Sources

FOOTNOTES:

[91:1] Hardy, 1-18.

[91:2] Examples: Cybele, Bellona, Magna Mater.

[91:3] Examples: Cult of Isis excluded from Rome 58 B.C. (Tertullian, Apol.). Temples of Isis and Serapis destroyed 50 B.C. (Dion Cassius, xi., 47). Repeated measures later. Jews expelled from Rome.

[92:1] Neander, i., 89; Fisher, 30. Caligula, it seems, expelled the Jews from Rome; Claudius (41-54) first forbade their assembling (Dion Cassius, 60, 6) and then sought to drive them out of the capital (Orosius, Hist., 7, 6.)

[92:2] For individuals like Stephen, Acts vii., 58; James, Acts xii., 2; Peter, Acts iv.; xii., 3; Paul, Acts ix., 23, 24; xiv., 5, 19; xvii., 13; xxiii., 12; xvi., 23; xxii., 24. For masses see Acts viii., 1-4; Acts xxvi., 10-12; Clement, Recognitions, i., ch. 53, 71; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol., ch. 36; Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 16, 39, 96, 115.

[92:3] Hurst, i., 153.

[92:4] Acts, xviii., 14, 15; xxi., 31, 32; xxiv., 1-27; xxv., 14; xxvi., 32; Uhlhorn, 238.

[92:5] Origen, Against Celsus, iii., 1-3.

[93:1] Concerning Laws, i., pt. 2, ch. 8. This was also the ancient principle of the XII. Tables.

[93:2] Bk. iii., ch. 4, par. 1.

[93:3] See Tertullian and Celsus.

[94:1] Address reported by Dion Cassius.

[94:2] Ramsay, 356.

[94:3] Uhlhorn, Conflict of Christ. with Heathenism, 231.

[95:1] Uhlhorn, Conflict of Christ. with Heathenism, 234.

[95:2] Gibbon, ii., bk. 3, ch. 16.

[95:3] Uhlhorn, 224; Moeller, i., 81.

[96:1] Octav., c. 8.

[96:2] Annales, xv., c. 44.

[96:3] Alzog, i., 257.

[96:4] Acts xix., 24 ff.; Pliny, Ep., x., 97; Neander, i., 92.

[96:5] For a detailed statement of the accusations read the apologies of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Origen.

[96:6] Cyprian, To Demetrianus, 1; Origen, Against Celsus, iii., ch. 16; Tertullian, Apol., ch. 40; To Nations, 9; Alzog, i., 261.

[96:7] Justin Martyr, Apol., i., ch. 6, 13, 17; Arnobius, Against Gentes, iii., ch. 28.

[97:1] A crucifix with the head of an ass and body of a man was actually dug up in Rome and is now exhibited in a museum there. In Tertullian's day there was circulated a picture of a man with the ears of an ass, clothed in a toga, holding a book, and with these words beneath: "The God of the Christians" (Apol., 16; Ad. Nat., 11, 14; Tacitus, Hist., v., 3). In the Palace of the Cæsars a rough sketch of a crucified man with an ass's head was found (Hist. Photographs, No. 107, Oxf., 1870; Univ. Quart., July, 1879, p. 338).

[97:2] Origen, Against Celsus, viii., ch. 75; Apol., ch. 29, 35, and 39; Tertullian, Concerning Idol., ch. 17; De Cor. Mil., i., c. 15.

[97:3] Cf. Luke, xxi., 16.

[97:4] Hence all the hatred and prejudice of the Romans for the Jews were turned against the Christians. Gibbon, ii., 6; Gieseler, i., p. 101.

[98:1] Origen declared that the number of Christian martyrs was small and easily counted. Celsum, c. 3.

[98:2] Gibbon, ii., ch. 16; Uhlhorn, 234, 235.

[98:3] Moeller, i., 193.

[99:1] Tacitus, Ann., xv., 44. It seems to be very probable that persecutions by the Roman government occurred earlier than this. 1 Pet.; Rev. ii., 13; xx., 4.

[99:2] Schiller, Lipsius, and Hausrath.

[99:3] Notably Merivale.

[99:4] Hardy, Uhlhorn, Ramsay, Allard, and Harnack.

[99:5] E. Th. Klette, Nero and the Christians, who relies for his conclusions on sources prior to Tacitus, repudiates the scapegoat theory. He contends that Nero, influenced by Jewish intrigue, publicly punished the Christians as Christians and because of the popular suspicions against them, so as to make it appear that the burning of Rome was due to the wrath of the gods.

[100:1] Juvenal, Sat., i., 155 ff.; Seneca, Ep., 14; Clement, To Corinth, 6; Euseb., ii., c. 25; Orosius, vii., c. 7. Cf. Ramsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp. 226 ff.

[100:2] Sulp. Severus, Chron. ii., c. 29; Transl. and Rep., iv., 6.

[100:3] Mommsen, Sandy, Hardy, Ramsay.

[100:4] Mommsen, v., 523 n.

[100:5] Sulp. Severus, Chron., ii., c. 30, 6; Transl. and Rep., iv., 6-8.

[101:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iii., c. 18; Dion Cass., lxvii., c. 14.; Suet., Dom., c. 15; Transl. and Rep., iv., 6.

[101:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv., 26.

[101:3] Hegesippus, quoted in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iii., c. 20; Tertullian; Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle.

[101:4] Melito of Sardica (c. 170), Lactantius, Eusebius, and the mediæval writers generally held that he was rather favourable to Christians.

[101:5] Gieseler, Aubé, Overbeek, Uhlhorn, Keim and Renan held that Trajan began a new era unfavourable to Christians but Lightfoot, Hardy, and Ramsay explain it on the ground of political expediency.

[101:6] Pliny wrote sixty letters to Trajan and Trajan made forty-eight replies. These have all been translated into English. Read letters 96 and 97. See Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 8.

[102:1] For an excellent discussion of the significance of the Trajan prosecutions, see Ramsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp., 190-225.

[102:2] Authenticity of this document is doubted by Baur, Klein, Lipsius, Overbeek, Aubé, McGiffert, etc., but defended by Ramsay, Lightfoot, Mommsen, Allard, Funk, Ranke, Uhlhorn, Moeller, etc. See Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 10.

[102:3] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv., c. 13, 26; Tertullian; Harnack, article on Pius in Herzog-Hauck, Real Encyc.

[103:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., v., c. 1; Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 11.

[103:2] This period saw seventeen different Emperors.

[103:3] See Eusebius on this reign, Eccl. Hist., v., c. 9-24.

[103:4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Many martyrs are daily burned, crucified, and beheaded before our eyes." Origen's father was among them. At Scillite in Numidia 200 suffered. Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 20. At Carthage two young women were given to wild beasts. Tertullian refers to other persecutions. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi., c. 1, 7.

[104:1] Moeller, i., 191.

[104:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi., c. 28; Origen, On Martyrdom.

[104:3] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi., c. 34.

[104:4] The text of this decree has been lost. Two later decrees were issued—the first exiling Church officers, the second condemning them to death. See Gregg, The Decian Persecution.

[104:5] Read Cyprian, Concerning the Lapsed, iii., c. 8, for the most vivid account; Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 21.

[105:1] Cyprian, Ep. to Antonian.

[105:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii., c. 10; Gregg, The Decian Persecution.

[105:3] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii., c. 11.

[105:4] Cyprian, Ep., 81; Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, 20, 22, 23.

[105:5] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii., c. 13 ff.

[105:6] Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 26.

[105:7] Mason, The Persecution of Diocletian.

[106:1] Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 26; Euseb., Eccl. Hist., viii.-x.; Uhlhorn, 407.

[106:2] Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 28; Euseb., Eccl. Hist., viii., 17.

[106:3] Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 29.

CHAPTER VII
TRANSITION OF THE CHURCH UNDER CONSTANTINE

Outline: I.—Condition of the Empire in 300. II.—How Constantine became Emperor. III.—Constantine's conversion to Christianity. IV.—Constantine's favours to Christianity. V.—Constantine's character. VI.—Constantine's historical significance. VII.—Sources.

To understand the great changes that took place in the Christian Church under Constantine, it is necessary to keep distinctly in mind both the status of Christianity, on the one hand, and the general conditions of the Empire, on the other.

In territorial extent the Empire still formed a huge fringe around the Mediterranean Sea and had lost but little of its vastness under Trajan (98-117). Under Diocletian (284-305) the Empire became an undisguised oriental despotism. The administration was divided between two Augusti, each of whom had an associate, called Cæsar. This division of rule, with its increased expense, aroused much jealousy and discontent, and greatly weakened the Empire. As many as six rival Emperors appeared at once, and out of the rivalry emerged Constantine the Great as the sole ruler of the Empire. Wars with the Persians in the east and with the barbarians on the north accelerated the declining political morality. At the same time social classes became more marked, and moral standards lower. Schools were neglected, literature became

superficial, poetry lost its voice, and oratory declined. Paganism, largely a form of patriotism and national festivity, still numbered many adherents, but it was not deeply rooted in their hearts.

Christianity, in the face of outlawry and severe persecution, had spread steadily and marvellously, and particularly among the substantial people of the Empire.[113:1] It is difficult to estimate the number of Christians because few records were left and the number of real believers was much larger than the professed adherents. The earlier estimates are probably too low. After more careful investigation, 30,000,000 may be safely given as indicating the numerical strength of the new creed.[113:2] When Constantine the Great appeared, therefore, old pagan Rome was declining, while a new Christian Rome was rapidly rising. Christianity would undoubtedly have gained the victory sooner or later had Constantine not appeared as its champion.

Constantine was born about 274 at Naïssus, in Upper Moesia. His father was Constantius Chlorus, a nephew of Emperor Claudius, the conqueror of the Goths, who was selected as Cæsar of the West possibly because of his imperial connection. His mother was Helena, the daughter of an innkeeper, and not the fabled English princess. She was only a concubine, who, however, was made a legal wife after the birth of Constantine.[113:3] She was a Christian, it seems, and

no doubt taught the new faith to both her husband and son.[114:1]

Constantine's education was gained mostly in court circles and on the battle-field. As a boy he was instructed in the schools of Drepanum in Cilicia, his mother's birthplace, later changed to Helenapolis. Little is known about this phase of his training, and there are reasons for believing that it was not very comprehensive. In 292, when Constantine was eighteen, his father became Cæsar of the West, divorced his mother, and sent him to be educated as a sort of hostage at the court of Diocletian at Nicomedia. There he acquired his preliminary military training and political education. With Diocletian he made an expedition to Egypt via Palestine (296) and the next year joined Galerius in a campaign against the Persians. He soon won a reputation as a bold warrior, and became a popular leader. Indeed his superior ability aroused the jealousy of Galerius, who purposely exposed him to the gravest dangers, thus hoping to get rid of him. After his military success, he was made tribune of the first rank. Skilled in the art of politics at the court of the Eastern rulers, and having won his spurs in battle, he expected to be elevated to the office of Cæsar, when Diocletian resigned in 305, but was defeated by Galerius, who succeeded Diocletian as Augustus, and chose his own nephew as Cæsar. This was a keen disappointment to young Constantine.[114:2]

In 305, Constantius Chlorus succeeded Maximian, who had resigned by agreement with Diocletian, as

Augustus of the West, and, since there was no reason why an Augustus should leave his son as hostage at the court of an equal, he demanded the return of Constantine. Galerius reluctantly consented, but before the official permit was executed, Constantine, fearing treachery, fled at night, maimed the post-horses to prevent pursuit, and reached Boulogne just in time to go with his father to Britain.[115:1]

After an easy conquest of Britain, Constantius Chlorus died at York (July, 306), having named his son as his successor, whereupon the soldiers immediately saluted Constantine as Augustus.[115:2] Although this was the ancient practice, and Constantine was eligible for the office both by heredity and by preparation, still, constitutionally, the nomination rested with Galerius, who, enraged at the usurpation, and also at Constantine's shrewd diplomatic letter, allowed him only the title of Cæsar.[115:3] No man in the Empire was better fitted by age, appearance, previous training, and ability, for the higher office. Backed by his army, Constantine continued his father's policy to defend the Gauls against the Franks and Germans, and to develop the prosperity of the country. He married Maximian's daughter (307) as a diplomatic precaution and was recognised by him as Augustus. Meanwhile Maxentius, the son of Maximian, who, discovered in conspiracy, had committed suicide, had assumed the imperial purple at Rome and now took his father's death as a pretext for war against Constantine.[115:4] Encouraged by a Roman

embassy, Constantine at once hastily marched toward Rome and at Milvian Bridge defeated his rival, who was drowned in the Tiber (312). Constantine was now sole Emperor of the West. In 324 Licinius was defeated in the East and Constantine had become Emperor of the united Roman Empire.

Constantine's connection with Christianity marks a new epoch in the history of the Church. Under him the new faith was legalised, emancipated, protected, and given lands and buildings. Constantine's mother, who was a Christian, probably gave him his first favourable impressions of the outlawed religion. As a boy he must have heard it discussed as a topic for both light and serious conversation. At the court of Diocletian and Galerius he saw the edict of persecution proclaimed in 303 and must have witnessed the action of Christians under martyrdom, noticed their marvellous growth in the face of outlawry and punishment, and perhaps came to look with some favour upon their teachings. When he succeeded his father as Emperor of the West, he continued his father's policy of toleration and let Diocletian's edict of persecution fall as a dead letter.[116:1]

Tradition tells us that Constantine was converted to Christianity suddenly by a miracle. One day, during the conflict with Maxentius at Milvian Bridge, he and his whole army saw a bright cross in the heavens with this inscription in Greek on it: "In this sign, conquer." In a dream that night Christ appeared to him and commanded him to use the emblem of the cross as his battle ensign, and promised him victory in consequence. Constantine immediately had the

costly labarum made to be carried before his army and with it at Milvian Bridge, ten miles from Rome, he vanquished his foe.[117:1]

Three theories have been proposed to explain the spectacle of the cross: 1. That it was a genuine miracle, supported by the following facts: (a) Eusebius, who gives us the first account, had all the evidence directly from Constantine himself under oath; (b) Constantine's whole army "witnessed the miracle and put the emblem on their shields"[117:2]; (c) Socrates says the original standard could still be seen in his day.[117:3] The older historians all upheld the miracle, although few scholars to-day take that view.[117:4] 2. That it was a natural phenomenon coloured by Constantine's imagination, or an optical illusion, or a dream.[117:5] 3. That it was a pious fraud, deliberately invented either by Constantine, or by Eusebius.[117:6] Whatever the theories may be, the fact remains that for some reason Constantine invoked the aid of the Christian's God, and carried the Christian emblem in front of his troops to one victory after another until he became sole ruler of the Empire. If it was merely experimenting with the

name and cross of Jesus, the experiment brought convincing belief, for the sacred emblem was employed in all later military campaigns.

The triumph over Maxentius at Milvian Bridge was a great victory for Christianity. Constantine had a statue of himself with a cross in his hands set up in Rome. An inscription on it stated that through Christianity the glory and freedom of Rome had been restored.[118:1] Henceforth Constantine extended imperial aid and protection to the Christians and a new era was opened in the history of the Christian Church. He endowed and enlarged Christian churches in Rome and later elsewhere[118:2]; he wrote letters in behalf of Christians in Africa[118:3]; he made Christian bishops, like Hosius, Lactantius, and Eusebius, his trusted political advisers; and he enacted laws legalising the new faith and protecting its adherents.

The edict of limited toleration passed by Galerius in 311, in conjunction with Constantine and Licinius, was very unsatisfactory. The Christians might rebuild their churches but were required to pray for the Emperor.[118:4] A decided preference was shown to paganism since no person was free to leave his own religion and join another. This was a great hardship, for many Romans were Christians at heart and were only waiting for permission to join the new Church openly.[118:5] To meet the new conditions and to afford the needed relief, Constantine, jointly with Licinius,

in 313 issued the Edict of Milan, the Magna Charta of religious liberty. It was promulgated in Greek and Latin over the whole Empire as imperial law. It did not make Christianity the state religion, as is generally asserted, but only legalised it, and popularised it. Now people could and did openly desert the old and join the new faith. Persecutions were forbidden under severe penalties. Exiles were recalled. Confiscated property was restored with compensation to the possessor. All Romans were exhorted to worship the Christian God. This famous edict was significant, because it put Christianity on an equality with paganism; gave it opportunity for public organisation, thus paving the way for the Catholic hierarchy already begun; and marks a new era in the history of the Christian Church, because at last a great Roman Emperor and his conquering army had taken up the sword in defence of persecuted Christianity.[119:1]

The proclamation of emancipation and protection was followed by other acts which clearly show that Constantine meant to favour and control the new religion. The Christian clergy were exempted from military and municipal duties[119:2]—a favour already enjoyed by pagan priests and even Jewish rabbis (March, 313). The Church Council of Arles was convoked (314). The emancipation of Christian slaves was facilitated (315). Various customs and ordinances offensive to Christians were abolished (316). Bequests to churches

were legalised (321). The cessation of civic business on Sunday was enjoined, but as a "dies Solis" (321).[120:1] The heathen symbols of Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, and Hercules were removed from imperial coins (323). In defeating Licinius (324), a bitter reactionist, Constantine felt that he was waging war in behalf of Christianity.[120:2] In 324 Constantine issued a general exhortation to all Romans to embrace the new creed for the common weal. The highest dignities were opened to Christians. Gifts and remission of taxes enriched their churches. A craze for buildings led to the erection of churches at various sacred spots in the Holy Land, at Nicomedia, in Constantinople, in Rome, and elsewhere. Fifty costly manuscripts of the Bible were ordered prepared for the leading churches. The Council of Nicæa was held in 325, the Arian schism healed, and the first written creed given the Church. Finally, by divine command, as it was said, Constantine removed his capital from old pagan Rome to Byzantium, the new Christian Rome, which was renamed Constantinople (326). This left Christianity in the West, already strong and active, to organise itself under the guidance of the Bishop of Rome, and powerfully aided the evolution of the papal hierarchy. In the East, under imperial protection, the spread and organisation of the popular belief was phenomenal.

Paganism was still legal, however; its institutions were not attacked and the privileges of its priests were confirmed. Nevertheless the triumphs of Christianity were all won at the expense of paganism. As the new faith arose the old sank, yet not without many a

desperate and even noble effort to persist. Individual cults which were either immoral or offensive, like that of Venus in Phœnicia, Æsculapius at Ægæ, and the Nile-priests at Heliopolis, were prohibited.[121:1] Private haruspices were forbidden. There is even some evidence of a general edict against sacrifices.[121:2] All of these things indicate the passing away of the old order and the birth of the new.

Opinion about Constantine's character takes two extreme views. On the one hand it is held that in 312 Constantine, like Paul, was miraculously converted to Christianity and that from that day forth he was a saint incarnate. Eusebius, and later panegyrists like Mosheim, are responsible for this picture. To this day the Greek churches celebrate his memory as St. "Equal of the Apostles." On the other hand it is asserted that he was nothing but a shrewd politician, able to read the signs of the times, who assumed an outward connection with Christianity solely for political expediency. Zosimus, a pagan historian, gives the worst account, ascribing to him the basest motive for every deed. Keim calls him a political trickster, and Burckhardt styles him a "murdering egoist" and "politischer Rechner" without a spark of Christianity.[121:3]

Was Constantine a Christian? The query is a difficult one to answer because ten men would each give a different definition of the essentials of a Christian. The favourable evidence will be considered first. Constantine's activity in behalf of the new religion, already mentioned, shows at least his sympathy for it

and no doubt his belief in it. His imperial laws, improving woman's condition, mitigating slavery, abolishing crucifixion as a method of punishment, and caring for the unfortunate, breathe forth the spirit of Christian justice and humanity.[122:1] He tried to convert his subjects to Christianity through Christian governors in the provinces, by letters and sermons, by rewarding towns for converting temples into churches, and by conforming to Christian worship. He diligently attended divine services, had a stated hour and place for prayer, fasted, kept Easter vigils with great devotion, and even invited his subjects to hear him preach on the folly of paganism and about the truth of Christianity. He exerted every effort to make Constantinople a Christian city—churches replaced altars, the imperial palace was adorned with biblical scenes,[122:2] gladiatorial combats were prohibited, and the smoke of public sacrifice never rose from the hills of New Rome.[122:3] The imperial treasury was lavishly used to support Christianity.[122:4] Constantine's sons were given a Christian education. He believed in the efficacy of baptism, even though he did postpone it to the end of his life—a common practice to wash away all sins. Besides he wished to be baptised in the river Jordan where Jesus himself was baptised. In 337 he was received into the Church as a catechumen, promised to live worthily as a follower of Jesus, was baptised, and wore the white baptismal robe till he died.[122:5]

The unfavourable evidence submitted leads to the conclusion, held by some historians, that Constantine's conversion was not genuine, but due to hypocrisy, superstition, or policy. He retained the title Pontifex Maximus, head of the old religion. The Edict of Milan protected paganism and he continued that policy. After defeating Maxentius at Milvian Bridge he had his triumphal arch erected. The original inscription said that he triumphed over his rival by the favour of Jupiter. But these words were later erased and the neutral phrase "instinctu Divinitas" substituted.[123:1] In Rome he restored pagan temples and said: "You who consider it profitable to yourselves, continue to visit the public altars and temples and to observe your sacred rites."[123:2] Even in Constantinople temples were erected to the gods. The laws of 319 show that sacrifice still existed—at least in private houses.[123:3] Pagan emblems were continued on imperial coins till 330. Constantine, as Pontifex Maximus, continued to attend the sacred games connected with the pagan religion,[123:4] and even used pagan rites along with Christian to dedicate his new capital.[123:5] In 321 he ordered that when lightning should strike the imperial palace, or any public building, the soothsayers should be consulted to determine the cause as of old. The same year he employed heathen magic to heal diseases, to protect crops, to prevent rain and hail, etc.[123:6] He retained many pagans at court and in public office, and was very

intimate with pagan philosophers like Sopater.[124:1] In no document did he formally renounce paganism and declare himself a Christian. He was guilty of weakness and crimes inconsistent with a Christian life. He was vain, suspicious, despotic, and gained his ambitious ends through bloody wars. He was undoubtedly guilty of murdering Licinius, his brother-in-law, contrary to a sacred pledge; Licinius, the younger, his nephew, a boy of eleven; Crispus, his eldest son, on the ground of treasonable conspiracy; and Fausta, his wife, for adultery.[124:2] To wipe away these sins, and many others, he accepted at the close of his life the Christian rite of baptism. After his death the Senate voted to place him among the gods.[124:3]

After weighing all evidence, these historical conclusions may be drawn:

1. Constantine was primarily a statesman, and wisely used both paganism and Christianity to unite his Empire and to build up his autocratic power. He was Pontifex Maximus, not alone of paganism, but of all religions.[124:4] The grateful Christians heartily granted that leadership. Up to 323 he kept the two religions equally balanced, but to do so he was forced to favour Christianity most. After 323 he depressed paganism and exalted Christianity. Toward the end of his life he showed a tendency to forcibly suppress the old religion.

2. Constantine was a Christian, but not as a result of a miracle at Milvian Bridge. His conversion was a gradual result of many influences. Training at his

Christian mother's knee, paternal instruction, his youthful observations at the Eastern imperial court, a growing belief in monotheism, his discontent with the faith of his fathers and a proneness toward sun-worship, and his religious philosophy, which led him to look at Christianity as a system of thought rather than a life creed—a law, not a faith—a world-force of purity and simplicity—all these factors produced within him a growing comprehension of the truth, power, and beauty of Christianity. The cross in the sky and the consequent victories led to a conviction that God had selected him as the champion of the new creed, "the bishop of bishops." Contact with the leading Christians in the Empire, men of heart and brains, greatly increased his admiration for Christianity and interest in it. Just when he became a Christian no one can say, but that he died a sincere believer one can hardly doubt.[125:1]

3. He was a product of his age. He was actuated by both religious and political motives and was not merely an artful politician. It was not an easy thing to be a Roman Emperor and at the same time a Christian. He was guilty of grave crimes, but they were the result of gusts of passion, like those of Peter the Great, and not of constitutional depravity. Nor do these sins appear so enormous when considered in the light of his long, useful career, the dynastic difficulties confronting him, and the morality of many Christian leaders of the day. It must not be forgotten that he was a converted heathen, that the Christian code had not yet become the moral code, and that the integrity of the Empire stood above family ties and even religious demands.

4. He made his age the beginning of a new era. He enabled Christianity to become the moulding spirit of Western civilisation. He was the first representative of that theoretical Christian theocracy which makes the Church and state two sides of God's government on earth. The Church and state were to remain united throughout all the succeeding ages to the present time. Even Protestant nations adopted the principle. Among the most noteworthy exceptions to-day are the United States, Italy, and, but recently, France. He founded the Byzantine Empire and bears the same relation to the East that Charles the Great does to the West. He gave the Church its first unity in organisation, its first universal council, and its first written creed. He stamped his own character on his age and made it greater and happier. He has continued to live through succeeding centuries by reason of what he was and what he did. For all these reasons, judged by achievement, the world unites in calling him "the Great."[126:1]

5. Historically, Constantine's significance lies not in the fact that he was a Christian, personally, but that he for the first time endowed the new religion with that worldly power which made it for over one thousand years the most powerful moral, social, and political agency the world has seen. Constantine the Great was succeeded by Charles the Great, and he in turn by Otto the Great. On the ruins of the Christianised Roman Empire arose the Roman Empire of the Germans, and in this the work of Constantine was really completed. Not until the Reformation and the Modern Age did the cry arise that the work of Constantine must be undone.

Constantine's three sons and successors continued his policy. Laws were passed favourable to Christianity. Paganism was still tolerated, but the tendency to suppress it had developed into a fixed policy. Sacrifices were forbidden on pain of death and confiscation in 352.[127:1] The persecuted, in turn, became the persecutors. "Emperors!" one of the Christian leaders advised, "the temples must be overthrown and utterly destroyed in order that the pernicious error may no longer pollute the Roman world. The Supreme God has committed the Government to you, so that you may cure this cancer." Pagan temples were converted into Christian churches. Unity of worship and unity of imperial rule were declared to be essential. Pagan opposition to religious unity under the Emperor was now interpreted as treason just as Christianity was so regarded before 311. Thus identified with the Empire, Christianity became the popular dominant faith. Rome and Alexandria alone clung to the old gods.[127:2]

Under Julian (361-363), a nephew of Constantine the Great, paganism made one last supreme effort for mastery. The reaction was inspired by Neo-Platonism, by the personal devotion of Julian to the classical faith, and by the hope of securing a stronger imperial unity through the supremacy of paganism. Julian did not openly persecute Christianity, but treated it very much as Constantine did paganism. Had he lived longer, nevertheless, harsher measures might have been employed. He seemed to feel that he was swimming against the tide, however, and fell in battle

against the Persians (363) saying, "Thou hast conquered, Galilean."[128:1]

Julian's sudden death with one stroke precipitated the decline and fall of paganism. His successor, Jovian (363-364), a Christian, restored Christianity to imperial and popular favour.[128:2] The legal toleration of all religions continued under Valentinian I. (d. 375) and Valens (d. 378). Emperor Gratian (375-383) began the repression of paganism in the West, and Valentinian II. (383-392) continued it, while Theodosius I. (378-395) pursued the same policy in the East, and forcibly suppressed paganism.[128:3] The edict of 380 constituted Christianity the exclusive religion of the whole Empire. "We command all who read this law to embrace the name of Catholic Christians, deciding that all other idiots and madmen should bear the infamy attaching to their heretical opinions, and as they will first meet with the penalty of divine vengeance, so they will afterwards receive that condemnation at our hands which the Heavenly Judge has empowered us to administer."[128:4] The new faith had won a famous victory. Even the old Roman Senate, the last refuge of paganism, voted that the religion of Jesus was true.

Sources

FOOTNOTES:

[113:1] Orr, Neglected Factors, 95-163; Ramsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp., 57.

[113:2] Orr, Neglected Factors, 23-91.

[113:3] Zosimus, ii., 8; St. Ambrose, Migne, iii., 1209. For the fable about the English princess read Geoffrey of Monmouth and Pierre de Langloft. This tale was used by Baronius. It must be remembered that concubinage was a state recognised by Roman law, and was by no means in itself a sign of depravity.

[114:1] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iii., ch. 47, leads one to believe that Constantine converted his mother to Christianity. Cf. Hamza Ispaheus, p. 55.

[114:2] Lactantius, Death of Persecutors, ch. 24.

[115:1] Zos., ii., 8; Euseb., Life of Const., i., ch. 121.

[115:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., viii., ch. 13; Life of Const., ii., ch. 22.

[115:3] Lactantius, Death of Persecutors, ch. 25. Galerius recognised Severus as Augustus of the West.

[115:4] Galerius meanwhile was induced to recognise Constantine as Augustus in 308.

[116:1] Lactantius, Death of Persecutors, ch. 24; Euseb., Life of Const., i., ch. 14, 16, 17, 27.

[117:1] Euseb., Life of Const., i., ch. 28-31; Sozomen, i., ch. 3; Socrates, i., ch. 2; Lactantius, Death of Persecutors, ch. 44.

[117:2] Euseb., Life of Const., i., ch. 28; Sozomen, i., ch. 3.

[117:3] Socrates, i., ch. 2.

[117:4] Döllinger; J. H. Newman; Guericke, Uhlhorn, etc.

[117:5] Supported by best modern critical writers like Schroeck, Neander, Gieseler, Mansi, Milman, Keim, Heinicken, Schaff, Harnack, etc. For like examples see Whymper, Scrambles among the Alps, ch. 22; Gieseler, i., § 56; Stanley, 288; Peary, Narrative of an Attempt to Reach the North Pole, 99, 100; Seymour, The Cross in Tradition, 103 ff.

[117:6] This theory is defended by Gibbon, Lardner, Waddington, Burckhardt, Hoornbeeck, Thomasius, Arnold, etc. They seem to ignore all proofs.

[118:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., ix., ch. 9; Life of Const., i., ch. 40. The triumphal arch was not set up till 315.

[118:2] Euseb., Life of Const., i., ch. 42.

[118:3] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., x., ch. 5, 7.

[118:4] Ibid., Eccl. Hist., viii., 17; edict given in Transl. and Reprints, iv., No. 1, p. 28. Cf. Lactantius, ch. 34, 35.

[118:5] Neander, ii., 12, 13.

[119:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., x., 5. The Edict of Milan is given in Transl. and Reprints, iv., No. 1, p. 29. It is thought by some that the Edict of Milan refers to an edict issued by Constantine in 312 but now lost. That possibility seems very doubtful. Cf. Lactantius, ch. 48.

[119:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., x., ch. 7; Sozom., i., 9; Cod. Theod., xvi., 2, 1, 2, 3.

[120:1] Cod. Justin., iii., tit. 12, 1, 3.

[120:2] Moeller, i., 298. He at once issued edicts of toleration for Christians in the East. Euseb., Life of Const., ii., ch. 24 ff.

[121:1] Euseb., Life of Const., iii., ch. 55, 56, 58; iv., ch. 25, 37, 38.

[121:2] Ibid., ii., ch. 44, 45; iii., ch. 56, 58; iv., ch. 25.

[121:3] For further opinions of like character read Brieger, Flasch, Baur, etc.

[122:1] Sozom., i., 8; Cod. Theod. and Cod. Justin are full of these instances.

[122:2] Euseb., Life of Const., iii., ch. 3, 49; iv., ch. 15.

[122:3] Ibid., ii., ch. 44, 45; iii., ch. 48; iv., ch. 24.

[122:4] Ibid., ii., ch. 45; iii., 33-39, 41, 42, 43, 48, 58; iv., 28, 58-60.

[122:5] Brooks, Date of the Death of Constantine; Euseb., Life of Const., iv., 62-64.

[123:1] Dyer, City of Rome, 312.

[123:2] Cod. Theod., xii., i., 21; v., 2; Neander, ii., 20.

[123:3] Ibid., 19.

[123:4] Cod. Theod., ix., 16, 1, 2; Zos., ii., ch. 29.

[123:5] Zos., ii., ch. 31; Moeller, i., 299.

[123:6] Neander, ii., 20, 21.

[124:1] Euseb., Life of Const., ii., ch. 44.

[124:2] This last charge is now discredited by some authorities.

[124:3] Eutropius, Breviarium, x., 4.

[124:4] Euseb., Life of Const., iv., ch. 24.

[125:1] Cutts, Const. the Great, 419.

[126:1] See Cutts, Const. the Great, 128.

[127:1] Cod. Theod., xvi., 10, 4.

[127:2] Gieseler, i., § 75.

[128:1] Negri, Julian the Apostate, 2 vols., N. Y., 1905; King, Julian the Emp., Lond., 1888; Gardner, Julian, Philosopher and Emp., N. Y., 1895; Rendall, The Emperor Julian, Lond., 1879; Sozom., vi., 2; Theodoret, iii., 25.

[128:2] Sozom., vi., 3.

[128:3] Cod. Theod., xvi., 10, 12.

[128:4] Cod. Justin, i., 1, 1.

CHAPTER VIII
THE COUNCIL OF NICÆA AND ITS RESULTS

Outline: I.—Diversion of Christian thought in the early Church. II.—The Arian controversy. III.—The Council of Nicæa and its actions. IV.—Later history of Arianism. V.—Sources.

Early Christianity was characterised by a remarkable intellectual activity, which was chiefly theological and philosophical. Speculative discussions were rife, particularly in the East, where the different philosophical systems were prominent. Jesus left no definite creed, which all could understand alike.[131:1] The Ante-Nicene period was full of sharp and bitter theological and ecclesiastical antagonisms. Such an epoch of dissension and division the world was not to witness again until the dawn of the Protestant Revolt.

Christian converts came from Judaism, and from various types of paganism, hence at the very outset there was a tendency to create two distinct types of Christianity—the Jewish and the non-Jewish. This lack of unity and uniformity was clearly seen and sneered at by the pagan scholars.[131:2] This was Origen's significant explanation:

Seeing that Christianity appeared an object of veneration to men, and not to the labouring and serving classes alone, but also to many among the Greeks who were devoted to literary pursuits, there necessarily originated sects, not at all as a result of faction and strife, but through the earnest desire of many literary men to enter more profoundly into the truths of Christianity. The consequence was, that understanding differently those things which were considered divine by all, there arose sects, which received their names from men who admired Christianity in its fundamental nature, but from a variety of causes reached discordant views.

Among the heretical sects of the Ante-Nicene period were:

1. The Ebionites,[132:1] who were Judaising Christians as shown in the book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles. They desired to be both Jews and Christians, and ended by being neither. They soon divided up into many sects.[132:2] They lived in and about Palestine for the first three centuries of the Christian era. They believed that God made the world and gave the Mosaic law, which was still essential to salvation; that Jesus was the Messiah, though not divine, only a great man like Moses and David; but they denounced Paul and heroised James and Peter. They observed the Jewish Sabbath, retained the rite of circumcision, and observed the law. In the minds of the great body of orthodox Christians they were regarded as heretics.

2. The Gnostics[132:3] embraced various factions, mostly

pagan converts to Christianity, which flourished in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt chiefly during the second century. Their ideas can be traced back to Philo's Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy, to Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, and to the old Egyptian religion. Knowledge, above all else, was the one thing desired. Believing in the inherent evil of matter, they sought to account for a bad world without compromising God. Jehovah of the Old Testament was rejected as the Supreme Being. They cast aside all the New Testament except the Pauline Epistles and parts of the Gospels. They professed to apprehend the divine mysteries. Some advocated asceticism, and others gave the utmost license to the flesh. All believed in the idea of the evolution of the world, through Christ, to an ideal state. Although denounced as heretics, they left a marked influence on Christianity. Gnosticism was so speculative, however, that it gave rise to many leaders and creeds.

3. The Manichæans[133:1] accepted Gnosticism minus true Christianity and adopted Oriental dualism under Christian names. Manichæism originated with Mani about 238 in Persia and spread westward over the Christian Church. Its leading principle was absolute dualism—a kingdom of light and one of darkness in eternal opposition, yet brought together by a sort of pantheism. Christianity was accepted, but explained in terms of this dualism. The Old Testament was

wholly rejected as well as parts of the New. The elevated priesthood celebrated the secret rites of baptism and communion with solemn pomp, lived as ascetics, possessed no property, and abstained from wine and animal food. This system, claiming to be true Christianity, had a marked influence on both the doctrines and organisation of the Church.[134:1]

4. The Monarchians[134:2] denied the doctrine of the Trinity, but were divided into a number of groups. The Alogoi in the second century rejected all of the Apostle John's works and denied the eternity of the Logos as a person of the Godhead. Theodatus, a leather dealer of Byzantium, went to Rome in 190 and taught that Jesus was a "mere man" till baptism gave him divine attributes. Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, was excommunicated in 269 for advocating the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, God. He maintained that Jesus was a divinely begotten man exalted to divine dignity by the Holy Spirit or Logos—an attribute of God. Praxeas of Asia Minor visited Rome about 195 and later preached in Carthage. He held that the Father and Christ were one and attributed the "Passion" to God, hence his party were called the Patripassians. Sabellianism was simply another form of this heresy and helped to precipitate the Arian controversy.

In addition to these four heretical sects there were three distinct reactionary and reforming parties:

1. Montanism[135:1] originated, like so many radical movements, in Asia Minor (150?). Montanus professed to have received a message from the "Paraclete" to reform the growing worldliness and the lax ecclesiastical discipline of the Church. Montanists denounced the innovations introduced into the Church, and sought to return to the simpler and purer doctrines and organisation of the early Church. They preached a universal priesthood of all believers. In exalting virginity, widowhood, and martyrdom, in professing a contempt for the world with all its excesses, and in insisting upon an arbitrary holiness, Montanism was a force paving the way for ascetic Christianity. They accepted all the fundamental principles of the Church, but professed to receive special divine revelations from the "Paraclete," as the Holy Ghost was called. They lived in constant expectation of the coming of the end of the world. Tertullian was their greatest apologist. But both the Christian hierarchy and the imperial power were turned against these reforming puritans. Under Justinian Montanism disappeared (532).

2. The Novatianists[135:2] withdrew from the Church protesting against the readmission of those who through fear deserted the Church in the Decian persecution (249-251). They were strong in North Africa and Asia Minor, and continued until the sixth century,

absorbing most of the Montanists. In doctrine and organisation they did not differ from the regular Church, but only on the question of discipline. They also laid unusual stress on the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Their churches were still found in the fifth century in Rome till closed by Innocent I.

3. The Donatists[136:1] grew out of the Montanist opposition to laxity and innovation in the Church and Novatian strictness of discipline. The Donatists denounced the Christians who during the Diocletian persecution delivered up the Scriptures, and tried to drive them out of the Church. The party centred in Carthage and was led by Bishop Donatus. They believed in ecclesiastical purism, held the Church to be an exclusive society of saved sinners, emphasised inner holiness as a qualification of membership, asserted the necessity of baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, said unholy priests could not administer the sacraments, advocated rigid discipline, resisted the union of Church and state, and were organised as a hierarchy. They were very active in the early part of the fourth century, and attempted to secure the support of Constantine. He decided against them and tried to quiet them. Emperor Julian favoured them, but Augustine sought their overthrow. Finally the Vandals swept them away.

The Arian controversy was a natural product of the early differences about the nature of the Godhead and was distinctly connected with the Ebionites, Gnostics, Montanists, and Sabellians. In the Eastern speculation about the mystery of the Holy Trinity, one faction

of theorists tended to "refine the Deity into a mental conception"; another to "impersonate Him into a material being." Between these extremes arose the discussion about "the nature and relation between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."[137:1] Tertullian and Origen both attempted to solve the problem. Dionysius of Alexandria (260), in a contest with the Sabellians, is reported to have declared: "The Son of God is a work and a creature, not appertaining to Him by nature, but as regards His essence, as foreign to the Father as the husbandman to the vine . . . For as a creature, he did not exist before he was produced."[137:2] Dionysius of Rome, backed up by a synod, repudiated that proposition and clearly stated the orthodox Trinitarian view. Origen widened the breach by asserting the eternal divinity of Christ, but at the same time maintaining also His subordination to the Father as a "secondary God." The conflicting schools of theology at Alexandria and Antioch were ready to take sides in the controversy, which reached a crisis at the end of the third century, when all theological thought was focused on this one question.

The controversy broke out in Alexandria in 318.[137:3] Bishop Alexander in a public address insisted on the interpretation of the eternity of the Son. Arius, a presbyter, charged the bishop with Sabellianism, which advocated an undivided Godhead, and held that Christ

was a creature of God, hence not coexistent and eternal.[138:1] He and his followers held that God alone was eternal; that He created the Son, or Logos, by His fiat, hence the Son is different in essence and finite; that the Son was created before time was and in turn made the universe and rules it; that the Son is Logos in soul, stands between God and man, and is to be worshipped as the most exalted of creatures, the creator and ruler of the world, and the Redeemer of men. It was contended that all these propositions could be proved beyond dispute from the Bible.[138:2]

Alexander, in a personal interview, sought to stop Arius,[138:3] who was an old priest in control of the most influential church in the city,—a proud, learned, ambitious, and fascinating man,[138:4] who, defeated in his candidacy for the arch-episcopacy of Alexandria,[138:5] began to foment social and religious circles by attacking Alexander. Failing to quiet him, Alexander called a synod to discuss the disputed points, but Arius seemed to carry the day and continued his agitation. Then the bishop commanded Arius and his followers to renounce their "impiety."[138:6] Refusing to obey, Arius was called before a local council in 320 and there excommunicated.[138:7] But Arius now spread his views all the more zealously by conversation, by letters, by sermons, and later, while an exile, in a poetic work called The Banquet. His doctrines pleased the

wide-spread rationalism, and hence became very popular. They were put into popular songs and sung everywhere, and became the chief topic of conversation in all social circles. Arius, however, was forced to flee[139:1] to Palestine and thence to Nicomedia, while Alexander drew up his encyclic to all Christian Bishops (323)[139:2] giving the history of the controversy and defending the Trinitarian position.

The eastern part of the Empire broke up into two powerful parties: the Arians and the Trinitarians or Athanasians. "In every city bishops were engaged in obstinate conflict with bishops and people rising against people."[139:3] Theology became mere technology. Staunch partisans came forth as champions on both sides—Eusebius, the Church historian, Eusebius, the Bishop of Nicomedia, Chrysostom, Theodore, and Ephraëm stood for Arianism; while Athanasius, Marcellus, Basil, Cyril, and Blind Didymus became Alexander's supporters. In a short time the whole Eastern Church became a "metaphysical battle-field." Finally both sides appealed to Constantine, who, viewing the contest as a war of words, wrote a common letter and sent it by his court-bishop to both leaders in which he said that the quarrel was childish and unworthy such churchmen; that moreover it was displeasing to him personally, hence they were asked to stop it.[139:4] When this imperial request failed, Constantine summoned the Council of Nicæa to settle the dispute.[139:5]

The Council of Nicæa was summoned by the Emperor

for the summer of 325. Constantine's purpose in convening it was to settle by compromise or otherwise religious disputes which might easily become a political danger to the Empire. It was the first universal council of Christendom. Of the two thousand persons in attendance more than three hundred were bishops.[140:1] All of the thirteen provinces in the Empire except Britain were represented.[140:2] All the West, however, sent but six representatives—good proof that the Arian controversy was an Eastern question. The Bishop of Rome was too old to go so he sent two presbyters to represent him.[140:3] Even a few pagan philosophers were attracted to the Council, and actually took part in the discussions.[140:4]

In organising the Council the bishops were seated according to rank.[140:5] Discussions occurred for some time before Constantine arrived. Then the Emperor entered "as a messenger from God, covered with gold and precious stones, a magnificent figure, tall and slender, and full of grace and majesty." He opened the Council with these words: "When I was told of the division amongst you, I was convinced that I ought not to attend to any business before this; and it is from the desire of being useful to you that I have convened you without delay; but I shall not believe my end to be attained until I have united the minds of all, until I see that peace and that union reign amongst you which you are commissioned as the anointed of the

Lord to preach to others."[141:1] He took part in the deliberations also and acted as the real head of the Council, though the Spanish Bishop Hosius probably served as the spiritual president.[141:2] Only bishops or their accredited proxies had a vote.

Three distinct parties immediately appeared in the Council: (1) The Arians led by Arius. Twenty bishops with Eusebius of Nicomedia at their head constituted the voting party. (2) The Semi-Arians were led by Eusebius of Cæsarea, the Church historian. They had a majority and were inclined partly to the Arians and partly to the orthodox side. (3) The Trinitarians, or orthodox party, led by Alexander, Hosius, Macarius, Marcellus, and Athanasius. At the outset they were in the minority, but soon came to control the Council.

Unfortunately the authentic minutes of the transactions are not now extant,[141:3] if indeed they ever existed. The Arians, it appears, came to the Council confident of victory because the Emperor's sister Constantia was an avowed Arian, and he himself was supposed to be a sympathiser, since so many scholars about him upheld the doctrine. But when Arius presented his creed signed by eighteen eminent names, it created an uproar, the creed was seized and torn to pieces, and its doctrines repudiated. All the signers but Arius and two bishops then abandoned the project. Eusebius of Cæsarea came forward at this juncture with an old

Palestine creed as a compromise.[142:1] It acknowledged the divine nature of Jesus. The Emperor favoured it, and the Arians were willing to accept it, but Athanasius was suspicious and demanded so many changes that when, after two months of solemn discussion, the amended creed was passed,[142:2] Eusebius, the originator, hesitated to sign it. This was a grand triumph for the orthodox party. The Emperor required all bishops to subscribe to it.[142:3] The Semi-Arians did so under protest. Arius and two Egyptian bishops[142:4] refused and were banished to Illyria.[142:5] Arius was publicly excommunicated and his writings ordered burned. The business of the Council concluded, Constantine dismissed it with a splendid feast which Eusebius likened to the kingdom of Heaven.[142:6]

The results of Nicæa were very significant:

1. The Church was given its first written creed, the Nicene Creed—the basis of all later creeds, Greek, Latin, and Evangelical.[142:7] This was the first official definition of the Trinity and has continued to be the orthodox interpretation. The Nicene Creed contains all the cardinal Christian doctrines. It was universally proclaimed as imperial law.

2. Church canons were enacted—the West accepts twenty, the East more—which constitute the basis for

the canon law of the Middle Ages.[143:1] These canons indicate the burning questions in the Church at that time.

3. The method of calculating the date for Easter, which differed in Eastern churches and Western churches, was determined.[143:2]

4. This Council, guided, as was believed, by the Holy Ghost, acted as the infallible, sovereign power of the Church and set precedents which later conflicted with the supreme power claimed by the Pope.

5. The development of the papal hierarchy was stimulated. The Bishop of Rome was recognised as the only Patriarch in the West.[143:3] He was soon forced to be the recognised champion of orthodoxy.

6. The Council of Nicæa marks the beginning of the breach between the East and the West which resulted in the first great schism in Christendom.

7. The law of celibacy was almost imposed on the Church.[143:4]

8. Interference in the most vital concerns of the Church was recognised as an imperial prerogative. The Emperor called the Council, presided over its proceedings, acted as mediator between contending factions, forced the Nicene Creed on the Church, fixed the day for celebrating Easter, and approved the first ecclesiastical canons.

9. The various heresies and schisms of the time were condemned. This action threw into prominent relief throughout the Empire the powerful party of

orthodox Catholics, who henceforth were to control the destinies of the Church in both its internal and external organisation and evolution.

The condemnation of Arianism was only a temporary victory. Soon Constantine himself was won over by the Arians, invited Arius to his court, and ordered Athanasius, who meanwhile had become Bishop of Alexandria (328), to reinstate Arius in his parish. Athanasius refused to do so, and was condemned and deposed by the councils of Tyre (334) and of Constantinople (335), and exiled by the Emperor to Treves in Gaul. Arius died before he could be recalled (336). Constantine II. restored Athanasius to his see (338), but his brother Constantius and his Arian friends deposed him again (339). Athanasius then fled to Pope Julius at Rome (339), who laid his case before a Western council (341) which vindicated both his creed and his rights. This supreme appellate power assumed by the Bishop of Rome is significantly prophetic.

To heal the Arian conflict, which was again active—this time between the East and the West,—the Council of Sardica was called in 343. The Roman party controlled it, reconfirmed the Nicene Creed, and adopted twelve new canons. The Arians refused to take part and held a rump council. The result was a wider separation of the East and the West.[144:1] Under Constantius, however, the Arian party grew stronger, held the three Arian councils of Sirmium (351), Arles (353), and Milan (355), forced their decrees upon the whole Church, exiled Hosius, Hilary, and Lucifer, drove Athanasius, who had meanwhile once more

returned to his office (346), out of his see, and even deposed Pope Liberius[145:1] and elected an Arian Pope, Felix II., in his place. Thus the Arian party seemed triumphant East and West.

But the Arians soon split into bitter factions and began to destroy themselves. Under Emperor Julian they lost imperial favour and saw the Nicene party tolerated. The orthodox faction was thus able to gradually re-win power in the West and South. Theodosius the Great (379-395) externally completed the Nicene conquest of the whole Empire through an imperial edict (380) and by calling the second general Council of Constantinople (381), which ratified the Nicene Creed in a revised form and passed seven additional canons.[145:2] But Arianism lingered long within the Empire, especially among the Teutons, who were slow to accept the Roman faith—the Vandals in 530, the Burgundians in 534, the Suevi in 560, the Goths in 587, and the Longobards in 600.[145:3] It also reappeared again and again in the later heresies on down to the present day.