YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE
COUNCILS OF THE CHUECH

FROM TIIE

COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM A.D. 51,

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE A.D. 381,

CHIEFLY AS TO

THEIE CONSTITUTION,

BUT ALSO AS TO

THEIR OBJECTS AND HISTOBY.

BY THE
REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D.
REGITJS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, AND CANON OP CHRIST THURCH.

The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same com
mit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Thn. ii. 2.

SOLD BY
JOHN HENRY PARKER, OXFORD,
AND 377, STRAND, LONDON ;
AND J. 1. RIVINGTON, WATERLOO PLAOE.
MDCCCLVII.

BRISTOL;
PRINTED AT THE S. MICHAEl's HILL PRINTING PRESS.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

Needs of the Church must be remedied by the Church
Various meanings ofthe "lay element"
Statement by Scotch Bishops, vague .
Real question at issue
The Bishops, elected by the laity, the lawful representatives
of the laity ....
Sufficiency of English Bishops owned in the Act "for re
straint of Appeals," (22 Henry 8. c. 12.)
Bishops of English Church chosen by the laity .
Civil legislation on temporal matters of the Church, no part
ofthe Bishop's office
Decisions on doctrine, part of the office of the Clergy
Scriptural proof .'
Office of Bishop in teaching not arbitrary, but to bear wit
ness to what he had received
The office of teaching through Synods far more weighty than
preaching in Churches
Bad precedent in America, set in bad times
The inspired Apostles, the Authority in the Council of Jeru
salem ; all besides. Clergy and people, obeyed them as the
Voice of God .....

10
ib.1213 1517
ib.
20

25

28

IV

CONTENTS.

Presbyters have the same inherent authority of teaching as
Bishops, subject to their control

33

CHAPTER II.
Proof that Synods consisted of Bishops only, must be inciden
tal : various sorts of proof
Emperors disclaimed all authoiity as to the faith.
Synods of Bishops, earliest system ofthe Church.
Antiquity of Apostolic Canon, enjoining annual Councils o
Bishops on faith and discipline
Election of Bishops made by Bishops, in presence, and with
the testimony and goodwill, of the People
Frequency of Elections, and so, of Synods
Canons to prevent Bishops abusing their power .
Hindrances to large Synods through persecutions.
Not to hold Synods of Bishops, against law of Church
Extraordinary Synods in second Century
as to the time of the celebration of Easter by Synods in
Palestine, Rome, Pontus, Gaul, Osrhoene
Ep. of Bishop of Corinth on same subject
Synod of Bishops of Asia
 Bishops of Palestine
Subscription of Bishops to the condemnation of the Monta
nists ....
Synods mentioned by the Synodicon .
Author had access to writers no longer extant
Synod of all the Sicilian Bishops, against Heracleon
Synod at Pergamus, against Colorbasus
 of Eastern Bishops against Cerdon .
Origen complains of neglect even of Presbyters : was callei
in to refute heresy, not as part of the Synod .
Council in Arabia to bring back Beryllus
Second Council in Arabia
Council of Alexandria on Origen . . .

34
3637 3840 4748
49 SO
51ib.ib. 52
ib. 53 5455
ib.
ib. ib. 56
ib. 57ib.

CONTENTS.

Second Council on Origen .
Origen conderaned in a Roman Synod.
Council of Alexandria brought back Aramonius
Synod of Achaia condemns Valesians .
Council of Africa under Agrippinus
Councils at Iconium and Synnada and many other places
Council of Bishops forbidding Clerks to be Guardians
Councils decree that "causes should be heard where the
offence had been committed"
Summary of this period

58
ib. 59
ib.
59,7059,71 59
59, 6360

CHAPTER III.
Times of S. Cyprian, A. D. 249-58 .
Belief of S. Cyprian as to the office of Bishops, singly or
collectively ....
Synod held by S. Cyprian, against the subintroductse
Councils of African Bishops, and others on Priests who had
lapsed
Council on restoration of penitents
Synod against Privatus
Privatus rejected in second Council
Synods on those who fell in persecution
Four Councils on the lapsed : seven on heretical Baptism
Principles of African Synod, followed in both eases by the
Roman
Council of Numidia on heretical Baptism
Council of African and Numidian Bishops on Baptism and
many other matters ....
Third African Synod. Laity of Carthage only, hearers at it
S. Cyprian consults laity individually, not in Synod ; refrain
ing from his right, out of love of souls
Causes heard publickly before, not by, the people
Schismatics restored at Rome before the people .
No reference to the Laity in matters of doctiine .

61-90 6164&5
ib.ib.
ib. 66
ib. 68
71
7273
74
858687

CONTENTS.

Unauthoritative influence of Christian laymen
Summary of S. Cyprian's times
CHAPTER IV.
From S. Cyprian's martyrdom A. D. 2^8, to the Council of
Nice, A. D. 325.
Council at Rome.
Three Councils of Antioch against Paul of Samosata
Council of Eliberis about A. D. 305 .
Donatist Synod at Cirta
Second Council of Donatist Bishops, A. D. 311 .
Council of Aries from the whole West
Councils of Ancyra, Neo-Csesarea, Laodicea.
Council of Alexandria against Meletius
 Arius .
Appeal of Eusebius in Synod of Bithynia, to Bishops every
where ....
Arian Synod in Palestine
Council at Nice from Europe, Africa, Asia
Subsequent influence of Council of Nice
Fourfold subjects, on which it decided.
General subjects of Canons of Nice
Synod of Bishops made Court of Appeal every where
CHAPTER V.
Councils between 1st General Council at Nice and the Snd
General Council at Constantinople A. D. 381 .
Character of heretical Councils of this period, and causes of
their failure .....
Heretical Emperors attacked the Church through Bishops .
List of Bishops, the chief patrons and protectors of Arius .
Synod of Alexandria to consecrate S. Athanasius
 of Arians at Nicomedia to depose orthodox Eustathius
Synod of Tyre .....

PAGS 88
89

91-114 91
92 95
ib.ib.97
99
100
101 ib.
ib.
102
109
111 112113

115 ib.
118121
125 ib.
128

CONTENTS.

VU

Arian Council of Constantinople A. D. 340
Council of Alexandria in behalf of S. Athanasius A. D. 341
Council of Antioch to frame Creed of Dedication
Council to frame fourth Eusebian Creed
Arian Council to frame Macrostich Creed
Roman Synod to acquit S. Athanasius.
Council of Milan
Council at Cologne
Council of Sardica summoned by Emperors
Arian Council of Philippopolis
Council of Jerusalem to receive S. Athanasius
S. Cyril consecrated by Arian Bishops of the Eparchy
Catholic Council at Milan .
 at Sirmium
Eusebian Council at Sirmium
Councils of Cordova and Jerusalem to receive judgments of
Council of Sardica
Arian Council against S. Athanasius .
Arian Council of Aries A. D. 353
Council of Antioch against S. Athanasius A. D. 354.
Council at Milan A. D. 355
Council of Beziers A. D. 356
Council of Sirmium, and its Creeds, Semi-Arian, Arian and
Homoean ....
Spanish Council condemns Hosius, Galilean acquits him
Resistance of Liberius
He offers that Synod should be costless to the state : his fall
Liberius intimates his fall to Bishops of Campania
Anomcean Council at Antioch
Re-action at Semi-Arian Synod of Ancyra, aided by letters
of French and perhaps English Bishops
Object of Constantius in gathering new Synods .
Arians obtain division of Synod : numbers at Ariminum : fe
Arian or eminent Bishops
Council of Seleucia

Vlll

CONTENTS.

Appeal of S. Cyril to larger Synod
Arian Council of Constantinople re-alters Creed
Council of Antioch to elect S. Meletius
Arian Council of Antioch .
Julian's policy in restoring Orthodox Bishops
Council of Ariminum rescinded by Councils
Council of Alexandria received all but authors of heresy
cleared up doctrinal use ofthe word Hypostasis
It gave the care ofthe East to Asterius, ofthe West to Eusebius
Council of Ariminum, condemned by Synods in Greece,
Spain, and Gaul ....
First Council of Paris A. D. 360
Bishops of Italy write to the Bishops of Illyricum, to join in
rescinding Council of Ariminum
S. Athanasius obtains subscription to Council of Alexandria
through Synodical letters from almost all the Church
Contrast ofthe issue of Councils of Nice and Ariminum
Synods of Macedonian and Arian Bishops
Council of Alexandria to instruct the Emperor Jovian
Council of Antioch to maintain Creed of Nice
Macedonian Synod of Lampsacus
Valens employs Synod of Arian Bishops against Semi-Arians
Semi-Arian Synods from Smyrna, Pisidia, Isauria, Pamphy-
lia, Lycia, returning to the faith
Synodical letter of Liberius and Bps. ofthe West
Synods in Sicily and Tyana to restore the faith .
Synod of Tarsus, stopped by Valens .
Anomcean Synod at Sigedin
Synods under Damasus
Council of Alexandria warns against Auxentius .
Its Synodical Epistle to the African Bishops
Council of Bishops frora Italy and Gaul at Rome to hear th
cause of Auxentius and set forth the faith
Its Encyclical letter to the Bishops in Illyricum .
Council of Antioch confirms letters of Western Bishops

PAGE 193
204
206 207
211
213215
216218
219221
222
225
228229230 232233
234
235236 237 ib.
2.'^8
239 ib.
240 ib.
242

CONTENTS.

IX

S. Basil's efforts to re-unite the Church by consent of Bishops
S. Basil labours to bring S. Meletius and his Bishops into
communion with S. Athanasius and the Bishops of the West
Councils held on Eustathius of Sebastia
Councils and Creeds of Arians
S. Basil's course of peace-raaking : Synod at Satala
S. Basil's yearly Synod of Bishops
Synod at Nicopolis
Letters of communion everywhere given by Bishops
Diocese sub-divided, to gain weight through Bishops
Bishops of Pontus regained to S. Basil
Lycia (estored to communion by Bishops and priests
Synod of Arian Bishops gathered against S. Basil
Letter of Synod of Iconium, explaining, why Creed set forth
by Nicene fathers was to be enlarged
Marcellus' petition to Synod held by S. Athanasius
Seemingly not accepted by him, though accepted by the E
gyptian Bishops
Council at Rome against ApoUinaris .
Synodical letter of another Council of Rome to Emperors
Bishops call in civil authority to enforce their judgments
Proposals of Council granted by Gratian
Ecclesiastical causes to be heard by Synods
Council of Valence : eminent Bishops there
First Council of Carthage under S. Gratus
Notices of previous Councils
Donatist Councils and heresy
Anabaptism made open question by Donatist Council
Donatist Councils
Novatian Councils
Origin of Priscillianism
Council of Saragossa
S. Ambrose holds Council in behalf of one traduced
State of the faith in Constantinople just before the second
General Council ....

297

CONTENTS.

Maximus the Cynic, his irregular consecration and expulsion
Edicts of Theodosius in behalf of the faith, and against
heretics . . . •
Eminent Bishops ; Meletius President
Macedonian Bishops
Principles of election of Bishops by Bishops
Creed of Nice enlarged at Constantinople out of existing Creeds
Canons enjoin Bishops not to interfere with each other
Constantinople, as new Rome, placed next to Rome
Expansion of Canon iii. at Chalcedon
" Tome ofthe Westerns," its meaning
Why only 150 Bishops present
Creed of Council received : Canon iii, in West, but slowly
Actual precedence of Bishop of Constantinople .
Council asks Emperor to confirm its Acts
Emperor names Bishops, as centres of communion
Council at Aquileia ...
Emperor calls first a general, then a partial. Council
Council of Bishops of Italy and Legates of Synods
Synodical letter to Bishops who had sent deputies
The Council of Aquileia asks Emperors to remove those con
demned, and to assemble Council at Alexandria
Proposed Council to settle disputes at Antioch
Full powers of Legates : second letter of Council of Bishops
of Italy ....
Council of Constantinople, A.D. 482
Bishops provided with proxies for definite objects
It confirms the Council of Antioch
Synodical letter and Confession of faith from Damasus
against Apollinarians
Synodical letter against Timotheus and ApoUinaris
Bishops meet at Rome, on ApoUinaris
Council of Constantinople, A.D. 383.
Separate Councils in East and West fail, because separate
Council of Constantinople gives rest to the Church

PAGE 298

PREFACE.

The following sheets are a fragment of a large work
begun in 1850, but interrupted through the circum
stances ofthe times, some times bythe necessity of per
sonal defence, at others, because it seemed a more
pressing duty to defend some one doctrine, or to meet
changes which menaced, as I feared, the usefulness of
this place, as a place of education. I studied, with a
view to that work, the history of the Councils of 1000
years. For Spain, I studied especially the history and
character of the Councils of Toledo, as it is to be
learned out of themselves. For our Anglo-Saxon Coun
cils, in addition to any data which history furnishes,
I analyzed all our remains of Anglo-Saxon law, civil
and ecclesiastical. For the French Councils, the
account given of the Ordo Palatii by Adelhard, ("a
wise and aged relative of Charlemagne, and Abbot of
Corbey, whom," Hincmar says, " in my youth I saw
the first among the first Councillors,") became a clue

xii PREFACE.
to distinguish between the Placita or Parliaments,
which are often called Concilia on account of the pre
sence of Bishops, or Conventus, and the pure Ecclesi
astical Councils, which consisted solely of Bishops.
To this end, I examined whatever accounts remain
of the GallicEln Placita, or Conventus, or Concilia.
After repeated endeavours, however, to resume the
work, and repeated interruptions, the fleeting years of
man's life admonished me to contract my plan, if I
would do aught besides, bearing more immediately
on religious edification. I determined, therefore, to
confine myself to the Councils ofthe Primitive Church.
I had printed the following pages, and had made
some progress in the history of the Councils down
to the limit which I had fixed for myself, the close
of the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, when the
personal attack of Mr. Goode compelled me again to
break off the work. And now, not knowing when or
whether I shall be able, with health, for the time if
it so please God, impaired, to complete what I have
already written, I have thought it best to publish
apart, this account of the Councils of the first most
important period.
I began the history of the mixed Councils of the
kingdoms of German origin, in France, Spain, and our
own Anglo-Saxon tiraes, with the desire of satisfying
minds, discontented with the relations of the Church
and the State. I wished to shew that the only autho
rity of the State, which the Church of England has
ever formally recognised, had been recognised in times.

PREFACE. xiii
long antecedent to the Reformation, times, with whose
precedent the minds, for whom I was writing, would
be satisfied. I began the work, in order to shew that
we had not conceded too much. But so rapid are the
revolutions of these times, that I had to continue it,
with the view of shewing that those same times af
forded no precedent for conceding more. I began,
again, then anew from the first, and have endeavoured,
in this portion of the work, to exhibit the evidences
furnished by the earliest period of the Church, that
matters of doctrine were always exclusively decided or
attested by those, whom the Apostles left to succeed
to such portion of their ofiice, as uninspired men could
discharge, — the Bishops of the Universal Church.
But, as nothing could be more dry than to treat the
history of the Councils of the Church, with the view
of shewing simply, of whom those Councils were com
posed, I soon quitted the form of direct proof, and have
rather left the history to impress the fact, which appears
in its every page. I have incorporated, as much as I
could, the language of the original writers or docu
ments, thinking that their evidence would be given
most unsuspiciously in their own words. Although
my immediate object was limited, I trust that I have,
in this way, given an intelligible history of the Coun
cils of the Church down to the close of the second
General Council of Constantinople, before which
Arianism finally fell.
The period, although of primary importance, being
limited to three centuries and a half, I thought it right

xiv PREFACE.
to give the above statement of those larger labours, in
order to shew, that although I have given the evidence
of one period only, the conviction itself rests on the
history of 1000 years. In the next period, I have
dropped altogether the form of proof, and have been
simply writing the history of those Councils, as fur
nished by the original authorities. Its completion I
must leave, with myself, in the Hands of God.
CHRIST CHURCH,
Easter, 1857.

ERRATA.
Page 32. 1. 15 for as brothers, may, read as brothers they.
note, for A.Bp. read ABp.
186. heading, ybr Son, read Ser.
205. title, for Arians, read Aetius.
249. for Phsebadius, read Phcebadius.

THE SYNODS
OF
THE ANCIENT CHUECH

Statement of the question as to the admission
OF the laity into the Synods or the Church,
AND argument EROM HoLY SCRIPTURE.
The line of defence of the Church of England in
which I was engaged, when the Gorham judgment
and its consequent evils burst upon her, consisted
in this, that however unsatisfactory many of our
relations to the State are, the Church of England had
not, by any concession wrung from her, abandoned
any trust committed to her by God. Whatever evils
there are and have been, the Church has often had
to endure them before ; and therefore the endurance
of them by the Church of England, as the lesser of
two evils, is no justification of the hard imputations
of being "a State Church," "a creature ofthe State,"
which enemies or discontented sons have cast upon
her. In pursuance of this plan, I was engaged in
shewing that "in later centuries, the affairs of the

2 Som,e grounds for a legislature for the Church
Church have at times been arranged in mixed coun
cils, in which what was specially Ecclesiastical was
transacted by the Ecclesiastics." And hereby I wdsh-
ed to shew that there was nothing wrong in itself in
the genuine constitution of the Church of England
or in the relation of Convocation to Parliament, that
the Civil Assembly gave a civil sanction to ecclesi
astical matters decided by the ecclesiastical body.
"With the present anomalous state of things, in which
Parliament, composed as it is of persons of any or
(it may be) of no definite religious faith, legislates
for the discipline of the Church or, at least, of the
Clergy, the Church of England has nothing to do ;
except that it endures it, until injustice shall make
it intolerable, or justice shall amend it.
The Gorham decision to a great extent opened peo
ple's eyes to the anomaly of our actual position. It
shewed that any doctrine, however clearly expressed
in the Prayer Book, was, for ani/ judicial purpose "^i"
as a matter of discipline, at the mercy of a Court, two
only of whose members need be members of the
Church, upon whose doctrines they were to decide.
Those two moreover need not sit in any given
cause, as on that occasion they actually did not sit.
On the other hand, the organ through which the
Church, on her OAvn principles, ought to speak,
has long been forcibly silenced. And even now, if
allowed to assemble at all, any whisper on matters of
faith would soon cause her hundred and thirty-eight
years of silence to be renewed, so long as the

distinct from Parliament. 3
present relation of Church and State shall give to
statesmen any power to silence her.
But apart fii-om actual or future questions of faith,
the very enlargement of life within the Church,
and the consequent interest which people must take,
whether for or agaiast the truth, requires the more
urgently, a legitimate, and so a safe, instrument of
action. The needs of the Church are now confessed.
It is owned that they must have remedies. The cries
of our neglected poor, which have long reached the
ears of the Most High, now at last, through His grace,
pierce our own. The Church has relinquished all re
liance on the state, to perform for her her own work.
But it is, to speak plainly, grotesque, when states
men, without consulting the Church, would legislate
for her. It was vrith a strange, although weU-meaning
simplicity, that a young member of the lower house,
proposed at once to double her Episcopate, without
having ascertained that her present Bishops, her Clergy
or her People, wished for any such sudden and almost
organic change. Such proposals, on the part ofthe
well-disposed, but inexperienced and uninformed,
indicate v^hat, in an age of unexampled activity, is
likely to be devised by those of other minds and
tempers and religion.
Again, one Bishop was censured before this miscel
laneous body, because he did examine a Candidate
before institution; another was blamed, because he,
having examined one, was supposed, on hearsay,
not to have done so. B 2

4 New organization needed to recover
It is plain, that the Church alone can adapt herself
to the varied wants of the people. She cannot be
adapted to them, as a mere machine, by those extemal
to her. For they can neither understand the needs
which she has to meet, nor her own inherent powers,
nor the way to apply them, nor the conditions under
which they can be healthfully applied. The mind of
the Church must, under the guidance of God the
Holy Ghost, remedy the deficiencies of the Church.
The great body of Churchmen, then, who think at
all on these subjects, are convinced that, sooner or
later, the Church must meet in her Synods, to remedy
the evils which hinder or check the fulfilment of her
Divine mission, and to develope and apply her powers.
She herself ought to debate upon remedies, and
should not leave to individual efibrt the work of the
whole. We need Missions among the poor of our
towns; organized bodies of Clergy living among
them ; licensed preachers in the streets and lanes of
our cities ; brotherhoods, or guilds, which should re
place socialism ; or sisterhoods of mercy, for any
ofiice of mercy, which our Lord vnUs to be exercised
towards His members, or towards those His outcast
ones whom love, for love of Him, might bring back
to Him. We need Clergy to penetrate our mines,
to migrate with our emigrants, to shift with our shift
ing population, to grapple with our manufacturing
system as the Apostles did with the slave-system of
the ancient world, to secure in Christ's Name the
Delta's of population, which the everflowing over-

parts of England from Satan. 5
spreading stream of our English race is continually
casting up.
Beautiful as is the relation of the Parish Priest to
his flock, lovely as are the village homes of our
Village Pastors, and gentle as are the influences
radiating from those who
" Point to Heaven, and lead the way "
yet is there now an appalling need of further organi
zation for a harder, more self-denying, self-sacrificing
warfare, if, by God's help, we would wrest from the
principalities and powers of evil, those portions of
His kingdom, of which, while unregarded by the
Church, they have been taking full possession.
The present system of the English Church is well
adapted to retain the ground, which our forefathers
of old won, not to recover that which those in the
last generation lost. Our stereotyped system can
hand down the impression, which has once been re
ceived ; with difficulty can it be adapted to any
change. The legal forms which fence in our regular
system, cramp and resist its extension. Bodies which
have far less of spiritual life than the Church, can yet
adapt themselves to newly arising wants, more readily
than the Church. A Wesleyan chapel rises far more
casUy than a Church, even because it more easily dis
appears. The Church is built to await our Lord's
Coming ; but a generation or two may have gone to
meet their Lord Whom they knew not, before it is
reared.

6 Large remedies can only he devised by the whole Church
The gigantic evils of our crowded cities and the deep
degradation of their inhabitants cannot even be miti
gated by ordinary remedies. Extraordinary remedies,
on a small scale and as local plans, may be devised
and carried out by the Bishop ofthe Diocese. In sub
ordination to the Church, he is fi-ee to use the wisdom
which Christ may give him, to order wdthin his
own Diocese whatever he believes to be weU-pleasing
to his Lord, — having to account to Him Alone. But
whatever is to be applied to the whole, must be de
cided by the whole. If our remedies are to be com
mensurate to the whole extent and compass of our
evils, if they are to unite the hearts of those who should
su-pport them, as the heart of one man, if they are to
caU forth self-sacrificing efforts, proportioned to the
greatness of the needs in the whole length and breadth
of our land, then the Church herself ought to com
mend them to her children. The anxiety that the
Church should fulfil both her offices viz. the main
tenance of the fiiith which our Lord committed to
her, and the guardianship of the souls which He has
given to her keeping, makes it certain that, sooner
or later, she will be called to deliberate on the best
mode of securing both.
Scarcely two^ years have elapsed, since any very-
large body of the Clergy desired the restoration of
Convocation ; and now, with the lightning-rapidity,
which characterises these times, its functions are an-

''' "giritten in 1852.

Ya7'ious meanings of the " la^y -element. " 7
ticipated ; it is assumed that it will reform itself, and
that part of that reformation wiU be the introduction
of the laity, in some way, into its deliberations, or
in connection with them.
Things very different are, indeed, intended by what
has already received a sort of Proper Name, "the lay
element." Some contemplate a lay-body allowed by
Parliament in some sort and degree to occupy its
place, as to questions affecting the Church, and so
performing civil functions, which Parliament, as it is
and must be constituted for civil purposes, is no lon
ger calculated to discharge with reference to the
Church. Others look upon the "lay element," as a
means of ascertaining the minds of the laity, and se
curing harmony between them and their pastors, so
that, at least no change in what might any-where be
the existing state of things, or any restoration should
be made without the concurrence of the laity. Some
look upon the introduction ofthe laity as a mere check
on an excessive ritualism or formalism, which they
think a portion of the Clergy would, if left to them
selves, be unwise enough to introduce. Others look
upon this assent on the part of the laity, as an inhe
rent right of the faithful, i. e. the communicants of
the Church. Some appeal to the Church in the
United States as our model ; and so would concede,
that the province of this new lay body should be co
extensive with that of the Bishops. Others, on the
contrary, would limit the concurrence of laymen to
certain outward subjects, reserving to the Bishops

8 La'y-ehment recognised,
questions of doctrine and discipline, and the right of
deciding what are questions of doctrine and discipline.
The more part, probably, of those who advocate its
introduction, have no definite idea on the subject.
Some professedly refer the question of the admission
of the laity to Convocation itseff when it shall be
assembled, (as it is hoped) hereafter; others advo
cate the present recognition of the lay element in
the abstract, deferring all limitations of its nature,
objects, powers, on the very ground that the Civil
Power or rather politicians who advise the Sovereign,
will never allow Convocation to meet, except on the
understanding, that the laity are to form an integral
part of it. Others assume that the introduction of
the laity is as certain as any thing future can be, and
so are anxious for the speedy settlement of the ques
tion, for fear that bad precedents should be set. But
almost all these parties, however they may differ a-
mong themselves, concur in this one point, viz. to
urge on the adoption of that, in the meaning and
object of which they disagree — " the lay-element."
Lately ^, ( as is well knovra, ) a majority of the
Scotch Bishops agreed upon a modified statement ;
" That the admission of the laity into Ecclesiastical
Synods, under certain conditions, and to speak and
vote therein, on a large class of Ecclesiastical questions,
is not inconsistent with the Word of God, and is not
contrary to that pure Constitution of the Church, to
^ At a Synod holden in Edinburgh. April. 20. 1352.

not its meaning. 9
which it has been the privilege of the Church in
Scotland to bear testimony. "
This resolution was perhaps advisedly, but unhap
pily, worded so vaguely, that its meaning might in
fact be restricted or enlarged to almost any extent.
It raised then large and indefinite expectations and
fears, but had itself no definite meaning, because it
admits of so many. It was limited, accordingly,
(although still with a degree of vagueness) by two
resolutions in a Diocesan Synod, held by the Primus
at Aberdeen in the same year;
"That the Constitution of Ecclesiastical Synods,
Diocesan, Provincial, and General, having been fixed
by the ancient law and immemorial usage of the
Church, and no clear instance having been produced
from past history of Lay Christians forming Consti
tuent Members of such Synods, — it is the opinion of
this Synod, that it is not competent for a particular
Church to innovate upon a custom so ancient and so
universal." "Resolved, further : that this Synod is of opinion,
that, under the existing circumstances of our Church,
it may be lawful, if the Rulers of the Church should
deem it expedient, to form a mixed Convocation or
Convention, of Clergy and Laity, to deliberate upon,
and decide, with the concurrence of both orders, such
questions relating to Ecclesiastical government, and
the temporal concerns ofthe Church, as do not trench
upon the divinely constituted order, by which defini
tions of doctrine, and the power of the Keys,

10 The Bishops, elected hy the laity,
are reserved for the Rulers of Christ's kingdom."
The whole question as regards the laity really lies in
these three points; 1. Whether the influence claunedfor
them in regard to the legislation of the Church, be
direct or indirect ; i.e. whether the claim be, to choose
those who shall legislate for them, or themselves to be
a part of the legislative body. 2. If the claim be, that
the laity should be a part of the legislative body,
whether they claim for themselves a civil or an eccle
siastical authority. 3. In what matters authority is
thus claimed.
i. Indirect influence the laity plainly had at tlie
first, and have in the Church of England, through the
share which they have had or have in the selection
of the Bishops. In S. Cyprian's time they accepted the
judgment of the Bishops of the Province, or, through
their own personal knowledge of those presented to
them for their Bishops, enabled the Bishops to correct
that judgment ; or they presented to the Synod of
Bishops for their judgment, such persons as they
themselves knew and valued. In England, according
to later precedents, the laity had virtually in their
owm hands the selection of the Bishops. In fact,
with certain limited safeguards as to bad appoint
ment, the laity absolutely nominated all the members
of that body, which is, in principle, the ecclesiastical
legislature, the Synod of Bishops. They nominate that
body in a degree which, if applied to the Temporal
Lords, would have been thought subversive of the
balance of the constitution.

the lawfid representation of the laity. 1 1
The body of the people never, either in Church or
State, even in the completest democracy, legislates
for itseff. The theory of the "lay element" itseff
does not imply that they would. The question is, not
whether the laity should choose for themselves those
who should legislate for them, but out of whom they
should choose them. The lay-representatives in the
Convention of the Church in the United States are,
equaUy with our Bishops, a few persons, chosen out
of a very large number. It can never be a subject of
discontent to those who select, that their selection is
restricted to those best quaUfied to discharge the
office. No reasonable person would think it hard,
that, during a period of cholera, the management of
a board of health should be entrusted exclusively to
physicians. There can be no hardship in having to
make a selection, when the body out of which the
selection is made is large, and in that body the num
ber of weU-quaUfied persons is considerable. Now
in so considerable a body as the Clergy of England
form, it is, of course, easy to point out numbers who
are not quaUfied for the office of a Bishop or for the
task of legislation. This is a matter of course. Many
an admirable Parish Priest would plainly not have
the varied quaUfications required in a Bishop. And
so it is easy to throw contempt on the office of the
Clergy by saying " Are such men as A. or B. (Parish
Priests) more qualified for the office of legislating for
the Church, than C. or D. — intelUgent laymen ? "
But this is plainly not the question. The question

12 Sufficiency of English Bishops acknowledged of old.
would not even be, whether out of above 17,000 Clergy
of England, 16,500 possessed no great quaUfications,
or even were altogether unfit, for any such office,"
but whether there be a Umited number of persons,
quaUfied to discharge both the executive and legis
lative offices of a Bishop.
In times past, this has been solemnly acknowledged.
For not only did the synod of old, (as shaU be shewn
hereafter ) consist exclusively of Clergy, but the Act
of Henry vm, which set forth the independence of
the EngUsh Church, rested the argument for that
independence, upon her acknowledged sufficiency.
The Act " for the restraint of appeals " ( 22. Henry vm.
c. 12. ) runs ; " Where by divers sundry old authentic
histories and chronicles, it is manffestly declared and
expressed, that this realm of England is an Empire,
and so hath been accepted in the world, govemed by
one supreme head and king, having the dignity and
royal estate of the imperial crown of the same ; unto
whom a body poUtick, compact of aU sorts and degrees
of people, divided in terms, and by names of spiritu-
aUty and temporaUty, been bounden and owen to bear,
next to God, a natural and humble obedience : - - -
the body spiritual whereof having power, when any
cause of the law divine happened to come in question,
or of spiritual learning, then it was declared, inter
preted, and showed by that part of the said body
poUtick, caUed the spirituaUty, now being usuaUy
caUed the EngUsh Church, which always hath been
rejmted and found of that sort, that both for knowledge.

Bishops of English Church cliosen hy the laity. 13
integrity and sufficiency of number, it hath been
always thought, and is also at this hour, sufficient
and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any
exterior person or persons, to declare and determine
all such doubts, and to administer aU such offices and
duties, as to their rooms spiritual doth appertain. "
Nor can the character of our Bishops, in the last
century, when Bishops ceased to be consulted about
the appointments of Bishops, be of any moment in this
argument. Had the laity of the Church of England
cared about the right exercise of their legitimate in
fluence in the selection of Bishops, they could have ob
tained it. With the single exception that the Arch
bishops and Bishops coUectively for the time being,
could, in an exti'eme case, refuse consecration, the
laity had the selection of Bishops, whoUy in their own
hands. The majority of the laity virtuaUy selected
the Prime Minister of the Crown ; the Minister of the
day and his friends, virtuaUy nominated the Bishops.
The knowledge that consecration could be refused
might check certain extreme cases of evU appointment.
Yet such a negative, when it is not formaUy conceded,
reaches but a Uttle way. The personal influence of
some eminent Bishops with the sovereign, at times
interposed a check °. It was a mitigation of prevaiUng
evils.

" In onr own days, I heard one speak somewhat querulously to the late
Arclibishop Howley, that " it was a pity that there was not more inter
ference iu preventing unsatisfactory appointments." "Perhaps there may
have been more, than people are aware of " was the quiet answer.

14 Laity abused hut can secure their trust.
With these checks only, the most plenary right to
the nomination of Bishops, ever conceded to the
laity, when their rights were the most ample and un
circumscribed, was possessed by the EngUsh laity in
the eighteenth century. They virtuaUy elected the
Bishops through their representatives, who nominated
them. Had they wiUed it, they might have had
Bishops who would have deserved their confi
dence. Had they so done, there could have been no
more room for desmng any other body to legislate
in grave spiritual matters, than, in the State, any
other legislative body is desired, to control or to
check the decisions of Parliament. It is not necessary
here to enter into the miserable principles, or want of
principle, upon which, in the last century, persons
were taken out of the Priesthood for the higher office
of Bishop; whence there grew up that habitual mis
trust of Bishops, which is not easily shaken off. The
laity bartered their " birthright for a mess of pot-
age. " Church patronage was, at the best, employed
for purposes of this world. The laity had the Bishops
whom they desired ; and when they had them, des
pised them.
But there is np ground, upon any ancient prin
ciple, why a real and legitimate influence of the laity
should not be used ui the selection of Bishops. Under
almost any mode of appointment, the laity might
have Bishops, in whom they could confide, provided
that according to the ApostoUc rule, due care be
taken that they be "blameless, as the stcAvards of

Civil sanction or temporalities not Bishop's office. 1 5
God, " "holding fast the faithful word as he hath
been taught. " For this, the ApostoUc custom of
Confirmation of Bishops elect is a guarantee, which,
( as it has been shown^ and might be shown yet more
vividly ) the EngUsh Church intended to maintain in
its complete integrity.
ii. The ' Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Church
have nothing to do, by virtue of their office, with any
civU legislation, or any civil sanction or authority for
their acts. Their authority belongs to a kingdom,
not of this world; any authority which comes to
them, in matters of this world, comes to them from
the authorities of this world, and can be lawfuUy
limited by the power which gave it. These two U-
mitations at once exclude questions, which are often
popularly mixed up with the idea of ecclesiastical
legislation and confuse it. Such are, 1. any civil
consequences from any ecclesiastical act, 2. the
whole question of temporaUties.
1. The acts of the Church, as a spiritual body, affect
only the court of conscience, and are binding only on
her members. She declares, for instance, what is the
law of God as to marriage ; her exposition of that law
is binding upon her children. But whether that law
shaU involve any temporal consequences to chUdren,
bom contrary to the law of God and ofthe Church, is
a matter, not for the Church to decide, but for the ci
vU authorities. The State in England has accepted in
^ Mr. Badeley's speech in " The Hampden Case-

1 6 Bishops direct spiritual things ; laity temporal.
this instance, the judgment of the Church ; if, as has
too often been proposed, it were to legaUse any mar
riage forbidden by the Divine law, the law of the
Church would remain, as it was before.
The CivU authorities can give a civil sanction to
the laws of the Church, or can withhold it, as they
wiU. If they give it, they may also prescribe the
terms, upon which it shaU be given. There could
not, of course, be the sUghtest objection to the ap
pointment of a body of lajnnen, whose assent should
be necessary to the civil vaUdity of the acts of the
Ecclesiastical body in matters spiritual.
2. With regard to what are caUed the temporaUties
of the Church, what has been given to God cannot,
without sacrilege, be taken from God. But as to
their distribution, modification, or other questions
concerning them, there can be no Divine right. For
although the principle that " they which wait at the
Altar are partakers vnth the Altar, " has Divine au
thority, the detaUs are not of Divine, but of human,
origin. No principle is involved in the distribution
of Church property by laymen, any more than in the
taxing of the Clergy for the purposes of the state.
It would be a gainful exchange for the Church, if
leaving to the laity the whole arrangement of her
temporal affairs, her Bishops and Priests were undis
turbed in what our Lord entrusted to them, the deci
sion in spiritual matters when they should arise.
iii. The remaining question, whether — conceding
aU outAvard questions or civil sanction as things not

" Teachers "promised in Old and New Testament. 17
belonging to Ecclesiastics, — questions of doctrine, or
such as in any way involve decisions upon doctrine,
do belong to the Clergy, is one of fundamental
principle, intimately connected with the very being
of the Episcopate.
It would seem ahnost superfluous to go about to
prove any thing so obAdous, as that Holy Scripture
does make a difference between the pastors or teachers
and the taught. Both Prophets and Apostles speak
of teachers, as a distinct part of the Christian dis
pensation. God promised by the prophet Jeremiah, *
" I AvUl give you pastors according to Mine heart,
which shaU feed you Avith knoAvledge and under
standing. " And Isaiah^ speaks of it as a character
istic of the Gospel Covenant ; " Yet shaU not thy
teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine
eyes shaU see thy teachers. " And in conformity with
this, S. Paul ¦= enumerates " pastors and teachers " a-
mong those whom our Lord gave " for the perfecting
of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edi
fying of the Body of Christ ; tUl we aU come in the
unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son
of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ. "
To teach, to feed, to rule in things concerning the
soul, are parts of the Divine Commission, given by
our Lord to the Apostles, and their successors. Our
Lord Himseff, just before His departure fi'om this
" Chap. iii. 15. i' Chap. xxx. 20. i^ Eph. iv. 11-13.
C

18 Teachers promised to the end of the world.
earth, solemnly gave this charge to His Apostles and
to those, to whom they, possessed of Divine inspira
tion and "fuU of the Holy Ghost," should commit
their office. Our Good Master accompanied this gift
Avith the promise, " Lo I am Avith you alway, even to
the end of the world." The Apostles plainly were
not to Uve to the end of the world ; they were to
serve their generation, to preach the Gospel in the
Avhole knoAAm Avorld, and then committing, [as they
did, J their place of teaching to others, themselves to
rest from their labours. But our Lord speaks, in one,
to them and to those who should, m continuous
succession from them, receive the commission from
Himseff. He gave them the two-fold office, 1. to bring
the nations into His fold, in the faith of the Holy
Trinity wherein they Avere to be baptised, and 2. to
teach them, when so received, to keep every thing in
faith and practice, which He had enjoined them.
" Make disciples of aU nations, baptising them in the
Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost, teaching them to observe (or " keep " ) all
things whatsoever I have commanded you.*^"
The words to S. Peter, "Feed My sheep," "feed
My lambs, " besides restoring him to his Apostolate
and effacing his threefold denial of his Lord, were
spoken to the Church in his person. They constitute
a difference between the shepherds and the sheep. In
one sense, aU Avho hope to be at the Right Hand in
" S. Mat. xxviii. 19.

Apostles committed office of teaching to Bishops. 19
the Great Day, Avhether teachers or taught, are the
sheep of Christ. In this sense He is the One Shepherd,
Who Alone feeds, through those whom He appoints
as shepherds under and for Him. In this sense, S.
Peter, and S. Paul, and S. John Avere aU sheep of
Christ, Avhom He, the Good Shepherd found, when
lost, and laid on His shoulders, rejoicing. In another
sense, Christ has appointed the ministry of men to
"feed" His " Church, which He hath purchased Avith
His Oavu Blood : " and this, S. Peter and aU the Apos
tles, and aU, who from the Apostles, have received,
by descent, the commission to teach, have done, and
do, by virtue of our Lord's words, " Feed My sheep,"
" feed My lambs. " S. Peter had no authority over
Apostles, nor any office to feed them, to whom had
been given the seff same office, " Go and disciple aU
nations : " " Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose
soever sins ye retain, they are retained. " " When it is
said to him, " says S. Augustine, " it is said to aU,
' Lovest thou Me, feed My sheep. " "
This same office the Apostles committed to the
Bishops, " Very perfect and unblameable in aU
things," says S. Irenseus,^ " did the Apostles Avish them
to be, whom they left as their successors, delivering
to them their ovm place of teaching." For the fulfil
ment of that office, it was enjoined to them, that they
should, 1. themselves " hold fast the form of sound
' De agone Christ, c. 39. ' iii. 3. 1.
c2

20 Office of Bishop in teaching not arbitrary,
words, s"—" hold fast, " so as not to let it beAvrung
from them, " the faithful word according to the teach-
ing, ^ "—to " take heed to the doctrine, ^ "— " keep the
good deposit committed unto him^; " 2. be "apt to
teach^;" 3. " by sound doctrine to exhort and con
vince the gainsayers. ™ "
The office then of the Bishop, in the Synod, as re
lates to doctrine, was part of his general office of
keeping or teaching the faith. The office of bearing
Avitness to the ApostoUc doctrine is part of the Apos
toUc Commission, handed doAvn by succession from
the Apostles. It Avas given to the Bishops, in suc
cession from the Apostles ; it was not given to others.
But in neither part of the office was there any arbi.
trary authority. In neither, might the Bishop teach
any thing new, any thing of his own mind. He dared
not to propose, as certain, any opinion, however pro
bable, or any inference ofhis oavu ; much less, any indi
vidual or private fancy. He himseff was underalaAV,
to teach Avhat he had received. He could impose no
thing as a law to others, to Avhich he was not subject
himseff. To individuals he taught what, ( although to
them, before he taught them, it was uncertain or un
known, ) he had himself received as certain truth. In
Synods, when occasion arose, the Bishops coUectively
bore witness to some portion of that same truth, which
some new heresy had impugned. But, in both cases
alike, they taught or bore Avitness to what, apart from
8 2Tim. i. 13. i>Xit. i. 9. > 2 Tun. iv. 16. » 2 Tim. 1, 14
' 2 Tim. iii. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 24. » Tit. i. 9.

hut to hear witness to what he had received. 21
themselves, was certain ; they taught in subordination
to an authority above themselves. Our Lord's promise
was given in its fulness to the whole Church. The same
promise belonged, in their degree, to aU who Avere com
missioned by Him. Each who bore our Lord's com
mission possessed it, in his proportion, subordinately
to those above him, as those above him to the whole.
There was subordination in the Christian army ; " men
under authority " but " haAdng soldiers under them ; "
and, under the Great Captain of our salvation, each
petty officer had this authority, so long as he spake
in his Lord's Name, not in his OAvn.
ResponsibiUty was the very condition of authority.
The individual Priest teaches the souls under his care
with all confidence, because he himseff is amenable to
his Bishop. The Bishop teaches with authority, because
subordinate in the first instance, to the Synod of
Bishops. The local or provincial or national Synod,
teaches and regulates things, through the wisdom
which He gives. Who is present Avith those gathered
in His Name ; but it does so vdth the more confi
dence, because its decisions are Uable to be revised,
canceUed or confirmed by the whole Church. In fact,
the most important decisions on doctrine have been
made in ProAdncial Synods, because they knew that
they taught that, which they, in common with the
rest of the Church, had received. A large General
Council, Uke that of Ariminum or the Latrocinium of
Ephesus, might and did err, if it set forth any thing
of its OAvn ; and it Avas corrected by the whole. A smaU

22 Tlie office of teaching through Synods
Provincial CouncU, ( such as those which first con
demned the doctrine of Novatian or Arius, Pelagius
or Eutyches,) decided fearlessly, knowing that it was
deUvering the one truth Avhich had been taught from
the first ; and it was confirmed by the whole.
These tAvo parts of the office of teaching were, in
principle, the same. The office of teaching individuals
was necessarUy continuous ; it extended to "°aU things
which a Christian ought to know and beUeve for his
soul's health. " The bearing Avitness to the truth m
Synod, was both occasional in time, and, on each
occasion, Umited in extent. For the truth was from
time to time only so contradicted as to require the
interposition of the Synod ; and the truth so contra
dicted was, on each occasion, for the most part, some
one, or at most, some connected truths only.
And yet, although more Umited in extent, the
laying doAvn of the truth in Synods was, beyond all
comparison, a far weightier office than that of indivi
dual teaching. Preaching, teaching, concern the
weU-being of single souls ; formal statements of faith
involve the weU-being of the whole aggregate of souls,
the Church. Individual teaching affects mostly but
a few individuals. At most, even ff extended to
others, it reaches them only individually. It does not
affect the Church through them, untU they have
weight enough to induce the Church to act as a
whole. The acts of the whole body, as a whole,
" Office of Baptism of Infants, end.

fax raore weighty than preaching in Churches. 23
alone affect its very being. The teaching of doctrinal
statements, received by any portion of the Church,
affects the whole being of the body which so receives
them. It is then Uttle to say, that ff that which is far
greater, the taking part in doctrinal decisions, is
open to the laity, k fortiori is that which is far less,
pubUc preaching. The administration of the Holy
Eucharist, or the power of the keys, have their OAvn
distinct ground in Holy Scripture. But the whole
office of teaching is one. Certainly to teach, even in
the house of God, what may soon pass away, is an
office ( sacred as it is ) of sUght moment, in compa
rison Avith that of permanently fixing the authorized
teaching of the Church.
If any one who desires that laymen should share in
decisions on matters of faith, would yet be at aU sur
prised to see aU or any large number of our most
important pulpits occupied by laymen, or to have
laymen, ( although Avithout power to administer the
Holy Eucharist,) as our Parochial Ministers, or that
those whom they think of as associated in the future
legislation for the Church, should preach the Gospel
to our poor, then certainly he has whoUy miscon
ceived the relative magnitude of the two offices. For
far higher spiritual gifts, greater Avisdom, more accu
rate doctrinal knowledge, deeper insight into DiAT.ne
truth, are required in those Avho are to sit in Council
for the Church than in those who are to teach her
individual members. A good Parish Priest, though
pious and weU instructed for his office, is not there-

24 The question, not of talent, hut of Christ's promise.
fore weU-quaUfied to decide accurately, or to judge
of the whole bearing of compUcated questions, or to
maintain the truth against heretical aggression.
But the question does not turn upon the respective
talent, learning, judgment, human wdsdom ofthe Laity
and the Clergy, hoAvever natural it is to suppose that
the more eminent Clergy would be most versed ia
those matters of the " law Divine " to which they
have voAved to " draw" aU the care and study " oftheir
Uves. The question does not relate to God's natural
gifts to man, even though cultivated by aid of the
grace of God. Our Lord's commission had a blessing
attached to it, "I am AAdth you always even to the
end of the world." So long as we beUeve, that those
words Avere spoken eminently to the Apostles and
their successors, the question is not as to those other
gifts in themselves, but as to those gffts, Avith our
Lord's promise or without it. Faithfulness on man's
part is plainly the condition of all God's promises,
But ff faithful, Bishops have, by virtue of Christ's
promise, a Presence in Synod beyond what attends
their ordinary acts. Why should this seem a strange
thing to beUeve ? Nothing is outwardly changed by
the inward Presence of God.
Accordingly, untU the unhappy precedent, made
in very evil times by the Church of the United
States, when struggUng for Ufe, the question of lay-
representation was consistently confined to bodies
° Office for Ordination of Priests.

Bad precedent in America set in had times. 25
who rejected the ApostoUc succession, theP Conti
nental reformers, and the dissenters in Great Britain.
It must be said plainly, that the precedent set in
the United States is radically wrong, and in fact, is
so far, the adoption of a principle belonging to bodies
who reject the Apostolic succession and the whole
principle of a deposit of faith, and of a commission,
transmitted from the Apostles and part of the mind
of Christ. Yet, in so saying, I do not mean ( God
forbid ! ) that she has thereby forfeited her claim to be
a part of the Church. She has abandoned a bulwark
of the faith, a function of the office inherited by her
Bishops, not the faith itself nor the Apostolic suc
cession. Through our neglect she became what she became ;
and we owe her therefore not sympathy only, but a
respectful and humble sorrow. Still, while we own
our oAvn share in the sin, and that through God's
mercy alone we have been preserved, it were thank-
lessness for our own mercies, not to own, that she has
undergone loss. Nestorianism and Eutychianism
were not the produce of one generation only, nor are
they extinct. The Athanasian Creed is at once the
bulwark' against those heresies, and the clearest expor
sition of the deepest truths on the very Being of God.
It sets forth in clearest terms the Being of God Al
mighty in Himseff, and in the relation which through
us. His lowest creatures. He vouchsafed to form Avith
P See Bishop Bilson's Tracts p. 2. Perpetual Government of Christ's Church
L. 16. p. 388. comp. Field on the Church. B. 5. c. 19. p. 646.

26 Perils of other changes in American Church.
His whole rational creation. On those truths the hu
man mind must dweU, ff it would think at aU on God,
its Author and its End, and on its redeeming Lord.
Thoughts like those which the Athanasian Creed so
wonderfuUy embodies, must come across, every reflec
tive mind. The soul must think in some way on
every subject mentioned in that Creed, ff it rises
above the toils or pleasures of this earth to dwell
upon its God. Yet error Ues as near to the mind of
man as truth. Error is manffold, truth one. And
therefore there is the more danger lest the soul of
man should go astray, where it would most need and
long to think aright, Avhere error would estrange it
from its God and Saviour, as He Is. It was a loss
then, that, misunderstanding its solemn warnings to
those who wilfully part with the faith, the American
Church allowed one of the clearest expositions of that
faith silently to drop from them. They parted, not
only with the Creed itself, but Avith the very con
fession that it " ought thoroughly to be received and
believed. " They did not mean to part with the faith
from their heart, but they parted with its confession
from their lips. In like way, they did not deny, but
they ignored the value of absolution.
They did not deny, but, in both instances they
suppressed the truth. It is plain, then, that in the
future history of the Church, either we must be
the instrument of God in upholding their faith, or
they, ifwe enter into closer relations with them, wiU
loAver ours. Not then in reproach, but in seff defence

Appeal to the Council of Jerusalem. 27
it was said, that a Church which had " omitted the
Athanasian Creed, and bracketted the Nicene, " Avas
no model to be safely copied.
The admission of laymen to a co-ordinate voice in
Councils on the faith, is not an heretical act. Yet,
it is an innovation upon that rule which the inspired
Apostles left vdth the Church. To depart from their
rule must needs be the commencement of a perUous
course, the issue of which God Alone knoweth, and
from which may He preserve us.
The question of lay-representation was originaUy
throAvn out by the Lutheran States,'* as a ground of
objection to the CouncU to which they were invited.
Then Luther, ^ in his rough off-hand way, assumed
that Laymen ought equaUy to decide in matters of
faith, because matters of faith equaUy concemed them.
His foUowers appealed to the Council of Jerusalem as
an authority, in Avhich, their Avriters on EcclesiasticaP

1 It is mentioned as one of the grounds of the German Protestant States,
against attending the proposed Council. " The chief judgment in the Cbiu'ch
no ways belongs to the Pope, but to the Church itself, i. e. not ouly to the
Bishops ; but also to Kings, Princes, and other orders. " Protestantimn Imperii
Statuum rationes cur Synodus &c. 1537. in Goldast. Politic. Imp. 27. § 4. p. 1201
' " Among them should be some intelligent and true-hearted laymen ; for
the matter concems them too. As if Herr Hans von Schwarzenberg were
aUve, he or such as he, must needs be trusted. " von den Conciliis. 1 539. p.203.
^ The Magdeburgh Centuriators gravely relate as matter of history ; " Then
(after St. James' sentence ) the other elders too, and the -whole Church gave their
votes, and the sentence provided, that "men are justified by faith only,
without the works ofthe law". Cent. 1. & 2. c. 9. Col. 548.
" The decrees of the Council were conveyed both through letters written
by the common snifrage of the Apostles and elders and whole Church, and
viva voce by some of the chief brethren, " etc. Ib.

2SAuthority of council of Jerusalem frominspiredApostles.
history inform us, that it was decided by the votes
of the whole Church, that " man Avas justified by faith
only vdthout works. "
It is strange that a CouncU, in which Apostles,
" fiUed Adth the Holy Ghost, " the commissioned and
inspired teachers of the Church, the instruments of
the Holy Spirit in giving to us the Holy Scriptures,
who spake as weU as Avrote, " as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost, " pronounced, taught, spoke vdth
Divine authority in the midst of an assembly possessed
of no authority, should be selected as a specimen of
subsequent assembUes ; that from a Council in which
all who spoke Avere infallible, any inference whatever
should be made as to any subsequent Council when
plenary individual inspiration should be AdthdraAvn.
The Council of Jerusalem would have been a mere
smaU proAdncial Council of some four or five Bishops
Adthout authority over other Christians, had not those
Bishops been the inspired Apostles of Christ. Plen
ary authority then lay in those single organs through
whom God the Holy Ghost at that time fuUy spoke, as
it has since in the concurrent voice ofthe Avhole Church.
Each Apostle was, on the One Fomidation, a Founda
tion of the City of God against Avhich its Author said,
the gates of HeU should not prevaU. Since the
Church of Christ could not fail, neither could any one
foundation, upon which that Church rested. S. Peter,
S. Paul, S. James were, to the end of time, to be the
organs of the words of God. Had they been fallible,
when deUvering His Word in the CouncU, our Lord's

To have questioned it were to deny the faith. 29
promise would have faUed ; our whole security that
we have God's Word, Avould have perished. Nothing
could be taken from that which Apostles spake with
out denying Him Who sent them. No Bishop or Priest
or Layman could by his priA^ate judgment add any au
thority to Avhat Avere the words of God. The CouncU
of Jerusalem would be a precedent, not for CouncUs
which (as aU admit even of General CouncUs) may err,
but for infaUible Provincial Councils. If it is to be an
authority for a decisive voice being given in CouncUs to
the laity, it must be an authority also for the infallibi
Uty^ of smaU Provincial Councils. It is true that Lay
men were present at the CouncU of Jerusalem, but it
is also true that the Council of Jerusalem was infaUible,
to which infalUbiUty these laymen could not add any
thing, and so could not in truth add any thing to
the CouncU itseff.
In the CouncU of Jerusalem, to have questioned
the Apostles' teaching, Avould have been to deny the
faith and to destroy its foundations. The fuU inspira
tion of the Apostles was the guarantee of God for the
truth and Divinity ofthe whole Faith. "When' He,
the Spirit of Truth, is come. He shaU guide you into
the whole truth;" "the whole truth, " Avhich belongs
to this our condition as wayfarers ; the entire truth
of the Gospel, which the Church was, to the end of
time, to receive from them. If the Apostles could
have erred in one matter of faith, thus solemnly
' S. John. 16. 13.

30 Council of Jerusalem rests solely on inspiration.
brought for their decision, they might have erred in aU.
The Peoijle were present at the CouncU of Jerusalem,
but to hear and to obey the words of God deUvered
through the Apostles' mouth to them and the whole
Church of God. True, they did speak ; they even dis
puted; but when? Before the Apostles spake. " Certaia
of the sect of the Pharisees who beUeved, " seem some
what clamorously to have urged their plea ; " It was
needful to circumcise them [ the Gentile converts J
and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
For S. Luke goes on to say " When there had been
much disputing. " But when an inspired Apostle had
spoken, " then " S. Luke relates," aU the multitude kept
silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul.'' The
people Ustened; Apostles spoke. Even Apostles dwelt
chiefly upon the direct and visible Adtness of God the
Holy Ghost. S. Peter appeals to the descent of God
the Holy Ghost upon those firstfruits of the GentUes,
CorneUus and his household ; S. Paul and S. Barnabas
to the " miracles and wonders which God had Avrought
among the Gentiles by them. " S. James, as Bishop
of the place, and president of the CouncU, confirms, by
prophecy of the Old Testament, the meaning of these
miracles, and gives his sentence. From that sentence
none could depart, who did not deny ApostoUc autho
rity and vdth it the foundation of the faith and the
promise of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so had become
an apostate.
Without that plenary inspiration, the CouncU of
Jerusalem aa'^ouM have had no authority to prescribe

Laity of Jerusalem had no authority over others. 31
its decree. Of the twelve Apostles " James, Cephas
and John who seemed to be pUlars"" were, probably,
alone present, Adth Barnabas and Paul. The rest of
the Apostles, (except St. James the elder who had
borne Adtness to Christ by his death, ) were probably
dispersed throughout the world, preaching Christ.
There was no representation of those absent ; no
Bishops, nor ( as these AviU have it, ) laity coUected
from the whole Church. The CouncU of Jerusalem
could have had no weight, at aU, Avith the Church,
save from that authority which gives it its Aveight
now, that the words spoken there by the Apostles
were the words of God, and were OAvned as such then,
as they are OAvned by us now.
The Laity of Jerusalem had no authority over those
of Antioch or of the rest of the Church, nor were they
entitled to accept the decree in the name of the rest.
They had not been consulted by the rest. Paul and
Barnabas were sent "to Jerusalem, unto the Apostles
and Elders about this question."" "The Apostles and
Elders came together, for to consider of this matter."'"
Paul and Timothy gave to the Churches which they
visited, "the decrees that were ordained of the
Apostles and Elders, which were at Jerusalem, '' " not
to examine, nor to receive of their OAvn mind, but
"for to keep." The decree itseff is in the words of
the inspired Apostles, "it hath seemed good to the
Holy Ghost and to us;" those in whose names it Avas
" Gal. ii. 9. "Acts xv. 2. » Ib. 6. - Acts xvi. 4.

32 Mention of Laity altogether doubtful.
framed as having ordained it, Avere the Apostles and
Elders, the same who were caUed together to consider
of the matter. The Avhole Church at Jerusalem
obeys and circulates it; but Apostles having given
their sentence, no other, Bishop, Priest, or Layman
spoke, or voted, or judged in the matter. The very
mention of the Laity, at aU, as even agreeing in the
decree, is uncertain. For, according to a ^ reading,
extant in the second century and for which there is
considerable authority, the words are, " The Apostles
and Elders, brethren, to the brethren Avhich are of
the Gentiles in Antioch, &c. " In this case, the
Apostles and Elders, Avriting to the brethren Avho
came from the Gentiles, caU themselves by the same
title, brethren. As brothers, may Avrite to brothers.
But whichever be the right reading of the text, if
it is regarded as in any way a precedent for subsequent
Councils, when those present had not the plenary
inspiration of the Apostles, it becomes a precedent
against, not for, the concurrence of the Laity. ^ For
the decree of the Apostles and Elders was issued as an
authoritative decree to be kept by the Laity throughout
the world, Avhom those at Jerusalem were not entitled
y Abp. Potter notices this reading as being that in the time of S. Irenaius
[iu. 12. p. 232. ed. Grabe. Apostoli et presbyteri fratres. ] of the old Latin
Version [Apostoli et seniores fratres. J ofthe Alexandrian, and other MSS.
ofgood authority [on Church Government, c. 5. p. 223. ed. Crosthw.] The
reading without the x.a), viz, oi oi'rcoato'hama) 6i wp£0-|3u'T£poi altKlpol occurs
in the Cod, Alex. Vat. Ephr. rescr. Cant, in S. Iren. Origen. S. Athan.
Pacian. Vigil, in the Vulg. Cant, and Arm. It is adopted only by
Lachmaun and Muralto. Griesbach notes it as the less probable reading ;
Alter, Matthioa, Scholz and Tischendorf retain the common reading. Potter
compares 1 Cor. ix. 5. " a sister wife."
" A. Bp. Potter urges this. 1, c. see also Hammond ad loe.

Presbyters commissioned to teach as well as Bishops. 33
to represent, nor did they represent , and it laid upon
them, as necessary things, things to Avhich they had
given no consent. But in truth, being the result of
fuU inspiration, it forms no precedent at aU. For the
decree so issued was binding at once upon aU the
Church, whereas the decrees of Councils obtain their
authority from their reception by the Bishops of the
whole Church.
Presbyters had the same power of teaching, ab
solving, consecrating, lodged in them as the Bishops.
They could laAvfriUy do aU which the Bishop did,
except confirm and ordain. Those powers, however,
they held, not independantly of the Bishop, but Uable
to be restricted in their use by his wUl. They dif
fered from the Laity, in that by Ordination they had
received a commission from God, to teach as weU as
to do aU besides appertaining to their office. They
differed from the Bishops even in those things which
they held in common Adth the Bishops, in that the
Bishops had the authority foUy in themselves ; the
Priests in subordination to the Bishops, and so far
only as they were directly or tacitly permitted by the
Bishops. But ff the Bishops associate the Priests
vdth themselves in any office of teaching, they only
aUow the free exercise of a commission, which the
Priests have through them already received from God.
If they were to admit the Laity, as such, they would
admit them to that office in an unauthorised way, not
in the way which God has appointed, and to Avhich,
as His appointment, He has promised His blessing.
D

34 Proof that Synods consisted of Bishops only,
CHAPTER. II.
Notices of Councils, down to S. Cyprian's time.
The amount of cAddence, that Bishops alone had a
definitive voice in Synods, is, throughout the history
of the Church, in proportion to the detail, in which
the account of those Synods is giA^en. The evidence
must in its OAvn nature be incidental. No one
questioned then, that Bishops alone had that definitive
voice. No one then went about to prove it. The
word " Synod, " by the very force ofthe term, meant
the Council of Bishops. On the very ground then,
that it was the received term, Avriters of that age had
no more need to mention that the Council consisted
of Bishops, than an EngUsh Historian, who mentioned
the meeting of ParUament, or of Convocation, would
have to enumerate their constituent parts. In forraal
documents, the House of Peers is described as
consisting of the " Lords spiritual and temporal. "
OrdinarUy there is no occasion to state what every
one at the time knows.
Indications, that Bishops only had an authoritative
voice in Councils, are sometimes furnished by the
subscriptions to the Councils. These subscriptions,
( as Ave shaU see from Eusebius, ) were annexed to the
decisions of very early Councils. But the acts which
contained the subscriptions are not, in the earUest
period, preserved. The Synodical letters AVi'itten by

must be incidental ; various sorts of proof. 35
the Bishops present at the CouncU to distant Bishops,
contain, as early as in the time of St. Cyprian, another
kind of evidence. Sometimes again the Bishops are
mentioned in reference to the numbers who were as
sembled ; sometimes in relation to the ProAdnces from
which they were gathered.
It may, then, be that some CouncUs may yield no
direct evidence at aU. Considering that it was, and
could be, no direct object of the Avriters to mention,
of whom the CouncU was composed, that it would
even be unnatural that they should mention what was
knoAvn to aU, except when there was something
further to mention, it is even remarkable that so
much evidence should remain.
For the early period of the Church, the Ecclesias
tical historians are the chief authorities. In giving
the facts as to the Councils, they are led IncidentaUy
to mention those who decided the question brought
before them. The Epistles of St. Cyprian, being full
of the history of the times, of which St. Cyprian
himseff formed so large a part, ftimish evidence of
their OAvn.
Testimonies have already been given* during the
period of the six first General Councils, and far doAvn
into the ninth century ( A. D. 889. ) that, on the one
hand, those laymen who had most influence in the
Church, the Christian Emperors, whoUy disclaimed
having any voice in matters of faith, and that the
"See above Royal Supremacy. Part. 1. p. 17. sqq.
d2

36 Emperors disclaimed all authority as to the faith.
Bishops, on the other hand, during that earUer
period, spoke of decisions in matters of faith, as
entrusted to themseh^es by God.
The Emperors Constantine, Theodosius the Elder,
Valentinian the Elder, Gratian, Honorius, Theodosius
the younger, ( as represented by Florentius, ) the
Emperor BasU in the eighth Synod, Justinian, ahke
disavow^ aU interference, as contrary to the Divine
law. " It is not laiv ful for one not of the Ust of the
most holy Bishops, to mingle in ecclesiastical ques
tions," says Theodosius to the CouncU of Ephesus. "It
is not laAvful for me, whose place is among the Laity,
to busy myseff Adth matters of faith. Let then the
Priests and Bishops, to whom this care belongs, meet
apart by themselves, wherever they AviU, " said
Valentinian the Elder. Honorius; "The interpre
tation of DiAdne things belongs to them [the Bishops;]
to us, the obedience of reUgion. " Towards the close
of the ninth Century, the same language is still used
by the Emperor Basil; "I say, it is not permitted to
any layman whatsoever, in any manner to move
questions as to ecclesiastical subjects, or to stand
against the Avhole Church, or an Qilcumenical Synod.
For to search out these things belongs to Patriarchs,
and Priests, and Teachers, to whom the office of
ruUng is assigned, to whom the power to consecrate,
to loose, and to bind is given, who have the keys of
the Church and of Heaven ; for the layman, although
he is full of aU reverence and Avisdom, is yet a layman,
and a sheep, not a shepherd. "

Synods of Bishops earliest system of the Church. 37
Even Constantius the Arian Avrites to Semi-Arian
Bishops, disclaiming the Anomoeans; "* I would exhort
those who, though late, emerge out of this mire, to
agree Adth this decree, which the Bishops, wise in
DiAdne things, have decreed for the best, as need re
quired." In another mood, when threatening Eleusius
and Sylvanus, he was answered, "Ae ''had the power
of deciding punishment; they, what was godUness or
ungodUness; and they would not betray the beUef
of their fathers." "But Constantius, " adds Theodoret,
"whereas he ought to have admired their Adsdom
courage and boldness for the Apostolic doctrine,
expeUed them from the Churches, and ordered that
others should be set in their stead."
Laity or representatives of the Laity, Avere often
present in Councils on matters of faith, because the
faith concerned them. They were not present at
Ecclesiastical trials, because such might be a scandal
to them. But wherever they were present, it was as
sheep not as shepherds ; as the taught, not as the
teachers. Besides the disclaimers on the part of the Emperors
to interfere in doctrine or in the things of God, I have
also shcAATi already at great length, ''that Synods of
Bishops were part of the earUest rule of the Church.
The Ante-Nicene Canons prescribe that Synods of
Bishops should be held tAdce in the year ; TertuUian,
at the close of the second century, speaks of Councils,
'' Ep. ad Eccles. Antioch. fin. in Sozom. iv. 14. ¦= Theod. ii. 27.
* Royal Supremacy Pt. 1. ix. p. 57. sqq.

38 Atitiquity of Apostolic Canon, enjoining
habituaUy held in Greece, in AVords corresponding to
the ApostoUc Canon. In the third century they are
spoken of by St. FirmiUan, as meeting regularly.
The CouncU of Laodicea, A. 320, contains a direction
about them. The CouncU of Nice enlarges the
ApostoUc Canon, and, being an CEcumenical Council,
ordains them for the A\^hole Church, decreeing that
"for each year, in each province, there should be
Synods tvdce in the year, in order that, all the
Bishops meeting in common, such questions " ( as to
excommunication ) " may be examined. "
The Antiquity of the ApostoUc Canon, as compared
vdth those of Nice and Antioch, is iUustrated by its
conciseness, and by the absence of any reference to
later titles or arrangements. The later Councils say
that "Bishops of each Eparchy are to meet in
common ; " the ApostoUc Canons, which do not
mention the Eparchy, were probably framed, before
the Ecclesiastical divisions were conformed to those
ofthe Empire. In Uke way, the Councils both of
Nice and Antioch speak freely of the Metropolitan;
the ApostoUc Canons only say, " The Bishops of each
nation ought to know who among them is accounted
the first, Avhom they should regard as a head, and do
nothing of greater moment Adthout his privity.'"
This Canon is quoted as "an ancient Canon of our
Fathers" by the CouncU of Antioch.^ The very fact
that the ApostoUc Canon was expanded by these two
' Can. Ap. 35. 'Cin. 9.

annual Councils of Bishops on faith and discipline. 39
independant CouncUs implies that it was a recognised
rule of the Church.
The object of these "Councils of the Bishops" is
laid doAvn in the ApostoUc Canon itseff. " Lets them
question one another as to the doctrines of godUness
[ i. e. of the true faith, J and let them settle Ecclesias
tical contradictions which may arise. " Accordingly
we have, long before the CouncU of Nice, a Canon
received in the Church, that there should be tAdce in
the year. Synods of the Bishops exclusively, and these
to treat of matters of faith, and settle Ecclesiastical
questions. Another frequent occasion of early Councils was
the election of Bishops. An African Synod, under
S. Cyprian, held A. D. 254. speaks of the mode of
election, as a "Divine Tradition and an ApostoUc
observance. " That CouncU, held about 150 years
after St. John was taken to his rest, had good means
of knovdng what were, or were not, ApostoUc obser
vances. "The practice, received from Divine tradition
and ApostoUc observance, must be diUgently upheld
and kept, which is also kept by us and by almost aU
the Provinces, namely, that to the due solemnization
of ordinations, aU the neighbouring Bishops of the
same Province should meet together among the People
for whom a Prelate is ordained, and the Bishop
should be chosen in the presence of the People, Avho
know most fuUy the Uves of each, and are thoroughly
eCan. 38.

40 Election of Bishops made hy Bishops, in presence,
acquainted Avith the character of every one from his
conversation. This too we see was done among you
in the ordination of our coUeague Sabinus, so that by
the suffrage, [i. e. good avUI] of the whole brother
hood, and by the judgment of the Bishops who had met
together in their presence, and who had Avritten to you
concerning him, the Episcopate was conferred upon
him. " The People were rightly consulted in this,
both because they knew the previous Uves of those
presented to them, and because it is of the utmost
moment that there should be the fuUest confidence
between the teacher and the taught, the shepherd and
the sheep. S. Cyprian lays stress upon this know
ledge of the character of the individual to be chosen
for that high office, in his appUcation of Numbers xxiv.
25, 6. to this case; " This '^we see to be derived from
Divine authority, that a Priest should be chosen in
presence of the People, under the eyes of aU, and be
approved worthy and fit by pubUc sentence and
testimony ; " and again, " He instructs and shews us
that the ordinations of Priests ought only to be
solemnized Adth the knowledge of the People standing
by, that so, hy their -presence, either the crimes of the
Avicked may be detected, or the merits of the good
proclaimed, and that ordination be right and laAvful
Avhich had been examined Avith the suffrage [i. e.
approbation, ] and judgment of all. "
But the decision lay with the Bishops. The new
"Ep. 67..§. 4. p. 211.

and with the testimony and good will of the People. 41
Bishop was chosen not "by" but "m the presence of
the People, " w^ho knew most fuUy the Uves of each.
Both points, the choice by the Bishops, and the
acceptance by the People, are contained in the ancient
rule. " 'Let no one be given as a Bishop to an
unAviUing People." The Bishop was "given to the
People, " not chosen by them ; yet he Avas not to be
forced ujjon them, ff unAdlUng.
Origen lays the same stress as S. Cyprian on the
presence of the People, in order that they might be
satisfied that the fittest person Avas appointed, and that
there might be no groimd for subsequent scruple. He
is speaking more broadly of aU ordinations to any
office of the Priesthood. "Let %s see the order of
appointing a High-Priest. 'Moses caUed an assembly
and said unto them, this is the law which the Lord
commanded.' Although then the Lord had given com
mand as to appointing the High Priest, and the Lord
had chosen, yet the assembly also is caUed together.
For in ordaining a Priest ihe presence of the People is
required, that aU may know certainly that he is chosen
to the Priesthood, who, out of aU the People, is most
exceUent, learned, holy, most eminent in aU Adrtue ;
and this, the People standing by, '^that there may be no
subsequent re-consideration or scruple. For this is
what the Apostle too enjoined in the ordination of a

' Nullus invitis detur Episcopus. Celestine Ep. 2. ad Episc. Gall. 5.0. 5.
A. D. 428. quoted in the Decretals D. 61.c. 13.
¦i Horn. 6. in Lev. § 3. p. 216. ed. de la Rue. '' Adstante populo.

42 Bishops often accepted the choice of the People;
Priest, saying, ' He must have a good report of them
which are Adthout ; lest he faU into reproach and the
snare of the devU, " The universaUty of the practice
and its object are attested by the heathen Emperor,
Alexander Severus, Avho copied it vdth express reference
to the Jews and Christians. "When' he purposed to
assign rulers to the ProAdnces &c. he proposed their
names, exhorting the People, that ff any had any crime
to object, he would prove it — and said that it was a
grievous thing that, when Jews and Christians so
did, pubUshing the names of those who were to be
ordained Priests, this should not take .place as to the
rulers of ProAdnces, to whom the Uves and fortunes of
men Avere committed."
The People, of course, very often had a Priest
whom they weU knew, reverenced, loved. If he was
reaUy eminent, they rightly longed that such an one
should be their Bishop ; and the Bishops as rightly
confirmed their choice. It was no question of "patro
nage" or " right of nomination, " on the one hand,
or of "election" on the other. One only object was
in the hearts of aU, to find one apt and meet to feed
that portion " ofthe Church of God, purchased Adth
His OAvn Blood, "Avhich, by age or by martyrdom, had
lost its Shepherd. Right glad must the Bishops have
been, when aU anxious enquiry was saved, and the
zeal and love of the People bore such Adtness to the
merits of their Priest, that the Bishops could at once
'Lamprid. in vit. ej. c. 45

for the People often knew hest their own Priests. 43
approve and consecrate the object of their choice,
and themselves return to the care of their ovm flocks.
Such is the picture, which the Synodical letter of
the CouncU of one hundred Bishops at Alexandria
gives of the election of St. Athanasius. " They™ [ the
Arians] say that, '^affer the death of Bishop Alexander,
a certain few having mentioned the name of Atha
nasius, six or seven Bishops elected him clandes
tinely in a secret place. ' This is what they Avrote
to the Emperors, having no scruple about asserting
any falsehood. Now that the whole multitude and
aU the People of the CathoUc Church, assembled
together as Avith one mind and body, cried, shouted,
that Athanasius should be Bishop of their Church,
made this the subject of their pubUc prayers to
Christ, and conjured us to grant it for many days
and nights, neither departing themselves fi^om the
Church, nor suffering us to do so, of aU this we are
Adtnesses, and so is the whole city and the province
too. And that he was elected by the greater part of
our body in the sight and with the acclamations of
aU the People, we who elected him, also testffy, who
are more credible Adtnesses than those absent then,
and now falsifiers. "
Much, either for praise or blame, may escape the
knowledge of the Bishops, which does not escape
those who are brought into continual intercourse with
the daUy Ufe of the Priest. The People, then, could
"In Apol. c. Arian. §. 6, p. 128. St. Ath. Hist. Tracts p. 22. Oxf. Tr.

44 Case of disagreement referred hack to the Bishops.
give a valuable testimony either as to the merit or
demerit of those who should seem eUgible. A large
multitude has many eyes and ears, and these situate
in such nearness as to discover concealed failings or
retiring virtues.
The Canons of the Church accordingly contem
plated and provided for the case, that the People
might reject the Bishop provided for them. Yet
the very Canon" which contemplates that a Bishop
consecrated for a Diocese might be rejected by the
People, provided that such a case should be referred
back to the ftdl Synod of the ProAdnce.
The People had, in this way " the "power either of
choosing worthy Priests or rejecting the unworthy. "
A Bishop elected amid their acclamations was said,
sometimes, to be elected by their suffrages,'' some-
" " If any Bishop consecrated for a Diocese does not go to it, not from any
fault of his own, but either through the People decUning [ to have hun ] or
for some other cause not arising from himself, let him share in the dignity
and public ministrations, only not interfering in the aflfairs of the Church in
which he celebrates ; but let Mm wait until the full Synod of the Province,
having judged on the case when brought before them, shall decide. " Couc.
Antioch. (A. 341.) can. 18.
0 St. Cyprian Ep. ( Synod. ) 67. § 3. p. 211. 0. T.
P See above p. 40. from S. Cyprian Ep. 67. where the word "suffrage " belongs
to the people, "judgment" to the Bishops, as is expressed § 5. and again,
" No one, after the Divine sanction had, after the suffrages of the people,
after the consent of our fellow-Bishops, would make himself a judge, not
of his Bishop but of God. " Id. Ep. 59. ad Corn. § 6. p. 155. 0. T. § 7. p.
156. Ep. 68. ad Steph. § 2. p. 217. Ep. 55. ad Anton. § 6. p. 121. (where
he says also, " He ( Cornelius ) was made Bishop by very many of our
Colleagues then present in the city of Rome. " ) The corresponding Greek
word is also used. St. Gregory of Nazianzum e. g. says that " S. Athanasius
was placed in the see of Mark by the suffrage ( ^l'»l<Ps)) of all the people"
in contrast with those whom the Arian faction intruded into his see, by aid
of the civil power and military force." Orat. 21. § 8. p. 390.

"Suffrage" eapr esses concurrence of the People. 45
times with their testimony''; at times, to be elected
by the suffrage of the Clerks and at the petition of
the People.
Even a General Council used freely this term
" suffrage " to express the glad concurrence of the
laity in the act of the Bishops who appointed the
Patriarch. The Bishops of the Council of Constan
tinople (A. D. 381.) wrote to the Western Bishops ;
" we have made Nectarius Bishop, in the CEcumenical
Council with common consent, in the presence of the
Emperor Theodosius and the whole Clergy, and the
whole City concurring.^" They relate also how the
Bishops of the Province and of the Eastern Diocese
meeting together had canonically ordained Flavian,
the whole Church in harmony" honoring him as with
one voice, and how they had recognised Cyril as
Bishop of Jerusalem " having been of old canonically
ordained by the Bishops of the Province. "
In the Council of Chalcedon, in the decision that
Bassianus and Stephanus had been uncanonically
intruded into the see of Ephesus, the maxims occur,
"another, who had the suffrages' of all whose shep
herd he is to be, should rule the Church. " " There
shall be given to the Metropolis of Ephesus, as

1 S. Cypr. Ep. 44. ad Com. fin. p. 99. 0. T. "AATien a Bishop is once
made and approved by the testimony and judgment of his Colleagues and
the people. " ' l7rfi]/«pi^of4sv>i; Cone. T. ii. p. 1 1 50 ed Col.
'4-»ifi^o(*Ewf Act. 12. Cone. iv. 1624.

46 In all cases, respoiisihility ivas with the Bishops.
Bishop, one pointed out by God, and haA'ing the
suffrages " of aU over whom he is to be shepherd, to be
ordained by the Church there. " Another says, "''The
Bishops of the Province know most about them
[the two Bishops;] so let them say, according to
their reverence and awe of God, who ought to have
the see of Ephesus."
Yet even in the very strongest but very rare case,
when the People, actuated by what seems to be a
Divine impulse, or, once, almost by force, constrained
the Bishops to elect and consecrate the object of
their choice, it was still, in theory, acknowledged
that the decisive judgment was that of the Bishops.
St. Gregory of Nazianzum relates, how, in Julian's
time, "some"' Bishops came to Csesarea, to give the
People a Bishop;" and that the whole People, naturaUy
full of eagerness, seized one distinguished for piety,
but as yet unbaptised, against his will, and, with a mili
tary force which happened to be there, presented him
to the Bishops for Baptism and Consecration, mingling
constraint with persuasion. The Bishops "were
constrained, baptised, proclaimed [ him Bishop ]
enthroned him, with their hands rather than their
minds." They debated afterwards whether they
should rescind their act ; at the persuasion of St.
Gregory's father, then Bishop of Nazianzum, they
desisted, on the ground that it would have been
" ^l/^^^»^o/.^£V05 Act. 11. p. 1617, 20. ' lb. 1625.
^0i\xt. 18. fiiuebr. in patr. § 33. p. 354 ed. Ben.

Frequency of elections, and so, of Synods. 47
better to have resisted to the utmost and incurred
any peril, than to revive discord afterwards.
In whatever way the Synod of Bishops was acted
upon, it was still the executive body, and had the
whole responsibiUty of what was done.
The whole question, however, how Bishops were
elected, with whose concurrence, what degree of
influence was exercised by any party, how much the
Bishops thought it right to concede as to their
election, is altogether distinct. The more the People
were consulted in the choice of the Bishops and the
more carefully the principle was observed, not to force
any Bishop upon them against their will, the more
impUcit was likely to be their confidence in their
Bishops, when appointed over them. Here, it occurs
only as matter of evidence, that Synods of Bishops
were convened in order to fiU up the vacant sees; that,
in consequence of the narrow extent and consequent
numbers of the sees, the Bishops of each division had
the more frequent occasion to meet in discharge of this
office ; and that, when they did meet, they formed a
body, a whole by themselves, distinct fi-om any others
who were present. Whether they presented a Bishop
for the acceptance or testimony of the People, or
whether, in the rarer case, the People urged their ovm
favorite upon the Bishops, in either case the decisive
voice lay with the Bishops alone. An Ante-Nicene
Greek Canon lays doAvn, " ^It is not meet that the
't Can. Apost. 68.

48' Canons to prevent Bishops abusing their power.
Bishop should appoint whom he himseff wdUed, be-
stoAving by favor the dignity of the Episcopate on
brother or son or some other relation. For it is not
just that he should make heirs of his Episcopate ; for
he ought not to subject the Church of God to laws of
heritage." It was aUeged against Lucius, the Arian
intruder into the see of Alexandria, that he was
brought in "nof by a Synod of Orthodox Bishops,
not by the suffrage of true Clergy, not at the request
of the Laity, as the laws of the Church expressly
enjoin." In the West, the third Council of Carthage laid
doAATi a rule which has since been perpetuated in the
Western law and in the forms of our ovm : "^ When
we [the Bishops] meet to elect a Bishop, if any
opposition should arise (for such things have been
considered among us, ) let not the three [who sufficed
to consecrate] undertake to clear the person to be
ordained, but let one or two more be caUed in ; and
in the midst of the people, for whom he is to be ordain
ed, let the characters ofthe opponents first be discuss
ed, then let their objections be thoroughly considered ;
and when he shaU have been pubUcly cleared, let him
be ordained."
The subject and method of this enquiry were laid
doAvn at the beginning of a Council of Bishops from aU
Africa under AureUus, '^ which was afterward received
into the Decretals'' and became part ofthe Western law.
>" Theod. iv. 22. ^ Can. 40. " Cone. Carth. iv. can. 1. "^ Dist. 23. c. 2.

Hindrances to large Synods through persecutions. 49
The relation of the Christians to the surrounding
Heathen Avas, doubtless in early times, a hindrance
to the meeting of large Synods of Bishops. EA^en in
intervals of peace, there Avas ahvaj's imminent peril of
a general persecution ; general toleration did not
preclude local or partial persecution ; in all persecu
tions the Bishops (as the Captains of the Christian
army) were the especial object of Heathen enmity
or malice ; any gathering from distant parts Avould
have given colour to the imputation of disaffection and
disloyalty, in which the Christians were any how in
volved by their antagonism to the religion of the
Emperors. At times such Conventions were ex
pressly prohibited. The prohibition records the fact
that the Synods in the Ante-Nicene period were Synods
of Bishops. Eusebius mentions this among the con
trasts between Constantine and the persecuting Em
perors who preceded him. " Tliey '^ forbad that Sy
nods of Bishops should, on any account, any where be
held ; he gathered to himself those out of all nations."
So much were Synods of Bishops the laAV of the
Church, that even Eusebius regards Licinius' pro
hibition of them as intended to throAV the Christians
into confusion, and to force them also to break the
laAvs either ofthe State or the Church. "Having" no
ground of accusation at hand, nor any thing for
which to blame these men, he issues a laAv, straitly
charging that the Bishops should no Avhere and by
= Vit. Const, iii. 1. ''Ib. i. 31.
E

50 Not to hold Synods of Bishops, against law of Church.
no means communicate Avith one another, nor any of
them be permitted to sojourn in the Church of his
neighbour, nor hold Synods or Councils, nor consider
what should be for the common good. This was an
excuse for overbearingness toAvards us. For we must
needs either, by transgressing the laAV, expose our
selves to his vengeance ; or ff Ave obeyed it, break the
sacred laws of the Church. For it was not possible
to set right any questions of great moment, otherAdse
than through Synods. Besides, this Godhater,
having decided to act contrariAvise to the God-loving
Prince [Constantine] issued this command. For he
[ Constantine j out of respect to the Priesthood,
brought together the Priests [ Bishops ] for peace and
harmony ; but Licinius, essaying to destroy whatever
was good, tried to cUsturb the harmonious concord. "
We find accordingly in S. Cyprian, repeated notices
how, in the judgment both of himself, and ( in the
vacancy of the see ) of the Presbyters of the Roman
Church, weighty matters must needs be deferred, until
peace should be restored. The smaller half-yearly
Synods might more readily escape notice; the conflux
of any larger number of Bishops would doubtless
have often been construed into a conspiracy against
the State.
There are however, even during the second Century,
notices of extraordinary Councils, convened, when
occasion required, throughout the Christian world*
Each separate Council was smaller ; but the concur
rence of the whole, or well-nigh the whole Church,

Extra-ordinary Synods in second Century. 51
was obtained through Synods of Bishops in the se
veral ProAdnces of the Empire.
In the question as to the time of the celebration of
Easter, the practice of the Churches of Asia Minor
was opposed to that "of the Churches throughout all
the rest of the world. " Eusebius relates ; " Synods"
and assembUes of Bishops met. They aU, Adth one
accord, framed by Epistles an Ecclesiastical decree for
Christians every where. " Eusebius then mentions
in detail, as yet extant, the Synodal "Epistle of those
then assembled in Palestine, over whom presided
TheophUus Bishop of Csesarea, and Narcissus
Bishop of Jerusalem; another of the Synod at
Rome, bearing the name of the Bishop, Victor ; of
the Bishops in Pontus, over whom Pahnas presided,
as the eldest; of the Churches in Gaul, under St.
Iren^us ; Osrhoene and the cities there ; the Epistle
of Bacchyllus ^ the Bishop of the Church of Corinth ;
and of very many others who having given one and
the same opinion and judgment, decided in the same
way ; and aU these, " he adds, " defined one and the
same thing, that which I have mentioned. " The
words which he uses are throughout Avords which
describe acts of authority.
AU these were Synods of Bishops throughout the
second Century. The Bishops enacted the decree,
and promulgated it among the faithfiU every where.
= H. E. V. 23. ' S. Jerome says, " Bacchyllus, Bishop of Corinth,
distinguished under the sarae Severus, wrote an elegant Book on Easter in the
person of all the Bishops of Achaia." de Virr. IU. c. 44.
e2

52 Synods aho'ut keepnng of Easter.
EquaUy, on the side of the Asiatics, mention is made
of Bishops only. " Polycrates ^ Avas chief of the
Bishops of Asia, who assevered that they ought to
keep the custom deUvered to them from of old." Poly
crates speaks of St. Philip and St. John and celebra
ted Bishops before him, Polycarp, and Thraseas, and
Sagaris, and Papirius, and MeUto, and seven Bishops,
his OAvn relations. " But I could, " he adds, " make
mention of the Bishops, who Avere present with me,
Avhom you [ Victor ] requested me to caU together,
and I haA^e caUed them, Avhose names if I write, they
are great multitudes. But they, when they had seen
me, little as I am, approved my epistle." " On this,
Victor, Avho presided over the Romans, essays to cut
off from the common unity, the Dioceses of aU Asia
[Minor] together with the neighbouring Churches, as
heterodox; ancl proclaims by letters, that all the
brethren there are excommunicate. But this did
not please aU Bishops. They, in turn, exhort him
to thoughts of peace and brotherly unity and love.
Their worcls too are preserved, sharply censuring
Victor. Among whom Irenasus also, writing in the
person of the brethren of Gaul, over whom he was
set, mentions &c." Eusebius adds that " Irenseus cor
responded not only with Victor, but with very many
other rulers of Churches about the question which
had been raised. The Bishops of Palestine, Nar
cissus, Theophilus, and with them Cassius Bishop of
e Eus. H. E. V. 24.

Subscriptions- of Bishops to early Coimcils. 53
the Church in Tyre, and Clerus Bishop of Ptolemais,
and those who met with them in Synod on the tradi
tion as to Easter which had come down to them by
succession fi'om the Apostles," attested that they kept
Easter on the same day as those at Alexandria,
and desired that "copies oftheir letter should be sent
throughout the Church, that we may not be guilty
towards those who readily deceive their souls."
Every step in settUng the question, or in resisting
its being settled, is spoken of as decided by Bishops.
It was finaUy decided by Bishops at the Council
of Nice. In the same century ApolUnarius Bishop of Hierapo-
Us says "thaf" the faithful in Asia, having many times
and in many places met together to that end, and ha
ving examined the novel doctrines and declared them
profane, and rejected the heresy, they (the Montanists)
were thrust out of the Church, and excluded from
Communion." " Serapion ', Bishop of Antioch at that
time after Maximine, " mentions in an Epistle " the
subscriptions of divers Bishops" to their condemnation.
"One of them thus subscribed, Aurelius Cyrenius Mar
tyr; I pray you may fare well. Another thus, jEUus
Publius Julius Bishop of Develtum in Thrace, 'as
God liveth who is in Heaven, the blessed Sotus Bishop
of Anchialus wished to cast the demon out of Priscilla,
but the hypocrites suffered it not. ' And the auto
graph subscriptions of very many other Bishops
" In Eus, H. E. v. 16. p. 2S0. cd Read. ' Ib. ,-. 19.

54 Statement of numbers of the Bishops present.
agreeing with these, are in circulation in the aforesaid
letters. " The letters of Serapion appear to have em
bodied a Synodical Epistle from the Bishops of Thrace
(in which are Develtum and Anchialus) to Serapion.
The Synodicon supplies the number of Bishops at
this Council. It mentions ''a ''Council held by Apol
Unarius and twenty six other Bishops at Hierapolis,
which cut off Montanus and MaximiUa and condemned
Theodotus the tanner" as also one at Anchialus by
Sotus and twelve other Bishops, which refuted and
condemned Montanus. It enumerates also the Coun
cils on the question of Easter, mentioned by Eusebius,
specifying the number of Bishops. On the one side
that by Polycrates at Ephesus ; on the other, that at
Rome, by Victor and fourteen other Bishops; Jerusa
lem by Narcissus with fourteen Bishops ; Csesarea by
Theophilus and twelve other Bishops ; Lyons by Ire
naeus and thirteen Bishops; Corinth by Bacchyllus
and eighteen other Bishops ; Asia Minor by Plasmas
[Palmas] with fourteen other Bishops; Osrhoene "by
eighteen Bishops, whose presiding Bishop is not men
tioned;" Mesopotamia "by eighteen Bishops, whose
President none of the Historians have mentioned." It
states that a Roman Synod by Victor and fourteen
other Bishops, rejected Theodotus, Ebion and Ar
temon; and another rejected SabeUius and Noetus
with Valentinus.
The Synodicon was probably compiled in the ninth
" Cone. i. 615.

Its authenticity — Other Synods of Bishops. 55
Century, so that it is altogether a later authority ; it
has also mistakes as to some of these early Councils.
Yet the writer had manifestly some good information ;
the very fewness of the Bishops, stated to have been
present at those Councils, the writer's readiness to ac
knowledge that he knew not things which he knew not,
indicate a mind, which would neither exaggerate nor
invent. His statement that " none of the Historians
mentioned the name of the Bishop who presided at
the Council in Mesopotamia, " implies that he had
access to writers no longer extant. This incidental
testimony then, that Bishops only were present at each
Council, given simply as it is, in the mention of the
number present, may be regarded as authentic tes
timony. AUatius says, " the writer, whoever he was,
was very pious." The Synodicon "was compiled most
accurately in the time of Photius."
A writer on heresies, who lived before the middle
of the fifth Century, ' called Prsedestinatus, mentions
in the second Century a Synod of all the Sicilian
Bishops, about A. D. 126. against the heresy of He
racleon™; at Pergamus, of seven Bishops, under Theo
dotus, Bishop of Pergamus, against an astrological
heresy of Colorbasus"; a Council of Eastern Bishops
against that of Cerdon with ApoUonius Bishop of
Corinth. He speaks of it as the act of Bishops" [sa-
' Published by Sirmondus Opp. T. 1. The writer mentions Nestorius, and
stops short of Eutyches.
"¦ de hEor. i. 16. Cone. i. 55-5. ° Ib.c.15. p. 573. ° Ib. c. 23. p. 583.

56 Origen complavns of neglect even of Presbyters;
cerdotes] "to recall others fi'om faUing headlong, and
to shew that they condemned sects, not men."
In the next, the third century, Origen complains
that the advice even of the Presbyters was not wont
to be asked. " Who," he says, (in contrast with Moses
listening to Jethro) "Who, ''of those who at this time
are set over the people, I do not say, if aught be re
vealed to him by God, but if he have some attainment
in the knowledge of the law, vouchsafes to receive
counsel eA'en of an inferior Priest? Much less of a
layman or Gentile. "
Origen's complaint of the neglect of the inferior
Clergy was indeed unjust ; for he himself had, as a
Presbyter, been called in to help by argument in two
important Councils, as Theologians have been present
in later Western Councils, although without any
voice in deciding.
These two Councils were held in Arabia. In the
first, Origen was employed to bring Beryllus a
distinguished Bishop of Bostra, back to the faith ; in
the other, he was employed to recover some who held
a strange doctrine as to the corruptibility of the soul.
In both he was successful. Of the Council as to
Beryllus (A. D. 229.) Eusebius relates, "at" that time,
Beryllus, — having perverted the Ecclesiastical rule
[ of faith, ] essayed secretly to introduce certain things
alien from the faith, venturing to say that our Lord
and SaAdour did not exist in a Personality of His
P In Exod. Horn. xi. u. 6. p. 171. cd. de la Rue. 'i H. E. vi. 33.

called in to refute heresy, not as part of Synod. 57
OAvn, before He came to dAvell ainong men. In this
matter, very many Bishops haAing put questions and
disputed with the man, Origen, having been called in
Avith others, first entered into intimate conversation
Adth the man, &c. There are yet extant in Avriting
the documents of Beryllus and the Synod held on
account of him, which also contain the questions of
Origen to him &c."
Of the second Council Eusebius says, " Again ^ in
Arabia there sprung up those Avho would bring in a
doctrine foreign from the truth. These said, that
the human soul for a while in this present world died
ancl was corrupted together with the body, but would
Uve again Adth it at the time of the resurrection.
Then also no smaU Synod having been assembled,
Origen, being again requested here too, and having
discussed the question before the assembly, so bore
himseff, that the minds of those before deceived were
changed back again."
The Synodicon mentions Origen only and fourteen
Bishops as present in this Synod.
It is plain that 1. Origen, a presbyter, is spoken
of as distinct from the Synod of Bishops who caUed
him in. 2. Origen could not have used the above
language of laymen, had they formed part of the
Synod and had a decisive voice in it.
A. D. 230. Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria held a
CouncU on Origen himseff, because, " quum se sponte
-' Vo. c. 37.

58 Origen condemned in three Synods of Bishops.
abscidisset," he had, against the laAV of the O. T. and
of the Church, been ordained Priest, by Theotecnus
Bishop of Ca3sarea, without the cognizance of his
own Bishop. PamphUus, his Apologist, relates that
"Demetrius" gathered a CouncU of Bishops and of
certain ( rtmv ) Presbyters, which decreed that Origen
should remove from Alexandria, and neither live
nor teach there, but that he should not be removed
from the honor of the Presbyterate."
A. D. 232. Demetrius held a second Council on
Origen. PamphUus says, " Demetrius' vdth certain
Egyptian Bishops, deprived him of the Presbyterate
too, those who had voted with him subscribing with
him the interdict." Origen's own displeasure shews
that the Synods consisted exclusively of Ecclesiastics.
S. Jerome says, " Whereas" that Epistle [ of Origen ]
pulls to pieces Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria, and
inveighs against the Bishops and Clergy of the whole
world, and says that he was causelessly excommuni
cated by the Churches &c." And again, " Disputing
generaUy against the Priests [ Bishops, sacerdotes ] of
the Church, by whom he had been held uuAVorthy
of her communion."
Origen was condemned in a Roman Synod. " Ori-
gen'^ is condemned by Demetrius the Bishop, excep
ting the Bishops of Palestine and Arabia, and Phoe-
" Photius cod. 118. p. 297. * Id. Ib.
" cont. Ruf. ii. 18.p. 509, 10. ed. VaU.
^ id. Ep. 33. quoted by Ruf. Inv. ii. 19.

Summary statement of Synods at this time. 59
nicia, and Achaia. The City of Rome joined in his
condemnation. It gathers a Synod against him."
Two more, insulated Councils are mentioned at
this time. In one about A. D. 235. "^Heraclas,
Patriarch of Alexandria is said to have gathered a
Synod of Bishops, and in it to have brought back
Ammonius to the truth. In the other, a Synod of
Achaia, the Valesians were condemned.
The Councils held at this time upon heretical
baptism, and those of Africa generally, had perhaps
best be considered in connection with the times of S.
Cyprian. Here it may be said generally, that a Council
of Bishops was assembled on heretical baptism, by
Agrippinus in Africa, probably before or about the
beginning of the third Century ; " very large Coun
cils were held ," (S. Dionysius tells us) "long ago in
the memory ofthe Bishops before us, at Iconium and
Synnada and many other places." Laymen had been
prohibited by a Couneii of Bishops, from making
Clerks guardians of their children. The rule that
" causes should be heard where the offence had been
committed," had been enacted before S. Cyprian's
time. S. Cyprian speaks of it to S. Cornelius, as
having " been decreed by our whole body, " i. e. all
Bishops every where. The Canon intended by S. Cy
prian is probably the tenth Apostolic Canon, which im
poses a penalty on any one who receives to Commu
nion one suspended from Communion in his own place.
"¦ Prajdestin. i. 37. Cone. i. 671.

60 Summary of this jyeriod.
Such cases, if disputed, were, according to the thir
tieth Canon, (which the CouncU of Nice enlarged)
to be referred to the half-yearly Synod of the neigh.
bouring Bishops. Wherever the Canon was first
framed, it is another clear instance, in the Ante-Nicene
period, of a Canon framed by the Bishops of a local
Council and by them communicated to the whole
Church which received it. It was received by the
whole Episcopal body.
The Apostolic Canons generally must have been
the fruit of Ante-Nicene Councils, although they do
not, by themselves, prove the nature of those Councils.
We have then already Councils, consisting exclu
sively of Bishops, on various subjects, in communication
with one another on what concerned the whole (as in
the more extended heresies, ) or apart ; ordinary or
extraordinary ; for questions of ritual, ( as the keeping
of Easter and the close of the Lent fast,) or to judge
and determine heresy; larger or smaller, as the case
required or circumstances may have permitted. We
have already Synodical letters from the Bishops assem
bled in Synod, and notices of subcriptions, as in the
later times. The Synod, in this earliest period, is in
full use and exclusively Episcopal.

Belief of S. Cyprian as to office of Bishop. 61
CHAPTER. 111.
Times ofS. Cyprian. A. B. 249—258.
The history of the times of S. Cyprian the more
establishes the principle of that inherent and inde
pendant authority of the Bishop, which insulated
expressions of that gentle Father of his People have
been quoted to disprove. But before Ave enter into
the details which were personal to S. Cyprian, and
enquire how much he, of his own mind, was pleased
to forego or to suspend, it will be well to examine
Avhat, according to his principles and practice, were
the office and prerogative of the Bishop. He taught
then, habitually, that Bishops were chosen by the
Lord*; protected and inspired by Him'^ in their go
verment ; governed by His" Presence and the Church
with them ; made'^ by God ; that the Church" was
settled upon her Bishops and every act of the Church
was regulated by them ; and this, as ordained by
" our Lord, determining the honour of a Bishop, and
the ordering of His own Church ; " that they " by
vicariou.s * ordination were successors ofthe Apostles;"
that they preside^ in the Church of God, governing''
¦> Ep. 48. fin. 49. §. 2. p. 108. Oxf. Tr. 55, 6:61,2; 69. 6. " Ep. 48. fin.
•^ " Christ Who by His Will and Fiat and Presence, governs the Prelates
themselves, and the Church with the Prelates." Ep. 66. §. 8. p. 207.
1 Ep. 3, 2. 55, 6. 7. 59. 6. p. 15. ' Ep. .33. § 1. p. 75.
f Ep. 66. § 3. Ep. 75. § 17. p. 279. O. T. eEp. 69. § 4.
^ Cone. Cirlh. u. 79, Ep. 66. §. 3.

62 Office of Bishops, singly or collectively.
the Church of the Lord with the same power ; that
the Bishop "is' in the Church and the Church in the
Bishop" : " that each'' Prelate hath in the government
of the Church his own choice and will free, hereafter
to give account ofhis conduct to the Lord," " so long
as the bond of concord remains, and the inseparable
Sacrament of the Catholic Church endureth ; " that
he is a judge' in Christ's stead ; a judge for the time
appointed by God™ ; responsible ^ to Christ alone ; to
be obeyed" at peril of spiritual death, and this under
the sanction of the word of God.
Collectively, of the Bishops in Council assembled
he says, " the Divine '' favour will bring to pass, that
we with the rest, our CoUeagues, may stably and
firmly administer our office, and uphold the peace of
the Catholic Church in the unity of concord. "
On the case of the lapsed, as to whom individually
he purposed, as we shall see, to have the opinion of
the Laity, he says, " for the rest, "i as I have written
to very many of my Colleagues, we will consider what
is to be done more at large in a full Council, when,
by God's permission, we shall be enabled to meet
together." "Read' these same Epistles to my Col
leagues also, should any either be with you or come
among you, that with unaminity and concert, we
may take wholesome counsel for mollifying and healing
' Ep. 66, 7. ^ Ep. 72. fin. 73. fin. 59, 19. p. 166. Cone. Carth. p. 287.
' Ep. 55.17. "" Ep. 66. 2.
" Cone. Carth. p. 286, 7. " Ep. 3. p. 5. 4, 4. 59, 5. 66, 2.
Ep. 48. fin. 1 Ep. 32. fin. ' Ep. 34, 2.

p

Notices of previous Synods of Bishops. 63
the wounds of the lapsed ; purposing together to con
sider more fully concerning all, when, by God's mercy,
we shall begin again to come together. "
In the case of Felicissimus, whom he excommuni
cates, he writes to Bishop Caldonius and another
Bishop, "'all which matters we will then take cogni
zance of, when by God's permission we shall have
met together Avith more of our Colleagues."
Such were the principles of S. Cyprian and his
times as to the office of the Bishop, apart or with
other Bishops. In principle, he asserted that the
entire responsiblity in the Church rested on the
Bishops, that the sole authority, by the gift of God,
rested with them.
With regard to this actual history, there are, in
S. Cyprian's works, notices of Councils which had
been held, and the Synodal letters of Councils, and
in one case, the Acts of the CouncU. All alike attest
that the decision in all matters, not those of faith
only, but judicial questions and points of discipline,
rested exclusively with the Bishops.
Thus, S. Cyprian writes to S. Cornelius that it
had been decreed by the whole Episcopal Body in
Africa, that causes were to be judged where the sin
had been and not to be removed to another Province.
" What ' is the occasion of their going to you, and of
their announcing that a pseudo-Bishop has been
set up against the Bishop ? for either they are well-
¦¦' Ep. 41. fin. p. 92. ' Ep. 59, 19. p. 165.

64 Synods of Bishopis in unison every where,
pleased with what they have done, and persevere
in their wickedness ; or if it displeases them and
they withdraw, they know whither they should
return. For since it has been decreed by our whole
Body, and is alike equitable and just, that every
cause should be there heard where the offence has
been committed, and a portion of the flock has been
assigned to the several shepherds, which each is to
rule and govern, having hereafter to give account of
his ministry to the Lord. "
Again, he writes " It" was long ago decreed in a
Council of Bishops, that no one should by his will
appoint one of the Clergy and Ministers of God to be
executor or guardian. "
S. Cyprian, in a small Synod of five Bishops, ^de
cides distinctly as to the abuse of the cvniffaKm, and
concurs with the judgement of the Bishop who
consulted him, as to the Deacon whom he had excom
municated. In an African Synod of thirty seven Bishops'*^ he
returns answer to the Clergy and People of Leon and
Merida in Spain that Basilides and Martialis ought
not to retain the Episcopate, that Basilides had made
matters worse by imposing on Pope Stephen, and
that his place had been rightly filled up.
In the same Epistle, ^ he refers to a decree of
" Ep. 1. init. ' The four names joined in Ep. 4.
with S. Cyprian's, are in the same distinguished fi-om the Presbyters,
" present with them : " the three first recur among the Bishops in Ep.
67 ; the two first, with the fourth, among thoso in Ep. 57.
^'Ep. 07. "Ib. fin. p. 213.

or local as to individuals. 65
S. CorneUus, in conjunction vdth the African Bishops,
and all the Bishops throughout the world, that those
who had denied the faith, might be admitted to
penance, but not restored to any Priestly office.
He is probably speaking ofa Council, when he says,
"to'' adulterers also is a time for penitence aUowed
hy us, and peace given." Any how, the question was
decided by the Bishops alone, whether individually or
collectively ; some of the Bishops judging that adul
terers ought not to be restored to Communion, and
so acting, and yet not separating from those who did
restore them.
Of Privatus he Avrites, "I have' signified to you,
brother, by Felicianus, that there had come to
Carthage Privatus, an old heretic in the Province of
Lambesa, condemned many years since, for many
and heinous crimes, by the sentence of ninety Bishops,
and as you must needs bear in mind, very severely
noted by the letters of our predecessors, Fabian and
Donatus ; who, when he professed a wish to plead
his cause before us in the Council held on the
Ides of May just past, and was not suffered so to do,
made this Fortunatus a pretended Bishop, one worthy
of his College. Moreover in company with Privatus,
a proud heretic, came Jovinus and Maximus, who for
ungodly sacrificings and other crimes proved against
them, were condemned by the sentence of nine
¦• Ep. 55. ad Antonian. 16, 17. Tertullian speaks of an "Edict" of Pope
Zephyrinus ou the same subject i. e. probably a decision of Zephyrinus with
a Roman Council, in conjunction with the African Council, as in the case of
the lapsed. ' Ep. 59. ad Corn. §. 12. p. 160.
F

66 Synods on those who fell in persecution.
Bishops and Colleagues, and were a second time ex
communicated by very many of us, in a Council last
year." In CouncU with sixty-six Bishops, * he, with them,
decides that one, rashly restored to Communion, was
not subsequently to be excluded ; that the Baptism
of infants need not be deferred to the eighth day ;
and that no one should be debarred from Baptism
and from the Grace of God.
The decision of this Council was worded so exactly
on the guilt and remission of original sin, " as
though, " S. Augustine " says, ''' through the Provi
dence of God, the CathoUc Church were already
confuting the Pelagian heretics."
On the case of the lapsed, there are distinct ac
counts of at least four Councils ; on heretical Baptism,
there are at least seven. All these are of Bishops
only ; except that during the vacancy of the see of
Rome, the Presbyters of the City took part in the
first Roman Council on the lapsed.
S. Cyprian in a Council of forty-two Bishops writes
to S. Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, of the decision of
a former Council, "we"' had determined some time
ago, dearest brother, having advised with one another,
that they who in the fierce warfare of the persecution
had been overthrown by the adversary and had fallen,
and had defiled themselves by forbidden sacrifices,
should do full penance for a long while, and if danger
'Ep. 64. ad Fidum. " Ep. 166, ad Hieron. §. 24. " Ep. 57.

Successive measures adopted hy Synods for them. 67
of sickness should press hard upon them, they should
receive peace at the very point of death. " They
then say, the approach of another persecution which
had been foretold, required that the people should be
prepared for it. "We'' [the Council] have determi
ned," he proceeds, "that peace is to be granted to
those who have not departed from the Church of the
Lord, but from the first day of their fall, have not
ceased to do penance and to lament and to entreat
the Lord, and that they ought to be armed and ac
coutred for the impending battle. " They say that a
difference ought to be made between those who had
gone into heathen sin or heresy, and those who had
persevered in repentance, and sum up; "It hath''
seemed good to us, the Holy Spirit suggesting, and
the Lord by many and plain visions admonishing,
since the enemy is foretold and shewn to be close
upon us, to gather the soldiers of Christ Adthin the
the camp, and haAdng examined the case of each,
to grant peace to the fallen [lapsis,] yea rather to
supply arms to those about to fight. Which we trust
vdU be approved also by you, in contemplation of the
mercy of the Father. "
The principles of that former Council S. Cyprian
explains more fully in a letter to Antonian, a Bishop
of the severer school. He says that in the first
instance, when urged to restore the lapsed to Com
munion, "whatJ'was to be determined in the case of
" lb. p. 138. "Ib. p. 141. y.Ep. 55. §. 3. p. 119.
f2

68 Principles of African Synod
the lapsed I deferred; that AA'hen quiet and tranquilUty
had been bestowed, and the Divine mercy should
allow the Bishops to meet together, then, the advice of
all being given and weighed, Ave might, on com
parison of all things, determine what ought to be
done. But if any, before our Council were held, and
before sentence given by adAdce of all, should choose
rashly to communicate vdth the lapsed, that person
should be forbidden Communion. However,^ accor
ding to what had been before determined, when the
persecution was lulled and opportunity given for
meeting together, a large number of Bishops, Avhom
their OAvn faith and the protection of the Lord had
preserved uninjured and safe, met together ; and, the
Divine Scriptures being adduced on both sides, we
balanced our resolution with wholesome moderation ;
]^o that neither should hope of communion and peace
be altogether denied to the lapsed, lest through des
peration they should fall aAvay still further, and,
because the Church was shut against them, following
the world, should live as heathens ; nor yet on the
other hand should evangelical strictness be relaxed,
so that they might rush in haste to Communion ; but
that penance should be long protracted, and the
Fatherly clemency entreated with mourning ; and the
cases, and purposes, and exigencies of each be ex
amined ; as is expressed in a tract,'' which I trust has
reached you, where the several heads of our determi-
'' lb. §. 4. 5. " The De Lapsis.

followed in hoth cases hy the Roman. 69
nation are coUected together. / And lest the number
of Bishops in Africa should seem insufficient, we
wrote to Rome also on this subject to our Colleague
Cornelius, who himself likewise, in a Council held with
very many of our Co-Prelates, agreed in the same
opinion with us, with like' solemnity and wholesome
moderation. Whereof it has now become necessary
to write to you, that you may know that I did
nothing Ughtly, but according to what I had before
comprised in my Epistles, deferred every thing to the
common decision of our Council, and in the mean time
communicated with no one of the lapsed, so long as
there was opportunity whereby the lapsed might
obtain not only pardon, but even a Crown. But
afterwards, as the agreement of our College, and the
benefit from recovering the brotherhood and healing
the wound required, I submitted to the necessity of
the times, and thought right to provide for the safety
of many, and not now recede from these things, which
have once in our Council hy common consent heen
determined." S. Cyprian's example was in both cases followed by
the Roman Church. In the fonner case, it was an
additional ground of delay on the part of the Church
at Rome that they had no Bishop who could settle
these matters ; yet even thus, they did what they
could to obtain the judgment of Bishops. The Pres
byters of Rome, who in the forced privation of a
Bishop, were entrusted Adth the care of the Church
at Rome, deliberated Avith neighbouring Bishops, and

70 Previous Councils of Bishops
others who having been the objects of persecution in
their own sees, were then at Rome, (the Bishop
being often singled out for persecution at his own
see.) "We'' then here, desiring to observe this
moderate and tempered course in the treatment of
these cases, have for a long time, — many of us, and
moreover with several Bishops in our neighbourhood,
and such as the heat of this persecution had driven
from other distant Provinces — ^been of opinion, that
nothing ncAv should be done before the appointment
of a Bishop, yet have thought that the care of the
lapsed must be tempered Avith moderation ; and that
mean-while, as long as it pleased God to delay the
gift of a new Bishop, the case of those who can bear
the delay should be kept in suspense.
On the subject of heretical Baptism, S. Cyprian
mentions an African CouncU many " years before,
in which "Agrippinus, '' a man of excellent memory,
with the rest. Bishops Adth him who at that time
governed the Church of the Lord in the Province of
Africa and Numidia, did, when by common counsel
duly weighed, establish and confirm this. " S. Fir-
mUian Avrites ; " AU this, ^ some having doubted''
thereon, we, some time since, [jampridem] being
"Ep. 30. Presb. Rom. §. 8. p. 67.0. T.
¦¦ Ep. 73. §. 3. p. 244. "In that now, many years, and a length of time
have passed away, since under Agrippinus of honoured memory, very many
Prelates being convened determined this. " Novatus of Tamugada speaks of
" the decree of our Colleagues, men of most sacred memory. " Cone. Carth.
11. 4. p. 288. Baronius supposes it to have been A. D. 215, as being a year
of peace. ^ Ep. 71. fin. p. 239. " Ep. 75. §. 7. p 274.
' It appears from §. 20. that the doubt related not to the principle, but to
the case of the Montanists.

in Africa and Asia Minor. 71
assembled together in Iconium, a place in Phrygia,
wdth those from Galatia, and CiUcia, and other neigh
bouring regions, confirmed, as to be held and firmly
maintained against heretics. "
S. Dionysius mentions another Council at Synnada,
and that there were many besides. "I learnt s this also,
that those in Africa have not now, alone and Avrongly,
brought in this, but that long ago, too, in the time of
the Bishops before us, in the most populous Churches,
and in the Sjrnods of the brethren in Iconium and
Synnada, and by many, this was decreed. Whose
decisions I cannot endure to overthrow, so casting
forth strife and contention among them. For it is
said, ' Thou shalt not move the boundaries of thy
neighbour, which thy fathers have made.' "
The first Council under S. Cyprian himseff was a
CouncU of thfrty-two Bishops, whose Synodical letter,
addressed to eighteen Bishops of Numidia, is stUl
extant.'^ It begins, " When we were together in
CouncU, dearest brethren, we read the letter which
you addressed to us respecting those who are thought
to be baptised by heretics and schismatics, whether,
when they come to the one true CathoUc Church,
they ought to be baptised. Wherein, although ye
yourselves also hold the CathoUc rule in its truth and
fixedness, yet since out of our mutual affection ye
have thought good to consult us, we deliver not our
sentence as though new, but, by a kindred harmony,
"Ap. Ens. vii. 7. •'Ep. 70. It is acknowledged by the Council
of TruUo oan. 2. Soo Note b. p. 232. 0. T.

72 Other matters ruled also in these Synods.
we unite with you in that, long since settled by our
predecessors, and observed by us." The Bishops of
the one Province under S. Cyprian ansAver the Bishops
of the other.
In a second Council, the African and Numidian
Bishops united to confirm the former. "Noav 'too
when Ave had met together. Bishops of the Provinces
both of Africa and Numidia, to the number of seven
ty-one, we again confirmed this same by our sentence,
ruUng that there is one Baptism, that appointed in
the CathoUc Church ; and that accordingly, whosoever
came from the adulterous and -profane water, to be
cleansed and sanctified by the truth of the saving
Avater, are not re-baptised, but baptised by us."
S Cyprian in a Synodical J letter writes to Pope
Stephen, that this second CouncU of Bishops was
assembled for many other matters also. "In order
to the settling certain matters, and regulating them
by the aid of our common counsel, we deemed it
necessary, dearest brother, to assemble and hold
a Council, Avhereat many Prelates Avere gathered
together. In Avhich CouncU many things were pro
pounded and transacted. But wherein chiefly we
thought it right to Avrite to thee, and to confer Adth
thy gravity and Avisdom, is that Avhich most concern
eth the Episcopal authority, and the unity as weU as
dignity of the CathoUc Church, &c.
On this foUowed Pope Stephen's renunciation of
» Ep. 73, §. 1. p 243. 5 Ep. 72, init. " Cj-prian and .the rest "

Laity of Carthage only liearers at one Synod. 73
ft
S. Cj^rian's Communion, which itseff was the act of
a CouncU of Bishops. ^
In the third CouncU, " on the Baptism of heretics,"
we are told in the Acts themselves, that not only the
Presbyters and Deacons "^of the Bishops, but a great
part of the Laity also were present. " These were
plainly the Laity of Carthage itseff, since manifestly
"a. great part of the Laity" of eighty-seven Episcopates
from the ProAdnces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauri
tania could not be present, and the Presbyters and
Deacons came Avith the Bishops as " their Presbyters
and Deacons ; " not so the Laity. The Acts open
thus ; " when' on the Calends of September very
many Bishops from the Provinces of Numidia and
Mauritania, Adth their Presbyters and Deacons, had
met together at Carthage, a great part of the Laity
being also present. " But neither Presbyters, Dea
cons, nor Laity, gave either opinion or vote. S.
Cyprian addresses his CoUeagues "^ only. "Ye have
heard, most beloved CoUeagues, what Jubaianus our
fellow-Bishop has Avritten to me &c." " It remains
that we severaUy declare our opinion on this same
subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the
right of Communion, ff he differ from us. For no
^ " Pope Stephen vrith the rest his Colleagues, yet himself more than the
rest, resisted. " (Vincent. Lir. I. 6. ) The renunciation of Communion is
mentioned by S. Cyprian himself ( Ep. 74, 10. ) and S. Firrailian ( Ib. Ep. 75.
§. 26. p. 284.) Peace was restored by his successor, S. Xystus.
' Among S. Cyprian's Epist. p. 286. The heading is, " The judgments of eighty-
seven Bishops iu the Council of Carthage on the question of baptising heretics."
¦" So also Felix of Uthina. 28. "No one can doubt, most holy fellow- Prelates
[consacerdotes]

74 ^S*. Cyprian consults Laity individually, not in Synod;
one of us setteth himseff up as a Bishop of Bishops,
or by tyranical terror forceth his CoUeagues to a
necessity of obeying ; inasmuch as every Bishop, in
the free use of his Uberty and power, has the right of
forming his own judgment, and can no more he judged
hy another than he can himseff judge another. " The
eighty-seven Bishops then not only exclusively give
their judgments, but the whole Synod is caUed " so
large an assembly of most holy Prelates". " AU give
their judgments, but many, with words expressing
that they are deUvering formal judgments. "
On the other hand, the language of S. Cyprian,
which has been dwelt upon as implying an admission
of lay-authority, relates, not to Synods but to the
vdsdom of his government or the special case of those
who, after openly denying the faith in persecution,
desired to be restored indiAdduaUy to the Communion
of the Church. The whole question had nothing to do
vdth legislative Synods. The Bishops, as we have seen,
by one agreement through the whole Church, settled
the principles as to the restoration of the lapsed. S.
Cyprian, when Avriting to his OAvn People, is writing
not about provincial or legislative Synods, but as to
his own way of proceeding in his OAvn particular
Diocese, in examining Adth his Clergy, individual
cases, in the presence of his People.

" Sacerdotum, a title of Bishops, n. 8. ° Bp. Sage (Vindication of Cypri-
anic age, p 382.) thus recounts them" Censeo"n. 2. 8. 11. 16. 22. 31. 32. 33.
37. 41. 43. 72. 74. 83. (with 84. 85. ) 86. decerno. n. 6. 38. 59. Mea sententia est.
11. 9. 87. Secundum motum animi mei dico. n. 73. Existimo. n. 78.

refraining from his right, out of love of souls. 75
That great Bishop and Saint, so deeply imbued
vdth the love ofthe Church and of souls, and of unity,
as furthering both and as the bond of Christ, was
raised by God, in very stormy times, to hold together
by the grace, Adsdom and love which God gave him,
the conflicting elements in the Church. He saw
clearly what was to be done : he would not do it,
until he had won the minds of men, so that, unper
ceived, his OAvn mind was impressed upon aU. But
in his very statement of his principle of action, he
shews that he was forbearing and suspending the
exercise of his oavu right, not conceding any right of
others. It is in speaking of the restoration of the
lapsed that he lays doAvn the memorable rule of his
Episcopate. " As ^ regards the matter whereon our
feUow-Presbyters, Donatus and Fortunatus, Novatus
and Gordius, Avrote to me, I could give no answer
by myself ; in that, from the beginning of my Episco
pacy, / resolved to do nothing of my oAm private
judgment Adthout your advice and the concurrence
of the People : but when by the grace of God, I shaU
have come to you, we vdll consult together of the things
which either have been or are to be done, as respect^
for another requireth. "
In that he says "/ resolved to do nothing of my
OAvn private judgment," he shews that he had the
P Ep. 14. fin. p. 37. O. T.
1 " Sicut mutuus honor poscit. " The expression is illustrated by that iu
Ep. 19. ofthe Laity " quibus et ipsis pro fide et timore suo"honor habeudus est. "

76 Special difficulties in restoring the lapsed to Communion
power, had he so thought good. He could not have
so spoken, unless he had authority fully in himseff, to
do OtherAdse. EngUsh Sovereigns could not speak
noAV, as if it Avere a concession to consult their
ParUaments, because it Avould be unconstitutional not
to consult them.
Again, in that, in the same place, he spoke of "con
sulting together of the things Avhich either have been,
or are to be, done, as our respect for one another re
quireth, " he could not be speaking of actual voting,
in which aU who give votes, are so far equal. He
is plainly speaking of mutual courtesy, not of a prescrip
tive right.
With regard to the case of the lapsed, it was one
which ( as we know by experience, even amid our
laxity of discipUne) touched the Laity very nearly.
The re-admission of careless Uvers to Communion,
without adequate knowledge or token of their repen
tance, is very often a scandal to communicants, and
was wont, among ourselves, to be one of the taunts
of dissenters. S. Cyprian himseff mentions this diffi
culty in his Epistle to Cornelius. He speaks of the
responsibUity of restoration resting Avith himseff, and
of his own moral obUgation, not to restore some, at
the risk of injuring others. "These, "^ when they saw
that a pseudo-Bishop Avas set up amongst them,
discovered that they Avere cheated and deceived, and
day by day stream back, and knock at the door of
^ Ep. 59. §. 20. p. 166. O. T.

through their own fault and repugnance of the People. 77
the Church. We however, who must give account
to the Lord, meanwhile anxiously ponder and care
ftdly examine, who ought to be received and admitted
to the Church. For to some, either their OAvn crimes
form so great a hindrance, or the brethren so reso
lutely and firmly object, that they cannot be received
at aU, vdthout the scandal and perU of very many.
For neither should some ulcerous parts be so brought
together, as to occasion wounds in others that are
whole and sound ; nor is he a useful and prudent
shepherd, who so mingles the diseased and tainted
sheep Adth his flock, as to affiict his whole flock Adth
the infection of their contagious malady." S. Cyprian
speaks, as having to give account to God, vdth a
moral responsibiUty towards his flock, that he injure
not those committed to him, but as having the entire
authority in the whole matter. His responsibility
lay in the due exercise of his authority.
It was part of the object of the course of public
penitence, that the Uves of those who had faUen into
deadly sin might be observed, and so it might be
known that they could safely be restored to Commu
nion. S. Cyprian states this, in one of the very
letters in question. " Since " in lesser offences, which
are not committed against God " [directly, as in the
denial of the faith itseff] "penance is done for an
appointed time and confession made, Adth enquiry
into the Ufe of him who is doing penance, nor may
' Ep. 17. p. 43.

78 Authority to restore the lapsed, allowed
any come to Communion, unless hands shaU first
have been laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy,
how much more in these most grievous and extremest
cases, ought all things to be observed with caution
and reverence, according to the discipUne ofthe Lord!"
[^But with regard to the abstract power of restoring
the lapsed, it is acknowledged to Ue with S. Cyprian,
by the Martyrs' who send the petition to him. \ When
others, misled by certain Presbyters, presuming upon
the honour in which they were held for their suffer
ings for Christ, used an authoritative tone, granting
reconciUation to all those, of whose conduct, subse
quent to their lapse, the Bishop should be satisfied,
they stUl directed their "decision," (as they caUed it)
to S. Cyprian, and through him to his CoUeagues,
as beUcAdng that the absolute power of restoring the
lapsed, rested vdth them. "We'^ desire, through you
to make knoAvn this our decision to other Bishops
also." He himseff decides'^ to accept those petitions
in behaff of such of the lapsed as might be
dangerously ill ; restoring those also who after denying
Christ, confessed Him and were banished, j
The power of the Bishop is evidenced both by S.
Cyprian'^ who abides by his first decision, and by the
other Bishops who were overborne by the clamorous
demands of the lapsed and received them to com
munion at once.'' In both cases, it was acknowledged
that the decision was with the Bishops. The " Laity
' Ep. 15. and 16. §. 3. and 17. p. 43. " Ep. 23.
' Ep. 18. and 19. ^ Ep. 24. 5. " Ep. 27. §. 3.

on all hands to rest with S. Cyprian. 79
who stood " were not consulted by either. S. Cyprian
bids his Presbyters ^ abide by his former letters, cir
culates them and his treatise " on the lapsed " "among
as many other of his CoUeagues [the Bishops] as he
can, " "in order that one rule of discipline might
be observed by aU." He receives fi'om them the
approval of "what he had"" settled." He" also in the
vacancy of the see, communicates the state of things
to the Presbyters of Rome, '' and so obtains from Italy
the concurrence of those who for the time acted as
"ruUng Presbyters" at Rome and of other ItaUan °
Bishops. At Rome too the lapsed were bidden to
wait for the appointment of a Bishop,'^ as at Carthage
for his return. S. Cyprian circulates their letters as
weU as those of Roman Confessors in answer to his
ovm, Avrites to "very many ofhis CoUeagues," that
they would consider what was to be done in a very
friU CouncU.^ To the lapsed themselves he lays doAvn
the broad principle' ; "thence [from our Lord's com
mission, S. Matt. 16. 18. 19.J the ordination of
Bishops and the ordering of the Church' runs down
along the course of time and Une of succession, so that
the Church is settled upon her Bishops ; and every act
of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.
Since then this is founded on the divine law " &c.
The delay of the decision as to the lapsed was deter
mined, not by the Laity, but " as sweU by us [S.
CjTprian] as by the Confessors and Clergy of the City,
>• Ep. 26. ^ Quod statuimus. " Ep. 25. " Ep. 27. ' Ep. 30. §. 11. p. 67.
¦lEp. 21. p. 51. 30. §, 8. p. 65. '^Ep. 32. fEp..33. ^ Ep. 43. §. 2.

80 Laity consulted as to cases of individuals,
as also by all the Bishops established in our Province
or beyond seas."
The rejection of this by FeUcissimus and his adhe
rents, S. Cyprian speaks of as " a'^ destruction of aU
sacerdotal [i. e. Episcopal] authority."
The extent of the lapsed, the danger of their total
apostaey, the easiness of some Presbyters or Bishops,
the rigidness of others, the existence of stern prin
ciples which deviated into Novatianism, the inter
cessions and presumptuous claims of some of the
Confessors, made the whole case one of extreme
difficulty, aggravated by the presence of a party
personally opposed to S. Cyprian. But the office to
which S. Cyprian on this occasion admitted the Laity,
was to judge the cases of individuals, not to legislate.
They were not to determine the principles of the
restoration of the lapsed, but the merits of individuals.
S. Cyprian fixes the time, and the fact of the restora
tion ; he reserves to the judgment of the Laity, not
any principle of discipline, but the facts of each indivi
dual case. " When' peace is first given to us all by
the Lord, and we have begun to return to the Church,
each case shall be examined in your presence, and
with aid of your judgment." So again in another
Epistle, which has been of late quoted for the
contrary. S. Cyprian himself decides that those who
had received letters from the Confessors, might on
their death-beds be received to Communion ; he
" lb. ' Ep. 17. p. 43. 0. T.

out of regard, not of right. 81
reserves the enquiry into the cases of the rest, to be
settled in common. It is again, a question of fact, not
of principle. " This'' is becoming to the modesty and dis
cipUne and character of us aU ; that the Bishops meet
ing wdth the Clergy, and in the presence of the Laity
who stand fast, to whom also, for their faith and fear,
honour is to be shcAvn, may settle aU things vdth the due
reverence of common consultation. " The Laity are not
present even here of right ; but out of the regard which
S. Cyprian had for their steadfastness, he wished that
they should be consulted as to the case of those who,
having denied the faith, sought to be restored to their
communion. In another passage aUeged, ' an African
Council under S. Cyprian censures the hasty and
premature restoration of one of the lapsed, the more
because it had been done, without the request or
knowledge of the People, when no sickness urged,
nor necessity compeUed. A hasty restoration was
the more gratuitous, when without occasion or tempta
tion. The people had no formal vote, but they had
knowledge of facts, (as neighbours are wont to have
now) which the Bishops and Clergy might not have.
S. Cyprian bears witness that they know the case of
some better than himself, who had restored them.
" Thou™ wouldest see," he says to S. Cornelius, "what
labour I have to persuade our brethren to patience,
that, stifling their grief of mind, they would consent

" Ep. 19. p. 46. ' Ep. 64. p. 195. ¦" Ep. 59. §. 21. p. 167.
G

82 Repugnance of laity in receiving certain lapsed.
to receive and restore the wicked. For as they
rejoice and are glad, when such as are bearable and
less culpable return ; so contrariwise they murmur and
resist, as often as the incurable and froward, and such
as have been contaminated either by adulteries or
sacrifices, and who, with all this, are moreover proud,
return in such manner to the Church, that they
would corrupt the good dispositions within it. I
scarcely persuade the people, rather I extort it from
them, that they would allow such to be admitted.
And the grief of the brotherhood appears the more
reasonable, in that some few, who, when the people
strove and spoke against it, were yet admitted by my
easiness, have proved worse than they were before,
and have not been able to keep their pledges of
repentance, because neither was the repentance true,
wherewith they returned."
S. Cyprian himseff speaks expressly of the office of
the Laity, as relating to each particular case. "The
"blessed Martyrs have Avritten to me about certain
persons, requesting that their desires may be consi
dered. When peace is first given to us aU by the Lord,
and we have begun to retum to the Church, each
case shaU be examined in your presence, and Adth
aid of your judgment." And again "that when" by
the mercy of God, we shaU coine to you, having
summoned several of my CoUeagues, we may, after
the discipUne of the Lord and in the presence of
» Ep. 17. p. 43. " Ib. p. 44.

Honor to those who had stood, for having stood. 83
the Confessors, and your judgment also had, examine
the letters and requests of the Blessed Martyrs. " The
letters and requests ofthe Martyrs related to indiAddual
cases ; so then did the judgment of the People.
The same is the bearing of all the passages in
which S. Cyprian speaks of the participation of the
Laity. Thus, as already cited, he says, in contrast
with the haste of some of the lapsed to b^ restored to
Communion; "This'' is becoming to the modesty
and character of us all ; that the Bishops meeting
with the Clergy, and in the presence of the Laity
who stand fast, (to whom also, for their faith and fear,
honour is to be shown,) may settle all things with the
due reverence of common consultation." This he says,
in contrast with the "irreverent" haste of others.
But here too he speaks of it, as a concession to the
people, for their exemplary conduct, not as their
right ; "the Laity who stand fast, to whom also, for
their faith and fear, honour is to be shewn." S.
Cyprian could not so have written as to a right. But
the whole concession relates to the merits or demerits
of individuals, not to any principles. The Laity were
present as witnesses, not even as Jury, much less as
Judge. 'The Roman Clergy, and Moses and Maximus with
the Confessors, echo S. Cyprian's language. They speak
ofthe case ofthe lapsed, as a special case, on account of
their great multitude. But the Roman Clergy speak
P Ep. 19. p. 46.
g2

84 Roman Clergy imitate S. Cyprian.
of the Bishop as having the authority. They them
selves are obUged the more to delay, because they
had no Bishop. " On us^ there Ueth a further necessity
for delaying this matter, in that, since the decease of
Fabianus of most honoured memory, on account of
the difficulties of circumstances and the times, we
have no Bishop yet appointed, who should settle
aU these matters, and might, Avith authority and
counsel, take account of those Avho have lapsed.
However, in a business of such vast magnitude we
agree Avith what you also have yourself fuUy express
ed ; that the peace of the Church must be aAvaited,
and then, in a full conference of Bishops, Presbyters,
Deacons and Confessors, with those of the Laymen
also who have stood, account be taken of the
lapsed. For it seems to us both very invidious
and oppressive, to examine Adthout adAdce of many,
what many have committed, and for one to pass
sentence, Avhen so great a crime is knoAvn to have
spread and extended itseff among great numbers ;
neither indeed can a decree be firm, which shaU not
appear to have the consent of numbers."
Moses and Maximus write with the same express
reference to the words of S. Cyprian ; "A'' great
sin which has spread with incredible desolation over
almost the whole world, ought only, as you write, to
be dealt with, with caution and moderation, in a con
sultation of aU the Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons,
1 Ep. 80. §. 8. p. 65. r Ep. 31. §. 7. p. 73.

Causes heard publicly before, not hy, ihe People. 85
Confessors, and Laymen too who have stood fast, as
you yourself testify ; lest, while we attempt un
seasonably to repair the ruins, we should be found to
occasion other and greater."
So again as to the case of two Subdeacons and
an Acolyte, "who withdrew in the middle of the
persecution, and afterwards returned," it is still a
question of each single case. " In = this matter
the case of each must be considered separately,
and decided more fully and more accurately, with
advice not only of my Colleagues, but of the whole
People." In another place, S. Cyprian speaks of suspending
the refractory Presbyters by his own authority, and
hearing their cause on his return, before the whole
People ; but he gives no hint that he is speaking
of any thing more than a public trial. " Meanwhile*
let certain rash and incautious and swelling persons
among you, who fear not God nor regard man,
be assured, that they shall no longer persevere in the
same. I will use that admonition which the Lord
bids me use ; so that they shall be restrained mean
while from offering, and have to plead their whole
cause both before me and the Confessors themselves
and the whole People, when, by permission of the
Lord, we shall begin to be re-assembled in the bosom
of our Mother the Church."
S. Cyprian'^ once more announced to his People
¦ Ep. 34. §. 3. p. 78. ' Ep. 16. fin. " Ep. 43. fin. p. 98.

86 Schismatics restored at Rome before the people.
the close of the persecution ; " so that " he says " after
Easter Day I shall be again restored to you with my
Colleagues ; in whose presence we shall be able
to arrange and perfect the things that are to be done,
both according to your judgment, and the common
advice of us all, as hath been already determined."
These are all the statements, (I believe,) which
occur in S. Cyprian, as to the presence of the Laity.
They amount at the utmost to this, that S. Cyprian,
of his own will, brought certain causes before them,
and judged those causes in their presence, taking their
opinion, in part, on individual cases. He thought
right not to exercise his power of restoring the lapsed
individually to Communion, without the general con
currence of the Laity, although there was no question
or thought of any formal vote to be given by them.
The restoration of the Confessors, who had joined
the schism of Novatian, in some degree illustrates
this. S. CorneUus assembled the Presbyters of Rome
and five Bishops : the Bishops alone gave their
opinions. Then the Confessors, who had been im
posed upon and repented, were re-admitted, and finaUy
presented before the People, and received, not by
any formal vote, but with the strongest approbation.
' This passage illustrates the use of " suffragium," "suffi-agia," which do
not mean a formal vote, but approbation of that which might be done or was
done without it. S. Cyprian had himself with two other Bishops excommu
nicated Felicissimus. Yet he writes to his people ; " Let them alone undergo
the punishment of their conspiracy, who, formerly, according to your suffrages,
now according to God's judgments, have deserved to undergo the sentence of
then- own conspiracy and malignity." Ep. 43. §. 4. p. 96. Bishop Sage enters
more at length into other instances. Vindication c. 7. u. 3S~38.

No reference to Laity in matter of doctrine. 87
[maximo suffragio.] "The whole'' proceedings there
fore, being laid before me, it seemed good that the
Presbyters should be assembled. There were there
also five Bishops, who to-day also were present, in
order that by weighty advice, it might be settled by
consent of all, what ought to be done regarding their
persons. And that you may know the feeling of all,
and the adAdce of each, it seemed good that our
several opinions, which you will find subjoined, should
be brought to your knowledge."
Itds remarkable, that S. Cyprian does so frequently
refer to the People in the single case of the lapsed,
or of hearing causes before them, whereas he does
not allude to them in any other case whatever.
They are mentioned, as heing present at the Council
of Carthage, as they were invited to be present at
discussions whereby they might gain instruction. But
the contrast is very striking, that throughout the
question of the restoration of those who had denied
the faith, mention is made of the Laity and of their
judgment ; throughout that as to heretical Baptism,
there is no reference whatever to them. Plainly,
because S. Cyprian wished for their concurrence as to
the restoration of offenders. The question of heretical
Baptism was a matter of doctrine, in which the Laity
were not to concur in judging, but were to be taught.
But, again, it seems to have belonged to a vivid
appreciation of the unity of the whole body of Christ,
that all its members were spoken of, as banded and
^ Ep. 10. §. 3. p. 107.

88 Laity, under Apostles and Bishops, one in Christ.
bound together in one common interest, not in the
way of voting, nor of share of responsibility, but in
the bonds of the love of Christ. This was probably
the ground of the wording pf the Apostolic decree.
Not as though the People must have a voice, because
their names were used, but because they obeyed the
Apostles ; and what the Apostles taught, they believed ;
and so, without responsibility or choice as to the mat
ter itself ( for they had no choice except to believe
those whom God had sent) the Apostles united them
with themselves, and "they clave to the Apostles'
doctrine and fellowship," and in both ways it was
shewn, how all were one in Christ Jesus.
So Holy Scripture bids us " Bear ye one another's
burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." So the old
law forbids to " suffer" sin upon thy neighbour." So,
not as usurping offices which do not belong to them,
may the teachers as well as the taught concur to
" the perfecting of the body of Christ." So S. Cyprian
associates the People in a matter, in which they
could have none but an individual influence. He
says of the case of the crvveiaaKroi, ; " in ^ nothing must
both Bishops and People labour more earnestly than
that we who fear God should observe with all
diligence the precepts of His holy discipUne; nor
suffer our Brethren to go astray, and live after their
own devices and lusts, but that we should faithfully
consult the eternal welfare of every one."
''Lev. xix. 17. y Ep. 4. p. 8. 0. T.

Unauthoritative influence of Christian laymen. 89
So when certain Presbyters had not only neglected
their duty, but perverted the People, he writes to
them, " I ^ know both the meekness and the fear of
our People, that they would have been watchful in
appeasing and deprecating the wrath of God, had
not certain of the Presbyters, in order to please,
deceived them. Do then even ye guide them indivi
dually, and by your advice and restraint, temper the
minds of the lapsed in accordance with the Divine
precepts." He uses the strong words, regite, temperate,
of the lawful influence of individual laymen upon
one another.
So the Roman Clergy, in an anonymous and very
inddious Epistle, °^ (for which S. Cyprian gently re
proves" them) having said " it is incumbent upon us,
who seem to be set over the flock, to guard it instead
ofthe shepherd" [the Bishop of Rome in the vacancy
of the See, and seemingly of Carthage in the absence
of S. Cyprian ] still join the Laity with themselves.
" The Brethren who are in bonds, salute you, as do
the Presbyters, and the whole Church, which also
with the utmost solicitude watches for all who call
upon the Name of the Lord."
To sum up, S. C3^rian states without hesitation
and in the most varied ways, that the entire spiritual
authority in the Church of Christ had been given by
Christ Himself to the Bishops. Every principle,
whether of doctrine or discipline, was laid down by
'¦ Ep. 17. p. 43. » Ep. 8. ^ Ep. 9.

90 Summary of S. Cyprian's times.
the Bishops exclusively. Judgments on heresy were
pronounced by the Bishops alone. The whole pro
ceedings as to the lapsed themselves, the delay of
restoration, the mitigation of the enactment, and
the final reception of the whole number, on the
approach of a new persecution, were regulated, step
by step, by the Bishops exclusively. The opinion of
the Laity was taken solely as to a matter of fact
which came before their eyes, the outward tokens of
the penitence or impenitence of the individuals who
sought to be restored to Communion. And even
here, the Bishop, if he thought right to over-rule the
opinion expressed by the People, exercised that power
naturally, as wholly vested in himself. S. Cyprian's
letters give a vivid picture of his times ; they give, not
only the outward facts of an eventftd time, but the
inward feelings of the actors. They mention what
was willingly of free grace allowed by S. Cyprian ;
they mention the desires, wishes, requests, repug
nances, of the several parties. But there is not the
slightest trace of any wish of the Laity to assume to
themselves any part of the legislation, which our Lord
had entrusted to the Bishops. There was no ques
tion at that time about Episcopal authority, for
under the New Law it had been included by God
under the fifth commandment, as the Levitical Priest
hood had been under the Old.

Synods occasioned hy SabeUius. 91

CHAPTER IV.
From S. Cyprian's martyrdom A. D. 258. to the
Council of Nice. A. D. 325.
These seventy years are chiefly marked by the rise
of the Arian heresy and its forerunners in the East,
and the Donatist heresy in the West ; the former
issuing in the Council of Nice, the Donatist in
the great Council of Aries.
The author ofthe Synodicon states that S. Dionysius
of Alexandria gathered a Synod in which he condem
ned SabeUius. While he was "trying to withdraw
some Bishops in the Pentapolis in Upper Libya from
the Sabellian heresy "," he was misunderstood by
"some of the brethren, who betook themselves to
Rome, and spoke against him to his namesake Di
onysius, Bishop of Rome. He wrote to Dionysius,
to signify upon what they had spoken against him."
" The charge," S. Athanasius says,'' "gave great pain
to the Roman Council and the Bishop of Rome,
who expressed their united sentiments in a letter to
his namesake, [Dionysius of Alexandria.] This led
to his writing an explanation, which he called a
* book of refutation and defence.' The Roman Coun-

" S. Ath. de sent. Dionys. c. 5. 13. ^ Id. Counc. Arim. and Seleuc. §. 43. p.
142. Oxf Tr.

92 Three Councils against Paul of Samosata,
cU consisted exclusively of Bishops; for S. Athanasius
goes on to speak of all concerned in this, as "the°
two Dionysii and the Bishops assembled on that
occasion at Rome."
Three Councils apparently^ were held soon after
wards against Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch,
who taught that our Lord " was an ordinary man. "
To the first Council, Eusebius says that Dionysius,
Bishop of Alexandria, being asked to come, excused
himself on account of age and infirmity. "But the
other Shepherds 8 [i. e. Bishops] ofthe Church came
from different quarters, all hastening to Antioch as
against a waster of the flock of Christ. Of these, the
most distinguished were FirmiUan Bishop of Csesarea
in Cappadocia, Gregory and Athenodorus, Brothers,
Shepherds of the districts in Pontus ; Helenus Bishop
of Tarsus ; and Nicomas of Iconium ; Hymenseus of
the Church at Jerusalem ; and Theotecnus of the
neighbouring Caesarea ; Maximus also, who governed
admirably the brethren at Bostra. There would be
no difficulty in recounting multitudes of others, Avho
together with their Priests and Deacons were there
gathered together at Antioch for the same cause.
But the above were the most eminent." "FirmiUan,"
the Bishops of the second Council say in their Syno-
" lb. §. 45. p. 143.
f The Bishops of the last Council say in their Synodical letter, that S. Fir
miUan who seems to have presided at the Council, "had twice come to
Antioch on this matter, and condemned the heresy." He died on his way to the
Council fi'om which this letter was written.
e Eus. H. E. vii. 28. iroinhes (Bishop Sage remarks, Vindication ofthe prin
ciples ofthe Cyprian, age. vii. 28. p. 387. ) in Eusebius always means " Bishop.

out of forbearance, and slowness to condemn. 93
dical letter, '' "having twice come to Antioch, con
demned his [Paulus'] innovations, (as we who were
present know and testify, and many others know
equally;) but when Paul promised to ohange, he [S.
FirmiUan] believing and hoping that the matter would
be corrected without any scandal to reUgion, deferred
his judgment, being deceived by him who denied
also his OAvn God and Lord, and guarded not the
faith which he himself before had."
In the last of these councils, (A. D. 269, 70.) "a
Council," Eusebius says, '"of most exceeding many
Bishops, the leader of the Antiochene heresy, having
been detected and now clearly condemned by all, was
ejected from the Catholic Church under heaven.
But especially Malchion convicted him, while hiding
his guilt ; a man eloquent, having been head of the
Greek School of dialectic at Antioch, and who, for
the exceeding purity of his faith in Christ, had been
counted worthy of the Presbytery in the Church
there. He pressing upon Paul his enquiry (which
hadng been taken down by notaries we know to be
still extant) was, alone of all, able to detect the
crafty man, skilful as he was in concealing his meaning."
Malchion, having rendered this eminent service,'^
and being, in fact, the actual writer' of the Sy
nodical Epistle, was allowed by the Bishops to join
on his name to theirs. In the former Council,
"questions had been moved in every session, the
•¦ ap. Eus. vii. 30. ' vii. 29. "^ " He is in consequence com
memorated in the Greek Menology Oct. 28." Vai. ad loe.
' S. Jerome de virr. ill. v. Malchion.

94 Malchion refuted : Bishops condemned.
Samosatene trying to hide his heterodoxy, the others
to lay bare his heresy and blasphemy against Christ."
Paul had succeeded. In this Council Malchion alone
detected him. But as a Presbyter, he could refute,
he could not sit in judgment on the Patriarch.
Eusebius ascribes the condemnation to the Bishops
(whose alone it could be;) the detection to Malchion.
When then the Synodical Epistle, after enumerating
the more eminent names, adds "and Malchion and
Lucius, and all who with us are dwelling in the
neighbouring Cities and Provinces, Bishops, Priests
and Deacons, and the Churches of God, to our be
loved brethren in the Lord, greeting," it is plain that
this attests the unity of all under their Bishops, not
their authority over their Patriarch to depose him.
The Bishops write to "Dionysius and Maximus,
and to our fellow Ministers throughout the world.
Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and to the whole
Catholic Church under heaven," and so they write
in the name of the whole Patriarchate of Antioch,
" Bishops, Priests, and Deacons and the Churches of
God." But they who wrote, Eusebius says, were
the Bishops of one Patriarchate to the two remaining
Patriarchs. " The shepherds [i. e. Bishops] who were
convened together, having, by common consent,
addressed a letter personally to the Bishop of the
Romans, Dionysius, and to Maximus the Bishop
of Alexandria, send it round to all the Eparchies."
This CouncU became the subject of discussion,
because the Arians alleged that the Bishops who

Council of Eliberis. 95
condemned the Samosatene laid down in writing
that "the Son is not One in Substance with the
Father " i. e. as understood heretically by him. They
are spoken of as "the seventy'" or "eighty™ Bishops."
The act is spoken of, as wholly theirs. When Paul
refused to cede the see-house to Domnus, who had
been elected in his room by the Council of Antioch,
the heathen Emperor Aurelian being appealed to,
gave the question to be decided by Bishops, "the
^ Bishops of the doctrine in Italy and the City of the
Romans." The Council of Eliberis or Elvira about A. D. 305.
formed eighty-one Canons on discipline. Only nine
teen Bishops were present, but among them the
great Hosius, subsequently ° the President of Councils,
at Nice and Sardica. Many p of the Canons of the
larger Council of Aries A. D. 314. were taken from
it. The brief notice prefixed is, " When the holy and
religious Bishops had taken their seats together in
the Church of Eliberis, i. e. Felix Bishop of Guadix,
Hosius &c, twenty-six Presbyters also sitting down,
the Deacons standing by, and all the People, the
Bishops said, &c." Most of the Canons run in
the form, "It hath seemed good." Placuit. All are
absolute. The Priests, Deacons and People may have
been present, either for temporary causes, then settled
by, the Bishops in Council, or to hear these Canons

1 S. Ath. Cone. Arim. et Seleuc. §. 45. p. 143. Oxf. Tr.
¦" S. Hil. de Synod, prop. fin. " Eus. vii. 30. p. 364.
" Cone. i. 987. ' Harduin ad loe.

96 First Councils of Donatists
which affected them. But they take no part what
ever in it.
In the same year was the first CouncU of the
authors of the Donatist heresy.
A. D. 305. a small Synod was held at Cirta in
Numidia, from whose Acts it appears that Secundus
and the rest who originated the Donatist schism were
themselves "traditores"; i. e. they had themselves com
mitted the very act of which they falsely accused
the Catholic Bishops ; they had delivered up the Holy
Scriptures in the persecution of Diocletian. "Con
cerning your forefathers," S. Augustine "¦ says, "there
is extant a Council of Secundus of Tigisis, held with
very few at Cirta, after the persecution, as to giving
up the [sacred] volumes, that then a Bishop should
be appointed in the place of the departed."
In the Council, whose Acts S. Augustine has pre
served, Secundus charged those present successively
with being traditores, until at last one, bolder than
the rest, retorted the charge ; and the scene ended in
a mutual amnesty. Strange as the scene is in itself,
it illustrates the fact, how in the Synods of Bishops,
held to elect Bishops, enquiry was made by the
Bishops into the mode of life of the person Elect.
A few years afterwards A. D. 311. were the begin
nings of the Donatist schism. This same Secundus,
Bishop of Tigisis and Primate of Africa, vexed that
he had not been called in to consecrate Cascilian, and
' c. Crescon. iii. 26. 27.

Council of Aries. 97
listening to his rivals, condemned him, absent, un
heard, and guiltless, for the very offence of which he
had himself been guilty, and consecrated Majorinus
against him. This was done in a CouncU of seventy
Bishops, including those who had been proved guilty
at the Synod of Cirta. ^
The appeal of the Donatist Bishops to Constantine,
that their question should be settled by Galilean
Bishops, has been already mentioned ; ' and the con
sequent hearing of the cause at Rome by a Synod of
the Bishop of Rome, three Galilean Bishops appointed
by the Emperor, and fifteen other Italian Bishops.
" Csecilian was" acquitted by the sentence of all;"
" Donatus was condemned, as having confessed that
he re-baptised and laid hands on lapsed Bishops."
The Council of Aries A. D. 314. was convened by
Constantine. He says in his circular letter to Chres-
tus Bishop of Syracuse, " we '' have enjoined very
many Bishops from different places to meet at Aries
before the Calends of August." He asks Chrestus to
bring with him " two of the second order [Presby
ters] with three servants to minister to them on the
way." But all was done by the Bishops or by Pres
byters, delegates of absent Bishops. The Synodical
letter runs in the name of Bishops only and Presby
ters who acted as legates of absent Bishops"'. "Gons-
= S. Aug. Ep. 43. [al. 162,] 3. Opt. i. 14. ' Royal Supremacy p. 32. sqq.
" Opt. 1. 26. » Ap. Eus. X. 5.
^ "Two sorts of Presbyters used to come to Councils. Some with their
Bishops, others for and instead of Bishops, when the Bishops themselves
were not present. The former had no right of suffrage, these last gave their
judgment with the Bishops and subscribed with them." Labbe App. T. i. p.
1453. D. H

98 Bishops at Aries from the whole West ;
tantine, " says S. Augustine, " gave ^ them another
judgment, that of Aries ; i. e. of other Bishops.y"
" So ' mad are these men, that they think that two
hundred judges [ the number of the Bishops ] before
whom they were defeated, are to be less accounted of
than the defeated disputants." Constantine in his
letter to the Catholic Bishops, says to them, " I
rejoice especially, that at last, having past a most
just judgment, ye have brought them back to better
hopes." "I say, as the truth is, that the judgment of
Bishops " ought to be so accounted, as if the Lord
Himself sat and judged." S. Augustine calls it a ple
nary universal Council, ^ a Council of the Universal
Church. Bishops met there from Gaul, Italy, Afi-ica,
Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, Britain. The Bishops speak
of " the present authority of our God ; " of their own
judgment as "the judgment of God and ofthe Church."
" So '^ then God being the Judge, and the Mother
Church, who knoweth and approveth her own, they
[the Donatists] were either condemned or repelled."
" But," they proceed, " we did not judge right to
treat of those things alone, for which we were invited.
But we held it right to consult for ourselves. And
whereas they are divers Provinces from which we
came hither, so also are there various points, which
we think we ought to observe. We decided then, in
" Ep. 43. [al 162.] c. 7. ? Ep. 105. [ah 166.] §. 8.
^ c. Ep. Farm. i. 5. » Sacerdotum.
I" plenarii totius orbis Concilii de Bapt. cont. Donat. i. 7. ii. 6. 9. totius or
bis judicio c. Parm. iii. 4. and 6. totius orbis unitati Ib. ii. 13. add Hseres.
69. Ep. 43. ad Glor. et Eleus. §. 7. Ep. 185. ad Bonif. c. 1.
" Ep. Synod. Cone. i. 1449.

Councils of Ancyra, Neo-Coesarea, Laodicea. 99
the Presence of th'e Holy Ghost and His Angels [a
mutUated sentence.] We decided also that through
thee especially, who hold a larger Diocese, [Avhat we
have decided] should be conveyed to all."
The summary of the Epistle runs. " To the Lord
and most holy brother Sylvester, Marinus and the as
sembly of Bishops, united at Aries, what we have
decreed by common Counsel, we have signified to
your Charity, that all may know, what henceforth
they ought to observe."
About the same time probably, A. D. 314, when
the Church breathed again fi-om persecution, were
three Councils in the East, which framed Canons, in
harmony with, and ultimately adopted by the whole
Church. The Council of Ancyra was chiefly en
gaged in regulating the repentance of those who
had lapsed in the persecution. Its Canons are sub-
cribed by its eighteen Bishops. "^ Most of these
Bishops were subsequently at Nice ; one having, in
the interval, received the crown of martyrdom. Its
President was Vitalis, Patriarch of Antioch. The
Bishops were of Asia Minor, Cappadocia, Pontus,
Armenia, CUicia, Syria.
The Council of Neo-Csesarea, also A. D. 314.
enacted 14 Canons, most of them relating to Presby
ters. It is subscribed ^ by nineteen Bishops. Ten of
them are the same who framed the Canons of Ancyra.
The Council of Laodicea also was probably held

¦i Cone. i. T. 1505. • Ib.p. 1518.
h2

100 Origin of the Meletians.
before the Couneii of Nice. It framed sixty Ca
nons, of which the last, laying doAvn the Canonical
Books of the O. and N. T, recites the Old Testament
without the Apocrypha, but in the N. T. omits the
Apocalypse, whose Canonicity was finally established
in the East at the Council of Nice. The title of its
Canons are, "Canons of the holy and blessed Fathers
[Bishops] who met in Synod in Laodicea of Phrygia."
The brief preface only says," The holy Synod gathered
in Laodicea of Phrygia from different Provinces of
Asia, set forth Ecclesiastical rules as follows." The
Council in TruUo speaks of them generally " as the
holy Fathers [ Bishops] assembled in Laodicea of
Phrygia." About A. D. 306. (S. Athanasius says,) "Peter*'
Avas Bishop among us before the persecution, and
during the course of it he suffered martyrdom.
When Meletius, who held the title of Bishop in
Egypt, was convicted of many crimes, and among
the rest of offering sacrifice to idols, Peter deposed
him in a general Council of the Bishops. Where
upon Meletius did not appeal to another Council, or
attempt to justify himself before those who should
come after, but made a schism, so that they who es
poused his cause are even yet called Meletians instead
of Christians. He began immediately to revile the
the Bishops."
S. Alexander of Alexandria shewed long forbearance
' Apol, ag. Ar. §. 59. p. 88. O. T.

Appeal to Bishops every where against and for Arius. 101
towards Arius, whom envy s had stirred into heresy.
He tried at first to recall him from his error. When
he would not desist, but laboured to infect others,
spreading his heresy from house to house, Alexander
was compelled to act more decidedly. " The ''heresy
had spread through all Egypt, Lybia, and the Upper
Thebais. Then," S. Alexander writes, " we, ' being
assembled with the Bishops of Egypt and Lybia
nearly one hundred in number, anathematized both
them, and their followers."
On this " the ^ Arians, thinking that they must be
beforehand in gaining the good will of the Bishops
of every City, sent deputies to them — such a doc
trine having been dispersed among almost all, the
same enquiry came in common before the Bishops
every where, — Alexander wrote to all the Bishops
every where, not to communicate with them. The
Eusebians, [i. e. Eusebius of Nicomedia and his
party, ] having collected a Synod in Bithynia,
write to the Bishops every where, to communi
cate with the Arians as Orthodox, and to induce
Alexander so to do."
This not succeding, "Arius applies to Paulinus
Bishop of Tyre and Eusebius Bishop of Cajsarea
and Patrophilus of Scythopolis " — " They, meeting
in Synod with other Bishops in Palestine, agreed
to Arius' request, bidding him gather his people
[in public worship] as before, but to be subject to
" Theod. i. 2. >¦ Socr. i. 6. ' Encycl. Letter §. 3. in S. Ath. Hist. Tr.
p. 300. O. T. '' Socr. i.l 5.

102 Constantine summons Council at Nice
Alexander, and try to be admitted to peace and com
munion with him."
Under these circumstances, Constantine gathered
the Bishops at the Council of Nice. His own object
was simply, peace. He did not understand the
doctrine, and attached as much or more importance
to unfformity in keeping Easter, as to unity of
faith. Indeed, he himself at this time beUeved in
no doctrine, but that of Providence ' , and spares no
terms of contempt as to the pettiness of the dispute
between Alexander and Arius.
Yet he saw and knew thus much, that the Govern
ment of the Church resided with the Bishops, and
therefore, at considerable expense, he assembled them.
His letter after the Council sets forth, " I thought ™
that this ought to be my aim above all things,
that among the most blessed People of the Catholic
Church, one faith, and sincere love, and one-minded
piety towards Almighty God, might be maintained.
But since this could not be stably ordered, unless all,
or at least most of the Bishops coming together,
all things were considered which appertain to the
most holy religion ; on this ground, after I had
collected as many as possible, myself also being
present as one of you (for I would not deny, what is
my special joy, that I am your fellow-servant) aU
things have been duly examined, until what was
' Constantino selects this as the single essential doctrine, in proof that
Alexander and Arius had the same faith. Eus. de vit. Const, ii. 71.
" lb. iii. 17.

from Europe, Africa, Asia. 103
pleasing to the All-seeing God was brought to
light unto one harmonious agreement."
" He convoked," " says Eusebius, " an CEcumenical
Council, with respectful letters inviting the Bishops
to hasten from all sides." " They who not in soul
only, but in body and country and place and nation,
were far removed from one another, were brought
together ; and one City received all, as it were a
great chaplet of Priests, variegated with beauteous
flowers. From all the Churches, which filled all
Europe, Africa and Asia, there were collected to
gether the first fruits of the Ministers of God. And
one house of prayer, as it were enlarged by God,
contained within at once, Syrians and Cilicians,
Phoenicians and Arabians, and those of Palestine ;
those moreover of Egypt, Thebais, Libya, and those
who came from Mesopotamia. A Persian Bishop
too was present at the Synod ; nor was a Scythian
[Goth] wanting to the choir. Pontus also and
Galatia and Pamphylia, Cappadocia and Asia and
Phrygia sent their chosen ones ; the Thracians and
Macedonians, Achseans and Epirots, and those who
dwelt yet more exceedingly further ; and from Spain
itself the very celebrated [Hosius] one, sitting with
many. And of the royal City [ Rome ] the Bishop
was absent, for age ; but his Presbyters being present
filled his place."
Eusebius, comparing this assembly with those
" lb. c. 6. 7.

104 Wonderful assembly of Bishops,
gathered at the Day of Pentecost, says that, " to °
them it was wanting that all were not Ministers of
God ; but that in the present choir, there was a mul
titude of Bishops, exceeding two hundred and fifty ;
and of Priests and Deacons attending on them and
Acolythes, innumerable."
One " concordant faith prevailed," Eusebius says ; '
" the same time Avas acknoAvledgfed by aU for the
Saviour's Feast [Easter] and AA'hat they decided in
common was confirmed in AAadting by the subscription
of each."
Constantine, in his circular letter to the Churches,
speaks ofthe au.thority of the Bishops, as he had after
the Council of Aries. " These "^ things being so,
receive ye gladly the Grace of God, and, as it truly
is, the Divine command. For whatsoever is done in
the holy Council of Bishops, is to be referred to
the Divine WiU."
It Avas indeed a Avonderful Assembly. " There were
at that time," Theodoret says, "^ "many, eminent for
Apostolic gifts ; many too, who, according to the
Divine Apostle, ' bore about in the body the marks of
the Lord Jesus.' James of Nisibis both raised the
dead to Ufe, and did very many other miracles.
" c. 8. S. Ath. Ep. ad Afr. init. S. Hil. de Synod. §. 86. S. Jerome Chron. and
Rufinus H. E. i. 1. count 318. [Vai.] asdo the Bishops of the third Roman
Council under Damasus, exclusive ofthe Presbyters from Rome. A. D. 371-
or 2. Cone, (ad A. D. 369.) ii. 1043. Soz. vi. 23. Theod. ii. 22. The CouncU
of Nice is known as " the three hundred and eighteen Fathers " in subse
quent Councils.
P c. 14. -> c. 20. ' H. E. 1. 7.

Confessors, or with miraculous gifts. 105
Paul Bishop of Neocsesarea had experienced the fury
of Licinius, his hands powerless, the red-hot iron had
destroyed the power of motion ; others had their right
eyes dug out; others hamstrung in the knees, of Avhom
w^as Paphnutius. ' A crowd of martyrs might be
seen gathered in one." Others specffy Potamon
Bishop of Heraclea, Avho lost one eye for the testimony
of Jesus Christ ; Spiridon ' Bishop of Trimithus, who
Avrought miracles ; Leontius " Bishop of Csesarea in
Cappadocia, gifted with a prophetic spirit ; Amphion"
of Epiphania, Hypatius of Gangra, Confessors ; and
Nicolas of Myra, even then distinguished for piety.
S. Alexander of Alexandria, S. Eustathius of An
tioch, S. James of Nisibis, Hosius, Avere in every
way eminent. Macarius of Jerusalem Avas also a
distinguished maintainer of the Nicene faith.
But the very enumeration implies that piety, suf
fering for the faith, the "marks of the Lord Jesus,"
spiritual gifts, not knowledge, were accounted their
eminent qualifications. Eusebius says " some ^ were
eminent for the word of wisdom ; others for hardiness
of lffe and endurance ; others possessed both moderate
ly." Socrates ^ mentions, ( although he repudiates, )
the party-charge of Sabinus, a Macedonian Bishop
and dishonest Avriter, that the "Fathers of Nice were
simple and ignorant men." Nor is it of much moment.

= Rufinus H. E. 1. 4. says that he was renowned for Apostolic miracles.
' Rufinus. i. 5. Socr. i. 10. " S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 18. in fun. patr. §. 12.
vSoz.i.lO. "V. Ciii. 9. "1.8. p. 21.

106 Learned Laymen disputed; Bps. tho' unlearned decide
that a heathen philosopher, with sophistical argument
and pompous Avords, made jest of the Bishops, but
was, it is related, miraculously converted by a Lay
man and Confessor. ^ Nor is it very remarkable,
that one so gffted as S. Athanasius, was, although
a Deacon only attending on his Bishop, Alexander,
admitted to the chief place in the defence of the
orthodox faith. StiU, lay-dialecticians are mentioned
on both sides ; on the Arian, the Bishops, Eusebius
of Nicomedia, Theognis, and Maris. "Against these,"
Socrates ^ says, " Athanasius contended nobly "; and
mentions it as the ground of the subsequent grudge
of the Arian party against him. Sozomen says that
'^ many "* of the Bishops who then met together and
the Clerks who foUowed them, being powerful in dis
puting, and practised in these methods of discourse,
distinguished themselves" ; but he too specifies the
one Deacon, S. Athanasius.
Yet, whether those ofthe Bishops, who had inteUec
tual gifts, were more or fcAver, it Avas not on account
of those gifts, but for their office sake, that they alone
had a decisive A'oice. It Avas by permission '' that the
laymen spoke in the Synod ; yet a simple layman,
an aged Confessor, Avas aUoAved to speak. Clergy
who foUoAved the Bishops, distinguished themselves in
discussions on the faith. Spiridon, on the contrary, "
"had been a shepherd, before he Avas, for his piety,
made a shepherd of men ; and even as a Bishop,
'¦ Socr. i. 8. Soz. i. 18. » Socrates i. 8. p. 19.
" c. 17. fin. '' lb. c. 18. "^ Socr. i. 12.

All Bishops, learned or unlearned, held the one faith 107
in his great humUity, he fed his sheep stiU." Yet Lay
men or Deacons or Priests, though possessed of the
same (or even, as S. Athanasius, greater) theological
knoAvledge or acuteness, or, hoAvever eminent for
hoUness of Ufe and sufferings for Christ, for which
Bishops also were eminent, had no voice in the de
cision. The Bishops alone decided, as having alone
the commission from our Lord. They came not as
disputants, but to bear Adtness to the faith which
they had received. The simpler are often the more
faithful. " When ^ the discussion embraced different
questions, some aclAdsed not to innovate, contrary
to the faith deUvered from the beginning, and es
peciaUy those whose simplicity of mind led them,
vdthout curious discussion, to admit the faith in God.
Others protested, that the more ancient opinions
ought not to be foUowed wdthout examination." AU
the Bishops, learned or unlearned, except the few
who had been seduced by Arius, knew the faith of
Christ. When the Arians proposed their heretical
creed, "all " straightway rent it, caUing it spurious
and adulterated." "And when all accused them of
betraying the faith, the Arians rose up in fear, and,
except Secundus and Theonas, excommunicated
Arius." " The Arians ^ concealing their disease, (for
they feared the multitude of the Bishops) assented
to what had been set forth."
S. Athanasius describes in few sentences, the prin-
¦> Soz. i. 17. ' Theod. i. 7. ' lb. c. 8. fin.

108 Bishops attested faith, decided ritual.
ciples and the objects of the Council. "As^to the
Nicene Council, it Avas not a common meeting, but
convened upon a pressing necessity, and for a reason
able object. The Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopo-
tamians, were out of order in celebrating the Feast,
and kept Easter AAdth the Jew^s ; on the other hand,
the Arian heresy had risen up against the CathoUc
Church, and found supporters in the Eusebians, Avho
Avere both zealous for the heresy, and conducted the
attack upon religious people. This gave occasion for
an CEcumenical Council, that the Feast might be
every- where celebrated on one day, and that the heresy
which Avas springing up might be anathematized. It
took place then ; and the Syrians submitted, and the
Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the fore
runner of Antichrist, and drew up a suitable formula
against it. And yet in this, many as they were, they
ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these three
or four men.'' Without prefixing Consulate, month,
and day, they wrote concerning the Easter, ' It
seemed good as foUows.' For it did then seem good
that there should be a general compliance. But about
the faith they wrote not, 'It seemed good,' but,
' Thus believes the Catholic Church ; ' and thereupon
they confessed how the faith lay, in order to shew
that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apos
tolical ; and what they wrote down, was no discovery
of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the
Apostles." e Counc. Arim. §. 5. p. 79. '' UiNacius, Valens. Ge'rininius &c. Arian Bishops.

Subsequent influence of Council of Nice. 109
The faith they attested ; on matters of discipline they
determined, as " seemed " to them " good."
It is difficult to embody in words the influence of
this Council on the subsequent history of the Church.
The subsequent General Councils are grounded upon
it. After the struggles of fifty-six years, against the
Eunomians or Anomoeans, Arians or Eudoxians, Semi-
Arians or Macedonians, the impugners of the Holy
Ghost, SabelUans, MarceUians, Photinians, and Apol-
Unarians, the second General Council, at Constanti
nople, in its first Canon, knits itseff on to that at Nicaea.
" Let not the faith of the three hundred and eighteen
Fathers who met at Nicsea in Bithynia be abrogated,
but let that remain firm, and let every heresy be
anathematised." After which the Council speciaUy
anathematises those above-named. The Fathers of
the Council of Ephesus, in the Uke way, affirm "the
faith ofthe three hundred and eighteen (of Nice) and
the one hundred and fffty" ( of Constantinople. )
"It' would be long to recount how purely and
reUgiously aU the Fathers reverenced the Nicene
Council, as an oracle given from Heaven. To this,
as an inviolable law, Athanasius J ever appeals, whe
ther his contest be with Ariiis, Asterius or Eusebius.
With this, Hilary "^ upbraids Constantius, the deser
ter of his father's faith, and contends that it is the

' Hist. Cone, prefixed to Council of Nice Cone. ii. 6.
j Nie. Def. §. 27. p. 49. Oxf. Tr. and references note o. Council Arim. and Seleuc.
§. 9. p. 84. and note c. §. 14. p. 93. §. 20. p. 103. Orat. 1. ^. Arian. §. 7. p. 188.
" adv. Constant, c. 23. and Fragm. 8.

110 Attempts to overthrow it, shewed its solidity.
test and rule of aU other Synods. Epiphanius ' extols
it as the anchor of the tossed Church. To this, as to a
fortress of the Faith, Ambrose ™ leads Gratian who,
on the eve of war, had asked him concerning the
faith. Why recount individuals ? An CEcumenical
Synod, Avhatever they would do or discuss, professed
at the outset that they AdUed to tread in the footsteps
of the Nicene Faith. They are Uke great stones built
upon the foundation of Nice. — The kings ofthe Goths
in Italy and Spain, of the Vandals in Africa, Constan
tius and Valens, Roman Emperors, throughout the
whole world, arrayed against the Canons of Nice,
praBtors, soldiers, armies, ProAdncial Synods, the
large Councils of Bishops at Rimini and Seleucia.
Yet aU these were not so much hostUe engines to
destroy it, as trophies of victory for endless glory,
God thereby attesting that the faith of Nice, which
such might of floods, winds and storms could not
shake, was founded and settled on the firmest rock.
^' Pleas for Councils, " said " the Bishops at Arimi
num, " will not longer circulate about. The Bishops
of Nicea having anticipated them once for aU, and
done aU that Avas needful for the CathoUc Church."
" Those holy and venerable Fathers, says S. Leo,"
who, at Nice, having condemned Arius with his
sacrUegious impiety, enacted laws of Ecclesiastical
' adv. Hisr 69. §. 11. Ancorat. §. 119-121. "¦ de fide ad Gratian. i. 18.
" in S. Ath. Counc. Arim and Seleuc. §. 9. p. 84. O. T.
" Ep. 106. ad Anatol. Episc. Constant, c.4. add c. 3. and Ep. 135. fin. Ep.
14. ad Anast. u. 2. Ep. 105. ad Pulch. c. 2. Ep. 107. ad Julian. Ep. 119. ad
Max. c. 4.

Fourfold subjects on which it decided. Ill
Canons to abide to- the end ofthe Avorld, Uve in their
constitutions among us and throughout the world ;
and any thing, which is any Avhere ventured, other
than they enacted, is without delay annuUed, so that
what was instituted generaUy for abiding benefit,
may undergo no variation or change."
The Acts of this Great Council were fourfold ;
1. They decided for ever the matter of faith ; 2. they
regulated for ever the keeping of Easter ; 3. they
fixed the terms on which the Meletian schismatics in
Egypt should be re-admitted into the Church ; 4.
they enacted Canons. The Bishops then, so assem
bled, themselves alone, explained and estabUshed
the faith, regulated ritual and discipline, and enacted
laws for the whole Church. Their Synodical letter
is inscribed, "The ^ Bishops who have been gathered
together at Nice, and have held the great and holy
Council, to the (by the grace of God) holy and great
Church of Alexandria." They state how they had
been assembled, had enquired into and condemned
the ungodUness of Arius together Adth Theonas and
Secundus ; and then their forbearance to Meletius.
To him they left his title, although Avithout power to
exercise his functions. The Priests whom he had
ordained, they admitted," after they should have been
confirmed by a hoUer ordination," to the second place
after those prcAdously ordained by Alexander, to be
selected to succeed them, "ff they should seem worthy
and the People should choose them, Alexander, the
P in Theod. i. 9.

112 General subjects of Canons of Nice.
Bishop of Catholic Alexandria, consenting and con
firming it."
The CouncU leaves to the Laity the choice of
those Avho should be their Pastors, with the approba
tion of the Bishops ; every other detail is ordered for
them. Of the twenty Canons of the Council of Nice some
confirm or enlarge former Canons, some were whoUy
framed by the CouncU. They embrace the largest
subjects, as the distribution of Patriarchates, or the
appointments of the Bishops of the Avhole Church, or
minute points of ritual or discipline. They forbid
kneeling on the Lord's Day or in the Pentecostal
season ; regulate the restoration of those Avho had
lapsed in the persecution of Licinius, or of the Nova
tian and Paulianist heretics, or of those who, with
peril of idolatry, returned to the miUtary life. They
relate mostly to the discipUne of the Clergy, or those
Avho should be admitted to Holy Orders ; but some
exclusively relate to the Laity. All were every where
received ; and Provincial CouncUs held themselA'es
bound to do nothing against any Canon of the
Council of Nice. The whole Church obeyed Avhatever
it bade or forbade.
But, beyond all questions of detaU which were
thus ruled for the Universal Church, the haff yearly
Synod of Bishops Avere then, by vfrtue of an authority
acknoAvledged every where as supreme, appointed for
the Avhole Church. The especial object oftheir meet
ing Avas the protection of aU under the Bishops, Laity

Synods of Bishops made Court of appeal every where. 113
or Clergy, against any private Avrong feeling of an
individual Bishop. But the protection lay in an
appeal to the Bishops of the Province coUectively.
The Canon, as has been already said, confirmed
the Ante-Nicene Canon, which it enlarged. " Con
cerning those who, whether in the rank of the Clergy
or of Laity, have been excommunicated by the Bishops
in each Eparchy, let the judgment hold according to
the Canon which forbids that those rejected by some
should be admitted by others. But let enquiry be
made, that they have not been excommunicated
through pettiness of mind or contentiousness or any
like displeasure of the Bishop. In order then, that
the matter may be sifted, as is meet, it seemed well
that in each Eparchy Synods should be held twice in
the year, that aU the Bishops of each Eparchy being
brought together in one place, such questions should
be examined, and so those who confessedly offended a-
gainst the Bishop, should deservedly be held excommu-
cated by aU, until it seem good to the Bishops col
lectively to pass some milder judgment upon them.
But let the Synods be holden, the one before Lent,
that, aU petty grudge being removed, the Gift may be
offered more purely to God; the second about
Autumn." The Canon of Nice, framed by Bishops, represent
ing all the Bishops from the whole Church under
Heaven, and received by all, gave fresh impulse to
the habitual assembling of Synods of Bishops as the
Courts of appeal for all grievances of conscience. It
I

114 Originallawexplained,enlarged,fixedforthe Church.
took up the law which before existed, on the local
authority of particular Churches. It embodied the
words of that law, while it enlarged or explained
it. It itself re-enacted and fixed that rule, and stamp
ed it by the formal authority of the whole Church,
that Synods of Bishops were the tribunal of appeal
from any arbitrariness of an individual Bishop.

General character of Synods from A.D. 325-381. 115

CHAPTER V.
Councils between the first General Council at Nice
A. D. 325. and the second General Council at Constan
tinople. A. Z). 381.
The next period of the Church, the history of
which is given by Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret,
is one of the most eventful and most fruitful in Sy
nods. These fifty-six years comprise and conclude
the struggles of Arianism, in its different forms,
to overthrow the decision and authority of the
Council of Nice. The various parties, who modi
fied or developed the original heresy of Arius, tried
every way of fraud or violence, to supersede, or un
dermine, or suppress the Faith in God the Son, to
which the whole Church had borne witness at Nice,
as the One "Faith, once delivered to the Saints."
They assailed sometimes the Faith, sometimes its great
supporters, until the Faith gained a yet more de
cided victory in the second General Council at
Constantinople. In this troubled and stormy time, we have not only
the struggles ofthe Church with heretics, and heretical
Bishops with the Church, but we have the heretical
party itself, dissatisfied with its own proceedings, and
i2

116 Arian Synods could come to no good,
essaying again and again to amend them, or swaying
backwards and forwards, at one time a party being in
the ascendant which verged on orthodoxy, at another,
the extremest heterodoxy ; and this heterodoxy itself,
putting itself forth or veiling itself, contradicting itself
or even anathematizing itself, as the state of things
permitted or required of a body, which had no prin
ciple except expediency. The CouncUs of this period
were, for the most part, eminently unsatisfactory, be
cause they Avere, for the most part, attempts by God's
mercy fruitless, to undo the work of God the Holy
Ghost in the Church. They were waves dashing
against the rock of the true Faith, which foamed out
their own shame.
It is of these synods that S. Hihiry speaks in terms
so often misapplied to Councils generally. "We "de
termine yearly and monthly creeds concerning God ;
we repent of our determinations ; we defend those who
repent ; Ave anathematize those Avhom we have de
fended ; we condemn our own doings in those of others,
or others in us ; and gnawing each other, we are well
nigh devoured one of another." They were Councils,
not of the Church, but against the Church. They
could not but fail ; because they were arrayed against
that Faith, against which our Lord has promised, that
the gates of HeU shall not prevail. The truth of the
God of truth Avas pledged against them. S. Athana
sius gives the same picture of Arian changeableness.
' S. Hil. ad Const, ii. 5.

because against God. 117
" ^ Every year, as if they were going to draw up a con
tract, they meet together and pretend to write about
the faith, whereby they expose themselves the more
to ridicule and disgrace, because their expositions are
rejected, not by others, but by themselves." ""They
dissent from each other, and, whereas they have re
volted from their Fathers, are not of one and the same
mind, but float about with various and discordant
changes. And, as quarrelling with the Council of
Nicaea, they have held many councils themselves, and
have published a faitli in each of them, and have stood
to none ; nay, they will never do otherwise ; for per
versely seeking, they will never find that wisdom which
they hate." ""So it is, they have convened successive
Councils against that CEcumenical one, and are not yet
tired." "^I have accordingly subjoined portions both
of Arius' writings, and of whatever else I could collect,
of their publications in different Councils ; whereby
you will learn to your surprise with what object they
stand out against an CEcumenical Council and their
own Fathers without blushing."
Yet, although so wrong in their principles and their
end, the Synods of this period do but the more illus
trate the constitution of Synods, in that so many of
them were convened by heretics, and under the pres
sure of the secular power. Constantine was indifferent
to truth, and anxious only to secure peace ; Constan
tius and Valens were powerful and unscrupulous per-
" Letter to Eg. Lib. §. 6. Hist. Tr. p. 131. O. T.
' Counc. Arim. & Seleuc. §. 14. p. 92, 3. 0. T.
¦» Ib. §. 21.p. 103. • Ib. § 14. p. 93.

118 Heretical Emperors attacked Chtirch thro' Bishops
secutors. Yet both heretical Bishops and heretical
Emperors felt that they could only Avound the Church
through the arms of the Church. Bishops were the ac
knowledged Guardians, Shepherds ofthe Church ; and
Synods their collective voice. The heretical Bishops
strove to reinforce their numbers by illegal ordinations,
and to set up Councils of Bishops, and the Creeds of
those Councils, over against the Council and Creed of
the Church; or to depress one another by Councils,
to cast out or depose one another by Councils. But
the Emperors, also, knew of no other method whereby
to substitute an heretical Creed than by corrupting
Bishops, packing or dividing Councils of Bishops,
banishing the orthodox Bishops, when they could not
terrify them, and, through Councils of their own Bi
shops, replacing expelled Bishops by other Bishops
as heretical as themselves. They even introduced a
military force to over-awe a Council ; yet in this time
of disorder, the outward forms of the Church were ob
served. The Emperors knew of no other way in which
they could act upon the Church, than through the
Bishops. Even in tyrannising over the Church, they
were obliged to submit to the forms of the Church.
Every act of doctrine or discipline is ascribed to the
Bishops. Whether in the Councils ofthe Church or of
heretics, Arians, in their different shades, Macedonians,
Novatians, or any other, or for whatever end they were
gathered, the Synods were of Bishops. What was done
in them was done by Bishops, and what these did, they
did with complete authority, looking for no further

Impossible object of Arian Councils. 119
confirmation, except that of the Bishops of the whole
Church. The period between the two first general Coun
cils, is one of fifty-six years. In it there are notices
of some eighty Councils. It may help to give a
more vivid impression of the Synodical system of
the Church, to survey in order this spasmodic and
convulsive action of that system, when withdrawn
from the calm and regulating power of the faith,
and misdirected by heretics.
The general object of the early Arian Councils was
to attain what was unattainable, to devise a Confession
of faith, which, treating on the Divinity of God the
Son, might faU short of the explicit beUef of the Nicene
Creed, and yet not altogether and overtly reject the
truth. The Bishops who composed these Creeds, even
anathematized more naked heresy. Yet since, plainly,
what is not God is a creature of God, and so there is no
middle point between the entire Oneness of the
Nature of God the Son with the Father, and His
being a mere creature, ( whether any supposed Him
to have been created before, or in, time ) all the
ambiguous phrases to which the Arians or Semi-
Arians resorted must be understood altogether in the
one sense, or in the other. Some of the Semi-Arians
did not probably for a time see this, or received the
doubtful formulae in a higher sense, than these ne
cessarily bore, or than, if understood as in any way
differing from the Nicene, they could bear. " Like
as to all things " might include " substance " also ;

120iVo real mean hetween the fidl truth of Nicene Creed,
but if " likeness in substance " meant any thing dif
ferent from " oneness of substance," it also impUed
" unlikeness " or " imperfect likeness " ; and so the
" Homosans," or any aa ho maintained the mere " like
ness" of the Son to the Father, and "Anomoeans"
who openly declared that they held His "unlikeness"
to the Father, really held the same heresy. Gibbon
sneers " at the difference of a single diphthong be
tween the Homoousians and the Homoiousians," and
represents the distinction between the Semi-Arians
and the Catholics as being as fine. Undoubtedly, the
words used by the Semi-Arians, if taken in their
true, or, as S. Hilary says, in their " faithful ^ and
religious sense," would coincide with the faith of
Holy Scripture and the Church. " Likeness " is not
true, unless it is complete. " Likeness " then, if real,
is " likeness in all things " ; real " likeness in aU
things " includes " likeness in substance " ; real " like
ness in substance " cannot be without identity of
substance. But it is also true that the Semi-Arian
terms expressed the Faith inadequately and were
capable, ( as S. Hilary subjoined,) of " an § irreUgious
sense." For "like" might more naturally mean
" like in qualities " only, ( as it is said of us, that " we
shaU be Uke Him." " Of Uke substance," might im-

f de Synod. §. 77. p. 1193.
s " I did not speak of ' a religious sense ' of ' like substance ' save that I un
derstood that there was an irreligious,— so that I did not disapprove the
word ' likeness ' and yet warned that its only religious meaning, was that
which inculcated Oneness of Substance." Id. Ib. not. a.

and full and undisguised Arianism. 121
ply, that the Father and the Son were two " like,"
but independant and distinct, " Substances." And
this ambiguity could be the only object of main
taining terms, distinct from the ancient word, " of
one Substance," embodied in the Creed of Nicaea.
" Homoiousios " differed then but by one letter from
" Homoousios," as " creature " differs, but by one
letter from "Creatour"; but the beUef represented
by them differed by infinity, that same infinity which
lies between the creature and his Creator. For
Homoousios expressed that the Son was God, Co-
eternal, Consubstantial, Coequal, Infinite ; Homoiou
sios, unless understood in the same sense as Homoou
sios, impUed that the Son was a mere creature.
This, in the course of these Councils, became clear
to the more reUgious Semi-Arians, and they won
back their way to the Faith and language of the
Church ; the less reUgious worked their way out
into undisguised Arianism.
The chief Patrons and protectors of Arius were
Bishops of Palestine and Syria and Asia Minor,
Eusebius of Nicomedia ( the political chief of the
party ) Eusebius of Csesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea,
Paulinus of Tjrre, Athanasius of Nazarbi, Gregory
of Berytus, Aetius of Lydda. These Arius himself
claimed.'' Besides these, Menophantus of Ephesus,
Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theognius of Nice,
Narcissus of Neronias, and two Egyptian Bishops^
'' Epist. ad Euseb. in Theod. i. 5. confirmed by Theodoret Ib.

122 Bishops who were the heads of
Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais,
took the part of Arius, but finaUy anathematized
him, except Secundus and Theonas. ' Maris of Chal
cedon, and George, presbyter of Alexandria, after
wards Bishop of Laodicea, had been overt Arians
before the Council of Nice.''
This was the original Arian party, caUed Euse
bians from its leaders, the two Eusebii. They sub
sequently added to their number Bishops whom they
consecrated, Placillus, Stephen, Leontius, succes
sively Bishops of Antioch, Theodosius of Tripoli,
Eudoxius successively of Germanicia, Antioch, and
Constantinople, and Eustathius of Sebastia one of the
leaders of the Semi-Arians.' For these they made
room by the expulsion of the orthodox Bishops. In
Uke way, they expelled the Bishops of Balanea, Pal-
tus, Taradus, Gaza, Beroea, Asia, Sirmium, and
fiUed the sees Adth their own partizans.'" Secundus,
deposed by the Council of Nice, was chief in these
ordinations." Ursacius of Singidon in Upper Massia,
and Valens of Mursa, Demophilus of Beroea, Germi-
nius of Cyzicus and Sirmium (A. D. 351. ) Cecropius
of Laodicea and Nicomedia, Auxentius of Milan,
Epictetus of CiAdta Vecchia, were intruded in the
same way." Acacius, ( from whom the Eusebian
party were sometimes called Acacians) succeeded
i Theod. i. 7.
1= S. Ath. Cone. Arim. et Seleuc. §. 17. p. 99. O. T.
> S. Ath. Arian Hist. §. 4. p. 222, 3. O. T. " Id. Ib. §. 5. p. 223.
" Counc. Arim. et Sel. §. 12. p. 88, 9. add S. .Tulius in Apol. ag. Arian. §. 24.
" S. Ath. Letter to Eg. Lib. §. 7. p. 133. Arian Hist. §. 75. p. 286.

Arian and Semi-Arian parties. 123
Eusebius of Caesarea, his instructor in heresy. A. D.
338. The chiefs of the better Semi-Arians, were Basil
of Ancyra, (placed by the Eusebians in the see of
Marcellus) Eustathius, and Eleusius of Cyzicus (so
remarkably praised by S. Hilary ;'') then Mark of
Arethusa. Eusebius of Emesa died an Arian ; Euse
bius of Samosata and S. Cyril of Jerusalem, for a
time mixed up with them, died Saints. George of
Laodicea, and Eudoxius, were probably always in
heart Arians ; they became avowed Anomoeans.
The wretched Aetius, who became a Deacon only,
was the founder of the Anomoeans ; Eunomius was
their chief defender.
This enumeration may furnish a thread in the
following account of the Synods of this period, which
is given chiefly in the words of the original histo
rians. It illustrates also how many of the chief Ari
ans were intruded into sees, and were not merely
Bishops who became heretical. Some of them had
been refused ordination by Eustathius, the Ortho
dox Patriarch of Antioch, and were now ordained
without enquiry into their lives.' ""^Profligate hea
then youths, not even Catechumens," were at once
made Bishops, and thrust into the place of vene-
P " Except Eleusius the Bishop and a few with him, the ten provinces of
Asia, where I am, for the most part know not God truly." de Synod, t. 27.
p. 1186.
1 S. Ath. Arian Hist. §. 3. 4. p. 221, 2.
¦¦ Ib. §. 73.p.285.

124 Course ofthe Arian attacks on the Church.
rable and aged Bishops, exiled for the faith. They
were ordained on account of their impiety.'
The first step of the original Arian Bishops was
to regain with the Emperor the influence which
they had lost through the Council of Nice. The
rest was to oppress S. Athanasius. Then followed
the attempt to substitute heretical creeds for that of
Nicaea, in AA'^hich they were checked at first ap
parently by fear, then by the presence of a par
ty among them, nearer to the truth, so that
although the chief Eusebian Bishops were Ari
ans, their Creeds were negative or Semi-Arian
until A. D. 357, when the second Sirmian Creed
was put forth by the Arian party, Avhich was fol
lowed by the Semi-Arian Creed at Ancyra, put
out by Basil. Thenceforth, the Semi-Arians and
the Arians were in conflict with one another.
On the other hand, about A. D. 360, when
Macedonius was deposed from the see of Constan
tinople, a part of the Semi-Arians following him
formed overtly a new heresy, denying the Divinity
of God the Holy Ghost. This however was, at all
times, of necessity, involved in Arianism.
In the Synod of Nice, Eusebius of Nicomedia
and Theognius, although unwillingly, accepted
the Creed, and were received into Communion.'
After the Council, they took the part of the Arians,
and joined themselves with them." Eusebius se-
^ S. Ath. Lett, to Eg. Lib. §. 7. p. 133. ' S. Jer. adv. Lucif. §. 20. p.
192. ed. Vail. " Ep. Const, ad Nicom. ap. Theod. i. 20.

First measures of Eusebius of Nicomedia. 125
cretly urged Constantine to intercede for him, but,
as he and Theognius themselves say, they were
condemned by the chief Bishops,"^ to whom they
sent a petition of penitence praying for their res
toration. Five months^ after the Council of Nice, April 16.
A. D. 326. in a Synod of Bishops, Athanasius was
ordained Patriarch of Alexandria. This office was
always so conferred,'' and so was the occasion of
many Synods, in the different Patriarchates.
Three years afterwards, A. D. 328. in a Synod of
two hundred and fifty Bishops at Nicomedia ac
cording to Philostorgius,^ Eustathius Patriarch of
Antioch was, through the influence of Eusebius" and
Theognius, deposed on a charge of immorality, sup
ported by perjury, as the wretched person afterwards
confessed.'' Socrates remarks, " The Bishops" are
wont to do thus, as to all whom they depose, ac
cusing them of impiety, but not adding the causes
of the impiety." He was deposed for his maintenance
of the faith.
The persecution of S. Athanasius began about
A. D. 328. About A. D. 331. the Emperor "wea
ried"' by his enemies, Eusebius and Theognius, com
manded him to go to a Synod at Csesarea, whither,
for thirty months, he refused to go, fearing the trea
chery of the two Eusebius'. A Council then was
" ap. Socr. i. 14. " S. Epiph. H^r. 68. § 6. ? Vales. Obss. in Socr. iii. 14.
Mi. 7. ' Theod. i 21. ^ c. 22.
' i. 24. ^ Soz. ii. 25.

126 Synod of Tyre packed against S. Athanasius.
summoned at Tyre." " The Emperor ^ proclaimed
that there should be a Synod of Bishops at the
consecration of the House of Prayer, which he was
buUding in Jerusalem. But first, he commanded
the Bishops being assembled at Tyre, to ventilate
the case of Athanasius, that the contention being
there removed, they might perform more peacefully
the dedication of the Church, consecrating it to
God. This was the thirtieth year of the Emperor
Constantine, and there were present at Tyre, sixty
Bishops from different places, Dionysius, the Con
sular, convening them." " Constrained^ more vehe
mently, Athanasius came to Tyre." Eusebius blends
this Council with that of Jerusalem, and boasts of
it as the greatest after that of Nice.^ It appears
from Constantius' Epistle to the Synod that it was
packed. " I have done all," he writes to them,''
" which ye in your letter marked out. I have sent to
those Bishops whom ye wished, that they should
come and share your anxieties. But I sent Diony
sius, an ex-Consular, who shall both remind those
Bishops who ought to come to the Synod with you,
and shall be an inspector of what is done, especially
as to good order. For if any, (as I trow not) now
too essaying to set at nought our command, shall
not choose to be present, one shall be sent hence
from us, who by Imperial authority casting him
out, shall teach that orders of the Emperor, given
' Socr. i. 28. f Soz. 1. c.
6 Vit. Const, iv. 47. '¦ ap. Theod. i. 29.

Count, to keep order ; Bishops, to decide. 127
in behaff of the truth, must not be resisted. For
the rest, it AdU be the work of your holinesses, Adth
unaminous and impartial judgment, foUowing the
Ecclesiastical and ApostoUc Canon, to devise the
fitting remedy for what has been, either through
Avrong or error, done amiss, that ye may both free
the Church from aU reproach, and Ughten my cares,
and giAdng back the grace of peace to those now
at variance, may gain for yourselves an exceeding
good report."
S. Athanasius repeatedly ' excepts against the
Presidency of secular persons, as destructive of the
very name of CouncU. " How can they have the
boldness to caU that a Council, at which a single
Count presided &c." "As soon as the Eusebians
heard that the trial was to be an Ecclesiastical one,
at which no Count would be present." Liberius does
the same. The CouncU of Chalcedon, and the eighth
CouncU state the same as to Ecclesiastical trials.
But the offices of the Count and of the Bishops are
clearly separated by Constantine. The Count had
to regulate outward things, to preserve, ff he could,
fairness in the outward proceedings, to aid in ga
thering the Bishops together, and afterwards in look
ing out for Adtnesses of the calumnies against S.
Athanasius. The authority to remedy the evils, the
debating, the decision, Constantine ascribed whoUy to
the Bishops. Irregular as the presence of the Count
' See Ancient Precedents p. 28-30.

128 Arian Synods against S. Athanasius,
was, it was, in truth, much needed. For " i^ those en
trusted with the care of good order hindered the
murder [ of S. Athanasius ] snatching him from them
and putting him on board a vessel."
S. Athanasius, as is weU known, having signaUy
defeated tAVO shocking calumnies of murder and cor
ruptio virginis, left the Synod, and was on that account
condemned. ' Arians were sent to the Mareotis to
get up a charge against him, contrary to the protest
of forty-seven Egyptian Bishops'" and the remon
strances ofthe Count," and S. Athanasius was deposed
by a Council Avhich had no authority over him.
"Forthwith" came letters from the Emperor, direct
ing the Synod to come to the new Jerusalem." There
they received Arius and his companions, alleging
that they complied with the Emperors' letters, de
claring that he was satisfied as to the faith of Arius
and Euzoius."
On S. Athanasius ' personal appeal to the Emperor
as to the injustice done him, Constantine summoned
the Council to Constantinople ;'' but they sent depu
ties, abandoning their old calumnies for a new one.
The Arians next attacked MarceUus Bishop of
Ancyra. Whether he himself was at this time here
tical or no,i it was for the part which he took against
^ Theod. i. 30. > Socr. i. 32.
m ap. S. Ath. ApoL ag. Ar. §. 77. p. 108. 0. T. " Ib. §. 81. p. 114.
» Socr. i. 33. add Cone. Arim. §. 21. P Socr. i. 34.
1 Pope Julius and the Roman Council held him innocent. ( Ep. in Apol. ag.
Ar. §. 32.) S. Athanasius first held bim guiltless, then rejected him. At last it
is to be hoped that he recanted, see ib. p. 52. n. 1. and on Counc. Arim. and
Seleuc. p. 110. n. r. and Introd. to Orat. iv. against Arians §. 2. p. 503. sqq.

Marcellus and Paulus. 129
Arianism at the Synods of Tyre and Jerusalem,
that he was deposed by "the Bishops, coUected at
Constantinople''." The same Council appointed his
successor, and dfrected his books to be sought for
and destroyed.
A. D. 340. was another Arian Council of Constan
tinople. "Constantius was' inflamed with great wrath
at the election [of Paulus, the orthodox Patriarch]
and haAdng gathered a council of Arian Bishops, set
aside Paulus, and, translating Eusebius, made him
Bishop of Constantinople."
A. D. 341. S. Athanasius being restored by Con
stantine the son,' a fresh persecution was commenced
by the Eusebians ; whereupon nearly '^ " one hundred
Bishops," the whole body of Bishops, " assembled at
Alexandria, out of Egypt, the Thebais, Libya, and
Pentapolis," Avrote a circular letter in his defence to
"the Bishops ofthe CathoUc Church every where." In
the first persecution, they say, " circumstances did not
permit it, as you also know." S. Athanasius heads
the letter; " The '^ foUowing are the letters, written
in my favour by the Bishops in the several Councils,
and first, the letter of the Egyptian Bishops."
A. D. 341. "Eusebius'' contrives that a Council
should be gathered at Antioch on pretence of the de
dication of a Church, but, in truth, to overthrow the
' Soz, ii. 33. = Socr.ii. 7.
' Ep. in S. Ath. Apol. ag. Ar. §. 87. p. 121. O. T.
» Ib. init. p. 14. ''Ib. §. 2. fin. p. 17.
" Socr. ii. 8. Eusebius of Csesarea was now dead.
K

130 " Greedofthe Dedication" at Antioch.
faith ofthe Homoousion. In this Synod ninety '^ [or
ninety seven y] Bishops met from different Cities." In
this Synod the twenty five Canons were framed, re
jected by Innocent 1 as "composed'' by heretics, but re
ceived by the Council of Chalcedon * as "the righteous
rules ofthe Fathers," and placed in the Codex ofthe Ca
nons ofthe Universal Church''. But the Council had an
Arian side also. "When° all the Bishops had raet, and
the Emperor Constantius was also present, the more
part [of the Bishops] were indignant, and vehemently
accused Athanasius of breaking a sacerdotal [i. e.
Episcopal] law which themselves had framed, and re
suming his see, before he was permitted by the Synod."
They set Gregory the Arian in his place. "They pub
lished also two Creeds,* which they set over against
the Nicene ; the first very negative, the second fuller,
avoiding* the use ofthe word "Consubstantial" ofthe
Son, and containing the Arian statement that the
Holy Trinity are " three in subsistence, and in agree
ment one ; " yet using other expressions whose obvious
sense is orthodox. This is the Creed known, as "the
Creed of the Dedication." The Synodical letter ^ is di
rected to their like-minded and holy fellow-Bishops ^ in

" so also S. Athanas. Counc. Sel. et Arim. §. 25. p. 109.
y Soz. hi. 5. and S. Hil. de Synod. §. 28.
^ Ep. 7. ad Constantinop. A. D. 405.
' Act. 4. '' Zachary [Ep. 7. ad Pepin] calls them " sanctions of the blessed
Fathers." Nicholas [i. Ep, 9. ad Michael. Imp.] "the Venerable and Sacred
Antiochene Canons." Harduin.
« Soz. iii, 5. ^ Socr. ii. 18. S. Ath. Cone. Arun. §. 22. 23. p. 105-7. O. T.
• Soz. 1. c. ' Cone. T. ii. p. 583, 6. ed. Col. s avWuTovfiyots

Fourth Eusebian Creed. 131
the Provinces, and says, " What was decided, amid
much consideration, by the united judgment of aU of
us the Bishops, coUected together out of different pro-
Adnces at Antioch, we have brought to your knowledge,
trusting to the grace of Christ and the Holy Spfrit of
peace that ye also wUl conspire vdth us, as virtually
present and helping with prayers, or rather united
Adth us, and Adth us present in the Holy Spirit, con
sulting and defining the same as we, and seaUng what
has been decided aright." The subscriptions extant pre
serve the names of twenty-nine Bishops, subjoining
" and the rest out of the ProAdnces of Palestine,
Phoenicia, C cele- Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia, CiUcia,
Isauria ; and they enacted as foUows " &c. [the twen
ty-five Canons.]
The CouncU presup'poses that the consent of Bi
shops alone fully establishes its decrees. The Bishops
usher in their first Creed Adth the disclaimer, " We ^
have not been followers of Arius. How could we,
being Bishops, follow a Presbyter ? " The Bishops
'' subscribed," at the same CouncU, a more negative
Creed by Theophronius, Bishop of Tyana, " accept
ing the faith ofthis man'."
A few months afterwards, the ^ Eusebian Bishops
composed a fourth Creed ; and sent four Bishops from
" the CouncU " to the Emperor Constans in Gaul.
This Creed also was negative, omitting much of the
doctrine of the Creed of Dedication.
" S.Ath.l. c. §.21. p. 103. ' S. Ath. l.c. §.24.
>' S. Ath. 1. 1. §. 25. Socr. ii. 18.
k2

132 The Macrostich Creed.
" After ' three years [ A. D. 345."'] the Eastem
Bishops again form a CouncU, and having framed
another faith, sent it to them in Italy." This which,
from its length, was called the Macrostich, contained
higher teaching than any before it, yet stUl embodies
distinctly Arian heresy, affirming the inferiority of
the Son to the Father, and asserting that the Son
was made, although not like other creatures which
Avere created by Him.
" The Eusebians also Avrote to Julius, and think
ing to frighten me," says S. Athanasius," " requested
him to call a Council, and to be himseff the judge,
if he so pleased." Julius caUed the CouncU, as he
was asked ; but S. Athanasius appearing, the Euse
bian legates disappeared ; the Eusebians decUned to
be present, and S. Athanasius was acquitted, on ex
amination ofthe case, by a Roman Synod of more
than fifty Bishops". JuUus wrote to the East, in the
name and wdth the concurrence of the Sjmod.
Three or four of the Eusebian Bishops were sent
with the Macrostich, or Creed of A. D. 345. to Milan,
-where Constans was. " The p Bishops of the West
would not receive it, not understanding the language,
and content with the faith of Nice." The Eusebians
" refusing i to condemn the heretical doctrine of
Arius, departed in anger from the CouncU."

1 Socr. ii. 19. Soz. iii. U.S. Ath. \. u. §. 26. " Pagi A. D. 344.
" Apoh ag. Ar. §. 20. p. 39.
o Ib. init. p. 14. §. 20. p. 39. Arian Hist. §. 15. p. 230.
pSoz. iii. 11. Socr. ii. 20. 5 Liberius Ep. 2. ad Constant. Cone. T.ii. p. 801.

Council of Sardica summoned by Emperors. 133
About the same time fourteen Bishops in a Coun
cU at Cologne ', Adth the concurrence of ten more,
deposed one Euphrates, a Bishop who denied our
Lord to be God.
"The Eusebians" proceeded without shame, dis
turbing the Churches, and plotting the ruin of many.
The most reUgious Emperors Constantine and Con
stans being informed of this, commanded the Bishops
from both the West and East to meet together in
the City of Sardica."
" Paulus ' [ the expelled Patriarch of Constantino
ple J and Athanasius exhort that there should be
another Council, so that what concerned themselves
and the faith should be ended in a General Council,
shewing that the object of their deposition had been
to destroy the faith. A General Council is then
again summoned to Sardica, by the will of the two
Emperors ; the one [Constans] asking this by letter ;
the Emperor of the East [Constantius] readily con
senting. From the West, there assembled about three
hundred Bishops, as Athanasius says. From the
East, Sabinus says that there were only ninety-six
Bishops, among whom was reckoned Ischyras, the
Bishop of the Mareotis, whom they who deposed
Athanasius, appointed to the Episcopate of that
country. Some pleaded bodily weakness ; others cen
sured the shortness of notice, casting the blame
on Julius, the Bishop of the Romans, although 18
" Cone. T. ii. p. 643. ^ S. Ath. Arian Hist. §. 36. p. 59.
' Socr. ii. 20. Soz. iii. 11.

134 Eusebian Bishops withdraw, cited, some condemned.
months had intervened, since the Synod had been
called, and Athanasius had stayed at Rome, await
ing the Synod. When then they were met at Sar
dica, the Easterns would not come into the pre
sence of the Westerns, saying that they would not
come to conference, unless these expelled Athana
sius and Paul from the assembly. When Protogenes
Bishop of Sardica, and Hosius of Corduba, would
not aUow this, the Orientals forthwith departed."
S. Athanasius mentions another reason for the de
parture of the Eusebians. They had hoped, as
was thefr wont, to overawe the Couneii by the
presence of mUitary. "But" when they saw that
the cause was to be conducted as simply an eccle
siastical one, without the presence of the Count
or of soldiers ; when they saw the accusers who
came from every church and city, and the evi
dence brought against them," and " the venerable
[Arabian] Bishops Arius and Asterius, who came
up in thefr company, withdraAdng from them and
siding with us, and giving an account of their profli
gate conduct, they feared the consequences of a trial,
lest they should be convicted by us as false accusers,
and it should be discovered by those whom they
produced in the character of accusers, that they had
themselves suggested all they were to say and were
the contrivers of the plot."
"The'' Council of Bishops called upon the Eusebians
=> Arian Hist. §. 15. p. 230, 1. O. T. « Apol. ag. Ar. §. 36. p. 59, 60.

Letters of Council of Sardica. 135
to come forward, sa3dng. You have come for the pur
pose of undergoing a trial. Athanasius and his friends
are here, whom you accused while absent. Ifyou pre
tend to be unAvilling, being unable, the Council will
give sentence against you, as calumniators." The Eu
sebians, knoAdng that they could neither maintain
their oavu charges, nor disprove those aUeged against
them, feU under the sentence of calumniators and
contumacious. S. Athanasius sums up ; " They re
ceived us, as injured ; they deposed Eusebius' asso
ciates in wickedness ; they Avrote to the Bishops in aU
parts of the world, and to the diocese of each of the
injured persons."
To the Presbyters of Alexandria,™ and to the
Bishops of Egypt and Lybia ^ the Council sent a
separate letter, in answer to letters which it had
received from them. To them the Council set forth
the grounds of its acquittal of S. Athanasius ; to
the Alexandrian Presbyters it mentions, at the
desfre of S. Athanasius, its acquittal of four Alex
andrian Presbyters ; to the Bishops it refers more ex
pressly to its condemnation of eight Bishops, "leaders
of Arian heresy." To both it says of the Eusebians,
"They were unwilling to meet the Council of all
the holy Bishops." Of S. Athanasius, "all the
Bishops from all parts determined upon holding
communion with Athanasius." Of Gregory, illegally
thrust into his place, " Gregory, iUegally ordained by
w 1. 0. " ib. §. 40. p. 65.

136 Summary of Encyclical letter of
heretics, has been degraded by the judgement of the
whole sacred Council." It mentions to both, an
application to the Emperors, in consequence of the op
pression exercised by the Arians, by aid of the
civil power. "We have written to beseech our most
religious and Godly Emperors, that their Graces —
would command that none of the magistrates,
whose duty it is to attend only to civil causes,
give judgement upon Clergy, nor henceforward in
any way, on pretence of providing for the Churches,
attempt any thing against the brethren."
The Encyclical letter is addressed to their " most
^beloved brethren, the Bishops and fellow ministers
of the CathoUc and ApostoUc Church every where."
They say, " Our most religious Emperors have them
selves assembled us together out of different Provinces
and Cities, and have permitted this holy Council to
be held in the City of Sardica ; to the end that aU
dissension may be done away, and all false doctrine
being driven from us. Christian GodUness may alone
be maintained by aU men. The Bishops of the East
also attended, being exhorted to do so by the most
religious Emperors."
"^^ Although all we Bishops were met together,
and above all, he of most happy old age, Hosius,
waiting and exhorting them to come to the trial,
that what they had circulated and written in the ab
sence of our fellow-ministers, they might estabUsh in
their presence, they would not come."
y lb. §. 43. p. 69. Theod. ii. 6. S. Hil. Fragm. ii.

Council of Sardica. 137
They then declare why they acquitted S. Atha
nasius, and MarceUus. In regard to Asclepas, a
Nicene father,'' whom the Eusebians had deposed,
they mention a CouncU of Eusebian Bishops, who
had been constrained to acquit him. " Our brother
Asclepas produced Reports which had been drawn
up at Antioch in the presence of his accusers and Eu
sebius of Csesarea, and proved that he was innocent
by the sentence of the Bishops who judged his
cause." " We pronounced Athanasius, MarceUus, As
clepas, and those who minister to the Lord Adth them,
to be clear of offence, and have written to the Diocese
of each, that the people of each Church may know
the innocence oftheir own Bishop, and may esteem
him as thefr Bishop, and expect his coming. As for
those who like wolves have invaded their Churches, —
let them neither give them the title of Bishop, nor
hold any communion at all with them, nor receive let
ters from them, nor write to them. And for Theo
dorus &c. [Arians] — the holy Council has unanimous
ly deposed them from the Episcopate, and we have
decided that they not only are not Bishops, but that
they are unworthy of holding communion with the
faithful. — Charge your people that no one hold com-
mumon with them ; for there is 'no communion of light
Adth darkness ;'put away from you all these ; for there
is no * concord of Christ with Belial.' And take heed,
dearly beloved, that ye neither write to them nor
^ See S. Ath. Hist. Tracts, p. 69. n. e. 0. T.

138 Other Bishops informed through Julius.
receive letters from them ; but desire rather, bre
thren and feUow ministers, as being present in spirit
vdth our CouncU, to assent to our judgements by
your subscriptions, to the end that concord may
be preserved by aU our feUow-ministers every
where." The Council sent also a letter to S. JuUus
of Rome, at the close of which it requests him to
inform the Bishops in Sicily, Sardinia, and Italy of
their judgments. " Your ^ excellent wisdom should
arrange that through your letters our brethren ''who
are in Sicily, in Sardinia, in Italy, should know what
has been done and defined, lest in ignorance they
should accept the literae communicatoriae, i. e. the
Episcopal letters, of those whom a just sentence has
degraded. But let Marcellus and Athanasius and
Asclepas persevere in our communion, because an
unjust judgment must not injure them, through the
flight and tergiversation of those, who would not
meet the judgment of all of us, the Bishops as
sembled." The Council of Sardica was coUected out
of forty-eight " ProAdnces.
The aged Hosius was again President ^ of the
" Ep. ad Jul. a Synod, fin. in S. Hil. Fragm. ii. §. 13. p. 1292.
•> The Council repeats this at the end, "our brethren and fellow-Bishops." Ib.
"= The Encyclical letter in Theodoret ii. 6. enumerated 38 ; S. Athanasius
( Apol. ag. Ar. init. p. 14. ) 36 ; but of these, Isauria, Cyprus, Pamphylia,
Dalmatia, Siscia, Picenum, Tuscany, Bruttia, Sicily, Britain, are not men
tioned in the Encyclical letter in Theodoret.
^ "Bishops, having Hosius for their Father," S. Ath. Arian Hist. §. IS.
p. 230. "Hosius and aU the other Bishops." Ib. p. 232. "the holy Council,
of which the great Hosius was the president." Ib. "the president of Coun
cils " §. 42. p. 255. "who had the first place in the Council of Sardica."
Theod. ii. 15. fin. " Hosius and those with him." Soz. ii. 12. init. "Hosius

Number of Provinces represented, of Bishops present. 139
Council; the Bishop of Rome pleading "a^ good and
necessary excuse for his absence," the risk lest his
flock should suffer from heresy or schism. Hosius
signs the first ; S. Athanasius and Paulus did not sign
the Encyclical letter, probably as relating to them
selves. Julius was the only other Patriarch represent
ed in the Council, and signed by his Presbyters, next
to Hosius ; then the Bishop of Sardica itself, the vene
rable Protogenes, a Nicene Father, to whom, thirty
one years before, A. D. 316, Constantius had sent a
rescript about enfranchising slaves in presence of
Bishops^. The number of Bishops actually present at Sardica
was smaU^. S. Athanasius, an eyewitness, states the
whole number, before the departure of the seventy-
six Eusebian Bishops, to have been " one hundred
and seventy '' Bishops, more or less." The Orthodox
Bishops then present were only ninety-four ; or,
perhaps, ( since S. Athanasius' " more or less " would
leave that latitude ), the Orthodox Bishops were
those eighty-six ' only, who subscribed, mostly vdth

wasthe first in the judgment at Sardica." AUocut. Cone. Chalc. ad Marcian.
P. iii. c. 1. iv. p. 1765. ed. Col.
* Ep. Synod, ad Jul. in S. Hil. Fragm. ii. §. 9. p. 1290.
' L. 1. C. de his qui in Eccl. manum. « Arian Hist. §. 15. p. 230. O. T.
¦¦ S. Ath. says " the sentence that was passed in my favor received the suffra
ges of more than 300 Bishops," ( Apol. ag. Ar. init. p. 14. O. T. ) It was sub
scribed by 344 Bishops (Ib. p. 78. ) 284 names only are preserved. ( Ib. and
Cone. ii. 707. sq. ) But S. Athanasius says that the "names of nearly 63 others,
ont of Asia, Phrygia, Isauria, who wrote in his behalf, might be found in their
own letters." ( 1. c. )
' S. Athanasius sets down the names of seventy-eight Bishops promiscuously
before he names those who subscribed from different provinces (Apol, ag, Ar. §.50.

140 Judgements of Council of Sardica (Ecumenical;
the names of their sees. But, although the Bishops
present were so nearly balanced, the Eusebian Bi
shops " went ^ out, being convicted by their oAvn
conscience," fearing to be condemned, at once for their
false witness against S. Athanasius, and for their
own true guilt. The Orthodox, on the contrary,
were strong in their faith and conscience, in the
presence of the Holy Ghost, and in thefr know
ledge of the concurrence of the Church every where.
The number of those who, at the Council's request,
" assented to its judgements by their subscriptions,"
were two hundred and eighty four, besides sixty three
who "wrote in S. Athanasius' behalf;" in all three
hundred and forty seven.'
These subscriptions however, were appended to the
letter of the CouncU, and guaranteed the decisions
contained therein, as to the innocence of S. Atha
nasius, and the other accused, and the guilt of their
Eusebian enemies. The Bishops present did not
circulate the Canons which they framed. Their
Synodical letter entered at fuU length"^ into two
of the subjects for which the Emperors had con
vened them. Into the matter of faith they declined
p. 76, 7. 0. T. ) S. Hilary puts down the names of nearly the same Bishops with
their sees, omitting several, but adding six omitted by S. Ath. Two, Euphrates
and Olympius, are omitted by both. In all, they are eighty-six. Montf. Praef. ad.
S. Ath. p. xxxiv.
" S. John viii. 9. 'Apoh ag. Ar.§. 50. p. 75. and n. o. O. T.
" The Council of Sardica itself says, " The Emperors permitted that all
things should be discussed anew, and, before all, the Holy Faith and integrity
of truth, which these had violated." The second related to those whom the
Eusebians had deposed ; the third, to the injm-ies which they had inflicted. Ep.
ad Jul. in S. Hih Fragm. ii. 11. p. 1291.

noi its Canons ; subjects of these. 141
to enter, (though some of their body " desired and
attempted it, ") on the ground, that " a " second
faith ought not to be set forth, lest the first, Avritten
at Nice, should be thought imperfect ; and a plea
be given to those who desired often to write and
define about the faith."
The Canons were signed only by the Bishops
present. The CouncU of Sardica then became CEcu
menical as to its judgements, being received by the
Church. The Canons remained as the act of the
Bishops who had framed them. These twenty or
twenty-one Canons related chiefly to Bishops, being
occasioned mostly by the misconduct of the Arian
Bishops. They checked translations", and the con
secration of Bishops for smaU places?, (both of
which the Eusebians had recently practised ) as also
their going to Court '', (which the Arian Bishops
had poisoned, but in going to which the African
Bishops had persisted against the judgment of Gra
tus, Bishop of Carthage ), ordinations of Bishops
per saltum ^ ( which the Arians had frequently
done and in the case of very worthless persons,)
and the interference with the Dioceses and' Clerks
of other Bishops; but this vdth. necessary restrictions'.
As being framed for a pecuUar time, these Canons
may not have been intended for general reception,
and on this ground may not have been circulated.
¦> S. Ath. Tom. ad Antioch. §. 5. p. 772, 3. ed. Ben.
"Can. 1.2. PCan. 6. i Can. 8-12.
'Can. 13. » Can. 14. 16. 18. 19. « Can. 5. 1.5. 17.

142 Canons allowing to Bishops limited reference to Rome,
Other Canons "secured to Bishops, deposed by
the neighbouring Bishops, the power of having their
sentence revised. These Canons also seem to have
been occasioned by the tyranny of the Eusebians.
The right given was to have the sentence revised
ff " JuUus "" Bishop of Rome should see good. " Yet
it was not by way of appeal, but of revision; not
at Rome, but by the Bishops of the neighbouring
province, Avith or without the legates of the Ro
man Bishop." The specific mention of Julius in the
first instance, seems again to imply a temporary
object, such as was protection against the Eusebians.
In any case, this limited reference to the Bishop
of Rome is made in a form which shews that it
was something new. " If any of the Bishops have
been judged in any cause, and think that his cause
is good, so that the judgement should be renewed,
if you think good, let us honour the memory of
the Apostle Peter, so that they who examined the
cause should write to Julius, the Roman Bishop
&c. "This form is very strong to shew," says
Tillemont'', " that it was a right which the Pope
had not had hitherto." " The words of the Canon "
says de Marca ^," prove that the institution of this
law is new. " If it seem good to you,' says Hosius
&c. He does not say that the ancient tradition is
to be confirmed, as was wont to be done in matters
" Can. 3. 4. 7. ^ Can. 3. He is not mentioned by name in
can. 4. and 7. having been already spoken of in the third, upon which they bear.
" S. Athanas. Art. 51. T. 8. p. 221. " Cone. Sac. vii. 3. 8.

new from their form; allow re-hearing by other Bps. 143
which required only the renewal or explanation of
the ancient law." S. Athanasius himself insists strong
ly on the difference of the two forms of speech, the
one declaring what is old, the other enacting what
is new. " They '' [ the Council of Nice J wrote con
cerning the Easter, ' It seemed good ' as follows ;
for it did then seem good, that there should be a
general compliance ; but about the faith they wrote
not, 'It seemed good,' but 'Thus believes the Catholic
Church ; ' and thereupon they coiffessed how the faith
lay, in order to shew that their sentiments were not
novel, but ApostoUc."
These three Canons form one whole ". Can. 3. re
qufred the Bishops who held the trial, to write to
JuUus Bishop of Rome, if the deposed Bishop should
think his cause good. Can. 4. That in such cases a
successor be not appointed to a Bishop deposed
by the judgment of the neighbouring Bishops,
untU the cause be determined. Can. 7. appoints the
mode in which the cause should be reheard, if reheard
at all, viz. that the Bishop of Rome should write
to the Bishops in the neighbouring Province, that
they should diligently inquire and define. Power
was also given to the Bishop of Rome, to send a
Presbyter, " to judge with the Bishops, with the au
thority of him, by whom he was sent."
This was the first impulse to appeals to Rome.
But it differed very much from the system engrafted
y Counc. Arim. and Sel. §. 5. p. 80. ^ De Marca. 1. c. §. 10.

144 Revision ^ appeal different; Canons of Sardica slowly
upon it. 1. What it granted was a revision of a cause,
not strictly an appeaP. The deposed party, in this
case, remained deposed, though no successor was ap
pointed to him. 2. The cause was heard where it
happened, not drawn to Rome. 3. It was mainly
decided by the Bishops of the neighbouring ProAdnce ;
the legate of the Bishop of Rome, if sent, only
judged with them. 4. Presbyters were allowed an
appeal to the neighbouring Bishops, not to Rome.
Greater powers were conferred on the see of Con
stantinople, by the ninth Canon of the Council of
Chalcedon. The Canons of Sardica were not received even in
the West until the sixth century, when Dionysius
Exiguus inserted them, as also some African Canons,
in his Codex Canonum. The Bishops of Rome did
not know to what CouncU they belonged, since they
quoted them continually as Canons of Nice. S. Epi
phanius '' calls the Council of Sardica "a Western
Synod." The African Bishops could not but have
known the Sardican Canons, since Gratus Bishop of
Carthage who was present at the Council, says in
the first Council of Carthage, " I remember that it
was enacted in the most holy Council of Sardica,
that none should usurp "^ [ in or for Holy Orders ] a
man belonging to another people." Yet when in
the case of the wretched priest Apiarius, who ( con
trary to the Canons of "^Africa and of Nice) appealed
" see De Marca h c. 6. and 7. ^ Hser. 71.init
' Can. 5. Cone. ii. 749. ^ Can. 13. 1 5. ii. 667. 670.

received in West; in East, in a measure at Trulh. 145
to the Bishop of Rome. Zosimus and Boniface
claimed the right of hearing the appeal on the al
leged authority of the Council of Nice ; the African
Bishops, and among them S. Augustine distinctly,
acknowledged the authority ofthe Canon, if it should
be a Canon of Nice, but peremptorily set aside the
clajm, when it appeared from the collation of the ori
ginals at Alexandria and Constantinople, that it was
not a Canon of that Council.^ They acknowledged in
principle the authority of a General Council, but did
not recognize that of a Canon of Sardica.
In the case of translation of Bishops, the African
Church observed the Nicene, not the Sardican Ca-
nons*^. Nor is there any trace of the reception of the
Sardican Canons in the period before Leo I. The
Bishops of France deposed such Bishops as merited
it, mostly without interference ; and when Zosimus,
at the instance of Patroclus of Aries, would depose
Proculus of Marseilles, the attempt had no effects.
Nor did S. Hilary of Aries know of any Canon, which
justified S. Leo in interfering in behalf of Celidonius
whom he himself, with a Galilean Synod, had deposed ''.
The Canons of Sardica were received in a degree
in the Greek Church in the Council of Trullo',
but not as those of an CEcumenical Council. The

" Cod. Eccl. Afr. c. 134. ' See Tillemont Notes sur S. Athanase.
Note 61. T. 8. p. 690. ^ See Quesnel Diss. v. Apol. pro S. Hilario
Arelat. c. 16. in S. Leo Opp. T. 2. p. 835. sqq.
" See S. Hilarii Vit. c. 17 . Ib. p. 333. Quesnel Ib. o. 14. sqq. S. Leo Ep. 10. ad.
Episc. Vienn. c. 2, 3. p. 634, 5. ' Cone. Ouini-Sext. can. 2. Cone. vii. p. 1346
L

146 Sardican Canons not received as ofa General Coundl.
four General Councils, that of TruUo designates
by the well-known famiUar titles, the three hundred
and eighteen at Nice, the one hundred and fifty at
Constantinople, the two hundred at Ephesus, the six
hundred and thirty holy and blessed fathers at Chalce
don. The Canons of Sardica are no otherwise men
tioned than those of Ancyra, Neo-Csesarea, Gangra,
Antioch, Laodicea, Carthage, or the Canons under
Nectarius and Theophilus, or even the Canons of
single Patriarchs or Bishops, as S. Dionysius, S.
Peter, S. Athanasius, S. Timothy and S. Cyril of
Alexandria, the S. Gregories of Neo-Caesarea, Nyssa,
Nazianzum, S. Basil and S. Amphilochius, to which
the " Council subjoins the Canon, set forth by Cy
prian, formerly Arch-Bishop of Africa and Martyr,
and the Synod in his time [on heretical Baptism,]
which according to transmitted custom, prevailed in
the place of the aforesaid Bishops [of Africa] and
there only."
The immediate result of the Council was the
short-lived restoration of S. Athanasius to his see,
extorted by the Emperor Constans from his brother
Constantius''. The Council itself had addressed both
Emperors'. Constantius himself said to S. Athana
sius, " Thou '" hast recovered thy see by the vote of
the Council, and by our consent"; and restored to
their sees all whom he had banished and the Council
had restored.
" Theod. ii. 8. fin.
¦ inS. Hil. l.c. §. 12. fin. p. 1291, and S. Hih himself Fragm. ii. fin. p. 1306.
°> Socr. ii. 23.

Arian Council of Philippopolis. 147
"Meantime the "Eusebians, departing from Sardica,
made a Council for themselves at Philippopolis."
Philippopolis and Sardica lay on the opposite sides
of the mountains which separated Thrace and Illyri
cum, the boundary Provinces of the Empires of Con
stantius and Constans. The pass of Succi" furnished
an easy communication between the two Capitals.
The Eusebians then retired into the Empire of their
patron Constantius, where the neighbourhood of
Sardica countenanced their fraud in giving out that
they were '' the Catholic Council of Sardica. They
dated their Synodical letter from Sardica, and put
out their faith as the faith of Sardica. They call
themselves " Bishops *from the different Provinces
of the Eastern parts," (of which they enumerate
twenty-four,) "gathered at the City of Sardica." They
address their letter to the Arian Bishops of Alexan
dria and Nicomedia with the Donatist Bishop of
Carthage and eleven others, " and all our fellow-
Bishops, Presbyters, and deacons, and all under hea
ven in the holy Catholic Church." They say, " To
maintain a blameless life &c. is the duty of all, — es
pecially of us Bishops, who preside over the most
holy Churches; secondly, that the rules ofthe Church
and the holy traditions and judgments of the Fathers
should remain firm and steadfast for ever, and should

" Socr. ii. 10. who states wrongly that they " anathematized the Homoousion
and spread abroad by their letters the Anomoion."
° Amm. Marc. xxi. 10. p S. Aug. Ep. 44. ad Glor. &c. §. 6. c. Cresc. iii. 34.
1 inS. Hih Fragm. iii. p. 1307. l2

148 Bishops in E. 8f W. received each other's decrees.
not be disturbed, especially in making or rejectmg
Bishops." Their special plea against the Council of Sardica
was, that S. Athanasius had been condemned by
Bishops in the East, and so that his cause ought
not to be reheard in the West. True, if their own
judgment had not been corrupt. They say, " They
[the Council of Sardica] ' thought to introduce a
new law, that Eastern Bishops should be judged by
Westerns." "They ^ essayed to introduce this novelty,
abhorrent from the ancient custom of the Church,
that any thing which Eastern Bishops had settled in
Council, might be ripped up by Western Bishops ;
in like way, whatever Bishops in the Western part
[should settle] might be undone by Easterns. But
this they did out of their own most perverse mind.
Whereas the Acts of our forefathers establish, that
the decrees of all Councils duly and lawfully held,
are to be confirmed. For a Council held in the City
of Rome, in the time of Novatus and SabeUius and
Valentinus heretics, was confirmed by the Easterns ;
and again what was enacted in the East, at the time
of Paul at Samosata, was sealed by all." For the
rest, they repeat their wonted calumnies ; condemn
Julius, Hosius, and three other Bishops, " according
to a most ancient law," for * communicating with

' lb. §. 12. p, 1314. ' Ib. §. 26. p. 1320.
* Ib. §. 29. p. 1322, 3. comp. S. Ath, Counc. Arim. and Seleuc. §. 25. p.
110, 1. and§.26.p.lll. 0. T,

Character of these Arian Bps. ; Councilof Jerusalem. 149
Marcellus, Athanasius, and Paul ; and subjoin, as
their confession of faith, the fourth of their Creeds,
which they had already sent into Gaul, adding only
the anathemas of the Macrostich, without their ex
planation or the remarkable addition, then made,
which comes so near to the CathoUc faith.
The letter is signed by seventy-three Bishops.'^
They call themselves eighty '^ Bishops, perhaps exag
gerating themselves into a round number. The
existing letter is a copy of that sent into Afi-ica."'
The chief Bishops of those who sign the letter are
the too well known leaders of the extreme Arian
party, with some few of the Semi-Arians, as Basil of
Ancyra. The Meletian Bishops, Callinicus of Pelu-
sium, Eudaemon of Tanis, Ision of Athrib, the false
accusers of S. Athanasius at the Council of Tyre,^
also subscribed, together with the infamous and con
victed Ischyras,'' whose perjuries against S. Athana
sius the Eusebians had paid with a Bishopric in
Mareotis,^ the scene of his plot.
The Council of Jerusalem was held to receive S.
Athanasius on his return towards his see. "Being
then set forward on my journey," he writes,^ " as I
passed through Syria, I met with the Bishops of
Palestine, who, when they had called a Council at
Jerusalem, received me courteously, and themselves
" lb. p. 1323-6.
^ Ib. §. 16. p. 1315. Socrates (ii. 20. ) from Sabinns, calls them 76. Two, we
have seen, left them and joined the Catholics.
" S. HU. Ib. fin. ^ Socr. i. 27.
y The four names are amongst the subscriptions in S. Hil. Fragm. iii. p. 1334, 5.
" Soz. iii. 12. " Apol. ag. Ar. §. 57. p. 85.

152 Synods receive C. of Sardica; Liberius' early conduct
Bishops owned " all which they had said against S.
Athanasius to be false, and anathematized the Arian
heresy, although insincerely."
The judgments of the Council of Sardica were
formally received at Councils of Cordova and Je
rusalem. " Hosius " the very holy Bishop of Cordova,
having called a Divine and holy Council of Bishops
in his own City, uttered clearly the Divine in
struction, condemning whom the Sardican Council
deposed, and again, receiving whom it acquitted."
Soon after the accession of Liberius to the Roman
see, the Arians circulated fresh calumnies against
S. Athanasius ; and endeavoured to gain Liberius.
It seems probable that Liberius was even then so far
misled, as to send to S. Athanasius, "to come to
Rome, that whatever was the discipline ofthe Church
might be enacted towards him." An Epistle," stated
in S. Hilary's historical work to be from " Liberius p
Bishop of Rome to aU his most beloved brethren and
feUow-Bishops throughout the East," states that he
had received letters from them written to JuUus ;
that he had sent to S. Athanasius, " that if he should
not come, he Avas aUen from the Communion of the
Roman Church," that Liberius' " Presbyters reported

" Synodic, in Cone. ii. 778.
"> Baronius (ad A. D. 352.) and the Benedictine Editors of S. Hilary regard
this letter as an Arian forgery. TiUemont regards it as genuine. (Les Ariens
art. 48. vi. 350-7. S. Athanase art. 64. viii. 138-40 and Note 68). The letter
does not bear the character of a forgery. There is dislocation in these frag
ments, here as elsewhere. What follows in S. Hilary relates doubtless to a
letter ofthe Council of Sardica. p Fragm. iv. p. 1327.

as to S. Ath. ; asks Emperor to convene a Council. 153
on their return that he would not come. Following
then your letters, dearly beloved, which you sent us
as to Athanasius, know ye by these letters, which I
have addressed to your Unanimity, that I am in
Communion with you aU, and Adth aU the Bishops of
the CathoUc Church, and that the aforesaid Athana
sius is aUen from my Communion i. e. of the Roman
Church, and from the feUowship of Ecclesiastical
Epistles." Liberius, however, probably repented on receiAdng
the letter of the Egyptian Bishops concerning him,
and, for the time at least, suppressed his letter. For
it is clear that he did not then renounce the com
munion of S. Athanasius. He pleads, however, rather
timidly to Constantius, that he had read to a Council
of ItaUan Bishops letters in his'' defence both from the
Oriental Bishops ( probably a Council ) aU of which
contained the same criminal charges against S. Atha
nasius, and from a large body, of eighty Egyptian
Bishops. Liberius however even wished in the emer
gency to have the cause of S. Athanasius re-opened,
if on the same occasion the faith could be settled once
for aU.
He writes to Hosius,'^ " many Bishops of Italy met
together, who, with me, entreated the most reUgious
Emperor Constantius that he would command, as he
had once settled, that a CouncU should be held at
Aquileia." On the failure of this, Liberius adjures
" Ep. 2. ad Const. Cone. ii. 801. S. Hil. Fragm. v. §. 2. p. 1330.
"Ep. 1. Ib. p. 799. S. Hil. Fragm. vi. §. 3. p. 1334.

154 Change in Constantius after death of Magnentius,
the Emperor that " he " would cause the matter of
faith and of S. Athanasius to be diligently considered
with aU care in an assembly of Bishops — so that
what should be confirmed by the judgment of the
Bishops of God, should be kept for the time to come,
when it should be ascertained that aU agreed in the
exposition of faith, which was confirmed at Nice
among so many Bishops."
The death of the Usurper Magnentius, the mur
derer of Constans, A. D. 353. put Constantius in
possession of the whole West, and in a position to
persecute the Catholics there. Even Heathen his
torians ' notice a change in him at this time, as lifted
up by prosperity and arrogant, so that he spoke of
"my eternity," called himseff "Lord of the whole
world," " the Eternal." In this, which the Heathen
thought "a declension from justice," the Arian Bi
shops flattered him. " Pretending " to Avrite about the
Lord, they name for themselves another Sovereign,
Constantius. For he it was, who bestowed on them
this reign of irreligion, and they who deny that the
Son is everlasting, have called him Eternal Em
peror." " They " deceived the ignorant King, that
occupied vdth wars, he should expose the faith to
faithlessness, and, himseff not yet regenerate, should
impose on the Church the law of beUef" Thus
flattered and arbitrary, and readily Ustening to ac-
¦' Ep. ad Const, p. 802. S. Hil. Fragm. v. §. 6. p. 1332.
' Zosim. L. i. fin. Amm. Marc. L. 15. init,
" S. Ath. Cone. Arim. §. 4. p. 76, 7, ^ S, Hih de Syn, §. 78. p. 1194.

uses art ^ force to induce Bps. to condemn S. Ath. 155
cusers, Constantius had a special disUke to S. Atha
nasius as one opposed to his AdU. The Arians in
flamed him against S. Athanasius, and he himself du
ring his expedition against Magnentius, was irritated
by seeing how the Bishops were in communion Adth
him.^ The unbaptised Emperor vdshed to impose
his own beUef on the Church, requiring more open
heretics to conform to it, yet chiefly persecuting
the CathoUcs. Yet the persecution fell on those
mostly, who had the power of deciding matters of
faith, the Bishops. Constantius bent his force against
them, knoAdng that if they could be corrupted, or
subdued, his end was accompUshed, and not knowing
that the Rock of Faith wais immovable.
" When ^ Magnentius had perished, and Constan
tius alone held the Roman Empire, he used aU dili
gence, that the Bishops in the West should agree
with those who thought the Son ' of like substance'
Adth the Father. This he did, not at first with such
open force ; but persuading them to confirm what
had been adjudged by the Bishops of the East
against Athanasius. For he counted, ff that man
[S. Athanasius] were removed out of the way, he
could easUy succeed in matters of reUgion."
In a Synod of Bishops at Aries, ^ A. D. 353. Con
stantius, having threatened to banish the Bishops,
unless they would condemn S. Athanasius, aU gave
way, except PauUnus who was condemned by the
" S. Ath. Arian Hist. §. 30. p. 243. 0. T. " Soz. iv. 8.
y Svdp. ii. 55.

156 Arian Council of Aries, fall of Vincentius ;
Synod, when corrupted. " He was held," says S.
HUary, ^ "unworthy of the Church by Bishops, worthy
of exUe by the Emperor."
Vincentius, Bishop of Capua, formerly the repre
sentative of the Bishop of Rome at the Council of
Nice, was, with Marcellus a Bishop from Campania,
the representative of the Roman Council now." The
Westerns offered what seemed a strange compromise,
that they would condemn Athanasius, if the Arians
would condemn the heresy of Arius.'' It must have
been offered, in order to expose the heresy of their
opponents, in the conviction that these Avould not
accept the condition. "After deliberation, the Ari
ans answered, that they could not condemn the he
resy of Arius, but that Athanasius must be deprived
of communion, which alone they required." "Vin
centius ° too was carried away into that dissimulation."
In the East A. D. 354. " Narcissus "^ of CUicia,
Theodorus the Thracian, Eugenius of Nice, Patro-
phUus of Scythopolis, and Menophantus of Ephesus,
[ Arian Bishops ] ^ and others in aU about thirty,
meeting at Antioch, wrote to the Bishops every
where, that he [ S. Athanasius J returned to Alex
andria against the laws of the Church, not having
been first pronounced innocent in Synod, but through
contention of those like-minded; and they exhort
ed not to communicate with him, nor send letters
to him, but vdth and to [ George of Cappadocia ]
^ Fragm. i. 6. ^ Ib. Fragm. v. 2. i" Ib. i. 5.
' Ib. vi. 3. ^ Soz. iv. 8.

Councils of Antioch and Milan; violence at Milan. 157
whom they had consecrated. Constantius tried to
persuade the Westem Bishops to agree to what had
been judged, by the Eastern Bishops against Atha
nasius." This Avrongful decision the Arians proceed
ed to use against S. Athanasius in the West.
Liberius, even after " the faU of Vincentius his le
gate, renewed his petition to Constantius to caU a
CouncU. " Not the matter of Athanasius alone, but
many other things had occurred, for which I had
prayed your clemency that a CouncU should be held."
The CouncU was held A. D. 355. at MUan, because
the Emperor, on making peace with the Alemanni,
hadgone into winter quarters there.' " Very s few Bi
shops were present from the East, the rest excusing
their coming, for sickness or length of journey ; of
the Western Bishops more than three hundred.'^
When the Eastern Bishops urged the condemnation
of Athanasius, that so he might be wholly expeUed
from Alexandria, the rest, through fear or deceit,
or ignorance of the facts, agreed. Only Dionysius
Bishop of Alba [ rather Milan ] and Eusebius Bishop
of VerceUse, PauUnus of Treves, Rhodanus and Lu-
cffer resisted."
" The faith," says S. Hilary,' " was impugned by the
priests." AU was done by violence. When Lucifer
of Sardinia was "caUed upon to subscribe against
"Liberius in his Epistle to the Emperor speaks of Vincentius' mission to
Aries, as past. 'Amm. Marc. xiv. 10. B Soz. iv. 9.
'' Socr. ii. 16. gives the same number. Vales, conjectures that it is a mis
take for thirty. But the title of the Council is Universal, which would hardly
be given to one so small. Cone. ii. 877. ' ad Const, i. 9.

158 Constantius sets himself to wear out Orthodox Bps.
Athanasius, he said, ' Ave must first be certain of the
faith of the Bishops ; ' for he knew that some of those
present were defiled with heresy. He placed the Creed
of Nice in the midst, pledging himseff to do all they
required, ff they would subscribe the confession of
faith. Dionysius, Bishop of MUan, first took the
paper. When he began to profess the faith by sub
scribing, Valens [the Arian Bishop] violently wrested
pen and paper out of his hand."
Rufinus gives a summary of the policy of Con
stantius. "He'' set himseff to weary out the Wes
tern Bishops, and through deceit to compel them
to consent to the Arian heresy, premising the con
demnation of Athanasius, as the removal of a most
mighty obstacle. Wherefore a Council of Westerns
is caUed together at Milan. Many were deceived ;
but Dionysius, PauUnus, Rhodanius, and Lucifer,
proclaiming aloud that there was treachery in the
transaction, and asserting that the subscription a-
gainst Athanasius was contrived to no other end than
the destruction of the faith, were thrust out into
banishment. Hilary was joined to these, the rest
either not knovdng or not beUeving the fraud."
" I am a Bishop," S. HUary writes ' to the Emperor
Constantius, " in the Communion of aU the Churches
and Bishops of Gaul, although in exile, and stUl
distributing Communion to the Church through my
Presbyters. I am in exile, not through guilt, but
" H. E. i. 19, 20. I ad Const, ii. 2.

Arbitrariness and violence of Constantius. 159
through faction, and by false reports of the Synod
to thee."
Two characteristic traits of the arbitrariness of
Constantius in the CouncU are given by S. Athana
sius. "When'" he saw the boldness of the Bishops,
Paulinus, Lucffer, Eusebius, and Dionysius, and how
out of the recantation of Ursacius and Valens they
confuted those who spoke against the Bishop, and
advised that Valens and his associate should no longer
be beUeved, since they had already retracted what
they now asserted, he immediately stood up and
said, ' I am now the accuser of Athanasius, and on
my account you must believe what these assert.'"
"The'^ Emperor summoned [these same Bishops]
before him, and commanded them to subscribe against
Athanasius, and to hold communion vdth the here
tics; and when they were astonished at this novel
procedure, and said that there was no Ecclesiastical
Canon to this effect, he immediately said, ' whatever
I wUl, let that be esteemed a Canon ; the Bishops
of Syria let me thus speak. Either then obey or
go into banishment.' "
Yet this same Constantius, who knew of no law
except his OAvn AviU, and " drew" his sword against
Bishops," was obliged to respect the constitution of
the Church and act against her through Bishops.
Hence S. Athanasius says, " he'^ alleged a judge
ment of Bishops, whUe in truth he acted only to
please himseff."
^ Arian Hist. §. 76. p. 287, 8. 0. T. " Ib. §. 33. p. 246. " §. 34.
P Ib. §. 52. p. 265, 6.

160 Inherent independance of the Church.
" Nevertheless his craft has not escaped detection,
but we have the proof of it ready at hand. For if
a judgment had been passed by Bishops, what con
cern had the Emperor with it ? Or if it was only
a threat of the Emperor, what need in that case
was there of the so-named Bishops ? When was
such a thing heard of before from the beginning of
the world? When did a judgment of the Church
receive its vaUdity from the Emperor ? Or rather
when was his decree ever recognised by the Church ?
There have been many Councils held heretofore ;
and many judgments passed by the Church ; but
the Fathers never sought the consent of the Emperor
thereto, nor did the Emperor busy himseff Avith the
affairs of the Church. The Apostle Paul had friends
among them, of Csesar's household, and in his Epistle
to the PhiUppians he sent salutations from them ;
but he never took them as his associates in Eccle-_
siastical judgments. Now however we have vdt-
nessed a novel sight, which is a discovery of the
Arian heresy. Heretics have assembled together Adth
the Emperor Constantius, in order that he, aUeging
the authority of the Bishops, may exercise his power
against whomsoever he pleases, and while he perse
cutes, may avoid the name of persecutor ; and that
they, supported by the Emperor's government, may
conspire the ruin of whomsoever they vdll ; and
these are, aU such as are not as impious as them
selves. One might look upon their proceedings as a
comedy which they are performing on the stage, in
which the pretended Bishops are actors."

Persecution of the Bishops by Constantius. 161
It Avas then but a prosecution of the proceedings
against this Council, that Constantius used aU vio
lence to make all Bishops subscribe every where
against S. Athanasius. As S. Athanasius and the
Council of Sardica had sought from the Bishops in
their ProAdnces confirmation of its sentence, acquit
ting S. Athanasius, so the Emperor sought to extort
by violence from the Bishops every where, confir
mation of those subscriptions which he had afready
extorted at Aries and MUan, condemning him.
" Orders were ' sent also and Notaries despatched
to every city, and Palatines, with threats to the
Bishops and Magistrates, directing the Magistrates
to urge on the Bishops, and informing the Bishops
that either they must subscribe against Athanasius,
and hold communion with the Arians, or themselves
undergo the punishment of exUe, while the people
who took part with them were to understand that
chains, and insults, and scourgings, and the loss of
their possessions, would be their portion. These or
ders were not neglected ; for the commissioners had
in their company the Clergy of Ursacius and Valens,
to inspire them with zeal, and to inform the Emperor
ff the Magistrates neglected their duty. The other
heresies, as younger sisters of their own, they per
mitted to blaspheme the Lord, and only conspired
against the Christians, not enduring to hear orthodox
language concerning Christ. How many Bishops

¦! Ar.Hist §. 31. p. 243,4.
M

162 Emperor and Arian Bps. unite to force Bishops
in consequence, according to the words of Scripture,
were ' brought before rulers and kings,' and received
this sentence from the Magistrates, ' Subscribe, or
withdraw from your churches ; for the Emperor
has commanded you to be deposed.' How many
in every city were made to waver, lest they should
accuse them as friends of the Bishops I Moreover
letters were sent to the city-authorities, and a threat
of a fine was held out to them, if they did not
compel the Bishops of their respective cities to sub
scribe. In short, every place and every city was
full of fear and confusion, while the Bishops were
dragged along to trial, and the magistrates vdtnessed
the lamentations and groans of the people.
" Such were the proceedings of the Palatine com-
naissioners. On the other hand, those admirable
persons, confident in the patronage which they had
obtained, display great zeal, and cause some of
the Bishops to be summoned before the Emperor,
whUe they persecute others by letters, inventing
charges against them ; to the intent that the one
might be overawed by the presence of Constantius,
and the other, through fear of the commissioners
and the threats held out to them in these pretended
accusations, might be brought to renounce their
orthodox and pious opinions. In this manner it
was, that the Emperor forced so great a multitude
of Bishops, partly by threats, and partly by pro
mises, to declare, ' We avUI no longer hold commu
nion with Athanasius.' For those who came for

to condemn S- Athanasius. Council of Beziers. 163
an interview were not admitted to his presence, nor
allowed any relaxation, not so much as to go out
oftheir dwelUngs, untU they had either subscribed,
or refused and thereupon incurred banishment. And
this he did, because he saw that the heresy was
hateful to all men. For this reason especially, he
compeUed so many to add their names to the small
number of the Arians, his earnest desire being to
coUect together a crowd of names, both from envy
ofthe Bishops, and for the sake of making a shew
in favour of the Arian impiety, of which he is the
patron ; supposing that he will be able to alter the
truth, as easUy as he can influence the minds of men."
A. D. 356. was the Council of Beziers, in which
Saturninus ' and the Arian Bishops first refused to
hear S. HUary's exposure of Arianism, and then,
circumventing the Emperor, had him banished.^
" Foreseeing,' long before, the very grievous peril
of the Faith, after the banishment of the holy men,
Paulinus, Eusebius, Lucifer, Dionysius, five years
ago, I, Adth the GaUican Bishops separated myself
from the communion of Saturninus, Ursacius and
Valens, granting to their associates space for repen
tance. Afterwards, forced through the faction of
their false Apostles to the Synod of Beziers, I pre
sented an account of this, which I undertook to
prove to be heresy. But they, fearing to be pub-
' Saturninus was Bishop of Aries, and " one of the worst of men, deposed
and excommunicated " at the Council of Paris, "for many and monstrous
crimes in addition to his heresy." Snip. Sev. ii. 60.
' S. Hil. de Syn. §. 2. ' c. Const. §. 2.
M 2

164 Council of Sirmium and its Creeds,
licly cognizant of it, would not hear what I pressed
upon them, thinking that they might falsely protest
to Christ their innocence, ff they were wUlingly igno
rant of what they were about to do knoAvingly."
A. D. 357. "Confusion "having arisen, in con
sequence [of the greater distinctness vdth Avhich
Photinus put forth his heresy ] the king commanded
a Synod of Bishops at Sirmium. There assembled
there then, of the Easterns Mark of Arethusa, George
of Alexandria, BasU of Ancyra, Pancratius of Pelu-
sium, Hypatian of Heraclea. From the West, Valens
Bishop of Mursa, and Hosius the Confessor, who
having taken part in the CouncU of Nice, was,
against his vdU, present here too." In order that
they might seem CathoUcs, they condemned Photinus
in words," in deeds they furthered him." This Coun
cil put out three ¦" Creeds. The first, (being the
sixth of the Eusebians) was Semi-Arian ; the second
distinctly Arian ; the third Homoean.
The first was an abridgment of the Macrostich or
Creed of Antioch A. D. 345. "subtracting the greater
part, and adding in its place," S. Athanasius writes,
" as if they had listened to the suggestions of others."
S. Hilary explains it and its anathemas in a true
sense.^ Philastrius says " Photinus ^ was cast out of
the Church of the Sirmians, overcome by the holy
Bishops." Vigilius, in iUustration of the fact, that
" Socr. ii. 29. Soz. iv. 6. ' S. Greg. Naz. orat. in laud. S. Ath. §. 23.
^ S. Ath. Cone. Arim. 27-29. p. 117-123. and §. 8. p. 83. O. T.
^ de Syn. §. 39-63. y de Hair. 18. B. P. iv. p. 708.

Semi-Arian, Arian, and Homoean. 165
" after "^ the CouncU of Nice, the Bishops, gathered
in many places, published many enactments of faith,
against the mad outbreaks of new heretics," instances,
among others, this Council. " Of that CathoUc Coun
cil, gathered from the whole East against Photinus,
who can gather in one the manifold sanctions as to
faith?" The Council had a CathoUc side, in that it
condemned heresy.
The second Creed was Avritten in Latin by Pota-
mius. Bishop of Lisbon, and apparently received by
the Arian Bishops of the West only. The preface to
the Creed says, "AU points of faith have been care
fuUy investigated at Sirmium, in the presence of
Valens, Ursacius, Germinius and the rest." It is
undisguised Arianism.*
This avowal of naked Arianism, however, gave rise
to fresh dissensions in the Council. The Semi-Arian
party were supported by Constantius, on whose coun
tenance they aU depended for their influence. In
their next Creed at Seleucia, A. D. 359, they speak
ofthe third Creed, as "pubUshed ''lately at Sirmium,
under sanction of his religiousness the Emperor," and
of their new Creed as being plainly "equivalent to
it." The Creed itseff is ushered in, with a parade as
to the presence of the Emperor, and dated by the
Consulate. " The " Catholic faith was pubUshed in
the presence of our Sovereign, the most Ulustrious
and gloriously victorious Emperor, Constantius, Au-
^ c, Eutych. V. init. B. P. viii. 736, 7. referred to in notes on S. Ath.
' see S. Ath. Counc. Arim. p. 122, 3. and notes t. u.
" Counc. Arim. §. 29. p. 124. = Ib. §. 8. p. 83.

166 Discussions of faith in presence of Emperor
gustus, the eternal and majestic, in the Consulate of
the most iUustrious Flavians, Eusebius and Hypatius,
in Sirmium on the eleventh of the calends of June.
(i. e. May 22. A. D. 359. Whitsun Eve'i)
S. Athanasius says, " having ^ drawn up [the se
cond] and then becoming dissatisfied, they composed
the faith, Avhich, to their shame, they paraded with
the Consulate." Germinius, the Arian, who was
present, says that it arose in a dissension on the
faith. "A dissension 'as to the faith haAdng arisen
between some in the presence of the Emperor Con
stantius, there being present George Bishop of Alex
andria, Pancratius of Pelusium, Basil then Bishop
of Ancyra ; Valens also and Ursacius being present
and my poor self, after holding a disputation on the
faith into the night, and bringing it to a certain
rule ; Mark [ of Arethusa], chosen by us aU, dictated
the faith, wherein it is thus written, ' that the Son
is Uke the Father in aU things, as the Holy and
Divine Scriptures say and teach.' To whose sound
confession we aU agreed, and subscribed with our
hands." "The word 'substance' was removed, as
having been adopted by the Fathers in simpUcity,
and giAdng offence, as being misconceived by the
people, and not contained in the Scriptures;" as, of
course, many of the Arian terms also were not, (S.
Athanasius remarks «) and our terms cannot be, ff
we would explain, not simply repeat, the Scriptures.
'I lb. n. z. ¦' lb. §. 29. p. 123. f in S.Hih Fragm. 15. §. 3.
s see Nie. Def §. 18. p. 31. 5. 28. and n. p. p. 52. 0. T. Counc. Arim. §. 36.

decided by Bishops. Hosius tortured to sign. 167
The presence of the Emperor is remarked by
Socrates '' also. Yet even among these idolaters of
his power, who in adulation caUed him, " Eternal "
and " Bishop of Bishops," he was present, but they
decreed. "These 'things were thus decreed as to
the faith, whUe the Emperor was present."
Of these Creeds S. Hilary'' speaks of the second and
worst as that which the great and saintly Hosius was
induced by exile and suffering and blows, and tor
ture,' added to the weight of one hundred years,"" to
sign. He caUs it " the blasphemy "written by Ho
sius and Potamius." Sozomen ° says that this was
withdraAvn by the CouncU itseff, and speaks of
Hosius as consenting only to the Council generaUy,
and again Umits '' his assent to the third Creed, which
abandons the words "of one substance." Socrates says
vaguely, that "he "i subscribed the formulas there."
Hosius ' was condemned by the Spanish [Bishops °]
[i. e. at least, refused ' communion by the Bishops
there] "acquitted by the GaUicans." He died A. D.
360. "At "the approach of death, he bore witness to

p. 133, 4. §. 39, 40. p. 136-8. and note i. §. 46. p. 146. Orat. i. ag. Ar. §. 30. p.
224, 5. §. 34. p. 229. ^ Socr. ii. 31. ' Soz. iv. 0.
' de Synod. §.10. col. 1156. add §.3. c. Const. §. 23. ' Socr. and Soz. I.e.
" see S. Ath. Ar. Hist. §. 42-46. p. 255-61. O. T. " 1. c.
0 1. c. P c. 12. 11. c. ' S. Aug. c. Ep. Parm. c. 4.
= S. Augustine speaks of them as " Colleagues " of those in Gaul. (1. c.)
' Eusebius of VerceUse expresses his satisfaction to Gregory Bishop of Eli
beris, that Gregory had " resisted Hosius the transgressor," and then, having
spoken of those who fell at Ariminum, speaks generally of his "not holding
communion with " them, (see S. Hil. Fragm. xi. p. 1356.)
" S. Ath. Ar. Hist. §. 45. p. 260.

168 Constantius tries to loin, overhear, wear out Liherius;
the force which had been used towards him, and
anathematized the Arian heresy."
A. D. 358. appears to have been the fall of Libe
rius. He had resisted Constantius nobly, when irri
tated at his OAvn faUure at the Council at Milan.
" After '^ the Synod at Milan was dissolved nothing
done, the Emperor, holding it of much moment, that
the Church everywhere should agree as to the doc
trine, and the Bishops be of one mind, purposed to
caU the Bishops from all quarters to the West. And
considering that this was laborious, on account of
the distance by land or sea, he was perplexed what
to do, but did not whoUy abandon the plan. Re
maining in the same mind, — ^he sent for Liberius,
Bishop of Rome, and tried to persuade him to agree
with the Bishops around him, among whom was
Eudoxius. But when Liberius contradicted, and
protested that he never would do this, he commanded
him to be taken away to Beroea of Thrace. Another
plea for his exile was said to be, that he would not
renounce the communion of Athanasius." " When
the Emperor urged the judgment of those every
where, [the Bishops], and especiaUy of those who
met at Tyre, Liberius said, that it was Avrong to jofri
their decision, as having judged only out of hatred
and partiality. He desired that the faith handed
down at Nice should be confirmed by the subscrip
tions of the Bishops every where, and that those in
exile on this ground, should be recalled. When
'Soz. iv. 11.

Liber, offers that Synod he costless to state; falls. 169
this should be done, in order that they [the Bishops]
might not seem burdensome or a charge, no one [of
them] should share any public money or convey
ances, but aU should, at their ovm expense, meet at
Alexandria, where were the plaintiffs and the defen
dant, and the proofs of the charges, and where the
truth of all this could be accurately tested." In
answer to a charge of disloyalty against S. Athana
sius, Liberius "requested the Emperor not to avenge
himseff through the hands of Bishops."
" When he would not submit to his bidding, the
Emperor banished him to Thrace, deprived him of
the Church of the Romans, and committed it to
Felix, then a Deacon," who was consecrated by three
Arian Bishops in his room.
He endured " two '"years of exile " purposely insu
lated from aU other confessors (a special aggravation
of this persecution) ; the Deacon who bore his letters
tothe Emperor Avas scourged ""; at last, "for fear of
threatened death, he was induced to subscribe.'"'
Fortunatian,^ Bishop of AquUeia [who had lapsed
into Arianism] " seduced him, and constrained him
to the subscription of heresy." He became the bearer
of the letter of Liberius to the Emperor. The he
retical Creed was offered to Liberius by Demophilus,
one of the worst of the Arians. Liberius writes to
the Arians, as his "most beloved "brethren the Pres
byters and his feUow- Bishops of the East." The fall
" S. Ath. Apol. ag. Ar. §. 89. p. 123. '' Id, Ar. Hist. § 40. p. 253.
y lb. p. 254. ^ S. Jer. de Virr. ill. c. 97. » Ep. Lib. in S. Hil. Fragm. vi. 5.

170 Liberius accepts Arian Creed, retires from
was miserably complete. Such a faU could not be
a haff-faU. He apologises to the Bishops for ever
having defended S. Athanasius, on the ground that
Bishop JuUus his predecessor had so done; but "ha
ving learned," he says, " when it pleased God, that
you had condemned him justly, I assented to your
sentence. — So then Athanasius being removed from
the communion of us all, so that I am not to receive
even his letters, I say that I am quite at peace
and concord with you all, and with aU the Eastern
Bishops, throughout the Provinces. But that ye
may know better, that in this letter, I speak in true
faith the same as '' my common Lord and brother
DemophUus, who was so good as to vouchsafe to
exhibit your Catholic Creed, which at Sirmium
was by many of our brethren and feUow-Bishops
considered, set forth, and received by aU present ;
this I received Avith wilUng mind; contradicted in
nothing; to it I gave my assent; this I foUow;
this is held by me." S, HUary interrupts the ac
count thrice vdth the words "This is Arian faith
lessness. This say I, not the Apostate." "Ana
thema I say to thee, Liberius and thy associates."
"Again and a thfrd time anathema to thee, prevari
cator Liberius." He subjoins to Liberius' letter ;
"the faithlessness Avritten at Sirmium, which Libe
rius calls Catholic, exhibited to him by Demophilus,
was written by these ; Narcissus, Theodorus, Basil, Eu-
>> The text is slightly corrupt. I have supplied gucE afler ea loqui
¦= S. Hil. Ib. §. 7.

communion of S. Athanasius ; joins that of Arius. 171
doxius, Demophilus, Cecropius, Silvanus, Ursacius,
Valens, Evagrius, Irenaeus, Bassus, Gaudentius, Ma
cedonius, Marcus, Aetius," with six others, including
the leading Arian, with a few Semi-Arian, Bishops.
The letter, addressed by Liberius to Ursacius,
Valens, and Germinius, is stUl more miserable. "Be
cause I * know that ye are sons of peace, and love
concord and the unity of the Church, therefore,
not compeUed by any constraint, ( God is my Adt
ness, ) but for the good of peace and concord,
which is preferred to martyrdom, I greet you with
these letters, dearest Lords and brethren. Your
prudence then should be informed, that Athanasius,
who was Bishop of the Church at' Alexandria, was
condemned by me, before I sent the letters of the
Eastern Bishops to the Court of the sacred Emperor,
and that he was separated from the Communion of
the Roman Church, as the whole Presbytery of the
Roman Church is Adtness — Ye are to know, dearest
brethren, by these letters in truth and simpUcity of
mind, that I am at peace vdth you aU, the Bishops of
the Catholic Church. Ye wiU gain for yourselves
great consolation in the Day of retribution, ff, through
you, peace should be restored to the Roman Church.
But I wish that, through you, our brethren and
feUow-Bishops Epictetus and Auxentius, should also
know, that I am at peace and in communion with
them. But whoever shaU dissent from our peace
and concord, which, by the avUI of God, is esta-
¦^ lb. §. 8. 9.

172 Liherius intimates his fall to Bishops of Campania,
Wished throughout the world, let him know that
he is separated from our Communion." S. Hilary a-
gain subjoins, "Anathema I say to the prevaricator,
together Avith the Arians."
Liberius wrote yet a third letter to Vincentius
of Capua, whose fall he had once deplored. "I^
thought that I ought to signify to thy HoUness,
that I have retired from that contention on the
subject of Athanasius, and have given letters to
our brethren and felloAv-Bishops, the Easterns, con
cerning him. But since, by the will of God, you
too have peace every Avhere, be so good as to as
semble the Bishops of Campania and to convey
this to them, and some of your number, together
with your letter — write to the most clement Em
peror, as to my perfect harmony and peace, that
so I may be freed from great sadness. (And in
his own hand) I am at peace with aU the Eastern
Bishops and Avith you. I have acquitted myself
to God ; see ye to it ; if ye AdU that I should die
in exile, God shall be judge between me and you."
Thus then Liberius was expressly in communion
vdth the whole Arian and Semi-Arian party, in
the East and West, even with the worst of the
Arians ''; out of cornmunion with aU who rejected
" lb. §. 10.
' Of the Arian Bishops whom Liberius writes to or specially recognises, Aux
entius was intruded into the see of Milan, from which "Dionysius, a godly
man, had been banished for his piety towards Christ" (S. Ath. Ar. Hist.
§. 75. p. 286. ) S. Athanasius calls Auxentius " pragmatical rather than a
Christian, ignorant as yet even of Latin, and unskilful in everything except
impiety." (Ib.) Epictetus was "a novice, a bold young man whom George of

(
in communion with the worst Arian Bisliops. 173
the Arians ; intreating his own restoration to Rome
through the heads of the persecuting Arian party;
and promoting in Campania the reception of Ari
anism and the rejection of S. Athanasius.
The Arian Creed, ^ which he signed, S. Hilary
calls "Arian perfidy": S. Jerome "heresy"'' or "he
retical ' pravity." His own words fit in most ob
viously with the second i. e. that same Arian Creed,
which the great Hosius was betrayed into signing.'^
Sozomen ' speaks of Liberius, as, upon his recal
from exUe, subscribing a formula, compounded of
the Creed of the Dedication (which is partly Arian)
and the first Sirmian Creed.
" The "" Emperor sent for him from Beroea," Avhere
Cappadocia made his friend, perceiving that he was ready for any wicked
ness, and by his means carried on his designs against those of the Bishops
whom he designed to ruin." (Ib.) Ursacius and Valens were foremost in
every plan against the truth. "They were from the first educated as young
meu by Arius, though they were formally degraded from the Priesthood,
and afterwards got the title of Bishops on account of their impiety." (Lett.
to Eg. Lib. §. 7. p. 133. ) They had once formally recanted their charges
against S. Athanasius and anathematized Arianism. (Ar. Hist. §. 26. p. 239.)
then under Constantius they retracted their retractations (Ib. §. 29. p. 242.)
and used violence towards the Catholics at Aries, Milan aud Sirmium. Li
berius had himself instanced Demophilus as one of the extreme Arian party :
" The Easterns signify that they wish to be united at peace with us. AVhat
peace is that, most clement Emperor, when, on their side, there are four
Bishops, Demophilus, Macedonius, Eudoxius, Martyrius who, eight years ago,
when at Milan they could not condemn the heretical opinion of Arius, left
the Council in anger? " (S Hil. Fragm. v. 4.) Germinius alone of these was
a Semi-Arian.
e Sozomen ( iv. 11.) reports a speech of Liberius, even while resisting the
Emperor, in which he uses the current Semi-Arian formula. It was on refu
sing the gold, offered by the Emperor. " To us, Christ Who is ' in all things
ffle to the Father,' is our Nourisher and Provider of all good."
" de Virr. 111. 1. c. ' Chron. A. D. 352.
'' Not Blondel only and others, but Petavius also (in Epiphan. p. 336.) thinks
that Liberius signed the second Creed. Baronius A. 357. n. 50. holds it to
have been the first. Tillemont leans to this. ' c. Const. §. 11.
¦° Soz. iv. 15.

174 Liherius sent hack to Rome. Eudoxius gains See
he was banished, " and, when the legates from the
East were present, collecting the Bishops who hap
pened to be at the Court, he compeUed him to con
fess that the Son was not of one Substance Adth the
Father. — ^When they [BasU of Ancyra, Eustathius,
Eleusius] had gathered into one writing, what had
been decreed against Paul of Samosata and Photinus
of Sirmium, and the Creed set forth at the Dedica
tion, (as though under cover of the Homoousion
some were endeavouring to set up a heresy of their
own,) they manage that Liberius and Athanasius,
Alexander, Severianusand Crescens, African Bishops
should assent to this. In like way there assented
Ursacius, Germinius of Sirmium, Valens, Bishop of
Mursa, and all present from the East. They received
also from Liberius a confession, rejecting those who
deny that the Son is like the Father in substance
and in all things."
" The Emperor gave Liberius leave to return to
Rome, and the Bishops at Sirmium wrote to Felix,
who then presided over the Roman Church, and to
the Clergy there, to receive him, and that both
should govern the ApostoUc See and exercise the
sacerdotal office in common." "I know not," says
S. HUary" to Constantius, "in which thou didst
most impiously, in banishing or in restoring him."
The successful ambition of Eudoxius first divided
and weakened the Arian party. He was Bishop of
Germanicia in Syria, but at court with Constantius
in the West. Hearing of the death of Leontius, the

of Antioch against suffragans ; avows Arianism. 175
Arian Bishop of Antioch, he obtained leave of the
unsuspecting Emperor to return to Syria, on pre
tence of some needs of his own diocese," or of that "
of Antioch. When there, he " possessed p himself of
the Patriarchate of Antioch, neither George Bishop
of Laodicea, nor Mark of Arethusa, who were then
the most distinguished Bishops of Syria, nor the rest
to whom the election belonged, consenting. When
then he had gained possession of the Church of
Antioch [A. D. 358.] he avowed the Anomcean he
resy more openly. And having met in Council at
Antioch, with more who held the same, (of whom
were Acacius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and
Uranius Bishop of Tyre) he negatived the word ' of
the same substance,' together with that ' of the like
substance,' under pretence that the Bishops of the
West had done the same. For Hosius, together with
some of the Bishops there, with the view of extin
guishing the contentiousness of Valens and Ursacius
and Germinius, being constrained at Sirmium, gave
way that no mention should be made either of the
' one substance ' or of ' the like substance.' To them
therefore, as having succeeded in regard to Hosius,
he sent a letter, thanking Valens, Ursacius, and
Germinius, as having been the occasion, that those
in the West thought aright."
In the same " Council i of Bishops, he attempted
to restore to the Diaconate," the wretched "Aetius,"
whom Leontius, his Arian predecessor, had been
"Soz. iv. 12. o Socr. ii. 37. p lb. i Socr. 1. c.

174 Liberius sent back to Rome. Eudoxius gains See
he was banished, " and, Avhen the legates from the
East were present, collecting the Bishops who hap
pened to be at the Court, he compeUed him to con
fess that the Son was not of one Substance Adth the
Father. — When they [BasU of Ancyra, Eustathius,
Eleusius] had gathered into one Avriting, what had
been decreed against Paul of Samosata and Photinus
of Sfrmium, and the Creed set forth at the Dedica
tion, (as though under cover of the Homoousion
some were endeavouring to set up a heresy of their
own,) they manage that Liberius and Athanasius,
Alexander, Severianusand Crescens, African Bishops
should assent to this. In like way there assented
Ursacius, Germinius of Sirmium, Valens, Bishop of
Mursa, and all present from the East. They received
also from Liberius a confession, rejecting those who
deny that the Son is like the Father in substance
and in all things."
" The Emperor gave Liberius leave to return to
Rome, and the Bishops at Sirmium wrote to Felix,
who then presided over the Roman Church, and to
the Clergy there, to receive him, and that both
should govern the ApostoUc See and exercise the
sacerdotal office in common." " I know not," says
S. Hilary '' to Constantius, " in which thou didst
most impiously, in banishing or in restoring him."
The successful ambition of Eudoxius first divided
and weakened the Arian party. He was Bishop of
Germanicia in Syria, but at court with Constantius
in the West. Hearing of the death of Leontius, the

of Antioch against suffragans ; avows Arianism. 175
Arian Bishop of Antioch, he obtained leave of the
unsuspecting Emperor to return to Syria, on pre
tence of some needs of his own diocese," or of that "
of Antioch. When there, he " possessed p himself of
the Patriarchate of Antioch, neither George Bishop
of Laodicea, nor Mark of Arethusa, who were then
the most distinguished Bishops of Syria, nor the rest
to whom the election belonged, consenting. When
then he had gained possession of the Church of
Antioch [A. D. 358.] he avowed the Anomcean he
resy more openly. And having met in Council at
Antioch, with more who held the same, (of whom
were Acacius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and
Uranius Bishop of Tyre) he negatived the word ' of
the same substance,' together with that ' of the Uke
substance,' under pretence that the Bishops of the
West had done the same. For Hosius, together with
some of the Bishops there, with the view of extin
guishing the contentiousness of Valens and Ursacius
and Germinius, being constrained at Sirmium, gave
way that no mention should be made either of the
' one substance ' or of "^ the like substance.' To them
therefore, as having succeeded in regard to Hosius,
he sent a letter, thanking Valens, Ursacius, and
Germinius, as having been the occasion, that those
in the West thought aright."
In the same " Council i of Bishops, he attempted
to restore to the Diaconate," the wretched " Aetius,"
whom Leontius, his Arian predecessor, had been
"Soz. iv. 12. 0 Socr. ii. 37. p lb. i Socr. 1. c.

176 Re-action at Semi-Arian Synod of Ancyra.
compelled to depose. " This faUed, because the hatred
to Aetius was greater than the zeal for Eudoxius."
" WhUe '' Eudoxius was thus innovating, and many
of the Church of Antioch who opposed him were
cast out, these, receiving the letters of George,
Bishop of Laodicea, came to Ancyra of Galatia.
For Basil [of Ancyra] was there, at the consecration
of a Church which he had built, having invited many
of the neighbouring Bishops, to whom he gave the
Epistle of George."
The Epistle is addressed to four Semi-Arian Bi
shops, Macedonius, Basil, Cecropius, [Bishop of Nico
media] and Eugenius [of Nice]. In it he exhorts
them to help against Aetius. " Meeting in one
place, as many as may be, ask for subscriptions of
the other Bishops, that Eudoxius should cast out
Aetius from the Church of Antioch, and cut off his
disciples who had been inserted among the Clergy."
" The Bishops at Ancyra, when this innovation of
Eudoxius had been made plain to them through
what he, together with those whom he had met in
Council at Antioch, had decreed in writing about
the faith, shew this to the king, and beseech him
that some care should be taken that what had been
adjudged in Sardica, [Philippopolis] Sirmium, and
other Synods, should prevail, where it had been
agreed that the Son was ' like in substance to the
Father.' "
In this step backAvards toward the faith they had
' Soz. iv. 13.

aided by letters of French and perhaps English Bps. Ill
been encouraged by letters from Bishops of France
and (it may be) of Britain, who throughout several
Provinces remained in communion with S. Hilary,
received letters from him, and were only hindered
from communication with him, by the uncertainty
ofhis place of exile. To them, about the end of
A. D. 358. S. Hilary addressed his book " on Synods,
or on the faith of the Easterns." He inscribes it to
his " best-beloved and most blessed brethren and fel
low-Bishops, of the Provinces of the first and second
Germany, of the first and second Belgium, of the
first and second Province of Lyons, of Aquitania,
Novempopulania, out of Narbon to the People and
Clergy of Thoulouse, and ofthe Britannic Provinces."
The book is addressed to the Bishops, Adth the
exception of Thoulouse, whose Bishop, Rhodanius,
was, with S. Hilary, in exile for the faith. He tells
them, " I ' had frequently, from many cities of the
Roman Provinces, signified to you the state of the
faith and zeal of our religious brethren, the Bishops
of the East " — " I had been in fear lest,'^ in the very
great peril to so many Bishops of grievous impiety
or error, your silence might arise from the despair of
a defiled conscience." " Now, ' having received the
letters of your blessed faith, I learn, that in spirit
and faith ye cleave to me, and that ye not only did
not receive, but that ye condemn the impiety of
" §. l.p. 1149. ' §. 2.
N

178 S. Hilary's character of Synod of Ancyra.
the faithless faith, announced and made known to
you from Sirmium [the second Arian confession of
that Synod]. I saw then that it was religious and
necessary, that now, as a Bishop, I should transmit
to Bishops communicating with me in Christ, an
answer, discoursing of saving truth." " Ye '* have
prevailed. Brethren — For the reports of your un
disturbed and unshaken faith moved some Bishops of
the East, although late, to some shame of the heresy,
thence nourished and increased; and, having heard
what had been most impiously written at Sirmium,
they, by some decrees expressing their belief, contra
dicted the boldness of the irreligious. And although
this their resistance was not unaccompanied with
offence and anxiety to the religious, yet they did so
resist, as to constrain to an acknowledgment of their
ignorance and error, the very persons who then at
Sirmium had given way to the opinion of Potamius
and Hosius, themselves too thinking and confirming
the same ; so that they too again subscribing, con
demned what they had done."
The Synod of Ancyra was subscribed by twelve
Bishops only,'' yet there may have been more, since
Eleusius of Cyzicus, who was deputed from the
Synod,"^ must have been present, and yet did not
sign. The Synodical Epistle is addressed from "The
^ holy Synod, assembled from different Provinces at

" §• 3. ' S. Epiph. Hair. 73- c. 11 . fin. p. 859.
" S. Hih de Syn. §. 90. p. 1203. comp. §. 63. == S. Epiph. 1. c. c. 2. p. 846.

Its immediate effects. 179
Ancyra, shortly before Easter, to the most honoured
Lords and like-minded fellow-ministers [their col
leagues ^'\ in Phoenicia and the rest who think as we
do." " As '" many Bishops assembled as the time
permitted, the holy Day of Easter being close upon
them, most being also hindered by the winter, as
they signified by their letters." The object of the
Synod was to defend their own formula, that the Son
was " like in substance " to the Father, against Eu
doxius who taught that He was " unlike." The Sy
nodical letter closed with eighteen anathemas, of
which S. Hilary has translated but twelve, and, since
S. Hilary " suggests that the three " most holy men,
Basil, Eustathius and Eleusius," deputed by the Coun
cil, suppressed the last anathema against the Homo
ousion, it may be that the others too were never sent.
S. Hilary explains and defends the twelve anathemas,''
and says that "if" there be anything amiss in them, it
lurks within, and does not lie on the surface." He
sums up ;" ''We have gone through all the definitions
of faith published by the Eastern Bishops which, in a
Synod assembled among themselves, they formed a-
gainst the emerging heresy ; few " "^Bishops in propor
tion to the whole." The deputation turned Constan-
tius,*^ who had been shaken by a disciple of Aetius.
He wrote to the Church of Antioch, disowning Eu
doxius, and (the Arian Philostorgius^ says) "banish-
y lb. p. 847. M. c. » 1. c. §. 90. * §. 12-26. p. 1158-66.
. " Ib. in p. 1158. not. q. "i u. 27. ° lb. 28. and 66.
' Soz. iv. 13. e H. E. iv. 8.
N 2

180 . Object of Constantius in gathering new Synods.
ing seventy persons." Constantius closes his letter,"!''
would exhort those who at last remove from this
slough, to join in this sentence, which the Bishops,
wise in Divine things, have decided for the best, as
need required."
This mood, however, did not last long. Eusebius,
the Eunuch and Grand-Chamberlain, who had brought
Arianism into the 'Palace used his ascendancy. He
was the friend of Eudoxius,"" and obtained, shortly
after, in favour of the Arians, the division of the
Council into two. The Arians joined in urging the
Emperor, probably in order to recover the ground,
which they had lost to the Semi-Arians through the
Synod of Ancyra. Aetius the Sophist, surnamed the
Atheist, was made the plea, although no worse than
the Arians who threw him over.'
The success of Constantius agairist Liberius and
Hosius seems to have flushed him with the hope of
establishing what he thought a Scriptural faith, but
what was in fact a covert for Arianism, on the one
hand against the faith as attested by the whole
Church at Nicsa, on the other hand against the
more plain-spoken heresy of Aetius. His purpose was
" to put into shade the Nicene CouncU," and bring
all to one belief, Adz. that of Constantius himself;
extinguishing at once the belief of the Church and
of the most extreme heretics. Constantius"' "wished
¦> Soz. iv. 14. ' Soor ii. 2. t Soz. iv. 16. fin.
' S. Ath. Counc. Arim. §. 6. p. 81. §. 38. p. 136. O. T. Socr. ii. 3'5. Soz. iv. 16.
" S. Ath. Counc. Arim. §. 1. p. 74, 5. 0. T.

First plan to have select Bishops from each nation. 181
the Council to be held at Nice," in order to efface the
memory of ^Ae CouncU of Nice." Basil "and the [Semi-
Arian] party dissenting from this, it was flrst deter
mined, that the Bishops should be assembled at Ni
comedia in Bithynia, summoning with all speed, for
a fixed day, those Bishops in every nation, who
seemed to have most understanding and to be the
ablest in thought and speech, so that they should
take part in the Synod and be present at the deci
sion, in place of all the Bishops of the nation." Ni
comedia was almost destroyed by an earthquake ;
and Basil then wrote to the Emperor agreeing to
Nice. " On receiving Basil's letter, the Emperor at
first directed that, in the beginning of summer, they
should meet at Nice, except those weak in body, and
that those might send in their stead Presbyters, or
Deacons, whom they should choose to make known
their mind, to consult on things doubtful, and that
all should be of one mind about all. He directed
also that ten from the West, and as many from the
East, whom those met in Synod should choose with
common consent, should come to the Court, and
relate what had been determined, so that he might
see whether they had agreed together according to
Holy Scripture, and do as should seem best. After
this, haying taken counsel, he commanded all to
remain where they were, or at their own Churches,
until a place should be settled for the Synod. And
" Soz. iv. 16.

182 Arians obtain division of Synod; numbers at
he wrote to Basil, to enquire by letter of all the
Bishops in the East, where the Synod should be
held. — Basil, having prefixed the Imperial letters to
his own, made known to the Bishops in each nation,
that they should consider with all diligence, and
quickly signify the place which would please them."
" When the Synod was urged on, Eudoxius, Acacius,
Ursacius, Valens, and their party, considering that
the Bishops every where were zealous either for
the faith at Nice, or for that of the Dedication,
and that, if all should meet together, they would
promptly condemn the opinion of Aetius, which they
themselves held, obtained that the Westerns should
meet at Ariminum and the Easterns at Seleucia
in Isauria."
"The" Emperor then being persuaded, that itwas
inexpedient to the State, on account of the expense,
and to the Bishops, on account of the length of way,
to meet all in one place, divided the Synod, and
wrote to those then at Ariminum and Seleucia, first to
settle doubts as to the faith, and then, according to the
law of the Church, both to decide as to the Bishops,
said to have been unjustly deposed or banished, — and
to judge as to the charges brought against certain
Bishops." " TheP Synod at Ariminum was first as
sembled, in which were above four hundred Bishops,
brought " together by the Officials of the Emperor

<• Soz. iv. 17. P S. Ath. Counc. Arim. §. 8, 9. p. 82-4. O. T. Socr. ii. 37.
'I Sulpic. Sev. ii. 55.

Ariminum ; few Arian or eminent Bishops. 183
who were sent throughout Illyricum, Italy, Africa,
Spain, and Gaul." Ammianus, the Heathen Histori
an says,'^ that Constantius "fomented the divisions"
amongst Christians," so, that, while troops of Bishops
hurried to and fro in the public conveyances to what
they call Synods, in their efforts to bring over the
whole religion on their side, he hamstrung the Posting-
establishments." The Bishops, while at the Council also, were fed
at the public expense.' The Bishops of Aquitaine,
France, Britain, preferred to live at their own
cost, except three British Bishops who had no means.
The Arian Bishops were not more than eighty. A-
mong the Catholic Bishops, scarcely any of eminence
are named. The names of few are preserved. It is
not explained why Liberius, Bishop of Rome, was
not present. Perhaps he and Vincentius of Capua '
were not invited, as having already subscribed the
formula which the Emperor desired.
The Emperor himself addressed a letter to the
Bishops, assembled at Ariminum.
"The"^ institutions of old lay down, venerable men,
that the holiness of the law rests on ecclesiastical mat
ters. We have seen abundantly from letters address
ed to our Prudence, that heed must be given to these,
inasmuch as this belongs to the office of Bishops, and
the well-being of nations far and wide is consolidated
¦¦ Hist xxi. fin. ^ Snip. Sev. 1. c. ' Damasus mentions that these two
and many others did not consent to the later formula. Ep. in Theod. ii. 22.
" S. Hil. Fiagm. vii. 1.

184 Emperor forbids Westernto judge Eastern Bps.
on this foundation. But cfrcumstances warn us that
what has been done should be again. — This being so,
let your Piety know that ye ought to consider as to
the faith and unity, and give dUigence that Ecclesias
tical matters should be put in befitting order. Yet
this matter must not lead your attention too far.
For reason alloweth not, that anything be defined in
your Council as to Eastern Bishops. Accordingly, ye
ought to treat of those things only, which your Gra
vity knows to appertain to you ; and having speedily
dispatched all things, with common consent send ten
to my Court, as we have intimated to your Prudence
in former letters.'^ For these can answer all things,
proposed to them by the Orientals, or treat of the
faith, so that every question may be terminated by a
competent issue, and ambiguities put to rest. This
being so, ye ought to enact nothing against the Ori
entals, or if in their absence ye will to define ought
against them, what ye take upon yourselves, shall
come to no effect. For a sentence can have no force,
to which our statutes attest beforehand, that all force
and competency shall be denied. This being so, ye
should, with a moderation suiting the venerable pre
lates of religion, do what shall be respected, explain
ing what religion requires, and no one using what it
forbids to be heard. The Deity preserve you for
many years, dearest Parents."
The decision at Ariminum was speedily made.
' lost.

Bishops confirm Nicene Creed^ condemn Arians. 1 85
" While ^ the whole assembly was discussing the mat
ter from the Divine Scripture," Germinius, Ursa
cius and four other Arian Bishops produced the third
Sirmian Creed, and " demanded that the whole Coun
cil should acquiesce in it." " Marvelling at the deceit
fulness of their language and their unprincipled in
tentions, the Bishops said, ' we have not met here in
want of a faith ; (for we have in us the faith, and
that, sound), but to put to shame those who gainsay
the truth and attempt to innovate. If then ye have
written this, as now beginning to believe, ye are not
yet Clerks, as beginning with your Catechism ; but if
ye have met us, having the same mind as we, let us
all, with one mind, anathematize the heresies, and
preserve the teaching of the Fathers ; so that pleas for
Synods may no longer circulate, the Bishops at
Nicaea having anticipated them once for all, and done
all for the Catholic Church.' However, even thus,
all the Bishops again agreeing, the aforesaid declined."
On this^"the Synod directed the Creeds of the here
sies and of the Council of Nice to be read, that they
might reject the heresies, and confirm what was done
at Nice ; and that no one should henceforth call any
one in question as to those things, or ask for a Synod,
but be content with the preceding. Valens and Ursa
cius, not agreeing hereto, but urging the faith which
they had proposed, they deposed, annulling the wri
ting which they had read."
" S. Ath. 1. c. ^ Soz. 1. c.

1 SQBps. maintainfaith handed down in Son,8f by tradition.
The CouncU embodied their decision in three do
cuments, 1. a statement of their adherence to the
ancient faith, 2. a condemnation of four leading
Arian Bishops of the West, 3. an Epistle to the
Emperor. S. Hilary heads their statement " The ^ Catholic
definition made by all the Catholic Bishops, before
that, terrified by an earthly power, they were asso
ciated with the fellowship of heretics, at the Council
of Ariminum."
" We believe that it will please all Catholics, that
[we decide that] we ought not to depart from the
received Creed, which, in conference, we have ascer
tained to be held entire by all ; and that we will not
depart from the faith, which we have received
through the Prophets from God the Father through
Christ our Lord by the teaching of the Holy Ghost,
and in the Gospels and all the Apostles, as, laid
down by tradition of the Fathers, according to the
Apostplic succession, to the discussion held at Nice
against the heresy which had then arisen, it remains
until now. To all which, we believe that nothing is
to be added, and it is plain that nothing can be
diminished from it. It seems good then that nothing
new be done ; and that the word substance and its
truth, conveyed to our minds by many holy Scrip
tures, should abide in force. Which truth, with its
name, the Catholic Church hath been ever wont,
y 1. ^.. §. 3.

subscribe sentence against Arians, send Bps. to Emp. 1^1
with its deific doctrine, to confess and profess.' This
definition all the Catholics, agreeing in one, sub
scribed." The condemnation of the heretics was put to the
Synod by Grecianus, Bishop of Cagli. He rehearses
the forbearance which the Church had shewn towards
Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, Caius, Auxentius ; the
mischief which these did, their heretical spirit, in
attempting again to annul the Nicene Creed and to
introduce one drawn up by themselves. "Now then,"
the decree closes, " what seems good to you, again
declare, that it may be ratified by the subscription
of each." All the Bishops answered, ' It seems good
that the afore-named heretics should be condemned,
that the Church may remain in unshaken faith,
which is truly Catholic, and in perpetual peace."
" The '' Catholic Bishops ( as the Emperor had re
quired ) sent ten Bishops, as legates to the Emperor
with an Epistle of sound faith, which they subscribed."
But the heretical part sent ten legates of their own
body." The Epistle began thus; " Bythe command of
God and injunction of your Piety we believe that it
has been ordered, that we have met at Ariminum,
Bishops from divers Provinces of the West,*! that
both the faith of the Catholic Church may be made

° S. Hil. \. u. §. 4. see S. Ath. 1. c. §. 1. p. 87. O. T.
•¦ Soz. iv. 18. S. Hil. Fragm. viii. 4.
•^ S. Hilary's text [Fragm. viii. 3] has been followed, being probably the
Latin original.
"> Socr. ii. 37. and Soz. have " from all the Cities of the AVest."

188 Catholic legates from Ariininum, ill-selected.
clear to all, and heretics may be known. — Lest the
Churches should be troubled oftener, we determined
to maintain the ancient institutions firm and invio
late ; and that the aforesaid should be removed from
our communion. To inform therefore your Clemen
cy, we have sent our legates, to announce by our
letters the judgement of the Council. We have
given them this one instruction, that they should dis
charge this embassy on no other terms, than that the
ancient decrees should remain in full force. — We be
seech you also to direct, that so many Bishops who
are detained at Ariminum, (among whom are very
many, distressed through age and poverty) should
return to their Provinces, lest the people of the
Churches should suffer, deprived of their Bishops. —
Our legates will bring you both the subscriptions
and names of the Bishops and legates ; as they will
by another writing ® instruct your holy and pious
wisdom." The ten legates sent from the Catholics were un
happily Ul chosen," young ^ men with little learning or
caution ; the Arians sent crafty old men, of powerful
minds, who readily gained the ascendancy with the
Emperor ; " and the more because he was aggrieved,
that the CouncU " had ^ not received the Creed which
had been confirmed in his presence at Sirmium."
He received the Arian legates honorably, and set him-
= Socr. and Soz. have "who will also teach your Holiness out of the sacred
Scriptures themselves."
' Snip. ii. 57. « Soz. iv. 19.

Emp. tries to wear out Bps. S. Hilary at Seleucia. 189
self to wear out the Orthodox legates by delays.'' The
heretical officers of the Palace aided therein.' The
Council sent a second letter, protesting that they
should persevere, and praying to be allowed to return
home, before winter set in. " Your Clemency," they
say, "^ "knows as well as we, how grievous and unsuit- ,
ed it is, that in your most prosperous times so many
Churches should be without Bishops." The Emperor
still delayed on pretence of the Barbarian war.
" Meanwhile ' the Bishops from the East, being
about one hundred and sixty, met at Seleucia in
Isauria. Leonas had come with them, a noble Officer
in the Palace, who by the command of Constantius
was present in the Synod, so that the faith on the
doctrine should be framed in his presence. Lauricius
too was present. Chief of the soldiers in the Pro
vince, to render aid to the Bishops in case of need."
The Council met on Sept. 27. Arianism was here
at strife with Semi-Arianism. S. HUary was present
at the Council, "being"' now in his fourth year of
exile in Phrygia. The officers being charged to
bring all Bishops to the Council, required his pre
sence too, and gave him part in the public convey
ance." S. Hilary cleared himself and the GaUican
Churches of the charge of Sabellianism, which the
Arians had given out against them and all the
CathoUcs. He was then admitted to take part in
" lb. S. Hil. Fragm. viii. 4. Theod. ii. 19.
* Theod. 1. c. " Id. ii. 20.
' Socr. ii, 39. Soz. iv. 22. "¦ Sulp. ii. 58.

190 Strength and proceedings of the parties at Seleucia.
the Councih " At " the first secession," he says, "I
found that one hundred and five Bishops in it taught
the Homoiousion i. e. the likeness of substance ;
nineteen the Anomoiousion, i. e. the unlikeness of
substance ; and the Egyptians only, except the here
tic [George] of Alexandria, most firmly maintained
the Homoousion." The pure Arian party had been
ordained by Secundus who had been deposed by the
great Council, and with these, the Acacians fearing
to meet their accusers, coalesced. In all, they be
came thirty-four.'' In the first session, some other
Bishops, as also Patrophilus, Bishop of Scythopolis,
Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, and Basil
Bishop of Ancyra, suspecting that they should be
accused, were wanting. When on account of their
absence the others declined to examine the points in
question, Leonas bade them still raise the question.
Thence, some wished first to examine the doctrine,
others, the lives of the accused among themselves. —
When they came to the question of faith, some wish
ed wholly to efface the name of " substance," putting
forth the faith, which, not long before, Marcus had
composed at Sirmium,"! and which the [Bishops] who
happened to be at the Court, received ; with whom
was Basil Bishop of Ancyra. But the more part were
eager for the faith set forth at the dedication of
the Church at Antioch. — After much contention Sil-

" c. Const. §. 12. » S. Ath. Counc. Arim. §. 12. P Socr. ii. 39.
T The Creed ofthe Consulate. The third Sirmian.

Degree in which Emperor's deputy could interfere. 191
vanus Bishop of Tarsus, said that it was not to be
endured that a new formula should be introduced,
besides that approved at Antioch ; that this alone
should prevail. The Acacians, vexed at this, de
parted ; the rest, at that time, read what had been
decreed at Antioch ; on the following day, having
assembled in the Church, they closed the doors and
being by themselves [i. e. without the Acacian
Bishops] they confirmed those decrees."
The intervention of Leonas and Lauricius shews
more vividly what was the power of the Emperor's
representatives. Leonas was an Acacian, and he did
all he could. The Semi-Arian Bishops were appa
rently afraid either ofhis influence or of the disso
lution of the Council. Acacius, discontented with
what the other Bishops had done, " shewed ' privately
to Leonas and Lauricius, the formula about which he
was eager. Acacius and his party would take no part
in the session, unless those whom^ they had de
prived and accused left it. This was done. For
those on the other side conceded it, suspecting
that Acacius was looking for a pretext to dissolve
the Council. When they were all present, Leonas
said, that he had a book, given him by the friends of
Acacius. It was a confession of faith with a sort of
preface. The rest knew nothing of this : for Leonas
purposely hid it, being an Acacian. When it was
' c. 22. The whole formula with the names of the Bishops who subscrihed is
preserved by S. Epiph. Heer. 73. §. 25, 6. The Creed is given more correctly
by S. Athanasius. Counc. Sel, §. 29. p. 123. 4. O. T.

192 Division of Arian and Semi-Arian Bishops.
read, the Synod was full of confusion. For it set
forth, that whereas the Emperor had commanded
that nothing should be introduced into the faith, be
sides the Holy Scriptures, certain persons, introduc
ing from different Provinces Bishops deposed or
unlawfully made, disturbed the Council, insulting
some, and silencing others ; that themselves, the Aca
cians, did not reject the Creed set forth at Antioch,
although those then assembled had introduced it to
meet a question then arising." Then setting aside the
" of one substance " and " of like substance " as alien
to the Scriptures, and anathematizing " unlike," they
"subjoined a form, which might be signed by Arians or
Aetians," omitting the most orthodox expressions of
the Creed of Antioch. "Acacius and his followers
subscribed this." After some discussion, Eleusius of
Cyzicus concluded by saying, " we must follow that
faith which was confirmed at Antioch by those older
ninety seven Bishops ; and if any one bring in aught
contrary to this, he is an alien to piety and the
Church. But when all those with him approved this,
the Synod parted. On the foUowing day, the party
of Acacius and George would not again meet [in the
Council.] Leonas also, although invited, declined,"
saying that he was " sent ° by the Emperor to be pre
sent at a harmonious Council ; but since some are at
variance, I, he said, cannot come. Go then and babble
in the Church." The other Bishops then summoned
' Socr. ii. 40.

Appeal of S. Cyril to larger Synod. 193
the Acacians, to judge the cause of Cyril Bishop of
Jerusalem. This cause is remarked as the first case
in which a Bishop, although wrongfully deposed by a
rightful authority, had appealed to a larger Council.
Acacius, as an Arian, was opposed to S. Cyril; who,
although using only the ambiguous formula, " like in
all things to the Father," was sound in his belief.
" Acacius ' then, with those Bishops of the Province
who were likeminded with himself, deposed Cyril on
the plea, that in a famine, when the hungry multitude,
in want of necessaries, looked to the Bishop, he, having
no money wherewith to succour them, sold the sacred
treasures and the hangings." S. Cyril " sent " to his
deposers a writ removing his cause, appealing to a
greater Council. This appeal Constantius favoured."
" The Bishops called in Acacius and his friends to de
cide with them as to the accused. But when these,
being frequently called, came not, they deposed Aca
cius himself and eight other Bishops, and they excom
municated Asterius and eight others, prescribing that
they should so remain, until they should defend and
clear themselves from the charge." S. Cyril was res
tored then, for he was deposed anew by the Acacians
at Constantinople.
The representative of the Emperor could even in
troduce things to the Council ; he could threaten, (as
at Ariminum) with banishment, but he could have no
' Soz. iv. 25. " Socr. 1. c.

194 Constantius misleads delegates from Ariminum
voice in the CouncU ; he could withdraw, but did not
dissolve it, nor hinder its Ecclesiastical acts.
The CouncU of Seleucia then closed. " The con
demned [ Acacians ] flew to their King." The Coun
cU of Seleucia sent, as it had been required, its ten
delegates to Constantius.
Shortiy after this, Oct. 10. A. D. 359.^ Constan
tius wore out or over-bore the ten Bishops, delegated
from the Council of Ariminum. This took place at
Ustodizo near Nice in Thrace, and the conference
there held was craftily called the Council of Nice.
The Creed employed to mislead the Westerns, was
framed by the Arian minority from the two Councils
of Ariminum and Seleucia.
" The '^ Ursacians went to Nice, a City of Thrace,
and there made another CouncU. They translate
into Greek the Creed which was read at Ariminum,
publish and confirm it." It was the Creed of the
Consulate ; but besides disclaiming the word " sub
stance," a clause was added at Constantinople by
the Arian Bishops delegated from Seleucia, disclaim
ing the word " Hypostasis " also.^ It closed by
"anathematising all the heresies hitherto condemned,
or whatever have sprung up recently, contrary to
this Creed." " They '' gave out a report that the
Creed at Nice was approved by the CEcumenical
Synod," wishing to deceive the simple by the ambi-

y S. Hil. Fragm. viii. 4. p. 1346, 7. " Socr. ii. 37. fin. Soz. iv. 19.
" see S. Ath. Counc. Arim. §. 30. comp. §. 8. Theod. ii. 21.
y Socr. and Soz. 1. c.

to own Arians, as not having been heretics. 195
guity of the name of Nice. Theodoret says, that
the Arians " brought ^ to Nice most of the Bishops
against their will, and persuaded some in simplicity,
some through fear, to complete the plan which they
had devised against the Faith." The Acts still exist.^
They rehearse, "When the Bishops had assembled in
Council at a lodging at Nice, called formerly Us
todizo, viz. Restitutus and thirteen other Catholic
Bishops, Restitutus Bishop of Carthage said, ' Your
Prudence knows, most holy feUow-Bishops, that when
the Faith was treated of at Ariminum, the conten
tion made such division, that there was disunion,
suggested by the devil, as to the Priests [Bishops] of
God, whence I, Restitutus and part of the Bishops
who followed me, gave sentence against Ursacius,
Valens, Germinius and Gaius, as authors of a cor
ruption of the faith, i. e. we separated them from our
Communion. But since, in conference with them,
we have discussed every thing, and have found (what
ought to displease none) that they held the Catholic
Faith according to the Confession which we too have
subscribed, and never were heretics, therefore, inas
much as peace and concord are highly esteemed by
God, it seemed good, by common consent of us all,
to cancel every thing done at Ariminum and restore
all to Communion. We, then, being present, oughts
each of us, to say whether what I have dwelt upon,
is right, and to subscribe it with his own hand.' All
'¦\.c. » S. Hil. 1. c. Cone. T. ii. p. 913.
0 2

196 Bishops at Ariminum worn out or misled to accept
the Bishops said, ' It seems good,' and subscribed."
" The Bishops," says S. Ambrose,'' "had first written
a pure Creed ; but when some wUled to judge of the
faith at Court, the result was that, through cir
cumvention, those judgments of the Bishops were
changed." The Emperor pushed his advantage. " The " legates
being then let go, [Taurus] had orders not to allow
the Synod [at Ariminum] to depart, till all should de
clare by their subscriptions that they agreed to the
Creed which had been framed. Recusants, if fewer
than fifteen, were to be banished. The legates however,
on their return [to Ariminum] were refused communion,
although they pleaded compulsion on the part of the
King. When the decision itseff was knoAvn, the per
plexity was still greater. Then, by degrees, several of
our's were prevaUed upon, partly through weakness of
intellect, partly through weariness at their absence
from home, and gave themselves up to the adversa
ries. — Minds having been once unsettled, they went
over in crowds to the other side ; tiU our people were
reduced to twenty. But these were strong in pro
portion to their fcAvness ; and of these, our Phcebadius
and Servatio, Bishop of Tongres, were considered
the most steadfast. These, since they yielded not to
threats and terrors, Taurus assails Adth entreaties,
and adjures them, with tears, to take mUder measures.
'The Bishops were now passing thefr seventh month,
" Ep. 21. ad Vfilentinian. §. 15. ¦: Sulp. ii. 6Q, 60.

inadequate Creed, in hope of unity with the East. 197
immured in one city. Worn out as they were vdth
the severity of Adnter and Adth want, no hope of re
turn was given them. And what would be the end ?
Let them foUow the example of the many; let them at
least find authority in numbers.' Phcebadius however
declared that he was prepared for exile and for any
tortures he might be called to, but that he would
not accept a Creed framed by Arians. Some days
were spent in this strife, and Uttle progress was made
towards peace, when by degrees he too was weakened
and at last overcome by the conditions offered him.
Valens and Ursacius declared, ' that the Creed in
question being conceived in the CathoUc sense, and
put forth by the Orientals at the instance of the
Emperor, could not be rejected Adthout sin ; for what
end would there be of their differences, ff what pleased
the Orientals, displeased those of the West ? Then
too ff they thought anything not stated fuUy enough
in the present Creed, they might themselves add what
they thought required adding ; and that they [Valens
and Ursacius] would assent to what they should add.'
This plausible profession was received by aU, now
bowed doAvn, nor did ours venture any more to refuse,
desiring at all hazards to finish the business. Next,
confessions were put forth, composed by Phoebadius
and Servatio, wherein first of aU Arius was condemned,
and all his misbelief, and the Son of God was de
clared, not indeed to be Equal Adth the Father, but
to be without beginning, without time. Then Valens,
as ff helping our's, added a sentence, wherein was hid-

198 Bishops at Ariminum require Valens
den guUe, ' that the Son of God was not a creature,
Uke other creatures' ; and the craftiness of the con
fession deceived the hearers. For in these words,
wherein the Son was denied to be Uke other crea
tures. He was yet asserted to be a creature, only su
perior to the rest. Thus neither party could con
sider itseff as either whoUy victorious or whoUy van
quished ; since the Creed favored the Arians, the con
fessions afterwards '' added, made for us, except that
which Valens subjoined, which was not understood
at the time, being noticed only when too late. The
CouncU was then dismissed, having had a good begin
ning, and a foul close."
S. Jerome " has preserved, out of the Acts them
selves, some of the details of these Anathemas,
and the form of proceeding. The People suspected
treachery, — so " Valens who had framed [the clause
excluding the word Substance] professed in the pre
sence of Taurus, Prefect of the Prsetorium, that he
was no Arian, but altogether abhorred their blas
phemy. This, being a private transaction, did not
aUay the suspicions of the People." The People
then were present, since the very object was to luU
their fears ; but the whole was done by the Bishops.
"On a second day in the Church at Ariminum,
crowds both of Bishops and laymen coming together,
Muzonius, Bishop of the Province of Byzacene, to
whom for his age aU gave the precedence, thus
¦^ i. e. the anathemas see p. 197. and 199. ' adv. Lucif c. 18.

to anathematize Arianism. 199
spake ; 'What has been published abroad and brought
to our knowledge, we enjoin that one of our body
should read to your holinesses, that all may with
one voice condemn, what, being evil, ought to be
aUen from our ears and heart. All the Bishops an
swered, ' Good.' When then Claudius, Bishop of
the ProAdnce of Picenum, had, as directed, begun to
read blasphemies attributed to Valens, he, denying
that they were his, cried aloud, ' If any one deny
that Christ the Lord, the Son of God, was begotten
of the Father before the worlds, let him be ana
thema.' AU re-echoed, ' Let him be anathema.' Va
lens. ' If any one deny the Son to be like the Father
according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.'
All answered, ' Let him be anathema.' V. ' If any
say that the Son of God is not eternal Adth the
Father, let him be anathema.' AU cried out together,
' Let him be anathema.' V. ' If any say that the Son
of God is a creature, such as the other creatures, let
him be anathema. ' It was said as before, ' Let him be
anathema.' V. ' If any say that the Son was of
things not-existing, and not of God the Father, let
him be anathema.' AU cried out together, ' Let him
be anathema.' V. ' If any say, time was, when the
Son was not, let him be anathema.' Here aU the
Bishops and the whole Church together, received
these words of Valens with a sort of jubilee of joy
and applause." " If any one suspect," subjoins S.
Jerome, "that I have invented this, let him consult
the public records. The chests of the Churches are

200 Bps. at Ariminum accepted Creed seemingly sound,
fuU, and the thing is stiU of recent date. Some, pre
sent at that Synod, are stiU living, and the Arians
themselves do not deny that aU this took place as I
have said. When then aU were praising Valens to
the skies, and condemning themselves and repenting
that they had suspected, the same Claudius, who
had begun to read [the charges] said, ' There are yet
a few things which have escaped my lord and bro
ther Valens, which, ff you please, lest any scruple
remain, let us condemn in common ; 'If any say that
the Son of God is indeed before aU ages, but not
before aU time altogether, so as to place any thing
prior to Him, let him be anathema.' All said ' Let
him be anathema.' Many other things too which
seemed suspicious, Valens condemned, in the words
of Claudius. If any wish to know more fuUy of this,
he vdU find it in the Acts of the Synod of Ariminum,
whence I too have draAvn this."
" This ^ being so done, the Council was dissolved.
AU [the Bishops] return to their ProAdnces, fuU of
joy. For the king and aU good people had one anxiety,
that East and West should be united in one bond
of communion."
The Creed to which the Bishops at Ariminum thus
assented, had, on the surface, S. Jerome « remarks, no
thing unsound. " It was entire faith to confess, that
the Son of God was God of God. And they said
'that the Only Begotten was Born Only from the
' lb. §. 19. E 1. c. §. 17.

overlooked heresy which lurked in Valens' Anathema.201
Only Father.' What means ' born ' ? Certainly not
'made.' The mention of the ' Bfrth' excluded all sus
picion [that he was thought to be] a creature. — As to
the rejection of the word ' Substance,' the reason as
signed was plausible. The Bishops were not anxious
about a word, ff the meaning was secure."
The error of the Bishops of Ariminum was that,-
to unite the Church, as they hoped, they consented to
abandon a word which had been found to be, beyond
aU others, the barrier against heresy. "Under the
plea of unity and faith, faithlessness," says S. Jerome,
" was framed, as is now acknowledged. For then no
thing seemed so pious or becoming to a servant of
God, as to foUow unity, and not to be separated from
the Communion of the whole world." The Bishops
also inadvertently allowed Valens to anathematize
his OAvn heresy in his OAvn way. His heresy was, that he
accounted our Lord to be a creature Uke aU other
creatures" i. e. in being a creature. Valens anathema
tized this ; probably in the sense, that our Lord was
not Uke them, in so far as He was superior to them.
The Bishops then understood Valens to anathematize
the very heresy, which was contained by implication
in his own anathema. They thought that he ana
thematized the heresy that our Lord was a creature :
he, by anathematizing the beUef, that He was a crea
ture like other creatures, impUed that He was a crea
ture. " The ^ wound iff healed, while the pus remain-
" lb. S. 18.

202 Bps. delegated from Seleucia dispute before Emp.
ed, burst out anew. Valens and Ursacius began to
boast, that they had not denied that the Son was a
creature, but only that He was like aU other creatures.
Then the name ' substance ' was abolished ; the con
demnation of the Nicene Faith was carried. The whole
world groaned, and marveUed that it was Arian."
The belief of the West was sound; it had been en
trapped into sanctioning what, in its legitimate im
plication, was unsound.
Meanwhile, in the East, the strife between pure
Arianism and Semi-Arianism had been removed from
Seleucia to Constantinople. At first it was carried on
by the ten Bishops delegated on either side from Se
leucia. Acacius stirred up the Emperor by accusa
tions against S. Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Semi-
Arians as connected with him. " The ' Courtiers 'per
suaded the Emperor not to assemble the whole Synod ;
(for they feared that the whole number would be uni
ted against them) but only the ten chief" Even thus,
Eleusius, Bishop of Cyzicus, compelled Eudoxius first
to condemn Aetius, and then his own beUef Sylvanus,
Bishop of Tarsus, then constrained him to anathema
tize the Arian formulae. Both of these abandoned
Semi-Arianism, confessed the Nicene Faith, and were
banished by the Emperor.
The Arians, having imposed upon the Bishops of
Ariminum, contrived that they should be nominated
as its legates to the Emperor. Ursacius and Valens
' Theod. ii. 27.

imposed upon by perjury of Arian Bishops. 203
appear at the head. The Semi-Arians in ignorance
apparently of their character, warned ^ them against
the supporters of Aetius, saying "that 'the man had
been condemned, rather than his doctrine." The le
gates, however, forthAdth communicated ¦" with the
Acacians, and explained away blasphemously aU the
doctrine " of the Creed which they had induced the
Bishops at Ariminum to sign. And yet they ven
tured to practise upon the delegates from Seleucia,
the same fraud which had succeeded at Ariminum.
" They " made oath, that they did not believe the Son
to be unlike in Substance to the Father. — The Em
peror pressed the Bishops to accept the Creed pubUshed
at Ariminum, and although he had to attend the next
day (Jan. 1. A. D. 360.) in the Consular procession,
he spent the whole day and much of the night, dis
cussing vdth the Bishops, until they too subscribed
the Creed." Sulpicius states '' that Adolence, exUe, and
terror were eniployed here as weU as at Ariminum.
"The Arians then, matters flowing but too smooth
ly in accordance Adth their wishes, flock to Constan
tinople to the Emperor : there, by royal authority
they compel the legates of the Synod of Seleucia,
whom they found there, to accept, after the example
of the Westerns, that unsound Creed. Several re
fusing, harassed by grievous imprisonment and starva
tion, yielded up their conscience. Many perse-
'' S. Hil. Fragm. x. ' Epist. Orient. Episc. legat. ab Arim. Ib. §. 1.
"i S. Hil. 1. c. §. 2. " lb. §. 3. p. 1351, 2. " Soz. iv. 23. p ii. 60.

204: Hilary sent back by God's Providence, to Gaul; Arians
veringly resisting, were driven into exile, Adth the
loss of thefr Sees, and others put in their place. The
best Bishops being thus intimidated or banished, aU
gave in to the treachery of a few. HUary was there,
haAdng foUowed the legates from Seleucia, there be
ing no definite commands respecting him, aAvaiting
the wUl of the Emperor, if haply he should be order
ed to return to exile. He, when he saw the exceed
ing perU of the Faith, (the Westerns being deceived,
and the Orientals overpowered through wickedness,)
demanded an audience '' of the king, to dispute con
cerning the faith before the adversaries. This the
Arians strenuously refused. Finally, as the seed-plot,
of discord and disturber of the East, he is ordered
to return to Gaul, Adthout remission of exUe." God,
who through the injustice of man, had brought him
into the East to bear Adtness to the Faith of the
West, carried him back into the West, through that
same injustice of Constantius, in readiness for what
He had for him to do, upon the death of Constantius
which was so soon to foUow.
The Acacians ' meanwhUe pursued their victory.
" Remaining at Constantinople, they made another
Council, sending for the Bishops from Bithynia.
These, being in aU fifty, (and among them. Maris of
Chalcedon) confirm the faith read at Ariminum," ha
ving ° added, that henceforth neither Substance nor
1 Sulpicius says " in three treatises." S. Jerome (de Virr. ni. u. 100.) men
tions only one, which is the ad Constantium L. ii. ; in which alone, of the three
treatises directed to, or against Constantius, S. Hilary asks for au audience.
' Socr. ii. 41. Soz. iv. 24, 25. • S. Hil. c. Const. §. 15.

at Constantinople re-alter Creed, condemn Arians. 205
Hypostasis should be spoken of as to God ; and that
besides this Avriting (Creed) every other, past or fu
ture, is condemned. Having done this, they deposed
not only Aetius, but also BasU, Eleusius, Sylvanus,
and other Semi-Arian Bishops, and S. CyrU, not on
any plea of faith, but on divers Ecclesiastical and
personal charges.
"The ' Emperor required that Aetius should be con
demned in Avriting. The partakers of his impiety
condemned him, their confederate. They wrote to
George, the [Arian] Bishop of Alexandria," a Synodi
cal letter, announcing the deposition of Aetius, who
had been his deacon. "Aetius," having been condemned
by the Synod for his wicked and scandalous Avritings,
the Bishops did to him what was agreeable to the
Ecclesiastical Canons. For he was deposed from the
Diaconate and cast out of the Church. We have also
subjoined admonitions, that his Epistles should not be
even read, but cast aside as unprofitable and useless. We
add that if he abide in the same purpose, he, Adth his
foUowers, is anathematized. Consistently, all the
Bishops who met in the Synod ought in common to
have expressed their abhorrence of the author of the
scandals, confusions, schisms, and tumult throughout
the world, and diAdsion of the Churches, and to have
agreed in the sentence against him." The Synod goes
on to detail how Serras and others of their number "
held out ; that the Synod was obUged to prefer the
' Theod. ii. 27. " Id. ii. 28. ' Soz. 1. c. says, "ten."

206 Synod of Constant, makes room for S. Meletius;
Canon ofthe Church to the friendship of men, and to
give them six months, within which, if they did not
accept what was decreed, they should lose thefr Epis
copal dignity, and others be placed in their stead by
"the Bishops ofthe Nation. MeanwhUe they were to
abide by themselves, without ministering, or govern
ing their diocese, untU they should subscribe. These
things having been deliberated and completed by them,
they wT-ite to the Bishops and Church everywhere to
keep and perform them."
Some of the Bishops who refused to subscribe were
Libyan Bishops, who had been intruded by Secun
dus. They were less hypocrites than the rest, yet as
conscious blasphemers. Serras bore witness, that
"Aetius affirmed that God had revealed to him what
had been hidden from the Apostles tiU then."
The Synod of Constantinople, as its last act, trans
lated Eudoxius to a third See, Constantinople ; having
just deposed Dracontius on the ground that he had
been once translated."^ Hereby, however, it made room
for an Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, after a thirty
years' succession of Arians. The great S. Meletius was
made Patriarch of Antioch in a large Synod, A. D. 360.
He had been consecrated Bishop of Sebastia by
Arian Bishops ;'' and now both the Arians and the
Orthodox combined in selecting him, the Arians be-
cause they thought him an Arian, the OrtUodox for
his "soundness of doctrine and hoUness of lffe." "The^
" Socr. ii. 43. " Soz. iv. 24. Theod. ii. 31. r Id. Ib.

Care in his election ; Arian Council of Antioch. 207
Bishops who were then come together (and they were
many coUected from all sides), said that a shepherd
must first be set over the flock, and then, in common
with him, they must consult about the doctrines."
The Orthodox " provided that the decree as to his
election was written and subscribed by aU [the Bishops]
Adth the very greatest care. Both parties gave it as
a joint compact to Eusebius Bishop of Samosata to
keep. In the foUoAdng year, Meletius was banished as ff a
SabeUian ; and "the ^ Emperor, sending for the Arian
Euzoius, and commanding the Bishops to lay hands
on him, made him Bishop of Antioch." This doubtless
took place in a distinct Synod of Antioch. "Con
stantius, having renewed the truce Adth the Persians,"
was there. He "again assembled the Bishops, com
peUing aU to deny both of 'the one Substance,' and 'of
a different Substance.'" At this same Synod, the
Acacians threw off the mask, and endeavoured to
estabUsh Arianism in its most offensive form. " The
Acacians* could not be quiet ; but meeting at Antioch
with some few, censured what they had themselves
decreed, and settled to cut the work 'Like' out ofthe
Creed read at Ariminum and Constantinople, and that
the Son was in aU things. Substance and WiU, unlike
the Father, and thought that He was of things which
were not, as Arius did from the first. — At the end when
they could not answer those who censured or re-
^ Philostg. V. 5. » Soz. iv. 29. see S. Ath. Counc. Arim. §. 31. p. 126.

208 Reported death-bed repentance of Constantius.
proached them, having again read the Faith approved
at Constantinople, they dissolved and departed to their
OAvn cities."
If Philostorgius" is to be beUeved, Constantius was
referring the charge of Acacius against Eunomius "to
a larger Synod," when " news came of the revolt of
JuUan. He immediately set off for Constantinople,
and at the same time appointed a Sjniod at Nice, to
settle the, 'of a different Substance.'" He" caught a
slight fever at Tarsus, thought to shake it off by
traveUing, was taken worse at Mopsocrenaa, was bap
tised there by Euzoius, and when not much beyond
middle Ufe, " parted with his kingdom and his Ufe,"
says the Arian Philostorgius, " and his Synods in be
haff of ungodUness;" Both Theodoret and S. Gregory of
Nazianzum, agree in speaking of Constantius' death
bed repentance, that he rescinded in wUl the miserable
successes of twenty-five years, and the object of his Ufe.
"Constantius^ departed lffe, groaning and grieAdng
that he had turned aside from the faith ofhis fathers."
"He^ repented at his last breath, when for the judg
ment seat beyond, men are unbiassed judges of them
selves." "It is said that he owmed these three evils —
the death of his kinsman, his nomination of the

^ vi. 4, 5. = Amm. Marc. xxi. 15. ^ Theod. iii. 1.
^ S. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. 26. This miracle of mercy would be the less un
likely, if, as Socrates (ii. ult.) places it, his baptism by Euzoius was in health,
before he set out ; and this may be the more probable, because Euzoius was at
Antioch, and is uot Hkely to have attended a, hasty march. It might be yet
more likely, if he had been deceived by those about him. S. Athanasius,
the better authority, places his baptism at the point of delith, (1. c.)

Constantius' irifluence not lasting nor organic. 209
Apostate, and his innovations in faith, and that with
these words he expired."
The constraint which Constantius used towards the
Bishops in the Synods, was rather personal than
organic. He was the instrument of the Evil one, in
procuring the fall and disgrace of eminent Bishops ; he
tarnished the memories of Vincentius, Liberius, and
the great Hosius, as also, in their degrees, of those
whom the Church afterwards recognised to be Saints,
S. Phoebadins and S. Servatius. He left a lasting blot
upon CouncUs, so that the Council of Ariminum be
came a byword. He embarrassed for some time the
defenders of the Faith, who had to show, how the re
ception of the CouncU of Nice by the whole Church
gave it a weight which was not due to the large and
exaggerated numbers of the Council of Ariminum.
Immediately also he weakened the influence of some
Bishops who had defended the truth, banished others,
and re-placed them by heretics.
The three great Sees of the East, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, were ruled by leaders of heresy,
as were Caesarea, Chalcedon, Laodicea, Ancyra, Tar
sus, Tyre, Nicomedia, Milan, Sirmium, and so many
others. The Bishop of Rome, Liberius (AVhenever he
may have personally recovered), was disgraced in the
sixth year of his Episcopate, and, whereas, before his
faU, he was an energetic defender of the truth, he
thenceforth, in those critical times, originated nothing
for the well-being of the Church, and his name appears

210 Extent of signatures to ambiguous formularies.
twice only in the nine remaining years of his life.
A. D. 358-367.
We have seen Hosius, the President at Nice and Sar
dica, excluded from the communion of others. The
same confusion took place Addely in smaUer or less
important dioceses. The CouncU of Constantinople
did not subscribe, but " through '' ambiguous words,
it opened the doors to heresy ; its plea being rever
ence for Scripture and the use of sanctioned s words ;
its truth, that it substituted an unscriptural Arianism.
Some [Bishops] were unjustly expelled from thefr
Sees; others substituted, but of these the subscription
to impiety [the new Creed] was required, as much as
any essential — the ink was at hand, as was also the
informer. To this the most of our's, otherwise invinci
ble, gave way, not falUng in heart, yet mispersuaded
to subscribe. Except a very few, either overlooked
for their littleness, or nobly resisting, who were to be
left to Israel as a seed and root, that it might flourish
again and rcAdve through the influxes of the Holy
Spirit, aU yielded to the times, only some sooner, some
later — either shaken by fear, or enslaved by need, or
aUured by flattery, or (the least fault) deceived through
ignorance. The confusion was exceeding great, when the chief
teachers of the Church had failed ; but the more part
had failed through timidity, which laid them open to
be deceived, choosing what an instinctive courage of
f S. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. de laude S. Ath. §. 22. 24.
E i. e. by Holy Scripture.

Julian's policy in restoring Bps. banished for faith. 211
faith would have seen to be perilous. They did not
abandon the faith itseff. And so they more quickly
recovered, like S. Peter after his faU, and the evil
spread the less. As soon as they discovered the
error, "some '' retired within their own communion ;
some began to send letters to those Confessors who
were in exile on account of Athanasius ; some
mourned over the communion [with the Arians] into
which they had, in despair, entered. Few, (as is the
wont of human nature) deliberately defended their
error." The early death of Constantius, A. D. 361, aged
45, set the Church free, in that the orthodox Bishops
could return from banishment. Julian the Apostate
was, against or beside his will, in two ways the instru
ment of God. The great officers of the Court who
had been the enemies of the truth, had also been the
enemies of his brother Gallus ; those of the Palace,
" were ' a nursery of all vices." And so he banished
some, and among them Taurus, who had gained his
Consulate by his craft at Ariminum. Eusebius the
tempter of Liberius, who had brought about the divi
sion of the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, was,
for his other crimes, put to death. Julian, as a heathen
saw that division was the weakness of Christians, and
he hoped to favor the restoration of Paganism, and
foment the division of Christians by recalling Bishops
who had been banished for the faith. A heathen his-

"" S. Jerome adv. Luc. 1. c. ' Ammian. xxii. 3. 4.
p 2

212 Eminent Bps. restored; those imposed on, retract ;
torian states this to have been his object. " To ^ in
crease the effect of his arrangements [for restoring
Pagan worship] he brought into the Palace the
Bishops of the Christians, who, with the divided peo
ple, were at variance, and courteously admonished
them that, laying their discords to rest, each should
fearlessly serve his own religion, no man forbidding.
This he did determinately to the end that, the dissen
sions being increased by this licence, he might not
thereafter have against him an unanimous people."
He could not, as a heathen, see that the Church must
gain by the restoration of her Bishops, especially such
as S. Athanasius, S. Hilary, and S. Eusebius of Ver-
cellas. " All ' the Bishops, who had been expelled
from their Sees, through permission of the new Prince,
return to their Churches. Then Egypt received in
triumph her own Athanasius ; then the Church of
Gaul embraced Hilary returning from battle ; then,
at the return of Eusebius, Italy laid aside her mourn
ing garments. The Bishops who, taken in the toils
of Ariminum, were reputed heretics without conscious
ness of heresy, hastened together, protesting by the
Body of the Lord, and whatever in the Church is
holy,thatthey suspected nothing amiss in their Creed.
*We thought,' they said, 'that the sense agreed with
the words, and feared not that in the Church of Christ
where is simpUcity and purity of confession, one thing
should be hid in the heart, another uttered by the
" Ih. 5. 1 S. Jer. 1. e.

Council of Ariminum rescinded by Councils. 213
lips. We were deceived by our good opinion of the
bad. We did not think that Bishops of Christ were
fighting against Christ.' Many other things, which I
omit for brevity, they asserted weeping, being ready
to condemn both their former subscription and all the
blasphemies of the Arians."
This (as appears from S. Jerome's own word'")
took place in Councils. S. Ambrose " says, that the
Bishops "immediately recalled their judgment." "The "
Epistle to Constantius attests their confession ; sub
sequent Councils confess their correction." Liberius p
and Damasus,i both in Synodical Epistles, attest the
same. The question was still raised whether those
Bishops should be deposed. " I would ask those over-re
ligious people," says S. Jerome,"" what they think that
the Confessors [S. Athanasius, S. Hilary, and S. Euse
bius of Vereellae], ought to have done-^ — Depose the old
Bishops, and ordain new ? It was attempted. But how
few, who have a good conscience, allow themselves to
be deposed ! Especially when all the people, loving
their Bishops, almost flew to take up stones, and kill
those who would depose them."
Healing measures then were begun at once in
Alexandria and Paris. Eusebius and Lucifer were
both in banishment for the faith near Egypt.^ Euse
bius then "entreated Lucifer to go with him to Alex
andria to see Athanasius and consulting in common

¦" Concurrebant. " Ep. 21. ad. Valentinian. §. 15. " Id. de fide i. 18. §. 122.
P In Socr. iv. 12. 1 1n Theod. ii. 22. ' 1. c. = Euf. H. E. i. 27.

214 C. of Alexandria received all but authors of heresy ;
\dth the surviving Bishops, form a decree on the
state of the Church. Lucifer refused to be present,
but sent his deacon as legate, himself hurrying eager
ly to Antioch." " Eusebius ' then came " alone " to
Alexandria, and there, together with Athanasius,
with all speed convened a Synod. The Bishops came
together from different cities, and laid open their
minds on very many important matters."
"After" the return of the Confessors, it was settled
in the Council of Alexandria, [A. D. 362.] that, ex
cept the authors of heresy, for whom error could not
be pleaded, those who repented should be joined to
the Church ; not as though those who had been he
retics could be Bishops, but that those who were
received were acknowledged not to have been here
tics. The West assented to this decision, and by
this so necessary counsel the world was rescued out
of the jaws of Satan." The Synodical Epistle runs,
" Athanasius"^ and the Bishops who were at Alexan
dria from Italy and Arabia, Egypt and Lybia, Euse
bius, Asterius, (and sixteen others named) and the
rest, to our beloved and much longed-for fellow
Bishops Eusebius [of Vercellffi], Lucifer [of Cagliari],
Asterius [of Petra in Arabia], Cymatius [of Paltus in
Ccele-Syria], Anatolius [of Euboea]." The immediate
object of the CouncU was to reconcUe the distur
bances in the Church of Antioch, which was divided
between the Eustathians, or the old Orthodox party,
' Socr. iii. 7. " S. Jer. 1. u. § 20. » S. Ath. Tom. ad Antioch. T. i. p. 770.

cleared up doctrinal language. 215
who, after the death of Eustathius, were held toge
ther by Paulinus a Presbyter, the Orthodox adhe
rents of S. Meletius, and the Arians under Euzoius.
The Council desired to unite the two Orthodox par
ties, and all who should return from Arianism.
Those who returned were to be required only to
confess the "Faith confessed by the holy Fathers at
Nice, ^ and anathematize the heresy of the Arians,
such as said that the Holy Ghost was a creature and
severed from the Substance of Christ ; the impiety
of SabeUius and Paul of Samosata, the madness of
Valentinus and Basilides, and the phrenzy of the
Manichees." The Council reconciled those who were
at variance, in that the one used the word " Hy
postasis," of " Person;" the other of the " Substance."
It rejected the alleged additions of the Council of
Sardica as spurious. It condemned also the nascent
heresy of ApolUnarius in clear doctrinal language,
to which the monks" who probably represented Apol
Unarius, assented. It concluded with an exhortation
to peace. It was subscribed by " Athanasius, and
the other Bishops present ; two Deacons sent by
Lucifer Bishop of Sardinia, and two other Deacons
from Paulinus [of Antioch]. Eusebius and Asterius,
who with Lucifer, Cymatius and Anatolius were to
act upon the Epistle, also subscribe it, as being pre-

" Id. Ib. §. 3, 4. p. 772.
^ Baronius' copy of S. Athanasius, had the additional clause "There were pre
sent also some Monks of ApoUinarius the Bishop, sent for this end." (ad. A. D.
362. §. 203.) The Benedictines have it not.

216 C. of Alexandria gives care of East to Asterius,
sent, and express separately their adhesion to its prin
ciples. The Bishops present had mostly been ba
nished for the faith under Constantius. They were
the representatives of many more ; for they speak of
themselves, as " those ^who are left at Alexandria,
together with our fellow-ministers, Eusebius and
Asterius. For the most of us have gone away to
their dioceses." They then had been present, and
so had taken part in the deUberations ; but had "gone
aAvay " before the " tome " was drawn up. Rufinus
adds, " when '" then that Sacerdotal and Apostolic
order had approved this judgment given by the au
thority of the Gospel, the care of the East was by
decree of the Council enjoined on Asterius and the
rest who were with ; him that of the West, on Euse
bius." The immediate object of the Council was defeated
by the precipitancy of Lucifer, who probably antici
pated its results, and hurried to Antioch, sending le
gates only to the Council. He perpetuated the schism
by consecrating, with two others, Paulinus as a rival
Bishop to S. Meletius, retired after awhile to Sardinia,
and died nine years after, A. D. 371. the author ofa
small schism, in the same year in which Eusebius died
as a Saint.*
The schism at Antioch being juSt healing, Eusebius
left it and "went" round the East and Italy, discharg
ing at once the office of physician and priest. He
'¦ S. Ath. 1. c. §. 9. '¦ H. E. i. 29.
" S. Jerom. Chron. A. D. 374. ^ Buf. i. 30.

of West, to Eusebius ; its letter adopted by S. Basil. 217
brought back the several Churches, (having abjured
faithlessness,) to the soundness of a right faith, espe
ciaUy when he found Hilary, (who with the other
Bishops had been driven into exile) now returned
and in Italy, essaying to bring about the same, in
restoring the Churches and the faith of the fathers."
S. Athanasius himself sent his Synodical letter to
different Churches. S. Basil pleads to the Presbyters
of Neo-Cffisarea, that he had received it, and acted up
on it. " "^When I had received the letter of the most
blessed father Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria,
which I have by me, and which I shew to those who
ask, in which he pronounced explicitly, that ff any
wished to leave the Arian heresy, confessing the faith
of Nice, he should, without any question, be admit
ted ; and when he had told me that all the Bishops
both of Macedonia and Achaia shared in this decision,
I, thinking that I must needs follow so great a man,
on account of the trustworthiness of those who passed
this law, and also hoping to receive the reward ' of
the peacemakers,' enrolled among the communicants
those who confessed this faith,"
To Rufinianus, a Bishop who had consulted S.
Athanasius, and to whom the aged Bishop wrote as
to his " lord and son," he mentions Synods of Bi
shops to the same end, in Greece, Spain and Gaul.
«d When first the violence was allayed, there was a
Synod [that of Alexandria] of Bishops from foreign
' Ep. 204. ad Neocaes. § 6. " Ep. ad Eufin. T. i. p. 963, 4.

218 C.ofAriminumcondemnedbySynodsin Greece, Spain,
parts. [ Eusebius. &c.] There was also a Synod
among our fellow-ministers who dwell in Greece;
and no less among those in Spain and Gaul; and
the same was accepted here and every where." " I
make this known to your Piety, being confident that
you will receive this decision, and will not blame the
lenity ofthe Synod. Be so good as to read this to the
Priesthood and people under you, that they too, know
ing this, may not blame you for being so disposed
towards these persons." S. Hilary, meanwhile, had
been labouring independantly to the same end. He,
by the Providence of God, was sent back to France
by Constantius, although not freed from the sentence
of banishment. " When ® he had traversed well-nigh
the whole world, infected with the disease of faith
lessness, he, hesitating and labouring under a mighty
weight of care, when many thought that communion
was not to be held vdth those who had received the
Synod of Ariminum, thinking it best to bring back aU
to repentance and amendment, by frequent Councils
Adthin Gaul, and almost aU the Bishops confessing
their errors, condemns [with them] what was done
at Ariminum and restores the faith of the Ohurches to
its former state. Saturninus, Bishop of Aries, resisting
this, and convicted of many nameless crimes, besides
the infamy of his heresy, was cast out of the Church.
Paternus of Perigeux, equaUy insensate, and not hesi
tating to profess misbeUef, was deposed ; the rest were
* Snip. ii. 60.

Gaul. C. of Paris E. 8f W. deceived as to each other. 219
pardoned. AU ovni, that through Hilary alone our
France was freed from the guUt of heresy.^" "France,
through HUary, condemned the fraud of the faith-j
lessness of Ariminum."
The first CouncU of Paris A. D. 360. whose Synod
ical letter has been preserved, was one of many, held at
the same time. S. Hilary gives to the Synodical letter
the title "The* Synodical ofthe Council, or the Catholic
Faith set forth in the City of Paris, by the GalUcan
Bishops to the Eastern Bishops." The greeting of the
Epistle is, " The GaUican Bishops to their fellow-
Priests, aU the Eastern Bishops throughout divers
provinces abiding in Christ." It is an answer to a
letter to S. Hilary, written probably by the Semi-
Arians, after their deposition at the Synod of Con
stantinople, excommunicating the Arian delegates
from Ariminum, and requesting the GaUican Bishops to
do the same. The GaUican Bishops first state ; "From
your letters, which ye directed to our beloved brother
and feUow-priest Hilary, we have learned the fraud of
the devU and the devices of heretics conspiring against
the Church of the Lord, that, diAdded in the East and
West, we might be mutually deceived as to each other.
For most of those at Ariminum or Nice, were con
strained to silence as to the 'Substance' under the au
thority of your name." Then after a sound confession
of faith they add ; " Since our simplicity learns from
your letters, that we were imposed upon in being
' S. Jerom. Chron. b Fragm. xi. init. p. 1353.

220 Eusebius and Hilary restore Italy. Liberius adopts
sUent as to the word ' Substance,' we too Avithdraw
from aU which through ignorance we did amiss ; we
hold as excommunicate, Auxentius, Ursacius, Valens,
Gaius, Megasius, and Justin [six of the ten legates
from Ariminum] according to the tenor of your letters ;
and condemn aU the blasphemies which you have sub
joined to your letters ; speciaUy rejecting their apos
tate Bishops, who, through the ignorance or impiety
of some, have been set in the place of brethren ban
ished most shamefully; promising before God, that
whoever Adthin France shall resist these enactments
shaU be cast out from our communion and his Epis
copal See." They announce that " Saturninus, who re
sisted this decree, had, according to two'' previous let
ters of our brethren, been excommunicated by aU the
GalUcan Bishops."
Unity and faith being thus restored in France,
S. Eusebius and S. HUary laboured together for the re
storation of Italy, A. D. 363. S. HUary chiefly, through
his natural gentleness and placidity, his learning and
persuasiveness.' "Thus these two men, like magni
ficent Ughts of the world, irradiated, with their bright
ness, Illyricum, Italy, and France; so that the darkness
of the heretics was scattered even from their dark
corners." At this time Liberius wrote "to the Catholic Bishops
throughout Italy," mentioning the severer judgments
' i. e. he was excommunicated now for the third time. The first was after the
Council of MUan A.D. 355. (S. Hil. c. Const §. 2.) The sentence, probably, was
renewed after the Council of Beziers. (dc Syn. §. 3. Bened. Note ad loe.) Id.
' Euf. i. 31.

C. of Alexandria, Bps. of Italy write to Illyricum. 221
ofsome; "but'^I, who ought to weigh all things calmly,
especially since all the Egyptians and Greeks have
adopted this judgment, think that those who acted
in ignorance at Ariminum ought to be spared, the
authors of the heresy being condemned." Liberius
adopts altogether the decision at Alexandria ; " if any
give himself wholly to the Apostolic and Catholic
Faith, which existed up to the meeting of the Synod
of Nice." They were the terms, on which he had
himself been received back. Soon after "the ' Bishops
of Italy wrote a congratulatory letter to their most
beloved brethren, who throughout Illyricum, retain
the faith of the Fathers." They formally rescind the
decrees of Ariminum, and ask the Bishops of Illyricum
to join therein. " Since Italy has returned to the faith
of the Fathers, i. e. the Creed framed at Nice, owning
the deceit to which it was subjected at Ariminum, we
rejoice that God has looked graciously on Illyricum
also, and joy with you, that, having cast aside the fel
lowship with faithlessness, it has begun to approve
what is right. Receive then, dearest brethren, our
decision, which we have confirmed with our subscrip
tion. We receive the Creed of Nice against Arius
and SabeUius, whose condemnation Photinus has in
herited. We, with reason, by consent of all the pro
vinces [of Italy], rescind the decrees of the Council
of Ariminum, which, through the tergiversation of
some, were corrupted ; and of this we have decided
to send copies, lest it should be thought that there
" S. Hil. Fragm. xii. 1. ' lb. §. 3.

222 S. Ath. obtains subscriptions to C. of Alexandria
was any disunion either as to retaining the faith, or
rejecting the Council of Ariminum. Whoever then
desires to be in communion with our united body, let
him with all speed confirm our sentence, sending dis
tinctly his subscription to the Nicene Creed, and his
rescinding of the Council of Ariminum. We only ask
what we ourselves give with the consent of these many
provinces." France, Italy, Illyricum, Achaia, Egypt, were thus
at rest. The times did not admit of a General Coun
cil, and S. Athanasius thought that the emerging
heresy of Macedonius, who was beginning to deny
the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, was as yet suffi
ciently met by the Nicene Creed, as it then existed.
"For the Fathers of Nice," he says, "glorified the
Holy Ghost together with the Father and the Son
in the one faith of the Trinity, because in the Holy
Trinity there is One Godhead."
S. Athanasius, then, resorted to the same way of
collecting the sense of the Church, which had been
adopted in the second century, about the keeping of
Easter," and which he himself had followed in the
confirmation of the Council of Sardica," by obtaining
Synodical letters from the different Churches through
out the world. Thus in the brief space of the year
and a half of Julian's reign," S, Athanasius had brought

" See above, p. 50. sqq. n Ab. p. 140.
° Constantius died Nov. 11, A. D. 361. Julian was declared Augustus by
the Senate, Dec. 11. — He pubUshed his edict soon afterwards ; fell, and was
succeeded by Jovian, Jnne 26. or 27. A. D. 363.

thro' Synodical letters from almost all the Church. 223
together the testimony of almost the whole living
Church, that they adhered to the faith of Nice. He
states this in his letter to Jovian on his accession : —
" Know,'' most religious Emperor, that these things
were preached from the beginning; this faith the Fathers
assembled at Nice confessed ; this all the Churches
everywhere now in their places receive, in Spain and
Gaul, and the whole of Italy, Dahnatia, Dacia, and
Mysia, Macedonia, and the whole of Greece, and
throughout aU Africa, and Sardinia, and Cyprus,
Crete, Pamphylia, Lycia, and Isauria, and those in
Egypt and Libya, Pontus and Cappadocia, and the
Churches near us, and those in the East, except a
few which hold the opinions of Arius. The mind of
aU the fore-mentioned we know by actual trial, and
we have their letters. And thou knowest, most religious
Emperor, that though some few oppose this Creed,
they can create no prejudice, when the whole world
holds the ApostoUc Faith."
S. Athanasius, a few years later, about A. D. 369,
in a Synodical letter from tjie Bishops of Egypt and
Libya to those of Africa Proper, mentions some addi
tional countries, but states distinctly that this adhe
rence to the Nicene Creed was given by Synods. ^
"1 What was Avritten both by our beloved feUow-
minister Damasus, Bishop of the great Rome, and
those so many Bishops who met in CouncU with him

P Ep. ad Jovian. §. 2, p. 781.
1 Fp. Episc. .ffig. et Lib. et. S. Ath, c. Arian. ad Ep. Afi-. init. T. i. p. 891.

224 Councils enact nothing new, but re-affirm the old.
might have sufficed ; and no less the writings of the
other Synods which were held in Gaul and Italy con
ceming the sound faith, which Christ bestowed, the
Apostles preached, and the Fathers, assembled in Nice
from our whole world, handed doAvn. For so great was
their zeal on account of the Arian heresy, that they
who had faUen into it should be plucked out, and they
Avho had devised it, should be made manffest. To this
the whole world long since agreed ; and now too, that
there have been many Synods, all in Dalmatia, and
Dardania, Macedonia, the Epiri and Greece, Crete
and the other Islands, SicUy, C5rprus, Pamphylia,
Lycia and Isauria, the whole of Egypt and Lybia, and
most of those in Arabia, having this again brought be
fore them, confirmed it : and they reverenced those
who had subscribed it [the Nicene Fathers] because,
even ff any bitterness yet surAdved among them,
springing up from the root of the Arians, i. e. Auxen
tius and Ursacius, and Valens and those who hold the
same opinions, they had been cut off and rejected by
these letters."
The object of these CouncUs was, not to add any
thing to what had been done by the Council of Nice,
but to show that the main body of the Bishops, how
ever some had for the time been imposed upon by
pleas about Scriptural terms, really held the faith
which was confessed at Nice. "I for my part," says
S. Athanasius in his celebrated letter to '' Epictetus,
' init. T. i. p. 901.

Contxast of iheissue of Councils of Nice Sf Ariminum. 225
"thought that aU the idle speaking of aU heretics what
soever had been sUenced through the Council at Nice.
For the faith therein confessed by the Fathers according
to the Divine Scriptures is sufficient to overthrow aU
ungodliness, and to establish the godly Faith in Christ.
Therefore, whereas now too there have been many
Synods in Gaul, Spain, and great Rome,^ aU who have
assembled, as though moved by one Spirit, have unani
mously anathematized those who stUl secretly hold
the Arian opinions; I mean Auxentius in Milan, Ur
sacius, Valens, and Gaius of Pannonia. And since
these people devised to themselves names of Synods,
they wrote everywhere that none be called a Synod
in the CathoUc Church, save only the Synod held at
Nice, which was a trophy set up over aU heresy,
speciaUy the Arian, by reason of which the Synod
was chiefly held. How then, after all this, do some
stUl venture to question or dispute ? "
The relation of Councils to the whole Church, of
which even General Councils are the representatives,
is illustrated by the different issue of the two Coun
cils of Nice and Ariminum. Over and above the
fact, that the Bishops at Ariminum condemned here
sy, while free, and suppressed the clear expression of
truth, under threats, the Council of Nice was con
firmed by the whole Church ; that of Ariminum was
rejected by it. The confirmation or rejection by the
whole Church set the seal to the character of the
¦ In contrast with "New Eome'' or Constantinople.
Q

226 Council of Nice received everywhere, even to India ;
CouncU which represented it. " The ' CouncU of Nice
became CEcumenical, three hundred and eighteen
Bishops assembling concerning the Faith, because of
the Arian impiety ; that there might no longer be
partial Councils, under pretext of the Faith, but
that even if there were, they might not hold. For
what did that lack, that any should seek something
new ? It is full of piety, beloved ; it hath filled the
whole world. This the Indians too acknowledged,
and all the Christians among the other Barbarians.
Vain therefore is their toil who are often striving
against it. For these people have already held ten
or more Synods, changing in each, taking away some
things from the first, and in the following changing
and adding. And they have gained nothing up to the
present time, writing, erasing, forcing, not knowing
that 'every plant, which the Heavenly Father hath
not planted, shall be rooted up.' But the Word of
the Lord which came by the CEcumenical Council
of Nice remaineth for ever. For if any one compare
number with number, they of Nice surpass the partial
Councils, as much as the whole is greater than the
part." The Arians exaggerated the numbers of the Bi
shops at Ariminum to eight hundred and thirty."
' Ep. ad. Afr. §. 2. p. 892.
" Auxentius in his Memorial to the Emperors, calls them six hundred. " I
think, most pious Emperors, that the unity of six hundred Bishops is not to be
reopened through the contentiousness of a few men." in S. Hil. u. Aux. §. 13.
Philostorgius calls them three hundred only, (iv, 10.) Julian the Pelagian taunt
ed the Church, as though out of sbc hundred and fifty, some seven only had
stood, (in S. Aug. Op. Imp. c. Jul. i. 75.) S. Athanasius says that there were

Council of A riminum left scarce a vestige. 227
The Church could afford to argue, as if this were true.
The judgment of the Episcopate of the whole Church
confirmed the faith taught by the three hundred and
eighteen at Nicaea ; it corrected the timidity of those
at Ariminum, and would have annulled their decision,
had they even been eight hundred and thirty. " As
for their plea Adth the ignorant, ' are we to believe
the many or the few ? ' says S. Fulgentius,"' in that
the Council of Nice was celebrated with three hundred
and eighteen Fathers, whereas they boast that of
Ariminum amounted to eight hundred and thirty — I
will explain briefly. The Homoousion, put forth
amid a few [as was alleged] so prevailed, that coming
to the knowledge of the other Bishops throughout
the whole world, they joyed in the honor of confess
ing it. Had the Synod of Ariminum met in those
vast numbers which these assert, the Bishops of that
sect would multiply throughout the world, its people
would increase, its faith would occupy the Empire
itself. But when the craft of its fraud was detected
through prudent and approved men, the Homoousion
was so confirmed, that we see that scarce a vestige of
Ariminum remained wherewith to prove the Catholics."
The Semi-Arians and Donatists also avaUed them
selves of Julian's permission to return to their Sees.
The Donatist conventicles will best be considered to-

more than four hundred Bishops there. (Counc. Arim. §. 8. p. 82. §. 33. p. 130.
0. T.) The Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt and Lybia calls them (in
the present text) two hundred. §. 3. p. 893.
' pro fide Cath. §. 3. B. P. T. ix. p. 270.
Q 2

228 Synods of Macedonian and A rian Bishops.
gether. " The '^ party of Macedonius, of whom were
Eleusius, Eustathius, and Sophronius, who now be
gan openly to be called Macedonians, as being parted
into a distinct sect, being enabled by the death of
Constantius to act fearlessly, having called together
their associates at Seleucia, held certain Synods ;
and rejected the Acacians and the Creed confirmed
at Ariminum, and approved that set forth at Antioch,
and confirmed at Seleucia. When blamed for need
lessly differing with the Acacians, whereas before
they had communicated with them as being of one
mind, Sophronius of Paphlagonia answered, ' The
Westerns approve of the ' Of One Substance,' Aetius
in the East 'the Unlikeness in Substance.' The
Westerns confound the Persons of the Father and
the Son. Aetius removed too far the relationship of
the Nature of the Son fi-om the Father. We are
reverent in saying that the Son is ' like in Substance'
to the Father, and have chosen a middle way, the
others going to opposite extremes.'" As if there
could be any middle term between the Creator and
the creature, or as if any being, who was not God,
Equal with the Father, could be other than a creature!
The little party of Aetius also made its Synod.
Eudoxius wrote to Euzoius of Antioch to gather a
Synod to absolve Aetius from his condemnation. Eu
nomius with five Arian Bishops from Africa, who
before would not condemn Aetius," consecrated him
•
" Soz, ». 14. ^ ab. p. 205.

Synodical Epistle to instruct the Emperor Jovian. 229
Bishop at Constantinople.^ Euzoius, at the same
time, having gathered a Synod of nine Bishops, an
nulled the sentence against Aetius.
God took away Julian, while threatening evil to
the Christians, and gave them, through Jovian, an
eight months' peace. Jovian, elected by Julian's army
in its difficulties, was a Catholic. " As ^ soon as he
set foot within his Empire, he first passed a law
recalling the banished Bishops and restoring the
Churches to those who held the Nicene Faith invio
late. He wrote also to Athanasius, requesting him
to send him in writing accurate instruction in Divine
things. But he, gathering the best Divines of the
Bishops together, wrote back exhorting him to keep
the Faith set forth at Nice, as agreeing with the
Apostolic doctrine." The letter is inscribed, " Atha
nasius " and the other Bishops who met together, in
behalf of all the Bishops of Egypt, the Thebais and
Libya." The Epistle is chiefly a statement of facts.
S. Athanasius insists on the fact of the reception of
the Nicene Creed. " It was acknowledged and pro
claimed everywhere in every Church." " The '' Empe
ror having read the letter was firmer in his know
ledge and disposition as to Divine things."
The Macedonian Bishops, on their side, attempted
to gain Jovian to expel the Anomoeans, and reinstate
themselves. " At " that time BasU Bishop of Ancyra and Silva-
y Philostrg. vii. 6, ^ Theod. iv. 2, 3. » S. Ath. de fid. ad. Jov.
*• Theod. iv. 4. ¦= Soz. vi. 4.

230 Seriii- Arians ask Jovian to hold Synods de novo. C. of
nus Bishop of Tarsus, and Sophronius Bishop of
PompeiopoUs, and their party* who rejected the heresy
of the Anomoeans, but accepted the ' of like Sub
stance' instead of the 'of One Substance,' sent a
petition to the Emperor, asking that either what had
been settled at Ariminum and Seleucia should remain
firm, and what had been done through the party-
spirit and power of certain persons, be void, or that
the schism, which existed between the Churches before
the Synods, remaining, the Bishops everywhere be al
lowed to meet where they Adlled, themselves by them
selves, no other taking part.' — At the same time a
Synod being assembled in Antioch of Syria, the faith
of those who had met at Nice is confirmed, and it is
decreed, that questionless the Son be held to be of
One Substance wdth the Father. In this Synod Me
letius, who had then the charge of the Church of An
tioch itself, and Eusebius of Samosata, [S.] Pelagius of
Laodicea, Acacius and [S.J Irenio of Gaza, and Atha
nasius of Ancyra, took part. HaAdng done this, they
shewed the Emperor what they had decreed, writing
thus ; ' To our most religious Lord Jovian, the Synod
of Bishops met in Antioch from different Provinces.'
— Thus did the Bishops then present at Antioch de-
¦' Socr. iii. 25. names four other Bishops.
" " Nicephoms explains this of secular Officers who, at the command of the Em
perors, were present at Synods to keep order or to help (see ab. p. 1 27-8. 189-92.) For
he substitutes the words "no layman taking part " [/.li, TivhsKoaii-iKov Koivavovyros
for iiTtSivhs &\Aou (coij/fflyoDcTos.] Yet these words may be understood of Bishops
themselves, and perhaps better. For Basil, Silvanus and others, asked that each
Bishop might call Synods together within his own diocese, no other Bishop be
ing present."— A'ales.

Antioch. Macedonians apply to Valentinian (^ Valens. 231
cree, subjoining to thefr OAvn letter in its very words
the faith set forth by those who met at Nice." Socrates
adds the names of twenty-seven Bishops who sub
scribed it, including besides the above, Titus of Bostra,
AnatoUus of Beroea, Isaac of Armenia Major; and of
the Acacians, Evagrius, Uranius, ZoUus, Eutychius,
Peter of Hippi, Arabion, Magnus, and Acacius him
seff. Socrates says " we found this book in Sabinus'
coUection of Synodical Transactions."
Valentinian succeeded Jovian, February 26. A. D.
364. and, associating his brother Valens with himself,
assigned to him the East. "As^ Valentinian was jour
neying through Thrace from Constantinople to Rome,
the Bishops of Hellespont and Bithynia and as many
others as held that the Son was 'ofsOne Substance'
Avith the Father, delegate Hypatian Bishop of Hera
clea to request to be permitted to meet [in Synod] for
the correction of doctrine." To these Valentinian
made the celebrated answer; "For'^ me who hold the
rank of a layman, it is not lawful to meddle in these
things; let the Bishops, whose office it is, meet by
themselves where they wiU."
Soon 'after, "Valens remaining at Constantinople,
very many of the Bishops of the Macedonian sect "
' Soz. vi. 7. s Sozomen probably supposed these Bishops to have been sincere
in professing the Nicene faith to Liberius. Some correct Homoiousion " of like
Substance." ¦" Sozomen appears to have had some knowledge of this characteristic answer
of Valentinian, and so to have corrected the account of Socrates who only men
tions the apphcation which the Macedonians made to Valens. In the early days
of their Empire, just on its division, it is probable that the Macedonian Bishops
applied to both brothers. ' Socr. iv. 2.

.232 Macedonian Synod of Lampsacus.
made the same request to him. " The King, supposing
them to agree with the Acacians and Eudoxians, per
mitted it. They speedily gathered a Synod at Lam
psacus." "And^ having consulted for two months, they
at last decided that what had been done at Con
stantinople through .Eudoxius and Acacius should
be annuUed." They adopted the word " of Uke Sub-
stance"as being' necessary in their judgment "to distin
guish the Persons" of the Father and the Son. "Then,
having confirmed anew the Creed of Antioch, which
they had also subscribed at Seleucia, they anathema
tized the Creed set forth at Ariminum by those who
were lately joined in opinion with them ; and aneAV
they condemned Acacius and Eudoxius, as justly de
posed." "They " decreed moreover that the Bishops
deposed by the Anomoeans should recover their Sees, as
having been unlawfully ejected from their Churches.
If any one wished to accuse them, he should do it at
the Uke risk. The judges should be the orthodox Bi
shops of the province and the neighbouring provinces,
meeting in that Church, where are the Adtnesses
of the lffe of each. Having decreed this, and sum
moned the Eudoxians and aUowed them repentance,
they, upon the non-compliance of the Eudoxians, pub
Ushed to the Churches everywhere, what they had
decreed." "Eudoxius" Bishop of Constantinople, could
not gainsay all this, for the civU waf ° hindered him.
Wherefore Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicus and his party
" Soz. 1. c. ' Socr. iv, 4. ¦" Soz. 1. c, " Socr. 1. c,
" The revolt of Procopius.

Yalensemploys SynodofArianBps.ag- Semi-Arian : 233
became stronger, having sanctioned the doctrine of
Macedonius, before of little account, but then much
more knoAvn in the Synod at Lampsacus. I think
that this Synod was the cause that the Macedonians
are numerous on the Hellespont. For Lampsacus is
on the strait of the Hellespont." " The ^ Emperor,
having prospered, again harassed the Christians, wish
ing to Arianize every reUgion. The Synod at Lam
psacus especially angered him, not only for deposing
the Arianizing Bishops, but because it also anathe
matized the Creed of Ariminum, He sent then for
Eleusius to Nicomedia and having gathered a Council
of Bishops of the Arian heresy, constrained him to
join their faith."
The Historians differ as to the time when Valens
fell into Arianism. He was seduced by his wife, who
had been misled by Eudoxius. Theodoret is at pains
to shew that he was orthodox at first,i but was bap
tized by Eudoxius when about to march against the
Goths A. D. 368. Socrates ^ and Sozomen ^ speak of
him as an Arian from the first. Plainly, he must have
been an Arian, before he chose Eudoxius, from
whom to receive Baptism. Probably, he took no
overt line at first, and allowed his brother from
whom he had received his power, to prefix his name
to the Imperial letter to the Bishops of Asia.
The persecutions of Valens began A. D. 366. He
persecuted all who were not Arians, the Orthodox,
P lb. iv. 6. 1 Theod, iv, 7. and 12. ' iv. 1. ' vi. 6.

234 Synods of Semi-Arian Bishops returning to the Faiih.
the Novatians, as being orthodox on the doctrine
of the Trinity, and the Semi-Arians as not being
Arians. " In * Thrace, Bithynia, the Hellespont, and
beyond, the Emperor and Eudoxius left to the Or
thodox, neither churches nor priests. In these parts
they directed their chief efforts against the Macedo
nians, as far outnumbering them." This persecution of
the Semi-Arians was, in God's hands, the means of
bringing back a large section of the Semi-Arians to
the Church. The Macedonian Bishops, persecuted
by Valens, " decided " that they must betake them
selves to his brother (Valentinian Emperor of the
West) and to Liberius Bishop of Rome, and embrace
their faith rather than communicate with the Eudox
ians. They sent therefore Eustathius, Silvanus, and
Theophilus with letters which they wrote, — having
gathered Synods, from Smyrna, Pisidia, Isauria, Pam
phylia, Lycia." The three Bishops stated, " in the
book which they presented to Liberius, ' We ac
knowledge the Synod of orthodox Bishops which
took place in Lampsacus and Smyrna and divers
other places, of which Synod ' we, being the legates,
bring to your Goodness and to all the Bishops of
Italy and the West, a writing, that we hold and keep
the Catholic faith ; viz. that, which having been con
firmed by the three hundred and eighteen Bishops in
the holy Council of Nice, in time of the blessed Con
stantine, abides till now and continually, undefiled
' Soz. vi. 10. " Socr. iv. 12.
y " all the Synods agreeing, they speak of all as one." from Vales.

depute Bps. fo Liberius^ Bps. ofthe West; their answer. 235
and unshaken ; wherein the Homoousion stands holily
and piously against the perversions of Arius." This
they promise to keep to the end, condemning Arius
and his impious doctrine, with his disciples and those
of like mind ; also all heresies of the Patropassians,
SabeUius, the Marcionites, Photinians, MarceUians,
and Paul of Samosata and their teaching, and all
like-minded with them, and all heresies opposed to
the aforesaid holy faith, which was holily and Catho-
lically set forth by the holy fathers at Nice, &c. and
the Creed recited at the Council of Ariminum, as
being contrary to the above Creed of Nice, which
Acts, being brought from Nice to Constantinople,
they, persuaded through craft and perjury, subscri
bed." "This confession, I Eustathius, Bishop of Sebas
tia, and Theophilus and Silvanus legates of the Sy
nods of Lampsacus, Smyrna and the rest, subscribe."
The answer of Liberius is entitled " The Epistle of
Liberius, Bishop of the Romans, to the Bishops of the
Macedonians." It runs, " To our beloved brethren
and fellow-Bishops Eustathius, Cyril," (and sixty-one
others who are named) "and to all the orthodox Bi
shops in tlie East, Liberius Bishop,"^ (and those) of
Italy, and the Bishops in the West." He mentions
that " almost all those who were at Ariminum and
were deceived or led away, had now recovered, and
y Epiph. Schol. vii. 25. has " Liberius Bishop, and the Western Bishops."
Vales, prefers this, or to add o5t6 before t^s IraXias, to Socrates' reading,
"Bishop of Italy." Liberius speaks a little afterwards of "the faith of my
Leastship, and of those in Italy and all the Westerns," which corresponds
with the memorial of the three Bishops, p. 234.

236 Synods in Sicily and Tyana to restore the faith.
had anathematized the Creed of those who met at
Ariminum, and subscribed the Catholic and Apostolic
faith, sanctioned at Nice ; " and having rehearsed
their acts, he adds, " we have known through the
confession of your legates, that the Easterns, having
recovered, agree with the Orthodox of the Westerns."
"Having received this letter, Eustathius and those
with him went to Sicily ; and having procured a
Synod of the Sicilian Bishops to be held, and having,
before them, confessed the faith of the Homoousion,
and confirmed the faith of Nice, having receiA^ed from
them too letters of the same import, returned to
those who sent them."
This, as far as relates to Eustathius himself, was
hypocrisy, and he made use of the restoration to the
See, thus obtained, to the furtherance of his own
heresy ; but it was a step to a better understanding of
the East and West. The legates explained that they
held that "the Son was in all things like the Father,"
and that the word "like," "Homoios" (in their mean
ing) no way differed from " Homoousion," " of one
Substance." This letter was one of the last acts of
Liberius, who died Sept. 24. A. D. 366. and was suc
ceeded by Damasus.
"^Atthat time Eusebius Bishop of CaBsarea, Pelagius
of Laodicea, Zeno of Tyre, Paul of Emesa, Otreus of
Melitine and Gregory of Nazianzum (father of S. Gre
gory of Nazianzum ) and many others who, in the
reign of Jovian had decreed at Antioch to retain
" Soz. vi. 12.

¦ Synodof Tarsus stepped hy Valens; Bps. banished. 237
the Homoousion, holding a Synod at Tyana, the
letters of Liberius and others of the West were read.
And being exceedingly glad thereat, they wrote to all
the Churches, to read the decrees of the Bishops of the
West, and the letters of Liberius, and the Italians,
Africans, Galatians in the West, and Sicilians, (for the
legates from Lampsacus had brought their letters also)
and to consider their number; for they far exceeded
in number the Synod at Ariminum. They wrote
also that they should be of one mind and communicate
with them, and signify by their own writing that they
are ofthe same opinion, and meet in the spring at Tar
sus, at a day which they fixed. But when the Synod
was about to be held at Tarsus, about thirty-four of
the Asiatic Bishops, having met in Caria of Asia, prais
ed their zeal for the harmony of the Churches, but de
clined the word Homoousion, and affirmed that the
Creed set forth at Antioch and Seleucia ought to pre
vail, as being that of Lucian the Martyr, and having
been approved by those before them with perils and
much toil. The Emperor, instigated by Eudoxius, dis
solved the Synod expected in CUicia, Avriting thereupon
and adding threats. He commanded also the Governors
of the Provinces severaUy to expel from the Churches
the Bishops deposed in the time of Constantius and who
resumed their office in the reign of Julian."
In the same year, Ursacius and Valens, Gaius and
Paul, Anomcean Bishops, wrote from a Synod at Sige-
din,5' to Germinius Bishop of Mursa (under threat of en-
y S. Hil. Fragm. xiv. p. 1360.

238 Arians against Semi-Arians; Synods under Damasus.
tertaining some complaint of iU-treatment by two of
his Clerks made against him to their feUow-Bishops)
to request him to explain, that he was also an Ano
mcean. Germinius wrote back"" to eight other Bishops
there assembled, that he learnt and taught clearly, that
"Our Lord Christ, the Son of God, is like to the Fa
ther in all things, except that the Father was Unbe
gotten." In the Confession," which occasioned the
Arian Synod of Sigedin, Germinius said that he "believ
ed in Christ, the Only Son of [God the Father] and
our Lord Go.d, the Very'' Son of God, of the Very God
the Father, Begotten before all things, like in all things,
in Divinity, Love, Power, Glory, Life, Wisdom,
Knowledge, Majesty, to the Father, as being Begot
ten Perfect from Perfect."
Damasus, at the beginning of his Episcopate, was
occupied with the opposition of his wicked rival Ur-
sinus. S. Athanasius and his Council A. D. 369. men
tion to the African Bishops a letter written against
the Arians by him and the Bishops who had met in
Synod with him.'' And " we ^ thanked " he says, " his
(Damasus') Piety and the rest who met at Rome, that
casting out Ursacius and Valens, with their associates
of the same mind, they preserved the peace of the
Church." Nothing more is known of this Council, nor
does it appear what remained for Damasus and his
^ lb. Fragm. xv.
" Fragm. xiii. •¦ This form while it approches in sound to
tbe Nicene Creed, only asserts our Lord to be " the Very Son," not to be
Very God. see Gesta Cone. Aquil. ap. S. Ambr. Epist. T. ii. p. 790. 1.
= see ab. p. 223. " Ep. ad Episc. Afr. §. 10. p. 899.

Large C. of Alexandria warns against Auxentius. 239
Council to do ; since a prcAdous Council of Italian
Bishops had, in the time of Liberius, declared them
already condemned.^
In a second Council of forty-four Bishops,*^ Dama
sus was cleared of a calumnious charge of adultery,
and the calumniators cast out of the Church.
A. D. 369. One Chronopius, an " ex-Bishop " con
demned by a Council of seventy Bishops,^ appealed to
the prefect of the city, and was by him again con
demned. This second sentence Chronopius attempted
to suspend by a new appeal. He thereby incurred a
heavy fine, which the Emperor, Valentinian the Elder,
directed to be " faithfuUy expended on the poor." This
was now made a law " for all Ecclesiastical causes."
This Chronopius perhaps belonged to the faction of
Ur sinus.
A. D. 371. S. Athanasius wrote in the name of a
large Council to "our'^ beloved Damasus, Bishop of
Great Rome, against Auxentius, invader of the Church
at Milan, setting forth, that he was not only involved
in the Arian heresy, but was guilty of many offences,
which he had committed together with Gregory [the
Arian invader of the See of S. Athanasius] the partner
of his ungodliness, and marvelling Avhy he was not
yet deposed and cast out of the Church." The same
Synod, which in its Epistle to the African Bishops
mentions the Epistle which it had sent to Damasus,
urged the African Bishops to reject those who
• see ab. p. 220. S. Hil. Frag. xii. p. 1359. ' Gest. Pontific. Cone. ii. 1037.
e Cod. Theod. Quorum appellat leg. 20. T. iv. p. 307. Cone. ii. 1040.
'¦ Ep. ad Afr. §. 10. p. 899.

240 Auxentius condemned hy Bps. of Gaul and Italy.
maintained the Council of Ariminum against the
Nicene. " Not we alone write this ; but all the Bi
shops in Egypt and Africa, ninety in number. For
all are of the same mind, and subscribe one for the
others if they happen to be absent."
S. Hilary also wrote a circular letter to " his most
beloved brethren, the Bishops and all people, who
abode in the faith of the Fathers," against Auxentius.'
In consequence of the appeal of the Council of
Alexandria, Damasus assembled a Council of ninety
or ninety-three Bishops ^ from Italy and Gaul at
Rome, " to hear the cause of Auxentius and set forth
the faith."
The Letter of the Council was Encyclical. One
was addressed ; " The ' Bishops who met in sacred
Synod at Rome, Damasus, Valerian and the rest, to
their beloved brethren the Bishops in Illyricum."
They state ; " By the report of certain GaUican [S,
Hilary] and Venetian brethren [Philastrius and Eva
grius] we have learnt that certain are set upon here
sy. Which evil, Bishops ought not only to forecast,
but they ought also to resist what is done by the
ignorance or simplicity of some, deceived by wrong
interpretations. They must not be shaken by divers
doctrines ; they must rather retain the belief of our
Fathers. It is decided that Auxentius of Milan is
on this ground especially condemned. It is right
' c. Auxent. p. 1263. sqq.
^ 90. in Ep. 6. Damasi Couc. ii. 1031. and Theod. ii. 22. sqq. The copy pub
lished by Luc. Holstein has 93. Pontif Ep. p. 165. Cone. ii. 1043.
' Theod. ii. 22.

Bps. ai Ariminum knew not what ihey did. 241
then that all the teachers in the Roman world
should be of the same mind and not defile the faith
by divers teaching. For when the malice of heretics
began to put forth, as now too especially the blas
phemy of the Arians is stealthily spreading, our fore
fathers, the three hundred and eighteen "Bishops,
having considered it at Nice, placed this wall against
the darts of the devil, and by this antidote removed
his deadly poisons, that the Father and the Son are of
One Substance, One Godhead, &c. But those very
persons, who, at Ariminum, were constrained to
change or to tamper with this formula, corrected this
so far, as to confess that they had been misled into
other language, because they did not observe, that it
was contrary to the decision of the Fathers at Nice.
Your sound mind then perceives that this faith alone
which was founded at . Nice on the authority of the
Apostles, is to be kept firm for ever, and that those
of the East, who profess that they are Catholics, and
the Westerns, with us, glory in it. But we believe
that, in no great time, those other\dse minded will,
by the very attempt, be severed from our commu
nion, and that the very name of Bishop will be taken
from them, so that the people may breathe again,
freed from their errors. For they cannot recall
the people from error, who are themselves held by the
meshes of error. Let your judgement, beloved, agree
"° Sozomen (vi. 23.) and Epiphanius Schol. have been followed in" leaving
out the clause /cal ol Ik ttjs VaiixaXav ayiariiTi^s which are omitted also in the
Cod. Eeg. and edit. Basil, ap. A'ales. It bears the appearance of an addition.

242 C. of Antioch confirms letters of Westem Bishops.
with all the Priests [Bishops] of God, wherein we be
lieve that you are firm and steadfast. If then we are
to join with you in the right faith, gladden us, beloved,
with letters in return."
Another copy" of the letter is preserved, in which
the Synod is said to have been held by " imperial re
script," the Bishops to have been ninety-three, and
tke Synodal letter is addressed to "the Catholic Bi
shops throughout the East." The letter is authenti
cated by the subscription of Sabinus, "I Sabinus Dea
con, legate of Milan, gave this from the original."
" The whole Eastern Church, having held a Council
at Antioch, believing with a harmonious faith, all
consenting to the faith above expounded, each con
firmed it by his subscription. The list is headed by
Meletius Bishop of Antioch. Then follow Eusebius of
Samosata, Pelagius, Zeno, Eulogius, Bematius, Dio
dorus of Tarsus, and "one hundred and forty six, [or
one hundred and sixty three,] other Eastern Bishops,
the authentic copy of whose subscription is kept in the
archives of the Roman Church at this day."
The Synodical letter of the Bishops of Italy and
France was sent to the Bishops of the East, in conse
quence of the appUcation of S. BasU, who, after he
had restored peace among his own suffragan Bishops,
" pubhshed by L. Holstem and in Cone. ii. 1043. After the subscription of
Sabinus authenticating the Epistle, and before the subscriptions, there occur
statements on the Holy Trinity, and against ApoUinarianism, probably authen
tic, smce mention is made of Dorotheus, the Presbyter sent by S. Basil to the
West. ap. Holstein 1. c. This copy specifies ten names. The original contained
them all ; for Theodoret says " I would have inserted their names, had I not
thought it superfluous."

S. Basil's efforts to reunite Churchhy consent of Bps. 243
had been labouring unceasingly for the pacification
of the Church. To this centre three plans converg
ed: — 1. To bring about a good understanding be
tween the Easterns and Westerns, so as to exhibit the
Church in one against the Arians. 2. To heal the
schism at Antioch between the adherents of S. Mele
tius and PauUnus, by gaining the Westerns to acknow
ledge S. Meletius. 3. To bring back the Semi-Arians,
or Macedonians, to the Church. The Roman Church,
by recognising PauUnus, whom Lucffer had consecra
ted in opposition to Meletius, was itseff the chief sup
porter of the schism at Antioch. S. Basil also hoped,
that ff the East and West were once united, the op
pressions of Valens might be mitigated, or might
cease. The Western Bishops had, on thefr side, to
explain to the Easterns, what they had done to re
scind the CouncU of Ariminum, as also how, uncea-
suiglj'- condemning Arius, they abstained from census
ring MarceUus, whose doctrines, ending in SabeUianism,
came to the same result as Arianism. Sabellianism
being imputed to the CathoUcs by the Arians, there
was the more apparent reason to clear themselves
from sanctioning it in MarceUus.
The fruits of S. BasU's labours appeared after he
was gone to his rest. The Arian persecutions did not
admit of large CouncUs. S. BasU therefore set him
seff to obtain the common consent of the Bishops,
whom he was endeavouring to unite.
The .first step in his plan of healing, was to obtain
the reception of S. Meletius into the communion of
r2

244 /S. Basil labors to hring S. Meletius and his Bisliops
S. Athanasius and the West, since aU the East held
Adth him. " For" the other affairs of the West," he
writes to S. Athanasius, " perhaps thou must have the
aid of more [Bishops], and thou must needs wait for
those from the West. But the good order ofthe Church
at Antioch plainly depends upon your Piety ; to make
an arrangement as to some [PauUnus,] to quiet others,
and through harmony to restore strength to the
Church. We look to you to stUl the confusion of the
people, and put an end to partial Presidencies [the
Episcopate of PauUnus over a few] and to subject aU
to one another in love." S. Basil explains this more
clearly, at S. Athanasius' request ; " It ^ is the prayer
of the whole East, and much desired by those who are
in all ways joined to him, [S. Meletius] to see him or
dering the Church of the Lord, as being unblameable
in faith, and in life admitting of no comparison, and
as presiding over the whole body (so to say) of the
Church, whereas the others are only segments of parts.
But it has not escaped your matchless wisdom, that
this seems good to those one-minded vdth you in the
West, as the letters shew, brought to us by the bles
sed SUvanus" [of Tarsus, who had been sent to the
West,i A. D. 366]. In his letter to S. Meletius, he
opens his hopes further. After regretting the delay,
he says; "'The opinion has prevailed, thatthis our bro
ther Dorotheus should go over to Rome, to stir up some
of those from Italy to visit us, coming by sea, in order
" S. Basih Ep. 66, p. 159.
p Ib. Ep. 67, p. 160. 1 ab. p. 234, 5. ' Ep. 68, p. 160. '

into communion with S. Athan. and Bishops of West. 245
to escape those who would hinder [the Arians]. For
I saw that those in power near the Ruler, neither
AdU, nor can suggest any thing as to the expelled
[Bishops] but account it a gain, to see nothing worse
done in the Churches. If then your Prudence thinks
the plan useful, you AdU be so good as to frame letters,
and make suggestions, of what subjects he should
speak, and to whom. And that your letters may be
the more accredited, by all means include aU [Bishops]
of one mind with you, though not present. Things
here are uncertain, Euippius [an Arian] haAdng ar
rived, but declaring nothing. For they threaten that
they too AdU have a convention of their associates
from Armenia, TetrapoUs and CUicia."
To S. Athanasius, whom S. BasU addresses as "hav
ing ^ the same care of aU the Churches, as of that spe
ciaUy entrusted to hfrn by the Lord," he betakes him
seff as "the head of all;" and asks him to send over
Dorotheus, deacon of the Church of Antioch, accom
panied by his letters or by some of his Clergy. "For it
seemed to us suitable to Avrite to the Bishop of Rome,
to visit' things here, and give an opinion, so that, since
it is difficult for any from those parts to be sent here
by a common and synodical decision, he may act for
himseff in this matter, choosing men equal to the fa
tigues of the joumey, and qualified through meekness
= Ep. 69.
• S. Basil uses the word elsewhere iu an untechnical sense, of a friendly
visit of equals, not (as some Eoman controversialists have taken it) of a Visi
tation. The office of the legate was to be, not to mediate, but to bring over
to S. Meletius those who were opposed to him, and who were in communion
with the West.

246 Some Eastern Bps. require W. to condemn Marcellus.
and firmness to admonish the perverse among us" [those
who separated from S. Meletius] "who might bring with
them the account of aU which has been done since
Ariminum, to undo what had there been done through
constraint." " Some here require also as an essential,
(as it seems to me also), that they should banish the
heresy of Marcellus, as pernicious and alien from the
sound faith. For to this day, in aU their letters, they
anathematize unceasingly the miserable Arius, and ex
pel the Arians from their Churches ; but they never
appear to have passed any censure on MarceUus, who
put forth the opposite impiety." This was attributed
to an unwUUngness to OAvn their mistake in having
admitted him to communion in ignorance. S. Basil
also suggests to S. Athanasius that the legates, "when
they came, should not introduce schisms into the
Churches, but rather constrain those who had the
same belief, to unite." S. BasU's letter to Damasus **
touches on the same topics, reminding him of the aid
which Dionysius of Rome had rendered to the Church
of Caesarea, by letters of consolation and redeeming
captive Christians.
Before Dorotheus returned from Rome, S. BasU
Avrote again to S. Athanasius, to obtain restoration of
communion with some vdth whom it had been sus
pended. " Since "^aU which among us is sound in
faith, is sincerely directed to the communion and
union vdth those of the same beUef, we come boldly
to beseech your forgiAdng spirit, to Avrite to us aU [the
» Ep. 82. ' Ep. 70.

>S'. Basil congratulates W. Bishops on their faith. 247
Bishops] one Epistle, admonishing us what we should
do. For they wish that the beginning of the discus
sion as to communion should be made by thee. And
since perchance, in memory of the past, they may be
objects of suspicion, do this, most pious father, send
me the letters for the Bishops, either through some
trustworthy person of your owa., or through Dorotheus,
our brother and feUow-deacon, which when I receive
I AvUl yet not deUver, unless I first receive answers
from them. Else, I wUl bear the blame aU the days
of my lffe."
The Bishops of Italy and France sent their answer to
S. Athanasius, apparently that he might transmit it to
whom he thought best. S. Athanasius sent it on to
S. BasU.^ S. BasU expressed his joy at the agreement
in the West, "shevdng that the shepherds foUowed
the footsteps of the fathers, and fed the people of the
Lord vdth understanding." In this letter, addressed
"To the most holy brethren and Bishops in the
West," S. BasU begs them, "speak out openly among
us that good preaching of the fathers, which over-
throweth the unhappy heresy of Arius, and buUdeth
up the Churches in the sound doctrine, in which the
Son is confessed of One Substance Avith the Father,
and the Holy Ghost is, vdth equal honour, co-num-
-bered q,nd co-glorified ; so that, through your prayers
and aid, God may bestow on us also that same bold-
Jiess in the truth, and the confession of the Divine and
" Ep. 90.

248 aS*. Basil sends letters of W. Bishops to S. 'Meletius.
saving Trinity, which He has upon you. — In all
things which have been done by your Reverences ac
cording to the Canons, I assent, accepting your Apos
toUc zeal for the right faith."
S. Basil sent on the Synodical letter of the Bishops
of Italy and Gaul, to S. Meletius, with whom he was
in communion, and hence it is that the Epistle sent
from the West is subscribed by S. Meletius and the
Bishops in communion with him, who were not in com
munion Adth the West, and not by Paulinus, who was.
S. BasU answered individually, by Sabinus, the let
ters Avritten to him ; and appUed to S. Meletius to send
a Synodical letter in answer to that from the West.
So, he hoped, might union be brought about. "If any
letter is to be Avritten to the West, since an answer
ought to be sent to them by one of ours, do you dic
tate the letter. For having met with Sabinus the
deacon, whom they sent, I have written both to the
lUyrians and to the Bishops in Italy and Gaul, and tO
some who Avrote to me privately. But it were weU,
that one should be sent as from the Synod in common,
to carry back a second letter, Avhich do you have
framed." S. Basil also tells S. Meletius that he could
do nothing towards restoring communion between him
and S. Athanasius, unless S. Meletius, who had before
been adAdsed by eAdl counsellors ^ to delay that com
munion, should himseff seek it ; that S. Athanasius
was "incUned to be joined Avith w,"S. BasU says, "but
" Ep. 89. y Ep. 258, Epiph. §. 3.

¦ asking him for answer from Synod which he sends. 249
was grieved at being sent away before without com
munion, and that the promises stUl remain unful
filled." In consequence of S. BasU's adAdce, S. Meletius and
thirty-one other Bishops sent a synodical letter " to
their most ^reUgious and holy brethren and feUow-
ministers the like-minded Bishops in Italy and Gaul."
After a heart-rending account of the condition to
which Arianism and persecution had reduced the
Churches " from^ the border of Illyricum to the The
bais," they urge upon the Western Bishops, " there is
need of haste to save those who remain, and that
many brethren should come, enough to make up a full
Synod, so that not only the gravity of those who sent
them, but thefr OAvn number also, may accredit them
in thefr restorations ; and they may renew the Creed
Avritten by our fathers at Nice, and proscribe heresy,
and speak what shaU be for the peace of the Church."
Then, haAdng asked thefr aid in bringing back those
who," confessing'' the right faith, had devised schism,"
[the parties at Antioch] they conclude; "Of a truth,
'most highly blessed is that which has been bestowed
upon your Piety by the Lord, that ye distinguish the
adulterate from the pure, and proclaim the faith of the
Fathers Adthout suppression. We too receive it, and
recognize it as cast in the ApostoUc mould, ourselves
too agreeing with it, and with aU which in the Syno
dical letter is laid doAvn canonicaUy and laAvfuUy."
' Ep. 92. • » §. 2. " §• 3.

250 Fresh letter to West sent round to Bishops to subscribe.
Among those who sent this letter, there are the
great names'' of S. Meletius, S. Eusebius of Samosata,
S. BasU, S. Gregory [of Nyssa] S. Pelagius [of Laodi
cea] perhaps S. Barses," S. Bitus [of Carrhae] Abram
of Batnae, a Confessor.
WhUe it was yet winter," A. D. 373. S. BasU "re
ceived letters^ from the most pious Bishop Eusebius
[of Samosata] bidding that letters should again be
sent to the Westerns about some church-matters.
He wished too that the letter should be framed by us,
and subscribed by all [the Bishops] in communion.
Not knowing how to write thereon, I have sent the
memorial to your Piety, that having read it and con
sidered what will be brought to you by our most be
loved brother and fellow-presbyter Sanctissimus, you
may yourself be so good as to frame thereon what shall
occur to you, and we will be ready to agree to it, and
will cause the letter to be conveyed quickly round to
the [Bishops] in communion, so that he who is to go
to the Bishops in the West, may carry with him aU
the subscriptions."
S. Basil wrote again to S. Meletius, later in the
same year, " If ^ there seem to you any necessity for
the Epistle to the Westerns, be so good, when you
have framed one, to send it to us, that we may have
it subscribed by the like-minded Bishops, and may
have the subscriptions ready, made on a separate pa
per, which we can join on to that brought by our
' Init. -^ in S. Basil's text, " Bassus." Tillemont S. Basil Art. 76.
" Ep. 121. ' Ep. 120. s Ep. 129. §. 3.

S. Basil's letter returned; legation asked for. 25 1
brother and fellow-presbyter." S. Eusebius seems to
have wished some fresh letter to be Avritten as a re
minder. S. Basil did not wish to repeat himself, nor
did he think of any subject untouched upon, except
"to exhort them [the Western Bishops] not to receive
indiscriminately to communion those who came from
the East ; but having chosen one side, to receive the
rest on the testimony of those in communion with it,
and not to give credit to every one who wrote, on the
plea of orthodoxy." For that thus they communicated
with parties, most widely at variance with one another
on matters of faith. Somwhat later, " Evagrius '' a
presbyter of Antioch, who had gone to the West with
S. Eusebius [of Vereellae] returned from Rome asking
of us,"(S. Basil writes to S. Eusebius of Samosata,) " a
letter containing word for word what they dictated ;
(for he brought us back our letter, as not approving
itseff to the more precise of those there,) and that
there should be some legation of trustworthy persons,
so that they might have some fair occasion for visit
ing us." S. Basil consulted S. Eusebius as to this.
The negociations came to no end. Letters, (as S. Basil
says of another,) seldom avail. "I 'do not expect that
anything of any account AdU result from letters, con
sidering the precision ofthe man, and the very nature
of letters ; for discourse so transmitted is not calculated
to carry its point. You must say much, hear much
in answer, remove objections, bring contrary grounds
" Ep. 138. §. 2. ' Ep. 156. Evagr. §. 2.

252GravermctttersreservedforBps.aspillarsof ihe Church.
in support of your cause, nothing of which can words
do, thrown powerless and lifeless on the paper." S. Ba
sil had no one to send to the West, whom he thought
fitted for the office.
A. D. 375. letters came from Damasus, recognizing
more distinctly Paulinus, to the exclusion of S. Mele
tius. The Count Terentius was thought to have been
won by the Paulinists, to take part against S. Meletius.
S. Basil, in all haste, wrote to the Count, stating the
doctrinal question at issue to be of great moment,
and urging him "that ''he ought to wait, that the pre
sidents of the Churches, whom I call pillars and the
ground of the truth and the Church, should initiate
this union and peace."
A. D. 376. S. Basil speaks of Sanctissimus, as "very
earnest and going round the East, and bearing from
all distinguished [Bishops] subscriptions and Epistles."
S. Basil himself was "at a loss what to write, or
how to join those who wrote ; " he thought that it
had only increased "the haughtiness ofthe Westerns,"
and he blamed their pride ' and precipitancy. " They
neither know the truth, nor endure to learn it. 'Pre
occupied by false suspicions, they do now as before in
the case of Marcellus, resisting those who told them
the truth, and strengthening heresy by their influence."
The event verified his fears. A. D. 377. Dorotheus
returned. S. BasU, while apologizing to Peter Bishop
of Alexandria for some disrespectful language of Do-
" Ep. 214. fin. add. Ep. 215, 216. i Ep. 239. Euseb. fin.

Emperor sends mletter of orthodoxlllyrian Synod. 253
rotheus, says""'He related to us his conversations
which he had with your reverence before the most
reverend Bishop Damasus, and he grieved us by report
ing, that our most religious brethren and fellow-minis
ters Meletius and Eusebius, were counted with the
Arians; whereas, if nothing else commended their
orthodoxy, the war against them from the Arians has
ho slight force of proof to those who judge candidly."
Better hope had dawned on the Eastern Church
from Illyricum; but it set, almost as soon as it arose,
through the sudden death of Valentinian, A. D. 375.
"Having ° heard that some in Asia and Phrygia
were questioning about the Divine doctrines, he [Valen
tinian] enjoined that there should be a Synod in
Illyricum, and what it decreed and confirmed he sent
to those who were questioning. They, having met,
decreed that the Faith of Nice should hold." The
Imperial letter is written in the names of the Empe
rors, Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian ; but in fact it
came from Valentinian ; " So ° large a Synod having
been coUected in Illyricum, after much discussion
about the saving word, the most blessed Bishops set
forth the Consubstantial Trinity, Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost. Our Majesty then declares that this shall
be proclaimed every where." Valentinian speaks against
those who used the Emperor's name in matters of
faith. "Let not any say that we have followed the re
ligion of the King who rules this land, regarding not
" Ep. 266. fin. " Theod. iv, 7. " c. 8.

254 Letter oflllyrian Bps. sent to Bps. of Asia, ^c.
Him Who gave us commands about our salvation.
The Gospel of our God hath this judgement, 'render
unto Csesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto
God, the things which are God's.' What say ye
then, ye Bishops and Presidents of the saving word ?
If the exposition of your faith be thus, then, loving
one another, cease to abuse the title of the King, and
persecute not those who rightfully serve God. — Our
Majesty has straightly commanded, not to persecute,
nor oppress, nor harass those who cultivate the field
of Christ."
In the declaration of faith which the Emperor trans
mits as the doctrine of the Synod, it is said; "We
confess, in conformity with the great and orthodox
Synod [of Nice] that the Son is of One Substance
with the Father ; we believe as do the recent Synods
in Rome and Gaul, that there is One and the Same
Substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in
Three Persons i. e. in Three perfect Hypostases. — And
we anathematize those contrary-minded," &c. The
Synodical letter'' runs in the names of "the Bishops
of Illyricum to the Churches of God and Bishops of
the dioceses of Asia, Phrygia, Carophrygia, Paca-
tiana,"and subjoins the names of six Arian Bishops of
Illyricum who were deposed.
Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia was the occasion of
several Councils. He was originaUy rejected by S.
Eustathius of Antioch for impiety;' he then betook
¦" lb. c. 9. 1 S. Ath. Aa-, Hist. §. 4. p. 222. 0. T.

Shiftingsandcondemnationof Eustathius of Sebastia. 255
himseff to Hermogenes, an Orthodox Bishop, offered
to him, while on trial, a sound confession of faith,
and was ordained by him.' He was deposed,^ or sepa
rated from common prayers,* by his OAvn father Eula-
Uus, Bishop of Ceesarea in Cappadocia. He was made
Bishop by the "Arians. After "'^ this he was deposed in
a Sjmod of Neo-Caesarea. " He was condemned anew
in the Synod of Gangra'^ in Paphlagonia, assembled
on his account, because, since his first deposition,
he had done many things against the laws of the
Church." Sozoinen adds that he was convicted of
perjury in a Synod of Antioch. He states that he
was deposed by five hundred Bishops. After the
death of Hermogenes, he went to the Arian Eusebius
of Constantinople, and was condemned for fraud. He
was condemned at Constantinople, notwithstanding
his acceptance of an Arian Creed, by Arian Bishops,
as having before been deposed in the CouncU of Meli
tine. The Canons of Gangra were directed against
the errors of Eustathius and his foUowers, but were
received by the whole Church. " The"^ neighbouring
Bishops, assembled at Gangra, decreed that they
should be aUen from the CathoUc Church, unless, ac
cording to the terms of the Synod, they condemned
these several things." The Synodical letter is ad-
' S. Basil Ep. 263. ad Occid. §. 3. = Socr. ii. 43. ' Soz. iv. 24.
» S. Ath. 1. c. and Ep. ad Mg, §. 7. p. 133. ' Ep. 244. ad Patroph. §. 6.
y Socrates distinctly says [ii. 43.] that the Synod of Gangra was later thau
those of Seleucia and Constantinople A. D. 359. Sozomen, that Eustathius was
subsequently condemned at a Synod of Antioch, partly for perjury, partly for
attempting to overthrow what had been decreed by those who met at Mehtine.
[iv. 24.] " Soz. iii. 14.

256 Councils and Creeds of Arians.
dressed by thirteen Bishops, " who y met at the holy
Synod at Gangra to their most honoured Lords and
feUow-ministers in Armenia." In his creed Eustathius
was a mere Euripus, taking up, and laying aside, and
resuming any creed or heresy, as it suited him. He
was, as we have seen above, one of the three Bishops
deputed by the Semi-Arians to Liberius, and satisfied
him as to his faith. ""^He saw Cyzicus, and retumed
with another faith." He imposed even on S. BasU by
his seeming love of truth and of souls; accepted the
Nicene Creed from S. Basil, with added declarations
against the Macedonian heresy;^ and then would not
be present at a second Synod '' for the restoration of
communion ; and became the bitter enemy and slan
derer of S. Basil.
In enumerating the variations of Eustathius,
S. Basil mentions an Arian Synod at Cyzicus in his
own time, which apparently put out a new Creed, of
which nothing more is known. " "To pass on to his
Episcopate ( omitting what he did meantime ) how
often did he set forth a new faith ! One at Ancyra ;
another at Seleucia ; another the well known Creed
at Constantinople ; another at Lampsacus ; afterwards
that at Nice in Thrace ; and now again that at Cyzicus,
of which though I know nothing else, I know this,
that, imposing silence as to the' Of one Subtance,'he

y Cone. ii. 423. In the old Latin version, three names are added, Bassianus,
Heraclius, and the great Osius. This last is omitted in a mannuscript perhaps
of the sixth cent. Ib. Note. ^ S. Basil Ep. 244. ad. Patroph. §. 5, 6.
• Ep. 125. b Ep. 244. §. 2. <= lb. fin.

S. Basil's course of peace-making ; Synod at Satala. 257
now circulates the ' like as to Substance,' and besides,
with Eunomius, writes blasphemies against the Holy
Ghost." The pacification of the Church was one chief object
of S. BasU's lffe, accomplished, except as to the see of
Antioch, two years after his decease, By the CouncU of
Constantinople. His great energies were employed in
peace-making, whether of the several portions of the
Church with one another, or within themselves.
Caesarea was a city of great poUtical importance.
Its Ecclesiastical Exarchate reached over all the pro
vinces, subject to the civU governor of Pontus.'' Ar
menia was subjected to it. Even in the Iffe-time of
S. BasU's predecessor Eusebius, S. BasU, through his
Bishop's confidence, virtually govemed the Diocese.^
On his OAvn appointment, Valens the Arian Emperor,
(to whom the peace of a frontier province was of even
more moment than his heresy,) commissioned S. Basil
to appoint Bishops in Armenia.'' The suspicions of
Theodotus, the metropoUtan, "the Bishop who had
been appointed as his coadjutor," frustrated this. S.
BasU having accepted Eustathius' profession of faith,
Theodotus would no longer invite S. BasU to the
Synod. The appointment of Bishops therefore was
deferred. But in a Synod at Satala, S. Basil recon
cUed the Bishops of Armenia, and addressed them, " so
1 Vita S. Basil, c. 14. T. iii. p. Ixxxiv. 4.
" " Thongh in the second order, he was invested with the power of the
Church."— S. Greg. Naz. Or. 20. p. 339. " To whom shall we make over tbe
care of the Churches? " — S. Bas. Ep. 29. Eccl. Anc.
' S. Basil Ep. 99. ad Terent. Com. S

258 S. Basil's yearly Synod of Bishops.
that they laid aside their wonted indifference, — and
gave them rules for the due care of things, neglected
and disordered through their indifference."
The province of Cappadocia being politicaUy diAd
ded, Anthimus, Bishop of Tyana, attempted to gain
metropolitan rights for his See. " Synods s were sub
tracted by the new Metropolitan." S. BasU tried to
turn evil into good, " strengthening '' his country by
an increase of Bishops." The appointment of S. Gre
gory of Nazianzum, as Bishop of Sasima, was a part
ofthis plan.' But "Anthimus'^ coming vdth certain
Bishops" tried by coaxing or threats to draw S.
Gregory also to acknowledge him. On his refusal,
Anthimus summoned him to a Synod. S. Basil finaUy
gave way for peace. On his way to Armenia, he was
"about to meet the Bishops ofthe second Cappadocia,"
who, as soon as they belonged to a distinct proAdnce,
were all at once estranged from him. He did meet
Eustathius [the turn-about] who accepted his terms.
A Synodical letter from certain Bishops, (probably on
this matter), faUed, through their fault, to reach S.
Eusebius. On his retum from Armenia, S. Basil
again "iuAdted S. Eusebius to come to the Synod,'
which," he says, "we hold yearly, on the approaching
anniversary of the blessed martyr Eupsychius, Sept. 7.
for the appointment of Bishops, and to consider what
is plotted against me through the simplicity of Gregory
of Nyssa [his brother] who is holding Synods at Ancyra,
8 S. Greg. Naz. Or. 43. §. 58. p. 813. •¦ lb. §. 59. p. 814. ' Ib.
'' S. Greg. Ep. 33. Basil. ' Ep. 98. Euseb.

Synod at Nicopolis. 259
and omits no way of plotting against us." Atarbius
Bishop of Neo-Caesarea," left the Synod in the midst,
and was summoned by S. BasU to clear himself from
the charge of SabeUianism.
A. D. 373. S. BasU again "came" to Nicopolis, in
the hope of correcting the confusion raised there, and
of tempering what had been done disorderly, contrary
to ecclesiastical rule."
Among other troubles, one Faustus had applied to
S. BasU Adth "letters from a certain Papa" asking that
he should be made a Bishop. But when we asked of
him," S. BasU Avrites to Theodotus,? Bishop of Nico
polis, "testimonials from your Piety and the other
Bishops, he, despising us, went to Anthimus, and
haAdng received consecration from him, retumed with
out any notice to us." The appointment fiUed Ar
menia Adth tumult.i To restore peace S. Basil was
ready to overlook the irregularity and the slight, ff
only Faustus could produce good testimonials. He
writes to Poemenius, Bishop of Satala, "That' admira
ble Anthimus, who long ago made peace with us,
having found opportunity to satiate his vain-glory,
consecrated Faustus of his own authority and vdth his
OAvn hand, not waiting the vote of any of us, and ridi
culing my preciseness in such things. In thus con
fusing the good old order, and despising you too, from
whom he should have had testimonials, he has done

¦" Ep. 100. Eus. " Ep. 126. Ataib. Vit. S. Basil, xxvi. 6.
° It is doubtful whether this title in this place, designates a Bishop.
P Ep. 121. 1 Ep. 120. Mel. "^ Ep. 122.
s2

260 Troubles from disunion of Bishops.
what I cannot thmk pleasing to God. Being grieved
Adth them then, I gave them no letters to any of the
Armenians, nor to your Piety. Nor did I receive
Faustus to communion, protesting to him plainly, that
unless he should bring me letters from you, I wiU my
seff remain estranged from him, and AviU induce those
who agree Adth me to be so. If these things admit of
a cure, send me a Avritten testimonial from yourseff, if
you see the man's Ufe to be good, and exhort others to
do so."
A. D. 373. An expostulation of S. Eusebius drew
out from S. Basil an account of his difficulties in
remedying the evils of the Church, arising from the
coldness or suspiciousness of his suffragan Bishops. He
anew excuses himself for his haAdng been "absent'
from the most holy Synod" held by S. Eusebius. Ill
ness had prevented him, " bringing him down to the
gates of death." Not through his remissness had the
Church been betrayed to her enemies. "The Bishops
who communicate vdth us, either through indolence, or
because they suspect me, or through the Devil's oppo
sition to good works, wiU not help us. Outwardly we
are many, the good Bosporius too, [Bishop of Colonia
in the second Cappadocia] having joined us, but in
truth they drew not with us in any the most necessary
thing. What can I do alone ? The Canons (as you
too know) not conceding such offices to one Bishop.
And yet how have I not sought to heal this, and re-
' Ep. 141. Euseb.

Letters of communion everywhere given by Bishops. 26 1
minded them of Judgment, both by letters and when
we met ! For they came to this city, hearing of my
death.* But since it pleased God that they should
flnd me alive, I spoke to them as befitted. When with
me, they respect me, and promise every thing ; when
they leave, they return to their old mind."
A. D. 374. S. Basil mentions a Synod held at
Csesarea, when "a" great multitude, as is natural,
flowed in from all sides." It may have been his yearly
Synod, since he does not mention any special object
for which it was holden.
In the same year, S. Basil wrote through S. Amphi
lochius, to a Metropolitan (probably Symposius,^ Bi
shop of Seleucia) who had written to him, about the
restoration of communion. S. Basil asks him to " col
lect the like-minded Bishops, and to appoint time and
place of meeting, that so, by the Grace of God, re
ceiving one another, we may govern the Churches in
the ancient form of love, receiving the brethren who
come from either side, as our own members, sending
them on as to friends and receiving them as from
friends. For this was formerly the boast of the Church,
that, from one end of the world to the other, the bre
thren from every Church, provided with little tokens,
found all fathers and brethren ; whereof, with the rest,
the enemy has now despoiled the Church."
A. D. 375. S. Basil, in a letter to Euphronius,^
Bishop of Colonia, mentions "letters which he had
' To appoint his successor. " Ep. 169. Greg. ' Ep. 191. Amphil. see
Ep. 190. fin. Vit. S. Bas. xxxi. 4. " Ep. 195. A'it. xxxii. 1.

262 Diocese sub-divided, to gain weight through Bishops.
written to the Bishops of lesser Armenia, (probably
a Synod) which he expected to be transmitted to
Euphronius. In the same year S. Basil " went " as far as Isauria,
that, with the Bishops there, he might frame the mat
ters relating to the brethren in Isauria." S. Amphi
lochius had consulted him about this, the year before.
S. Basil, in answer,'' had praised him for his care,
agreed with him, that in itself, "it would be for the
advantage of all, that the care should be divided
among many Bishops. But since it is not easy to
find fit men, there is danger lest, while we wish to
gain weight from the number [of Bishops] and to
provide that the Church of God be ruled more care
fully through the increased number, we should un
awares degrade the office through the unfitness of
those called to it, and occasion the people to be in
different." S. Basil then counselled that " if one ap
proved could be found, he should be set over the city,
with the power of joining others with him. Else that
it would be better for them first to assign Bishops of
the smaller cities or villages, which had formerly been
episcopal Sees, and then we will set up the Bishop of
the city, lest [if appointed first] he should hinder
these arrangements, and we should begin at once with
domestic feuds, if he should wish for larger rule and
not consent to the consecrations of the Bishops. If
time does not admit, your Prudence will assign to the
^ Ep. 216. Melet. y Ep. 190. Amphil.

Bishops of Pontus regained to S. Basil. 263
Bishop of Isauria, his own circle, so that he should
consecrate those close by ; and it wUl be reserved to
us, at the due time, to assign such Bishops to the rest,
as, after long enquiry, we shall judge fittest." This
last course appears to have been adopted : for S. Basil,
shortly after, advised S. Amphilochius to "appoint^
[in the emergency] a novice, with or without the will
of Macedonius." "The" journey to Pontus succeeded"
that to Isauria. Eustathius, whom S. Basil took so
muchpains to exculpate,had stealthily withdrawn many
ofthe Bishops of Pontus, especially near Dazimon,''from
the communion of S. BasU. S. Basil," by the judgment
of aU the Bishops in Cappadocia,'^" wrote to the " Bi
shops by the sea," entreating them to come to some
explanation. " We are ready with uplifted hands to
receive you, if you come, and to offer ourselves to a
strict enquiry. Only let love preside. Or if you will
point out some place among you, where we may dis
charge our debt of visiting you, and let you make
trial of us — be this so." "We," he reminds them,
"are the sons of those fathers, who laid down as a
law, that the symbols of communion should, by means
of little marks, be carried from one end of the world
to the other, and that all should be fellow-citizens and
kinsmen." "As yet we have suppressed our griefs,
being ashamed to repeat to those afar, in communion
with us, your aUenation from us." He repeats to El-
pidius^ the wish, that, "if he thought ff good that he
'¦ Ep. 217. Amphil. (Can. 3.) init. " Ep. 216.
' Ep. 203. Episc. Marit. fin. "^ §. 3. " Ep. 205.

264 Provinces with whose Bps. S. Basil was in communion.
should meet his other most reverend brethren, the
Bishops by the coast, he would fix time and place.
And write to the brethren, that, at the time fixed, each
of us, leaving whatever business we have in hand, may
do something for the building up of the Church of
God, and remove the griefs we now have from our
suspicions of one another, and stablish the love, with
out which the Lord Himself has declared to us, that
the observance of any command is iraperfect." This
meeting S. Basil requested might be, when he should,
in his visitation, come to the borders of Comana.^ It
was successful.
To the Clergy of Neo-Caesarea he, in a touching
letter, made the same offers, but unsuccessfully. To
them he enumerates the number of provinces, with
which, through their Bishops, he was in communion.
"It'were more equitable that our case should be judged,
not from one or two who do not walk in the truth, but
from the multitude of Bishops throughout the world,
who, by the grace of God, are joined with us. Let
enquiry be made of the Pisidians, Lycaonians, Isaurians,
both Phrygias, all the Armenians who are your neigh
bours, the Macedonians, Achaeans, Illyrians, GaUicans,
Spaniards, all Italy, the Sicilians, Africans, the sound
part of Egypt, whatever remains of Syria, who send
letters to us and receive them from us."
In the same year, S. Basil wrote to S. AmphUochius,e
about some Bishops and priests of Lycia, who, he un-
' Ep. 206. ' Ep. 204, Neocais. §. 7. s Ep. 218.

Lycia restored to communion by Bishops and priests. 265
derstood, wished to return to their communion. S.
Basil sends the names of four Bishops, and some priests
where apparently there were no Bishops, to be sounded
before inviting them to meet him.
About the same time he wrote to comfort those of
Chalcis, who first felt the " torrent-blaze of persecu
tion," as it was spreading into Cappadocia. He praises
their unity. "I '' pray day and night to the eternal
King to keep the people in integrity of faith, and the
clergy as a sound head over them, giving its due care
to the members of the body subject to them. For
while the eyes do their part, the hands work skilfully,
and the feet stumble not, and no part of the body is
deprived of its befitting care. I exhort you then, as
ye do and will do, to hold to one another ; and you
that are entrusted with cure of souls, to hold together
individuals, and cherish them as beloved children, and
that the people should preserve to you the reverence
and honor due to fathers, so that, in the fair condition
of the Church, your strength and the firmness of faith
in Christ may be preserved, and the name of God be
glorified." Every Bishopric which now fell vacant became a
subject of anxiety, the Arian Bishops filling it up with
an Arian, if not forestalled by the Church. S. Basil
complained A. D. 369. to Eusebius, that Tarsus was
in this way lost to the Church. "Tarsus ' too is lost
to us, and intolerable as this in itself is, it is yet more
'¦ Ep. 222. Chalc. ¦ Ep. 34.

266 What is done by Bishops to be received by the Church.
grievous, that so great a city, situated so as to unite
the Isaurians, Cilicians, Cappadocians and Syrians,
should perish by a mere by-blow of two or three
phrenzied men, whUe you [the Bishops] Unger and
consult and look at one another."
At this time Theodotus, Bishop of Nicopolis fell
asleep.'^ Nicopolis was of the more importance, as
being the metropolis of Armenia. Poemenius ' then and
the other Bishops ™ of Armenia transferred Euphro
nius, Bishop of Colonia to it, yet leaving to him his
former See, so that he should have the charge of both."
The clergy of Colonia were unduly vexed at the partial
loss of their Bishop, and even threatened to appeal to
the courts of justice. S. Basil sought to soothe thera,
as being themselves best secured by this arrangement.
"Think not," he adds," "that this is human counsel, or
stirred by the thoughts of worldly-minded men ; but
be persuaded that they on whom the care of the
churches hangs, have done this through their con
tinued union with the Spirit. Receive then peaceably
what has been done, being persuaded that they who
receive not from those chosen of God what is framed
for the churches, resist the ordinance of God."
Demosthenes, formerly superintendent ofthe kitchen
to Valens, and now vicar of Pontus, was resuming the
persecution against the Catholics, which had before
been turned away by God's Providence, when Valens
menaced thera in person. Demosthenes," in the raidst
" Ep. 237. Eus. fin. ' Ep. 229. Cler. Nie. " Ep. 228. Col. Mag.
n Ep. 227 et not. i. Ed. Ben. » Ep. 227. Cler. CoL

Synod of Arian Bps. gathered against S. Basil. 267
of winter,^ gathered a Synod of the ungodly [at An
cyra'] in Galatia, ejected Hypsis [the Bishop] and
substituted Ecdicius. — He bade another Synod be
collected at Nyssa of [Bishops of] Galatia and Pontus.
These coming together, sent to the Churches," as
" Bishop," one, — the slave of slaves." " The ' same
band went to Sebastia, to join Eustathius, [whom the
Arians themselves had deposed'] and with him to
turn things at Nicopolis upside down."
Demosthenes then first "tried to persuade them to
receive Eustathius, and in him to receive a Bishop.
When he saw that they would not give in of their own
will, he tried to institute the Bishop assigned to them
with a strong hand. " There are also," adds S. Basil,
" some rumours of a Synod, to which they purpose to
call me, to receive me into their communion, or to
use their wont," [i. e. have him banished on his refusal
to join them.]
As an earnest of the reconciliation of the Bishops
of Pontus, he invited them, A. D. 376, to resume their
ancient custom of visiting the Church at Caesarea an
nually at the festival of the Martyrs S. Eupsychius
and S. Damas. "Great gain,"" says S. Basil, "is set
before you, among a people seeking to be edified by
you," This was the last CouncU at which it appears that
S. BasU was present. S. AmphUochius, in a Sjmodical
letter from a Council at Iconium, says, "We^ had
P Ep. 237. Eus. 4 Ep. 226. §. 2. Monachis. ' Ep. 239. Eus.
» See ah. p. 255. ' Ep. 237. " Ep. 252. Pont. Ep.
' S. Amphiloch. Synod, in Coteler. Eccl. Gr. Mon. ii. 100. Cone. ii. 1075.

268 Letter of Synod of Iconium explaining why Creed
hoped to receive in person in our Synod that most
admirable Bishop, BasU, to be mentioned with aU
reverence, and to have him as the partner or rather
as guide of the letter to you. But since an exceeding
bodUy illness has prevented his coming, it belongs to
your perfect love not to overlook our lowliness. Nor
could we, by any neglect of ours, leave your holy
Church without share in his words ; but having his
work Avritten especiaUy on the subject, [the Divinity
of God the Holy Ghost] we have him too speaking
together Adth us in that Avriting." The epistle was
Avritten apparently to a Synod. For it speaks of the
letters which it answers, as CAddencing "the zeal of
good shepherds," who had met together from a dis
tance, and consequently were not the presbyters of any
town or district. " The fact that ye made no ac
count of the length of way, nor proposed your ques
tions separately, but enquired in common by your
letters, has made us very hopeful, that as ye Avrote in
harmony, so ye wUl also receive our answers in har
mony ; and we have received your concord, as ex
pressed by your letters, as the prelude of more perfect
concord." The question apparently was, why any
fuUer confession was required on the Divinity of the
Holy Ghost, beyond that of the Nicene Creed. The
answer was, that the CouncU of Nice had only to meet
the heresy of Arius. " We acknowledge," they say,
" the holy Synod of the fathers at Nice, as a truly
Catholic and ApostoUc Synod, and we keep unshaken
the Creed set forth by the Fathers there, and pray

set forth by Nicene fathers was to be enlarged. 269
that it may remain unmoved for ever. Then, it be
came necessary for the fathers to expound more fuUy
the glory of the Only Begotten, since they had then to
nip the heresy of Arius in its birth — the question as
to the Spirit not being then mooted. So then they
added no fuUer statement. For an intelUgent reader
the teaching of that Creed on the Spirit sufficed. For
they taught that we must believe in the Holy Spfrit
hi the same way as in the Father and the Son, neither
infroducing any other nature into the Divine and
Blessed Trinity, nor cutting off aught from the Trinity.
But since of late, Satan, essaying to shake the Churches,
has infused doubts on the Spirit into certain persons,
we must needs recur to the fountain of Faith, whence
also the fathers at Nice drew in setting forth the ex
position of Faith, i. e. our I^ord's words, ' baptising
them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the
Holy Ghost,' which exclude the disease of SabeUius,
in that the three Persons are clearly deUvered to us,
and shut the mouths of the Anomoeans and Arians,
and of the enemies of the Spirit, in that the three Per
sons are pointed out, and One Nature and Godhead
confessed." The tone of the letter is to equals, of whom the
Avriters had heard by report only ; ^ so that it is a pro
bable conjecture, that those addressed were Bishops,y
y p. 101.
" " Even before we received the letters from your love, reports had come
round to us, telling us of the purity of your faith and firmness in danger, and
endurance in suffering for Christ, and love towards God." Ib. Init.
" Tillemont S. Amphiloque Art. v. T. ix. 624. The Benedictine Editors of
S. Basil think that thoy were priests. Vit. S. Bas. xxxviii. p. clxix.

270 Marcellus' petition to Synod held by S. Athanasius.
opposed to and persecuted by the Arians, but more or
less perplexed by the rising heresy of Macedonius.
The suspicion of favoring Sabellianism, under which
the Westerns lay,'' was aggravated by the acquittal of
Marcellus, together with S. Athanasius, at the Coun
cil of Sardica. S. Basil's declaration against Marcel
lus, communicated by him to S. Athanasius "hiraself,
probably induced Marcellus, about A. D. 371. to
send a deacon to a Synod held by S. Athanasius.
The petition, delivered by Eugenius a deacon, sets
forth, "The "Clergy and the rest in Ancyra of Gala
tia, gathered together with our father Marcellus, sent
us to your Piety, having commendatory letters from
the Bishops of Greece and Macedonia." Marcellus^
in this petition, treated the accusations as calumny,
anathematized the heresies of Arius and SabeUius,
Paul of Samosata and Photinus, but did not touch
on his own heresy, that the Manhood of our Lord would
not exist after the day of Judgement, or that His
reign would end. In conclusion, he prays S. Atha
nasius, " we •= entreat your Piety no longer to believe
what is said against us, but rather to signify this to
those who sent us, and to write to those whom you
know to be orthodox Bishops, that even if the calum
ny against us has reached them, they, knowing this
our confession, may condemn those who wish to stir
up odium against us."
2 see ab. p. 246. a gp. 69. §. 2. Athan.
i" Montfauc. Coll. Nov. ii. 1. Cone. ii. 1049.
" S. Ath. Counc. Arim. p. 110. n.r. O. T.

Seemingly not accepted hy him, tho' by Egyptian Bps. 271
The exposition of faith is countersigned by four
Egyptian Bishops, of whom one, Plenes Bishop of
Hermothi, had been banished by the Arians A. D.
356. ; Ischyrion, Bishop of Leontopolis, had defended
S. Athanasius in the Synod of Tyre ; Isaac had per
haps been one of the Bishops of the Council of Sar
dica. The name of S. Athanasius himself does not
appear. It can hardly have been lost, as others may
have been at the end, since he would have signed the
first. He had written at length against Marcellus,
although without naming him.'' MarceUus' disclaim
ers, in this memorial, hardly touch on any point of
his form of Sabellianism. It seems an evasive state
ment, framed to avoid condemning his own form of
heresy. The absence of S. Athanasius' name is unac
counted for. The memorial is addressed to him ;
it is countersigned by others. It seems unlikely that
the acute mind of S. Athanasius, having been already
dravm to consider this heresy, should have accepted
this statement ; it can hardly be assumed, in the ab
sence of any proof. Perhaps he was afready Avith
God. MarceUus died about the same time, A. D. 372.^
After his death, some of his disciples applied to
eight Egyptian Bishops, banished for the faith to
Neo-Caesarea,'' presented to them letters of ^ commu
nion from S. Athanasius, (as they aUeged,) and were
admitted to communion by the confessors. S. Basil,
* see Introd. to S. Ath. Orat. iv. ag. Arians. §. 2. p. 504. sqq. O. T.
' Two years before S. Epiphanius wrote bis adv. H^r. lxxi. Init.
' S. Epiph. 1. c. §.10. » Ep. 265. Eulog. fin.

272 Whataffectsall,shouldbedonebymanyBps. in common.
in his letter of enquiry, teUs the Bishops that they
were " not alone in the East, but had many [Bishops]
on the same side, who maintained the sound faith of
the Nicene Fathers, and aU those in the West agree
with us and you. All who are in the same conunu-
nion with you, ought to be fully satisfied, that so what
is done may be settled the more firmly by the agree
ment of many, and peace may not be disturbed,
while, on the reception of some, others stand apart.
So steadily and gently ought ye to counsel about
things which affect all the Churches throughout the
world. — .God grant that we may all meet together,
that, ordering aU things with you to the weU-being
ofthe Churches of God, we may, Adth you, receive
the reward laid up by the righteous Judge for good
and wise stewards."
In a second letter to Peter, the successor of S. Atha
nasius in the See of Alexandria, he says, " Having''
often been importuned by the Galatians [MarceUians],
I could not give them any answer, awaiting youi*
judgments. And noAV, ff the Lord grant, and they
wUl bear with us, we hope to bring the people to the
Church, so that we should not be taunted with join
ing the MarceUians, but that they become members of
the body of the Church of God."
PauUnus, who disputed the See of S. Meletius, was,
S. Basil says,' " inclined to the doctrines of MarceUus
and admitted indiscriminately his foUoAvers to com-
'¦ Ep. 266. Pet. §. 1. i Ep. 263. Occid. §. 3.

Heretics received in ignorance in the West. 273
munion." ApoUinaris had consecrated VitaUs, his disci
ple, as Bishop over a third section at Antioch,'' rejecting
PauUnus as a SabeUian.' After S. Epiphanius had
cleared PauUnus, and at length brought Vitalis to dis
close his heresy,"' Timothy, who had obtained from S.
Athanasius commendatory letters to Damasus, and had
been received by him," and "obtained "letters of com
mendation as to a Bishop," anathematized S. Peter
of Alexandria, S. Basil, Paulinus, S. Epiphanius, and
Diodorus.* He " gave i himself out to be a Bishop,
that he might work mischief Adth more impunity."
He was probably one ofthe Bishops whom ApoUinaris
"senf to divide the Churches governed by Orthodox
Bishops," "wandering about Adthout either people or
clergy." Yet Eustathius, MarceUus, Vitalis, Timo
theus, had aU imposed on Bishops of Rome and of
the West, where they were less known; as Pelagius,
afterwards, obtained an acquittal at the Synod of
DiospoUs, after being condemned in Africa and at
Rome. S. BasU, therefore, appUed to the Westerns
to undo their act, and use their influence Adth Pau
linus, at least Adth regard to MarceUus. He says
that "the wolves in sheep's clothing did more injury
to the simple than the direct and unblushing heresy
of the Arians."^ "We beg then your Carefulness to
^ Soz. vi. 25. ' S. Epiph. Hasr. 77. §. 20. S. Epiphanius had gone to
Antioch to reconcile VitaUs and Paulinus. He has preserved a confession of faith
against Sabellianism and ApoUinarianism di-awn up in S. Athanasius' own hand
and subscribed by Paulinus. §.21. ™ Bb. §• 22, 23.
" Fad. Def. 3. Capp. vii. 3. B. P. x. 55. " Leontius adv. fraud. ApoUin.
fin. B. P. ix. 712. P Ep. Pet. Alex, firagm. ap. Fac. iv. 2. p. 31. i Id. lb.
¦ ' S. Bas. Ep. 265. Eulog. §. 2. ' Ep- 263. Occid. §. 2.
T

274 S. Basil calkin W. Bps. as unsuspected of partiality.
write pubUcly to aU the Bishops in the East, that they
either in sincerity walk aright with us, or, abiding in
their perversion, keep their mischief to themselves,
not, through unguarded communion, imparting their
own disease to their neighbours. I must mention
them by name, that ye may yourselves know those
who work confusion among us, and may make it
plain to our Churches. For what we say, is suspected
by many, as though, from some private grudge, we in
dulged a petty feeling towards them. But ye, inas
much as ye live far off, have the more credit Adth the
people, besides that the grace of God will help you in
succouring the distressed. But ff many of you Adth
one accord together decree the same thing, plainly the
multitude of those who decree, wUl make the reception
ofthe thing decreed irrefragable by any." Then hav
ing spoken on each of the heretics, Eustathius, Apol-
linaris, and Marcellus, and that Paulinus received the
MarceUians into communion, he concludes: "These
are the things for which we ask your care, if ye would
be so good as to write to all the Churches in the East,
that they who misaffirm these things, ff corrected,
should communicate ; but ff they will contumaciously
abide in their innovations, should be seoarated from
the Churches. We are not indeed ignorant that we
ought to undertake these things, sitting in councU
with your Prudence, and considering them together.
But since time aUows not, and delay is hurtful, in that
the hurt from them would root itseff, we were obUged
to send the brethren to you, that they, informing you

Peter of Alexandria seeks safety in Italy. 275
from themselves of any thing which may have escaped
us in Avriting, may stir up your Pieties to give to the
Churches of God the aid Ave ask for."
S. Peter of Alexandria was now at Rome. S. Atha
nasius, at the close of his forty-eight years of toil from
the CouncU of Nice, nominated him, as his successor,*
A. D. 373. AU classes joined in his choice. "The
neighbouring Bishops hastened to meet," as did the
Monks, and set him in the chair of Athanasius. He
was immediately assaulted by the heathen governor
PaUadius, with a hired band of Heathen and Jews,
and after a time " escaped by sea to Rome, probably
in the hope of averting by his retirement the horrible
persecution which had fallen on every age and sex
of his people.^ The persecutions were fomented and
continued by the Arian Lucius, whom Euzoius brought
with hun " not "" elected in a Synod of Orthodox Bi-
.shops, nor by the vote of the true Clergy, nor at the
request of the people, as the laws of the Church pre
scribe," and who had been " often condemned by the
Orthodox Bishops every where." Peter of Alexandria
then remained at Rome, untU the death of Valens,''
and retumed to Egjrpt, shortly before his own de
parture, when the Alexandrians drove out Lucius and
« Theod. iv. 21.
" He must have remained in concealment for some time ; for the Deacon
who announced his eleotion to Damasus, brought back from him "letters of
consolation and communion " to Peter, as being still in Egypt. Ib. 22.
'lb. 21. 22. " Pet. Ah Ib. o. 22. x g. jgrome (Chron.) says that Valens
recalled the Orthodox from banishment, repenting when too late, just before
the war with the Goths in whioh he perished ; Socrates says, that the restora-
'tion did not take effect until after his death. Both may be true.
t2

276 Council at Rome against Apiollinaris.
replaced Peter.y He exercised his office in his exUe,
and Avrote to the eleven Egyptian Bishops, in exile in
Palestine, avUo had received the MarceUians to com
munion, exhorting '" them not to part with love, yet
to wait until "things could be amended by those who
could, according to Ecclesiastical rule, heal what was
amiss." He AdUed them not to use individual autho
rity, in Avhat affected the whole Church.
The letter then of S. Basil to the Westerns, probably
occasioned the Synod which first condemned ApoUi
naris by name, and, with hira, his disciple Timotheus.
" Damasus ^ Bishop of Rome, and Peter Bishop of
Alexandria, having learned that this heresy of Apol-
linaris was stealing in among many, a Synod being
called at Rome, first declared it alien from the Catholic
Church." The Apollinarians "gave out that they
had been received by the Western Synod, by which
they were condemned." " Let them shew this," says
S. Gregory Naz.,'' " either by a Synodical tome, or by
letters of communion. For this is the law of Synods."
Damasus held yet another Council, A. D. 378, in
the case of Ursinus and other Bishops who, having
been condemned by the Church and banished by the
Emperors, retained their Sees in despite of both. The
Council applied for redress to the Emperors Valen
tinian and Gratian, after the death of Valens and
before the elevation of Theodosius. The Epistle is
written by a Council of "almost" numberless Bishops
ySocr.iv. 37. ^S. Bas. Ep. 266. Pet.
" Soz. vi. 25. Ruf. ii. 20. add Theod. v. 10. i> Ep. i. ad. Cledon. init.
¦= Ep, Cone. Rom. ad Grat. et Valent. Cone. ii. 1187. post Cone. Aquil.

Synodical letter of another C. of Rome to Emperors. 277
gathered from far-distant parts of Italy." They thank
the Emperors, that they had nothing to ask, but what
they had already granted. "For from the beginning, in
order to re-unite the body of the Church, which the
rage of Ursinus, endeavouring to gain an honour not
due to him, had divided, you enacted that, when you
had condemned the author, and rent away from union
with that miscreant those whom he had associated with
himself in sedition, the Roman Bishop should en
quire as to the other Bishops of the Church, [i. e. the
neighbouring * Bishops involved in this sedition of Ur
sinus,] so that the Pontiff of religion with his colleagues
should judge of religion, and no injury could seera to
be done to the Episcopate, if the Bishops should never
be subjected to the will of a profane judge, as might
readily happen. For how many, whom civil judg
ments absolved, have been notoriously condemned by
Bishops, and those whom civil judgments condemned
have been absolved ! — But since Ursinus, although
long ago [A. D. 374] banished by the judgraent of
your Cleraency, solicits in secret the most worthless
persons, through those whom he unlawfully and sacri
legiously ordained; and by his example certain Bishops,
who wrongly occupy their Sees — harass people, not
to acquiesce in the judgment of the Roman Bishop,
so that even those who know that they have been or
should be deservedly condemned, hiring a mob, affright
their judges with terror of death, and despising or cha-
^ Blondel de la Primautc! p. 1G3. too so understands it.

278 Bishops call in civil authority
sing away their judges, retain an unlawful Episcopate;
we ask not for any new enactments, but for the main
tenance of the old. The Bishop of Parma, deposed by
our judgment, shamelessly retains his See. In like
way, Florentius of Puteoli, who, after he had been de
posed, upon appealing to your Serenity, received the
Rescript which he deserved, that, if he had been de
posed by the judgment of Bishops in the city of Rome,
he ought not even to let his voice be heard in cidl
courts — ^he, now, six years afterwards, has stolen back
to the city, occupied the church and lawlessly stirred up
many seditions in the toAvn of PuteoU, from which he
was deposed. In Africa too, your Clemency bade
Restitutus plead his cause before Bishops. He ought
to have acquiesced ; but, by aid of a savage band of
miscreants, escaped aU need of pleading his cause.
Throughout Africa, ye commanded the sacrUegious
Anabaptists [Donatists] to be expelled; but the ex
pelled have ordained Claudius, and destined him, as a
Bishop, to disturb the city of Rome. He, against the
commands of Divine Scripture, against the laws of the
Gospel, says that all Bishops past or present were
vdthout sacraments, or in his own Avord, 'pagans.'
Whom your Serenity commanded to be expeUed from
Rome, and return to his country. But he, setting the
courts at nought, although often apprehended, stiU
resides, bribing ofttimes the poorer, and shrinks not
from re-baptising them when bribed. He rather de-
spoUs them of what they had obtained [Baptism,] than
bestoAvs on them Avhat plainly cannot be bestowed

to enforce their judgments. 279
tAdce. Lastly the faction of Ursinus has so far suc
ceeded, that, suborning Isaac a Jew, (Avho returning
to the Sjmagogue profaned the heavenly mysteries,)
our holy brother Damasus' lffe was aimed at, innocent
blood was shed, a plot was laid (which the forethought
of your Piety met with a truly diAdne instinct) the
Church was nearly despoUed of aU mysteries. His
fraud was this, that while he who had been made
judge of aU, was pleading his cause, there should be "
no one to judge of the lapsed or of factious invaders of
the Episcopate. Since then the innocence of our fore-
mentioned brother Damasus has been approved by the
judgment of your Serenity ; and Isaac himself, Avhen
he could not prove his allegations, has received his
deserts,^ we, that we may not trouble your Clemency
by bringing so many causes before you, beseech your
Piety to vouchsafe to order, that whoever shaU be
condemned either by the judgment of him [Damasus]
or of us who are Catholics, and will unjustly retain his
Church, or being summoned by Episcopal judgment
will, through contumacy, not attend, may either be
brought to Rome at the writ of the illustrious men
the Prefects of the Praetorium of your Italy, or by
the Vicars ; or if such question should arise in more
distant parts, let it be referred to the Metropolitan by
the local civil judges, or, if it relate to a Metropolitan,
let him be enjoined to go forthwith to Rome, or to
" By the Emperor, as above p. 277. and shortly below, p. 281. The context
relates to Rome only.
' Being banished into Spain by the Emperor.

280 Charges agst. Damasus to be broughtbef ore Emperor.
those whom the Bishop of Rome shaU assign as judges.
But let those who shaU be deposed, be reraoved from
the precincts of that city only, wherein they have
exercised the Episcopate, that they may not shame
lessly resume what has been lawfully taken from them.
In case that a Metropolitan or any other Bishop
should be suspected of undue favor or prejudice, let
it be lawful to appeal to the Bishop of Rome or to a
Council of fifteen neighbouring Bishops. But let not
our forementioned brother Damasus, since in his own
cause he bears the stamp of your acquittal, be inferior
to those, whom he, being equal in office, surpasses by
the prerogative of an Apostolic See, nor let him be
subjected to public civil judgraents, fi-ora which your
law" has exempted Bishops. In whose case, sentence
having been already given, he does not seem to de
cline the judgment of the court, but to claim the
honour bestowed by you. For, as relates to the laws
of the state, what life can be more guarded, than one
which,'' having been tried, rests upon your Clemency?"
The Council raentions further, that Damasus "had
subjected himself to the stricter judgments of Bishops,
by whom not the single charge, but the whole charac
ter is weighed," and they request the Emperor that
he would hiraself have any charge sifted. " Thus, no
abandoned or infamous persons would have any lawless
power of accusing the chief Priest ' or bearing witness
B Passed A.D. 376. t I have read qure for qua.
' Summus Sacerdos is the title of eveiy Bishop. See Tert. de Bapt. c. 17,
and many others in Blondel Primaut^ sect. iv. p. 34. Isidore of Seville A. D.

Proposals of Council granted by Gratian. 281
against him." In this, "he does not ask any thing
new, but follows the example of our ancestors, that
the Roman Bishop, if his cause is not entrusted to a
Council, should defend himself before the Imperial
Council. For Silvester too the Pope, being accused by
sacrilegious persons, maintained his own cause before
your father Constantine. And Scripture furnishes
like instances, as when the holy Apostle was oppressed
by the Governor, he appealed to Csesar and was sent
to Caesar."
The " rescript "^ of Gratian to Aquilinus, Vicar of
Rome," echoes and enforces what the Council had re
quested. The Emperor directs that those whom " the
Councils of the holy Bishops should shew by consent,
to be fomenting disturbance, like" those which had
happened, should '^'be banished one hundred miles from
the spot." He extends the operation of the law to
Gaul alone, beyond the provinces of Italy ; and allows
the judgment of Damasus to have the civil sanction
proposed, but only if "given together with five or
seven Bishops." Cases in the provinces were to be
deterrained by the Metropolitan ; unless the Metro
politan were suspected of partiality, in which case the
accused was allowed to appeal to fifteen Bishops of a
neighbouring province or to the Bishop of Rome.
The cause of Metropolitans alone was to be referred di
rectly to Rome, or to judges appointed by its Bishop.
595, still gives " Summus Sacerdos" and Pontifex Maximus as titles of all Bi
shops. Etymoh vii. 12. 13. The title was forbidden in Africa by the third Council
of Carthage, u. 26. " Cone. U. 1190.

282 Ecclesiastical causes to be heard by Synods.
The law has, throughout, reference to Damasus
who was then in the eleventh year of his Episcopate,
and was still harassed by the adherents of Ursinus.
The law of the elder Valentinian, referred to by the
Roman Council, was pleaded to the younger Valen
tinian by S. Ambrose.'
A law of Gratian was directed [A. D. 376] to a
Synod, four of whose Bishops are named, "and to the
other Bishops" generally. It runs ; " The"" practice
in civil causes is to be retained in ecclesiastical also.
If anything should arise, relating to the observance of
religion, of dissensions or slight offences, let them be
heard in their own places and by the Synods of their
diocese." Criminal causes were to be reserved to
"the ordinary or extraordinary judges or the illus
trious Powers."
It remains to mention some detached Councils of
this period, which have been omitted, as less, or not
at all, connected with the line of events which ended
in the Council of Constantinople.
The Council of Valence is celebrated for the great
Bishops present at it. S. Phoebadius is mentioned
first in its Synodical letter, as having presided proba
bly on account of his eminence, as Hosius had, and
S. Basil says of Mysonius, Bishop of Neo-Caesarea ;
" in" the conventions of those of like power [Bishops]
he was counted worthy of precedence, not according
' Ep. xxi. §. 2. see Ancient Precedents, p. 18,
" Cod. Theod. leg. 23. de Episc. Cone. ii. 1073.
" Ep. 28. Neo-Cass.

Council of Valence ; eminent Bishops there. 283
to his age, but as above all in the ancientness of wis
dom, receiving by common consent the meed of pre
sidency." Besides him were S. Florentius, perhaps S.
Paul of Tricastin, S. Justus of Lyons, S. Eortius,
Britton of Treves, a Confessor, and S. Concordius."
The names of twenty-two Bishops p are preserved, as
having been present ; twenty-one names are prefixed
to the Synodical letters ; nineteen subscriptions only
remain, but these contain the name of a Bishop, not
so prefixed. The first Epistle is addressed "to our
most beloved brethren, the Bishops throughout the
Gauls and the five provinces." It was assembled to
still some dissension, and, this effected, the Bishops
took occasion of their meeting to frame four Canons.
" All things being transacted at Valence, and what
had been commenced on account of the division, being
in the name of God composed, and in an iraproved
state, some of the brethren suggested piously and
profitably, that we should consider the following things
which we can neither admit, for the holiness of the
Church, nor yet, on account of the received custom,
condemn." On one remarkable Canon the Council
had to act, while yet sitting. Many in order to avoid
being ordained Bishops, Priests, or Deacons, accused
themselves falsely of some deadly sin. The Council
enacted that no one who so accused himself could be
° See Tillemont S. Just. viii. 554-7.
P Cone. ii. 1067-9. One old MS. mentions that there were thirty Bishops.
ThenameofS. Phcebadius does not appear among the subscriptions, although
prefixed to both letters, nnd in an Index of Synods he is said to have been chief
author of the Canons. Ib. Not. 1.

284 First Council of Carthage under S. Gratus.
ordained, as having borne false witness against him
self, and for fear of scandal. The CouncU wrote a
second letter to the Clergy and people of Frejus, that
they could make no exception in their favor, although
Concordius, a Bishop at the CouncU, gave testimony
to the person of Acceptus (whom they all desired to
have as a Bishop) as being "a wise and Christian raan."
In Africa, a Council of Carthage, the first whose Ca
nons were inserted in the Code of the African Church,
and afterwards received by the whole Church, was
held under S. Gratus, shortly after the Council of
Sardica, and in the reign of Constans. It was the
sequel of many Councils held to heal the distractions
ofthe Donatists, soon after Paulus and Macarius ihad
been sent by Constans to bring back the Donatists.
Peace was for the tirae restored, although the kind
ness and liberality at first employed was mixed with
severity, after the attack on the Roman soldiery by
the CircuracelUones, instigated by Donatus of Bagai.
The Council was thankful for the restored unity.
The preface of the Council runs, " when ' Gratus
Bishop of Carthage, had sat down in Council, together
with his colleagues, and those who carae from different
provinces of Africa to Carthage" [Bishops, of whom
ten " are named], and the rest, whose hands are here
contained. The same Bishop, Gratus said, ' Thanks be
to Almighty God, and Christ Jesus Who put an end
to the evils of schism, and looked upon His Church,
1 Opt. de Schism. Don. iii. 4. ' Cone. ii. 757.
" Nine more names occur in tho Canons which they proposed.

Subjects of Canons and way of proposing them. 285
so as to raise up aU her dispersed members into her
bosom, and commanded the most reUgious Emperor
Constans to have a care for unity, and send as minis
ters of the holy work, the servants of God, Paulus
and Macarius. We have then been gathered into
unity by the wUl of God, that through divers pro-
.Adnces we might hold CouncUs, and to-day a Council
of the whole ProAdnce of Africa might, by the grace
of God, meet at Carthage. Wherefore do ye con
sider, with my poor seff, those necessary subjects,
whereof we, mindful of the Divine commands and
the authority of Holy Scripture, and having regard
to this season of unity, must needs so enact as to
each, that Carthage may not infringe the vigor of the
law, and yet may not, at the time of unity, prescribe
any thing harsh." Gratus himseff proposed the four
first Canons and the last ; the nine remaining were
suggested by nine other Bishops, but are supported by
Gratus. The other Bishops expressed their consent
to each Canon separately ; "All the Bishops said ;"
"they aU said." The first Canon was directed against
the Donatist Anabaptism ; the second against their
false martjTS ; the third and fourth against the
mulieres subintroductse. The fifth forbade that lay
men from another diocese should be ordained by the
Bishop without leave of his own, or the clerk of
another Bishop be received. The seventh Canon for
bade that either clerk or layman should communicate
in any other diocese without letters from his oavu
Bishop. Gratus said, 'unless this be observed, com-

286 Notices of previous Councils.
munion wiU become indiscriminate. For ff he be re
ceived with letters, harmony will be maintained among
Bishops ; and no deceitful person, leaving the commu
nion of one, can come stealthily to another.' All said,
'Thou provddest for all, and consultest for clergy and
laity.'" The other Canons relate to the clergy. Canon
xi. directed that in causes of Clerks against Clerks,
whether in faults of pride or any other offences, a
Deacon should be heard before three neighbouring Bi
shops, a Presbyter before six ; a Bishop before twelve
of his feUow-Bishops.
In the Council itself allusion is made to other pre
vious Councils, whether of more or less extent. The
Bishop of Adrumetum said, " It ' was enacted in our
CouncU [one at Adrumetum] that clerks should not
exact money on usury." On the second Canon, the
Bishops said, "This too was enacted in the several
Councils." Gratus recoraraended the third on the
ground ; "This then both the law commands, and
your holiness coramands, as has been enacted in the
several Councils." In summing up, Gratus states
incidentally that Anabaptism had already been con
demned in several Councils. "I believe that you
remember that in many Councils our fathers both
condemned the rash tradition, and enacted that the
impiety of Anabaptism was to be punished, which
things I believe have now by our CouncU been brought
to a close." The Bishops finally enacted, that " any
one who set these or the former Canons at nought,
' Can. 13.

Donatist Councils and heresy. 287
if a layman, should be deprived of communion, if a
clerk, of his rank." Gratus the Bishop sumraed up,
" It remains that what we have all agreed upon, and
what, upon your consent, has been set down in
writing, ye should confirm with your subscription
also. They all said, 'The minutes of this Council
attest our consent, and our consent shall also be de
clared by our subscription.' And they subscribed."
The remaining African Councils ofthis period were
Donatist. Those who had not returned to the Church,
after the repeated acquittals of Ctecilian,'^ by the se
lected Bishops at Rome, by the Council of Aries, and
on the final appeal to Constantine, had no plea for
themselves, unless they condemned the Church. They
adopted, accordingly, their peculiar heresy, that the
Sacraments are invalid, if "^ministered by evil men,"
and maintained consequently that they were invalid
as administered by Caecilian, or by those who com
municated Adth him, and hence denied the existence
of the Church except within their own body, and
maintained that Scripture too spoke of the Church,
as existing (as they said) only in the South. They
re-baptised those who came to them, as Heathen, so
that in order to receive Donatist Baptism, those who
went over to them had to deny that they were
Christians. The Donatists were uniform only in
their hatred of the Church. As early as A. D. 333,
Tychonius, a distinguished Bishop among them, re
lates that, in consequence ofthe repugnance of many
" see ab. p. 97. sqq. ' Art. xxvi.

288 Anabaptism made open question by Donatist Council.
to be re-baptised, a CouncU was held of two hundred
and scA'enty Donatist Bishops, in which, "the "ques
tion having been discussed for seventy-five days, to
the exclusion of all other raatters, it was decreed that
those who who had given up the Scriptures, guilty, as
they were, of an exceeding sin, should, if unwilling
to be baptised, be admitted to communion, as inno
cent." In consequence ofthis, "he [Tychonius] says
that Deuterius, Donatist Bishop of Macrian, gathered
a multitude of Traditors, and united them with the
Church, and, according to the decrees of that Coun
cil, held by your two hundred and seventy Bishops,
made unity with the Traditors ; and that, after he had
so done, Donatus communicated with that Deuterius,
and not with him alone, but with all the Bishops of
the Moors for forty years, who, he said, down to the
persecution raade by Macarius, communicated with
Traditors without baptising them."
About A. D. 348, Constans, probably at the wish of
S. Gratus, sent Paul and Macarius into Africa, to ap
pease, if possible, the Donatists. They brought with
thera very large alms, "''almost treasures," for the
relief of the poor, called them over one by one, and
exhorted them to unity.'' Donatus, Bishop at Car
thage, refused them angrily.^ Donatus of Bagai hired
troops of Circumcelliones against them. These Cir
curacelUones infested the ways, hindered the payment
of creditors, made masters slaves and slaves mas-
" S. Aug. Ep. 93. ad Vincent. §. 43.
^ Opt. iii. 4. y lb. init. ^ c. 3.

Donatist excesses. 289
ters. " The * Donatist Bishops, Avhen brought into
odium about them, are said to have written to Count
Taurinus, 'that such men could not be corrected in
the Church, and bade that they should receive disci
pline from the Count.'" Now, this Donatus employed
them. Macarius asked for an escort. Some of the
escort were maltreated by the Donatists. The rest
avenged them. Donatus and Marculus (a presbyter,
some say a Bishop'') perished. The Donatists said
that Marculus was cast headlong from a rock. S.
Augustine had " heard " that he cast himself down,
which," he says, "is more probable, than that any
Roman officer could command this, too foreign from
Roman laws ; whereas, among so many heresies afloat
under the Christian name, this is peculiar to yours."
The Donatists represented Marculus as a martyr, sent
from a Donatist Council. " Macarius, the worst of
these two beasts," says a contemporary Donatist,''
" having long, in other provinces, attempted through
subtlety this work of blood, exhibited, in Numidia
and towards the glorious Marculus, open tokens of
barbarian cruelty and unheard-of ferocity. For when
the most holy band of most ancient fathers and the
united Council of Bishops, sent ten approved Bishops
of their number on an erabassy, either by healthful
warnings, to recall them from such great sin, or (as
' c. 4. ' The author of the Passio Marculi speaks of him, as, " gleaming
with Sacerdotal honor ;" commonly the Episcopate.
" c. Cresc. iii. 49. see Hom. xi. in S. Joh. fin. p. 179, 80. aud note d. O. T.
^ Passio Marculi in Mabillon Vett. Anal. p. 182. quoted by Mansi Suppl.
Cone. p. 218. U

290 Donatist Councils.
happened) themselves to be the first in the field of
faith, the care of our noble Pastors was so guided by
God, that the cruelty which threatened our sheep,
first mangled their frames."
A. D. 349. After the Council under Gratus had
prohibited those whom, having fallen amid their ex
cesses, the Donatists accounted martyrs, from being
buried with the true Martyrs, the Donatists enacted
that their burying places should be marked by
"whitened^ altars or tables."
A. D. 363. The Donatist Bishops sought with flat
tery their restoration from the Apostate Juhan. They
recovered the Basilicas amid bloodshed, which in one
place two Donatist Bishops urged on. " Primosus,
the Catholic Bishop of the place, coraplained of this
at your Council at Thenae," says the historian,^ "and
ye heard his coraplaint unheeding."
Tychonius, a Donatist, was brought by the force of
Holy Scripture to acknowledge that the Church was
to be spread throughout the world, and so attacked
the very central heresy of Donatism, that the sins of
individuals could destroy the Church. Parmenian
and the more consistent Donatists attempted first to
bring him back, and "afterwards," S. Augustine says,
"[Parmenian, or 'they'] ^ report that he was con
demned by their Council."
The Donatist Bishops were ashamed of the self-
' Opt. iii. 4. ' Ib. ii. 18.
<' c. Ep. Parmen. i. 1. Tillemont (Notes 31, 32.) suggests " perhibent " for
perhibet : the n being marked in MSS. only by a line.

Novatian Councils. 291
murders of the Circumcelliones, and endeavoured in
vain to check them. "What profits it," S. Augustine
asks Cresconius,'' "that, as you have raentioned, your
Bishops boast that in their Councils they haA'e pro
hibited and condemned this, whereas so many rocks
and precipices are daily defiled by slaughter, after
that teaching of Marculus ?"
The Novatian Bishops too held a Synod in the time
of Valens, about the keeping of Easter. "A 'few
Bishops of the Novatians in Phrygia and but little
known, haAdng gathered a Sjmod at Pazus a Adllage,
made a rule, to keep Easter when the Jews keep the
Passover." "But *" neither AgeUius, Bishop of the
Novatians at Constantinople, nor the Bishops of Nice,
Nicomedia or Cotyaeium, whom the Novatians look
upon as lords and rulers of the things done in their
heresy and Churches, took part herein."
Sabbatius, a converted Jew, ordained Presbyter
by Marcian, the Novatian Bishop at Constantinople,
took occasion of this decree, to promote his OAvn ob
ject of gaining the Episcopate among them. "'Mar
cian convened a Synod of Novatian Bishops at San-
garum. When met, they send for Sabbatius, and
bade him explain the causes of his grief to the Sy
nod : — They in the Synod, suspecting that it was but
a pretext, out of a desire for the see, bind him by an
oath never to accept the Episcopate. When he had
taken it, they promulgate a Canon about Easter,
'¦ c. Cresc. iii. 49. ' Socr. iv. 28. " Soz. vi. 24. ' Ib. vii. 12.
u2

292 Origin of Priscillianism.
which they call ' the indifferent,' saying that it was
no sufficient ground for the division of the Church."
The Canon was, "that each should 'iceep Easter accord
ing to the custom which he preferred ; but that there
should be no difference as to communion, those who
kept the feast differently being in the harmony of the
Church." Sabbatius, subsequently, broke his oath, inducing
some obscure persons to lay hands upon him."^
In Spain, about A. D. 379, the heresies of the
Gnostics and Manichees were revived and spread by
Priscillian. " The " defilement of other heresies were
poured in upon them, as into a drain, in horrible
confusion." They denied the Trinity and the In
carnation ; dissolved marriage when they could ; were
outwardly ascetics, in secret unboundedly licentious.
" Marc," a native of Memphis first brought it from
Egypt into Spain. His hearers were one Agape, of
good family, and Elpidius a rhetorician. By these
Priscillian was instructed, in faraily noble, in wealth
most rich, acute, restless, eloquent, learned through
much reading, raost ready in disputing ; happy, had
he not by perverse will spoiled a most excellent
mind ! Manifold goods had he of body and mind ;
he could watch long, endure hunger and thirst ; desire-
less of having, most sparing in using. But he was
most vain, puffed up unduly with profane knowledge.
" Socr. V. 21.
" S.Aug. Hajr. 70. T. viii. 22. see Cone. Brae. i. S. Leo Ep. 15. ad Turib.
° Sulp. ii. 46, 7.

Council of Saragossa. 293
He was even believed to have practised magic from
his youth. When he had entered on this pernicious
doctrine, he enticed many nobles and others of his
countrymen by persuasion and flattery. Women too
longing for novelty, with unsteady faith, and over-cu
rious minds, flocked to him in crowds. For with an
air and shew of humility, he had inspired all with re
verence for him. The contagion of his faithlessness
had gradually pervaded most of Spain ; sorae even of
the Bishops had been seduced ; among whora Instan-
tius and Salvian had not only received Priscillian, but
joined in conspiracy with him, until Hyginus, Bishop
of Cordova, being in the Adcinity, referred what he had
discovered to Idacius, Bishop of Merida. He, harass
ing Instantius and his corapanions unduly and un-
measuredly, added fuel to the rising fire, exasperating
the bad rather than checking them. So then, after
many memorable conflicts, a Synod was held at Sara
gossa [A. D. 380 ] where the Bishops of Aquitaine too
were present. The heretics did not venture to stand
the trial; sentence was passed on the absent; Instantius
and Salvian Bishops, Elpidius and Priscillian laymen,
were condemned. It was added, that if any received
info communion those condemned, the same sentence
should lie against them. Ithacius, Bishop of [EstoyP]
was commissioned to make known to all the decree of
the Bishops, and especially to excommunicate Hygi
nus, who, having been the first to proceed against the
P Ossobonensi, a conjecture for Sossu.bensi.

294 Canons of Council of Saragossa.
heretics, afterwards, being foully perverted, had receiv
ed them into communion. "
The names of twelve Bishops only are mentioned.
" On « October 4, the Bishops, Fitadius [S. Phoebadi
us] [S.] Delphin [of Bourdeaux] &c. sitting in the Sa
cristy at Saragossa, all said, ' Let the sentence be re
cited ;' Lucius, Bishop, read." The Canons all bear
upon the Priscillianists.' The Bishops anathematise
women, who, on pretence of learning or teaching, assem
bled with the husbands of others : those who fasted on
the Lord's day and in the Christraas season, as deny
ing the Incarnation, and on the Lord's Day, reve
rencing the sun ; private assemblies, on account of the
imraoralities ; and those who took the Holy Eucharist
without really receiving It. They also forbad clerks
to becorae mere monks out of vanity, or unauthorised
persons to take the name of Doctor, or virgins to take
the veil before forty, or Bishops to receive those ex
communicated by other Bishops. Lucius, having re
cited each canon, all the Bishops expressed their as
sent. " AU the Bishops said ' We agree."'
The memory of a small CouncU held by S. Arabrose
A. D. 380 to clear one maUciously accused, has been
preserved by his letter, in which he expostulates with
a Bishop who had listened too readily to the calumny.
Indicia, " 'approved by the judgment of Zeno of holy
memory and consecrated by his blessing," had given
offence to her brother-in-law, one Maximus, by not
¦! Cone ii. 1195. ' S. Leo Ep. 15. c. 4. » S. Ambr. Ep. 5. Syagr. §. 1.

S. Ambrose holds Council in behalf of one traduced. 295
going to his country house ;' to others, by not going
from house to house and Adsiting their Adves." Some
vUe women were procured to spread abroad a report
of child-murder."^ The brother-in-law; "the'' author of
the whole scene, "spread the charge abroad orally and
by letter, and brought it to Syagrius, the Bishop of
Verona, but would not appear as accuser, "mistrust
ing the evidence." Some told Syagrius, that "they^
would not communicate vdth him, if he received
her [to communion] unexamined." "Of what sort
are they," asks S. Ambrose, "who would prescribe to
Bishops the course we are to take ?" In compliance
with those requisitions, Syagrius had decided on re
quiring a proof of her innocence, unfit and shocking
to be required'' ; against which S. Ambrose wrote in
dignantly ; and summoned before hira the accusers.
S. Ambrose joined in his judgment " his ^ brethren
and feUow- Bishops." It appeared that two of the ori
ginal accusers, "persons " of vUest condition and more
detestable vrickedness," had been purposely removed
out of the way ; a third had fled, to avoid the proof
of her own guilt. Those who circulated the story on
such aUeged authority, when examined by S. Ambrose,
contradicted each other"; on the day of the trial
"they <> Adthdrew themselves from the Synod of Bi
shops." No Adtnesses appearing, S. Ambrose's own
sister S. MarceUina, Paterna, "whose* affection was
a testimony," and Indicia's nurse, bore witness to
' §. 17. » §. 16 " §. 19. * §• 4- " §• 15- '' §• 2.
»§. 1. » §. 20. "§• 19- 'h^O. " §.22.

296 State of the faith in Constantinople
Indicia's holy and unblemished lffe. S. MarceUina
said, "she " wished that the Lord Jesus might reserve
a part of the kingdom of God for her with Indicia."
" Moved by these things," says S. Ambrose,'' "we pro
nounced Indicia a blameless virgin, and condemned
Maximus, and [the tAvo accusers,] Renatus and Leon
tius ; alloAdng to Maximus a hope of restoration [to
communion] on amending his error : the accusers were
"to remain excommunicate, unless they should shew
themselves fit for mercy, by proof of penitence, and
lasting sorrow for their deed."
These Avere all the Councils of this period, up to
the date of the Council of Constantinople. Valens'
sudden death left the Church free ; and the second
general Council for the maintenance of the faith was
held in the Capital, whence successive Arian Empe
rors had especially labored to eradicate it.
Just before the death of S. Basil, A. D. 379, S.
Gregory of Nazianzum was invited by " many,s both
pastors and people," to Constantinople. A Synod of
Bishops'' (probably those of Thrace) called him. It
was according to the mind of S. Basil,' although, on
earth, he did not see the event. Constantinople was,
at this time, through the forty-years banishment of its
orthodox Bishops and the persecution or even mur
der of its clergy,'' almost abandoned to every heresy.
" §. 21. f §. ult. « Carm.de Vit. 1. 595, 6.
" de Episc. 1. 81. ' Or. 43. § 2. p. 771.
'' e. g. the massacre of eighty Presbyters, whom Valens had put into a vessel,
directing that it should be set on fire at sea. Socr. iv. 16. Soz. vi. 14. Theod. iv. 24.
add Rtif. i. 25.

just before the second General Council. 297
Arianism was enthroned there ; yet no small part of the
people in Constantinople, Bithynia, Thrace, the Helles
pont, had been attracted by the strict and monastic
life of the kindred and rival heresy of the Macedo
nians,' The best of the heretical Bishops were of this
sect."" Constantinople was the head quarters also of
the Eunomians, who thence sent out Bishops" to Ly
dia, Ionia, Lesbos, Galatia, Cappadocia, CUicia, An
tioch in Coelesyria. " In Constantinople " itself, " no
small number joined them from Eudoxius, and some
other heresies." There were rumours, that Apollina-
rian Bishops " were going to hold a Council there, to
bring in a new heresy. The Novatians, as we have
just seen, had their Bishop there. There was, in com
parison, but a Uttle flock i" who had preserved the faith,
nay, the reraains of a flock, poor, scattered, glad to
gain its salvation as it were by stealth, but precious in
the sight of God, to tend, whom S. Gregory was in
vited. He secretly, amid persecutions still imminent,
assembled the Catholics in the private house of a re
lation, i where the faith, which had all but died out,
rose again, and it was called thence the Church of the
Resurrection, Anastasia.'' S. Gregory brought the
faith to Constantinople, and " received," in retum,
"stones."^ The people, brought up in entire igno
rance of the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity,

' Soz. iv. 27. "¦ Ruf. H. E. i. 25. ¦" Philg. viii. 2. " de vit. 1. 609. sqq.
P Or. 42. §. 2. de vit. 587. sqq. " Or. 26. §. 17.
' Or. 42. §. 16. de vit. 1079. Somn. de Anastas.
' de vita! gen. 1. 47. do vit. 665. sqq.

298 Maximus the Cynic, his iiregular consecration
thought him a Polytheist. They were zealous also
for their Arian Bishop, Demophilus. So they stoned
him, without yet killing him; then, they brought him
before the civil court. "Christ," 'he says, "who aideth
the word spoken for Him, glorified me in the stran
ger tribunal."
Yet, by simplicity, piety, clear and forcible state
ments of the truth, zeal for the salvation of souls, and
holiness of life he won numbers to the faith, Avhile the
hatred of those who hated the truth fell on hira.
S. Gregory and the Church had, however, more
lasting trouble frora one, Maximus the Cynic, who
imposed upon him with accounts of his sufferings for
Christ, when he had suffered only for his sins." Maxi
mus put on the semblance of holiness, and zeal for
the faith." With this he deceived Peter Bishop of
Alexandria, so that he even took part against S. Gre
gory. He, who had at first "in guilelessness, written"
to S. Gregory, and "by his letters set* him in his see,
and honored him with the symbols of his confirma
tion," turned against him. He even sent" the Bishops,
of whom out of respect for Peter, S. Gregory would
not speak more, and who, while S. Gregory was sick,
secretly by night, without notice to the people or the
Bishops, set the Cynic in his chair,^ and when disco
vered at dawn by the neighbouring clergy, they
finished the consecration in a flute-player's hut, in

« de A^it. 674-8. « lb. 976. sqq. Or. 25. §. 3.
" Or. 25. §. 2. 3. 11. 13. 19. de vit. 960. sqq. " iyKaS'iffra. de vit. 859.
" lb- 851. y Ib. 881. sqq.

^expulsion. Damasusobjectsbothtohim^S.Gregory. 299
the presence of some of the lowest and most worthless
rabble.^ ExpeUed from Constantinople, Maximus,
Adth the Bishops who consecrated him, betook him
seff to Theodosius, then engaged in the Gothic war.
Theodosius rejected him.^ "Wha,t had been Ul done
was cancelled by civU authority."" Maximus betook
himseff to Alexandria, endeavoured to gain from Peter
either the see of Constantinople, or his own, and was
expeUed thence by the Prefect. ° Thence he went to
Italy, and for a time gained the support of S. Ambrose
and a Synod. Damasus, although well-informed as
to Maximus, and approving of the act of Theodosius,
was unhappUy no less prejudiced against S. Gregory.
To Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica, and five other
Bishops who had informed him of the uncanonical
consecration ofthe Cynic, and his rejection by Theo
dosius, he writes, " For '' the rest I exhort your ho
linesses, that since, as I know, it is arranged that a
Council should be held at Constantinople, your since
rity will give diligence, that one blameless be elected
Bishop of that city ; so that when, by the favor of
God, peace shall be completely established between
Cathohc Bishops, no dissensions may thenceforth arise
in the Church ; but (as we had long wished) perpetual
peace may endure among the Catholic Bishops. This
moreover I exhort you, beloved, not to allow any one
against the statutes of our forefathers, to be transferred
^ 898-912. » 1001-1012. ^ Damas. Ep. ad Achol. in Holstein p. 40.
' 1013-23. '' in Holstein p. 40, 1.

300 Edicts of Theodosius in behalf of the faith,
from one city to another, and leave the people coramit
ted to him and out of arabition pass over to another."
Nothing could less describe the character or circum
stances of the meek S. Gregory ; yet it was, in igno
rance, aimed at him.
Soon after this, (Nov, 24. A. D. 380) Theodosius,
having anew defeated the Goths, entered Constantino
ple. By birth a Spaniard, he was born of orthodox pa
rents." After Gratian had raised him to the Eastern
Empire, for his decisive victory over the Goths by
whom Valens had been defeated and slain, he fell sick
at Thessalonica. Having ascertained that Acholius,
Bishop of that city, was orthodox, he was baptized by
him' and recovered.^ ""^He joyed more to become a
member of the Church than to reign on earth." On
his Baptism,' he issued an edict in behalf of the faith.
It was addressed "to'' the people of Constantinople."
" We will, that all people under the rule of our Cle
mency be of that religion which the divine Peter the
Apostle delivered to the Romans, as is attested by
its continuance from the Apostle's day until now,
which faith moreover, it is evident that the Pontiff
Damasus, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria, a man
of Apostolic holiness, do follow; viz "that, according
to the Apostolic discipline and Evangelic doctrine,
we should believe the One Godhead of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, of equal Majesty in the Holy
« Socr. V. 6. f 1. 0. e Soz. vii. 4.
•¦ S. Aug. de Civ. Dei. v. ult. ' Soz. 1. c.
" Cod. Theod. L. xvi. Tit. 1. de fide Cath. 1. 2.

and against heretics. 30 1
Trinity. Those who follow this law we bid to take
the title of Catholic Christians. Judging the rest to
be phrenzied and mad, [we bid that] they should bear
the disgrace of heresy ; and that their conventicles
should not receive the name of churches ; they them
selves being to be punished first by the vengeance of
God, and then by our motion which we have received
from the will of Heaven."
Constantinople had at this time formally no Bishop ;
Antioch had two ; so that Theodosius appeals to the
two great sees, about which there was no dispute. Ar
rived at Constantinople, Theodosius honored and lis
tened to S. Gregory' ; he was present in person,"" to put
the Bishop in possession of the Cathedral, and would
have assigned to him the see at the request of the
whole multitude, had not S. Gregory turned their
thoughts off from himself to thanksgiving to God."*
In the beginning of the next year (A. D. 381. Jan.
10.) Theodosius forbade" all heretics against the faith
of Nice, especially the Arians, Photinians, and Eunomi
ans, from assembling congregations within the towns ;
he annulled any special rescripts to the contrary,
which had been fraudulently obtained ; enjoined that
the Catholic churches throughout the world should
be given back to all the Orthodox Bishops who hold
the faith of Nice ; and threatened to expel the heretics
themselves from the cities, if they made disturbances.
To Demophilus,P the Arian Bishop, Theodosius gave
1 de vit. 1305. sqq. ¦¦¦ 1336. sqq. "1371-1395.
" Cod. Theod. xvi. 5. (de ha?ret.) 6. " Socr. v. 7.

302 S. Meletius' offer to Paulinus as to see of Antioch.
the choice of accepting the Nicene faith and making
peace, or leaving the city. Demophilus retired to
the suburbs.
Sapor ,1 the General who was entrusted with the ex
ecution of the edicts, found S. Meletius still at An
tioch. On this occasion, S. Meletius made the celebra
ted offer, that he and Paulinus should feed the flock of
the Lord in common, the survivor succeeding to the
whole charge ; and that meantime the Gospels should
be placed in the Episcopal chair, as the represen
tative of Christ, and the two Bishops sit on either
side. This, Paulinus refused ; and Sapor, (whether
on the ground of the peacefulness of S. Meletius, or
because Paulinus still stood out in maintaining that
there was only one Divine Hypostasis,') awarded the
Churches to S. Meletius.
The Council of Constantinople then probably did
not begin sitting before Easter A. D. 481. For S. Me
letius, who was present at its opening, had the long
land-journey to make, after this conference with Sa
por. The assembUng of the Council had, from the
first, lain near the heart of Theodosius. "As' soon
as he received the Empire, he made the harmony of
the Churches his chief care, and convoked the Bishops
ofhis oAvn sovereignty to Constantinople. For this
part alone was full of the infection of Arianism. For
the West had remained free from this disease. For
Constantine, the eldest son of Constantine, and Con-
<i Thecd.v. 3. ¦¦ above p. 21 5. s Theod. v. 6.

Conduct of Theodosius to S. Meletius and Bishops. 303
stans the youngest, kept their father's faith undefiled ;
and Valentinian again, the Emperor of the West,
raaintained to the end religion undefiled."
Theodosius, after his great defeat of the Goths, had
his elevation foreshown to him in a dream, wherein he
saw S. Meletius placing the royal purple around hira,
and the crown upon his head.'
When " the Bishops arrived, one hundred and fifty
in number, he charged that no one should shew him
which was the great Meletius. For he wished to re
cognise him from his dream. And when the whole
assembly of Bishops had entered the Palace, passing
by aU the rest, he ran up to the great Meletius. And
as an affectionate son, who obtained sight of his father
afiter a long interval, he embraced him and kissed his
eyes and Ups and cheek and head, and the right hand
which croAvned him. He related too the vision which
he had seen. The rest also he entreated courteously ;
and begged them, as fathers, to consult about the
matters before them."
Theodosius hoped also to regain Eleusius ^ and the
Macedonian Bishops to the faith which they had pro
fessed in their embassy to the West."^ He, accordingly,
"invited the Bishops of their heresy also. They came,
thfrty-sis in all, most of whom were from the cities
of the Hellespont."
Among the Orthodox Bishops, were many remark
able for piety or wisdom. Besides S. Meletius and
t lb. " c. 7 ' Socr. V. 8. " above p. 234-6.

304 Eminent Bps. ; S. Meletius President; Macedonians
S. Gregory of Nazianzum, there were '^ S. Basil's two
brothers, S. Gregory of Nyssa and S. Peter of Sebaste,
HeUadius, (who had succeeded S. Basil) S. Amphi
lochius, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Optimus of Pisidia,
Diodorus of CiUcia, [S. Chrysostom's master] S. Pela
gius of Laodicea, S. Eulogius of Edessa, Acacius [of
Beroea] Isidore of Tyre and Gelasius of Caesarea,
adorned in life and doctrine ;" all of whom Theodoret
calls "men worthy of all admiration and full of Di
vine zeal and wisdom." Among the subscriptions
there are also names eminent for zeal and holiness ;
S. Antiochus of Samosata, nephew and successor of S.
Eusebius, S. Vitus of Carrhae, and Abraham of Batnte,
(whose names have occurred already) Acholius, Bos
phorus of Colonia and Otreius of Melitine, S. Mar
tyrius of Marcianopolis. S. Meletius was President.^
S. Gregory of Nyssa in his funeral oration before the
Council, calls him "our ^father." The Bishops were
collected from the whole East, except that, at first, the
Emperor did not summon the Bishops from Egypt.*
The Macedonian Bishops at once refused to accept
the faith of Nice, to which they had before assented,
and left the CouncU.'' "They wrote to their adherents
in different cities, exhorting thera not to assent to
what had been decreed at Nice."
The Bishops of the Council ratified at once the
expulsion of Maxiraus the Cynic. They decreed ""=that
neither had he ever been, or was, a Bishop ; nor were
" Theod. V. 8. y de vit. 1514. sqq. ^ ^^ Melet. init. ui. 587.
" de vit 1509. sqq. >> Soz. vii. 7. " Can. 4. Cone. ii. 1125.

S. Gregory's election unanimous. 305
those who had been ordained by him, in any rank
whatever of the Clergy, [really ordained] every thing
done about him or by him being annulled."
S. Gregory, being a Bishop without a see, had
taken care of, and guarded and enlarged the little
flock which he had received, until it became a great
multitude. The Arians had taunted him that "his peo
ple '' would not fill even the porches "of the churches,
which they had evacuated. All were filled ; and the
harvest was increasing.^ The people had themselves,
in their eager zeal, enthroned him.' He had virtually
been Bishop of the whole Orthodox people. " The laws
against translations were long dead ;" and S. Gregory
also was "clearly free from them."s He treats the
objection, grounded on his supposed translation, as a
"clumsy ''fiction " of his enemies. He had not been
translated from any see, for he had never occupied
any. The see of Sasima, although he was consecrated
for it, he had declined. At Nazianzum, he had only
aided his father. "'S. Meletius seeing him, and know
ing the object of those who wrote the Canons, that
they hindered translations, in order to cut off occasions
of ambition, confirmed to the divine Gregory the Epis
copate of Constantinople." All the Bishops at the
Council joined in electing him. He himself was indu
ced to accept it by one ground alone,'' the hope that the
" de vit. 1495-8. «Ib. 1499. Orat. xiii. 16. 5. 6. 11. 12. 'Orat. xxxvi. 2.
B de vit. 181 0, 1 . >> " After I came, leaving Cappadocia, (which seems to all
a bulwark of faith) but not leaving a people, or ought to which I was bound.
These are fictions of enemies, falsehoods, veils of envy, clumsily devised." de
se ipso et Episc. 93-7. ' Theod. v. 8. * de vit. 1526-71.
X

306 Grounds ofE. Bishops in rejecting Paulinus
influence ofhis see would enable him to end the schism
between the East and West. For S, Meletius, even
while President of this second General Council, was
still out of communion with the West, "It was not
yet clear," says S. Gregory after the decease of S. Me
letius,' " whether they of the West would receive the
man, being up to this point exasperated,"
The death of S. Meletius, soon afterwards, destroyed
this hope. The Easterns were unwilling that Pauli
nus, whose orthodoxy they suspected, and with whom
the Westerns had sided, in opposition to their S. Mele
tius, should have the authority of the great see of
Antioch. The Westerns were persuaded, at least at
one time, that S. Meletius and Paulinus had agreed that
the survivor should be the sole Bishop ; although the
Council under S. Ambrose, which asserted this ¦" A. D,
381, was silent about it A, D. 382, and admitted " that
in some things they had been imposed upon. The
refusal of Paulinus, as related by Theodoret, was in
A. D. 381, and could hardly have been earlier than
March, just before S. Meletius left Antioch for the
last time, to attend the Council of Constantinople.
It leaves then no room for any subsequent compact.
Theodoret was well acquainted with the affairs of An
tioch. S. Gregory, who resigned his see rather than
take part in nominating a successor to S. Meletius,
and who mentions the grounds which he urged upon
the Bishops at Constantinople," against appointing a
1 1612, 3. "" in S. Ambr. Ep. 13. §. 2.
'' Ib. Ep. 14. § 2. o de vit. 1591-1679.

and of S. Gregory's resignation. 307
Bishop of Antioch during the life-time of PauUnus,
knew of no such compact. Socrates destroys his own
credibility, by accusing S. Flavian of perjury,'' in which
he is unsupported, and which is utterly incredible,
S, Gregory threw the whole weight, which he de
rived from his character, his eloquence, his see, his
presidency of the Council, into the scale of peace.
He urged that this opportunity should be seized of
" joining ' with them what is alien ; (for, as I see,
the West now is alien)" ; that Paulinus should hold
the see " a little longer " till his decease ; and that
then, "amid the harmony of the whole people and
of the wise Bishops, we should, with the Holy Ghost,
assign sorae other to the see." ' S. Gregory proposed
to resign his see, rather than remain, "unable ^ to
draw others to his mind, or to assent to others, against
reason," He objected also to the too easy terms,
on which the Council had received heretics,* alloAdng
probably Arian Bishops to retain their sees, upon sub
scribing the Nicene Creed, When S, Athanasius and
the Council of Alexandria offered easy terms to the
Arians under Julian,'^ every thing was adverse ; the
faith and the faithful were despised ; now faith was
the avenue to Imperial favor. He himself had presided
over the very sessions, where, (as he said,) " the^
Moabite and Ammonite had found entrance to the
Church ''; but he had had no weight,
P V. 5. Sozomen (vii. 11.) simply copies Socrates. ' de vit. 1636, 7.
' 1624-34. » 1675, 6. ' 1724-44.
" above p. 214. " 1737, 8.
x2

308 Bps. of Macedonia 8f Egypt decide S. Greg, to resign.
The love of his people and the fear of injury to the
faith StiU retained him.'' God solved his doubts by
the arrival of the Egyptian and Macedonian Bishops.
These arrived in the midst of the debates, having
been "called'' on a sudden by Theodosius." Probably
they had not been invited at first, as being adverse to
the election of S, Gregory. The Egyptians had just
been involved in the affair of Maximus ; the Macedo
nians were likely to take part with the West. Now,
under the plea of an obsolete rule, they opposed the
appointment of S. Gregory, "in-order to A^ex those who
had appointed him." " Envy ^ following on his glory,
some began to oppose, and to employ against him
unsound proscriptions ; in order that he might return
to his own, and another be ordained Bishop." S. Gre
gory gained the consent of the Emperor, of his people,
and of those of the Bishops who were grieved at his
loss." He willingly "gave " back to the Bishops the
deposit," which he had "unwillingly received from
them." Nectarius, of Tarsus, a Senator and as yet a
Catechumen, was chosen by the Emperor at the sug
gestion, it is said, of Diodorus '^ ultiraately, but being
in great favour Avith the people.''
The question of the Episcopate of Antioch foUowed.
""Paulinus wished to have it. But the body of Bishops
replied that he, who did not admit the counsels of
Meletius, ought not after his death, to take his throne;
but he who had become glorious through his many
"1781-96. -1798. ? 1812-15. =¦ Ruf. H. E. ii. 9. =1879-1918.
" Soz. vii. 7. = Ib. c. 8. « Socr. v. 8. = Theod. v. 23.

Early history of S. Flavian. 309
labors, and had incurred the greatest peril for the
flock." S. Flavian, whom the Bishops of the Diocese of
Antioch chose to succeed S. Meletius, was of distin
guished birth ; he inherited, when young, large wealth,
but, unseduced by either, had from his earliest years
followed a strict and austere life.'' While quite young,
he had A. D. 331 followed ^ S. Eustathius, then Bishop
of Antioch, into banishment. About A. D. 350 he, with
Diodorus, were, as monks but laymen, the chief oppo
nents of Leontius, the Bishop whora the Arians in
truded. "Night'' and day they stirred men to zeal for
the faith." To the same end, they revived antiphonal
chanting of the Psalms, which spread from Antioch
throughout the world. They kept vigils with devout
persons at the tombs of the Martyrs, singing all night
hymns to God. A. D. 350, they induced Leontius to
depose his fellow-Arian Aetius, whom he had ordained
deacon. A. D. 376, they conjointly,' as Presbyters,
governed the Church during the banishment of S.
Meletius its Bishop, and refuted the adversaries ; S.
Flavian supplying the arguments and proofs from Scrip
ture, Diodorus using them. Driven from one place to
another, they, at last, held their assemblies in the ex
ercise-ground of the Roman soldiery. Antioch at least
had joy in the appointment of S. Flavian. "When we
lost that former father, who was for us the parent of
our present," says S. Chrysostom,'' "we knew not what
to do. We mourned pitiably, not looking that another
' S. Chrys. Serm. cum Presbyt. f ordinal, i. 440. b Philost. iii. 18.
"¦ Theod. ii. 24. ' Id. iv. 26.
"^ S. Chrys. \. c. §. v. see also in the Panegyric of S. Meletius fin. ii. 522.

310 Efforts of Bps. of Rome against S. Flavian fail.
such would receive this see. But when he [S. Fla
vian] appeared among us, he caused all this dejection
to disperse like a cloud. Not insensibly did he do
away our grief, but as suddenly as if that blessed one
had arisen from his coffin, and again ascended to that
throne." S. Chrysostom calls him "the 'imitator of
martyrs, the common teacher," Yet for seventeen
years, neither the West nor Egypt were in communion
with hira. Three successive Bishops of Rome, Da
masus, Siricius, and Anastasius tried to move Theodo
sius against him.'" The Western Bishops " renounced
communion with Diodorus of Tarsus also, and Acacius
of Beroea, who had consecrated him. Syria, Palestine,
Phoenicia, and most of the Armenians, Cappadocians,
Galatians, and those of Pontus, took his part. Arabia
and Cyprus joined the communion of Paulinus. The
division lasted at Antioch, to the injury of discipline
and of faithful teaching," until the seventeenth year
of the Episcopate of S. Flavian, ten years after the
death of Paulinus, and beyond even the death of
Evagrius whora Paulinus uncanonically consecrated as
his successor.
The see of Antioch was not filled until after the
enactments ofthe Council. For the election lay with
the Bishops, but was to be made in presence of the
people. It could not take place then, until the Bi
shops should return from the Council to Antioch.
The Council, however, disapproved of Paulinus, re-
' in ill. Vidi Dom. Hom. 3. init. vi. 112. m Theod. v. 23.
" Soz. vii. 11. o S. Chrys. Hom. .\i. in Eph. p. 230. 0 T.

Principles of election of Bishops by Bishops. 311
commended S. Flavian, and, when elected, formally
accepted him. The Council, when reassembled in the
following year, justified to the Italian Synod, the
election of Nectarius and S. Flavian, and the recogni
tion of S. Cyril of Jerusalem. "As to the ordering of
details in the several Churches, the law was of old in
force, and the holy fathers at Nice ruled, that in each
Eparchy, the Bishops of the Eparchy and, if these
pleased, the neighbouring Bishops with them, should
elect for the common good. In conformity hereto
know ye that the other Churches in our parts are or
dered, and that the Bishops of the most distinguished
Churches have been received. Whence, with common
consent, in the presence of the Emperor Theodosius,
most beloved of God, and ofthe whole Clergy, and the
whole city concurring, we have made the most reverend
and most beloved of God, Nectarius, Bishop of the
re-erected Church of Constantinople, which, through
the raercy of God, we have lately snatched out of the
jaw of the lion, and blasphemy of the heretics. And
of the eldest and truly Apostolic Church at Antioch in
Syria, in which first the honored name of Christian
was heard, those of the Eparchy and of the Eastern
Diocese having met together, canonically ordained the
Bishop most reverend and most beloved of God, Fla
vian, the whole Church in harmony honoring him as
with one voice ; which lawful ordination the whole body
ofthe Synod also accepted. Moreover of the Mother
of all Churches, that at Jerusalem, we make known to
you that the most reverend and most beloved of God,

312 Creed of Nice enlarged at Constantinople

Cyril, is Bishop, having been of old ordained canoni
cally by the Bishops of the Eparchy, and having in
divers places engaged very often with the Arians."
In matters of faith, the growth of the heresies of
ApoUinarius, Marcellus, and Macedonius, which had
sprung up since the Council of Nice, made the fathers
at Constantinople judge right to enlarge the Nicene
Creed, in order to meet these heresies. What they
added to the Creed actually adopted at Nice, was taken
out of ancient Creeds. Verbal alterations were made,
which will be seen more clearly by setting the two
Creeds side by side, as they were recited in the Coun
cil of Chalcedon •J'

NICE.
We believe in One God, the
Father Almighty, Maker of
of all things visible and invisible.
And in One Lord Jesus Christ
the ' Son of God begotten of the
Father.
Only begotten, thatisof the Sub
stance ofthe Father ;
God of God, Lightof Light, "Very
God of Very God, Begotten, not
made ; being of One Substance
with the Father ; by Whom all
things were made, ' the things in
heaven and things in earth.
Who for us men and for our sal
vation came down ¦* and was in
carnate "

CONST ANTI NOPLE.I

' heaven and earth and

' Only begotten Son of God, be
gotten ofthe Father before all
worlds.

' transposed to the beginning

* from heaven
^ of the Holy Ghost and the
Virgin Mary

P Act. ii. iuit. p. 1209, 12. 1 The present Creed, except the Filioque.

out of existing Creeds.

313

and made Man ^
and suffered '
and rose again on the third day '
Who ascended into heaven "
and cometh again " to judge
quick and dead"
And in the Holy Ghost '*

° and was crucified for us under
Pontius Pilate
' and was buried
" according to the Scriptures
' and sitteth on the Right Hand
ofthe Father
'" in glory
" of Whose kingdom there shall
be no end
" the Lord and Giver of Life,
Who proceedeth from the Fa
ther, Who with the Father and
the Son together is worshipped
and glorified ; Who spake by
the Prophets ; in One holy Ca
tholic and Apostolic Church;
we acknowledge one Baptism
for the remission of sins ; and
we look for the Resurrection of
the dead, and the life of the
world to come.
It is not explained why, in the Creed framed at Nice,
such words as " ofthe Holy Ghost and the Virgin Ma
ry" were omitted, since they existed in so many of the
traditional Creeds both in the East and West.'' Yet
they are a corrective of all the different forms of he
resy, which denied (as did ApoUinaris,) that our Lord
was Very Man, born of the Virgin, in all things like
unto us, yet without sin. The words "of whose king
dom there shall be no end" were directed against the
heresy of MarceUus. The enlargement of the Creed
as to the Person and office of God the Holy Ghost
' see on Tert. Noto P.p. 503, 4. Oxf. Tr.

314 Canons enjoin Bps. notto interfere with each other.
was occasioned by the heresy ofthe Macedonians. In
all these additions, the Council used the language of
Creeds already existing. The last clauses ofthe Creed
occur verbatim in a work, written seven years before
by S. Epiphanius, as a Creed to be learned by Catechu
mens. " This ^ Creed," he says, "was delivered down
from the holy Apostles, and [was laid down] in the
Church, the holy City, by all the holy Bishops toge
ther, being above three hundred and ten in number."
The Bishops of the Council of Chalcedon say to the
Emperor Marcian ; " ' Those in these parts having de
tected the pestilence of ApolUnarius made known their
decree to those in the West, under the guidance of
Nectarius and Gregory."
The Council framed seven Canons" only. The first
confirmed the faith of Nice, and condemned by name
the heresies of the Eunomians or Anomoeans ; of the
Arians or Eudoxians ; ofthe Semi-Arians or adversaries
ofthe Holy Ghost; ofthe SabelUans, MarceUians, Pho
tinians, and Apollinarians. The second assigned the
liraits of the jurisdiction of the several Bishops, and
guarded against such interference as had recently
been exercised in the case of Maxiraus by the Bishop
of Alexandria. "Let not Bishops out of a Diocese
enter upon Churches beyond their limits, nor confuse
the Churches ; but according to the Canons, let the
Bishop of Alexandria order the affairs of Egypt only,
and the Bishops of the East govern the East only, the
= Ancor. c. 120. * AUocut. ad Marcian. P. iii. T. iv. 1765.
" Cone. ii. 1123 sqq.

Constantinople, as new Rome, placed next to Rome. 315
preeminences contained in the Nicene Canons being
preserved to the Church at Antioch ; and let the Bi
shops of the Diocese of Asia order the affairs of Asia
only ; the Bishops of Pontus, those of Pontus only ;
the Bishops of Thrace, those of Thrace only. Bi
shops uninvited are not to go out of their Province to
ordinations, or any other ecclesiastical ministrations.
This Canon as to Dioceses being observed, it is plain
that the Synod of each Eparchy will order the affairs
of each Eparchy, as was defined at Nice. But the
Churches of God in the barbarous nations ought to be
ruled according to the custom which has prevailed
from the fathers."
The third Canon, in words, secured only to the see
of Constantinople what it already had. After en
joining non-interference between the Bishops of the
several Dioceses, it assigned a preeminence of dignity
to the Royal city. "Let however the Bishop of Con
stantinople have the preeminence of honor after the
Bishop of Rome, because it is new Rome." It was
already the first see in the East, The Arian Eudoxius
had thought it to be above Antioch, since he quitted
the see of Antioch for it. Both S. Gregory and Necta
rius presided over the Council of Constantinople as its
Bishops. S. Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, came before
the appointment of S. Gregory. Timothy of Alexan
dria, if he presided at all, must have presided in the
interval after S. Gregory had resigned, and must have
given way to Nectarius.
The Bishops, however, of the CouncU of Chalcedon

316 Expansion of Cation iii. at Chalcedon.
understood the Canon to confer some thing more than
dignity. They enlarged it in their twenty-eighth Ca
non, adding a Patriarchal authority over the Dioceses
of Thrace, Asia and Pontus ; yet as if this authority
had really been given by the fathers at Constantino
ple. "We, every where following the decrees ofthe
holy fathers, and acknowledging the Canon, just read,
of the one hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved of
God, who, in the time of the great Theodosius of
holy memory, were assembled at the Royal Constan
tinople, new Rome, do likewise decree and vote the
same things concerning the privileges of the same
most holy Church of Constantinople, new Rome. For
to the throne of the elder Rome, because that city
was the seat of Empire, the fathers reasonably gaA'e
privileges. And the one hundred and fifty Bishops,
most beloved of God, moved by the same considera
tion, gaA'e the like privileges to the most holy throne
of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city, ho
nored with Empire and a Senate, and enjoying the
same privileges as the elder Imperial Rome, should
be made of much account in Ecclesiastical matters
also, being second after it. [They ruled] too that in
the Diocese of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, the Metro
politans only, but in the barbarous parts the Bishops
of the aforesaid dioceses should be ordained by the
aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church
at Constantinople ; to wit, each MetropoUtan of the
aforesaid Dioceses with the Bishops of the Eparchy
ordaining the Bishops of the Eparchy, as is prescribed

" Tome of the Westerns," its meaning. 317
by the holy Canons ; but that the Metropohtans ofthe
aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the Archbi
shop of Constantinople, when the election shall have
been agreed upon, according to custora, and referred
to him."
The jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the
"Suburbicary " Churches" (whether those within an
hundred miles from Rome, or those of the ten pro
vinces of the Italic Dioceses under the Vicar of the
City) would form an analogy for assigning these
neighbouring Provinces to the see of Constantinople.
The fourth Canon'' related only to Maximus. The
fifth is briefly "Of the tome of the Westerns ; we re
ceive those in Antioch also who confess one Godhead
of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost." The
tome mentioned is probably the confession of faith
transmitted from the West through S. Athanasius and
S. Basil, and by him sent on to S. Meletius and then
signed by him and the Bishops in communion Avith
him.^ And the meaning of the Canon probably is,
that the Bishops at Constantinople received into Com
munion those at Antioch too, who held the same faith ;
i. e. that they, on their part, willed to end the schism
at Antioch.
The sixth Canon guarded against wanton accusa
tions of Bishops. In any case in which the accuser
had a personal complaint against a Bishop, the Canon
allows him to prefer it, "without examination as to
the person or faith of the accuser. For the conscience
' see Bingham 9. 19. " see ab. p. 298. " see ab. p. 242-8.

318 Bps. not to be accused by the accused or deposed.
of the Bishop ought to be wholly free, and one who
alleges that he has been injured, ought, whatever his
faith, to obtain justice." But heretics and schismatics
it does not allow to " accuse orthodox Bishops for
Ecclesiastical matters." Nor was any one allowed to
prefer any such accusation, who was himself accused
of any crime or who had been condemned formerly,
or deposed, or excommunicated, and had not cleared
himself. If the accuser was free from any such dis
qualification, he was admitted to make the accusation
on the following conditions ; that it should be before
the Bishops of the Eparchy ; if these sufficed not,
then he should go to a larger Synod of the Bishops
of that Province, convened for this cause. The accu
sers, before bringing the charge, were in writing to
subject themselves to the same penalty, if their accu
sation should be proved to be vexatious, "But if any,
despising this rule, shall venture to trouble the Impe
rial ears, or civil court, or an CEcumenical Synod,
putting dishonor on the Bishops of the Diocese, such
an one was not to be admitted as an accuser, as insult
ing the Canons and destroying Ecclesiastical order."
The seventh Canon regulated the raode of receiving
heretics. The ground of the distinction is not clear.
The Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians [probably a sec
tion of Novatians, being also Quarto-decimans, followers
of one Sabbatius, an ex- Jew], Novatians, Quarto-deci
mans, and Apollinarians were received on "anathema
tising every heresy, which thinketh not as thinketh the
holy CathoUc and Apostolic Church of God," "These

Mode of receiving heretics; why only 150 Bishops. 319
we receive, being first sealed or anointed with the holy
ointment on forehead, eyes, nose, mouth, and ears, and
sealing them, we say, 'The seal of the Gift of the Holy
Spirit,' But as for the Eunomians who baptise with one
immersion, and the Montanists, here called Phrygians,
and the SabelUans who teach that the Son is the Fa
ther, and do many other grievous things, and all the
other heresies, (since there are many here, especiaUy
those who come frora Galatia,) all who wish to come
from them to sound faith, we receive as heathen ; and
on the first day, we make them Christians ; on the
second. Catechumens ; on the third we receive them,
breathing thrice on their face and ears ; and so we cate
chise them, and make thera long abide in the Church
and hear the Scriptures, and then we baptise them,"
These Canons, together with the Creed, were sub
scribed by the one hundred and fifty Bishops, The
fewness of the Bishops is explained in the Synodical
letter, written frora Constantinople in the foUowing
year by such of the Bishops, as then re-assembled.
They were the representatives of other Bishops who,
amid the continual inroads of the Arians, could not,
without risk to their flocks, leave their dioceses. And
so the Council itself represented the whole Orthodox
Communion of the East, whose absent Bishops re
ceived its Creed and Canons,
Theodosius, being Emperor in the East only, as
sembled only Eastern Bishops, AchoUus, Bishop of
Thessalonica, being present on special invitation, not
deputed by any Western Bishops.

320 CreedofCouncilreceived;Canoniii,in W.,butslowly.
The faith being one, there can be no doubt that
the Creed set forth at Constantinople, was at once
received by the Roman Synod. Hence Photius says,
"that the CouncU had, as its chiefs, Timothy Bishop
of Alexandria, the wonderful Meletius of Antioch,
Cyril of Jerusalem, directing those holy thrones, and
Nectarius — with whom was Gregory of Nyssa, and he
who from his works was called 'the Theologian,' with
whom, not long after, Damasus too. Bishop of Rorae,
confirming the same, was known to be in harmony,
joining himself to those who had been beforehand.
This sacred band condemned Macedonius hc.^"
The few Canons of the Council were, for a long
time, received in the East only, for which alone they
were framed. The third Canon was pointedly re
jected by successive Bishops of Rome, Leo,^ Gelasius,^
Gregory I., Nicholas I.*" S. Gregory says, "the" Ro
man Church hitherto hath not, nor receiveth those
same Canons, or the acts of the Synod, It receives
that same Synod, as to that which was defined by it
against Macedonius," At last Innocent III, and the
fourth Lateran Council ''formally accepted the order of
the Patriarchal sees, founded upon it.
The Emperors, from the first, assuraed the prece
dence of the see of Constantinople.'' Nectarius took
precedence of Theophilus of Alexandria and the rest
at the Council of Constantinople A. D. 394*^; Sisinnius,
y Ep. 1. ad Michael. Bulg. de 7 Synodis §. 9. p. 5.
^ Ep. 106. Anatol. §. 5. » Ep 13. ad Episc. Dard. Cone. v. 333.
^ Ep. 8. ad Michael. Imp. Cone. ix. 1321. " L. vii. Ep. 34. Eulog.
^ can. 5. = Cod. Theod. 16. 1. 3. and 11. 24. 6. f Cone. ii. p. 1377.

Actual precedence of Bishop of Constantinople. 321
took place of Theodotus of Antioch A. D. 426.e In the
Council of Antioch, whose Acts were read at Chalce
don, Domnus of Antioch, and all the Bishops who
mention S. Proclus and S. Cyril, mention S. Proclus
first.'' In the Council of Chalcedon, Anatolius is al
ways next after the Roraan legates ; and when, on
the recitation of the Acts of the Robber-Council ' of
Ephesus, the name of S. Flavian was read after those
of Dioscorus of Alexandria, Julian, (S. Leo's legate,)
Juvenal of Jerusalem and Domnus of Antioch, "the
Easterns and the most reverend Bishops with them
cried out, 'Flavian entered, as a criminal; this was
evident calumny. Why did not Flavian sit in his own
place ? Why did they place the Bishop of Constanti
nople fifth ?' The most reverend Bishop Paschasinus
[the senior Roman Legate] said ' See, we, God willing,
have my lord Anatolius first. These placed the bless
ed Flavian fifth. Diogenes, the most reverend Bishop
of Cyzicus said, 'Because you know the Canons,'"
The legates of S, Leo conceded, thus far, the force of
the Canon of Constantinople, and agreed to the order
which it involved, which S, Leo subsequently disap-
proved,*" and which the Western Church finally ac
knowledged. The Council of Constantinople wrote no circular
letter in this year, but returned home, having ad
dressed a Synodical letter to Theodosius, In this,
the Council, after thanking God Who had raised up
* lb. iii. 549. " Act. xiv. Sozomen observes the same order viii. 1.
' Act. 1. ^ Ep. 106. Anatol. §. 5.
Y

322 Council asks Emperor to confirm its Acts.
the Eraperor, "for the peace of the Church and
strengthening of the faith," gave a summary account
of their proceedings, and asked for a civil sanction of
them, "'We necessarily refer to your Piety what
took place in the Holy Synod, and that, having met
at Constantinople, according to the letter of your
Piety, we first renewed harmony among ourselves ;
then we agreed on brief statements of faith, having
both confirmed the faith of the fathers at Nice, and
anathematised the heresies which have sprung up
against it. Moreover we have made certain Canons
for the good order of the Churches, all which we have
appended to this letter. We pray then your Piety,
that the decision of the Council may be confirmed ;
that, as you honored the Church by the letters which
convoked it, so also you may set the seal to the con
clusion which we have decreed,"
The Emperor immediately ratified the Council "" by
his celebrated decree of July 30, A. D. 384, in which
he naraed certain Bishops as centres of communion
in the several civil Dioceses. "We coramand that all
the Churches be presently given to Bishops who con
fess the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of one Majesty
and Power ; of the same Glory, of one Brightness ;
introducing nothing discordant, through profane divi
sion, but confessing the order of the Trinity, the as
sertion of the Persons, and the Unity of the Godhead,
The Bishops of whom it shall be certain that they
' Soz. vii. 9. "> Cod. Theod. xvi. 1. (de fid. Cath.) 3.

Emperor names Bishops, as centres of communion. 323
are associated in the communion of Nectarius, Bishop
of the Church of Constantinople, and, wdthin Egypt,
of Tiraothy Bishop of Alexandria ; in the East, with
Pelagius Bishop of Laodicea, and Diodorus Bishop of
Tarsus ; in Proconsular Asia and the diocese of Asia,
with Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium and Optimus Bi
shop of Antioch [in Pisidia] ; in the diocese of Pontus,
with HeUadius Bishop of Ceesarea and Otreius of Me
litine and Gregory Bishop of Nyssa ; [in Thrace "]
with Terennius [Terentius"] Bishop of Scythia, Mar-
marius [Martyrius"] Bishop of Marcianopolis ; — such
Bishop must, through the communion and fellowship
of approved Bishops, be admitted to possession of the
Catholic Churches. But all who dissent from the
communion of faith of those thus specially named,
must be expelled from the Churches, as open heretics,
and not be allowed henceforth to retain the Episco
pate of such Churches, so- that the Bishops may abide
purely in the true faith of Nice ; nor, after our plain
command, must any place be given to evil-minded
cunning," Sozomen says " that Theodosius " praised
these Bishops, having seen and conversed with them;
and a good opinion prevailed about them, as guiding
the Churches piously," This done, the Bishops re
turned home.
Contemporarily with the great Council of Constan
tinople, the Synod of Aquileia was, at the petition of
PaUadius, an Arian Bishop in the West, summoned
by Gratian, The Emperor intended, at first, to have
" from Sozomen 1. c. " lb. fin.
y2

324 Emperor calls first general, then partial. Council.
convened a General Council, and PaUadius, in the
presence of the Synod, stated that he had promised
that the Eastern Bishops would come. Probably he
looked to be supported by the Macedonian Bishops.
The Emperor, in his Imperial Rescript, states that S,
Ambrose had suggested to him, that it was needless,
in such a cause, to bring Bishops from a great dis
tance, to whom age or weak health or poverty might
make it burdensome, "''Wishing to essay, as soon as
may be, that the priests should not disagree, with a
doubtful reverence for doctrines, we had commanded
that the Bishops should meet in the city of Aquileia,
in the diocese intrusted to the raerits of thy excel
lency. For controversies of doubtful meaning could
not be more rightly cleared, than by our making the
Bishops themselves the interpreters of the dispute
which had arisen ; — so that by those from whom the
instruction in doctrine emanateth, the contradiction
of an inharmonious teaching should be ended.
"And now we do not command otherwise than we
did command, nor do we change the tenor of the
directions, but reconsider the superfluous number of
those congregated. For as Ambrose, by the raerits of
his life and the vouchsafement of God, the eminent
Bishop of Milan, suggests that there is no need of a
multitude there, where, if truth should be deposited
with a few, it would not be hampered by many, and
that he and the priests of the neighbouring cities of
Italy would abundantly suffice against the declara-
!¦ in Act. Cone. Aq. ap. S. Ambr. ii. 787. sqq.

Council of Bishops of Italy and legates of Synods. 325
tions of those who oppose themselves, we have thought
it right to abstain from wearying venerable men, lest
any, either weighed down by mature age, or unequal
thereto through a praiseworthy poverty, have to seek
an unaccustomed land, etc,"
The plea of PaUadius, throughout, was that it was
not a " full Council," " general Council," for which he
reserved himself, "He could not answer in the absence
of his companions," S, Ambrose answered ; " Inas
much as aforetime the Council was so held, that the
Easterns should have a Council in the East, the West
erns in the West, we, being in the West, have met in
the city of Aquileia, according to the command of the
Emperor. Yet the prefect of Italy wrote, that the
Easterns should have the power of coming, if they
willed. But knowing the custom to be, that the Coun
cil of the Easterns should be in the East, that of the
Westerns in the West, they thought best not to come."
The larger part of the Bishops were from the Vi
cariate of Italy. Valerian, as Bishop of Aquileia,
presided, although S. Ambrose took the chief part in
examining PaUadius. There were other Bishops how-
CA'er, legates frora the Synods of their Province or
country. FeUx and Numidius, African Bishops and
legates, came as representatives of all Africa ; Con
stantius, Bishop of Orange, and Proculus, Bishop of
Marseilles, represented the provinces of Vienne and
Narbon. S. Justus of Lyons probably represented the
five provinces of Gallia Lugdunensis. Anemius, Bi
shop of Sfrmium, speaks in the name of lUyricum.

326 Synodical letter to Bishops who had sent deputies.
Evantius, a Presbyter, is designated also as a legate,
probably of some single Bishop. " Ambrose, Bishop,
said ' let the African legates also speak, who brought
hither the judgment of all the Bishops of Africa.' Felix,
Bishop and legate, said, ' if any one deny the Son of
God to be both Everlasting and Co-eternal, not only
do I, the legate of the whole Province of Africa, con
demn him, but the whole band of Bishops, which have
sent me to this most holy assembly, have also before
condemned him.' Anemius Bishop of Sirmium spake as
"the head of Illyricum." "Anemius Bishop said, 'The
head of Illyricum is no other than the city of Sirmium.
I am the Bishop of that city. I call him anathema, who
confesses not &c."' The Synodical letter is preserved,
containing the thanks of the Council '"'to their be
loved brethren the Bishops of the Province of Vienne
and the first and second Narbon." "We thank your
holy unanimity, that in our Lords and brethren, Con
stantius and Proculus, ye have bestowed upon us the
presence of you all ; and at the same time, following
the injunctions of our forefathers, ye added no slight
weight to our sentence, with which the profession of
your holiness also agrees, most beloved Lords and
brethren. So then as we willingly received the afore
said holy men from our rautual communion, so we let
them go with abundant thanksgiving."
PaUadius had himself hastened by a day the sitting
of the Council, professing that he would come "as a
1 S. Ambr. Ep. 9.

Laymen not to judge Bishops. 327
Christian to Christians." No notes were, accordingly,
taken at first, the Bishops expecting a simple and sa
tisfactory explanation. Ambrose said, "Long have we
discussed without minutes. And since such blasphe
mies are poured into our ears by PaUadius and Se-
cundian, that it would be diflicult for any to believe
that they could blaspheme so openly, and lest they
should deceitfully attempt afterwards to deny their
own words, although there could be no doubt of what
is attested by so many Bishops, yet since all the Bi
shops think it good, let rainutes be taken, that no
one may be able to deny what he had professed. Ye
must then, holy men, declare your raind." All the
Bishops said, "it seems good." PaUadius was allowed,
on his side, to have his own notaries.
The chief employment of the Synod was to detect
the evasions of PaUadius. When this had been done
to sorae extent, " PaUadius said, 'Allow of hearers ;
let them come ; and notaries on both sides. Ye can
not be judges, if we have not hearers ; and unless
sorae on both sides come to hear, we answer you not.'
Ambrose Bishop said, 'Whom seekest thou, as hear
ers ?' Pall. 'There are many honorable men here.'
Sabinus Bishop said, 'After so many blasphemies, ask-
est thou for hearers ?' Arabrose Bishop said, ' Bishops
should judge laymen, not laymen Bishops ; but say
whom thou askest for as judges ?' PaU. 'Let hearers
come.' Chromatins Presbyter ; 'saving the Episcopal
condemnation, let PaUadius' friends too speak in full
CouncU.' PaU. 'Let them not be aUowed to speak ;

328 Bishops, one by one, condemn PaUadius.
let hearers come and notaries on both sides, and these
shall answer you in a general Council.' Ambrose Bi
shop said, 'Although he has been detected in many
impieties, we are ashamed that he who clairas to him
self the priesthood, should seem to be condemned by
laymen. And therefore he is to be condemned for
this too, that he awaits the sentence of laymen, whereas
Bishops ought rather to judge laymen. According to
what we have this day heard PaUadius profess, and
according to what he refused to condemn, I pronounce
him unworthy of the Episcopate, and to be deprived,
that a Catholic may be ordained in his room.' AU the
Bishops said, 'Anathema to PaUadius.' Arabrose Bi
shop said, 'The most gracious and Christian Emperor
committed the cause to the judgment of Bishops, and
appointed us to be arbiters ofthe trial. Since then the
judgment seems to have been deferred to us, to be in
terpreters of Scripture, let us condemn PaUadius, who
refused to condemn the opinion of Arius; and because
he denied that the Son of God was eternal, and the
rest which is contained in the minutes. Let him be
then accounted Anathema.' All the Bishops say, 'We
all condemn him. Let him be accounted Anathema.'"
S. Ambrose then asked the Bishops to pronounce
their judgment individually. " Since all here are
Christian men and approved by God, our brethren
and fellow-Bishops, let each say what he thinks."
Twenty-five judgments only are preserved, besides
that of S. Ambrose. The two African legates deli
vered their judgment in one.

Presbyter subscribes, as submitting to decision. 329
After him, Secundian used the same evasions, and
(as appears from the Epistle of the Synod to the Em
peror,) was alike condemned.
With them was condemned Attalus a presbyter,
who had been present at the Council of Nice, and had
subscribed its Creed, but was now involved in the he
resy of PaUadius. "Ambrose said, 'Attains the pres
byter, although among the Arians, has liberty to
speak. Let him profess freely, whether he subscribed
the statement of the Nicene Council, under (sub) his
Bishop Agrippinus or no ?' Sabinus the Bishop said,
' We are witnesses that Attalus subscribed in the
Council of Nice, and now will not answer.'"
Attalus could have had no voice at the CouncU of
Nice ; as he signed, not for his Bishop, but under him.
His signature then declared his personal assent. But
it was the subscription of one, submitting to a Creed,
(like our modern subscriptions) not confirming or de
claring it.
The Bishops in their Synodical letter to the Empe
rors, Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, thank them
that, "tin order to remove altercations, they had been
at pains to gather a sacerdotal Council, and had
vouchsafed to shew such honor to the Bishops, that
no one who willed, need be absent ; no one, against
his will, be constrained. Therefore, according to the
precept of your Clemency we met, without the invi-
diousness ofa multitude, and with the purpose of dis-
' S. Ambr. Ep. 10.

330 Council asks Emperors to remove those condemned,
cussing ; nor did any Bishops appear from the here
tics, save two, PaUadius and Secundian, men of in
grained faithlessness. Lo ! these were they, for whom
they asked that a Council should be gathered from
the utmost parts of the Roman world — How grievous
had it been, that, for two men, decaying amid faith
lessness, the Churches throughout the world should
be deprived of their Bishops ! Who, though for the
length of the way they could not come, yet weU-nigh
all were present from all the Provinces of the West,
by the legates whom they sent, and through plain at
testations that they hold what we maintain."
After a condensed account of the Council, they
mention that they had deposed the two Arian Bishops.
"We entreat your faith, your glory, that ye would shew
reverence to the Author of your empire, and decree,
by letters of your Clemency given to competent autho
rities, that these asserters of impiety and adulterers
of truth be removed from the precincts of the Church ;
so that holy Bishops may, by the legates of our poor
selves, be set in the place of those condemned. Let
the like sentence include Attalus the Presbyter, who
admits his faithlessness, and holds to the sacrilege of
PaUadius. What shall we say of his master Julian
Valens ? who, being close at hand, declined the Coun
cil of Bishops — Let him at least return to his horae,
and not contaminate the cities of Italy, who now, by
illicit ordinations, is associating to himself men like
himself, and by aid of abandoned persons, would fain
leave a seed-plot of his own impiety and faithlessness ;

and to assemble Council at Alexandria. 331
he, who is not even a Bishop. For first at Padua
he was placed to supersede holy Mark, a Bishop of
admirable memory ; and having been disgracefully
expelled by the people, he, who could find no place
in Padua, now, after the destruction or rather the be
trayal of his country, overrides Milan."
After the CouncU of Aquileia had completed the
judgment for which its Bishops were assembled, an
imperfect account of the course of events at Constan
tinople induced S. Ambrose and the other Bishops
there assembled, to write to Theodosius and request
him to assemble a Council at Alexandria. They speak,
not of Paulinus only, but of Timothy of Alexandria,
as if they had been aggrieved. "We ' learn that there
have been many innovations, and that they are now
aggrieved who ought to have been helped, who ever
continued in our Communion. Timothy, Bishop of
the Church of Alexandria, and Paulinus of that of
Antioch, who always maintained communion with us
unimpaired, are reported to be harassed by the dis
cussions of some, whose faith in times past wavered.
Whom, if it may be and if their faith be perfect, we
desire to be united to our communion, yet so that, to
those of old in our communion, their prerogative be
preserved. Nor is our care for them gratuitous — Long
since we had the letters of both parties, and of those
especially, who were at variance in the Church at
Antioch. Indeed, unless the irruption ofthe enemy
' Ep. 2. Cone. Aquil.

332 Proposed Council to settle disputes at Antioch.
had hindered, we had settled to send some of our num
ber, who might, if possible, act as umpires in restoring
peace. But since, by reason of the pubUc disquiet, we
could not then do what we wished, we think that a
petition of our's was presented to your Piety, wherein
we asked that, according to the agreement of the
parties, the Churches should on the decease ofthe
one remain with the other, and no one be consecrated
over the head [of the survivor]. So then we pray
you, most gracious and Christian Princes, that ye
will decide that a Council of all Catholic Bishops
should be held at Alexandria, who may more fully
consider and define, to whom communion should be
given, to whom continued. For although we have ever
held to the order and arrangement of the Alexandrian
Church, and, after the custom of our forefathers, main
tain its communion inviolable, yet lest any should
seem to be disregarded, who asked for our commu
nion, on the ground of the agreement which we wish
to stand, or lest any method of maintaining the peace
and communion of the faithful should seem to have
been neglected, we entreat that when they shall have
considered among theraselves in a fuller assembly,
the aid of your Piety may conspire with the decrees
of the Bishops, and that you would have the result
brought to our knowledge, that we may not waver
in our affections, but, in joy and security, render
thanks to your Piety before Almighty God, that not
only has faithlessness been excluded, but faith and
harmony been restored to Catholics. This, the

Full powers of Legates ; second letter of Council. 333
Churches of Africa and Gaul also beseech of you by
their legates, that is, that you would make all the
Bishops in the world your debtors."
The legates mentioned in this Epistle were those
who attended at the Synod of Aquileia. They must
then have come with very full powers, not for the sin
gle case of the two Arian Bishops. The petition to
the Emperors is, not only that they would convene a
Synod, but that they would enforce its decision by
civil authority. The Council intimates clearly what that
decision would be, if their mind prevailed, viz. that
the see of Antioch should be preserved to Paulinus.
The arrival of Maximus the Cynic in the Council,
and his misrepresentations of his own ordination and
of Nectarius occasioned the same Council to write > a
yet stronger letter to Theodosius. The letter is in
the name of "Ambrose and the other Bishops of Italy."
"We' wrote long since, that since the city of Antioch
had two Bishops, Paulinus and Meletius, whom we
supposed to have one faith, peace and concord should
either be restored between them, preserving ecclesi
astical order, or at least, on the death of either, the
place of the one should not be filled up, while the
other survived. But now, Meletius having deceased,
Paulinus surviving, who ever remained in our com
munion, one is asserted to be, not so much set in the
place of Meletius, as set over [Paulinus]. And this is
said to have been done by the consent and advice of
' Ep. 2. Concil. Ital. ad Theodos.

334 Council claims, as condition of communion,
Nectarius, whose own ordination, how it was in order
we see not. For lately in Council, when Maxiraus,
Bishop, shewed by letters of Peter of blessed memory
that the communion of the Church of Alexandria con
tinued with him, and proved clearly that he had been
ordained as enjoined, by three Bishops within a pri
vate house, because the Arians still held the Churches,
we had no possible ground, most blessed prince, to
doubt of his Episcopate, inasmuch as he attests that
very many of the Clergy and people constrained him,
resisting, [to take the office]. Yet lest we should seem
to have defined any thing out of presumption, in the
absence of the parties, we thought right to write and
inform your clemency, that the case may be provided
for, as shall seem best for the public peace and har
mony. For in truth we observed that Gregory claimed
the Episcopate of the Church of Constantinople, not
according to the tradition of the fathers. We then, in
that Synod which seemed to be intended for the Bi
shops of the whole world, thought that nothing was to
be done hastily. But at that very time, they who de
clined a general Council, what are they said to have
done at Constantinople ? For when they knew that
Maximus had come to these parts, to maintain his
cause in a Synod (which, even if no Council had been
appointed, [he might have done] after the manner of
our forefathers, as Athanasius too of holy memory, and
Peter, Bishops of the Alexandrian Church, and many
of the Easterns have done, fleeing, as it seemed, to the
judgment of the Church of Rome, of Italy, and of the

thatMaximus'causebeheardhyBps. ofE.^ W. together. 335
whole West") when, as we said, they knew that he
meant to try his cause against those who had denied
his Episcopate, they ought to haye awaited our opi
nion upon hira. We claim no prerogative to examine ;
but there ought to have been a common and united
judgment. Lastly, it ought to have been made clear,
that his [Maximus'] Sacerdotal office was to be abro
gated, before it was bestowed upon another, [Necta
rius] especiaUy by those, by whom Maximus com
plained that he had been wronged and deprived. So
then, since those in our communion had received into
communion the Bishop Maximus, it being clear that
he was ordained by Catholic Bishops, we did not
think that he was to be debarred from his claim to
the see of Constantinople. We thought that his alle
gation ought to be weighed in presence of the parties.
But when we, poor as we are, learnt that Nectarius
had been ordained at Constantinople, we do not see
how our communion with the East can subsist. Espe
cially since Nectarius is said to have been forthwith
left out of communion by the very persons by whora
he had been ordained. So we have herein no slight
scruple. Nor does our disquiet arise from any parti-
zanship or ambition, but from the interruption of
communion. Nor do we see how it can be restored,
unless either he who was first ordained, be restored
to Constantinople, or at least a Council of us and the
Easterns should be held at Rome as to the ordination
" They took refuge in the West, not as appealing from any ecclesiastical
authority, (which there was not) but from the persecution of the Civil power.

336 Appeals to Bps. ofthe whole West, but as equals only.
ofthe two. Nor does it seem unfitting, Augustus,
that they should abide the discussion of the Bishop of
the Roman Church and of the neighbouring and the
Italian Bishops, who thought it right so to await the
judgment of the one Bishop Acholius, as to wish him
to be suramoned from the West to Constantinople.
What was reserved for one, how much more should it
be for many."
This letter is very reraarkable, as written by S.
Ambrose, in the name of, and with. Bishops of the
West, in a case where one, whom they supposed to
have been canonicaUy ordained Bishop of Constanti
nople and uncanonically deposed, sought the succour
of the West. Maximus was seemingly supported by
the important see of Alexandria, second in rank to
Rorae, until it gave way to the new Imperial city,
S, Ambrose was sitting in a Council, intended to have
been general, although Damasus was not represented,
probably because occupied by the faction opposed to
him at Rome, S, Ambrose regards this appeal, as
well as those of S. Athanasius and Peter, as appeals
not to Rome, but to the whole West ; and even thus,
he claimed for Rome and for the West not authority,
but an equal share in judging. Even this would be
inconsistent with his plea against PaUadius," that the
matters of East and West should be settled respec
tively where they arose, unless we suppose that he
meant to make an exception in behalf of the chief
' see ab. p. 325.

Explanatory letter of Counc. of Italy to Emperor. 337
sees, who had no superiors, except a general Council.
Theodosius, upon the receipt of these letters, re-as
sembled the Eastern Bishops at Constantinople, and,
perhaps on their advice, wrote a letter, to which S.
Ambrose and the Italian Bishops sent an apologetic
answer. As far as we can judge from the answer of
the Council, the grounds of objection taken by Theo
dosius were, that this was a needless interference on
the part ofthe Western Bishops, that they were going
beyond their bounds, that they had been imposed
upon by idle tales, that they had, in fact, prejudged
the cause which they asked to be admitted to judge,
together with the Eastern Bishops. Such, at least, are
the topics on which S. Ambrose and the Council dwell.
The letter does not express, as those from Aquileia
had done, from what Synod it was written. The title
simply runs; ""^Ambrose and the other Bishops of Italy
to the most blessed Emperor and most gracious prince,
Theodosius," Perhaps, as S. Ambrose was at this date
at Rome, and Emperors' letters are not kept waiting,
he, with the Bishops who had written the former letter,
wrote this explanation. Damasus and the other Bi
shops assembled at Rome, who had taken no part in
the former letter, could hardly join in this, which was
intended to explain it.
S. Ambrose and the other Bishops set forth that, in
their letter, they had sought the glory of the Emperor
himself, in applying to him to help in restoring unity
y Ep. 1. Cone. Ital. ad Theodos. Cone. ii. 1192.
Z

338 Council of all for good of all
betAveen the Eastern and Western Churches, and in
forming hira by letter as to ecclesiastical matters. "For
we grieved that the intercourse of sacred coraraunion
between the Easterns and Westerns was interrupted.
We will not now say, by whose error or by whose fault,
lest we should seem to string fables and idle state
ments. Nor do we repent that we tried what we should
be blamed for leaving untried. For we were often
blamed for seeming to disregard the society of the
Easterns and to reject their kindness. We were ready
too to undertake labor, not for Italy, which has long
been quiet and free from anxiety about the Arians,
and is harassed by no disturbance of the heretics ; not
for ourselves, because we do not seek our own, but
the good of all ; not for Gaul and Africa, which enjoy
the harmonious intercourse of all Bishops, but in order
that what disturbs our communion on the part of the
East might be considered, and all scruple be removed."
They then raention that they had a further object in
the Synod, the condemnation of ApolUnarius and his
doctrine, in the presence of the parties. "For whoso
has not been convicted in the presence of the parties,
as your Clemency laid down in your truly august
and princely response, will always be able to seize
sorae occasion of reviving the question. We therefore
besought of you an Episcopal Council, that no one
might be able to frame falsehood against the absent,
and that the truth might be sifted in Council. So
then, no suspicion of wrong intentions or favor lights on
those who did everything in the presence ofthe parties.

Bishops at Constantinople decline to go to the West. 339
We did indeed put together what was alleged, in order
to inform, not to settle ; and we who asked for judg
ment, did not prejudge. Nor should it be accounted
any derogation to them, when Bishops are invited to
Council, whose absence is often more present [to us]
when it [the Council] consulted for the common good.
For neither did we esteem it any derogation, when
one presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, Paul,
asked for a Council of Easterns and Westerns within
Achaia. Your Clemency observes, that it was no un
reasonable request, which the Easterns too asked.
But because Illyricum seemed hazardous, we looked
out for what was near the sea, and safer. Nor did we
devise any thing new ; but adhering to what Athana
sius of holy memory, (who was as a pillar of the faith,)
and our holy fathers of old have ruled in Councils,
we do ' not remove the boundaries Avhich our fathers
have set,' nor violate the laws of hereditary commu
nion, but reserving the due respect for your Empire,
shew ourselves studious of peace and quietness."
Most of the Bishops who had formed the Council
of Constantinople, met again in that City in the fol
lowing summer (A. D. 482) ; "for ''some needs of the
Church called them together again. There they re
ceived a Synodical letter from the Bishops of the
West, exhorting them to come to Rome, because a
very large Synod was convened there. But they de
cUned the journey, as promising no good ; and they
^ Theod. V. 9.
z2

340 Bishops provided with proxies for definite objects.
wrote them a letter, describing the great terapest
which had arisen against the Chm-ches, and hinting
at their [the Westerns'] former neglect." The Epistle
is addressed, "To the most honored Lords, and most
reverend brethren and fellow-ministers Damasus, Am
brose, Britton, Valerian, Ascholius, Anemius, Basil,
and the other holy Bishops, met together at the great
city Rome, the holy Synod of orthodox Bishops, met
in the great city Constantinople, in the Lord greet
ing." In answer to the invitation, they say ; "Since
ye, shewing brotherly love towards us, assembling by
the will of God a Synod at Rome, have, through the
letters of the king, most beloved of God, invited us
too as your own members, that since we then were
alone condemned to endure the inflictions, now, when
the Emperors are united in the truth, ye may not
reign without us, but 'we too may,' as the Apostle
says, 'reign with you' ; we should have longed, had it
been possible, all collectively leaving our Churches,
to have met your wishes, or the need. 'O that we
had wings, like a dove, that we could fly' and rest
with you. But this would have left our Churches
wholly exposed, which had just begun to recover; and
to raost of us it was wholly impossible. For in con
sequence of your honored letters, sent last year after
the Synod of Aquileia to the Emperor Theodosius,
most beloved of God, we had met at Constantinople,
having prepared for an absence only as far as Con
stantinople, and bringing with us the consent of the
Bishops remaining in the provinces, for this Council

C. of Antioch confirmed by C. of Constantinople. 341
only ; and neither anticipating nor hearing at all be
forehand of any longer journey, before we met at Con
stantinople. Moreover, the narrowness of the time al
lows neither of preparation for a longer absence, nor
of our informing all the Bishops of our communion
in the provinces and receiving their assents. Since
these and many other things hindered the coming of
the more part [of the Eastern Bishops to the West,]
we have done what was next best, in order both to
set matters right, and shew our love towards you ;
begging our raost reverend and honored brethren and
fellow-ministers the Bishops, Cyriacus, Eusebius, and
Priscian, gladly to exert themselves to come to you.
Through these we shew you that our intention is
peaceful, and directed to unity, and we explain our
zeal for the faith."
To this statement, they subjoin a succinct profes
sion of faith, directed against the Arians, Sabellians,
Eunomians, Macedonians, Apollinarians. "On which
subject ye may be refreshed, if ye will vouchsafe to
read the tome composed at Antioch by the Synod
which met there, and which was set forth last year by
the CEcumenical Synod at Constantinople, wherein we
have confessed the faith more at large, and have com
mitted to writing anathemas against the heresies
which have been recently devised."
The CouncU then briefly alluded to some of their
Canons, and stated how the sees of Constantinople
and Antioch had been fiUed up in conformity with the
Nicene Canons, and that they had received S. CyrU of

342 Synodical letter and confession of faith
Jerusalem, as having been canonically elected. The
framers of the letter seem, in their praise of the sees
of Antioch and Jerusalem, to intend gently to hint to
the Western Bishops, that the sees of the East are as
good as those of the West.^ They conclude with a
monition against interference. " In all these things
which hold among us, in conformity to the laws and
canons, we exhort your Reverences to sympathise, un
der the influence of spiritual love ; the fear of the Lord
repressing all human partialities, and making the build
ing-up ofthe Churches of more account than individual
likings or favor. For these matters of faith being
agreed upon, and christian love established among us,
we shall cease to say what the Apostles condemned,
' I am of Paul, and I of ApoUos, and I of Cephas.' But
we all being manifestly of Christ, who is not divided in
us, shall, by the vouchsafement of God, keep the Body
of the Church unrent, and shall stand with boldness
at the judgment seat of Christ."
Theodoret inserts in this place,^ a letter entitled "a
Synodical letter of Damasus, Bishop of Rome, written
against ApoUinaris and Timotheus." The letter is
written in answer to some persons who had, applied
to hira to depose Timotheus, and whom he addresses
as " sons." Together with this, Theodoret adds " a
confession of faith, which the Pope Damasus sent to
the Bishop PauUnus in Macedonia, when he was at
Thessalonica." In this last, Theodoret is clearly mis-
y see ab. p. 311. ' v. 10.

from Damasus agaitist Apollinarians. 343
taken. For it appears from the fuller form, published
from the Roman Archives, that this " confession of
faith" was sent, shortly after Vitalis left Rome, when
the suspicions of Damasus had been fully awakened
with regard to him. Paulinus was at that time at
Antioch ; whereas his journey to Thessalonica would
fall after, the CouncU of Rome A. D. 382.
The " confession of faith " was written by Damasus
himself ; Theodoret says, that the Bishops " assem
bled " at the ' great Rome ' [i. e. Rome, not Constan
tinople] wrote it." If so, it was written by Damasus
in a Synod. In this Epistle Damasus writes to Pau-
hnus, as an equal, and mentions his own mistake,
"' Damasus to his most beloved brother, Paulinus. I
had directed letters to you by my son Vitalis himself,
leaving all things to your will and judgment ; and by
Petronius the presbyter, I had briefly indicated that,
at the very moment of his departure, I was in some
degree disquieted. Whence, lest any scruple should
remain with you, and lest your commendable caution
should defer some who wish to be united to the Church,
we have sent you our faith, not so much to you, who
are united with us in the communion of the same
faith, as for those who, by subscribing it, wish to be
united in it with thee, i.e. with me through thee, most
beloved brother." He concludes ; "Whoever would
subscribe this Epistle, yet so that he shall have before
subscribed the Ecclesiastical Canons, which you very
. ]j gj,_ ^ in Holstein p. 180. sqq. In Theodoret (v. 11.) the
beginning and end are omitted, as personal to Paulinus.

344 Synodical letter against Timotheus
well know, and the Nicene faith, him you will have
to receive, without any questioning. Not that you
could not propose for the reception of converts those
very things which Ave write, but that our agreement
may give you an independant exaraple in receiving
them." In the hint about "the Ecclesiastical Canons,"
there is probably an indirect censure of S. Meletius,
whose appointment to the see of Antioch, after he
had occupied that of Sebaste, Damasus probably held
to be uncanonical. It was not however, a transla
tion ; for S. Meletius had given up the see of Sebaste,
three years before, " "^wearied by the refractoriness of
those he governed."
The Synodical letter, (if such it be) was written
some time after A. D. 373; for it speaks of the con
demnation of ApoUinaris and Timotheus,'' as having
taken place of old. "Know that we have condemned
that profane Timotheus, who was of old, the disciple
of the heretic ApoUinaris, with his impious doctrine,
and we do not believe that what remains of him will
ever be strong again. But if that old serpent, having
been once or twice crushed, revive to his own punish
ment, he who is out of the Church and ceases not to
essay to ruin some faithless ones by his deadly poi
sons,- — ^avoid him, like a plague. And remembering
the Apostolic faith, especially that set forth in writing
by the fathers at Nice, abide in it unmoved and firmly
planted, and endure not henceforth that your clerks or
' Theod. ii. 31. <i see ab. p. 276.

and ApoUinaris ; to whom, written. 345
laymen should hear vain j anglings, or questions al
ready closed. For we have already once given a form,
that whoso knoweth himself to be a Christian may
keep that which was delivered by the Apostles, since
the blessed Paul saith, 'if any man preach to you
any other Gospel than that ye have received, let him
be accursed.'"
It is not clear to whom this letter is addressed. It
is written to Bishops, since it says " endure not, that
your clerks or laymen &c." It is no answer to the
Council of Constantinople, after whose letter Theo
doret places it ;' for they had made no request about
Timotheus. It is written in a different tone from
that in which Damasus addressed all other Bishops.
For Paulinus and other Bishops he addresses as
"brothers"; these, as "most honoured sons." It was a
time of misunderstanding between the East and West.
S. Basil complains of the " 'Western superciliousness,"
especially of Damasus. The Epistle may then have
very probably been written, when Damasus wished to
extol his own see, and repress the Easterns, in this
..matter which concerned the whole Church.
The Council of Rome, as far as we know, took no

" Theodoret is probably observing an order of connection, not of time. After
mentioning that the Council of Constantinople condemned the doctrines of
ApoUinaris, he adds ; " Damasus too, the all- celebrated, having learned that
this heresy had shot np, deposed not ApoUinaris only, but Timothy too his
disciple, and signified this to the Bishops, governing the Eastem Church, by
letters, which I have thought it useful to insert in the history." (v. 9. fin.)
The supposition that Damasus called the Bishops at Constantinople his " sons "
has been used of old in Koman controversy.
' Ep. 239. Euseb. add Ep. 215. Doroth.

346 Bishops meet at Rome, on ApolUnarius.
notice of the letter of the CouncU of Constantinople.
The CouncU of Italy told Theodosius, "^many things
moved us, which ought to be analyzed in the presence
of the parties, not only as to what your Serenity
deigned to write to us upon, but as to those who are
endeavouring to bring into the Church some doctrine
which is asserted to be that of ApolUnarius." S. Je
rome had "''been brought to Rome by some need ofthe
Church, together with Paulinus and S. Epiphanius ; "
"the' Imperial letter bringing together Bishops of the
East and West, on account of dissensions of Churches."
It appears from a story of Rufinus (which S. Jerome
confirms '"^ as coming from himself, ivhile he ridicules
it as bearing on his controversy with Rufinus) that
not only was the reconciliation of the Apollinarians
discussed, but a statement was drawn up, which they
were to sign, and Avhich was shewn to thera, and
their objections heard. " When ' the reception of
ApolUnarius into the Church was discussed, Damasus
committed to a certain Presbyter, a raost eloquent
man, his friend, the office of writing a statement of the
faith of the Church, which the Apollinarians were
to subscribe, if they wished to be received into the
Church." "He, as was his wont, discharged this office
for him [Damasus]. He thought it necessary to use
the term 'Homo Dominicus' of the Incarnation. The
Apollinarians were offended at the word ; they began
to blame the novelty of the term. The author [S. Je-
« Ep. i. " Ep. 127. Princip. §. 7. • Ep. 108. Eustoch.§. 6.
I' c. K-uf ii. 20. 1 de adult, libb. Orig. app. Oiig. iv. p. 53.

Second Council of Constantinople. 347
rome] stood his ground, and refuted the objectors by
the authority of ancient Catholic writers. It chanced
that to one objector he shewed the phrase in a trea
tise of Bishop Athanasius. He, as though convinced,
asked for the loan ofthe volume, that he might satisfy
others who contradicted in ignorance. Having re
ceived it, he devised an unheard-of raode of falsifying.
He erased the word, and then re-wrote the word
which he had erased. The volume was returned with
out any questions. The question was again raised ;
the volume was brought in proof; the word in question
was found in it upon an erasure ; the honesty of one
who produced such a copy was impugned, because
the erasure seemed an indication of corruption and
falsifying. But since this fraud was practised by
one living person upon another, he took diligent mea
sures forthwith to detect it, so that the brand should
not attach to the innocent party who had done no
thing of the kind, but to the author of the deed, to
the increase of his infamy."
Another Council of Constantinople was held A. D.
383, as a sort of sequel of the first. '"" Theodosius
could not endure, as far as in hira lay, that the cities
should be filled with confusion ; but, after a short
time, had a Synod held, thinking that, by the discus
sion of the Bishops among themselves, one harmonious
beUef would prevail among all. — Not long after, the
Bishops of every creed were present from all sides. —
"" Socr. V. 10.

348 Heretical Bishops at strife as to authority
The king then sent for Nectarius the Bishop, and com
municated with him as to the means whereby Christ
endora might no more utter different voices, but the
Church be united. He said that the question which
divided the Churches must be discussed, that so, re
moving the disagreement, he might bring about agree
ment in the Churches." The plan suggested was, that
the Emperor should "ask the heresiarchs, whether
they made account of the teachers who flourished in
the Church before the division, or whether they re
jected them as aliens from Christianity?" The king
adopted this, and "not mentioning the object, asked
only whether they raade account of and received the
teachers before the division of the Churches. When
they did not deny this, but said that they honored
them exceedingly as guides, the king again asked,
whether they accepted these as faithful witnesses ofthe
Christian doctrine. When the Bishops of the sects,
and the logicians among each of them, heard this,
(for there were many among them equipped for a
strife of logic) they knew not what to do. Discord fell
among them, sorae saying, that the proposal of the
king was good; others, that it did not answer their end.
For they were differently disposed as to the books of
the ancients ; and they no longer held together, but
were at variance, not only the sects with one another,
but even those of the same heresy among themselves.
One-tongued wickedness then, like the language of
the mighty of old, was confused ; and their tower of
wickedness was overthrown. The king, knowing their

of the fathers; give in, each their Creed for their sect. 349
confused dispersion, and that they trusted in logic
only, not in the exposition of the ancients, turned to a
second device, and bade each sect make known their
creed in writing. Then the able men of each party,
carefully weighing their words, wrote each his own
doctrine. A day was fixed, and the Bishops of each
body, being summoned to the palace, met together.
Nectarius and Agelius [the Novatian Bishop] were
there, as Bishops of the faith of the Homoousion ; De
mophilus, of the Arians ; of the Eunomians, Eunomius
himself; of the Macedonians, Eleusius of Cyzicus.
The king received them, and having taken from each
his confession of faith, retired apart, and prayed ear
nestly to God to help him to choose the truth. Then
having read the several confessions, he, censuring all
the rest, as involving a division of the Trinity, tore
them ; and extolled and accepted the confession of
the Homoousion alone."
Socrates, who gives this account in order to gain
credit to the Novatians, and Sozomen," who copies
him, mix up with it an improbable statement that
Nectarius took advice with Agelius and Sisinnius, No
vatians, and that his suggestion to Theodosius came,
in fact, from Sisinnius a Reader amongthe Novatians.
It is the more unlikely, because Sozomen himself
relates, that with consent of Diodorus, he retained
"Cyriacus " Bishop of Adan, and from him learnt the
office ¦ of the Episcopate," and that he also " induced
raany other CUicians to continue with him."
" vii. 12. ° <^- 10.

350 Separate Councils in E.l^- W.fail, because separate.
S. Gregory of Nazianzum was disappointed with
Councils. The hope Avhich he and S. Basil had so
long cherished, and with a view to which he had ac
cepted the see of Constantinople, had failed. The
separate Councils in the East and West, even be
cause they were separate, had rather aggravated the
misunderstanding which already existed. For the
Bishops debated apart what they ought, if they dis
cussed at all, to haA^e debated in common. Hence S.
Gregory declined all future participation in Councils.
" ^ I, if I must write the truth, am disposed to flee
all meetings of Bishops ; for never saw I a Council
brought to a useful issue, nor remedying, (but rather
increasing) existing evils. For there are always con
tentions and love of preeminence (think me not
troublesome for so writing) beyond all words ; and
one who would set others right may more readily
himself incur the charge of guilt, than amend their's.
Wherefore I have retired within myself, and thought
quietness the only safety for my soul."
East and West were mutually angered, and S. Gre
gory, in attempting to mediate, had lost raany of his
friends in the East, and had been personally opposed
by the West. It was a sort of prelude to the subse
quent divisions of East and West. Yet S. Gregory
wrote to high officers of state, to do what in them lay,
to bring matters to a happy issue ; not as having any
voice in it, but as infiuencing in some way those who
1' Ep. 130. Procop.

S. Gregory asks high state officers to help by influence. 351
had. Thus to Saturninus, who was Consul in A.D. 383;
" ¦! AU things around us are well, by the goodness of
God, except that we are anxious about the Churches,
so miserably distracted. In whatever way you can
help, by word or deed, be zealous in establishing har
mony ; for the Bishops are meeting again, and it is to
be feared lest now too we should be put to shame, if
this Council too shall have a poor close, like the for
mer." And to Victor, Master-General-at-war,'" " Since
again there is a Synod, and a conflict, and that, in the
midst of eneraies diligently watching all our affairs,
lend a hand to the general peace, as being thyself not
the meanest part ofthe Church, and let it not be con
sumed in the conflagration which now encompasseth
the Church. But bring any engine you can, to quench
the fire, and exhort others to do the like, that it may
be well with thee, in the common weal." And to So
phronius,^ a Prefect, after speaking of his own repose.
"Do you now at least, (even if you did not before) use
all diligence that the sections of the world, perni
ciously apart, may unite ; and especially, if you learn
that they are at variance, not on any matter of faith,
but about their private petty feehngs, as I have ob
served. For this will have its reward for you, if it
may be ; and our retirement will be less sorrowful, if
we shall appear not to have chosen it in vain, but to
have cast ourselves of our own accord into the sea,
like Jonah, that the tempest may be stayed, and those
¦! Ep. 132. ' Ep. 133. ' Ep. 135.

352 Ground of failure of Councils in this respect.
on board be saved." To the other Master-General
Modar,' a Goth, in like way ; "Would that many of
our countrymen imitated your nobleness ; all our af
fairs, public and private, would go well. I beseech
you, that as, by your wisdom and valour nobly stand
ing by us, you end foreign war, so you will also end
our own ; at least, striving, as far as in you lies, that
the Bishops who are now meeting may have a peace
able issue. For frequent meetings, without any close
to our ills, but adding confusion to confusion, bring
but increase of sharae, as you too know." S. Gregory
expresses the same hope in a letter written to Pos-
thumian, who was made Praetorian Prefect A. D. 383.
""Be assured that nothing can so befit your rule (since
a Council of Bishops is held, I know not Avhy or how
convened) than that, while you are Prefect, and by
your pains, the Churches should be brought into con
cord." The Eastern Councils could not after the election
of S. Flavian, effect the peace which S. Gregory de
sired ; for there was no fresh step to take, nothing
left for them to do. S. Gregory, then, longed from the
East, what could be done only conjointly by East and
West. Neither could abandon their own Bishops ;
had they united in Council, each might have recog
nised the other's Bishop, as S. Meletius had proposed.
But although the healing of the breach was reserved
for a later Council, this great Council did give rest to
' Ep. 136. " Ep. 183.

Council of Constantinople gives rest to the Church. 353
the East for nearly seventy years, until the heresy of
Nestorius suddenly burst out. The fifty-six years be
tween the Councils of Nice and Constantinople had
been occupied by a succession of efforts to storm or
undermine the fortress of the Nicene Council and
Creed, or to set up another over against and as a
rival to it. But the Arians, although upheld by all
the power of Emperors, broke, not the rock, but
themselves against it. The Church was not only im
pregnable, but was encircled with a second bulwark
against heresy ; the heretical spirit in the East was
for the tirae laid ; the mists were cleared away ; and
the Church was seen the more to be founded on the
firm Rock.

Clbanltsi fte to #otr*

SERMONS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

PAROCHIAL SERMONS from ADVENT to WHITSUNTIDE. Vol I
Fourth Edition. Svo. cloth, 10s. 6d.
PAROCHIAL SERMONS, Vol. II. Thu-d Edition. Svo. cloth, lOj. Sd.
ELEVEN SERMONS preached at the Consecration of St. Saviour's, Leeds,
1845. Together with Sermons by the Rev. .1. Keble, Rev. Is. Williams,
Rev. W. DoDswoKTH, Rev. C. Makriott, Eev. W.U. Richakds,
Second Edition. 7s. Gd. Single Parochial Sermons.
The CHURCH the CONVERTER ofthe HEATHEN. Two Sermons, 1838 ;
with copious Notes. 12mo. Third Edition. 6d.
CHRIST the SOURCE and RULE of CHRISTIAN LOVE. Second Edi
tion. Is. 6d.
The PREACHING of the GOSPEL a Preparation for our Lord's Coming.
1841. Second Edition. Is.
GOD is LOVE. WHOSO RECEIVETH ONE SUCH LITTLE CHILD
IN MY NAME, RECEIVETH ME. Two Sermons. 1846. Second
Edition. Is. 6d.
The DAY of JUDGMENT. 1839. Fourth Edition. &d.
CHASTISEMENTS NEGLECTED, Forerunners of Greater. On the
General Fast Day, 1847. Second Edition. Is.
The BLASPHEMY against the HOLY GHOST. 1845. Is.
The DANGER OE RICHES. SEEK GOD EIEST, AND YE
SHALL HAVE ALL. Two Sermons preached in the> Parish Church of
St. James's, Bristol. Second Edition. Svo. Is. 6d.
SERMON at the Consecration of Grove Church, 1832. New Edition.
University Sermons.
The HOLY EUCHARIST ; a Comfort for the Penitent. 1843. Nineteenth
Edition. Is. 6d.
The PRESENCE of CHRIST in the HOLY EUCHARIST. 1853. Second
Edition. Is. 6d.
ENTIRE ABSOLUTION ofthe PENITENT. 1846. Two Sermons. Fifth
Edition and Second Edition. Is. 6s. and 1 s.
The RULE of FAITH, as maintained by the Fathers and Chm-ch of England.
1851. &vo.ls.6d.
JUSTIFICATION. 1853.
PATIENCE and CONFIDENCE the STRENGTH of the CHURCH.
PreachedonNov. 5. 1837. Third Edition. Is.
ALL FAITH the GIFT of GOD. REAL FAITH ENTIRE. 1855. Second
Edition. 2s. WORKS BY THE -SAME AUTHOR.
The DOCTRINE of the REAL PRESENCE, as contained in the Fathers
from the death of S. John the Evangelist to the 4th General CouncU. 1855.

The REAX PRESENCE of the BODY and BLOOD of OUE LORD
JESUS CHEIST the DOCTEINE of the ENGLISH CHURCH,
with a Vindication of the Reception by the wicked and of the Adora
tion of our LORD JESUS CHEIST truly Present. 1857. 9s.
SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE on HOLY BAPTISM (on the passages of Holy
Scripture which speak on that Sacrament). Fourth Edition. 5s.
TWO TRACTS on FASTING. Third Edition.
The ROYAL SUPREMACY not an Arbitrary Authority, but limited by the
laws of the Chm-ch of which Kings are Members. Ancient Precedents.
Svo. 7s.
The CHURCH ofENGLAND leaves her CHILDREN FREE to whom to
OPEN their GRIEFS. A Letter to the Rev. W. U. Richards, Minister
of Margaret Chapel. Svo. 5s., or with Postscript, 8s. 6d.
LETTER to the LORD BISHOP of LONDON, in Explanation of some
Statements contained in a Letter by the Rev. W. Dodsworth. Fifth Edi
tion. 16mo. Is.
RENEWED EXPLANATIONS in consequence of Mr. Dodsworth's Com
ments on the above. Svo. Is.
MARRIAGE with a DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER, together with a
SPEECH on the same subject by E. Badeley, Esq.
COLLEGIATE and PROFESSORIAL TEACHING and DISCIPLINE,
in answer to Professor Vaughan. 5s.

Devotional Works,
EDITED BY THE REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D.
The SPIRITUAL COMBAT, with the PATH of PARADISE ; and the
SUPPLEMENT; or, the Peace ofthe Soul. By SCUPOLI. (Fromthe
ItaHan.) Fourth Edition, revised. With Frontispiece. 3s. 6d.
The YEAR of AFFECTIONS ; or, Sentiments on the Love of God, drawn
from the Canticles, for every Day in the Year. By AVRILLON. Second
Edition. 6s. Qd.
The FOUNDATIONS of the SPIRITUAL LIFE. (A Commentary on
Thomas i. Kempis.) Second Edition. By SURIN. 4s. Qd.
The LIFE of JESUS CHRIST in GLORY. DaUy Meditations from Easter
Day to the Wednesday after Trinity Sunday. By NOUET. 8s. Second
Edition. Or in Two Parts, at 4s. each.
PARADISE for the CHRISTIAN SOUL. By HORST. Two Vols. Third
Edition. 6s. Qd. Or, in Six Parts, at Is. each.
DEVOTIONS for HOLY COMMUNION. ISmo. Is.
LITANIES. In the words of Holy Scripture. Royal 32mo. Qd.
MEDITATIONS and select PRAYERS of St. ANSELM, formerly Arch
bishop of Canterbury. (The first complete Translation of the Meditations.)
Uniform with the ahove.
LENT READINGS from the FATHERS. 5s.
ADVENT READINGS from the FATHERS. 5s.

J. H. Parker, Oxford, and 377, Strand, London;
AND Messrs. Eivington, AVaterloo Place, Pall Mall. London,

3 9002