 
 combs, in which he sought out the tombs of the early martyrs 
 and marked them with finely executed inscriptions. * Never 
 have worse verses been transcribed so exquisitely ' (Duchesne) . 
 
 The closing years of the life of Athanasius saw the rise to 
 influence of a remarkable trio of defenders of the Catholic faith 
 in the East, to whom the ultimate defeat of Arianism ^iie cappa- 
 was largely due. These were S. Basil, called ' the docian 
 Great ' — the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia — his Fathers, 
 brother, S. Gregory of Nyssa, and his friend, S. Gregory of 
 Nazianzus. To the influence of these must be added that of an 
 equally great or greater man in the West, S. Ambrose, who 
 became in 374 Bishop of Milan. 
 
 S. Basil, who is counted as one of the four great Greek Fathers, 
 was a man of great ability and spiritual power. His life, though 
 short, was full of labour and struggle, but difficult s. BasU's 
 to summarise or appreciate. He sprang from a conversion, 
 wealthy Christian family in Cappadocia ; his grandparents 
 had been confessors in the great persecution ; his father was a 
 teacher of rhetoric and noted for the good influence of his 
 Christian Ufe. Basil had the highest education of the day, 
 and was, like the early Alexandrines, a lover of the classics. 
 As a student at Athens, the Oxford of the ancient world, he had 
 cemented his school-boy friendship with Gregory, son. of the 
 Bishop of Nazianzus. Both friends showed great intellectual 
 promise, combined with purity of Hfe. At Athens, strangely 
 enough, they became friends of the future Emperor and apostate 
 JuHan, and protected his eccentricities from the practical jokes 
 of his fellow-students, who seem to have been then much what 
 undergraduates are now. 
 
 At the end of his university career Basil had the promise of a 
 great future before him as a teacher and professor of rhetoric ; 
 but the influence of his sister, Macrina, led him to a complete 
 
 1 1 
 1 
 
I 
 
 i 
 
 Monasticism. 
 
 240 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CmjRCH 
 
 self-dedication to Christ. He was drawn especially to the 
 monastic life. After his baptism he visited various solitaries 
 of the desert, and then returning to his native 
 country he estabUshed himself in a monastic retreat 
 in a beautiful and romantic spot among the mountains and rivers 
 of Pontus. Here he commenced his life-long course of rigorous 
 self-discipHne, which appears to have undermined his health 
 and shortened his days. But his monastic ideals were not 
 those of the hermits. He is usually regarded as the founder of 
 the community Hfe — the monasticism of the future. It seemed 
 to him more in harmony with the precepts of the Gospel. ' Whose 
 feet wilt thou wash ? ' he asks in his Rule, ' whom wilt thou 
 serve ? — ^how canst thou be last of all, if thou art alone ? ' 
 Numerous other settlements on his model sprang up in Asia 
 Minor, and it is important to note that these were all strongholds 
 of the Nicene Faith. 
 
 But Basil was not allowed to remain long in his secluded life 
 Ecciesiasti- of fasting and study. As a deacon he was in 
 cal career. attendance at the unhappy Council of Constantinople 
 in 360 (p. 224). In the same year he was deeply distressed at the 
 acceptance by his Bishop Dianius of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) 
 of the Creed of Ariminum. He retired to Nazianzus, but two 
 years later Dianius on his deathbed sent for him, protested his 
 loyalty to the faith, and the two were reconciled. Julian, on 
 his accession, attempted unsuccessfully to attract his old friend 
 to the court, and his refusal made the Emperor his enemy. 
 Eusebius, the successor of Dianius, ordained Basil to the priest- 
 hood in 364. For two periods during the next six years he 
 worked as the bishop's right hand, organising Christian work 
 and Christian charities, and recognised by the Arian Valens 
 as a dangerous champion of orthodoxy. The jealousies which 
 dogged Basil all his life drove him back for a time to his monastic 
 retreat, but he returned, and on the death of Eusebius in 370 
 he was elected and consecrated in the teeth of strong opposition 
 to this the metropolitan see, which gave him jurisdiction over 
 more than half of Asia Minor. 
 
 Athanasius himself wrote to congratulate the people of 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLICISM 
 
 241 
 
 Cappadocia on their new primate, whom he regarded as destined 
 to carry on his own great work. Basil's episcopate only lasted 
 nine years, but in that brief space he suffered much and ac- 
 complished much. His work lay in other directions than 
 that of councils, and, though a mark for hostility and persecu- 
 tion, his career has little of the dramatic adventurousness of 
 Athanasius. 
 
 His first great object was to reunite, consolidate, and 
 defend the churches of the storm-tossed East, torn as they were 
 by internal dissensions and harassed by the per- s. Basil and 
 secution of Valens. He wished them to present a Vaiens. 
 united front against Arianism. In this he had but Httle help. 
 His own diocesan bishops hated him ; he was suspected of 
 being a heretic himself. He appealed again and again to Pope 
 Damasus, to bring active sympathy and help to the Eastern 
 Catholics, but in vain. He was not a persona grata at Rome, 
 and he treated Damasus too much as an equal to suit the growing 
 imperialism of the Roman see. He had, however, the sympathy 
 of S. Athanasius and S. Ambrose. 
 
 He was soon to come into coUision with Valens. The Emperor 
 had determined to force Arianism upon Cappadocia by his own 
 personal authority and presence. He was heralded first by the 
 bluster and expostulations of Arian bishops, and then by the 
 insolence of the oi^cers of the imperial household. The 
 Emperor's chef, Demosthenes, opened the battle, but S. Basil, 
 with the humour which was a feature of his character, recom- 
 mended him to return to his kitchen. On another occasion the 
 same Demosthenes made a bad blunder in his Greek. * An 
 ilHterate Demosthenes,' said Basil, ' had better occupy himself 
 with his soups and sauces.' He was followed by the praetorian 
 prefect, Modestus, who threatened Basil with all sorts of punish- 
 ments. But Basil was perfectly firm, his only wealth, he said, 
 was a few rags and a few books, and death would be a mercy. 
 Modestus expressed amazement at being met in this way, and 
 Basil replied, ' You have never befofe encountered a real bishop ! ' 
 Then came the Emperor Valens himself. But even he found 
 his geni\is rebuked by that of Basil. Entering the cathedral 
 
 Q 
 
242 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 of Caesarea during the Eucharist, he was so confounded by the 
 impressiveness of the scene, and the stately form of the bishop 
 standing at the^ altar, that, like Saul before Samuel, he was 
 carried away in spite of himself and for the moment made friends 
 with Basil, though he soon yielded again to the influence of 
 Arian intriguers. But Basil had triumphed over the chief 
 enemy of the faith, and for the time was unmolested. 
 
 Basil knew that the real strength of the Church is to be 
 found witliin, rather than in outward defenders, or the support of 
 BasU's great men. He gave himself, indefatigably, in spite 
 
 reforms. of his bad health, to the reforming and organisation of 
 
 his diocese and province. In this he met with much opposition, 
 partly perhaps due to his own strictness and strong assertion 
 of his authority. He gave special care to the selection of candi- 
 dates for the ministry, to the rooting out of simony, and to the 
 extension of the episcopate. It was in this last activity that his 
 over-bearing zeal ahenated his friend Gregory. The latter was 
 a sensitive and cultured student, but Basil insisted on consecrat- 
 ing him to a new see of which the centre was to be a miserable 
 village called Sasima, only a remote posting station, at the 
 junction of three dusty highways, a place where nothing could 
 be done, or at any rate not by such a man as Gregory, who, 
 after reUeving his feelings by writing a poetical satire on his 
 bishopric, retired from it to Nazianzus. A grander and wiser 
 work of Basil's was his Ptochotropheion, a hospital for the poor 
 on a magnificent scale, centring round the cathedral and the 
 bishop's house ; it contained hostels and workshops and an 
 asylum for lepers, and was so extensive that it became known 
 as the * new town.' Basil had a deep sense of the dignity and 
 importance of Christian worship. He reorganised the services, 
 and at least laid the foundations of the great liturgy which is 
 called by his name, and is still occasionally used in the Eastern 
 Church. 
 
 Basil was a prolific writer, especially of letters. His corres- 
 pondence, brilUant and incisive, was one of his great weapons 
 for restoring and defending the Church. Many of these letters 
 are of great interest as illustrating the ecclesiastical law 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLICISM 
 
 243 
 
 of the time, e.g. marriage with a deceased wife's sister is for- 
 bidden ; those who have married twice are not to be ordained ; 
 professions of virginity are to be very cautiously 
 received ; heretics, if penitent, may be admitted ^^*^^^^- 
 on their deathbed to communion. He produced also a number 
 of solid works— commentaries on the Scriptures, a course of 
 sermons on the Creation (called Hexaemeron) and other subjects, 
 and various writings on the monastic Ufe. But perhaps his most 
 original and valuable work was the treatise on the Holy Spirit, 
 the first produced in the Church on this subject, and called for by 
 the heresy of Macedonius, now becoming prominent. He and 
 his friend Gregory also performed the great service of rehabilitat- 
 ing the orthodoxy of Origen. They drew up a valuable collection 
 of choice passages from his writings, known as the Philocalia. 
 
 ' The ecclesiastical history of these years, as far as the East 
 is concerned, might be described as a history of the sufferings 
 of S. Basil' (Bright). It has already been noted sorrows of 
 how he was a mark for the jealousy and opposition s. Basil, 
 of his brother bishops. He was continually being accused of 
 divers heresies. His friends were ahenated or turned into 
 bitter enemies, Hke Eustathius of Sebaste. He saw the supporters 
 of the faith exiled ; among them his own brother, S. Gregory 
 of Nyssa, and Eusebius of Samosata. He was snubbed by Rome 
 and the West. He saw the rise of Macedonianism, and a new 
 error, connected with the name of Apollinaris, respecting the 
 perfect manhood of our Lord. * I seem for my sins,' he said, 
 ' to prosper in nothing.' And he constantly suffered from 
 such ill-health as would have completely broken down a less 
 indomitable spirit. His friend, S. Gregory, describes him as 
 ' without wife, without property, without flesh, and almost 
 without blood.' 
 
 Some consolations came to him. He saw, in 371, Auxentius, 
 the Arian Bishop of Milan, condemned by a council held at 
 Rome. And in 3.74, S. Ambrose was elected to the see. 
 Damasus condemned Apollinaris in a statement of the faith 
 known as * the Tome of the Westerns.' And finally he saw the 
 persecution of Catholics checked by the preoccupation of Valens 
 
 fl 
 
244 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 in his campaign against the Goths, and ended by his death after 
 the great defeat of the Romans at Adrianople in 378. In 379 
 S. Basil died, worn out by austerities, sufferings, and labours. 
 He ended with the words of faith, * Into thy hands I commend 
 
 my spirit.' 
 
 A brighter day for the CathoHcs of the East was already dawn- 
 ing. The new Emperors had no sympathy with Arianism and 
 Two cathouc paganism. Gratian in the West, who had succeeded 
 Emperors. Valentinian in 375, had come under the influence 
 of S. Ambrose. Theodosius, a Spaniard and a catechumen, 
 who was appointed by Gratian Emperor of the East, was a 
 descendant of the Emperor Trajan, and a distinguished soldier. 
 After his baptism in 380, he proclaimed himself by edict a 
 beUever in the CathoHc Faith as taught by Damasus and Peter 
 
 of Alexandria. 
 
 Meanwhile, the influence of the two other great Cappadocian 
 fathers was growing. Not such commanding personalities as 
 S. Basil, they were greater than he in their intellectual grasp 
 of the Catholic Faith ; and as teachers and preachers they made 
 a profound and lasting impression. 
 
 S. Gregory, the brother of S. Basil, and like him influenced 
 
 by the devout sister Macrina, was brought out of his scholarly 
 
 S.Gregory retirement by his imperious brother, and conse- 
 
 of Nyasa. crated against his will to the bishopric of the obscure 
 
 Nyssa in 372. It was a place that would never probably have 
 
 been heard of but for its bishop. Unhke S. Gregory of Nazianzus 
 
 he stuck to his uncongenial outpost, until he fell a victim to 
 
 Arian intrigues. In 375 he was accused falsely of embezzling 
 
 Church money, and banished to Seleucia. Here he suffered 
 
 great miseries until he was restored at the death of Valens in 
 
 378. After Basil's death he was generally recognised as the 
 
 leading defender in the East of the Nicene Faith. A synod 
 
 at Antioch entrusted him with the task of visiting and reforming 
 
 the Church in Arabia and Babylon. He also visited Jerusalem, 
 
 and gives a melancholy account of the absence of sincere religion 
 
 there and the evils attending the pilgrimages. He became a 
 
 favourite with Theodosius, and it will be seen what a prominent 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLICISM 
 
 245 
 
 part he took in the triumph of Catholicism in the great Council 
 of Constantinople in 381. His most important work is his 
 treatise against the Anomoean leader Eunomius. 
 
 S. Gregory of Nazianzus proved one of the most eloquent 
 preachers and profound theologians of the ancient Church. 
 After the fiasco of his consecration to Sasima, s. Gregory 
 he found his vocation later in his celebrated mission Nazianzen. 
 at Constantinople. This was also due to the influence of S. 
 Basil. He left his retirement with much fear, saying that ' in 
 God's providence he was absolutely compelled to be a sufferer.' 
 He took up his residence in a private house at Constantinople, 
 where he established a chapel, which he called by the prophetic 
 name of Anastasia or Anastasis — * house of the Resurrection.' 
 Here he prayed, and taught all who would come to hear him. 
 It is one of the most interesting episodes in the struggle with 
 Arianism. Not only his eloquent tongue and profound learning, 
 but the sweetness of his character and his spirituality (so unhke 
 the coldness and irreverence of Arianism) gradually effected 
 a transformation in the capital. His first task was to gather 
 together and build up the scattered and disheartened Catholics. 
 And also he had to refute Arianism conclusively, if possible, in a 
 place where it had reigned supreme for forty years. To this 
 end he delivered his five celebrated Theological Orations (i) 
 against the Eunomians ; (2) On the Nature of God ; (3) and (4) 
 The Son of God ; (5) The Holy Spirit. These luminous orations 
 mark an epoch in the great controversies of the fourth century. 
 They have won for Gregory the same title which was given to 
 S. John himself, Theologus — the Divine. 
 
 Gregory gathered round him a devoted circle of hearers, 
 among whom was the great S. Jerome. But he also became 
 a mark for Arian spite. He was mobbed and stoned, and 
 narrowly escaped assassination. The simphcity of his character 
 led him into blunders. He knew more of theology perhaps 
 than of human nature. He was taken in by an adventurer 
 named Maximus, a Cynic philosopher, who had embraced 
 Christianity and was ambitious enough to desire the bishopric 
 of Constantinople. Maximus gained not only the friendship 
 
 ft 
 
 * ♦ 
 
 ■*»««Wrti:.S2,i( 
 
246 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 of Gregory, but the support of Peter of Alexandria, and was 
 consecrated in a secret and irregular manner by some Egyptian 
 bishops as Catholic bishop, in opposition to the Arian Demophilus. 
 But Theodosius refused to recognise him, Damasus of Rome 
 wrote against him, and he was expelled from Alexandria where 
 he had taken refuge. Gregory was deeply distressed at all this, 
 and wished to retire from the Anastasis, but the appeals of his 
 disciples kept him there. 
 
 The next stage in the triumph of Catholicism was the entry 
 of Theodosius into Constantinople, where he promptly restored 
 The turn of all the churches to the Catholics. Demophilus 
 the tide. refused to accept the Creed of Nicaea and withdrew. 
 
 Early in the next year 381, an imperial decree expelled all the 
 Arians of the East from the churches, which were given back to 
 the Catholics. At Constantinople S. Gregory was solemnly 
 installed in the cathedral of S. Sophia. Popular enthusiasm 
 fixed upon him at once as the right person to be bishop, but the 
 election was deferred pending proper ecclesiastical action. 
 Gregory was no Arian to be content to be foisted upon a diocese 
 by the mere fiat of a secular ruler. 
 
 Theodosius now prepared to summon a great council to end 
 the long-drawn Arian controversy. This council met at Con- 
 The Council stantinople in 381. It is counted as the second 
 of constanti- of the great oecumenical councils ; but it had 
 nopie. many extraordinary features. Of the 150 bishops 
 
 that met, not one was from the West ; its first president, Meletius 
 of Antioch, was not even in communion with Rome. And 
 much uncertainty attaches to its' actual proceedings. Never- 
 theless its authority is undoubted, owing to the subsequent 
 leception of its decisions by the whole Church. 
 
 It is easier to say what work lay before the council than to 
 estimate what it actually did. There were questions both 
 personal and doctrinal. Under the first head comes the election 
 of a bishop for Constantinople, and the ending of the schism 
 of Antioch, where two rival Catholic bishops were in occupation, 
 the saintly and popular Meletius supported by the East, and 
 Paulinus whom Rome and the West recognised. The doctrinal 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLICISM 
 
 247 
 
 questions included the claim of the Niccne Creed to be the one 
 creed of Catholicism, and the consideration of the heresies of 
 Macedonius on the Holy Spirit, and ApoUinaris on the humanity 
 of our Lord. 
 
 This latter heresy needs explanation. Its assumed author 
 was ApoUinaris, Bishop of Laodicea, a man of great learning, 
 who had fought vigorously against the Arians, Aponinari- 
 and was a friend of Athanasius and other leading anism. 
 Catholics. But in his over-zeal to emphasise the true divinity 
 of Jesus Christ, he fell into, and obstinately maintained, an error 
 as to His humanity. Taking the usual philosophical division 
 of human nature (which S. Paul also emplo^^s) into body, soul, 
 and spirit, he maintained that in the Incarnation the Divine 
 Logos took the place of ' spirit,' the rational and religious part of 
 our being, so that while Jesus Christ had a true human body and 
 an animal soul (i.e. the life which man shares with the animals), 
 He had no human ' spirit.' This error seems to connect on one 
 hand with the earlier Docetism, and on the other with the 
 Monophysite heresy of later days. And by a curious irony 
 it seems to have resembled the teaching of Arius — a remark- 
 able instance of extremes meeting. But it was not a mere 
 philosophical error — ^it was pregnant with vast religious issues. 
 If Christ was what ApoUinaris taught, He was certainly not 
 perfect man ; the Incarnation did not touch the highest part 
 of our nature. It substituted something else for it. The 
 Christ of ApoUinaris was a new sort of being, a fusion of God 
 and man, God clothing himself with part only of our nature. 
 To ApoUinaris himself the Catholic teaching seemed to imply 
 a division of Christ into two persons, a human and a divine. 
 Nevertheless, nothing but this Catholic teaching of two whole 
 and perfect natures indissolubly united in one Divine Personality 
 will either satisfy the witnes- of Scripture, or provide a real 
 redemption for all sides of our nature. And the fact that 
 ApoUinaris seemed to have clung to his error after the Church 
 had definitely pronounced against it justifies us in speaking of 
 h'm as a heresiarch, and not as a mere speculator. 
 
 S. Gregory of Nyssa preached the sermon at the opening" of 
 
 > 11 
 
248 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 the council, presented to it part of his treatise against Eunomius, 
 and throughout its proceedings exerted great influence. It 
 has been said that there was never a council of the Church at 
 which so many saints and confessors sat as at this. To deal 
 first with the personal problems. As to the see of Constantinople, 
 the consecration of Maximus the Cynic was declared null and 
 void; Demophilus was gone, and S. Gregory of Nazianzus, 
 much against his will, was placed on the vacant throne. 
 
 With regard to Antioch, it is said that a compromise had 
 already been arranged by the clergy of the city that Meletius 
 The Schism should be recognised by all CathoHcs, but that 
 at Antioch. Paulinus if he survived should succeed him. But 
 before the council could decide, Meletius himself, to the grief 
 of all, died suddenly. He was counted by all men as a saint, 
 and, though he died out of communion with Rome, his name 
 stands in the Roman calendar of Saints (Feb. 12). With the 
 Antiochenes he was so popular that they carried his portrait on 
 their rings, and put it even on the walls of their bedrooms. 
 Strangely enough, the council refused to ratify the arrangement 
 which he had apparently approved that PauHnus should succeed, 
 and they actually perpetuated the schism by electing Flavian. 
 The only explanation of this conduct seems to be jealousy or 
 mistrust of the West. PauHnus was the candidate favoured by 
 the Pope and the Western Church, and had been supported by 
 them against Meletius, and so the council would have none of 
 him. 
 
 • S. Gregory Nazianzen, who was now president of the council, 
 was much distressed at this failure to end a schism; and 
 Retirement presently his sorrow was added to by a personal 
 of S.Gregory, attack. The Bishops of Egypt who arrived late 
 at the council protested against his election to Constantinople 
 on the ground that he was already Bishop of Sasima, and a 
 Nicene canon had forbidden translations. Gregory was not 
 the man to stand up against this sort of thing. He was too 
 sensitive. He determined to resign his new dignity at once, 
 and be, as he said, the Jonah to still the storm. He put the crown 
 on his life's eloquence by his celebrated ' Farewell Discourse ' 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLICISM 
 
 249 
 
 (Orat. xxxii.), an apologia pro vita sua as far as his work 
 at Constantinople was concerned, and ending with a most 
 moving and affectionate farewell to the Anastasis, to the Church 
 and city, to his own disciples and hearers, and to the invisible 
 witnesses of his sojourn among them, the angel guardians of 
 the Church. There is the ring of sincerity throughout, which 
 redeems what might be thought an excess of personal effusions. 
 ' Farewell,' he cries, * my throne, envied and perilous height . . . 
 Farewell, Emperors and palace and ministers, and household 
 of the Emperor — whether faithful or not to him, I know not, 
 but for the most part unfaithful to God. . . . Farewell, mighty 
 Christ-loving city, though thy zeal be not according to know- 
 ledge ; be converted at this late hour. . . . Farewell, East and 
 West, for whom and against whom I have had to fight ; He is 
 witness, who will give you peace, if but a few would imitate my 
 retirement.' He retired to Cappadocia, where he spent the 
 last ten years of his life in seclusion, prayer, and writing — 
 composing, among other poems, an autobiogi'aphy in verse. 
 ' His only luxuries were a fountain and a garden.' He was 
 often in great bodily pain and spiritual desolation, but he died 
 as he had lived, a saint. Even Gibbon is compelled to give 
 an unwonted tribute to his memory ; he speaks of ' the tenderness 
 of his heart and the elegance of his genius.' 
 
 The council, at the Emperor's suggestion, now took the ex- 
 traordinary step of electing and consecrating to the see a layman, 
 not even baptized as yet — Nectarius, the * praetor * 
 of the city. He seems to have made a dignified 
 but somewhat colourless bishop. One so uninformed and un- 
 experienced was scarcely the man either to succeed Gregory, or 
 to build up the desolations of a Church which had so long been 
 under Arian rule. 
 
 The question of the doctrinal work of the council is difficult 
 to decide. It is quite certain, however, that its assembled 
 bishops (i) confirmed the Nicene Creed, (2) anathe- Doctrinal 
 matised not only thp older errors of SabelUus and work of con- 
 Arius, but the new ones of Macedonius and Apolli- stantlnople. 
 naris. Did they go further than this ? The answers given by 
 
 Nectarius. 
 
 ' II 
 
250 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 historians vary widely. It has generaUy been assumed that 
 they also put forth that longer confession of faith which is 
 now used throughout Christendom as the Nicene Creed. This 
 confession was certainly read and confirmed at the Fourth 
 Oecumenical Council, at Chalcedon in 451, as 'the Creed of 
 Constantinople ' ; but there was no allusion to it at the Third 
 Council, at Ephesus in 431. Again, it has been commonly 
 thought that this longer form of the Creed was due simply to 
 the addition of various clauses in the second and third sections- 
 first, to emphasise the manhood of Christ and the reality of 
 His Incarnation, and secondly, to bear witness to the Divinity 
 and the work of the Holy Spirit. (Compare carefully the 
 present Creed with the original Nicene Creed given on p. 199.) 
 It has even been asserted that S. Gregory of Nyssa was the 
 author of these additions. 
 
 But modem historians have practically decided that this 
 enlarged Creed, whether put forth at Constantinople or not, 
 The Creed of is not really the Nicene Creed at all, but the Creed 
 Jerusalem. of Jerusalem as preserved by Epiphanius in his 
 Ancoratiis. How this came to be substituted all over the Church 
 for the Creed of Nicaea is a mystery : though it need not disquiet 
 us. The key- word of Nicaea was of course homoousios, and 
 this occurs in both Creeds. Moreover, the Creed as we now 
 have it possesses at least the oecumenical sanction of Chalcedon, 
 and also the general acceptance of the Church, with the ex- 
 ception of the Filioqm Clause, which will be dealt with later. 
 
 The council also passed two canons with regard to the juris- 
 diction of bishops, and the independence of metropoHtans, 
 Canons. notable because it is laid down that the Bishop 
 
 of Constantinople is to have the next place in 
 honour to the Bishop of Rome, ' because Const antinoi)le is new 
 Rome.' 
 
 Whatever difficulties surround the history of the Second 
 Council, it is indisputable that it marks the end of Arianism 
 CoUapse of in the East as a competitor with the Catholic 
 Arianism. Faith. The Catholics had conquered, not merely 
 by their deeper theological learning, or their eloquence, but by 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLICISM 
 
 251 
 
 their sufferings, and above all by their personal devotion to the 
 Master and the spirituality and sincerity of their religion. 
 
 A similar downfall came for Arianism in the West in the same 
 year, 381. A council at Aquileia, presided over by S. Ambrose, 
 at which the Pope was not even represented, condemned the 
 teaching of Arius, and deposed two Arian bishops from Dacia 
 who had appealed to Gratian to be tried by an oecumenical 
 council. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. Describe the events leading to the end of semi- Arianism. 
 
 2. Describe the persecution of Valens. 
 
 3. yVhat do you know of Pope Damasus ? 
 
 4. Give a sketch of the Hfe of S. Basil. 
 
 5. What were the permanent features of his work? 
 
 6. Describe the colHsion between S. Basil and Valens. 
 
 7. Who was S. Gregory of Nyssa ? 
 
 8. What was the influence of S. Gregory of Nazianzus in the Arian 
 struggle ? 
 
 9. What is Apollinarianism ? 
 
 10. Describe the Second Gicumenical Council. 
 
 11. What was the doctrinal work of this council ? 
 
 12. What is the relation of our present 'Nicene Creed' to the 
 original Creed of Nicaea? 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. S. Basil. 
 
 Duchesne. Early History of the Church, ii. 
 
 Bright. Wayjuarks in Church History. 
 
 ' S. Basil ' in Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 
 
 2. S. Gregory of Nazianzus. 
 
 Duchesne. Early History of the Church, ii. 
 
 'S. Gregory' in Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Father . 
 
 3. The development of the Nicene Creed. 
 
 Burn. Introduction to the Creeds. 
 Gibson. The Three Creeds, 
 
 '! 
 
 r 
 
 I <i 
 
 I I 
 
 i' 
 
 i 
 
THE WEST : S. AMBROSE AND S. AUGUSTINE 253 
 
 CHAPTER XX. THE WEST : S. AMBROSE 
 
 AND S. AUGUSTINE 
 
 The most prominent figure in the West during the last quarter 
 of the fourth century is undoubtedly S. Ambrose. His election 
 Ambrose to the bishopric of Milan (now a rival of Rome, 
 
 bishop. as one of the seats of imperial residence) was un- 
 
 expected and picturesque. He belonged to a noble Roman 
 family, which had long been Christian ; his father had held 
 high military office in Gaul, and lie himself in 374 was governor 
 of Aemiha-Liguria. He was in the cathedral of Milan on the 
 day when the Christians had assembled to elect a successor, 
 at the Emperor^s bidding, to the Arian Auxentius. He had 
 just been exhorting the crowd to keep order, when a child's 
 voice raised the cry, ' Ambrose Bishop ! ' It was taken up 
 all over the cathedral, as if it were a divine omen. Ambrose 
 was only 34, and not yet baptized ; he tried for several days 
 to escape the greatness which was being thrust upon him, but 
 in vain. He was baptized and consecrated, and for the present 
 applied himself to the study of theology. In the coming years 
 he was to prove himself both the great defender of the Catholic 
 Faith in the West, the champion of the Church against the 
 imperial power, and the greatest force of his time for righteous- 
 ness. And as to sacred learning the common consent of the 
 Church has placed him as one of the four great Latin Fathers. 
 
 The secular history of the Empire may now be briefly 
 summarised. Gratian in the West was a sincere supporter 
 Qratian. ^^ Catholicism, and he was especially anxious to 
 
 put down pagan worship and customs, which hitherto 
 had been treated very tenderly by Christian Emperors. He 
 dropped the title of Pontifex Maximus, and he took the significant 
 step of ordering the removal from the Senate-house of the Altar 
 
 of Victory. Symmachus, the leader of the pagan senators, 
 one of the most eloquent men of his time, protested, but to no 
 efect. S. Ambrose advised Gratian to stand firm. Gratian's 
 life was cut short in 383, at the early age of twenty-five. The 
 troops in Britain rebelled and proclaimed Maxunus Emperor. 
 Gratian was defeated by him at Paris, and assassinated at Lyons 
 by his own soldiers. 
 
 The natural successor of Gratian was his younger brother, 
 Valentinian 11., who was under the tutelage of his mother, 
 Justina, an Arian. Maximus consented, at the justina 
 courageous intercession of S. Ambrose, to leave champions 
 Italy to them. But Justina made a sorry return theArians. 
 to the bishop. She began to agitate in favour of the Arians. 
 At Milan she demanded the use of churches for them, and when 
 Ambrose refused, she sent soldiers to seize one, and hang up the 
 imperial banners. The Christian populace of Milan were entirely 
 on the side of Ambrose, and he had to use his influence to re- 
 strain them from violence. The next day even the soldiers 
 who had been sent to seize the church crowded in to worship, 
 and while Ambrose was preaching the news came that the banners 
 were being taken down. The bishop remained all day in his 
 church, singing psalms with the faithful worshippers. Finally, 
 the imperial soldiers that were surrounding the church were 
 withdrawn, and victory remained with the bishop. 
 
 The next year Justina's attack was renewed. Ambrose was 
 summoned to plead his cause against an Arian bishop and 
 before a secular court. He refused, and said, ' The Ambrose 
 Emperor is within the Church, but not above it.' triumphs. 
 The laity of Milan kept watch and ward for days round their 
 bishop, who encouraged them by preaching and by giving 
 them hymns of his own composition to sing, in honour of the 
 Trinity. Their enthusiasm was also supported by the discovery, 
 as it was believed, of the relics of two early martyrs, Gervasius 
 and Protasius, by which many miracles were performed. These 
 scenes have been described by S. Augustine (Conf. ix.), who 
 shortly afterwards received baptism in Milan from S. Ambrose. 
 Ambrose and his churches were henceforth left undisturbed, 
 
 :! 
 
254 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 and in 387 the Empress and^ her son had again to ask for his 
 intercession. Maximus had invaded Italy. But the appeal 
 of the bishop was this time unsuccessful : the two rulers of Italy 
 fled to Thessalonica, and threw themselves on the protection 
 of Theodosius. The latter married the sister of Valentinian, 
 marched against Maximus and overthrew him. After spending 
 some tune in Milan, he entered Rome in 389 in triumph and 
 restored Valentinian. Before this Justina had died, and the 
 dymg Anan cause in the West lost its chief supporter. 
 
 Before describing the relations of S. Ambrose and Theodosius 
 two other events in the West claim notice. In 384, on the death 
 Tne decretal of Damasus, Siricius succeeded to the papal chair 
 ofSiricius. He distinguished himself not only by his zeal 
 agamst heresy but by his high belief in the prerogative of his 
 see. One of his first acts was to issue a decretal (the first 
 undisputedly genuine on record), uddressi:d to a Spanish 
 bishop in answer to questions, but intended to apply to the 
 whole Church, at any rate in the West. It is very much in the 
 style of an imperial ' rescript/ which, thougli addressed to a 
 provmcial governor, had the force of law for the Empire Siricius 
 bases his authority dehberately on the fact that he b the in- 
 hentor of the power of S. Peter, and that the Roman see is the 
 rock on which Christ buUt His ChurclL The m«st remarkable 
 pronouncement in this decretal is that which ahsohitcly forbids 
 the clergy to be married men or Uvc with a wife. Undoubtedly 
 there had been for long a strong fcchng in the Cliujch in favour 
 of clencal cehbacy, but the custom was by no means universaUy 
 observed, especiaUy in Spain. It will be remembered that tl)e 
 Council of Nicaea had dechned to legfalate on the matter. But 
 the command of Smcius was peremptor>\ Tliose clei^y who 
 m the past have Uved with a wife must separate from her. and 
 wiU not be aUowed to proceed to any higher office in the Church : 
 those who are contumacious are to be degraded from their 
 office ' by the authority of the apostolic see/ It was many 
 centuries, however, before Rome stiececdcd in making this rule 
 observed, even in the letter; and its result, in the Middle Ages 
 at least, was only to substitute concubinage for marriage. In 
 
 PriscUlian. 
 
 THE WEST : S. AMBROSE AND S. AUGUSTINE 255 
 
 the Eastern Church no such rule obtains — except in the case 
 of bishops. Parish priests not only may but must marry before 
 ordination. 
 
 During these latter years of the fourth century a new form of 
 heresy, called PrisciUianism, began to be prominent in Spain. 
 It was a sort of revival of Gnosticism in its ascetic 
 lorm. PrisciUian was a man of wealth and briUiant 
 ^fts, but with a leaning to the occult sciences and astrology. 
 He gathered round him a great number of enthusiasts. It is 
 difficult to estabhsh any definite charge of heresy in doctrine 
 against him, except that he appears to have grounded his ex- 
 treme asceticism on the old theory of the evil of matter. But 
 the secrecy of the new movement, its use of apocryphal books, 
 and its cxtravaguuce^ in self-discipline laid it under a probably 
 wcll-dcscrvcd suspicion. Wliether tlie charges of immorality 
 and falsehood weie true, it b diHicult to decide. But the 
 l^sciUianists were anedited wtli teaching that lying might 
 even be a virtue, and with practising witchcraft and astrology. 
 A melancholy imi>ortanoe attaches to the attack made upon 
 them by sundry ortliodox bishops. For the first time the 
 penalty of death for heretics was demanded and obtained. 
 The Emperor Maximus was strongly influenced against them, 
 and a secular court at Treves tried, tortured, and executed 
 Prisdllian and six of hfe follower*, and banished and fined others 
 This severity failed to extirpate the movement, PriscUlian 
 was counted as a martyr luid his followers long survived. A 
 more pleasing side to the picture is the fact that Pope Siricius, 
 S Ambrose, and S. Martin of Tours protested indignantly against 
 this shcddii>g of blood for religion, and refused communion 
 with the bishopt^ who had urged tin* Emp<Tor to it. 
 
 Theodosius. Emi)eror of the East, was a sincere Christian 
 and a man of liigh character, thoi^gh of violent passions. He 
 liad been endeavouring smoe jKi to al>oli$h puguniiiin -niooiioeitti 
 in his dominions, and he had destroyed many and 
 famous temples, especially the Serapeum, the AD»t.rojic 
 temple of Serapb, at Alexandria, on whidi was supposed to 
 depend the annual overllowiug of the Nile and the harvests of 
 
 :j 
 
256 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Egypt— nay, the very existence of the world. It was a bold step 
 to destroy it, but the image fell beneath the axes of the soldiers. 
 The only portent was the escape from the recesses of the idol 
 of a host of mice. Heaven and earth remained as they were, 
 and the Nile overflowed more plentifully than usual. The 
 entry of Theodosius into the West and his stay at Milan brought 
 him to close quarters and indeed to conflicts with S. Ambrose. 
 But their quarrel was clearly not that of a worldly-minded or 
 non-Christian ruler with the representative of the Church. 
 Theodosius was no Const antius or Julian, nor was Ambrose a 
 mere ecclesiastic fighting for his order or his dignity. The two 
 were worthy representatives of two principles or two types of 
 authority, and while the moral and spiritual triumphed in S. 
 Ambrose, the way in which the secular ruler took his defeats 
 shows him as great a man as his opponent. For example, 
 Theodoret tells the story how, when Theodosius came to Milan 
 and attended Mass, he remained within the sanctuary, as the 
 custom was at Constantinople, after making his offering, as he 
 intended to communicate. But such was not the Milanese 
 custom ; the sanctuary was strictly reserved for the clergy, 
 and Ambrose sent word to Theodosius to retire to the place of 
 the laity. The Emperor obeyed, and afterwards acknowledged 
 the custom as right, saying to Nectarius of Constantinople when 
 he returned, ' I have now learned the difference between a 
 Prince and a Bishop ! ' 
 
 Two protests of S. Ambrose on public matters are recorded ; 
 both are picturesque and courageous, and one certainly was 
 entirely worthy of the representative of Christ. On the first 
 occasion perhaps the ecclesiastic showed himself too little tolerant 
 of the rights of others. Somewhere in the East, Christian monks 
 had violently destroyed a synagogue and a Gnostic meeting- 
 house. Theodosius ordered the bishop to rebuild them and 
 the monks to be punished. Ambrose, first by letter and then 
 in a sermon, pleaded against this decision : following up the 
 sermon by refusing to celebrate the Eucharist unless the sentence 
 was revoked. The Emperor admitted it was too severe, and 
 with some reluctance withdrew it. 
 
 THE WEST : S. AMBROSE AND S. AUGUSTINE 257 
 
 In 390, the populace of Thessalonica in a riot murdered 
 the military commander and several of his oflicers. Theodosius 
 was roused to fury. Three years before he had The penance 
 pardoned the people of Antioch, at the intercession of Theodo- 
 of Bishop Flavian, for an insult done to his own ^^^s. 
 statue and that of his dead wife. But this time he inflicted 
 a punishment out of all proportion to the offence. Soldiers 
 at his command were introduced by stealth into the theatre, 
 and a general massacre ensued, in which more than 7000 of 
 the populace were slain. Ambrose wrote an indignant letter 
 to Theodosius, urging him to repentance, and forbidding him 
 till then to be present at the Eucharist. Eight months elapsed, 
 and then the Emperor appeared at the church door on Christ- 
 mas Day, intending to communicate. Ambrose shut the door 
 against him until he had done penance, lying on the floor in 
 sackcloth, like any other grievous offender against righteousness. 
 Ambrose also made him promise that in future no capital sentence 
 should be carried out until thirty days had passed. 
 
 In 391, Valentinian 11. was overthrown and murdered by 
 
 Arbogastes, his Prankish general, a heathen, who placed on 
 
 the throne of the West one Eugenius, a puppet Theodosius 
 
 of his own. Valentinian died unbaptized, though sole 
 
 earnestly desiring baptism, which Ambrose was Emperor. 
 
 hastening to him to administer. Ambrose preached the funeral 
 
 sermon on the dead Emperor, extolling his piety, and suggesting 
 
 that his death might even be counted as martyrdom and atone 
 
 for the lack of baptism. In 394, Theodosius invaded the West, 
 
 and met Eugenius in battle at Aquileia. Once more the banners 
 
 of the heathen gods, of Jupiter and Hercules, confronted the Cross. 
 
 The odds were against Theodosius, but he refused to give way. 
 
 The issue was almost miraculous. A blinding storm beat in the 
 
 faces of his opponents, who were utterly defeated. ' The stars in 
 
 their courses ' seemed to be fighting for Theodosius. Even the 
 
 heathen poet Claudian confessed him the favourite of heaven. 
 
 'O favoured child of God, upon whose side 
 Aeolus pours forth embattled storms 
 From caverns dark : the welkin fights for thee, 
 And to thy bugles haste confederate winds.' 
 
i 
 
 258 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 A few months later, and Theodosius, now sole Emperor, was 
 dead himself. His two sons, Arcadius in the East, and Honorius 
 in the West, divided the Empire, which was never again to be 
 united in its old extent under one master. 
 
 S. Ambrose survived the great Christian Emperor little more 
 than two years. He died on Good Friday, 397, engaged almost 
 to the end in dictating an exposition of the Psalms. The Bishop 
 of Vercellae, who had lain down to rest near him, heard a super- 
 natural voice saying, ' Rise quickly, he is ready to go.' He 
 rose and gave him the Viaticum, and the saint immediately 
 breathed his last. He was buried in the presence of vast crowds 
 of mourners in the Ambrosian Basilica at Milan on Easter Day. 
 
 Ambrose was a bom ruler of men, brave, tactful, just, with 
 all the Roman largeness of view and grasp of administration. 
 Character Christian faith and self discipline elevated these 
 and work of gifts of nature and training into a power that 
 s. Ambrose, seemed supernatural. His biographer, Paulinus, 
 justly says that for the fear of God Ambrose never feared to 
 speak the truth to kings. His theological writings borrowed 
 considerably from other authors ; they are rigidly orthodox, 
 but thoroughly practical, as for example, his treatise on the 
 Duties of the Clergy. In expounding: Scripture he inclined to 
 the mystical rather than the literal interj)rftation ; but he 
 showed a clear grasp of the connection of Old Testament and 
 New Testament. Compare his famous saying. ' The shadow is in 
 the Law, the image in the Gospel, the reality in Heaven.' But 
 his special gift lay in preaching. He ranks as the first really 
 great preacher in the Latin tongue ; and, as in the case with 
 all preachers of power, his personaHty and his moi;d earnestness 
 impressed as much as or more than his words. His most dis- 
 tinguished convert, greater even than himself, was S. Augustine 
 {Conf. vi.). S. Ambrose was also the first of the long line of 
 hymn-writers of the Western Church. Some of his hymns 
 sur\ave and are still popular, as e.g. * Splendor |Xilernae gloriae ^ 
 (Hymns A. and M. 2). * Deus Creator Omnium ' (tJ. 83), ' O 
 Lux bcata Trinitas ' (ift. 14), * Vcni Rcdemptor G^tium * {ib. 
 55). His h>inns were written in a classical mtMn-, in pure 
 
 THE WEST : S. AMBROSE AND S. AUGUSTINE 259 
 
 and harmonious Latin verse. They are marked by all the 
 characteristics of the best hymns of the ancient Church ; terse 
 and luminous statement of doctrine; the absence of subjectivity 
 or sentunentalism ; sober devotion, stateliness, and a prevailing 
 note of praise. 
 
 From S. Ambrose we pass naturally to his illustrious convert 
 S. Augustine, the best known and greatest of the Latin Fathers ; 
 one who has deeply impressed his personality and s. Augus- 
 his theology upon all the subsequent history of tine's early 
 Western Christianity. His early life and his ^i^e- 
 spiritual history he has described himself in one of the most 
 fascinating books of religious autobiography in the world, 
 his Confessiom. Here wc niay read of the way>%*ard boyhood 
 and the sinful youth ; the pride of a brilliant intellect, which, 
 although he had been ujadc a catechumen of the Churdi, led 
 him wandering for nine years in Manicliaean heiresy ; the long 
 unanswered prayers of the holy Monica, liis mother ; his migra- 
 tion to Italy and his coanii^ under tl>e influence of S, Ambrose ; 
 the ebb and Hmv of the struggk between self-will and th»^ Divmc 
 call ; and then the great scene under tJje fig-trce in the garden 
 of Milan, when the voice, ' ToUc. lege ' (* take up and read *) 
 led him to read and obey S. Paul's words, ' Not in rioting and 
 dninkenness ... but put ye on the Lcwxi Jesus Christ * (Rom. 
 xii.). He was baptiiicd on ICaster Eve. 387, by S. Ambrose, at 
 tlie age of thirty-three. His mothers death occurred some 
 few weeks aftcnvards. In one of the most wonderful passages 
 in literature {Con/, ix.) he describes hk last conversation with 
 her at 0,stia, in which they seemed to soar alxDve all created 
 existence, and apprehend the mystic vision itself, the ultimate 
 reality, ami for a moment to enter even into eternal life, and 
 taste • the joy of the Tx)rd.' 
 
 After his mother's burial at Ostia. he returned to Africa, 
 wlierc he became a priest, and in 395 Bisliop of Hippo Regius 
 He was great as a preacher, as a ruler, and as a 
 theologian ; a restorer of the schism-torn African ^"^^^•^•* 
 Church, and a defender of the faith against hcrcsj'. The most 
 memorable of his writings, next to the Confcs$wHS, is his l>ook 
 
 I 
 
 ■*•* 
 
'I 
 
 Controversy. 
 
 260 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 de Civitate Dei. It was prompted by the attacks of the heathen, 
 who were ascribing the disasters which had begun to fall on 
 the Roman Empire to the Christians, for persuading men to 
 forsake the ancient gods. His reply is constructive. In contrast 
 with the decaying pagan world, he elaborates the picture of the 
 eternal city of God, the Church, which will outlast time and 
 change and attain ' final victory and perfect peace.' As a 
 commentator Augustine suffers through his ignorance of Greek 
 and Hebrew, and his fondness for elaborate allegorising. His 
 sermons are remarkable for their vivid and epigrammatic terse- 
 ness, their teaching power, and the flashes of genius which 
 sometimes expound a mystery in a single phrase. 
 
 But the larger part of S. Augustine's work lay in the field of 
 controversy. He had the Donatists all around him ; the Mani- 
 chaeans he had known by his own experience as 
 one ensnared by them ; and a new form of error, 
 Pelagianism, presented itself in the course of his episcopate. 
 Augustine's own history and the leading principles of his thought 
 seemed to render him peculiarly fitted for dealing with each 
 of these three. To the Donatist narrowness he could oppose 
 his own magnificent conception of the meaning of the Church ; 
 to the Manichaeans his deep reverence for the sovereignty and 
 supremacy of the one God ; while the convictions of his own 
 spiritual experience made him pre-eminently the * Doctor of 
 Grace,' in contrast with the Pelagians, who exalted man's self- 
 sufficiency. 
 
 These three lines of controversy may now be sketched in 
 rather more detail. The early history of Donatism has already 
 been described (p. i79).\TTn Augustine's time its 
 adherents were still nurrterous and troublesome. 
 He wrote against them at great length ; his leading argument 
 being the true nature of the Church. The Donatists asserted 
 that the Church could only be where there was holiness. As 
 usual with bigots, they constituted themselves the judges of 
 what is holiness and where it is to be found. They unchurched 
 the rest of Christendom and proclaimed their schism the only 
 Church. To Augustine the Church does not appear and dis- 
 
 THE WEST : S. AMBROSE AND S. AUGUSTINE 261 
 
 appear with the comparative hoHness of her members. She is 
 a Divine institution that can never wholly fail ; a continuous 
 Divine society descending by unbroken succession from the 
 Apostles. She is the ark secure amid the waves of the world 
 and within her alone is salvation. And to the insolent Donatist 
 claim to be alone the Church, Augustine has an answer in the 
 one sentence which so profoundly influenced J. H. Newman, 
 Securus judical orbis terrarum — * the whole (Christian) world 
 judges, without fear of contradiction.' Donatism, however, 
 was not to be put down altogether by argument. An imperial 
 commissioner at a Council of Carthage in 410 heard both sides, 
 gave judgment against the Donatists, and ordered all their 
 bishops (nearly 300) to return to the Catholic Church. This 
 was confirmed by the Emperor in 412. At first there was a 
 new outburst of fury from the Circumcelliones, which was followed 
 by severe decrees of confiscation and exile. Augustine, though 
 he had been prominent in the council, and approved of strong 
 measures, endeavoured to save the Donatists from the worst 
 results of their obstinacy. The struggle does not seem to have 
 lasted long. Donatism, apparently still strong, collapsed. Its 
 vitality was really gone ; the arguments of Augustine and the 
 Catholics told with many of its adherents, and others had no 
 stomach for martyrdom. The schism died out practically 
 soon after this time, though there were Donatists left in North 
 Africa until even Christianity itself was extirpated by the 
 invasion of the Mohammedans. \ 
 
 Manichaeism was a foe of^ very different order. It was a 
 non-Christian religion, which claimed to be universal. Its 
 founder, Mani, or Manes, was a Persian nobleman 
 who began to teach in the latter part of the third 
 century, the time when the pagan reHgions were making their 
 final and most combined attack on Christianity. It resembled 
 in some ways the Gnostic systems, in its elaborate mythology, 
 its condemnation of the Old Testament, its employment of 
 Christian phrases in non-Christian senses. But it differed from 
 ordinary Gnosticism in its attitude towards the historic Jesus, 
 whom it regarded as a Jewish false Messiah, whose instigator 
 
 Manicliaeism. 
 
262 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 was the devil. The central principle of Manichaeism was 
 dualism, the theory of two eternal and opposing principles in the 
 universe, one good and the other evil : matter belonged to 
 the latter class ; man was a compound of both. Hence it 
 followed that sin was not really sin, because it sprang from the 
 inherent evil dwelling in the flesh, and not merely from a per- 
 verted will. The Manichaean Christ (not the historic Jesus) 
 was an aeon, the champion of Adam against Eve and Satan. 
 There was no Incarnation, for none was possible on Manichaean 
 principles. The founder was crucified in Persia, and his teach- 
 ing fell early under the condemnation of Rome. Diocletian 
 forbade it under the severest penalties. Nevertheless it gained 
 a wide vogue. Its followers formed a highly organised society, 
 with bishops, a ritual and sacraments. But the higher mysteries 
 were kept very secret, and reserved for initiates, called ' the 
 elect.' These alone were able to maintain the ideal asceticism 
 of tlie religion, which forbade animal food, wine, and marriage, 
 and only allowed vegetables if some one else gathered them ! 
 The rank and file were allowed to hve much as they pleased, pro- 
 vided they ministered to the elect. It followed that Manichaeism 
 had no moral force, and only promoted speculation and vanity. 
 
 Against this system Augustine had to maintain that one 
 God is the author of all things, that all things in their essential 
 nature are good, that evil has no absolute existence, * sin is not 
 nature, but only a vice of nature,' and that the Incarnation has 
 sanctified man's nature and all creation. 
 
 Manichaeism proved a very persistent heresy. It is found 
 as late as the tenth century, and only disappeared to reappear 
 under other names, as in the Paulicians, who arose in the 
 East in the seventh century, and the later Albigenses and Cathari 
 of the West. 
 
 Pelagianism may more rightly be called a ' heresy,' arising 
 as it did within the Christian Church. Its leading principle 
 The Pelagian was the exaltation of man's nature and the denial 
 Controversy, of the necessity of grace. It was an error with 
 which Augustine was pecuHarly qualified to deal, and in his 
 controversy with it he made his most remarkable contributions 
 
 THE WEST : S. AMBROSE AND S. AUGUSTINE 263 
 
 to theology. Pelagianism was of Western origin. Its founders, 
 Pelagius and Celestius, were probably both Britons. The 
 former, a learned layman, appeared in Rome about the end of 
 the century, and in 410 he was in Africa. Thence he went to 
 Palestine, leaving Celestius behind, who was condemned by an 
 African synod in 412, and thus came under the notice of 
 Augustine. In 415, Pelagius was accused before a council 
 at Jerusalem of disparaging the need of Divine grace, and 
 asserting that man can live without sin. The proceedings 
 were unsatisfactory. The accuser was Orosius, a Spanish 
 priest and historian, sent by S. Augustine. He knew no Greek, 
 and the judges knew no Latin. Pelagius was a master of both, 
 and had also, it was said, bribed the interpreter. The council 
 was unable to come to a decision, and Orosius proposed to refer 
 the question to Innocent of Rome. A second council held in 
 the same year at Lydda pronounced Pelagius orthodox. The 
 African Church held two councils protesting against this 
 decision, and the matter was then referred by letter to Rome. 
 Innocent in 417 wrote to the Africans, making exalted claims 
 for the authority of his see, and pronounced the opinions of 
 Pelagius to be blasphemous and dangerous. 
 
 In the same year Pope Innocent died, and now Celestius, 
 who had been to Ephesus in the meantime and there been 
 ordained, appealed personally to his successor Zosimus. Both 
 he and Pelagius presented confessions of faith which were 
 studiously orthodox on the points which were not in dispute, 
 but slurred over the real questions at issue. Zosimus was de- 
 ceived, and wrote a letter of reproof to the Africans for being 
 over-hasty in their condemnation. But Augustine and the 
 Africans were not to be put down in this way. A great council 
 at Carthage in 418 confirmed the decision of Innocent, condemned 
 Pelagius, and wrote a protest to Zosimus. 
 
 Meanwhile, the matter had attracted imperial notice. A 
 decree was issued banishing both Pelagius and Celestius and all 
 their followers. This seems to have operated strongly with 
 Zosimus, who now faced about, condemned them both, con- 
 firmed the African decisions, and in a circular letter ordered all 
 
 '<W 
 
 If 
 
}' 
 
 264 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 bishops to abjure Pelagianism. Nineteen Italian bishops were 
 in consequence deposed ; including the distinguished Julian of 
 Eclanum, who proved himself a weighty opponent of Augustine. 
 The Pelagians made many attempts to get their orthodoxy 
 recognised, but in vain. The imperial authority, as well as the 
 general mind of the Church, was against them. They were con- 
 demned again at the oecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. 
 
 The connection of Pelagianism with the British Church is 
 interesting, because it marks one of the very few occasions 
 The British when that obscure and little known Christian 
 Church. ^ Church comes into some prominence. Though 
 Pelagius (a Grecised form of Morgan) was by birth a Briton, 
 he never apparently taught in his native island ; and it was 
 not due directly to him that his error began in the early fifth 
 century to attract followers there. Hitherto the British Church, 
 on the witness of Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Jerome, had 
 kept herself remarkably free from heresy ; Arianism had gained 
 little foothold. But now a Pelagian teacher, named Agricola, 
 began his campaign in Britain, gaining many adherents among 
 the wealthier laymen. The bishops appealed to the churches 
 of Gaul for their assistance, and two helpers were sent (whether 
 by a Galilean council or by Pope Celestine is not quite clear) 
 — Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus of Troyes. Their 
 mission was most successful. After preaching up and down 
 the country, they held an open debate with the chief Pelagians 
 at Verulam (S. Albans), and reduced them to silence by their 
 Scriptural arguments. 
 
 The influence these orthodox teachers had already gained 
 was strengthened in a remarkable way by the famous ' Alleluia 
 Victory.* The Picts and Saxons were invading North Wales, and 
 were met near Mold in Flintshire by a little army of Britons, 
 many of whom were recent converts to the preaching of Germanus 
 and Lupus. It was Eastertide, and these converts had just 
 received baptism. At the instruction of the two bishops, they 
 raised the Easter cry of * Alleluia ' as the heathen army rushed 
 to meet them in a narrow glen. Sudden terror struck the in- 
 vaders, and they turned and fled in confusion. The victory 
 
 Pelagianism. 
 
 THE WEST : S. AMBROSE AND S. AUGUSTINE 265 
 
 was won without striking a blow. This was in 430 ; seventeen 
 years later Germanus paid a second visit to Britain, accom- 
 panied by Severus of Treves, in order to root out whatever 
 remained of Pelagianism, and again apparently with complete 
 success. 
 
 There is something peculiarly ' modern ' in the spirit of the 
 teaching of Pelagius and his party. Pride in the dignity of 
 man, and the freedom of his will, combined with 
 a defective sense of sin, produced a type of error 
 which is always likely to recur, if not in formal teaching, at 
 least in a tone or attitude which is very different from that of 
 the Church. Pelagius is credited with having denied original 
 sin. Each human soul he held to be a direct creation of God, 
 and therefore pure and in the position of Adam before his fall. 
 There was no transmitted corruption, still less transmitted 
 guilt. Every man, like Adam, was perfectly free to choose 
 between good and evil. Adam set a bad example, but nothing 
 more. 
 
 Consequently the Pelagians denied the absolute necessity 
 of grace. It is difficult to be certain what the Pelagian doctrine 
 of grace really was. They had much to say about grace, but 
 apparently meant by it not what the Church means, the new 
 gift from God of power to choose and do His will, but rather 
 such external helps as are found in Christ's example, in the 
 reading of the Scriptures, and the Sacraments. Man's power 
 of free choice is the main thing, and grace only assists it. The 
 logical conclusion from all this (which, however, Pelagius stopped 
 short of) would be to deny the necessity of the Incarnation, or 
 of the Sacraments. But the general tendency of Pelagian 
 teaching is, in any case, towards spiritual pride and self-suf- 
 ficiency, and an irreverent attitude in regard to the great 
 mysteries of supernatural religion. 
 
 S. Augustine, on the other hand, had the congenial task 
 of maintaining the absolute supremacy of God as the giver 
 of aU grace, grace which is necessary (a) to originate Augustine's 
 man's desire to do God's will ; {b) to accompany arguments, 
 all his efforts and make them efficacious ; (c) to bring him to 
 
 I' 
 
II 
 
 m THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 perfection. In doing this Augustine was led, however, to dwell 
 too exclusively on the doctrine of predestination, and even to 
 go beyond the teachmg of Scripture on this difficult subject. 
 Several causes combined to produce this one-sided tendency 
 in Augustine's teaching : the force of controversy ; an over- 
 strained logic ; his own vivid sense of the over-mastering power 
 of God's call and God's grace in contrast with human weakness 
 of wiJl, as experienced in his own conversion ; perhaps, too, 
 as his opponents did not fail to insinuate, some unconscious 
 effects of his own Manichaean period. Augustine himself was 
 kept free from actual heresy by his grasp of the Catholic doctrine 
 of the visible Church and the Sacraments. But when these 
 were rejected, as by the Calvinists, the road to error was open. 
 Augustine's teaching on free will and predestination, while it 
 overthrew the Pelagians, laid the foundation for much false 
 doctrine, rebellion, and despair in centuries to come. 
 
 The Pelagian controversy raises another question, which was 
 to become more and more insistent as time went on. What 
 Position of was the position of the Bishop of Rome with regard 
 tiie Pope. to disputed points of doctrine ? We have the spec- 
 tacle of Innocent saying one thing and Zosimus another, and 
 the African Church again, as in the days of Cyprian, asserting 
 its independence, and calling a pope to book. Without doubt 
 very great deference was already being paid to the Roman 
 bishop. He was becoming gradually an arbiter not merely 
 in the West, but everywhere. He made exalted claims for his 
 authority ; and language was used by others which often seems 
 tc> re-echo and admit these claims. But in a real crisis, it is 
 pretty clear that the dicta of Rome were only accepted when 
 they were felt to be in harmony with the mind and the ancient 
 teaching of the Church. To quote the candid admission of 
 Duchesne, ' There was not a guiding power, an effective 
 expression of Christian unity. The papacy, such as the West 
 knew it later on, was still to be born.' 
 
 S. Augustine was apparently the last Bishop of Hippo. In 430 
 he was taken away from the evil to come. The Empire of the 
 West was in the throes of dissolution ; the Vandals were laying 
 
 THE WEST : S. AMBROSE AND S. AUGUSTINE 267 
 
 waste Africa and besieging Hippo. He died, as he had lived for 
 forty-three years, in the spirit of continual penitence, his eyes 
 fixed to the last on a copy of the penitential Death of 
 Psalms placed beside his bed. His greatest con- Augustine, 
 tribution to the history of the Church is after all not his theology, 
 nor his controversial powers, but his personal devotion. Tlie 
 medieval artists rightly drew him bearing not only staff and 
 book, but a heart on fire. One of the opening sentences of the 
 Confessions sums up his Christian experience, and is in itself 
 enough to immortalise him : ' Thou hast made us for Thyself, 
 and our heart is disquieted until it find rest in Thee. ' Augustine 
 worthily completes the great trio of African saints ; more humble 
 than TertuUian, more profound than Cyprian, he combines 
 the excellences of both. His death almost closes the great 
 chapter of the African Church ; which was itself soon to perish, 
 weakened by its own dissensions, before the invader. 
 
 There, too, unwearied Austin, thy keen gaze 
 On Atlas' steep, a thousand years and more 
 
 Dwells, waiting for the first rekindling rays, 
 When Truth upon the solitary shore 
 
 For the fallen West may light his beacon as of yore. 
 
 The immense influence that Christianity was exerting in this 
 period of political and social upheaval upon some of the finest 
 characters is illustrated in the life of S. Paulinus of Nola, the 
 admired friend of S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and S. Jerome. 
 Born in 353, very wealthy and occupying high dignities in the 
 State, a scholar and a poet, he was led about 392 to give himself 
 entirely to the religious life. He settled at Nola, of which 
 he became afterwards the bishop, and lived till his death (431) 
 the life of a monk, spending large sums on very practical good 
 works. He had a life-long devotion to the martyr S. Felix, 
 whose tomb was at Nola, and in honour of whom he erected 
 a magnificent new church, and wrote annually a poem for the 
 mart5T's festival. (See liis life written by the seventeenth 
 century poet, Henry Vaughan, and the article in the Dictionary 
 of Christian Biography.) 
 
 I • 
 
 I' 
 
 «'J 
 
268 Ttt£ HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. Describe the conflicts of S. Ambrose with the Arians. 
 
 2. What was the decretal of Siricius and its significance ? 
 
 3. What was Priscillianism ? 
 
 4. Describe the relations of S. Ambrose with Theodosius. 
 
 5. Estimate the character and influence of S. Ambrose. 
 
 & Sketch the life of S. Augustine previous to his conversion. 
 
 7. How was Donatism finally suppressed ? What contribution did 
 S. Augustine make to the controversy ? 
 
 8. Describe the principles of Manichaeism. 
 
 9. What was the Pelagian controversy, and how does S. Augustine 
 figure in it? 
 
 10. What do you know of the British Church at this period ? 
 
 11. Estimate the permanent influence of S. Augustine on the Church 
 in the West 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 S. Augustine — 
 
 De Civitate Dei^ translated in Ancient and Modem Theological 
 Library, and by S.P.C.K. 
 
 Confessions^ translated by Dr. Pusey. 
 
 Bright Lessons from the Lives of Three Great Fathers. 
 
 Milman. History of Latin Christianity, 
 
 Hodgkin. Italy and Her Invaders, 
 
 The British Church— 
 
 Bright Early English Church History, 
 Perry. English Church History, 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. S. JEROME AND S. CHRYSOSTOM 
 
 A contemporary of S. Augustine was Eusebius Hieronymus, 
 called usually in English, S. Jerome, and counted as the third 
 of the four great Latin Fathers. He was a man of great gifts 
 of intellect and utterance, and exercised a wide influence both 
 in his lifetime and afterwards, as a controversialist and a 
 promoter of asceticism, but most of all by his labours in the 
 study and the translation of the Scriptures. At the same time 
 it must be confessed that in disposition he is one of the least 
 pleasing of the fathers of the Church. Like Milton in later days, 
 he is a strange example of the combination in one person of the 
 narrow, bigoted, foul-mouthed disputer and the lofty-souled 
 teacher and seer ; a man who could toil and suffer for God, but 
 could not bridle his tongue, nor keep patience with his fellow - 
 
 men. 
 
 He was born in Dalmatia ; the date is uncertain, traditionally 
 347, but it may be as early as 330. His youth was spent in 
 Rome, where he received a liberal education, and Jerome's 
 where he fell, like Augustine, into evil courses. But, early life, 
 happier than Augustine, he was early converted and baptized. 
 His special bent for literature, especially Biblical study, and 
 for the ascetic life, showed itself almost at once. Leaving 
 Rome he made some stay in Gaul, where he produced his first 
 commentary, on Obadiah. Then for several years he lived 
 at Aquileia, surrounded by various student friends, of like mind. 
 In 374 he proceeded to the East, and after a time at Antioch 
 he plunged with all the eagerness of his nature into the hermit 
 life in the Syrian deserts. Here he lived for several years, in 
 great misery, starving himself and working with his hands. 
 But he went on with his studies and his writing, and made the 
 important advance of learning Hebrew from a converted Jew. 
 
 269 
 
 I 
 
 Ijif 
 
 lii I 
 
270 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Leaving the desert he returned to Antioch, where PauHnus, 
 against Jerome's wish, ordained him priest. In 380 he was 
 at Constantinople, a hearer and admirer of S. Gregory 
 Nazianzen. 
 
 From 382 to 385 he was again in Rome. This proved a 
 very important period of his Hfe, for he became intimate with 
 Prom Rome Pope Damasus, assisted him as a secretary, and 
 to Beth- at his request undertook to revise the existing 
 
 lehem. j ^tin versions of the Psalms and the New Testa- 
 
 ment. He also distinguished himself in Rome by his bitter 
 attacks on the vices of the city, and especially on the pride and 
 luxury of the clergy. He acted, too, as spiritual guide to a 
 number of devout ladies, whose friendship he retained through 
 life. Chief among these were Paula, a widow of high rank, 
 and her daughter Eustochium. After the death of Damasus, 
 Jerome, overwhelmed by the unpopularity his pen and tongue 
 had incurred, and out of temper with Rome, left the capital 
 never to return. Accompanied by Paula and Eustochium, 
 he established himself in the monastic hfe at Bethlehem. Here 
 he spent the remaining thirty-four years of his life, occupied 
 in unceasing Hterary labours, both worshipped and hated through- 
 out the Church, East and West. 
 
 Controversy was the very breath of his nostrils. The chief 
 disputes in which he engaged during these years of retire- 
 ment were (i) with the exponents of the re- 
 action against the excessive asceticism which 
 Jerome and his school were urging. Jovinian, a Roman monk, 
 denied the merit of fasting and celibacy, and the perpetual 
 virginity of Mary. In this connection must also be mentioned 
 Helvidius, a Roman lawyer, who maintained the heretical 
 belief that the ' brethren ' of our Lord were the actual children 
 of Mary. Jerome demolished Jovinian with a violent treatise 
 in two books, in which he scourged not only his opponent's 
 views, but his grammar. 
 
 A still more bitter tirade is that against Vigilantius, said to 
 have been written in a single night. Certainly it is a veritable 
 nightmare ofjvituperation. The unfortunate Vigilantius had 
 
 S. JEROME AND S. CHRYSOSTOM 
 
 271 
 
 Jovinian. 
 
 VigUantius. 
 
 protested against the veneration of the relics of the saints and 
 of the tombs of martyrs, as well as various other practices of 
 devotion. Jerome has some quite sufficient answers 
 to give to his opponent's censures, but it is diffi- 
 cult to distinguish these amid the torrents of personal abuse and 
 the vulgarities which stain the treatise. 
 
 (2) The Origenistic controversy ; a remarkable and com- 
 plicated affair which involved for a time practically the whole 
 Church. It is strange that such a controversy origenism 
 should have burned so hotly over the writings of and Ruflnus. 
 a teacher who had been dead for nearly a century and a half. 
 But the impression made by Origen seems to have grown with 
 time, and made both enthusiastic admirers and bitter enemies. 
 The leading features in Origen's speculations to which exception 
 was taken were his supposed minimising of the Godhead of 
 Christ (which had been prominent during the Arian troubles) ; 
 his excessive mysticism in the interpretation of Scripture, and 
 his eschatology. Jerome, like his friend Rufinus, had been in 
 youth a great admirer of Origen. But in the early part of his 
 retirement in Bethlehem he was induced to change his attitude, 
 through the influence first of Epiphanius of Salamis, who charged 
 John of Jerusalem with being 'an Origenistic heretic,' and 
 then of Theophilus of Alexandria. The result was a complete 
 estrangement between Jerome and Rufinus, and a bitter hfe- 
 long quarrel. Rufinus, who remained faithful to his devotion 
 to Origen, returned from Palestine to Rome in 397, and began 
 to translate the great master's works, and quoted Jerome as an 
 admirer of them. Jerome, fearful of being himself accused of 
 heresy, began to attack Rufinus unmercifully, and in spite of the 
 attempts of S. Augustine to reconcile the two, they remained 
 estranged, and even after Rufinus' death Jerome could stoop 
 to revile the memory of his dead friend, caUing him ' the buried 
 scorpion ' and ' the many-headed hydra which had now ceased 
 
 to hiss.' 
 
 (3) The Pelagian controversy. In this, too, Jerome took 
 a part, writing a dialogue against the Pelagians, a much milder 
 production than his other controversial works. He was not 
 
 ^\ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■A*«ttBi4^ 
 
272 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 S. JEROME AND S. CHRYSOSTOM 
 
 273 
 
 I' I 
 
 Pelagianisxa. 
 
 The Vulgate. 
 
 deeply interested in the matter, and, while holding Pelagius to 
 be a heretic, he did not go as far as Augustine in his pre- 
 destinarian views. Nevertheless, his attack brought 
 upon him the violence of the supporters of Pelagius. 
 The monasteries of Bethlehem were destroyed, and Jerome 
 himself was in danger of his life. 
 
 But the real title of Jerome to fame lies in his great Biblical 
 work. The Church of the West had as yet no uniform or accurate 
 version of the Scriptures, though several old Latin 
 translations were current. And for the Old Testa- 
 ment the only known original was the Septuagint. Jerome's 
 Hebrew knowledge, his critical powers, and his courage in under- 
 taking an unpopular task began a new era- in Bible study in 
 the West. His great version, ' the Vulgate,' still the authorised 
 Bible of the Roman Church, was begun at Rome and completed 
 at Bethlehem. While, of course, there are many inaccuracies 
 in his version of the Old Testament, he was on the right line 
 in going back to the original language. His version of the 
 New Testament, especially of the Gospels, is most correct and 
 valuable, as he had access to MSS. older than any we now possess. 
 His work met with singular opposition — though it was appre- 
 ciated by the great mind of S. Augustine. Christians at large 
 resented the alteration of familiar words and turns of expression. 
 He says hunself in his Preface to the Gospels : * It is a pious 
 task, but dangerous presumption— to change the tongue of old 
 age, and to bring back a world already grey-haired to the rudi- 
 ments of childhood. Who, whether learned or ignorant, taking 
 up the volume and finding that what he reads differs in taste 
 from that which he has once for all imbibed, will not forthwith 
 give tongue and call me a forger and a sacrilegious person, for 
 daring to add to, change, or correct, anythmg in the ancient 
 books ! ' Nevertheless, he persevered, and his work stands 
 as a monument of a scholar's industry, courage, and far-sighted 
 endeavours to benefit the Church. In a time of the dissolution 
 of society, and on the eve of a long period of intellectual darkness, 
 S. Jerome provided a correct text and a settled canon for the 
 Church's book. He distinguished between the Hebrew canon 
 
 and the Apocrypha, although in this the Roman Church has 
 not followed him. The Vulgate was generally received in the 
 West by the eighth century, and the Council of Trent pronounced 
 it ' authentic' The Reformation tended to disparage it, but 
 its merits have been increasingly recognised by modern 
 scholars. 
 
 Jerome was a great letter- writer, and in this way his personality 
 stands out vividly both in its defects and its greatnesses. His 
 methods of controversy were exaggerated and violent. He 
 is most intemperate in his advocacy of asceticism and ceHbacy, 
 and of other tendencies which in later times easily became 
 abuses and superstitions. His language about his opponents 
 was regarded even by his contemporaries as deplorable. His 
 temper was often unchristian, though it is fair to remember 
 that he probably did much to spoil it by ruining his health 
 through fasting and rigour. Nevertheless, there was a real 
 loftiness of purpose behind all his work. It was this rather 
 than his eccentricities which attracted so many friends, and 
 made liis verdict looked for and respected in Cliristendom. 
 His better spirit is seen in such words as these : * 1 beseech you, 
 Paula and Eustochium, pour out your prayers for me to the 
 Lord, that as long as I remain in this feeble body, I may write 
 something weU-pleasing to you, useful to the Church, and worthy 
 of posterity. As for the judgments of my contemporaries, I 
 am not much moved by them. They take sides, merely through 
 personal feeling, whether of love or of hate.' 
 
 The death of S. Ambrose in 397 was closely followed by that 
 of Nectarius of Constantinople. The episcopal throne of the 
 Eastern capital had long been filled by a succession s. cnryBos- 
 of Arians and nobodies, with the brief exception torn, 
 of S. Gregory Nazianzen. But now it was to receive one whom 
 succeeding ages have counted as one of the greatest of the 
 Greek Fathers, John Chrysostom, preacher, commentator, saint, 
 and martyr. Not called Uke S. Athanasius and the two Gregories 
 to be a champion of the faith at a time of acute controversy, 
 his greatness lies rather, like that of S. Ambrose, in being a 
 protagonist in the Church's witness for truth and righteousness 
 
 . 
 
Early life. 
 
 274 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 against a worldly court and a corrupt and nominal Christianity. 
 But, unlike S. Ambrose, he triumphed only by suffering and 
 death. 
 
 John, nicknamed ' Chrysostomos ' (golden-mouthed), was 
 born at Antioch in 347, and brought up as a Christian by 
 his widowed mother, Anthusa, a woman of power 
 as well as devotion. He studied under the great 
 heathen sophist Libanius, and won such a reputation for eloquence 
 that the master on his death-bed, when asked who should 
 succeed him, answered, ' John, had not the Christians stolen 
 him.' He was baptized about the year 370 by Meletius, and 
 resolved to abandon the career of an advocate, which promised 
 great worldly success, and to Hve the life of a Christian ascetic. 
 In deference to his mother's wishes he remained at home during 
 her hfetime, though practising there the strictest self-discipUne. 
 But in 374 he retired for four years into a monastic community, 
 and for two more lived as a hermit. He wore out his health 
 and strength in these austerities, and returned to Antioch, where 
 he was ordained priest, and began to win an extraordinary 
 reputation as a preacher. His power reached its highest during 
 the period of suspense when Antioch was waiting in terror to 
 know what judgment Theodosius was about to pass on the 
 city for the insults done to the statues of himself and his wife 
 (P- 257). John. seized the opportunity (March and April 387) 
 to preach his great course of sermons ' On the statues,' in 
 which he calmed the agonised citizens, and exhorted them to 
 repentance. He remained ten years longer at Antioch, during 
 which time he wrote the larger part of his commentaries on the 
 Scripture for preaching purposes, and also his famous treatise 
 on * The Priesthood.' 
 
 In 397, on the death of Nectarius, Eutropius, the unscrupulous 
 minister of the weak Emperor Arcadius. suggested to his master 
 Bishop of that the great preacher of Antioch should be called 
 constanti- to the see. To prevent either his own opposition 
 nopie. or that of the Antiochenes, John was secretly seized 
 
 and conveyed practically as a prisoner to Constantinople, and 
 consecrated, whether he willed it or not, by Theophilus of 
 
 I 
 
 S. JEROME AND S. CHRYSOSTOM 
 
 275 
 
 Alexandria, who himself was certainly unwilling, as he desired 
 the place for one of his own priests. It was a curious instance 
 of the way in which in the East the State dominated the Church. 
 John had no easy task before him, and the days of his episcopate 
 were ' few and evil,' for after six years he was unjustly banished 
 and done to death in exile. Eutropius turned against him 
 when he found that his nominee was not going to be a sycophant ; 
 the Emperor had no mind of his own ; the traditions of the see 
 of Constantinople were all on the side of time-serving and 
 flattery ; Theophilus of Alexandria was from the very first an 
 enemy ; and finally the Empress Eudoxia, at first a devotee 
 of the bishop's, turned against him with aU the fury of an un- 
 principled and masterful woman. 
 
 On the other hand, it cannot be denied that Chrysostom was 
 not personally fitted to rule in such adverse conditions. He 
 had none of S. Ambrose's genius for empire. He unpopu- 
 was too much of a monk, his own temper was severe larity. 
 and inflexible, he had little tact or patience, and could not 
 exercise the self-denial of mixing in ordinary society and being 
 * all things to all men.' And he had to meet the inevitable 
 unpopularity of a reformer. He deposed many unworthy 
 clergy, and endeavoured in an uncompromising manner to 
 raise the whole standard of clerical life. 
 
 As long as he enjoyed the favour of the court, the resentment 
 only smouldered, and for the first two years Chrysostom was 
 able to do notable and useful work. He sent missionaries to 
 the Goths and Scythians. He returned good for evil by acting 
 as the protector of Eutropius, who had suddenly fallen into 
 disgrace, and now owed his life to Chrysostom's intercession. 
 His influence prevented the leader of the Gothic troops, Gainas, 
 from making himself master of Constantinople. At the request 
 of the Church of Ephesus, he spent some time in Asia Minor, 
 restoring and reforming ecclesiastical order. 
 
 But Eudoxia had now become his enemy. Her jealousy 
 of his influence was turned to fury by some unguarded words 
 in a sermon in which he apparently compared her to Jezebel. 
 But he was still the idol of the populace, and it was only 
 
 I 
 
 ■ 
 
 i 
 
'Ij. 
 
 276 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 S. JEROME AND S. CHRYSOSTOM 
 
 277 
 
 f I 
 
 by intrigue that he could be attacked. The means was provided 
 by the Origenistic controversy (p. 271). He had received to hos- 
 First attack pitaHty four monks, known as the 'Tall Brothers,' 
 on ciirysos- whom Theophilus of Alexandria had violently ex- 
 tom faUs. pelled on a charge of Origenism. They appealed to 
 ttie Emperor Arcadius, who summoned Theophilus to appear 
 before a council. But on his arrival Theophilus posed as the 
 accuser rather than the accused ; he had in his favour 
 the fact that the Bishop of Constantinople, although second 
 in rank in Christendom, was not a metropolitan. On the 
 ground that, as Bishop of Alexandria, he had authority over 
 the bishops of the East, Theophilus cited Chrysostom to 
 appear before himself and some Egyptian bishops at a 
 place called * the Oak ' at Chalcedon. Chrysostom refused 
 to appear before such a gathering of partisans. He was 
 condemned in absence on a number of trivial charges (in which 
 Origenism did not appear at all), such as those of slandering 
 his clergy, and saying they were not worth * three obols,* of 
 being unsociable, of committing irreverence in church, and of 
 administering the Communion to those who were not fasting 
 (which he indignantly denied). Arcadius was persuaded by 
 Eudoxia to banish Chrysostom ; and, to prevent a popular 
 rising, the bishop surrendered himself secretly to the imperial 
 officers. But no sooner had his voyage to exile commenced 
 than the people in anger demanded his return. A severe earth- 
 quake shook the city and terrified Eudoxia. The exile was 
 recalled, and amidst torchlight and song was triumphantly 
 reinstated in his cathedral. 
 
 But the attack soon began afresh, this time directly the work 
 of Eudoxia. She had erected a silver statue of herself in front 
 The wrath of of the Church of S. Sophia, which was dedicated 
 Eudoxia. in rather a heathenish manner. Chrysostom 
 
 publicly denounced her from the pulpit. ' Again,' he said, 
 * Herodias dances ; again she demands the head of John on a 
 charger ! ' The result could hardly be doubted. Another 
 council, engineered by Theophilus, met in 403. This time 
 Chrysostom was declared to be ipso f ado deposed, on the strength 
 
 of a canon of the Arian Council of Antioch of 341, which con- 
 demned any bishop who after deposition by a council appealed 
 to the Emperor to be restored. Chrysostom refused to re- 
 cognise such a decision, and for a time went quietly on 
 with his duties, while the Emperor hesitated to take further 
 measures. 
 
 At last, after frightful scenes of riot and bloodshed had been 
 enacted in the cathedral by the imperial soldiers, and Chrysostom 
 had been imprisoned for two months in his own Exiled to 
 house, Arcadius yielded to Eudoxia, and banished Cucusus. 
 him to Cucusus, a lonely village among the mountains of Taurus. 
 Here, in spite of many privations and sufferings, he did for three 
 years a great work, furthering missions and corresponding 
 with his sympathisers in the Church in all parts of the Empire. 
 The Western Church especially took his part, and Innocent of 
 Rome pronounced his deposition null and void, and reproved 
 Theophilus. But all this had no effect on his enemies, and, 
 enraged by the influence the exile was exerting, they resolved 
 to banish him still farther and if possible to make an end of 
 him. 
 
 He was conducted on foot a three months' journey towards 
 the place chosen, Pityus on the Euxine ; and instructions 
 were given to his guards to give him neither rest Death of 
 nor refreshment. At Comana in Pontus his strength chrysostom. 
 completely failed. In the chapel of the martyr Basiliscus he 
 received his last communion, and expired, with his favourite 
 doxology on his lips, ' Glory to God for all things. Amen.* 
 (September 14, 407.) Thirty-one years later his body was 
 restored to Constantinople in the presence of the Emperor 
 Theodosius 11. 
 
 Whatever may have been Chrysostom 's personal faults 
 and mistakes, there can be no question as to the grandeur of 
 his witness in life and death to the cause of righteousness and 
 to the rightful independence of the Church against the usurped 
 authority and corrupt influence of that imperial court which 
 did so much to wreck the Christianity of the East, and make 
 it a prey first to heresy and then to Mohammedanism, 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 'I 
 
Ij I 
 
 278 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 His special greatness, however, lay in his work as a preacher. 
 In this he excelled through his knowledge and clear exposition 
 Chrysostom's of the Scriptures. He was in the East what 
 sermons. Augustine was in the West, but more learned 
 
 and less fanciful. He is the great exponent of the hteral method, 
 and represents the spirit of the school of Antioch at its best, 
 in contrast with the excessive mysticism and allegorising in 
 favour elsewhere. It is notable how constantly also he exhorted 
 his hearers themselves to read and study the Bible. * This,' 
 he says, ' is the cause of all our evils, not knowing the Scriptures.' 
 He showed also the readiness which is typical of the great 
 preacher, in seizing upon striking contemporary events or 
 matters that naturally interested his hearers. The sermons 
 on the statues have already been noted. A remarkable sermon 
 was preached by him at Constantinople on the fall of Eutropius, 
 while the stricken favourite was actually clutching at the curtains 
 of the sanctuary in fear for his life. But most of all perhaps is 
 he the model for the Christian preacher in all time, in his re- 
 fusal to lower the ideal to the standards and influences of his 
 age, and in the single direction of his endeavour, amid the 
 distractions of popular applause, to the salvation of his hearers. 
 He says pathetically enough, ' When I am applauded in church ' 
 (this was the custom of the time) ' I go home with a heavy 
 heart : I weep and say to myself, '' Perhaps thy vanity has 
 lost some souls, and thou hast spent thyself for nought." ' 
 
 The persecution of S. John Chrysostom is one of the most 
 extraordinary events in the history of the Church. That one 
 of the most eminent bishops of the time should 
 have combined with the court to crush and harry 
 to death the greatest preacher and teacher of the age, and for 
 motives almost purely personal, seems to point to the fact that 
 the rise and power of the Church in the East in the fourth century 
 had been far too rapid, and that outward splendour and prestige 
 had outrun altogether the development of real Christianity. 
 For Theophilus of Alexandria was not altogether what he showed 
 himself in the attack on Chrysostom. The first ten years of 
 his episcopate had been niarked by zeal and energy in his office, 
 
 S. JEROME AND S. CHRYSOSTOM 
 
 279 
 
 Theophilus. 
 
 Synesius. 
 
 It was he who had destroyed the Serapeum, the great strong- 
 hold of heathenism at Alexandria (p. 255). He had been the 
 friend of the most eminent men of the time, of S. Jerome and 
 of the great monks of Egypt. His theology was sound : he 
 was acknowledged as a spiritual power. But his high office 
 gave too much rein to an imperious and domineering temper 
 and a determination to have his own way at any cost. The 
 judgment of history writes him down as tyrannical, insincere, 
 and a persecutor of saints. And yet to the end there was another 
 side to his character, or he would scarcely have enjoyed the 
 affection and respect of such a man as Synesius, who was himself 
 an admirer of Chrysostom. 
 
 Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais in Egypt, who has been im- 
 mortalised in Kingsley's Hypatia, was himself a most remarkable 
 product of an age of too swift development and 
 transition. A wealthy landed proprietor, a keen 
 sportsman, a man of intense feeling, lovable and loved, devoted 
 to his wife and family, a scholar, a poet, and an orator, he 
 was for most of his Hfe a Neoplatonist philosopher, and to the 
 end a friend and admirer of Hypatia. It is difficult to say 
 when or how he became a Christian, though there is not the 
 least doubt of his sincerity ; and the people of his district in- 
 sisted on his being made their bishop, as a protection against 
 a bad provincial governor. After long hesitation, and sorely 
 against his will, he consented. His episcopate lasted only 
 three years, 410-413, and was full of struggles and sorrows. 
 His picturesque and pathetic career is a strange interweaving 
 of the old and the new, of heathen philosophy and Christian 
 zeal for righteousness. ' His Hfe was almost exactly coincident 
 with what is probably the most important crisis through which 
 the world has passed. He witnessed the accomphshment of 
 the two great events on which the whole course of history for 
 many centuries depended, the ruin of the Roman Empire and 
 the complete triumph of Christianity . . . with all the varying 
 influences of this great age of change he was brought in contact, 
 by all in turn his character was moulded, and all, with more 
 or less completeness, are depicted in his works ' (Z). C. B.). 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
28o THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 l! I 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. Sketch the life of S. Jerome. 
 
 2. In what principal controversies was he engaged ? 
 
 3. Describe and show the importance of S. Jerome's biblical work. 
 
 4. Describe the early career of S. Chrysostom. 
 
 5. How did he become Bishop of Constantinople ? 
 
 6. Why was he persecuted, and by whom ? 
 
 7. Describe the closing period of his life. 
 
 8. In what does the greatness of S. Chrysostom specially consist ? 
 
 9. What do you know of Synesius ? 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. S. Jerome : 
 
 * Prolegomena * and selection of writings translated \r\ Jerome, 
 
 SchafPs Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 
 
 * Vulgate,' Hastings' Bible Dictionary. 
 
 2. S. Chrysostom : 
 
 Bright. Lessons from the Lives of Three Great Fathers. 
 Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
 
 3. Synesius : 
 
 Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
 Kingsley. Hypatia. 
 Gardner. Synesius, S.P.C.K. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. NESTORIUS AND EUTYCHES 
 
 For half a century after the Council of Constantinople no 
 controversy arose serious enough to call for a general council. 
 Pelagianism had aroused comparatively little interest outstanding 
 in the East. Origenism was largely mixed up v^dth problems, 
 personal feuds, and the questions involved in it were rather 
 the by-products of previous heresies, such as Gnosticism and 
 Arianism, than any new development of error. But there were 
 still outstanding problems of primary importance which were 
 sure sooner or later to call for settlement. The mystery of 
 the Trinity, the relation of the Son to the Father, had indeed 
 been sufficiently defined. The essential Godhead of Jesus had 
 been vindicated in the condemnation of Arius and the various 
 Arian schools. His true and perfect manhood was upheld in 
 the condemnation of Apollinaris. But there still remained 
 the great mystery of the Incarnation itself, the union of Godhead 
 and manhood in the one personaUty of the Redeemer. The 
 Christological problem was still to be settled, at any rate in its 
 essentials, by the great councils of the fifth and sixth centuries. 
 
 These controversies are of a peculiarly subtle and even painful 
 character, for they involved not so much the battle of Catholic 
 truth against positive error as the holding of the christo- 
 balance between two sides of truth. Those who logical con- 
 were condemned in these later councils for the most troversics. 
 part held, or thought they held, the Divinity and the manhood 
 of Christ as firmly as their opponents. They fell into error 
 through one-sidedness and obstinacy. On the one hand were 
 those, chiefly of the school of Antioch, who were so zealous for 
 a truly human Christ, that they seemed to draw such a dis- 
 tinction between His manhood and His divinity as to make 
 of Him two Persons, a Divine and a human Son of God. On the 
 other hand were those who, like Apollinaris in the previous 
 
 281 
 
 I. 
 
 I 
 
i!l; 
 
 3 
 
 'if 
 
 282 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 century, were so possessed by the greatness of the Divine Son 
 of God, that they tended to minimise or almost obhterate His 
 humanity. 
 
 The typical name associated with the former error is that 
 of Nestorius. But the author of it was not he, but Theodore. 
 Bishop of Mopsuestia, an Antiochene, of remarkable theological 
 powers, who enjoyed the friendship of the greatest of his Christian 
 contemporaries, and Hved and died without his orthodoxy ever 
 being seriously called in question. Nevertheless, it is clear that 
 his over-subtle speculations into the mystery of the Incarnation 
 led him to speak as if there were really two Sons, Divine and 
 human, united in some undefined way in one person. In this 
 way he and his followers imagined that they vindicated the 
 Godhead from human hmitations and sufferings, and also 
 maintained the true human example of the historic Christ. 
 r Nestorius was appointed by Theodosius 11., in 427, to the 
 bishopric of Constantinople. He was a man of briUiant gifts, 
 and a notable preacher. In many ways his career 
 presents a curious parallel to that of S. Chrysostom. 
 Called by an Emperor to the episcopal throne of the imperial 
 city, largely because of his preaching powers; the object of 
 violent attack, personal as well as theological— an attack which 
 was led by S. Cyril of Alexandria, the nephew of the notorious 
 Theophilus ; driven into exile, and there perishing miserably ; 
 his name a party-cry for enthusiastic supporters, and violent 
 and scurrilous adversaries— but the parallel breaks down, for 
 Nestorius had not the saintly temper of Chrysostom, nor can it 
 be fairly said that he was persecuted for righteousness' sake. 
 Opinions will probably always differ as to how far Nestorius 
 himself was really a Nestorian ; and how far it was only his 
 own anger and obstinacy that were at fault. 
 
 But the question at issue goes far deeper than the personal 
 Nestorian- opinions of Nestorius,^ whether we regard him as a 
 ism. real heretic, or only an unfortunate scapegoat of 
 
 controversy. The error associated with his name is destructive 
 
 ^ A treatise entitled The Bazaar of Heraclides, apparently the work of 
 J^estorius himself, and deaUng with the whole controversy in self-justifica- 
 
 NESTORIUS AND EUTYCHES 
 
 283 
 
 Nestorius. 
 
 Theotohos. 
 
 of the CathoUc doctrine of the Incarnation. The Church held 
 firmly to the unity of Christ's Person. And His one personality 
 is that of the Eternal Word and resides not in His humanity 
 per se, but in His divinity. If the Word had associated with 
 Himself a human personaHty, there must be two Christs. The 
 son of man who lived and suffered on earth would not be 
 personally identical with the Second Person of the Trinity. 
 And this would rob His mediation of its dynamic value. A 
 Nestorian Jesus would be personally little more than the highest 
 and most perfect of the saints. The gulf between God and man 
 would be still unbridged. 
 
 The key-word of the Nestorian controversy was the title 
 
 Theotokos, ' mother of God,' applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary. 
 
 To understand this it must be remembered that this 
 
 title was meant primarily to vindicate the dignity 
 
 of Mary's Son. It was intended to emphasise the truth that her 
 
 human child was personally God, and not merely a man taken 
 
 into union with the Godhead. The Nestorian school, in their 
 
 almost morbid fear of anthropomorphism, i.e. of ascribing to 
 
 God human acts and sufferings, wished to substitute for 
 
 Theotokos the vaguer word Christotokos, 'mother of Christ.' 
 
 Nestorius himself was credited with having said that he could 
 
 not admit a child of two or three months to be God. This 
 
 was perhaps capable of being understood in an orthodox sense. 
 
 The Godhead in its essence can neither be born nor die. Yet, 
 
 on the other hand, the Church has always maintained that the 
 
 Person who was born of Mary was very God, and that that 
 
 Person did actually suffer in human flesh. So S. Paul says, 
 
 ' the princes of this world . . . crucified the Lord of glory '^ 
 
 (i Cor. ii.), and even the startling phrase ' the blood of God ' 
 
 is found in the letters of S. Ignatius (with which may be compared 
 
 the more probable text of Acts xx. 28). The word Theotokos, 
 
 though perhaps liable to misunderstanding, reaUy summed up 
 
 the whole matter at issue. It was a term which had been 
 
 tion has recently been discovered. A full account of this is given by 
 Dr. Bethune-Baker in his Nestorius and his Teaching, which is an inter- 
 esting and powerful attempt to free Nestorius himself from the charge ot 
 heresy. 
 
 I 
 
I I 
 
 284 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 repeatedly used by orthodox writers, it was dear to the mass of 
 Christians, and its denial or discouragement made the whole 
 Nestorian controversy one that appealed to popular devotion 
 and sentiment in a way that the more philosophical term 
 homooiisios had never done. Theodore of Mopsuestia had been 
 rebuked and threatened by his congregation for denying the 
 title to the Blessed Virgin, and had prudently retracted. As it 
 will be seen, the opposition to Nestorius started not from theo- 
 logians, but from the Christian laity. 
 
 Nestorius created a bad impression as soon as he was con- 
 secrated. He was a hot-headed persecutor, and in his first 
 Nestorius scrmon he said to the Emperor, ' Give me the earth 
 and s. cyru. purged of heretics, and I will give you heaven. 
 Assist me in destroying hertlics. and I will help you against 
 the Persian.'^ ! ' Before long he was accused of \i^v»y Jiimscif. 
 One of his chaplains in a sermon denied tliat Mar>' was 
 Theotokos. and the bishop defemled him. Tl)er<! wa$ a popular 
 protest at once, and Ku^ifhiiis, a layman, rose in church and 
 condemned tlic bishop. The news soon spread to Egypt, and 
 brought upon the scene S. C>iil of AJcxandria. In 429, he began 
 a controversy with NcstoriiLs. which in the next ye^ir culminated 
 in the famous statement of faith in his Second Letter, which 
 afterwards received oecumenical sanction. 
 
 Cyril was without doubt the greatest theologian and the 
 most commanding personality of the time. He was hated 
 and virulently attacked by contemporaries, remarkably enough 
 by the learned and amiable Theodorct. who for long was ranged 
 on the side of Nestorius. And posterity has not been much 
 kinder to Cyrir« mcmorj'. Tlie nephew and* successor of 
 Tlieophilus, he ho* been accused of acting with inherited maUce 
 against the see of Constantinople, of persecution, and foment- 
 11^ strife, of bribery and unscrupulousncss m gaining his ends. 
 Hi:^ earlier career gives some colour to these charges. He 
 canied on his uncle\s animosity to the memory of Cliryso^tom. 
 He stirred up the pa.<^<iions of the Alexandrine populace and of 
 the monks of Eg>i)t against his enemies, the Novatians, the 
 Je^a^s, and even the imperial governor. He has beeti heW 
 
 NESTORIUS AND EUTYCHES 
 
 285 
 
 responsible, though the charge can haidly be proved, (or the 
 brutal murder of the great Hypatia. But he had also done 
 excellent work in the exposition of Scripture, and though the 
 temper and the methods in which he carried on the Nestorian 
 controversy cannot be admired, there is Utile doubt cither oi 
 the purity of his motives or the clearness of his insight into 
 what the struggle really involved. From llie point of view 
 of Christian theology Cyril was certainly on tin: right side, 
 and Nestorius on the wrong ; and Cyril apart from this stands 
 superior to his opponent on other grounds. He was more 
 sincere. Nestorius. when hard pressed, gave the impression 
 that he thought the matter at issue really uninii)ortant. ' Let 
 Mary be called Theotokos if you will ! * he petulantly exchumed, 
 • and let disputing cease.' Cyril wa* movc^i by zeal for the 
 faith; NccstoriiLS apparently by the desire to justify him.self. 
 Cyril, as will be seen, repudiated j^ecuUir interference witli .l^ 
 much zeal as Athanasius himself. Nestorius seems to liave 
 l>een an Erastian ;ind a courtier. 
 
 In 430 both parties approached Cetesline i.. Bishop of Rome, 
 and endeavoured to get him o« their side. This appeal, no 
 doubt, mark* a ^tage forward in the growiixg influence Appcuu to 
 of the see of Rome. Celestine in a council held at Pop«an4 
 Rome espoused the side of Cyril. He quoted S. <^^<^»^ 
 Ambrose's limn for Cluistmas Day, * Talis dtnxt partus Deum ' 
 (* Such birtli iHjfits our God '). He wrote to Ncstoriiu>. threaten- 
 ing him with deposition, to the leading bisJiopc^ of the East 
 declaring the faith, and to Cyril bidding him ' join to his own 
 authority that of the Roman see.' 
 
 Nesturiuii now appealed to a general council and CsTil wrote 
 to liim a fmal letter, stating the faith, calling on him to abjure 
 his error, and appending tNi'elve ' an^tlwanas,' summarising 
 tlie points in dispute. These anathcmius were violently 
 attacked by Theodorct. as being tainted with the Apollinarian 
 heresy. 
 
 But meanwhile the Emperor Thcodosius 11. had sunmioned 
 all the metropolitiins of the Empire to a general coimdl at 
 Ephesus in the next year. He also invited S. Augustine, but he 
 

 Pt 
 
 286 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 was already dead. After this Nestorius received the letters 
 of Celestine and Cyril, and replied to them, defending himself. 
 
 The Third General Council of the Church opened at Ephesus 
 in June 431 with some informality. John of Antioch and 
 councU of other Eastern bishops were late in arriving ; after 
 Ephesus. waiting some days the eagerness of Cyril prevailed 
 to begin without them, though they had sent messages to 
 say they were near. This gave Nestorius an opportunity 
 to refuse to acknowledge the council, in which he was 
 supported by Candidian, the Emperor's representative. Cyril 
 presided at the council, partly as bishop of the most influential 
 see, and partly perhaps as representing Rome. Celestine had 
 despatched three delegates to the council, but these also were 
 late in arriving. The proceedings were marked with great 
 swiftness. The main work was done in one day, June 23. The 
 assembled bishops, 198 in number, nearly all Eastern and 
 Egyptian, having heard the letters of Cyril and Nestorius, con- 
 demned and deposed Nestorius, as teaching contrary to the 
 faith of Nicaea, which was definitely taken as the standard of 
 doctrine. The bishops were conducted home by the populace 
 with torchlight processions and great rejoicings. The council 
 held six further sessions and passed eight canons, the most 
 important being the last, which declared the ecclesiastical in- 
 dependence of Cyprus. The Bishop of Antioch had claimed 
 the right as metropolitan of consecrating the Bishop of Cyprus, 
 but the council decided that he had no original connection with 
 that see, and that no bishop should intrude into a diocese which 
 was not under his own authority or that of his predecessors. 
 
 Complications ensued when a few days later John of Antioch 
 arrived with fourteen bishops. These, with a number of others, 
 proceeded under the patronage of Candidian to hold a fresh 
 council, at which they deposed Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus, 
 and excommunicated all the others. 
 
 Next arrived the Roman delegates, who approved the acts 
 of the first council. Both sides appealed to the Emperor, who 
 sent his treasurer, John, to investigate the matter, and then 
 proposed that both Cyril and Nestorius should be deposed. 
 
 NESTORIUS AND EUTYCHES 
 
 287 
 
 The two, along with Memnon of Ephesus, were therefore placed 
 under arrest. But Theodosius was moved by the intercession 
 of Dalmatius, a venerable and saintly abbot, who had not before 
 left his monastery for nearly fifty years, to give a hearing to 
 both parties. The Emperor confirmed the judgment of the 
 original council, the deposition of Nestorius, and the consecration 
 of Maximian in his place. But it was not for two years that 
 John of Antioch was reconciled to Cyril. The latter behaved 
 on the whole with great moderation, and showed a real desire 
 for the peace of the Church, which was finally effected by the 
 mediation of Paul of Emesa. 
 
 The decision of the Council of Ephesus has been accepted 
 by the Church at large as oecumenical and binding. It 
 definitely vindicated the unity of the Person of Christ, as the 
 Word, whose Incarnation was not the associating of an individual 
 man with Himself, but the actual assumption of manhood. 
 S. Cyril lived on till 444, a man of whom it may be said in the 
 words of Newman, ' We may hold Cyril a great servant of God, 
 without considering ourselves obliged to defend certain passages 
 of his ecclesiastical career. Cyril's faults were not inconsistent 
 with great and heroic virtues.' 
 
 Nestorius was banished to Upper Egypt, where he died in 439, 
 in great misery, the victim of persecution both by the Roman 
 government and by African savages. His pathetic The 
 end, something hke Chrysostom's, though for a Nestorians. 
 very different cause, has won him a good deal of sympathy. 
 And it is not a little remarkable that not only was his personal 
 memory cherished by such a man as Theodoret, but his followers 
 formed a very large and long-lasting schism. Nestorian mis- 
 sionaries spread eastwards beyond the bounds of the Empire, 
 and established Christian Churches in Persia, Tartary, and China. 
 The remnant of them endures to this day in the lonely and 
 persecuted Church of the Assyrian Nestorians, whose heresy 
 apparently Ues only in the fact that they regard Nestorius as 
 a saint and anathematise Cyril 
 
 It was ahnost inevitable that the zeal which fired the opposi- 
 tion to Nestorius should lead some into the opposite error. In 
 
 i 
 
288 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 their anxiety to maintain the unity of Christ's Person, men 
 came to forget that in this one personaHty there were * two 
 Eutychian- whole and perfect natures/ combined indissolubly 
 ism. but not to be confused, and that to the fulness and 
 
 saving power of the Incarnation the perfection and permanence 
 of our Lord's manhood was as important as the perfection 
 and permanence of His Godhead. Nestorianism had been to 
 some extent a protest against any minimising of the human 
 side of Christ, and naturally Nestorians had accused their 
 opponents of being Apollinarians. And they were to this 
 extent justified, that the reaction against Nestorius did produce 
 a heresy which was on the same lines as that of Apolhnaris, 
 an attempt to maintain the unity of our Lord's personality 
 by merging the manhood in the Godhead, and speaking of only 
 * one nature ' in the Incarnate. 
 
 This error first became prominent in the utterances of Eutyches, 
 the aged abbot of a monastery near Constantinople, who had 
 been a promment opponent of Nestorius. In 448, 
 he was violently accused by Eusebius (the same 
 man who had formerly led the protest against Nestorius, then 
 a layman, now a bishop), and was reported to Flavian, Bishop of 
 Constantmople. Flavian called a local council, which made 
 lengthy and animated attempts to ascertain the true mind of 
 Eutyches. After a considerable amount of verbiage, it seemed 
 evident at last that Eutyches would admit ' one nature ' only 
 in the Incarnate, after the union of the Godhead and manhood : 
 though it is not clear whether he regarded the manhood as 
 absorbed m the Godhead, or beheved that the manhood was 
 of a different and more heavenly nature than our own. He 
 appealed to Athanasius and Cyril as having taught the same as 
 himself, and obstinately refused to admit the ' two natures ' 
 in their fulness. The council deposed and excommunicated 
 him, and all who should support him. He announced his 
 intention of appeahng to Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, 
 and sent a statement to Pope Leo. 
 
 Perhaps of all those who have given their name to a great 
 heresy, Eutyches is the most deserving of pity. He was no 
 
 NESTORIUS AND EUTYCHES 
 
 289 
 
 Eutyches. 
 
 Dioscorus. 
 
 popularity-hunter like Arius, nor a persecuting dogmatist like 
 Nestorius. He was a very old man, narrow-minded and obsti- 
 nate, who for a lifetime had been immured in his monastery ; 
 harried by zealots on the opposite side, and unwilling to give 
 way to them ; eager only to maintain what he thought was the 
 Catholic faith against Nestorianism. Nevertheless, the question 
 involved was just as serious as in the case of Nestorius. A 
 Christ who is not just as truly and fully man as He is perfectly 
 God could not be a true mediator. 
 
 In the subsequent controversy, the prominent place on the 
 side of heresy was taken by Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, 
 a violent and unprincipled man. He proposed to 
 the Emperor a general council, to which the latter 
 agreed. The court influence was on the side of Dioscorus, 
 through the chamberlain Chrysaphius. The Emperor announced 
 that the council was to root out the remnants of Nestorianism. 
 Those who had previously condemned Eutyches were to be 
 allowed to be present but not to speak. The council, which 
 was summoned to meet at Ephesus in 449, was evidently marked 
 from its beginnings by a partisan spirit. Dioscorus was out to 
 score a triumph over Constantinople. 
 
 Meanwhile, Leo of Rome had sent to Flavian a remarkable 
 letter, usually called ' the Tome,' in which he explained fully 
 the error of Eutyches, and the true doctrine of the The Tome 
 Person of Christ. This letter was the most weighty of Leo. 
 intervention of the see of Rome in doctrinal questions which 
 had as yet taken place in the history of the Church. It is 
 luminously clear, charitable and devout in tone. The descrip- 
 tion of Eutyches, his ignorance and his refusal to be taught, 
 is severe enough, though probably justified. But the outstand- 
 ing feature of the Tome is the judicial balance of mind through- 
 out. Leo was able to see both sides of the truth, state them 
 dispassionately, and preserve the truly Catholic temper of being 
 willing to hold two complementary aspects of the faith, without 
 exaggerating either, and without seeking to unify them beyond 
 what human intellect is capable of doing. The Tome was a 
 fitting conclusion and summing up of a long controversy. It 
 
 T 
 
 I 
 
'I' 
 
 fj 
 
 f 
 
 290 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 laid down clearly all the three vital principles of a correct 
 Christological statement, the Divinity of Christ, His humanity, 
 and their union in one Divine Person. 
 
 It is the fashion of much modern theology to find fault with 
 Leo's attempt to distinguish, as he does, between what is proper 
 to the human nature of Christ in the record of his earthly life, 
 e.g. his hunger, thirst, weariness, weeping, and what is Divine, 
 e.g. the miracles. Nevertheless, Leo in this way avoids the 
 charge of anthropomorphism ; he preserves the Divine nature 
 from having human weakness attributed to it ; he preserves 
 also, the real humanity of Christ ; and he goes at least as far as 
 this in explaining the unity of personality in Christ, that he 
 allows the attributes of each of the two natures to be predicated 
 of the other, because they are all attributes of one person, e.g. 
 it may be rightly said that ' the Son of man came down from 
 heaven,' and that ' the Son of God was crucified and buried.' 
 (This transference of attributes has been called by theologians 
 commun icatio idiomatum. ) 
 
 The council arranged by Dioscorus met at Ephesus in August 
 449. He presided over about 130 bishops. The proceedings 
 The Robber were violent, and lamentably unfair. Protests were 
 Council. disregarded. Leo's Tome was ignored. First 
 
 Eutyches was absolved, then Flavian and Eusebius were con- 
 demned. This was the signal for a general outburst of passion. 
 A mob of armed soldiers and frantic monks rushed in ; a free 
 fight ensued, and Flavian was brutally kicked and died shortly 
 afterwards. With the exception of one of the delegates of Rome, 
 the members of the council seemed completely terrified by the 
 overbearing violence of the president, and even signed a blank 
 paper at his bidding, on which the sentence on the opponents 
 of Eutyches was to be recorded. So ended this so-called council, 
 which Leo of Rome styled * Latrocinium,' or ' Council of high- 
 way robbers:' Its work was shortly to be undone, but it in- 
 flicted irreparable harm on the Church. The East was divided. 
 Egypt, Thrace, and Palestine were with Dioscorus; Syria, 
 Pontus. and Asia were against him. And he had still Leo to deal 
 with, the greatest man as yet who had sat on the papal throne. 
 
 NESTORIUS AND EUTYCHES 
 
 291 
 
 For two years Dioscorus seemed to have triumphed. In 
 
 450, however, came the fall of his patron, Chrysaphius, and 
 the sudden death of Theodosius 11. The Emperor's council of 
 sister Pulcheria succeeded him, with her consort Chaicedon. 
 Marcian. She was a woman of great abiHty, and both she and 
 her husband were on the side of Leo and orthodoxy. A change 
 was soon apparent — exiled bishops were allowed at once to 
 return. Flavian's successor, Anatolius, condemned Eutyches in 
 a local council. Then in the name of Marcian, and Valentinian 
 III., Emperor of the West, was summoned the Fourth General 
 Council, not in Italy, as Leo had wished, but at Nicaea ; the 
 place being afterwards changed to Chalcedon. On Oct. 8, 
 
 451, Chalcedon saw the gathering of 630 bishops. The council 
 was undoubtedly presided over by the three legates of Leo. 
 The Tome was read in a Greek translation and pronounced to 
 contain the true faith. The proceedings of the Latrocinium 
 were declared null and void. Dioscorus was condemned and 
 deposed ; the papal legates pronouncing sentence on him in 
 the name of the Bishop of Rome and the council. A committee 
 of bishops drew up a statement concerning the points in dispute, 
 from which the following extract may be quoted : ' We confess 
 one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognised 
 in two natures, without confusion, without change, without 
 division, without separation — the property of each nature 
 being preserved and combining into one person : not as it were 
 parted or divided into two persons, but one and the self-same 
 Son, Only-begotten, God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.' This 
 was presented to the council along with the Creeds of Nicaea 
 and Constantinople — the latter being the enlarged form (identical 
 with the Creed of Jerusalem) which is now called the Nicene 
 Creed ; the first time that this form was authoritatively put 
 forward, though usually attributed to Constantinople [see p. 250). 
 The council exclaimed, ' This is the Faith of the fathers ; the 
 Faith of the Apostles ; we all follow it ! ' 
 
 Another interesting event at the council was the reconciha- 
 tion of Theodoret, the learned commentator on the Scriptures 
 and Church historian, who, in his fear of Apollinarianism 
 
 I ^ 
 
If" 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 Theodoret. 
 
 292 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 and his intense dislike of S. Cyril, had been under the 
 shadow of complicity with Nestorius for more than twenty 
 years. He had no difficulty in proving his ortho- 
 doxy ; but the council insisted also on his personally 
 condemning Nestorius, which, after considerable pressure, he 
 consented to do. 
 
 The council also, passed twenty-eight canons, the most re- 
 markable of which concerns the ecclesiastical position of 
 Canons of Constantinople. It was decreed that this see, 
 chaicedon. having been by the Second General Council declared 
 next after Rome, should not only have this position of honour, 
 but should have equal privileges in her own sphere, i.e. should 
 be second in jurisdiction also, having autliority to consecrate 
 the metropoHtans of Pont us, Asia, and Thrace. The reason 
 given for Rome's primacy, however, was not that it was the see 
 of Peter, but simply because Rome was the imperial city. 
 Constantinople, being, as it was said, ' new Rome,' was to have 
 a similar primacy in the East. The papal delegates were 
 absent when this canon was passed, and protested against it. 
 as did Leo himself. But the canon was retained, and is still 
 part of the law of the Eastern Church. 
 
 Though it remained for two further councils to define still 
 more exactly the orthodox faith as to the Incarnation, the main 
 The Creed of questions had been settled, and we may regard the 
 cbaicedon. faith of the Catholic Church as now clearly set forth 
 and safeguarded. The so-called Nicene or Constantinopolitan 
 Creed, now ratified by Chalcedon, was henceforth the common 
 Creed of Christendom. No changes of importance have been 
 made in it except the addition in the West of the famous Filioqiie, 
 stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as 
 from the Father. This addition, probably made in Spain in 
 the sixth century, and only slowly adopted in the West, was 
 never ratified by a general council, and has always been re- 
 pudiated in the East, though it seems in harmony with Scripture 
 and with the teaching of S. Cyril. 
 
 A remarkable statement of orthodox doctrine, as compared 
 with the different errors which these four councils repudiated, 
 
 NESTORIUS AND EUTYCHES 
 
 293 
 
 is seen in the Qutcttnque vult, a Latin hymn of Western origin, 
 sometimes called the Athanasian Creed, though it is a canticle 
 rather than a creed, and was simply styled The 
 'The Faith of S. Athanasius ' in honour of the Quicunque. 
 great hero of the faith, without any intention of ascribing the 
 authorship to him. It was never referred to at Chalcedon, 
 and may have been later than 451. It is first quoted in the 
 writings of Caesarius of Aries, in the first half of the sixth century. 
 Nevertheless, many scholars are for assigning to it an earlier 
 date, in the early part of the fifth century, and regard it as 
 a protest against Apolhnarianism and the PriscilHanists. As 
 to authorship, if the early date is adopted, it is probable that the 
 Quicunque proceeded from the monastery of Lerins, perhaps 
 from the pen of the famous S. Vincent himself. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. Who was Nestorius, and what theological error is associated with 
 his name ? 
 
 2. What is the meaning and importance of the title 'Theotokos'? 
 
 3. What was the work of S. Cyril of Alexandria in this controversy ? 
 
 4. Describe the Council of Ephesus. 
 
 5. How was the influence of Nestorius seen after his deposition ? 
 
 6. What error arose through reaction against Nestorianism ? 
 
 7. How did the Bishop of Rome distinguish himself in this contro- 
 versy ? 
 
 8. What was the Latrocinium ? 
 
 9. What were the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon ? 
 
 10. Summarise the results of the four first General Councils. 
 
 11. What is the probable origin and the importance of Quicunque 
 vult f 
 
 lit 
 
; 1 
 
 i I 
 
 hi 
 ♦I 
 
 H 
 
 294 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. Nestorius. 
 
 Bethune- Baker. Nestorius and His Teaching. 
 
 * Nestorius' in Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
 Bright. History of the Church. 
 
 2. The position of S. Mary the Virgin in Christian Theology. 
 
 * Mary ' in Hastings' Bible Dictionary and in Arnold and Scannell's 
 
 Catholic Dictionary, 
 
 3. The Nestorian Churches— 
 
 ' Nestorians ' in Schaff-Herzog's Ency eloper dia. 
 Harnack. Histo?y of Dogma. 
 
 4. The ' Tome ' of S. Leo. 
 
 Latin in Heurtley's De Fide et Syinholo. 
 
 Enghsh translation in ' S. Leo' in Schaflf's Nicene and Post- 
 Nicene Fathers. 
 
 5. The Theology of the first four Councils. 
 
 Hooker. Feci. Pol., v. li.-iv. 
 
 Temple. * The Divinity of Christ ' in Foundatioiis. 
 
 Wilberforce. Doctrine of the Incarnation, 
 
 6. The Quicunque Vult. 
 
 Burn. The Athanasian Creed and Introduction to the Creeds. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII 
 
 THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE : 
 
 RISE OF the; PAPACY 
 
 Amidst a strife in which sincerity and party spirit were strangely 
 mingled, the definition of Christian doctrine proceeded in the 
 Eastern' part of the Church. Meanwhile, momentous changes 
 were happening in the West. The first half of the fifth century 
 saw the greatest catastrophe of history, the overthrow of the 
 
 Roman Empire. 
 
 The immediate cause was the irruption of the semi-barbarous 
 nations of the North. For long a gradual movement had been 
 proceeding among them, starting far away in Asia. The menace 
 As early as the third century the Goths had threatened of the 
 the boundary of the Empire, but had been kept in barbarians, 
 check by good generalship or by compromise. The Emperor 
 Valens had allowed them to cross the Danube and settle in the 
 Balkans. His defeat by them at Adrianople was the greatest 
 disaster which had befallen the Roman arms since Cannae. 
 It might well have shown what was coming, had not Roman 
 statesmanship been possessed with the false idea that the gravest 
 peril to the Empire was threatened by Persia. The Roman 
 armies were largely recruited from the Goths ; they were growing 
 to the sense of their power, and they were taking the measure 
 of Rome. With the death of Theodosius the deluge began. 
 
 The Empire itself was growing ripe for dissolution. Its 
 social order rested on the rotten basis of a vast system of slavery. 
 The centralising policy of the Emperors was failing ; Decay of 
 and there were no representative institutions to the Empire, 
 maintain unity and common interests. The poorer classes in 
 the greatest cities were pauperised by the ever-increasing doles 
 of food. The middle classes were being crushed by taxation 
 and officialdom. The very soldiers were growing effeminate. 
 
 295 
 
J 
 
 296 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 The successors of Theodosius, Arcadius and Honorius, were 
 weak puppets managed by eunuchs and court favourites' The 
 time had come for younger and stronger races to overthrow it 
 all, and to build up again a new society and a new civihsation. 
 If there are any breaks in liistory, this moment was the end of 
 the ancient world and the beginning of modern history. 
 
 Christianity had akeady reached the earliest of the new 
 invaders. The Goths, though Arians, as taught by Ulfihis, 
 Aiaric takes had a profound respect for Christianity, and they 
 Rome. were to some extent permeated by Roman civilisa- 
 
 tion. But the Goths were followed by other waves of invasion. 
 After them came the Arian Vandals and heathen Huns, who 
 were more truly barbarians. The first attack on Rome after the 
 death of Theodosius was made by the great Aiaric, king of the 
 West Goths. For some years he was kept in check by one of 
 the ablest of Rome's last great generals, the Vandal, Stilicho. 
 He withdrew the armies from the distant provinces, e.g. from 
 Britain, and concentrated them on the defence of Italy. But 
 Stilicho was an object of suspicion to all parties ; he was plotted 
 against at court, and murdered in 408. The natural result 
 foUowed, though to the men of that day it seemed unbelievable. 
 In 410 Aiaric took and sacked Rome, sparmg, however, the 
 Christian churches and those who took sanctuary in them, 
 a fact which furnished S. Augustine with an impressive opening 
 for his De Civitate Dei. 
 
 Neither the Goths nor the other barbarians who now began 
 to surge into the Empire seem to have aimed at the actual 
 Barbarian overthrow of Rome. The spell of her great name 
 advance. ^as too strong upon them. They preferred rather 
 to keep the Emperor of the West in their own power, and make 
 new kingdoms for themselves under his nominal headship. 
 After the death of Aiaric, which occurred very shortly, the West 
 Goths abandoned Italy, and settled in Gaul and Spain, driving 
 out the Vandals who had previously invaded Spain. The 
 latter crossed into Africa, led by the crafty and pitiless Genseric. 
 He made himself master of North Africa, laying waste the whole 
 of that fertile and Christian region. And by thus cutting off 
 
 THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE 
 
 297 
 
 AttUa. 
 
 the corn supply of Italy, he gained control of the Mediterranean 
 and was able in 455 to inflict his most terrible blow, by sailing 
 up the Tiber, taking and sacking Rome, and stripping the 
 golden city of her treasures. 
 
 Besides the Goths and the Vandals, there were other new- 
 races, seeking and making conquests, such as the Burgundians 
 and the Franks, and the English who began now 
 to occupy Britain, driving the native Christians 
 into Wales and Cornwall. But a much more terrible foe of 
 civilisation and Christianity appeared towards the middle of the 
 century in the shape of Attila, and his vast hordes of Huns, 
 resembling the Tartars or the Scythians. In 451 he ' burst 
 with the speed and terror of a tempest ' across central Europe. 
 His onset was stopped at the great battle of Chalons, where 
 Aetius, the Roman general, fought him for three days, in such 
 a battle as the world had hardly seen before. Attila retraced 
 his steps, and after destroying Aquileia (whose survivors were 
 the founders of Venice) and laying waste northern Italy, he 
 pressed towards Rome. But here an adversary of another 
 order barred his path. Pope Leo i. went out to meet him at 
 the head of an embassy ; his majestic figure, and, it is said, the 
 apparition of S. Peter and S. Paul, so strangely impressed the 
 barbarian that he consented to be bought oft and retire. His 
 own death followed shortly, and the terror of the Huns was 
 over. 
 
 Meanwhile, the last stage in the Western Empire was reached. 
 The barbarians were making and remaking Emperors, Ricimer, 
 the Sueve, made himself master of Italy : his soldiers End of the 
 took and sacked Rome for a third time in 472. western 
 In 476, the last Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was Empire, 
 allowed to abdicate and retire to the villa of Lucullus at Misenum. 
 Odoacer, the Herule, chief of the armies of Italy, sent the insignia 
 of empire to Zeno, the Eastern Emperor at Constantinople. 
 He himself became the first of a line of what were practically 
 kings of Italy, though only bcaiing the title of ' Patricians.' 
 He was defeated and succeeded in 489 by a remarkable ruler, 
 Theoderic. His people were the Ostrogoths or East Goths, into 
 
 hi 
 
't 
 
 n 
 
 m 
 
 ii 
 
 298 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 whose dominion the much contested land of Italy now passed. 
 He had been trained at Constantinople, and was a statesman as 
 well as a warrior. He tried to found a real homogeneous and 
 Christian kingdom of Italy, though it was not yet to be. At 
 his court we catch the last ghmmers of the lamp of classical 
 learning in the West, in the philosopher Boethius, and Cassio- 
 dorus the historian. 
 
 This vast catastrophe, which to those who experienced it 
 seemed like nothing less than the end of the world, was for the 
 stedfastness Church of the West not only her great testing time, 
 of the but her great opportunity. The Church was the 
 
 Church. Qj^Q institution which remained firm and formed the 
 
 link between the old and the new. She had lost something- 
 Britain, Africa, and several countries overrun by Arians ; but 
 she had gained by the final extinction of Roman paganism ; 
 Alaric had demolished the temples while he spared the churches. 
 The invading peoples were better than the outworn civilisation 
 they had overthrown ; they had within them new possibihties 
 of reverence and moral and spiritual growth. Consequently 
 after the fall of the Empire came a great burst of missionary 
 activity, directed to both Arians and heathen. The ' City of God,' 
 whose ideal S. Augustine portrayed in his great book, vindicated 
 herself as something that could not be shaken, and, amidst 
 general ruin, had alone the secret of recovery. 
 
 By the end of the fifth century the movement of the nations 
 was with one exception practically ended. Indeed for a few 
 brief years in the next century it seemed as if the Emperors 
 of the East were again to assert themselves as lords of the West. 
 Justinian won back Italy from the East Goths, and Africa from 
 the Vandals. But these conquests were nearly all lost again 
 by the invasion of the Langobardi or Lombards. For two 
 hundred years more these Arian terrors occupied most of Italy, 
 devastating the country and persecuting the Church. But 
 they failed to estabhsh a lasting dominion or to unite with the 
 previous inhabitants. The political future of West Europe 
 was to be neither with them, nor the Goths, nor the Caesars 
 of Constantinople, but with the Franks. 
 
 THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE 
 
 299 
 
 Clovis. 
 
 The three dominant factors in the gradual settlement and 
 development of the new world of the West were the rise and 
 conversion of the Franks, the great revival and spread of 
 monasticism which began with S. Benedict, and the consolida- 
 tion of the papacy. 
 
 The Franks do not become very prominent in history until 
 481, when Clovis (Clodvig, or Lewis) became their king, and 
 determined to estabhsh an empire for himself in 
 Gaul. During a period of conquest, extending 
 over some thirty years, he extinguished the remains of Roman 
 authority, crippled the Burgundians, and drove out the West 
 Goths into Spain. In 496, Clovis was converted to Catholic 
 Christianity. In that year, when hard pressed on the field of 
 battle by the Alemanni, he vowed himself to Christ, if he might 
 have the victory. He won his fight and kept his word. He 
 was baptized by S. Remigius, Bishop of Rheims, who addressed 
 him on the occasion with the memorable words, ' Bow thine 
 head, burn what thou hast adored, and adore what thou hast 
 burned.' It is one of the turning points of history. Clovis, 
 the founder of the future French nation, became thus ' the eldest 
 son of the Church,' and for the time the only Catholic sovereign 
 in the world, for the Eastern Emperor, Anastasius, was under 
 the cloud of heresy. 
 
 The Goths in Spain, after a severe struggle, relinquished their 
 Arianism under King Recared i. (586-601). Early in the 
 seventh century the Lombards also became converted to 
 
 Catholicism. 
 
 Nevertheless, the CathoHc Church m the West would never 
 have exercised the influence it did but for the bishopric of Rome. 
 This centre of unity and organisation preserved the Church 
 from becoming a mere tribal or national institution, or the 
 vassal of the secular ruler, like the Eastern Church. The founder 
 of the greatness of the papacy, that mysterious institution which 
 was the real successor of the Empire and established its throne 
 of spiritual influence over all the nations of the West, was Leo 
 I. (440-461). And his work was taken up and consoHdated by 
 Gregory I. (590-604). 
 
'I I 
 
 iM 
 
 300 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Leo I., styled rightly ' the great/ has already come before us 
 at two striking moments of his career, his confronting of the 
 Leo the terrible Attila, and his intervention in the Eutychian 
 
 Great. controversy. Both are typical of the man, of his 
 
 courage, his strength, and his wisdom. Throughout his ponti- 
 ficate he is the dominating figure both in Church and state ; 
 he made himself felt not only in Italy and the West, but in 
 Constantinople, Antioch, and Egypt. The prevailing notes 
 of his world-wide policy were unity, authority, firmness in 
 discipline, orthodoxy in doctrine. He is practically the first 
 Bishop of Rome who definitely and consistently acted as one 
 who was commissioned to guide and rule the whole Church as 
 the successor of S. Peter, although the claim had often been 
 made before. And we cannot deny the conscientiousness of 
 his beUef in this, nor that he acted in what he thought the 
 interests of the Church, rather than for any personal ambition 
 or aggrandisement. Whether he was justified in his claims or 
 not, he was the man of the hour, and in the face of the break 
 up of society and the failing of men's hearts in the West, as well 
 as the perpetual quarrels and intrigues of the East, he established 
 ecclesiastical Rome as the centre of unity, as the rock of refuge 
 in the midst of the troubled seas. His claim as Peter's successor 
 was, however, more as the ruler of the Church than as the fountain 
 of infallible teaching. In the Eutychian controversy he based 
 his judgment upon Scripture and the authority of the Church ; 
 and his Tome was ratified at Chalcedon as in accordance with 
 these, not as the final expression of an infalhble Rome. And 
 although his claim to rule the whole Church was largely accepted 
 (due no doubt to the circumstances of the age), the position 
 he claimed for his see was never really admitted in the 
 East — witness its persistence in maintaining the canon as 
 to the position of Constantinople (p. 292). Leo was guilty 
 on occasion of overbearing harshness, as, for example, in his 
 treatment of S. Hilary of Aries, who opposed the efforts of Leo 
 to dominate the Church of Gaul. Yet, like the strong man that 
 he was, he knew when to give way. In 444 he deferred to the 
 decision of Alexandria as to the correct date for Easter, in order 
 
 THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE 
 
 301 
 
 to prevent the scandal of a divided Christendom. Similarly 
 he gave way to the judgment of the Emperor as to the holding 
 of the council on the Eutychian dispute, in the East, rather 
 than in Italy, as he himself desired. 
 
 In addition to Leo's doctrinal writings and his sermons, he 
 contributed to the liturgical development of the Western Church. 
 It seems probable that the ' collect,' the characteristic form of 
 prayer in the West, with its dignity, brevity, and theological 
 exactness, was the creation of S. Leo. Several of the Collects 
 in the EngHsh Prayer Book are translations from the Sacra- 
 mentary that bears his name. One in particular seems to 
 reflect both the troubled times he lived in, and his calm sense 
 of the Divine background : ' Grant, O Lord, we beseech thee, 
 that the course of this world may be so peaceably ordered by 
 thy governance, that thy Church may joyfully serve thee in all 
 godly quietness ' (fifth Sunday after Trinity). 
 
 Leo's successors did not forget the type he had set. Similar 
 claims to his were made by sucli popes as his immediate successor 
 Hilarus (one of the papal legates at the Latrocinium), Gregory the 
 bySimplicius (468-83), and by Gelasius (492-96). The Great, 
 conquests of Justinian and the scandalous career of Pope Vigilius 
 brought the papacy under a temporary cloud ; but at the accession 
 of Gregory i. in 590, the position of the pope was very strong and 
 combined many dignities. He was, to begin with, bishop of 
 the city of Rome, with its mother-church, the Lateran, and, in 
 spite of all disasters, Rome still retained much of her ancient 
 prestige ; he was metropolitan of the seven ancient bishoprics 
 that bordered on the city ; he had a patriarchal oversight of 
 the ' suburban ' provinces, i.e. middle and south Italy, with Sicily, 
 Sardinia, and Corsica ; and whatever objections might be raised in 
 the East to his claim to rule the universal Church as S. Peter's 
 successor, he possessed an indefined but very general authority 
 over all the West. This had been strengthened by imperial 
 edicts, notably that of Valentinian iii., given at the request of 
 Leo I. in 445, which laid down that nothing was to be attempted 
 ' contrary to ancient custom, either by the Galilean bishops or 
 by the bishops of other provinces, without the authority of the 
 
i\ 
 
 I' 
 
 if 
 
 302 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 venerable man, the pope of the eternal city, but whatever the 
 authority of the apostolic see has sanctioned or shall sanction, 
 let that be held by them and by all for a law.' On these founda- 
 tions Gregory i., aided by circumstances and the force of his own 
 personality, was to build up the power which dominated the 
 West all through the Middle Ages. 
 
 Gregory, like his great predecessor Leo, came to the papal 
 chair amidst the darkest troubles, secular and ecclesiastical. 
 His Italy had not yet recovered from the frightful 
 
 difficulties. struggle in which Justinian had overthrown the 
 East Gothic kingdom. In the course of that struggle Rome 
 had for a fourth time been taken by the Goths and sacked 
 (546). The land was out of cultivation, and suffering from 
 the exactions of the imperial exarchs who ruled for the Emperor. 
 And now across the Alps had come the swarms of Arian Lombards 
 once more laying waste the land, and treating its people with 
 pitiless cruelty. Outside Italy, in spite of the comfort to be 
 derived from the conversion of the Goths in Spain, there was 
 much to distress a churchman. In Africa, where the Emperor 
 had nominally restored Catholicism, rose up again the irrecon- 
 cilable Donatists. In Gaul, the kingdom of Clovis was going 
 to pieces under his degenerate successors. The clergy generally 
 were deteriorating, becoming worldly and immoral ; the bishops 
 were warriors and temporal lords, who aimed at their children 
 succeeding to their office. Nothing could make head against 
 these corruptions but the restored monasticism of the West 
 (to be described in a later chapter), and a revival of strength 
 and centrahsation in the see of Rome. These two forces met in 
 S. Gregory, who, though born of a noble Roman family, and 
 once even praetor iirhaniis, was a Benedictine monk, who 
 continued to Hve under his monastic rule, even when called to 
 the papacy. 
 
 Among his first efforts is to be noted his zeal for the reforma- 
 tion both of monks and clergy, and for the aboHtion of simony. 
 Mission to But he was more than a reformer ; he had the great- 
 tiie EngUsh. ness of outlook which makes a missionary and a 
 builder. He devoted himself at once to make peace with and 
 
 THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE 
 
 303 
 
 convert the Lombards. In this he was successful in 599, mainly 
 through his influence with their Queen Theodolinda. His 
 most notable missionary achievement was the foundation of 
 the English Church. Ever since his diaconate he had been 
 eager for the conversion of the English, when, as the story 
 goes, he had seen in the slave-market of Rome the fair-haired 
 captives whom he thought more like angels than ' Angli,' from 
 the northern kingdom of Deira, and had recognised in the name 
 a prophecy of the deliverance ' de ira ' — from the wrath of God, 
 and in that of their king, Aella, a hope that ' Alleluia ' might 
 some day there be sung. He had himself even started on the 
 mission, but was brought back by the Pope at the outcry of 
 the Roman populace. In 597 his hopes began to be realised 
 by the arrival in England of S. Augustine and his band of monks, 
 who preached before King Ethelbert and his Christian queen, 
 Bertha. Though comparatively little in extent was achieved 
 by this mission, it was a real beginning. The king was con- 
 verted, and Canterbury, as the see of Augustine, became the 
 nucleus of the future Church of the EngHsh. Gregory's instruc- 
 tions to Augustine regarding the organisation of the new Church 
 show not only his zeal and love, but his width of mind, HberaHty, 
 and statesmanUke grasp of the possibihties of the future. He 
 had no desire to impose Roman customs on the English ; he 
 was content with such as would be suitable to the national 
 temper, and help to an amalgamation with the relics of British 
 Christianity. Augustine, a narrower spirit than his master, 
 failed indeed to conciliate the British Church, or to extend far 
 his mission beyond its first centre. The conversion of the 
 larger part of England had to be accomplished by missionaries 
 who owed little to Rome. Nevertheless to Gregory belongs 
 the honour of laying the foundation ; and to an English church- 
 man he must always be held, in the words of Bede, * Gregory 
 our father, who sent us baptism.* 
 
 To return to Gregory's work in the already existing Church, 
 he carried on the policy of S. Leo in riveting the authority of 
 liis see over the bishops of the West. In Africa, Gaul, and 
 Spain he estabHshed his influence by connecting specially with 
 
 \ 
 
J 
 
 304 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 himself various bishops whom he called his ' vicars,' and by 
 bestowing on them the ' paUium/ The careful and charitable 
 administration of the papal estates, the patrimonia Petri, be- 
 stowed on his see by various Emperors, also gave him the oppor- 
 tunity of drawing together the people of many countries, both 
 in East and West, in allegiance to Rome. 
 
 And in the city of Rome itself, Gregory must be accounted 
 the founder of that papal sovereignty which was to endure 
 till the nineteenth century. In the early years of his pontificate 
 the exarch at Ravenna was powerless against the Lombards, 
 and Gregory himself was the protector and practical king of 
 Rome, keeping the Lombards at bay, and supporting the destitute 
 out of his carefully managed papal revenues. 
 
 Gregory seems to have made comparatively little attempt 
 to dominate the Eastern Church. But his controversies with 
 Gregory and John of Constantinople are noteworthy. In 593, 
 the East. he protested against John's treatment of two 
 presbyters, heard their case in Rome, and reversed the decision 
 of Constantinople. Two years later he had again to write to 
 John, in indignation at his having assumed the title of ' universal 
 bishop.' Probably this was only intended as a title of honour 
 and not intended to assume authority over the Church generally ; 
 but Gregory felt it as a slur on the primacy of Rome, and ap- 
 parently also he sincerely considered it as a title unbecoming 
 in itself. He used the strongest language against it as irreverent 
 and blasphemous and a sign of the approach of Antichrist, 
 and, what is the more remarkable in view of the popes that 
 were to be, he repudiated it for himself, and chose rather to 
 style himself * servant of the servants of God.' 
 
 Gregory was not only a great ruler ; he was a theological 
 writer, a preacher, and especially a reorganiscr of the worship 
 and the music of the Church. He established a choir school 
 in Rome ; he did something (though how much is a matter 
 of dispute) towards purifying and arranging the ' plain-song ' 
 music which came to be called by his name ; and he made some 
 additions and improvements in the service of the Mass. It 
 is impossible to say at this date how much or liow little S. Gregory 
 
 THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE 
 
 305 
 
 did personally in this direction. But it seems certain that 
 in addition to his reforming, missionary, ruling, and organising 
 talents, he had a liturgical gift, and used it to enhance that 
 splendour and dignity of the ritual and worship of the Western 
 Church which have played no small part in its influence in 
 history. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What causes, internal and external, led to the downfall of the 
 Roman Empire in the West 
 
 2. What was the effect of this catastrophe on the Church ? 
 
 3. What was the importance of the influence and the work of S. Leo 
 at this crisis? 
 
 4. Describe the consolidation of the Papacy by S. Gregory. 
 
 5. What was the missionary work of S. Gregory. 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. The barbarian invaders of the Empire. 
 
 Kingsley. Roman ami Teuton. 
 Hodgkin. Italy and Her Invaders. 
 
 2. S. Gregory the Great. 
 
 Milman. History 0/ Latin Christianity^ \\. 
 
 ' Gregorius I.' Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
 
 3. The foundation of the English Church. 
 
 Bright. Early English Church History. 
 Wakeman. History of the Church of Eftgland. 
 
 The chief original authority is the Ecclesiastical History of Hede. 
 
 ^ 
 
MONASTICISM 
 
 307 
 
 r 
 
 i' 
 
 Asceticism. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. MONASTICISM 
 
 One of the greatest factors in the conversion of Europe, as well 
 as in regenerating the Church of the West after the fall of the 
 
 Empire, was the revival and spread of Monasticism. 
 
 Monasticism must not be confused with asceticism. 
 The ascetic is one who lays upon himself a rigorous law of self- 
 discipline, denying himself as far as possible the natural pleasures 
 of human life, in order that his flesh may be subdued, and his 
 spirit set free. There is nothing essentially Christian in this, 
 and other religions have encouraged such efforts after detach- 
 ment and personal hoUness, often to very extravagant lengths. 
 But early Christianity, while it differed from the heathen ascetics 
 on a vital point, regarding the body and material things as not 
 evil in themselves, and capable of being consecrated by the In- 
 carnation, yet attached great honour to the ascetic life. Many 
 Christians set themselves to abjure marriage, and all the in- 
 dulgences of life beyond the barest necessaries. It is remarkable 
 how most of the greatest men of the Church in the early centuries 
 came under the spell of this ascetic ideal : S. Athanasius, the 
 two Gregories, S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, to mention no others, 
 lived the ascetic life, and in some cases ruined their health by 
 their austerities. 
 
 It is difficult for the modem mind to appreciate the ascetic 
 ideal. It was no doubt to some extent a reaction from the 
 self-indulgence and the low moral standard of heathen society. 
 It sometimes came dangerously near Manichaeism. Nor can 
 it be denied that the ascetic in his renunciation of marriage 
 ignored the charity and self-discipline which are fostered by the 
 new spirit which Christianity infused into the married hfe. 
 Some of the treatises of the fathers on virginity are painful 
 reading from this point of view, and the writers may well be 
 
 306 
 
 accused of spiritual selfishness. Nevertheless, Christian asceti- 
 cism did an important work : it had the notes of sincerity 
 and earnestness ; it prevented Christianity from lapsing into 
 a mere comfortable profession. It showed that men were 
 ready to take the Gospel seriously, and to lose their lives that 
 they might save them. 
 
 The monk was naturally an ascetic, but he was more. He 
 was one who set himself, either singly or in community, to seek 
 Christian perfection by carrying out the precepts TheEgyptian 
 of the Gospel, in a life entirely separated from Monks, 
 worldly society and affairs. The mere ascetic might live in the 
 world, and practise at home, as S. Chrysostom did, his rule of 
 severity by himself. The monk went out of the world. Christian 
 monasticism began in Egypt in the third century. S. Anthony 
 is looked upon as its founder. But he and his imitators did 
 not live in religious communities but in separate cells — at first 
 entirely apart from one another, and later in settlements, where 
 the monks might indeed meet for worship, but maintained in 
 other respects their isolation, living, if not absolutely alone, in 
 the company of not more than one or two others. The greatest 
 of these settlements was in a gloomy district, called Nitria, in 
 the desert south of Alexandria, and its founder was Amoun. 
 This colony grew and became famous ; at a later date it numbered 
 more than 5000, who occupied themselves in prayer and manual 
 labour. 
 
 An important development was due to Pacomius in the 
 early fourth century. He founded, in the district called the 
 Thebaid, the community life, of monks living Monks of 
 together and subject to a common discipline, the west. 
 From Egypt the monastic life spread to Palestine and Syria, 
 and to Asia Minor, where its development under S. Basil has 
 already been noticed (p. 240). The holiness of the monks, their 
 simplicity of life, their visions and their miracles, attracted 
 many pilgrims and admirers from all parts. And by the end 
 of the fourth century monasticism was established in the West, 
 S. Athanasius during his exile made it popular in Rome, and 
 it had the support of such men as S. Ambrose, S. Martin, and 
 
3o8 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 MONASTICISM 
 
 309 
 
 I 
 
 S. Augustine. Among those who had visited and studied the 
 monks of Egypt was John Cassianus, who is usually regarded 
 as the founder of Western monasticism. He established two 
 communities near Marseilles for men and women ; and his 
 book De Institiitis became a standard text-book for the life 
 of those who thus renounced the world. Another monastery 
 of great note was founded in the island of Lerins early in the 
 fifth century by S. Honoratus, from which sprang a long list of 
 famous men, such as were S. Vincent, S. Hilary of Aries, S. 
 Lupus the opponent of Pelagianism, S. Caesarius, and S. 
 Patrick the Apostle of Ireland. 
 
 The monasticism of the West was from the first more sober 
 and practical than that of the East : less controversial and 
 more useful to the Church. The monks of the East were the 
 true children of the desert : it has been said that ' from that 
 rude school issued forth both great men and mad men,' and 
 the two were never perhaps very far apart. Even by the 
 fifth century Eastern monasticism was degenerating into two 
 extreme types, the one of extravagant asceticism, like S. Simeon 
 Styhtes and his imitators ; the other of wild and riotous con- 
 troversialism, now on the side of orthodoxy, as in the Nestorian 
 controversy, now on that of heresy, as in the case of Eutychianism. 
 The monks of Alexandria and Constantinople were often terrors. 
 * Monks commit many crimes/ Theodosius said to S. Ambrose, 
 and with some justice. The murderers of Hypatia were strange 
 representatives of the life of Christian perfection. From such 
 extravagances the monks of the West were free. But the 
 inroads of the barbarians and the overthrow of society made 
 havoc of the monastic institutions, except in Ireland, which 
 was untouched by invasion as it had been untouched by Roman 
 conquest. Elsewhere monasteries were pillaged and destroyed, 
 the monks scattered, and often secularised. A great restorer 
 came in the beginning of the sixth century in the person of 
 S. Benedict. 
 
 Benedict (480-543) sprang from a noble family of Nursia 
 in the old Sabine territory. Sent by his parents to be educated 
 at Rome, he fled from the world at the age of fourteen, and 
 
 S. Benedict. 
 
 lived three years as a hermit in a cave near Subiaco. The 
 fame of his sanctity drew disciples to him in spite of himself ; 
 these he formed into little communities of twelve 
 with an abbot or ' father ' over them, in imitation of 
 our Lord and His disciples. He gave them precepts by which 
 to live and work and pray, and so formed out of the very necessi- 
 ties of the case what came to be the famous Benedictine Rule. 
 In 529 he was compelled by the persecution of his neighbours 
 to seek another home for his own brotherhood, which he found 
 farther south among the Apennines at Monte Cassino. This 
 place became the centre and mother-house of the Benedictine 
 order; destroyed by the Lombards in 580, and several times 
 afterwards, it was as often rebuilt. The founder himself died 
 in 543, a few weeks after his twin sister, S. Scholastica, who had 
 herself founded a convent for women not far from her brother. 
 The Order and the Rule spread rapidly over the West, and 
 became the groundwork of many subsequent monastic develop- 
 ments and reformations, such as that of the Cluniacs in the 
 tenth century, and the Cistercians in the twelfth. 
 
 The Rule of S. Benedict was not altogether new ; much of it 
 had existed before in the earlier monastic communities. But 
 S. Benedict's compilation shows the influence of ^j^^ j^^^^^ 
 a master-mind, which combined religious enthusiasm 
 with a deep knowledge of human nature, a practical sense of 
 the changes that different conditions' and climates require 
 in a rule of life, and a painstaking accuracy in details. Its 
 leading precepts were those of all monastic life, the three rules 
 of poverty, chastity, and obedience ; the last being the peculiar 
 and primary virtue of a monk. The opening words of the 
 Rule lay stress on this. ' Hear, my son, the precepts of the 
 Master, and incline the ear of thine heart ; and receive willingly 
 and fulfil completely the admonition of thy father: in order 
 that by the toil of obedience, thou mayest return to Him from 
 whom by the sloth of disobedience thou hadst departed. To 
 thee therefore is my speech now directed, whosoever thou art, 
 who, renouncing thine own wishes, and desiring to fight for the 
 Lord Christ, the true king, takest up the mighty and glorious 
 

 
 310 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 weapons of obedience/ There was to be no idleness in the 
 Benedictine brotherhood : each day was strictly mapped out, 
 so many hours for prayer, so many for sleep and recreation, and 
 so many for labour. It was this insistence on work which 
 distinguished S. Benedict's creation from the spirit of Eastern 
 monasticism. The work was at first only manual labour, chiefly 
 agriculture ; but study was also admitted, and the monasteries 
 became centres of learning, those who were qualified being 
 allowed to devote their labour to reading, transcribing, and 
 composition. The early Benedictines became the great power 
 of their age for strengthening and extending the Christianity 
 of the West. The Rule proved singularly attractive and drew 
 into the communities not merely the weak and helpless and the 
 disappointed, in a hard and cruel time, but the best, the 
 strongest, and the most intellectual. 
 
 What were the secrets of monastic power ? No doubt, 
 first, the spirit uahty of the early monks. They realised intensely 
 Monastic the supernatural and the unseen. In the midst 
 influence. of a society where might was right, they set them- 
 selves deliberately to follow Christ and put His teaching into 
 action with simplicity and sincerity. Again, the monks had 
 the strength which comes from a common life and a common 
 rule. In such an age the individual tended to be crushed and 
 lost. The community of twelve monks had a much greater 
 influence on the society around them than twelve individuals 
 would have had. They had by combination a strength and 
 a freedom which could not have been theirs otherwise. Each 
 community had in addition the sense that it was part of a wide- 
 spread organisation, hving the same life, with the same aims. 
 And the Benedictines were loyal servants of the Papacy ; and 
 thus the two great powers worked together for unity and common 
 influence for Christ. 
 
 And monasticism justified itself, for it set before the dis- 
 ordered world, as a realised fact, the Christian life in actual 
 working. The monks showed to a society wild and undisciplined, 
 which had almost lost the sense of law, the beauty and worth 
 of a life of obedience and self-sacrifice for the common good. 
 
 MONASTICISM 
 
 311 
 
 Even more remarkable than that, they taught the forgotten 
 lesson of the dignity of labour. This had long been lost sight 
 of. The later Roman Empire had seen the disappearance, at 
 any rate in Italy, of the free agriculturist. His place had been 
 taken by a huge system of slaves who cultivated the great 
 estates [latifundia) which, as the proverb went, had been the 
 ruin of Italy. And the long years of desolating war and one 
 invasion after another had thrown much of the land altogether 
 out of cultivation. The monk, labouring in the fields his seven 
 hours a day, changed the face of the earth. And, once more, 
 the monks taught in practice, what is indeed a deduction from 
 the Christian religion, though Christians were slow to learn it, 
 the essential equality of souls. Under the Benedictine cowl, 
 noble and peasant were equal. The only ranks were that 
 of the abbot and those ofiicials appointed by him. Hence 
 monasticism proved one of the most important factors in the 
 gradual aboHtion of serfdom and slavery. 
 
 Monasticism grew in power by its own successes. To it 
 was due the great missionary enterprises of the centuries that 
 followed the fall of the Empire. And wherever Monastic 
 the monks came as missionaries, they secured their missionaries, 
 conquests by planting new monasteries, centres of teaching, 
 civilisation and industry, as well as of faith and prayer. It 
 is almost impossible to over-estimate what the nations of Europe 
 owed to the early monks, not only for their Christian faith, 
 but for their education in the arts of peace, in farming, in 
 manufactures, in architecture, and in literature. 
 
 It must not be forgotten that, though the Benedictine rule 
 eventually absorbed the other monastic types of the West, 
 there was another notable line of missionary monks who at 
 first had no connection with it, and comparatively little with 
 Rome. These were the Celtic monks of Ireland and Scotland. 
 In Ireland, as already noted, Christianity and the monastic 
 institutions took rapid root. The island was covered with 
 churches and monasteries. From Ireland came the great 
 S. Columba in 563, and founded off the Scottish coast the religious 
 settlement of lona, destined to become one of the most famous 
 
i 
 
 312 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 nurseries of saints and missionaries. And a new lona sprang 
 up off the Northumbrian coast in the island of Lindisfarne — 
 still called Holy Island ; founded by S. Aidan, and under the 
 patronage of the royal saint, Oswald, king of Northumbria. It 
 was to this source that most of the English owed their conversion. 
 Indeed, the history of the beginnings of the English Church 
 illustrates remarkably the Christian influences of the time : 
 The EngHsh the stream from Ireland and the north of the 
 Churcli. freer, less organised Celtic missionaries ; from 
 
 another direction the stream whose source was Rome, and 
 which was destined to draw into its stronger current all the 
 tributaries. At first it seemed as if Rome was to accomplish 
 little in England. The mission of Augustine touched only 
 Kent and Essex. In the next generation indeed Kent sent 
 a notable missionary to the north in the person of Paulinus, 
 who converted King Edwin of Northumbria, and did a great 
 work in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. On the death of Edwin, 
 however, Paulinus was compelled to retire before a new advance 
 of victorious heathenism ■ under Penda the Mercian king. 
 Christianity in the north was in danger of total extinction ; 
 but it was saved and renewed by the valour and piety of the 
 great S. Oswald, now king of Northumbria. He, after defeat- 
 ing the ally of Penda at Heavenfield, under the banner of the 
 cross, sent to lona where he himself had been educated, for a 
 leader of a new mission to his people. The first monk who 
 was sent retired, disgusted at what he thought the barbarism 
 of Northumbria. But he was followed by a gentler and larger- 
 minded saint, Aidan, one of the most beautiful characters of 
 the early Church. He established himself at Lindisfarne, opposite 
 the spot on the mainland where Oswald had his royal fortress 
 of Bamborough ; and from this centre, the monk and the king 
 made their missionary journeys, devoting themselves with 
 wonderful simplicity and zeal to the work of converting the 
 northerners. A check seemed to come in 642, when Oswald 
 fell in battle before the heathen Penda. But Penda himself 
 was defeated and killed in 655, and the heathen reaction ended 
 with him. 
 
 MONASTICISM 
 
 313 
 
 Other great workers whose inspiration came from Celtic 
 Christianity were Cedd, who laboured among the East Saxons, 
 and Ceadda or Chad in the Midlands. A still greater name is 
 that of S. Cuthbert, of Melrose, the apostle of the lowlands of 
 Scotland, abbot of Lindisfarne and Bishop of Hexham, who died 
 a lonely hermit on the island of Fame (686) . 
 
 Meanwhile, Wessex had been converted by a missionary 
 from Rome, S. Birinus, sent by Pope Honorius i. in 634. But 
 still the great bulk of English Christianity was ^^laigania- 
 Celtic in origin and methods. Leaving out of tionof 
 account the relics of the earlier British Church Celtic and 
 
 in Wales, Cornwall, and Strathclyde, which never ^^^^^ 
 
 • r xT_ T- T 1, Missions, 
 
 did anythmg for the conversion of the English 
 
 invader, the new Christianity of England owed no allegiance to 
 Canterbury, and little to Rome. It was doubtless for its ad- 
 vantage that it soon came under the unifying and centralising 
 influence of Rome, and thus came into touch with continental 
 Christianity. The Celtic monks and missionaries made 
 marvellous apostles, but they could not apparently have or- 
 ganised and kept together a lasting Church. At the synod of 
 Whitby in 664, the customs of Rome were adopted in preference 
 to those of lona and Lindisfarne, and the process of amalgama- 
 tion of the two types of Christianity began, under the rule of 
 Rome. This process was consoKdated by the work of the great 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, Theodore, the Greek of Tarsus, who 
 was chosen for that oflice and consecrated personally by the 
 Pope (668). In the next century the Celtic Church in Wales 
 also fell into Hne, and accepted the ways of Rome. 
 
 The same strength and weakness of Celtic m.issionary work 
 are seen in the career of the great S. Columbanus (543-615), who 
 came from the monastery of Bangor in Ireland, The Conver- 
 instituted a rule which seemed at one time as if sionof 
 it would rival that of S. Benedict, and achieved Europe, 
 great missionary works in Gaul and Switzerland and North 
 Italy. But his institutions and successors soon merged in the 
 Benedictine and Roman rule. Monks from Scotland and Ireland, 
 such as were Fridolin in the sixth century and Kilian in the 
 
u~ 
 
 314 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 seventh, laboured at the conversion of the heathen tribes of 
 Germany. But again, the greatest and most permanent work 
 in this region was done by S. Boniface, an EngKshman by birth 
 (680-755), who had his mission from Rome. He spent most of 
 a long Hfe labouring among the German savages ; he estabhshed 
 a monastic centre at Fulda, and himself became Bishop of 
 Mainz. He suffered mart3n:dom in his old age at the hands of 
 the Frisians. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that, whatever may be our judgment 
 as to either the monastic ideal or the claims of the papacy, 
 it was certainly due to monks and monasteries that much of 
 the conversion of the West was effected ; and their work was 
 rendered stable and permanent by the centralising and unifying 
 genius of the see of Rome. 
 
 To summarise briefly other missionary works of the early 
 Middle Ages : — Sweden and Denmark owed the beginnings of 
 their conversion largely to a monk, Anskar (801-865). Norway, 
 on the other hand, was more forcibly converted by two Christian 
 kings, Olaf Trygveson and Olaf 11. (S. Olaf), at the end of the 
 tenth and beginning of the eleventh centuries. One of the 
 last strongholds of heathenism (as it remains still to-day !) 
 was the region of the Prussi, who, after resisting various efforts, 
 were finally partly converted and partly exterminated by the 
 Teutonic Knights, a mihtary religious order, in the thirteenth 
 century. 
 
 The Eastern Church did not spend all her energies -in con- 
 troversy. Great missionary works were accomplished by her 
 in the ninth and tenth centuries among the Slavonic and Turanian 
 races ; notably by S. Cyril and S. Methodius, to whom Bulgaria 
 and Moravia owe their conversion. Later followed Bohemia 
 and Poland ; and at the end of the tenth century Russia, largely 
 through the influence of her king, Vladimir. 
 
 MONASTICISM 
 
 Questions. 
 
 315 
 
 ^i 
 
 1. What is meant by ' Monasticism ' ? 
 
 2. Trace the beginnings of it in the Church. 
 
 3. Describe the work of S. Benedict. 
 
 4. What was the influence of the monks on Western Europe after the 
 fall of the Empire ? 
 
 5. Show from the early history of the English Church (i) the 
 missionary power of monasticism ; (2) the influence of the Papacy. 
 
 6. Summarise the history of the conversion of Europe to Christianity. 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. Monastic influence. 
 
 Kingsley. Ro?nan and Teuton. 
 Montalembert. Monks of the West/\. 
 Duchesne. Early History of the Churchy ii. 
 
 2. The Conversion of Europe. 
 
 Schaff. History of the Church (Mediaeval), vol. i. 
 
 Robinson. Ho7V the Gospel Spread through Europe, S.P.C.K. 
 
 i! 
 
THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON 
 
 317 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON 
 
 The Council of Chalcedon had endeavoured to quiet the spirit 
 of controversy as to the Person of Christ by affirming the two 
 Opposition natures in the unity of the one Person, and by 
 to Chalcedon. refusing to allow that either the Divinity or humanity 
 in Christ is impaired by their union. It had simply stated 
 both sides of the Incarnation clearly and fully, and refrained 
 from giving a pliilosophical explanation of how they are united. 
 It was a good method as far as it went, and prdxibly men had 
 been wise to have gone no further. That Clirist is at onco 
 perfectly God and perfectly man. and that He is not two but 
 one, is in harmony, with Scripture ; and the simple believer 
 in all ages has found it a sufficient statement of his faith. 
 
 Unhappily the theological ferment of the East was not appeased 
 by this settlement. Dioscorus. the patron of Eut>Thcs. had 
 a large following, and it was easy to represent the decision of 
 Chalcedon as being really Nestorianism. Moreover, tlkC question 
 was complicated by political quarrels. The couneil appeared 
 to have been dominated by the EmixTor; and there was the 
 continual jealousy of Constant iiiopje. 
 
 Chalcedon, instead of being the. end, was but the beginning 
 of a long and disastrous controversy. The opposition became 
 Monophyai- known as Monoplu^itism. Its principlcts were 
 ^i«"»- stated variously, in more or less extr<?mc forms, 
 
 and the crude mistakes of Eut\xhes were somewliat refined 
 upon. Rut ihr persistent tenet was that in the IiK-.miate 
 there is but ' one nature.' To iKieh this seemed to tin* Muno- 
 physite the only way of safeguarding tlic unity of Qirist's 
 Person. 'Two nature' seemed to him to be the error of 
 Nestorius. Without Jfaying. like Eutydu-s. that the manliood 
 wa$ swallowed up in the Godhead, the Munophysite apparently 
 
 made the human side of Christ to cease to be truly human, 
 because of its union with His Divinity : he imagined it to be in 
 some way mixed with his Divinity and so losing its distinctness. 
 In his eagerness to maintain that Christ is one, he impaired 
 the reality of Christ's human example, and made it impossible 
 to conceive of Him as a true mediator. The manhood of the 
 Monophysite Christ was different in kind from ours. 
 
 The controversy ran its course through many weary years, 
 and many violent outbursts of rage and intrigue, at Alexandria, 
 Antioch, and elsewhere. As usual in the East, schism of 
 the Emperor intervened as a theological authority. East and 
 In 482, Zeno attempted to conciliate all parties by ^®^^- 
 jHiblishing a document called the Henoticon, in which he com- 
 pronii«4.xl by condemning both Nestorius and Eutyche.s. by 
 declaring the Creed of Nicaca and Constantinople to be suftkient, 
 and by setting forth a statement of the Incarnation whicli, 
 while quite ortliodox in its poc^ttve statements, skilfully avoided 
 the point at issue! This docinnent was probably the work 
 of Acacius of Constantinople. It had little effect in restoring 
 peace, and it« sequel w^ tlie excommunication of Acacius by 
 Eclix of Rome. Hence a ^\\\^\ began bctwci^i East and West 
 that lasted for thirty-five years (484.519); and the wholo 
 Eastern Church came under the suspicion of being Monophysite. 
 The Emperor who succeeded Zeno, Anastasius, was certainly 
 a favourer of the hcRsy ; and all attempts to heal the schism 
 failed until the reign of Justin, when the East as a whol<\ with 
 the exception of Egypt, agreed to accept tlie deci^on of 
 
 Chalcedon. 
 
 But still the quarrel was far fn>m ended, as indei^d it is not 
 ended to this very day. Justin was succeeded in 527 by his 
 nei)hew Justinian, one of the most poMxrrful aiwl jattinlmai 
 remarkable of all the Empcrois. A man of vast Conqu««u. 
 ambitions and great achievements, with the gift of chousing 
 and employing dissociates of ability, he was himself inscrutable 
 and mv^terious, * neither beloved in his life, nor regretted in 
 his death * (Gibbon). He set liimself to tl>e huge task of re- 
 covering the lost territories of tl>e Ejnpirc in the West ; and 
 
 f< 
 
 (1 
 
3i8 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 at the cost of vast bloodshed and many years of struggle, he 
 almost succeeded, though the conquest proved futile and short- 
 lived. In 534, his great general, Belisarius, won back Africa 
 from the Vandals. Catholicism was once more established, 
 but it was too late to save the glories of the church of Cyprian 
 and Augustine. Invasion, heresy, and religious strife had 
 left of it but a ' shadow of a shade.' In 553, the eunuch Narses 
 drove the Goths out of Italy, completing the long and terrible 
 struggle which Behsarius had begun in 535. Italy suffered 
 more probably in this attempt to win her back to the Empire 
 than even in the invasions which had torn her from it. And 
 fifteen years later came the Lombards, and the Western dominion 
 of Constantinople was ended for ever. 
 
 Justinian's works of peace were more lasting. He was a 
 great builder ; and his Cathedral of S. Sophia at Constantinople 
 His legal is a worthier monument of him than the devastations 
 code. of Italy. But his greatest secular work was the 
 
 codification of the Roman Law : a work that makes an epoch 
 in history. He brought together and unified the whole of the 
 vast mass of scattered legislation of the past ; the statutes of 
 the far-off days of the republic, the annual edicts of the praetors, 
 the rescripts and edicts of the Emperors, the responsa pnidentum, 
 i.e. the various opinions of learned legists which had gained 
 the force of law. And all this was brought into harmony with 
 the changed religion of the Empire. The introduction to tlie 
 Institutes incorporates the creeds and the decisions of the first 
 four general councils with the law of Rome. And this is followed 
 by a corpus juris ecclesiastici, the laws made by the Church, 
 but sanctioned and authorised by the Emperor. 
 
 Justinian, even more thoroughly than past Emperors, acted 
 as a lay pope, a fount of theological learning and an arbiter 
 His church and authority in religious disputes. In the early 
 policy. part of his reign he was an eager supporter of 
 
 orthodoxy and the decisions of Chalcedon ; an active persecutor 
 of heretics and non-Christians. He endeavoured to force 
 baptism on all his subjects, and rigorously attacked the relics 
 of paganism. He was no respecter of old institutions if they 
 
 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON 
 
 319 
 
 ' 
 
 did not fall in with his own views, or with Christianity. An 
 example of this is his suppression of the schools of philo- 
 sophy at Athens, where heathen professors still lectured, and 
 Christianity was ignored. 
 
 But there was another influence at the court, as powerful 
 as the Emperor himself, and more unscrupulous. Justinian 
 had married a woman from the stage, of infamous Theodora 
 character, but of great beauty and ability, and an and the 
 inordinate lover of power, And this Empress ^^pa-cy- 
 Theodora was a strong adherent of the Monophysitcs. She 
 aimed at attacking orthodoxy in its greatest stronghold, the 
 papacy. She tried in vain to persuade Pope Sylverius to fall 
 in with her wishes, and admit the condemned Monophysitcs 
 to communion. She then decided on his deposition, and accom- 
 plished it through Belisarius, on a false charge that he had 
 tried to betray Rome to the Goths. Her own candidate was 
 ready, the Archdeacon Vigilius, whom she is said to have bribed 
 with 700 pounds of gold and the offer of the papacy, if he would 
 admit the Monophysitcs and endeavour to overthrow Chalcedon. 
 
 The career of Vigilius (537-555) is one of the most amazing 
 episodes in the history even of the papacy : a ix)pc who gained 
 his election by simony, who vacillated between one side and 
 another on a great doctrinal issue, and was actually condemned 
 by a general council. He did not prove at first the obedient 
 tool that Theodora had paid her money to obtain ; and he was 
 summoned to Constantinople, where he was kept for seven years * 
 in practical custody. 
 
 The pretext for this was suppHed by a new effort of Justinian 
 to reunite the Monophysitcs with the Church. He prepared 
 a treatise for the signature of the bishops which The Three 
 gave rise to the famous controversy of the Three chapters. 
 Chapters. This was an attack on Nestorianism, and an insinua- 
 tion that in some points the Council of Chalcedon had erred. 
 The * Three Chapters ' were the writings of three men who were 
 all dead, Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, though the real founder 
 of Nestorianism, had hitherto escaped formal condemnation ; 
 Theodoret, who had attacked S. Cyril ; and Ibas, Bishop of 
 
 i 
 
 !/' 
 
Vigilius. 
 
 320 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH • 
 
 Edessa, who had written a letter to the same effect to Maris, 
 a Persian bishop. Both Theodoret and Ibas had been acquitted 
 of heresy at Chalcedon and restored to communion. 
 
 The bishops of the East were ready to fall in with the Emperor's 
 wishes and condemn the three ; but those of the West were 
 strongly opposed to this course, not as either favouring Theodore, 
 or desiring to condemn the theology of Cyril, but simply in 
 loyalty to the Council of Chalcedon, which seemed to be attacked. 
 
 Pope Vigilius arrived at Constantinople in 547, where at first 
 he showed himself quite unbending, and refused to condemn 
 the Three Chapters, even breaking off communion 
 with Mennas, the Bishop of Constantinople. But 
 this attitude soon changed; he published a Judicatum in 
 which he condemned all the three, though maintaining the 
 authority of Chalcedon. The West was furious, and an African 
 council excommunicated the Pope. Vigilius withdrew his 
 Judicatum and asked for a general council. But again he 
 stiffened himself, and defied the Emperor by excommunicating 
 again Mennas and Theodore of Caesarea. The Pope now had 
 to flee for his Hfe : first he took refuge in the basilica of S. Peter, 
 whence an attempt was made to drag him out by violence; 
 then to Chalcedon, which he refused to leave, and remained at 
 hostility with the Emperor until the proposed general council 
 actually met. 
 
 This council, considered oecumenical, the Second Council 
 'of Constantinople, met in May 553. Vigilius refused to attend, 
 Fifth as it was composed almost entirely of Eastern 
 
 Council. bishops. (There were 139 from the East and 
 
 only six from the West.) He issued, however, a new statement 
 called the Constitiitum, in which he now refused to condemn 
 the Chapters, * by the authority of the Apostolic See.' The 
 council ignored this protest, condemned both the writings of 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia and the writer himself. As to Theodoret 
 and Ibas, it merely condemned the actual writings to which 
 exception had been taken by the Emperor. And it excom- 
 municated Vigilius, who was now banished by the Emperor. 
 After six months of exile, he again veered round, and surrendered 
 
 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON 
 
 321 
 
 to the decision of the council. He was allowed to return to 
 Rome, but died in Sicily on his way thither (555). 
 
 The most important work of the Fifth General Council, how- 
 ever, was the confirmation of the four previous councils, and 
 the solemn condemnation of the error of Eutyches and of all 
 Monophysitism. Its decisions were embodied in fourteen 
 Anathemas ; and it is remarkable that in the eleventh of these 
 not only Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, ApoUinaris, Nestorius, 
 and Eutyches are condemned, but also the great Origen. There 
 are also in existence fifteen Anathemas dealing with the actual 
 teaching of Origen, though it is a matter of controversy whether 
 these were actually the work of this council or not. The council 
 had practically followed the lead of the Emperor, though its 
 confirmation of Chalcedon took the sting out of its condemna- 
 tion of the Chapters. The Anathema on Origen was probably 
 due also to the influence of Justinian. 
 
 As might be expected, it was long before this council was 
 accepted in the West as oecumenical; but it was ultimately 
 received, when the feelings aroused at the time had died away, 
 and it was recognised as being a real condemnation of Mono- 
 physitism. 
 
 The result in the East was the general separation of the 
 Monophysites from the Church, and a schism was originated, 
 various branches of which have endured to the survival 
 present day. This schism would probably have of the Mono- 
 perished under the persecution of Justinian, had not Piiysites. 
 a Monophysite hero and saint appeared in the person of Jacobus, 
 a monk consecrated Bishop of Edessa about 541. By his 
 extraordinary missionary zeal and untiring labours, he reor- 
 ganised and strengthened the Monophysite remnant, ordaining 
 a vast number of bishops and clergy, and building up a wide- 
 spread Monophysite communion, in defiance of the Emperor. 
 From him the Monophysites gained their later name of Jacobites. 
 They exist still in the form of the Jacobite Church of Syria and 
 Mesopotamia and the Coptic Church of Egypt, under the Mono- 
 physite patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria respectively ; the 
 Armenian Church ; and the Abyssinian Church. 
 
nv 
 
 322 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 In his later years Justinian himself is said to have become 
 a Monophysite, of the extreme sect called the Aphthartodocetists, 
 who taught that the Lord's body was in itself incorruptible, and 
 differed from the bodies of men not only in sinlessness, but in 
 the absence of all human infirmities. 
 
 A further controversy, arising out of Monophysitism, arose 
 r^in the early seventh century, and continued to agitate the 
 Monotlieli- whole Church until it, in turn, was settled by a 
 tism. general council. This new error is known as Mono- 
 
 thelitism ; it is a logical deduction from that of the Monophysites, 
 teaching that in Christ there is but one will. It was adopted 
 by some even who had conformed to the Fifth Council and re- 
 cognised the two natures in Christ. They considered that the 
 will is indissolubly bound up with personality, and that as 
 Christ is one person He can have but one will, or * energy,' as 
 it was expressed. How or when Monothehtism first appeared 
 is doubtful ; but it sprang partly out of a Monophysite desire 
 to save the situation to that extent at least, and partly out of 
 purely poHtical influences. As usual in the controversies of the 
 East, the Emperors played a prominent part in its course. The 
 Emperor Herachus found his Empire in imminent peril first 
 from the Persians, and then from the Arabs, inspired by the 
 teaching of their new prophet, Mahomet. From 611 to 622 
 the Persians had advanced steadily westwards, occupying Syria 
 and most of Asia Minor, and even threatening Constantinople. 
 Herachus invaded Persia, and in six brilliant campaigns broke 
 its strength, regained its conquests, and restored to Jerusalem 
 the reUcs of the true Cross in 629. But he felt that the con« 
 tinued opposition of the Monophysites in Syria, Armenia, and 
 Egypt was a source of internal weakness. He was eager to. 
 conciliate them, and after consultation with Sergius of Con- 
 stantinople and Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis and afterwards of 
 Alexandria, a formula was proposed to the effect that in Christ 
 there was * one divine-human energy.' This was strenuously 
 opposed by Sophronius, a monk, who became Bishop of Jerusalem 
 in 633, and Maximus, a man of great ability and saintly character. 
 But the Monothelites gained the support of Pope Houorius I.,. 
 
 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON 
 
 323 
 
 who wrote in approval of the heresy ; and the Emperor published 
 in 638 an edict called the Edhesis, which endeavoured to end 
 the controversy by prohibiting further discussion as to whether 
 there are one or two ' energies,' but declared that there is only 
 one ' will ' in Christ. 
 
 But as Rome had been instrumental in supporting the error, 
 its downfall came also from Rome. Pope Theodore, in 648, 
 excommunicated Paul of Constantinople. And in condemned 
 the next year, Pope Martin i., in the first Lateran by Pope 
 Council, attended by a large number of bishops, Martin, 
 condemned Monothehtism, and issued a statement that as in 
 Christ there are two natures human and divine, so there are 
 two wills and two energies, in perfect harmony. There can be 
 no doubt that this expresses the mind of the CathoHc Church ; 
 and is not only in accordance with Scripture {e.g. * Not my will 
 but Thine be done'), but is necessary to the fulness of the 
 Incarnation. A Christ without a human will would not be 
 perfect man, nor a true mediator. He would be wanting in 
 that faculty which in man has been the seat and instrument 
 of sin, and needs redemption. 
 
 But the Pope had to suffer heavily for his courage. The 
 Emperor, Constans ii., was a bitterer upholder of heresy than 
 his predecessor. In an edict called the Type, he had forbidden, 
 under severe penalties, all discussion of the subject. He caused 
 Martin to be arrested and imprisoned at Constantinople. But 
 this Pope was made of sterner stuff than Vigilius. He persisted 
 in his defiance, was treated with great cruelty, and finally 
 banished to the Crimea, where he died (655). Maximus and 
 two of his friends were also seized, tortured, mutilated and 
 banished, Maximus dying by what was really a mart3a-'s death 
 
 in 662. 
 
 But Monothehtism had little inherent strength. A change 
 of Emperors brought about its downfall. The Emperor Con- 
 stantine iv. took the orthodox side and summoned the The sixth 
 Sixth General Council, the third of Constantinople, councu. 
 680-681. Here again a Pope was as influential as Leo i. had 
 been at Chalcedon. The council not only condemned Mono- 
 
 i;l 
 
 I « 
 
324 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 thelitism, but issued a statement almost in the words of a letter 
 of Pope Agatho. Among the heretics anathematised by the 
 council was Pope Honorius i., a difficult problem for the upholders 
 of Papal InfalUbility. The Sixth Council was accepted by both 
 East and West as oecumenical. The anathema was signed by 
 the legates of Agatho, and confirmed by the next Pope, Leo ii., 
 who asserted that Honorius had ' endeavoured by profane 
 betrayal to subvert the immaculate faith.' And the fact was 
 actually recorded in the Roman Breviary until the sixteenth 
 cfcntury. 
 
 In spite of this lapse from orthodoxy, the power and influence 
 of the papacy continued to grow. After the Sixth Council 
 Growing ^he Popes generally assume the title of * Universal 
 
 strength of Bishop,' against which Gregory the Great had 
 the papacy, protested. We have seen how the English Church 
 in this century became united in its allegiance to Rome. The 
 last bit of independent Italy, the exarchate of Ravenna, was 
 by imperial rescript placed under the jurisdiction of Pope Leo 
 II. in 683. Spain became closely united to the papacy. The 
 Bishops of Africa had made their submission to Pope Theodore 
 during the Monothelite controversy, acknowledging him as 
 bishop of all bishops, and the fountain of truth. And the next 
 attempt of the Emperors to intimidate a Pope met with signal 
 failure. A council called Quinisextine, regarded as a continua- 
 tion of the fifth and sixth, was held at Constantinople in 692, 
 which passed a number of canons with a certain anti-Roman 
 bias (e.g. the Bishop of Constantinople was put on an equality with 
 him of Rome ; and the ordination of married men was allowed, 
 except in the case of bishops). The Emperor Justinian 11. desired 
 Pope Sergius to accept these canons. He refused, and the 
 Emperor's attempt to arrest him and bring him to Constantinople 
 came to nought. 
 
 During the next reign, that of Philippicus (711-713), imperial 
 tyranny gave a brief triumph again to the Monothelites. The 
 Si.xth Council w^i.'^ declaKul n\ill and void, and John, a Mono- 
 tlnrlitc bishop. c^Ublished at Constantinople. But the West 
 refused to recognise any of this, and Po])c Constantiiie ex- 
 
 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON 
 
 325 
 
 communicated the Emperor. The next Emperor, Anastasius 
 II., restored Catholicism. John abjured his heresy, and wrote 
 penitently to Pope Constantine, professing his orthodoxy. 
 
 The only scliism created by the Monothelite controversy 
 was that of tlie Maronites of Mount Lebanon (so-called after 
 their first bishop, John Maron). This was ended in 1182 by 
 the union of the Maronites with Rome. They still retain some 
 of their Eastern characteristics, e.g. a married clergy. 
 
 The controversy as to the Person of Christ was revived in the 
 eighth century in Spain and Gaul. The new error became 
 known as Adoptionism (not to be confused with Adoption- 
 the * Adoptionism ' of the third century as taught ism. 
 by Paul of Samosata and others). Its leading supporters were 
 Elipandus, Bishop of Toledo, and Felix, Bishop of Urgela. They 
 taught what was really a more subtle form of Ncstorianism, 
 namely, that while Christ was in His Divine nature truly the 
 Son of God, and also truly man by His Incarnation, He was 
 in His human nature the adopted Son of God. This is practically 
 to introduce a second person into the Incarnation, as it attri- 
 butes a different sort of sonship to the humanity of Christ. 
 The Catholic doctrine is that the manhood is indissolubly 
 united to the Person of Christ, so that He is not two but 
 one Christ. The Incarnate, God and man, is one Person, and 
 that Person is the eternal Son of God. The error was denounced 
 by Pope Hadrian in 785, and finally condemned by an important 
 council at Frankfort in 794. 
 
 Here the problem rested as far as the conciliar action of the 
 Church was concerned. It is one which theologians of to-day 
 still regard as unsettled ; but it is doubtful whether either 
 reason or reverence can go further than the decisions of the 
 councils which have already been described. 
 
 The controversies of the following centuries were busy with 
 other problems, notably with those of Predestination, and the 
 presence of Clirist in the Holy Eucharist. 
 
 t 
 
326 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. What was Monophysitism ? 
 
 2. How did it cause dissension between East and West? 
 
 3. Sketch the work of the Emperor Justinian. 
 
 4. Describe the career of Pope VigiHus. 
 
 5. Explain what is meant by the Three Chapters. 
 
 6. What was the importance of the Fifth General Council ? 
 
 7. What further development of the Monophysite controversy 
 occurred in the seventh century ? 
 
 8. How was it dealt with in East and West ? 
 
 9. Who were the * Adoptionists ' of the eighth century ? 
 10. Show the influence of the Papacy during this period. 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. The Emperor Justinian. 
 
 Hodgkin. Italy and Her Invaders. 
 
 * Justinianus.' Dictio?iary of Christian Biography, 
 
 2. The bearing of the Monophysite controversies on Papal claims. 
 
 Dollinger. Fables respecting the Popes. 
 Puller. Primitive Saints and the See of Rome. 
 
 3. The Monophysite Churches. 
 
 Parry. Six Months in a Syrian Monastery. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. MOHAMMEDANISM : 
 
 ICONOCLASM 
 
 A FAR more terrible and lasting disaster came upon the 
 civilisation and Christianity of the East and the South of the 
 Empire in the seventh century, than anything Rise of 
 which had befallen the West from the fifth century islam, 
 onwards. The agony of the West when Rome fell before the 
 Goth was but the travail-pain of a ^ew world. Out of it rose 
 fresh young nations and a strengthened Church. But the 
 watchman still waits vainly for a dawning to that night which, 
 descended on the East and on Africa when the conqiDaying 
 Mohammedans swept over them. With extraordinary sud- 
 denness this new religion propagated by the sword sprang 
 up and developed. Mohammedanism or ' Islam,' like both 
 Judaism and Christianity, arose from the Semitic stock. Destined 
 to prove the most formidable rival that the Church has ever 
 had to contend with, it originated among a people who hitherto 
 had played little part in history, the wandering tribes of Arabia, 
 ' the children of Ishmael/ afterwards known as Saracens (' desert- 
 men '). 
 
 Its founder, Mahomet or Muhammad, a man of noble birth, 
 though a camel-driver and illiterate, was born at Mecca in 570. 
 
 In his fortieth year he began to have revelations, ,, ^ 
 
 . . . Mahomet. 
 
 to see visions and receive, as he believed, the in- 
 spiration of a prophet. He felt himself called to be a teacher 
 of monotheism and a foe of idolatry in every shape. At first 
 he met with little success, and was driven by persecutions to 
 flee in 622 to Medina. This is the famous Hegira, the Flight of 
 the Prophet, reckoned as the beginning of Mohammedan chron- 
 ology. It was the turning point of his career. He began to 
 
 327 
 
\ 
 
 328 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 preach the new faith in a definite arid authoritative form and to 
 claim for it an absolute and universal acceptance. He marshalled 
 his followers as a religious army, whose mission was to convert 
 or subdue the world ; a mission carried out with an enthusiasm 
 and success unparalleled in history. 
 
 Islam is professedly built upon the same foundation as Judaism 
 and Christianity. It looks back to Abraham as the father of 
 Moham- the faithful, and it regards Jesus with respect as a 
 
 medan prophet. It was this combination of various 
 
 Theology. elements from the earlier rehgions that has led 
 Christians to speak of its founder as a ' heretic,' and the religion 
 as a new form of Gnosticism. Its precepts are embodied in 
 the Koran, a book believed to have been dictated to Mahomet 
 by the angel Gabriel. Islam possesses the merits of simphcity 
 and definiteness. The fo\^ndation principle is monotheism : 
 there is one only God, identified with the God of Jew and 
 ""hristian, but no Trinity of persons, and no Incarnation, 
 i mently the first duty is to wage war against idolatry — 
 wnich was rife in Arabia, its centre being Mecca, with its Caaba, 
 a black fetish stone. And the Christianity with which Mahomet 
 was chiefly acquainted came under the same ban. 
 
 To this one God, revealed finally through His prophet 
 Mahomet, there must be absolute obedience — not however a 
 mere passive submission like that of the Buddhist, but an 
 eager devotion. This obedience, it was taught, God would 
 I reward hereafter with a Paradise of sensual joy. And God 
 |has foreordained all that happens — a belief which developed 
 into a stern fatalism which stiffened its followers both in doing 
 and in suffering. 
 
 j There was no priesthood, no sacrifice, no intermediary between 
 God and man, though there was abundance of angels, both 
 good and bad : no sense of sin, no atonement. Nor was there 
 any separation between Church and State. Mahomet and the 
 Caliphs who succeeded him were heads of the civil poHty because 
 they were heads of the religion. 
 
 Another source of strength in Islam was its almost cynical 
 adaptation to the frailties of humanity. It set no high ideal 
 
 MOHAMMEDANISM : ICONOCLASM 
 
 329 
 
 of unworldly perfection. It took men as they are, sensual and 
 self-seeking, and offered them material rewards and punish- 
 ments, in the world to come as well as in this. It its low 
 gave them indeed a strict code of morals, but a standards, 
 morality of mere rules ; and while it forbade the use of wine, it 
 allowed and encouraged polygamy. It fostered neither humiUty 
 nor spirituality, and produced instead a perfectly satisfied self- 
 righteousness. Those who kept its precepts and recited its 
 prayers were sure of Paradise. 
 
 Hence naturally the new religion was entirely intolerant : 
 and Mahomet and his followers regarded themselves as divinely 
 commissioned to force it upon a disobedient world at the point 
 of the sword. * The sword is the key of heaven and hell.' The 
 Saracen armies presented men with only three alternatives, 
 conversion, slavery, or death. For idolaters there was no 
 choice between the first and the third. For Jews, and to some 
 extent for Christians, who possessed true but imperfect religions, 
 there was the second possibility of submission and paying 
 tribute. 
 
 Islam, without doubt, was an advance on the idolatries of 
 the Arabs ; and it can hardly be doubted that it came as a 
 well- deserved scourge upon the controversial and often de- 
 graded Christianity of the East. But it is an unprogressive 
 religion, and so far from leading men to any higher or more 
 spiritual faith and practice, it has been and still is the greatest 
 foe to Christianity, and the least open of all the world-religions 
 to the Christian appeal. 
 
 The progress of Islam was extraordinary. Mahomet died 
 in 632, but under his next two successors, Abu-Bekr and Omar 
 (632-651), a continual advance was made on the The advance 
 Roman Empire. While the MonotheUte controversy of Moham- 
 was proceeding, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria medanism. 
 were taken and transformed into Mohammedan cities. Con- 
 stantinople itself was twice besieged, in 668 and 717, but as yet 
 in vain. The invention of 'Greek fire,' an explosive which water 
 could not extinguish, frustrated all efforts by sea. Africa 
 yielded to Islam in 707. The African Church, long crippled, 
 
 1 
 
 
 i 
 
\ 
 
 330 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 came utterly to an end. From Africa the Moslem armies crossed 
 into Spain, conquered nearly the whole of the peninsula, and 
 were not finally dislodged for nearly eight centuries. Persia was 
 subdued in the ninth century, and the Persian dynasty and 
 the Persian religion destroyed. A large part of India followed 
 suit. The whole of Europe was threatened, but in 732 Charles 
 Martel, grandfather of Charles the Great, inflicted a decisive 
 defeat on the invaders at Tours. This and the steady resistance 
 of the Emperors at Constantinople, assisted by inward dissensions 
 among the Saracens themselves, saved European civilisation 
 and Christianity. Saracen advance never went much farther 
 than the Pyrenees in the West and Mount Taurus in the 
 East. But a new Mohammedan power arose in the eleventh 
 century, the Seljukian Turks, who at last in 1453 made them- 
 selves masters of Constantinople, overthrowing the Eastern 
 Empire, and turning the glorious cathedral of S. Sophia into a 
 mosque. Again Mohammedanism became a standing menace 
 to Europe. Vienna was the next goal aimed at ; but it was not 
 to be ; the Turks were finally repulsed from its walls in 1683. 
 
 It has already been seen how the Monothehte controversy 
 was engineered by the Eastern Emperors as a means of uniting 
 discordant Christians in the face of the new invaders. 
 Another direct result of the same peril is seen in 
 the Iconoclastic disputes which disturbed the peace of the 
 Church of the eighth century, and strained the relations between 
 East and West. Iconoclasm (' the breaking of images ') was 
 an imperial attempt to abohsh the Christian use of sacred pictures, 
 no doubt with the idea of removing the Mohammedan reproach 
 that Christians were really idolaters. The Eastern Church 
 has never used ' graven images ' ; but pictures of Christ, the 
 Virgin Mother and the Saints, were everywhere used as an aid 
 to devotion, and were often treated with a veneration that was 
 certainly superstitious, if not idolatrous. This practice was a 
 growth of the period after Christianity had definitely triumphed 
 over heathenism. For the first four centuries such pictures were 
 rarely used and frequently objected to. It is true that symbolic 
 pictures date from very early Christian times. The picture 
 
 Iconoclasm. 
 
 MOHAMMEDANISM : ICONOCLASM 
 
 331 
 
 of * the good Shepherd,' representations of Christ as a * lamb * 
 or a ' fish,* are found on the walls of the Catacombs. But for 
 long the desire to avoid any similarity to heathen practice 
 prevented any attempts towards more direct representations. 
 The Council of Illiberis in 305 forbade * that which is an object 
 of worship ' to be painted on the walls of a church. Eusebius 
 of Caesarea, a little later, rebuked at considerable length the 
 Empress Constantia for desiring to have a picture of Christ. 
 Nevertheless, such pictures were made : human instincts could 
 not be suppressed, and by the fifth century pictures and mosaics 
 had largely been introduced into the churches. 
 
 The opposition to such pictures in themselves gave place to 
 protests against outward acts of reverence being offered them ; 
 as, for example, S. Augustine himself uttered warnings against 
 such a practice, even though the worship was not offered to the 
 picture, but to the reality signified. But as Nestorians and 
 Monophysites were great opponents of sacred pictures, the 
 use of them and the veneration of them by the orthodox tended 
 ever to become more popular. The pictures, always ' the books 
 of the unlearned,' were enshrined in the affections of the common 
 people, and isolated protests were of no avail. But just as 
 previously Emperors had endeavoured to adjudicate on creeds 
 and controversies of faith, so now, in the face of Mohammedanism, 
 Emperors endeavoured by a stroke of the pen to abolish all this 
 fabric of popular sentiment and devotion. 
 
 Leo III., called ' the Isaurian ' from his place of birth, a strong 
 man and an able soldier, issued, in 726 and 730, edicts against 
 ' the images,' the first forbidding any worship to The 
 be paid them, and the second ordering their complete iconoclastic 
 destruction. These measures were strenuously Emperors, 
 opposed not only by the common people, but by the theologians, 
 the most notable of whom was S. John of Damascus. Germanus 
 of Constantinople refused to comply with the edicts, and was 
 removed, or resigned. Pope Gregory 11. contemptuously rejected 
 the imperial authority in the matter, and he was seconded by 
 the people of Italy, who had to be restrained by the Pope from 
 electing an opposition Emperor. Leo remained obdurate and 
 
332 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 .\ 
 
 retaliated on the next Pope, Gregory in., by confiscating the 
 papal estates. But the opposition of the Italians helped to bring 
 about the final downfall of imperial power in the West. The 
 last possession of the Eastern Emperor in Italy, the exarchate 
 of Ravenna, fell in 752 to the Lombards. 
 
 Leo was succeeded by Constantine v., who during his reign 
 of thirty-four years carried on the iconoclastic policy with 
 bitterness and cruelty. He showed himself a worthy successor 
 of such persecuting Emperors as Constantius and Valens. In 
 754 he called a packed council at Constantinople, intended to 
 be oecumenical, which denounced all religious pictures as 
 idolatrous and even anathematised S. John of Damascus. 
 Constantine proceeded to destroy all the pictures, even sub- 
 stituting in the churches pictures of scenes from the stage and 
 the circus. He treated those who objected with outrageous 
 severity, with imprisonment, mutilation, and death. But the 
 pictures expelled from the churches still kept their hold on the 
 hearts of the people. Nor did the character of Constantine 
 support the idea that there was any real religious fervour in his 
 policy. He was a man of evil life, and irreverent in his speech 
 and attitude towards Christian behefs and practices. ' He 
 seems to have been one of the earliest instances of that free- 
 thinking tendency which was the result of the contact between 
 Christianity and Islamism * (Hodgkin). 
 
 A change came with the next reign. Leo iv. was indeed an 
 iconoclast, but his wife Irene was a lover of the sacred pictures ; 
 The Seventh and when she became regent during the minority 
 CouncU. of her son Constantine vi., she definitely espoused 
 
 their defence. In 787 she summoned what is recognised by 
 both East and West as the Seventh Oecumenical Council, the 
 second of Nicaea. It was attended by 350 bishops, and two 
 legates of Pope Hadrian i. were present. This council annulled 
 the previous one, and sanctioned not only the ' images ' but 
 the paying to them of outward acts of reverence, distinguishing 
 however between proskunesis which was allowed, and latreia, or 
 worship, which must be paid to God alone. 
 
 But the struggle lasted more than half a century longer. 
 
 MOHAMMEDANISM : ICONOCLASM 
 
 333 
 
 The Emperors Leo v. and Theophilus carried on the same per- 
 secutions and cruelties as Constantine v. But again, a woman 
 came to the rescue. The widow of Theophilus, Theodora, 
 during the minority of Michael iii. (the ' Drunkard ') attacked 
 and punished the iconoclasts, and a council at Constantinople 
 (842) solemnly restored the ' images.' This final restoration has 
 ever since been celebrated in the Eastern Church on the first 
 Sunday in Lent, which received the name of the ' Sunday of 
 Orthodoxy.' To this day in the Russian and Greek Churches 
 the sacred ' icons ' are universally used and venerated not only 
 in church, but in every household. 
 
 Throughout this controversy the Popes were consistent 
 supporters both of the pictures and their veneration. Among 
 the Franks, however, a very moderate attitude prevailed. 
 Charles the Great and Alcuin issued a treatise in 790, called 
 ' the CaroHne Books,' in which the Seventh Council was repudiated 
 and all veneration of pictures forbidden. Their use was, however, 
 allowed for purposes of ornament, and to awaken religious feeling. 
 In 794 a council held at Frankfort condemned all worship of 
 pictures and rejected the Seventh Council. The Popes, however, 
 did not find it advisable to quarrel with the Franks and contented 
 themselves with argument and protest. 
 
 It is notable that even historians who agree in principle with 
 the condemnation of images as tending to superstition do not 
 approve the methods of the iconoclastic Emperors, iconociasm 
 Indeed the whole movement deserved to fail as deserved 
 it did. It ignored contemptuously the feelings ^0^^,11. 
 and traditions of popular piety, and attempted simply to crush 
 in a high-handed manner what had been the growth of centuries. 
 And iconociasm was purely negative. It did not seek to instruct, 
 or divert the thoughts of the worshipper from material things 
 to spiritual reaUties ; it merely destroyed. Moreover, its course 
 was only the reflection of the imperial will, which bishops, 
 monks, theologians and the simple Christian were expected 
 
 humbly to accept. 
 
 Apart from these impolitic and irreligious methods, the 
 iconoclastic spirit was really a misinterpretation of Christianity. 
 
 \il 
 
 \ 
 
 fl 
 
334 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 MOHAMMEDANISM : ICONOCLASM 
 
 335 
 
 In trying to destroy what was thought to be idolatry and super- 
 stition, it ignored Scripture and theology, as was strongly 
 pointed out by S. John of Damascus and others. The Second 
 Commandment, so often appealed to by the iconoclasts, was 
 clearly not intended to prohibit all use of art in divine worship ; 
 for Tabernacle and Temple had their cherubim and other images 
 in metal and embroidery. Further, the Incarnation has in- 
 troduced an entirely new principle. God, as the orthodox 
 Christian beUeves, has manifested Himself in a visible form : 
 and it is not surprising that those wlio were heretical as to the 
 Incarnation were also averse to pictures of our Lord and His 
 mother. Nor can it be well denied that art, religion, and de- 
 votion would have been woefully the poorer during the progress 
 of the Christian centuries had the iconoclasts triumphed, and 
 statue and picture been forbidden in churches or in Christian 
 worship. 
 
 S. John of Damascus has already been mentioned as the chief 
 and the ablest of the defenders of the ' images.* He has been 
 s. John of called the last of the Greek Fathers, and his 
 Damascus. theological writings mark an epoch. He is the 
 characteristic theologian of the later Eastern Church, and. 
 like S. Thomas Aquinas in the West in the thirteenth century, 
 he systematised and gave a permanent tone to Greek theology. 
 His position was remarkable, for though born of a Christian 
 family and the pupil of an Italian monk, Cosmas, he held 
 high office at the court of the Saracen caliph of Damascus. Hence 
 he was able with impunity to defy Leo the Isaurian, and to 
 write his famous letters against the imperial edicts. Leo is 
 said, however, to have endeavoured to destroy him by sending 
 a forged letter to the caliph, in which John was represented 
 as offering to betray Damascus to the Emperor. The cahph 
 sentenced him to the loss of his right hand. But legend relates 
 how the intercession of the Virgin restored his hand and won 
 him back his favour with the caliph. In later years John 
 sought the monastic life, and entered the monastery of S. Sabas 
 near Jerusalem. Here he was put through a course of most 
 rigorous discipline at the hands of an aged monk, who inflicted 
 
 on him severe penances and gave him humiliating and 
 impossible tasks. But again the Blessed Virgin intervened, 
 and John was allowed to return to his studies, his writing 
 and his poetry. In these he spent the remaining years of 
 his life, dying about 760. 
 
 His greatest work is a compendium of Christian theology 
 called The Fountain of Knowledge, in three parts, of which 
 the third is the most important, ' on the Orthodox Faith.* In 
 this he deals (i) with the nature of God, teaching the characteristic 
 Greek doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the 
 Father alone, but through the Son ; (2) with creation and 
 predestination ; (3) with the Incarnation ; (4) with miscel- 
 laneous subjects, among which naturally he discusses the Sacra- 
 ments, of which he apparently recognises two only. Baptism 
 and the Eucharist. As to the latter he teaches, as the Church 
 has always done, that the bread and wine are by the Holy 
 Spirit transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but he 
 refrains from attempting to define the mystery further. Through- 
 out the work he shows great knowledge of Aristotle, whose 
 methods he follows, and of previous Christian writers, especially 
 S. Gregory Nazianzen. In addition to attacking the Iconoclasts, 
 he wrote against the Mohammedans, the Manichaeans, the 
 Nestorians, the Monophysites, and the Monothehtes. A num- 
 ber of his hymns have been preserved, some of which are 
 familiar through translation, e.g. the two favourite Easter 
 hymns, ' Come ye faithful, raise the strain/ and ' The Day of 
 Resurrection.' 
 
 Writing as he did before the final separation between East 
 and West, S. John of Damascus was recognised as an authority 
 by both, and his influence over the West was considerable. In 
 his method he is the forerunner of the great ' Schoolmen.' 
 
 II 
 
\ 
 
 336 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. Describe the rise and early progress of Mohammedanism. 
 
 2. Show how the teaching of Mahomet is irreconcihible with Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 3. How can the rapid spread of Mohammedanism be explained ? 
 
 4. What is the meaning of Iconoclasm ? 
 
 5. How does the history of this controversy illustrate the domination 
 of the Eastern Emperor over the Church ? 
 
 6. How was the controversy settled ? 
 
 7. Show the real inconsistency of Iconoclasm with Christianity. 
 
 8. Who was S. John of Damascus ? 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 The failure of the Church against Mohammedanism. 
 Stanley. History of the Eastern Church. 
 Trench. Mediccval Church History. 
 Schaff. History of the Church {yit,^\2iev?i\/\.). 
 
 'The Problem of Islam,' in Christ and Human Need 
 (Students' Missionary Union). 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. EAST AND WEST 
 
 The iconoclastic controversy helped considerably to embitter 
 the relations between the East and the West. Although, as 
 we have seen, t he Franks were inclined to com- Qrowine 
 promi se between the tw o parties, allowing * images,' hostmty of 
 b ut noFthe venerati on ot them, tne Popes and the Rome and 
 people of Italy took the extreme side in the defence constanti- 
 of both. And they were horrified by the high- 
 handed interference of the Emperors in the practices of religion, 
 and despised the time-serving prelates of the East, who veered 
 with the wind of imperial prejudice. 
 
 The Popes gained thereby additional ground for repudiating 
 altogether the authority which the Emperor at Constantinople . 
 still affected to claim over the West. In 741, Pope Zacharias 
 was consecrated without the consent of the imperial represen- 
 tative, the exarch of Ravenna. 
 
 For long before this there had been omens of an approaching 
 separation between the Church of the East and that of the West. 
 The Monophysite controversy had caused a formal schism of 
 thirty-five years. The heresy of Pope Honorius, on the other 
 hand, had given the Easterns the pleasure of hearing a Pope 
 anathematised by a general council. There were inevitably 
 wide differences between the two sides of the Church : differences 
 not only of geography, of political history, of Church customs 
 and prejudices, but also of tone and spirit. And in the eighth 
 century the Mohammedan conquests practically removed three 
 out of the five great patriarchal sees. Antioch, Alexandria, 
 and Jerusalem were in the hands of the infidel, and the two 
 ancient rivals Rome and Constantinople, old and new Rome 
 as they were called, stood face to face, Rome inheriting the 
 ancient traditions of Empire and orthodoxy, and ever tending 
 
 Y 
 
 ! 
 
\ 
 
 The Filioque. 
 
 338 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 to widen her claim to universal ecclesiastical dominion ; Con- 
 stantinople, proud of being the seat of the actual Roman 
 Emperor, and no longer content to be second in dignity. 
 
 The causes which widened this separation in feeUng into a 
 definite and permanent schism which is the standing reproach 
 of the Christian Church were partly ecclesiastical and partly 
 
 political. 
 
 There was the doctrinal difference, magnified as it has been 
 out of all proportion to its merits, concerning the relation of 
 the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. The 
 Easterns, perhaps more exactly, spoke of the Holy 
 Spirit as proceeding from the Father through the Son, though 
 S. Cyril of Alexandria was in practical agreement with the 
 Westerns, who regarded Him as proceeding from both Father 
 and Son/ This difference in theological thought, or definition, 
 became acute when the Westerns, without an appeal to a general 
 council, added to the Nicene Creed the Filioque clause. This 
 addition was perhaps made at the third Council of Toledo in 
 589. The Arian contest had been very severe in Spain, and 
 the orthodox wished to emphasise as much as possible the 
 equal Godhead of Father and Son. The offending clause only 
 gradually made way in the West. Leo in. blamed it in the 
 ninth century, and it was not definitely used by a Pope till 
 Benedict viii. in the eleventh century. But its use became 
 a sort of test-question between East and West. The Easterns 
 repudiated it as not only unauthorised but theologically wrong, 
 and to this day regard it as involving the whole West in heresy, 
 a charge which the Westerns have been quite ready to turn 
 upon their opponents. 
 
 There were also a number of differences in practice which, 
 unimportant for the most part in themselves, were a constant 
 Differences source of friction and misunderstanding. The 
 in practice. Westerns used unleavened bread in the Eucharist, 
 which certainly has the merit of conforming exactly to the 
 original institution ; tl>c Easterns used leavened bread, denying 
 that the wafers of tht West wci*e true bread at all. The Western 
 clergy had a different sort of tonsure frcnn th<x8^of tlic East, and 
 
 EAST AND WEST 
 
 339 
 
 they were compelled, theoretically at least, to be celibates, 
 while the Eastern clergy married before ordination. There 
 were differences too of fasting days and of ritual ; and in the 
 honour paid to the great saints of the past. The Westerns 
 made too little, as it seemed, of S. Athanasius, and the Easterns 
 of S. Augustine. 
 
 But the ecclesiastical cleavage went deeper than any of these 
 things. It was the claims of the Bishops of Rome and the 
 elaboration of the papal theory that ultimately The claims 
 made it impossible to bridge the gap. This, the of Rome, 
 greatest problem of Church history, was the rock on which 
 union was wrecked. The Popes claimed, as the successors 
 of S. Peter, a divine right to be supreme over all bishops and 
 all controvci^ies, so tliut those who denial it were held to be 
 cutting them.selve.s off from the Church. The ninth cejilury 
 was a critical period in the elaboration of this daim. Some 
 time in the first half of tliat period appeared tlie famous * Forged 
 Decretals,' under Wut name of Isidore of Sttville. who died in 
 636. These documents purporting to be the letters <md edicts 
 of the early Popes, beginning with S. Uenient, were accepted 
 by an uncritical age as genuine, and were appealed to by the 
 Popes and their supporters witli undoubted sincerity ; and they 
 were not perceived to be forgeries till the middle of the fif- 
 teenth centur}\ In these writings t Jic Pope appeai>$ as * supreme 
 head, lawgiver, and judge of tlie Church ' ; moreover, in one of 
 them, known as the ' Forged Donation/ it is asserted tluit the 
 Emperor Constantine, when he removed the seat of Empire. 
 handed over to Pope Sylvester and liis successors the actual 
 temporal rule of Italy and the We^t These decretals appear 
 first at Mainjt in 843. and the first Po|)e to appeal to them wai 
 Nicholas i., the greatest Pope betM-een Grvgoiy 1. and Gregory 
 
 VII. 
 
 Nicholas i. t$ remarkable for his controv^i-sy with Piiotius. 
 the Patriarch of Constantinople Both M-ere great men and 
 both in earnest, and their quanet seems typical! Kichoiaai. 
 of the attitude of the Cluirche$ they represented, *a«i riiotiia. 
 Photius was a theologi;ui of great and varied leamini;. His 
 
\ 
 
 340 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 life extends over almost the whole of the ninth century. His 
 accession in 858 to the great see of the East was hurried and 
 uncanonical. His predecessor, Ignatius, had been deposed 
 for a rebuke which he had dared to give to the immorality of 
 Caesar Bardas, the uncle of the Emperor. In the eyes of the 
 Church, Photius was only a usurper as long as Ignatius lived, 
 and a schism ensued. Nicholas, curiously enough, was appealed 
 to by Photius ; he held a synod in 863, and deposed Photius 
 and threatened him with excommunication. Photius in turn 
 deposed the Pope! And then he issued an encyclical letter 
 accusing the Westerns of heresy and schism, and arraying 
 against them all the grievances which the Eastern Church had 
 accumulated, including the Filioque. On a change of Emperors, 
 Ignatius was restored and Photius was compelled to retire to 
 a monastery, and in 869 was condemned by a great council 
 at Constantinople, which the Westerns regard as oecumenical. 
 But again the wheel of fortune turned. Photius was restored to 
 his lost see on the death of Ignatius. He in turn held a council, 
 considered by the East to be oecumenical, which anathematised 
 the Filioque. Photius was himself anathematised after this by 
 two Popes in succession, John viii. and Martin 11. He died 
 in a monastery in 891, having once more been turned out of his 
 see by imperial authority. 
 
 Photius stands out as the persistent champion of the Eastern 
 Church against the Pope : he put into definite shape the articles 
 of the quarrel between the two ; and his own career illustrates 
 the fundamental weakness of the Eastern Church in its de- 
 pendence on imperial authority and favour. The Pope stood, 
 rightly or wrongly, on the inherent spiritual powers of his see, 
 as the chair of Peter ; Photius was the creature and victim of 
 the Emperors. Nicholas showed himself just as vigorous in 
 the assertion of papal authority over his own proper field. 
 He deposed the bishops both of Cologne and Treves, for their 
 acquiescence in the conduct of Lothair 11., who had put away 
 his lawful wife and married his mistress. The papacy under 
 his administration stood out in its most splendid and admirable 
 aspect as the one independent authority which championed 
 
 EAST AND WEST 
 
 341 
 
 fearlessly Christian morals, and suffered neither king nor prelate 
 to break the law of Christ. 
 
 PoHtical causes combined with ecclesiastical to separate 
 the West from the East. It has already been seen how much 
 more the Eastern Church than the Western was The Holy 
 bound up with the temporal authority of the Roman 
 Emperors. The eighth century saw the claim of Empire, 
 the Emperor at Constantinople to rule the West reduced to a 
 mere theory. And on the other hand, in the West men 
 were casting about to find some new centre of unity for political 
 government. In this movement the Popes were prime actors. 
 The aUenation from Constantinople, the odiousness of the 
 Lombards to the Italians, and the general lack of good govern- 
 ment combined to point to the Franks as the saviours of the 
 West. Ee^in, * mayor of the Palace/ whose father, Charles 
 Martel, had turned the tide of Saracen invasion at Tours, had 
 usurped the t hrone of the degenerate successors of Clovis . He. 
 was solem nly crowned by Pope Gregory in, in 752, and giv^a 
 the title of * Patricius,' properly an imperial gift. Between 
 the years 752 and 75 5 Pepin d efeated t he Lo mbards, and bestowed 
 a large part of North Italy on the Pope. This is the real origin 
 of that * temporal power ' which the Middle Ages erroneously / 
 attributed to Const antine. In 774 Carl, the son of Pepin, coW 
 pletely overthrew the Lombards and made himself master of 
 most of Italy. It was this Carl, better known as Charlemagne, 
 or Charles the Great, who in the year 800 was crowned by the 
 Pope as Roman Emperor of the West. It is unknown by what 
 steps, or by whose instrumentality, this remarkable event 
 came about. Its actual circumstances had almost the air of 
 being unpremeditated. But men in the West had never 
 ceased to believe in the imperishableness of the rule of 
 Rome. The tradition of the ' Eternal City,' the mistress 
 of the world, and the guarantee of settled and unified govern- 
 ment, had survived all the changes of the last three 
 centuries. The Caesars of Constantinople, though undoubtedly 
 the real successors of the old imperial authority, had 
 never gripped the imagination and the loyalty of the West. 
 
 V' 
 
 f I 
 
\ 
 
 342 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 It only wanted a favourable movement to restore the old 
 Empire. 
 
 The occasion came just when the West was filled with disgust 
 at the conduct of the Empress Irene, who had blinded and 
 The Corona- deposed her son, Constantine vi. Carl, king of the 
 tion of Carl. Franks, the greatest man of his age, was in Rome, 
 where he had come with a victorious army to restore Pope 
 Leo III., who had fled to him for refuge from the seditions of 
 the city. On Christmas Day, 800, Carl was hearing Mass in 
 the basilica of S. Peter. After the reading of the Gospel, the 
 Pope rose from his throne and placed on the head of Carl, as he 
 knelt before the high altar, the golden crown of Empire. The 
 assembled multitude raised the cry of ' Life and victory to 
 Carl ** Augustus," the great and peace-making Emperor, whom 
 God has crowned ! ' This momentous act was believed to be 
 an actual transference of the line of Roman Emperors from 
 the East to the West, and for a thousand years Carl and his 
 successors were held to have inherited the throne of Augustus 
 and Constantine and Justinian. This new Empire came to be 
 called ' the Holy Roman Empire ' to distinguish it from its 
 old pagan exemplar ; but all the ancient ideas of universality 
 and permanence and Divine authority were transferred to it. 
 The Emperor was held to be superior to all other sovereigns, 
 to be God's representative on earth for the maintenance of good 
 government and the championship of the Church. In theory 
 the Emperor was in secular matters what the Pope claimed 
 to be in spiritual things. These were said to be the ' two swords,' 
 of which the Lord had said, * It is enough.' But the centuries 
 that followed were filled with the clashing of the two swords, 
 as now an Emperor endeavoured to be supreme, like his Eastern 
 brother, in things ecclesiastical, and now a Pope beHeved that 
 as he gave the crown to the Emperor he himself was really the 
 one supreme authority in State as well as in Church, until Boniface 
 VIII., at the end of the thirteenth century, assumed both crown 
 and sword, and announced himself to the Roman pilgrims as 
 ' Imperator.' 
 
 This singular restoration of the Western Empire naturally 
 
 EAST AND WEST 
 
 343 
 
 hardened the separation between East and West. Just as 
 the real Roman Emperor at Constantinople was practically 
 ignored, so the Eastern Church, his vassal, repudi- pinai scMsm 
 ating the claim of the papacy, was left out of of East and 
 account. Her existence and her protest did not ^^^^* 
 square with the dominant theory of the Westerns. It needed 
 little to convert this ahenation in theology, in practice, in ideals, 
 into a permanent schism. Still, as we have seen, the sense 
 of Christian unity survived even the bitterness of the iconoclastic 
 controversy and the quarrel of Nicholas and Photius. The 
 irreparable end did not come till 1054. Michael Caerularius 
 of Constantinople quarrelled with Pope Leo ix. chiefly on the 
 question of the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the 
 Eucharist — the Filioque not being mentioned. Legates from 
 Rome were sent to Constantinople, bringing counter-charges 
 against the Easterns. Finally, the legates solemnly excom- 
 municated Michael and all who censured the faith and practices 
 of Rome. They placed on the altar of S. Sophia their sentence in 
 writing with the words, * May God look on it and judge.' What 
 that ultimate judgment may be still lies hid in the secrets of time. 
 During the ensuing centuries various attempts were made 
 on both sides to heal the schism, but in vain. A notable occasion 
 was that of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Attempts at 
 The crusaders had established a Latin kingdom Reunion, 
 at Constantinople, and patriarchs in communion with Rome 
 had been thrust into all the four great sees of the East. 
 These were all present personally or by legates at the 
 council ; and in outward appearance the whole of Christendom 
 was represented in a council under the presidency of the Pope. 
 Innocent in. was at the summit of his power, and it seemed for 
 the moment that his dreams of a united Church were realised. He 
 practically dictated the canons which imposed submission on 
 the Eastern Church, bidding her conform to Rome, and consent 
 to her patriarchs receiving the pallium from the Pope. But 
 it was only an illusion. The Eastern Empire reverted in 1261 
 to its legitimate rulers ; the Eastern Church repudiated the 
 forced submission. 
 
 HI 
 
 i 
 
 
 '9 
 
 n 
 
344 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Again, in 1274, Gregory x. called a council at Lyons, at the 
 suggestion of the restored Eastern Emperor, Michael Palaeologus, 
 with a view to the reunion of the Church. But this was only a 
 piece of political intrigue, though the council was a brilliant 
 assemblage, and apparently successful. The Greek legates 
 accepted the Filioque, and the Emperor tried to force it and 
 the Latin customs upon the East. He nearly lost his throne 
 in consequence, and his successor Andronicus reversed his acts. 
 
 Other attempts at reunion for political reasons were those 
 of the Emperors Andronicus in., John Palaeologus, and John 
 Cantacuzenus in the course of the fourteenth century. The 
 Emperors desired alliance with the West, as a help against the 
 ever-present Turkish menace ; but their subjects would rather 
 even be conquered by Mohammedans than submit to Rome. 
 
 In the next century, the Council of Basel began negotiations 
 with the Greeks. Eugenius iv. met the Emperor, the Patriarch 
 of Constantinople, and 500 Greek legates at Ferrara in 1438, 
 whence the council was transferred to Florence. Here in 1439 
 a compromise was agreed to on four disputed points, the Filioque, 
 the use of leaven, purgatory, and the supremacy of the Pope. 
 And this was signed by all the Eastern representatives except 
 Mark of Ephesus. Again the popular voice rejected the re- 
 conciliation. In 1443 the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, 
 and Jerusalem denounced the council, and soon after the 
 Emperor himself repudiated the union. 
 
 On the eve of the final catastrophe, the last Emperor of the 
 East, Constantine xii., in terror at the Turks, approached the 
 Pope, and signed the decrees of Florence. But again his people 
 would have none of it. The West did not intervene to save 
 Constantinople, though a new crusade for that purpose might 
 have done much to preserve Eastern Europe from the 
 infidel. 
 
 The political reasons for desiring a reunion were no longer 
 existent after the fall of Constantinople ; but the representatives 
 of the Eastern Church have always consistently refused all 
 papal overtures : though they were invited to the Council of 
 Trent, and to the Vatican Council of 1869-70, and were warmly 
 
 EAST AND WEST 
 
 345 
 
 invited by Leo xiii. in 1894 in the encyclical Omnibus principihus 
 et populis, to reconsider their position. 
 
 It is impossible perhaps to over-estimate the harm done to 
 the progress of Christendom by this melancholy separation. 
 The papacy was enabled to develop on its own Hues, and to 
 harden and define its theory into the form which made the 
 Reformation inevitable. That which claimed to be the centre 
 of unity had become a rock of offence. 
 
 The reformed Church of England, that singular and unique 
 product of the Reformation, has been looked upon by many 
 as the possible mediator between East and West. Holding 
 the CathoHc faith, appealing on points of dispute to the judg- 
 ments of the undivided ancient Church, and claiming to possess 
 a valid succession in her ministry, she certainly has points of 
 contact with both Rome and the East, and recent years liave 
 widened her sympathies with both. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 1. Trace the causes of the alienation of the Eastern and Western 
 Church. 
 
 2. Describe the controversy with Photius. 
 
 3. What was the Holy Roman Empire ? 
 
 4. Describe the final separation of East and West. 
 
 5. What attempts have been made to heal the schism ? 
 
 6. Estimate the evil brought about by this schism. 
 
 Subjects for Study. 
 
 1. The Filioque clause. 
 
 Houlkes. Historical Account of the Addition of the Word 
 
 ' Filioque.^ 
 Burn. Introduction to the Creeds, 
 Schafif. Creeds. 
 
 2. The character and influence of Charlemagne. 
 
 Bryce. Holy Ro7nan Empire. 
 
 Schafif. History of the Church (Mediaeval, ii.). 
 
 3. The possible Reunion of Christendom. 
 
 Puse)'. Eirenicon. 
 Dollingej. Reunion of the Churches. 
 Liddon. Reports of Bonn Conferences. 
 K iley. Birkbeck and the Russian Church, 
 
 \\ 
 
 if 
 
 )i 
 

 ' ii 
 
 i 
 
 INDEX 
 
 ACACIUS, 209, 218, 222, 224. 
 
 Acts, 13, 15-17. 
 Adoptionism, 145 etc. 
 
 of Spain, 325. 
 
 Aetius, 218. 
 
 African Church, 119 etc., 154 etc., 179 
 
 etc., 259 etc., 302, 318, 329. 
 Agape, 45, 66. 
 Aidan, 312. 
 Alaric, 296, 
 Alcuin, 333. 
 Alexander, Martyr, 92. 
 
 of Alexandria, 191 etc. 
 
 of Constantinople, 208. 
 
 of Jerusalem, 153. 
 
 Alexandria, School of, 128 etc. 
 Alexandrines, 116 etc. 
 Allegorising, 137. 
 Alleluia Victory, 264. 
 Ambrose, 252-9. 
 Ammonius Saccas, 131, 138. 
 Anastasis, 245. 
 Anomoeans, 218 etc. 
 Anojuoios^ 218. 
 Anskar, 314. 
 Anthimus, 170. 
 Antioch, 15, 189-90. 
 
 , Schism at, 232-3, 248. 
 
 Antony, 209-10, 307. 
 Aphthartodocetisni, 322. 
 Apocalypse, 30, 38-9. 
 Apollinarianism, 185, 247. 
 Apollinarius of Hierapolis, 89-90, 92, 
 
 143- 
 ApoUonius of Tyana, 130- 1. 
 
 Apologists, 75 etc., 89 etc. 
 Aquileia, 257, 297. 
 Arbogastes, 257. 
 Arianism, 184 etc. 
 iVristides, 75. 
 Arius, 185 etc. 
 Armenians, 168. 
 Arnobius, 17 1-2. 
 Arsenius, 207. 
 Artemon, 145. 
 Asceticism, 306-7. 
 Athanasius, 195-237. 
 
 1st exile, 207. 
 
 2nd exile, 210. 
 
 3rd exile, 219. 
 
 4th exile, 233. 
 
 5th exile, 236. 
 
 of Anazarbus, 219. 
 
 Athenagoras, 90, 92. 
 
 Attalus, 91-92. 
 
 Attila, 297. 
 
 Augustine, 182, 253, 259 etc. 
 
 of Canterbury, 303. 
 
 Autolycus, 93. 
 Auxentius, 236, 243. 
 
 Babylas, 153. 
 
 Baptism, 80, 125. 
 
 Baptismal Controversy, 157 etc. 
 
 Bar-cochab, 74. 
 
 Barlaam andjosaphat^ 'j6. 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle of, 61. 
 
 Bartholomew, 132. 
 
 Basil, 239-44. 
 
 of Ancyra, 222. 
 
 347 
 
 \} 
 
 \il 
 
 1 
 
 J- * * 'Ct^-lf*' 1 ineM.fc>Ai.JtiMhii^i— Ml 
 
348 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 Basilides, io6. 
 
 Belisarius, 318. 
 
 Benedict, 308-9. 
 
 Birinus, 313. 
 
 Bishops. See Ministry. 
 
 Blandina, 91. 
 
 Boethius, 298. 
 
 Boniface, 314. 
 
 British Church, 181, 264-5. 
 
 Browning, R., 139. 
 
 Bull, Bp., 136. 
 
 Butler, Bp., 139. 
 
 Caecilian, 179 etc. 
 Caesarius, 293. 
 Cainites, 107. 
 Candidian, 286. 
 Canon of Scripture, 39-40. 
 Carpocratians, 106. 
 Cassianus, 308. 
 Cassiodorus, 298. 
 Catacombs, 152, 239. 
 Ceadda, 313. 
 Cedd, 313. 
 Celestius, 263. 
 Celibacy, 201, 254-5. 
 Celsus, 95-7. 
 Celtic Church, 143. 
 
 Mission, 311 -14. 
 
 Cerdon, no. 
 Cerinthus, 105. 
 Charlemagne, 333, 341 etc. 
 Christology, 281 etc. 
 Chrysaphius, 289. 
 Chrysostom, 273 etc. 
 Circumcellions, 182. 
 Claudian, 257. 
 Clement of Alexandria, 132. 
 
 of Rome, 1st Epistle, 54-7, 2nd 
 
 Epistle, 57. See also Topes. 
 Clementine literature, 108. 
 Clovis, 299. 
 Code of Justinian, 318. 
 CoUuthus, 206. 
 Columba, 311. 
 
 Columbanus, 313. 
 Confession and Absolution, 52. 
 Confessors, 153 etc. 
 Constantia, 191, 205, 331. 
 Constantinople, 177,245. See Councils. 
 Constitutum^ the, 320. 
 Corinth, 54. 
 Councils : — 
 ^Alexandria, 232. 
 ■"Antioch, 149, 214-15. 
 
 Aquileia, 251. 
 
 Ariminum, 223 etc. 
 'Aries, 158, 181. 
 
 Basel, 344. 
 
 Carthage, 155 etc. 
 ~ Chalcedon, 291 etc. 
 " Constantinople i., 246 etc. 
 
 II., 320-1. 
 
 III., 323. 
 
 (Arian), 224. 
 
 Dedication. See Antioch. 
 
 - Ephesus, 264, 286. 
 Ferrara, 344. 
 Florence, 344. 
 
 - Frankfort, 325, l^Z- 
 Illiberis, 167, 331. 
 Jerusalem, 16. 
 Lampsacus, 236. 
 Lateran i., 323. 
 
 I v., / 343- 
 
 Lydda, 263. 
 
 Lyons, 344. 
 
 ^ Milan, 219. 
 
 "-Nicaea i., 193 etc. 
 
 11., 332. 
 
 Nice, 224. 
 
 - Sardica, 215 etc. 
 Seleucia, 223. 
 Toledo, 338. 
 Tyre, 207 etc. 
 Vatican, 344. 
 
 Creed, 40-2, 1 17-18, 125, 188. 
 
 Apostles', 41-2. 
 
 Athanasian. See Quiciinque. 
 
 of Arius, 205. 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Creed, Caesarea, 198. 
 
 Constantinople, 250, 291. 
 
 Jerusalem, 250. 
 
 Nicaea, 199 etc. 
 
 Sirmium, 222-3. 
 
 Creeds, Arian, 215 etc. 
 
 Crescens, 82. 
 
 Cuthbert, 313. 
 
 Cyprian, 154 etc. 
 
 Cyprus, 286. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, 282, 284 etc. 
 
 of Jerusalem, 225-6. 
 
 and Methodius, 314. 
 
 Dated Creed, 223. 
 
 De Civitate Dei, 260. 
 
 Demetrius, 133-4. 
 
 Demophilus, 209, 238. 
 
 Demosthenes, 241. 
 
 De Praescriptione, 123-5. 
 
 De Principiis, 135 etc. 
 
 De Unitate Ecclesiae, 159-60. 
 
 Dianius, 240. 
 
 Diatessa^'on, 107. 
 
 Didach^, 61-2. 
 
 Dinocrates, 121. 
 
 Dioceses, 163. 
 
 Diognetus, Epistle to, 'j6-S. 
 
 Dionysius of Alex., 148-9, 158. 
 
 of Corinth, 92-3. 
 
 Dioscorus, 289. 
 
 Discipline, 52. 
 
 Docetism, 103, 112. 
 
 Domitilla, 29. 
 
 Donatists, 179 etc., 228, 260-1. 
 
 Donatus, 181 -2. 
 
 Dualism, 102 etc., 112. 
 
 Ebionites, 99. 
 Ecclesia, 3. 
 Ecthesis, 323. 
 Elkasaites, 107-8. 
 Emperors : — 
 
 Alexander Severus, 152. 
 
 Anastasius I., 317. 
 
 349 
 
 Emperors — continued. 
 
 Anastasius 11., 325. 
 
 Antoninus Pius, 78, 85. 
 
 Arcadius and Honorius, 258, 296. 
 
 Aurelian, 149. 
 
 Caligula, 23. 
 
 Constans i., 182, 208, 216-17. 
 
 n., 323. 
 
 Constantine I., 166, 173-208. 
 
 his vision, 173-5. 
 
 II., 208, 214. 
 
 IV., 323. 
 
 VI., 342. 
 
 XII., 344. 
 
 Constantius, 208-25. 
 
 Chlorus, 162, 166. 
 
 Decius, 153. 
 
 Diocletian, 162-6. 
 
 Domitian, 29-30. 
 
 Eugenius, 257. 
 
 Galerius, 162-8. 
 
 Gallienus, 74, 159. 
 
 Gallus, 156. 
 
 Gratian, 244, 252 etc. 
 
 Hadrian, 72-8. 
 
 Heliogabalus, 151. 
 
 Heraclius, 322. 
 
 Jovian, 234-5. 
 
 Julian, 225-34. 
 
 Justin, 317. 
 
 Justinian i., 177, 317-22. 
 
 II., 324. 
 
 Leo III., 331-2. 
 
 IV., 332. 
 
 -^ v., 11,1,. 
 Licinius, 166 etc., 175-6. 
 Lothair 11., 340. 
 Lucius Verus, %'^. 
 Marcian, 291. 
 Marcus Aurelius, 88-92. 
 Maxentius, 166 etc. 
 Maximianus, 162 etc. 
 Maximinus, 166 etc. 
 Michael in., t^i^-t^. 
 Palaeologus, 344. 
 
 '\ ,:i 
 
 til 
 
 I'l 
 
 i 
 
350 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 \ 
 
 E mperors — cotUinued. 
 
 Nero, 20- 1. 
 
 Nerva, 64. 
 
 Philip, 152. 
 
 Philippicus, 324. 
 
 Romulus Augustulus, 297. 
 
 Septimius Severus, 1 5 1. 
 
 Severus, 166. 
 
 Valens, 236 etc., 295. 
 
 Valentinian i., 236 etc. 
 
 II., 253. 
 
 III., 301. 
 
 Valerian, 158-9. 
 
 Zeno, 317. 
 Encratites, 107. 
 
 England, Church of, 312-13, 345. 
 English, 303. 
 Epiphanius, 271. 
 Essenes, 99. 
 Eucharist, 42-5, 66, 70-1, 80-2, 119, 
 
 325, 335» 33^- 
 Eudoxia, 275 etc. 
 
 Eudoxius, 208-9, 21S. 
 
 Eunomius, 218. 
 
 Euphrates, 216. 
 
 Eusebians, 218 etc. 
 
 Eusebius of Caesarea, 13, 191, 198 etc. 
 
 of Ephesus, 284, 288. 
 
 of Nicomedia, 191, 204, 208, 214. 
 
 Eustathius, 206. 
 
 Eutropius, 274 etc. 
 
 Eutyches, 288 etc. 
 
 Euzoius, 205. 
 
 Evarestus, 86. 
 
 Fabian, 153. 
 Felix, 180, 183. 
 
 Martyr, 267. 
 
 Filioque, 292, 338. 
 Flavian, 288. 
 Flora, 114. 
 P^orged Decretals, 339. 
 
 Donation, 178, 339. 
 
 Franks, 299 etc. 
 Fundanus, 73. 
 
 Gaius, 18. 
 Genseric, 296-7. 
 George, Martyr, 165. 
 
 of Cappadocia, 221, 231. 
 
 Germanus, 264. 
 
 Gervasius and Protasius, 253. 
 
 Glabrio, 29. 
 
 Gnostics, 99 etc., 328. 
 
 Gospels, 33-7. 
 
 Apocryphal, 34. 
 
 Goths, 225, 295 etc. 
 
 Greek fire, 329. 
 
 Gregory of Cappadocia, 210. 
 
 of Nazianzus, 239 etc. 
 
 of Nyssa, 239, 244 etc. 
 
 Thaumaturgus, 134-5. See also 
 
 Popes. 
 
 the Illuminator, 168. 
 
 Grosseteste, 69. 
 
 Hebrews, Epistle to, 37-8. 
 
 Ilegesippus, 13, 29, 93. 
 
 Helen, 105. 
 
 Helena, 163, 177, 206-7. 
 
 Hellenists, 5-6. 
 
 Helvidius, 270. 
 
 Henoticon, 317. 
 
 Heresy, 98. 
 
 Hernias, 60. See also Shepherd, 
 
 Hexapla, 135. 
 
 Hilarius, 219. 
 
 Hilary of Aries, 300. 
 
 of Poitiers, 222 etc., 236. 
 
 Hippolytus, 18, 147-8. 
 Holy Roman Empire, 341 etc. 
 Homoios, 218. 
 Ifomoionstos, 217-18. 
 Ho?nootisios, 198 etc. 
 Hosius, 192, 200, 221. 
 Hypatia, 279, 285. 
 Hypostasis, 216, 232. 
 
 Ibas, 319-20. 
 Iconoclasm, 330-4. 
 Ignatius, 67. 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Ignatius, letters of, 49, 68-72. 
 lona, 311. 
 
 Irenaeus, 117-19, 121, 143. 
 
 Irene, 332, 342. 
 
 Ischyras, 206. 
 
 Islam. See Mohammedanism. 
 
 Jacobus, 321. 
 James the Just, 19, 20. 
 Jerome, 50, 51, 269 etc. 
 Jerusalem, 26-7, 74-5, 177. 
 Jews, 1-6, 23-25, 75. 
 John, S., 18-19. 
 
 Gospel of, 36, 72. 
 
 of Constantinople, 304. 
 
 of Damascus, 331, 334-5. 
 
 Josephus, 14. 
 
 Jovinian, 270. 
 
 Judaistic Christianity, 16-17, 28, 98. 
 
 Judicatum, the, 320. 
 
 Julius Africanus, 14. 
 
 Justin Martyr, 78-83. 
 
 Justina, 253 etc. 
 
 Labarum, 174. 
 
 Lactantius, 172. 
 
 Lapsed Christians, 153 etc., 178 etc. 
 
 Latin, 120-1. 
 
 Latrocinium, 290 etc. 
 
 Laurence, Martyr, 158. 
 
 Leonides, 121, 133. 
 
 Leontius, 209. 
 
 Lerins, 308. 
 
 Libanius, 228, 274. 
 
 Lightfoot, Bishop, 69. 
 
 Lindisfarne, 312-3. 
 
 Liturgies, 43, 81-2. 
 
 Lombards, 298 etc. 
 
 Lucian, 168, 189. 
 
 Creed of, 215. 
 
 of Samosata, 95. 
 
 Lucifer, 232-3. 
 
 Lucilla, 180. 
 
 Luke, S., 35. 
 
 Lyons and Vienne, 90-2. 
 
 Lyra Apostolica, 138, 
 
 351 
 
 Macedonianism, 232, 237. 
 
 Macedonius, 208. 
 
 Macrina, 244. 
 
 Mahomet, 327 etc. 
 
 Majorinus, 180. 
 
 Mammaea, 152. 
 
 Manichaeism, 260 etc. 
 
 Marcellus of Ancyra, 208, 211. 
 
 Marcion, %(i, 108, iio-ii. 
 
 Marcionites, 11 1. 
 
 Mark, S., 20. 
 
 Gospel of, 34-5. 
 
 of Arethusa, 231. 
 
 Maronites, 325. 
 
 Martin, 226. See also Popes. 
 
 Martyrdom, 169-71. 
 
 Matthew, S., Gospel of, 35. 
 
 Maurice, 164. 
 
 Maximilian, 164. 
 
 Maximus the Cynic, 245. 
 
 Meletians, 179, 200, 205. 
 
 Meletius, 232, 246-8. 
 
 Melito, 89, 92, 143. 
 
 Memnon, 286-7. 
 
 Menander, 105. 
 
 Mennas, 320. 
 
 Mensurius, 179-80. 
 
 Milan, Edict of, 169. 
 
 Milvian Bridge, 167. 
 
 Ministry, Christian, 45-52, 56, 70. 
 
 'Charismatic,' 51-2, 62. 
 
 Minucius Felix, 93. 
 Mithras, 23, 32. 
 Modalism, 146. 
 Modernism, 112-13. 
 Modestus, 241. 
 Mohammedanism, 327-30. 
 Monarchianism, 144 etc. 
 Monasticism, 212, 240 etc., 306 etc. 
 Monica, 259. 
 Monism, 102. 
 
 Monophysite Churches, 321. 
 Monophysitism, 316 etc. 
 Monothelitism, 322. 
 Montanism, 125-7. 
 
 ' 
 
 id 
 
 i 
 
352 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 Muratorian Canon, 17. 
 Mysteries, 7, 8. 
 
 Namphano, 121. 
 Narses, 318. 
 Nectarius, 249. 
 Neoplatonism, 131-2. 
 Nestorius, 282, 287. 
 Nicaea. See Councils. 
 
 Creed of, 199. 
 
 Nitria, 307, 
 Noetus, 146. 
 Novatian, 147, 156. 
 
 Oak, Synod of the, 276. 
 
 Octavius^ 93. 
 
 Odoacer, 297. 
 
 Olaf, 314. 
 
 Ophites, 106-7. 
 
 Optatus, 182. 
 
 Oracles, 230. 
 
 Ordination. See Ministry. 
 
 Origen, 95-6, 133 etc., 153, 321. 
 
 Origenistic controversy, 271. 
 
 Orosius, 263. 
 
 Oswald, 312. 
 
 Pacomius, 307. 
 
 Paganism, 177. 
 
 Pamphilus, 171. 
 
 Pantaenus, 132. 
 
 Papacy, 266, 339. See Roman Church. 
 
 Papias, 14, 34, 35. 
 
 Paschal controversy, %()^ 142-3, 200. 
 
 cycle, 148. 
 
 Patripassianism, 146-7. 
 Paul, S., 17-18. 
 
 of Jamnia, 171. 
 
 of Samosata, 149. 
 
 Paula and Eustochium, 270, 273. 
 Paulinus of Antioch, 248. 
 
 of Nola, 267. 
 
 ■ of Tyre, 206. 
 
 of York, 312. 
 
 Pearson, Bishop, 69. 
 
 Pelagianism, 262, 265-6, 271-2. 
 
 Pelagius, 263. 
 
 Peleus and Nilus, 170. 
 
 Pella, 28. 
 
 Penda, 312. 
 
 Pepin, 341. 
 
 Perpetua, 121. 
 
 Persecution, 21-6. See Emperors 
 
 Nero. 
 
 Domitian. 
 
 Marcus Aurelius. 
 
 Sept. Severus. 
 
 Decius. 
 
 Valerian. 
 
 Gallus. 
 
 Diocletian. 
 
 Galerius. 
 
 Severus. 
 
 Licinius. 
 
 Maxim inus. 
 
 Julian. 
 
 Valens. 
 Peter, S., 18, 141-2. 
 
 of Alexandria, 168, 179. 
 
 Phileas of Thmuis, 170. 
 Philippopolis, 215. 
 Philocalia^ 139, 243. 
 Philosophianena^ 148. 
 Philosophy, 7. 
 Photinus, 216. 
 Photius, 339 etc. 
 Pictures. See Iconoclasm. 
 Pistis Sophia^ 113. 
 Plotinus, 13 1 -2. 
 Polycarp, 68, 85-8. 
 Ponticus, 92. 
 Popes : — 
 
 Agatho, 324. 
 
 Anicetus, 86, 142. 
 
 Benedict viii., 338. 
 
 Boniface viii., 342. 
 
 Callistus, 146-7. 
 
 Celestine, 285. 
 
 Clement, 50, 54-7. 
 
 Cornelius, 155 etc. 
 
 INDEX 
 
 353 
 
 Popes — continued. 
 Damasus, 238-9. 
 Dionysius, 148-9. 
 Fabian, 153. 
 Gelasius, 301. 
 Gregory i., 65, 299, 301-5. 
 
 n., 331- 
 HI., 332, 341- 
 X., 344- 
 
 Hadrian, 332. 
 
 Hilarus, 301. 
 
 Honorius, 313, 322, 324^ 337- 
 
 Innocent i., 263. 
 
 Julius, 210 etc. 
 
 Leo I., 288-90, 297, 299-301. 
 
 II., 324- 
 
 III., 338. 
 
 IX., 343- 
 
 XIII., 345- 
 
 Liberius, 220-1, 237. 
 
 Martin I., 323. 
 
 Nicholas I., 339 etc. 
 
 Sergius, 324. 
 
 Simplicius, 301. 
 
 Siricius, 254. 
 
 Soter, 93. 
 
 Stephen, 157-8. 
 
 Sylverius, 319. 
 
 Sylvester, 195. 
 
 Theodore, 313. 
 
 Victor, 142-3- 
 
 Vigilius, 319 etc. 
 
 Xystus, 158. 
 
 Zacharias, 337. 
 
 Zephyrinus, 146. 
 
 Zosimus, 263. 
 Porphyry, 131 -2. 
 
 Martyr, 171. 
 
 Pothinus, 91. 
 Praxeas, 146-7. 
 Priscillianism, 255. 
 Proaeresius, 229. 
 Prophecy, 126-7. 
 
 Prussi, 314. 
 Ptochotropheion, 242. 
 
 Hi 
 4 
 
 
 Ptolemaeus, 11 3- 14. 
 Pulcheria, 291. 
 
 QUADRATUS, 75. 
 
 Quartodecimans. See Paschal contro- 
 versy. 
 Quicunqtie vult^ 212, 292-3. 
 Quintus, 86. 
 
 Ravenna, 332, 337. 
 Recared, 299. 
 Religion, Greek, 7-9. 
 
 Jewish, 1-6. 
 
 Roman, 22-3. 
 
 Remigius, 299. 
 Repentance, 57-60. 
 Ricimer, 297. 
 Ritual, 44. 
 
 Roman Church, 72, 118-19, Hi, 152, 
 159-60, 300, 304, 339. See also Popes. 
 
 Empire, 9-10. 
 
 Romanus, 170. 
 
 Rufinus, 271. 
 
 Rule, Benedictine, 309-10. 
 
 Sabellianism, 188. 
 Sabellius, 146. 
 Sanctus, 91. 
 Sapor, 159. 
 Sasima, 242. 
 Saturninus, 106. 
 Saturus, 121. 
 Scapula, 122. 
 Scilla, Martyrs of, 121. 
 Sebaste, Martyrs of, 175. 
 Semi-Arians, 217 etc., 236-7. 
 Serapeum, 255-6. 
 Shepherd, The, 3, 57-60. 
 Silvanus, i^J.':*. , ■ 
 ; .Simc^ ivlagu?., "JO^i 
 
 -i 
 
 
 S6noi'G6d, '185'. 
 
 Sophia, S.,.i77..5;iS^530»:343- 
 i ^piviaion, :t)6. ! I 
 
 Stephen of Ant'ioch, 216. ' 
 
 Stilicho, 296. , , 
 ] CitromtjUnSy ,i2^-'<',- '- 
 
 t ♦ 
 
354 THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 See Ministry. 
 
 \ 
 
 Succession, ii8, 124. 
 Sunday, 176. 
 Symeon, 28. 
 
 Stylites, 308. . 
 
 Symmachus, 253. 
 S3niesius, 279. 
 S)rrianus, 219. 
 
 Tacitus, 21. 
 Tatian, 93, 107. 
 Taurobolium, 228. 
 Temple, 231. 
 
 TertuUian, 122-7, I47> 155- 
 Thaddaeus, 18. 
 Thalia^ 191. 
 Theoderic, 297. 
 Theodolinda, 303. 
 Theodora, 319. 
 
 n., 333. 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 282 etc. , 284, 
 
 319-20. 
 Theodoret, 291, 319-20. 
 Theodotus, 145. 
 Theophilus of Alexandria, 274, 278-9. 
 
 of Antioch, 93. 
 
 the Indian, 218. 
 
 Theotokos, 283, etc. 
 Three Chapters, The, 319 etc. 
 Thundering Legion, 90. 
 Tome of Leo, 289-90. 
 
 Tome of the Westerns, 243. 
 Trinity, 93. 
 True Word, 95-7. 
 Trypho, 82-3. 
 Turks, 330. 
 Type, the, 323. 
 T)n:annion, 170. 
 
 Ulfilas, 224-5, 296. 
 Ursacius, 217, 223. 
 Ussher, Bishop, 69. 
 
 Valens, Martyr, 171. 
 
 of Mursa, 217, 219, 223. 
 
 See Emperors. 
 Valentinus, 108-9. 
 Vandals, 296. 
 Vestments, 44-5. 
 Vetus Latina, 121. 
 Victorinus, 229. 
 Vigilantius, 270-1. 
 Vincent, 219. 
 
 of Lerins, 293. 
 
 Virgin-birth, 71. 
 Vladimir, 314. 
 Vulgate, 272-3. 
 
 Whitby, Synod of, 313. 
 
 Zenobia, 149 
 Zenobion, 170. 
 
 BY THE REV. A. R. WHITHAM, M.A. 
 
 Crown 8m With Maps and Plans. One Vol. 6s 
 May also be had in Two Parts. 3^. each. 
 
 Part \. The Creation to the Death of Saul. 
 Part IL King David to the Time of Christ. 
 
 Old Testament History 
 
 A continuous Narrative from the Creation to the Time of Christ. 
 
 Wth Notes ' ^''™' ""^ ^'^''''^' ""' ^""^ '^^ ^^""'^^ ''"^^"^• 
 
 * It is a commentary as well as a history, and must entirely displace the 
 older outlines as a helpful and reliable gm^^.^ -Aberdeen Daily Journal. 
 
 One of the best of the recent histories of the Old Testament has been 
 written by the Principal of Culham Training College. '-^^/..,V^^ Times. 
 
 Crown Svo. 3^., or in Two Parts, \s. 9^. each. 
 Part I. The Creation to Samuel and Saul. 
 Part II. Saul and David to the Time of Christ. 
 
 A Short Old Testament History 
 from the Creation to the Time of Christ 
 
 ' This is one of the best handbooks of Old Testament History we have 
 seen, and it meets a real need. Indeed, we have been looking for such a 
 book for some time. We can most heartily recommend it to all who wish to 
 possess a good and thoroughly readable summary of Old Testament History.' 
 
 Canadian Churchman. 
 
 
 ■> . s 
 
 *.' 
 
 • 1 
 
 t 
 
 ( t 
 
 • % 
 
 4 t 
 
 « 1 
 
 • • « 
 
 . » 
 
 Small Fcap. Zvo. With Maps. 35-. 
 
 Readingfs in Old Testament History 
 
 Designed for a Two Years' Course 
 for the Middle or Upper Forms of Schools. 
 
 The Bible Text only, in the Authorised Version, without the 
 Readmgs, Seventy-eight Lessons, 3^-. ; or in Two Parts, is. gd each. 
 
 Part I. The Creation to the Story of Ruth. 
 
 Part II. Eli and Samuel to the History of the Maccabees. 
 
 LONDON: RIVINGTONS 
 
 • « «' 
 
EDITED BY THE REV. A. R. WHITHAM, M.A. 
 
 The New Testament for Schools 
 
 The Text of the Revised Version. With Introductions and Notes 
 to each Volume. 
 
 St. Matthew's Gospel. 3^. 
 St. Mark's Gospel. 2s. 6d. St. Luke's Gospel, ^s. 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles. 
 In Two Parts— Pt. I., Chaps.i.-xv.,2x.6^.; Pt. II., Chaps.xvi.-end, 2i'.6^. 
 
 ' Introductions and notes to each Volume are profuse and scholarly, and 
 supply an answer to just the sort of difficulties likely to be encountered by 
 elementary students of the ^\h\t.'— Aberdeen Daily Journal. 
 
 \ 
 
 Crown Svo. 3s., or in Two Parts, is. 9^. each. 
 Part I. The Gospel History. 
 Part II. The Work and Writings of the Apostles. 
 
 A Short New Testament History 
 
 'There is a contrast indeed between his style and that of the "Bible 
 Histories " which many of us were condemned to read in our schooldays. 
 Canon Whitham has a genius for condensation and lucid arrangement. Not 
 the least valuable feature of the book is that it includes brief accounts of the 
 Epistles m their historical setting, and in relation to the time of their com- 
 position.' — Church Times. 
 
 4 
 
 Crown Svo. 4s. 
 
 The Life of Our Blessed Lord 
 
 From the Revised Version of the Four Gospels. 
 With Notes at the foot of the page, Maps, and Indices. 
 
 The Bible Text only (with Maps) in a separate Volume. 2s. 6d. 
 
 ' A scholarly and attractive volume which merits nothing but praise The 
 book will appeal to many, as it is suited for devotional reading as well as for 
 the student. The notes are well suited for schools, because they are clear 
 and bear strictly on the text. We hope the book will be widely used.' 
 
 Preparatory Schools Review. 
 
 RIVINGTONS: 34 KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN. LONDON 
 

 '4 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 0032212119 
 
 •^/•mrnmm^mmftmmf^ 
 
 ^-^y c 
 
 vy583 
 
 1^^;^^^^:? 
 
 ^^L 01 jg^e 
 
 •j.i 
 
 Hi 
 
 ;ifl 
 
 V.i' 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 i 
 

 ^"rn^iitniw-JiHjiwaaKE!^ 
 
 i.-- 1- 
 
 ■■■~<-"#i»!;ie»r'» 
 
 
 
 
 -■, 
 
 . '■ 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ..:' 
 
 '" 
 
 ^ ty . jfiTw iJBi'tlJll!! 
 
 !.T^'^ 
 
 
 '>-tr 
 
 ::.1 
 
 *■.-•*•>, ^i.,.;-. 
 
 *■';■- "If-"- ■-■~^ - 7 ' 
 
 
 OJ^., .i»4. -.- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,»_ ,.;.. 
 
 
 
 
 -, . . V . ) . 
 
 
 
 
 -.v*—»\fcU».'i :. ;' - ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 ■i:i;sfe-«. 
 
 
 •^^■-:?|ft!Hrl.1?; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -;-?.»--■.■'- ■[ <ii 
 
 
 
 
 iM.*i-- 
 
 "''' 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■; 
 
 
 i 
 
 r'" 
 
 
 r-'^^'-^-'-rvJ 
 
 1 
 
 ■ j_HII^^^^^^^^^^HklllXlI ' 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •♦».• 
 
 !?:•., 
 
 .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^■fc; 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^B* 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^K- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ».■■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^H* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «*fc 
 
 ! ,,..;, , ■- ■■-- 
 
 
 > 
 
 1 
 
 «!^H 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 
 .<HiBV|^^^H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 iJfi 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IP 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 
 ■' M«l 
 
 uSi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' '1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■, ■; - >-*,^fc...---^,.-. . 
 
 
 ■-■ :.; .-:,.; :^- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■:•■-■ ^-.fA--.JY^>J- 
 
 'r-f' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,;Jl*1f 
 
 *"*'^'"' 1111*';