A Source Book for Ancient Church History

rror of the positions taken or the rightful place of dogma within the Church. It roused more difficulties, problems, and disputes, led to more persecutions, ended in gr

the question regarding the existence of heathenism alongside of the Church and heretical parties within the Church, though afterward harsher measures were taken by his son and successor (§ 69). In the East his colleague Valens (364-378) supported the extreme Arian party and persecuted the other parties, at the same time tolerating heathenism. This only brought the anti-Arians more

to Theodosius and Their Polic

brother Valens as his colleague for the East. The two were tolerant toward heathenism, but Valens took an active part in favor of Arianism, while Valentinian held aloof from doctrinal controversy. On the death of Valentinian I, his sons Gratian (murdered at Lyons, 383) and Valentinian II (murdered at

ellinus, Roman Hi

s policy of

the first rank, writing from personal observation and first-hand information. Ammianus was himself a heathen, but he seems not to have been embittered by the persecution to which his

and never troubled any one, nor issued any orders in favor of one kind of worship rather than another; nor did he promulgate any threatening edicts to bow down t

osianus, XII, 1

hown to continue as still open to aspirants after political honors and conferring immunities upon those who attained it. The curial had to pass t

ovince or to the honor [pg 339] of a chief magistracy, gaining this position not by favor and votes obtained by begging for them, but with the favorable report of the citizens and commendation of the public as a wh

t. Ec., IV, 21; V,

r the violent persecutor and pronounced Arian, Valens. Nevertheless the statement is supported by references

es of this error even went so far as to perform pagan rites, and thus the deceitful fire which after Julian had been quenched by Jovian, was now rekindled by permission of Valens. The rites of the Jews, of Dion

eriod of his reign the altar fire was lit, libations and sacrifices were offered to idols, public feasts were celebrate

Valentinian II; Ambrose,

ion of the altar of Victory

he following petition, of which the more impressive parts are given, was made in 384, two years after the first petition.

wing the example of a favorable time, it gave utterance to its long-suppressed grief and bade me be once again the delegate to utter its complaints. But through wicked men audience was refused

u understand that you may not do anything contrary to the custom of your ancestors? We request, then, the restoration of that condition of religious affairs which was so long of advantage to the State. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opin

the barbarians as not to re

the Senate House. Allow us, we beseech you, as old men to leave to posterity what we received as boys. The love of custom is great. Justly did t

ured, but to be bound in the very presence of religious forms has great power in producing a fear of sinning. That altar preserves the concord of all; that altar appeals to the good faith of each; and nothing gives more authority

nd, if any one else had committed such an error before him. For the fall of the earlier sets his successor right, and amendment results from the censure of a previous example.

ments, he inquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed admiration for their founders. Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained these for the Empire, for every one has his own customs, [pg 342] every one his own rites. The divine Mind has distributed different guardians and different cults to different cities. As souls are separately given to infants as they are born, so to a people is given the genius of i

ancestral ceremonies, for I do not repent of them. Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free. This worship subdued the world to my laws, these sacred rites repelled Hannibal from the walls, and the Se

on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what paths each seeks the truth? We

Epistula 18.

e to the Memori

ion. [pg 343] In it he enters upon the arguments of Symmachus. Although he could not present the same pathetic figure of an old man pleading for the religion of his ancestors, his arguments are not unju

nsiders of force-that Rome, he says, asks for her rites again, that pay be given to her priests a

illus was my soldier who slew those who had taken the Tarpeian rock, and brought back to the capitol the standards taken away; valor laid low those whom religion had not driven off.... Why do you bring forward the rites of our ancestors? I hate the rites of Neros. Why should I speak of emperors of two months,116 and the ends of rulers closely joi

what you seek by fancies we have found out from [pg 344] the very wisdom and truth of God. Your ways, therefore, do not

ristian emperor has learned to honor the altar of Christ alone.... Has any heathen emperor raised an altar to Christ? While they demand the restoration of things which have bee

our blood, an expense moves them.... We have increased through loss, through want, thr

urage it by gain. But how many virgins have their promised rewards gained for them? Hardly are seven vestal virgins received. See the whole number whom the fillet and chaplets for the head,

but laid aside; none of those purple insignia, no delicious luxuries, but the practice of fasts; no privileges, no gains; all other things, in fine, of such a kind that one would think them restrained from desire [pg 345] whilst practising their duties. But whilst the du

lege our example practise what we did? The Church has no possessions of her own except the faith. Hence are her returns, her increase. The possessions of the Church are the maintenance of the poor. Let them coun

gs have made a progress toward what is better?... The day shines not at the beginning, but

of our senses, but, changing as years go by, lay

ightened with the rising of the sun. And how much more pleasant is it to have dispelled the darkness of the mind than that of the body, and that the rays of faith shoul

lain of, have they eagerly received the images of captured cities, and conquered gods, and the foreign rites of alien superstition? Whence, then, is the pattern of Cybele washing her chariots in a stream counterfeiting the Almo? Whence were the

they celebrate their sacrifices everywhere. To claim a sacrifice on this one altar, what is it but to insult the faith? Is it to be borne that a heathen should sacrifice and a Christian be present?... Shall there not be a common lot in that common assem

osianus, XVI, 1

g heathen worship as a crime of

then not only continued to practise their rites in defiance of the law or with the connivance of the authorities, but also received

things, to reveal secrets, or to attempt things forbidden, to seek the end of another's welfare, or to promise the hope of another's ruin. If any one by placing incense venerates either images made by mortal labor, or those which are enduring, or if any one in ridiculous fashion forthwith venerates what he has represented, either by a tree encircled with garlands or an altar of cut turfs, though the advantage of such service is small, the injury to religion is complete, let him as guilty of sacrilege be punished by the loss of that house or possession in which he worshipped according to the heathen superstition. For all places which shall smoke with incense, if they shall be proved to belong to those who burn the incense, shall be confiscated. But if in temples or public sanctuaries or buildings and fields belonging to another, any

c Parties and The

tent to their faith which was in far better harmony with the prevailing religious sentiment of the East and was constantly receiving accessions. In the second generation after Nic?a, a new group of theologians came to the front, of whom the most important were Eustathius of Sebaste, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the three Cappadocians, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, most of whom had at least sympathized with the Homoiousian party. Already at the synod of Ancyra, in 358, an approach was made toward a reconciliation of the anti-Arian factions, in that, by a more careful definition, homoou

38, 52, 69, 125 (PNF, ser. II, vol. VIII); Hilary of Poitiers, De Sy

. D. 362. Tomus ad Anti

clined to accept the Nicene confession. Their church was in the Old Town, a portion of Antioch. Opposed to them was Paulinus with his party, which held firmly to the Nicene confession. The difficulty in the way of a full recognition of the Nicene statement by Meletius and his followers was that it savored of Sabellianism. The difficulty of the party of Paulinus in recognizing the orthodoxy of the Meletians was their practice of speaking of the three hypostases or subsistences, which was condemned by the words of the Nicene definition.120 The outcome of the Alexandrian Council

stantinople, also anticipated that assembly by condemning Apollinarianism without mentioning

dians welcome them; and unite them to our beloved Paulinus and his people, without requiring more from them than to anathematize the Arian heresy and confess the faith confessed by the holy Fathers at Nic?a and to anathematize also those who s

f Nic?a, but on account of the contention we made inquiry of them, whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, subsistences foreign and strange and alien in essence from one another, and that each subsistence was divided apart by itself,

th, both Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son, truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Ghost subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge, said they, and that neither had they said there were three Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate such as sai

subsistence or essence."121 But we hold there is One, because the Son is of the essence of the Father and because of the identity of nature. For we believe that there is one Godhead, and that the nature of it is one, and not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Ghost are distinct. Well, thereupon, they who had been blamed for saying that there were three subsistences agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of one essence, also confessed the doctrin

dead, and led into the kingdom of heaven. For they also confess that the Saviour had not a body without a soul, nor without sense or intelligence;122 for it was not possible, when the Lord had become man for us, that His body should be without intelligence; nor was the salvation, effected in the Word himself, a salvation of the body only, but of the soul also. And being Son of God in truth, He became also Son of Man; and being God's only begotten Son, He became also at the same time "first-born among many brethren." Wherefore neither was there one Son of God before Abr

riumph of the New Nicene Orthodoxy at

of Constantinople, but was forced to resign, having formerly been bishop of Sasima, from which he had been translated in violation of the Nicene canons. As soon as it was apparent that the bishops would have to accept the Nicene faith the thirty-six Macedonians withdrew. Their opinion as to the Holy Spirit, that He was not divine in the same sense that the Son was divine, was condemned, without express statement of the point condemned, as was also the teaching of Apollinaris as to the nature of Christ. The council was not intended to be an ecumenical or genera

cils (PNF); Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 6-9; Socrates, Hist. E

e, A. D. 381, Canons, Bruns,

nslations and Reprints of the University of Pennsylvania give translations. For the address of

e but shall remain dominant. And every heresy shall be anathematized, especially that of the Eunomians or Anom?ans, the Ar

e mentioned in the canons of Nic?a, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian matters. And let not the bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless

hall have the prerogative of honor after123 the b

, Creed. (Cf. MSG, 35:

creed of Jerusalem. This creed is approximately reconstructed by bringing together the headings. Its date is circa 345. It should be compared with the creed of the churc

ighty, maker of heaven and earth, and

[pg 355] begotten, begotten of the Father, true God,

ade man; crucif

again the

nded int

e right hand

udge the quick and the dead, of wh

, the Paraclete, who

of repentance for

holy Cath

esurrection

he life

us, chs. 119 f. (MSG, 4

by Theophilus of Antioch to cause trouble for Chrysostom and others; see Origenistic controversy, § 87. The Ancoratus, from which the following creed is taken, is a statement of the Catholic faith which, amidst the storms of th

ighty, maker of heaven and earth and

m all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered [p

her is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets; and in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; we acknowledg

He was made of nothing, or of another substance or essence [hypostasis or ousia], saying tha