Archives Zernov Doctoral-Thesis 1932

X
<Ug~> C , W
/ /.J
J&n
CJ'"
fT\
Check German
footnc
c a r e f u l i-i
(& n i t t t f o f the p K M n s o f Cfeordh

t M i t f tress t&e scl of tli# f i r s t t i l l
tfes
#S.SM
o f tfa# fetsrtit oim&sry),
JD3*ts
'' 4M~
(^J^-e^
i/'
fllli.Sl.
Jmong the various tasks that demand 'the attention, of

the Christian churches at the present day, the problem of their
unity assumes as ever-increasing importance.
Jhere is nowadays
a tendency to consider it as one of the key problems, without a

proper solution of which many other momentous questions will
never be adequately settled by the Christians.
the post-war
years have been remarkable for particularly intense investigations

into the question of the reunion of the Churches a but although
considerable achievements is this direction have been realized,
the general state of Modern Christendom is still * % - remote
froa the possibility of a genuine organic unity,
there are siany doctrinal, institutional, national and
psychological reasons for the deep gulfs dividing the Christians
of to-day into various antagonistic churches, confessions and
denominations. . Sash of these causes needs dealing with
separately, and unless the majority of them can be either
removed or elucidated, the visible unity of the Church will
scarcely be achieved, ' Which of tlies is chiefly responsible for
fostering the present divisions it is impossible to declares but
it is certain that all are important and none can
be neglected.
This latter fact* however, has not been'^recognised in past

negotiations, and one may say that the great Majority of
theologians have approached the problem of Christian divisions
mainly fros the point of view'of those doctrinal controversies
whieh, as a rule, accompanied each of the most important splits
in the Church, and has attempted to restore Christian unity by
means of doctrinal agreement.
This method,' valuable though
it iss has never "been able to achieve its end, for the reason
that these doctrinal divergencies were not tthe sole cause of the
Christian disunion.
-^sd-:i#':::that^-*as~so-f-oraerly no that there
'fMs- %& must* m&ww Qtesflf
wmli&$&. nsw when t h e r e
I g i gjpevlss. andtaHraianfflUag CKP t h e e e e i s i iBpZioa&ions

of Sitireh l i f e .
*ttiis haa- s M e t h e cSsristiasas aware
odf fite aed ffcr a resb *p$f*M&l* t # the- preblsm of

0bt3?(gb t i s i t f # nisieti t&laas I n t o aeooimt t h e wide rmkge
of th$## ipi.tis f&oios* ntsiettfeiwyfeenresponsible
f o r t h e l e s s of I t *
ftt#- i&tappoji of t h i s egay is- t o B t n l j scsie- e-enf i i s t s ^feifife a-tsarrei -.cltiriEg t h e first.' tow? oenturie
o f GhsFelt t*i s t o r y ant ili-its threw l i ^ h t both ppon the
conception of mrsfe taalty h e l d by t h e e a r l j Christians*
asd tapon t h e i r methods of dealing i?ith the
t h a t seree-ii m<mg then.*
fiiTisiens
t h i s period has a d i r e c t bear
i n g !t^B t h e risii0S siOTameat t M a f * for Sirring those

ittiri#S: the- CSbtsaNfe f oas&4 tetter m&mm f o r p r e servissg tier naitf- t h she h&i. l a t e r *
ilsi a t the s-arae
time t h e .groisii. was feeing prepaarei then for those

t r a g i c as b i t t e r ooisfliots utiiiii hair since disturbed
her l i f e ,
t h e f i r s t fotar c e n t u r i e s were @ r i c h i n jsosentous
tents t l m t sly a four of th@a eoi&ci We t r e a t e d here*
and ##u these h a w feafi t o fee -dealt with only ascler
-eertsia- inspects?*
,fh# pages demoted- t o the lew Testanent
a s e t r i s e -s l&stspet* tssity. a r e not -Intended a s a s p e c i a l

study of i t * tmt g i s p l j a# a -general stassaarf of the
jfeir fstaneat t#a#feiag na t h i s matter as i t i s cotamoisly
asoepted by th@ Sagtern Q.f,th@s ShFh
flie l a s t shuftor of t h i s -sunf iftsltises seise pro*
I d e a l s r e i t s t i s g to the p r e s e n t reimioia s^veasent* ftiieh
t t e bees etjggesteS by t h i s study t o i t s author*
BIBLIQSEAPfflT.
OtlQliAL SQBBglS.
AMBSOSJ0S.
Vin&ob.
AMBROSE.
Prague
Opera. Pars. I-TI Ed. So&enkl.

Lips. lS$iSW^X..
Epistles. -A Library of tire Fa there.

Oxford 13S2.
AMMXASBS MlieSLLIKJS.f^,^**^^^^ /J<&W./*//

"
;/
A7HABASI8S.
M . B. Xoimg. . London, 1862*

Select Writings and Letters.
Ed* Sobertson. Oxford, 1892.
AGIBLIBS (VXGtOS SlXfSS).
Bletorlae Hoaanae Breviarum de
Sses&ribus.
eXPRIAStfS.
Ed. Schottius. Antwerp, 1579
pera Osmia. ' Ed. S. Haltel. Vlndob,

1888-71.
10SSBIUS.
Werk.
Ed. SoUartg 12. f. Moiaasen.
Leipzig,
\%&r\$0$.
KireliengeeoMc&te*
Heransg. T . |F. Sbwartz.
Leipzig, 19G$-W.
Scc.l* list. ' Sras. by M*Giffert.
lioene and post Ifissn Fathers.
wm^JIU^z-^P^Î^F^l^^^ffl
Oxford,
HlPPOLYfPS.
Beftttatinis Omnium MaereeiujB.

S i t t i n g s * ! , 1 8 9 < Ctu4e*.,%i.
IBilAEUS.
L i b r i ûinqu- A&versus Haereses*

Sd. W. Harvey.-
LAffAIflOS.
0aipi&. 1 8 5 7 .
He Mortibus Perseouiorunu
Laubnaarm Bd. I A I I .
MUSI*
Ed. Brandt &

? i n d o b , 1890-07.
{ateneiliarum Osniuis Sova e t Amplissiâ

Soliectio.
OFfATSS.
e
Bunker,
i$mf
P a r i s , 1884.
fie Sofaissat BonatistoruEJ.

l i n d o b , 189S.
Ed. Ziwsa.
- 2 ~
PSI&GSfORSIgS*
The I c e l e s l a s t i o a l H i s t o r y by Waiford.
SOPEAflS.
Engi, I S .
London, 18S8.
l i s i o r i a Ecclesiastics..
fid.
lussey.
Oxf. 1855*
SOZOIII.
Hiatx*ia S e e l e s l a s t i c a .
Ed. Btissey.
Oxf* I 8 6 0 . .
flEOBOREEOS.
Kirc&engeso&icnte*
L. Pars&ntier*
Herausg* v .
Leipzig^ 1 8 1 1 .
A p o s t o l i s C o n s t i t u t i o n s . Ed. H. 2 a t t a i n ,
Lond. 1846*
Opera Pafcrnie Aposfcolorusj.
P . X, ftsnlc
P a t r o l o g l a L&tina.
m
S?aeca
V o l s . I & 11
fUbingen, 1 8 8 ? .
}
)
)
Ed. Migne.
'She t e s t a m e n t of eur Lord*

J Cooper - A Maelean.
Ed. by
E d i n , 1902.
- 3
smommi, msmmM:ms,
1 . A61ELIS.
Die altesfcen due l i e n des O r i e n t a l *

'Kirohenreolit.
Bippolyti*
Ek* I I .
Bk 1 .
Die Ganones
L e i p z i g , 1891
l i e Spîseh B i & a s k a l i a .
L e i p z i g , 1905.
B i p p o l y t s Studiuis.
L e i p z i g , 1897.
l i e Qhr l a t e n t urn i n dem e r s t en &rei

ifahrlsunderten.
ABA! (X.)
Leipzig,, 1912.
Ber Eirenenlbegriff
fertullians,
Pader"born a 1907*
l e u e Ifntersucfeungen Hfcer d i e Or sprung
der Eirchliohen P r i s a t s l e h r e .
f h e o l . Quartalso-br. 1928 S & S H e f t .
AXflLOIOFF ( . ) f h e Cftureh.
A.. B*ALES*
1894 ( I n R u s s i a n )
P a r i s , 19 : 22.
La flaeeiGgie de S t . i y p r i a n .
B o v a t i e n . Etudes de Theol H i s t .
l a p t i s E and C o n f i r m a t i o n .
P a r i s , 1924*
Lond. 1929.
A~LI? ISAf OS ( I ) Die k i r e n l i c h e Sestetzge"feung des K a i s e r s

J u s t i n i a n 1.
ALLARB ( P . )
La P e r s e c u t i o n de B i o o l e t i o n e t l e trioisphe
de l ' E g l i s e .
B e r l i n , 1915.
Vol. I & 11.
P a r i s , 1890.
Le C h r i s t i a n i s s e e t l*E&pire Remain.
P a r i s , 1897.
BAKU ( G , P . )
Const ant i n e t h e t r e a t .
Lend. 1 9 5 1 .
SAS1ESHE13S ( 0 . ) eseMoht d e r a l t k i r e h l i c h e n
Literatur.
v . I . 1915 (S e d . ) v . I I . 1914 (2 e d . )
v . I I I . - 1925* v . IV. 1 9 2 4 .
BAJIFFOL ( P . )
P a t r o l ogle..
Freiburg,
Freiburg?
i/Br.
I/Sr.
L*Sglise n a i s s a n t e e t l e C a t h o l i c i s m .
S ed P a r i s , 1909.
Priialti"?e Catholicism ( I t s E n g l . T r a n s . )
Lond. 1 9 1 1 .
BAflFFOL (F)
La Paix {Joastantinienn e t 1 Catholicisms

P a r i s , I f I I ; . Snd. ed.
! Siege Apostolique*
he Eglaem,t ds Premiers Ckraoiles Africains,
Paris, 1924.
La s t a p e s de l a ^ o n f s r s i o c d Const a n t i n .
{Both, i a the Bulletim. d*aaaoieiine l i t t e r s t y r e a t d*arohol.

Caret.
P a r l a , 1915).
"Priaa aatbedra*
journal of Theol. Stud.
pot. 1924.
fl
Catholicism and Pap&oy*
London, 1985.
and SiSSZEl. I*es SiinriYamess dm Suite Imperial

losaia.
BAD CHI.)
Paris, IfgO.
Zvtr, Amferoaius^fheodosius frage. Theol.

Qtiariai. x^* 1#0*
SA1BS (I.)
Optatms.
BtlfOM Cf)
ffca Primitive Church and the privacy of

lose-.
Jesaraal of Yh, St, Oct. 1924.
ko-nd. 1909.
BAHTLIf {-J*. }.aud A* J. 0AIL1L1. Shristianitj ia Historj.

Lond. 101?..
BilSOS (E.W.) Gyprian, Ills life, M s tiass, M s work.
Load. lg.Sf
BBfSMAl BASSE (J*) .She ise&Bisg of Somoousios in the
Done taxi* read,
(Saafe. fsxt arid
Stadi@s Vol. 11. 1905).

BOXD fi.K.)
fii@ Soolesi&etioal edicts of the Theodosian

#ode.
SQLQp$OW (Prof* A)
Sew 'fork, 19OS.
leetures on .the Si story of the
Aneis&t "Church.
3SSEIIK?E (W.)
Vol. I-I (is Russian)
Codsx Caaen* Seolesiae. Prim.

ol* XII of Mis Thaolog. Works.
Oxf. 1848.
BBim im.)
t h e o r i g i n of C h r i s t i a n i t y .
Age t h e F a t h e r s *
Oxf. 1909.
2*ond* I 9 0 S .
file SosmB See i n t h e E a r l y S h u r c h .
Lond. 1898
mmmim. (a.-)
fin du Pagan!sse
11011 ( I , A . )
State Control of industry la the IYth

Century.
Paris, 1897.
Cfb Pel. So* Quart.
?ol. II. S.}

SlWJulfiS ( B . )
Issai sur 1 cult rendu aux Ssspereurs

Ssasios,
Paris, 1890,
'le Quite Imperial | Son Hlstoire et sots

organisation depuie Augusts JusQti'a
fustiniem,
Btl&Mf (#.)
file Canons f the First Four General

Oounolle*
&B0QLXE (LS Bl@ A, 08-)

'"
Paris, 18&1.
0*f Ig'fS.
Saint Aatorose. . Load. 1899.

Lflglise et l*&apire lomain au
Ifilecle* 1*111.
Paris,. 1866-1866.
H U L L -{a. A.)
Per Spiaeopat um& die Ignat1sen Briefe.

Cfiieel. guartqlsohr. Tol. #1. 1879).
B08KBA88? {!,}
Bie Zeit Kens tan timus dee grossen.

. Jtefg, Leipzig* 1880.
Bimsift (y.c.)
la fly Christianity outside the Boman Empire.

Caafa. 1899
IWI,
{3*B*}
History of the Later gossan Empire.

Load 1988.
BRXLLIABTO? (Pr A*)' the Arias controversy before the

1st Oeeua. Council.
St. Peters^
19IS (in Sussian}

BQSL6AKGSF (Pr. S.)
Study, of the teaching about the

Church (in .lusslaa) Put, Tol. I-IV.
Paris, 1986.
SASEOL (DOM. P)
B i e t i o n n a i r e t f Archeologle o h r e t i e n n e
t de L i t o p g i e *
SALtKHf (J*>
1-5
L*Xtolon d e s B g l i s e s .
P a r i s , 1905-31.
P a r i s , 2981.
.SAMPSISAIISI1 (&.. T * 5 Aa&roaius a l a K i r e h e t a p o l i t i k e r .

fieriin,
GABKQlf (Sf "&)
eiSP&fi.fs)
1929,
th a t e r n Orthodox'Church.
file
Lond. 1SS9,
El t a s t e roiaiseli S i s e h o f s l i s r e n *
B e r l i n , 19S6.
Kleine Beitr&ge zur alteren Papstgeso M o h t a , . (Zeitsohr. ffkr Kirohg.

3CLXX *f QffiP? 1*
OAKLlfLS (A -)
The influence of Christianity upon

Social and Political ideas.
Londoa. 1912.
SARLJIiE (A.f. & J.S..)
A history of KedieYal Politioal

theory in the West*
8. Vol. Edin.
1905-1988.
S&lPiBTlE (J.6.)
Supernatural leligion and its relation

to Democracy.
Lend, 1952.
Satholio Encyclopedia.
I-XV.
lew York, 1907-18.

CAVALLEfiA.
Le Sohiane O'Antioeh.
Paris, 1905.
eS&PMAlI (Dos. J.) Lea. interpolations d&as le trait de

St'= Gyprien stir I1 unite de I'Eglise.
(8ev, Bsned. 1902-1905}.
*
Bishop Clors and t h e Q a t h o l i o o l a i t e s .

.Lend. 1915,
Donates t h e reat and Donatus of

Sasae l i g r a e .
(S@v. Bened. J a n . 1909)
P r o f . Koch on St Oyprlan.
{Sev. Boned. Oct. 1 9 1 0 ) .
Studies a the Early Papacy.
Lend. 1988.
f -
0H1IOI (!#
has Consequences ^W ! Mieii#s d L s M i t

&' li|,si% 19I
(HoweXle Eev.
Sisrt* Maa*e*?*13. 19M,

UOM, A* ft* fSIIlOLLf *
The 00 ealled Egyptian Church
0rd@f*#
{Text aifi St 13d* o l . 8 n, 4
viwfcpMge lit)*
StEliSf! | s 4
P8g*e0V$io]i &s& Tolerance*
ônd, 1895.
Cî'f!lM |SB*|
A l i t e r a r y History %h& Early OhnretH

Lepd* ISSf*
DALE (AW)
T&e Synod. of Elvira*
Iiocd* 1888.
D&WSOl (OE.)
P r o c e s s food Boligioa*
'QEiiKl (E#)
p$f>sl'tgm#
Uill (S*|
IOSKI
kosd, X0S9
1*02*1 If IS*
Society i s t h e l a s t century of
t h e f e s t e r s . Empire*
dBSSR CF*11
S ed Ifond* 1899.
Komt&afcin d- gr ,tiai seine Z e i t .

{Sxsppl. SBC, d e r r8ia.
Qtiartalschr.
29 111 .
u
Koiastaiitis. d e r grosses asaeh setferen

Fcsrssircsgsm {The!* # XIII 1914),
BQLLIlfiH <J.)
*
*
Slppdlyt sad f a l l i s t u s .
Slroite urA JCSôhesi.
M i a . .1876.
Stashes, 1861*
L e c t w e s #a t h e Eeimios of Churches.
X*eixi ISfS.
DJOBlSfiB#{I*)
Bglises 8epar
P a r t s , 2 ed. 1905 *
g i s t o i r e SBOissue @ l*Eglis
oI i -
CI -st*} i i * (4 a*) P a r i s , 1910*11.
Let deomaests #oleeissticpes &vs* l e s

d i v i s i o n s t I*JiEf i r e So-main am IV
Sideliu
Cfi#lasg@B
fey*.Parlss
ISM)
*> 0 .
11IS1ES1E ( L . )
La q u e s t i o n & I s pi-foe am C o a e i l e
'''
a JSieee*
f.
{fteTiie d e s Q,uest.
XiEfXIJ 1S80|*
L f e n s i l e
fi*hrire*
d e s iarnt Etiaies*
list.
( B l b l * fie L*eeole
Fase, ? s .
Le f j e e s i e r ' d u oast ism*
P a r i s , 188*$.
{Melanges
&*.&rcfcel. t d* H i s t ire # F s s c , IY-V.

189)*
Brei Aktene/*1*^
iiSfSgI
omatissias*
ESSSf ( J * )
*
zra? Oesehiohte des
l r l i n 18f
Si Ke$zert&iângeleg^:oiieii.
file
Maiia2f 1901
S t e l l i m g d e r ros&sclaen Kirch z n r
Keta-ertaiaf f r a g e .
( f h e o l * Q u a r t a l 190S
ill!* /
P&pst S t e p l "sad d e r K e t z e r t a u f s t r e n t .
(fors-elaaiiges ztir C h r i s t . t i t . und
Copses fesoli* E h r k a r d t *
Vol. I . 1905).
Z e i t land H e i s a t d e r L i b e r de Refcapt.
Cffeeol, Q u a r t . 1908 I ? b .
1609 I * } .
lew iat^rsu.haiigii itoer Cjpri&n tmd

den K e t a e r t a i a f s t r e l t .
(tbeol. $taartal.
1911. 8. Left).
*
Syfri&m nad d a s Papsttiams.
F l i t e i l l i i O F F (&*&}
Mainz, 1912.
S a i n t Jresaeias of Lyons.
St. Peter36^
191?.. C'im R u s s i a n )
FIQEM& (P*S.)
S t u d i e s z u r Sipp-olyfcusf rag *
Leipzig,
less*
F I S f l (*r*l)
Qosstamtine t& S r e a t .
lew Tort:,
. LsaU.l9C@..
FLieilEft.
S i s t o i r e d Xbsodose l e pand,
FL&SS1 CF*I#)
Kortstantin gr a l s e r s t e r O k r i s t . K a i s e r
wfeatoarg, i 9 i
f o u r s , 1860.
- 9
FOESim (tli*)
Aa&Bteatvm* i & l l e , 1884
FSLBffEL (LvAt>'b&) L#s p r e a Af st.olif@s
PB1K ( F , X . )
St* eypriext,
Ps?is
P a r i s , 1859
ie Eebtfaeit d e r I g r m t i a a B r i e f e .
ftbia,
Idas*
_M@- Apost H a s h e s KenstXititionen*

.. Rfet embers, 18.91 #
Ofe r a P a t r i i s Apost @lctn&*
ls. I & I I .
Tftbl&gsn, 1869
Kiri&herngea^&ieis&liohe Abharadluagen und
Mz&evamQteimfgm* B%* I - I i l .
P a t e r b o r a , 1897-190?.
B i s d a s t e l i a e t f o n s t * Apostol* Tea.
' I'ft I I *
Faderborn, 1905-190S.
' ''Das f esfcaiaeufe lanseres Hera..
Maiaz* 1 9 0 1 .
-A Manuel ef SlnaroM H l s t e r y , ? I & I I .

' London, 19.14.
fASQ!Jfif(A4
-L*'Empr Sr@e
e t l e s i a r b a r e s , Glersu
P@Frs.2idj, 1887.
"BsX* s u t o r . i t ^ i s p e r i a l en i s a t i e r e
3?ligie*ase a Byzanee.
P a r i s , 1879.
S t u d i e s at r i b a t e d t t h e Dublin Review.
West, 104SlFFSIEi (J,).
Her tea gang d e r p*ieeJaisGl2*Snischen

' SeidentUBs
GERES :(Fr,} '
Eeiffel* I9SG*
Bie S t e l l a n g des e r s t e n lessens B r i e f e s

d e r Sxitwlcklung d e r a l r e r k i r o h
emeis&erverf'ass'ufig ead. des K i r e h s n raobtV
SIBBOI .()
L e i p z i g * 1931*
fli0 H i s t c r y f t h e d e c l i n e and f a l l of
t h e R o s a s Esspire*
I d . by J , i , Bury.
~ 10 -
GORE (Oh.)-
Eei&& f a t b o l i o P l a i n s #
I*ond 1909*
GR&BISOH ( J . )
MB'ps&ydo @ypri&alBc2i$ S e M f t ad
IoatiasM . ( K i r o h e n g e s c h .
AblmKdl. Ii#rausg B r . S d r a l e k .
i r e s l a i a 1904}
SluroBolGgi d X* Suspire Eoisaiiie,
P a r i s , 18SI*
SWAfKll Cil
S t d i e s of A r i a a i s m .
2 e d . Gamb, 1900.
S a s e M n s of aesarea*
BALL <K.)
Lond*. 1902* 2 ed
Dei'. lêlieslj |p* i f f des Paulus i n

r!h&ltmis s u p d e r Urgemeiride.
(Sitsiffigslsr. d* p r s u s s . A&ad* d .
fissensoli. gesiii.
ffibingen,
Aiafsltze.
II.
19S8).
Pie Zeit dss I g n a t i u s ,
L e i p z i g * 18?8
Bie Llir d s r Ewilf A p o s t e l .
L e i p z i g , 1884.
l i e Brief dea rSsiiaehen S l e r u s aits d e r

2 e i t d e r SedisTOoass; SS0*
AbJiandl. a r l f,
ifaeol.
Weiscac&er.
F r e i b u r g , 1888 }
l i e (^sells&jmftsvgrfassimg
der
Christlieh& K l r e h e n im A l t e r t u s u
lessen, i s S l * '
@seMhte d e r al&felreh.*
Id* I ~ I I .
Mteratur.
Xtelpsig, 1898*1904>
H i s t o r y of logsia.
Engl* t r a n s . V o l .
I - . J I I . 'I.093&. 1894.
Souross of the- A p o s t o l i c anons.
Loud. !
l a s 2*e"keji'yprians ^n P o n t i u s .
Leipzig, 1913.
Bi Misgioa imd Attsfcreifcing d s s
CbristentiiiBs i n d e r rsteu P r e i Jala*~
tasaderteii.
4 t h ed? M . 1 & I I .
L e i p z i g , 1984#
- 11 -
MRE&SK CA.t|
Has Sohrexfeen d e r rtisisoheij Kiroh an d i e

l i e r i m t i s o h e aus d e r Z e i t Dos&tianus.
I QleBseas'brlef }
L e i p z i g , 19.
Militia Shristi* . fffeingen, 1008.
* .
111 S o n s t i t m t i o n and Law..of t h e Church

i n t h e f i r s t two e e a t t a r l e s .
H&lflAll {.}
LQXI&*
1910*
. Konstaia&JUa & p* a l s C h r i s t xmd. a l s

I^'ivataazm i s seine E r l a s s e n taad
Brief e a .
U l f f l {!.}
1908*
t h e ' o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e e a r l y C h r i s t i a n
''Ohurshea-
HFELE ( K * ) ' V L I $ L 1 & 6 $
H i s t o i r e d e s Gonolles*
1-9*
asXSL&IIS'(WE)
Lend. 188S. (-3 &.)

torn,
?a?l9> 1957-1*.
t h e Esisan F a t e .
Cashr* 1988.
X%mm*
'Last words en t h e Roman M w t i e l p a l i t i e s .
taaferv 19
' Saabr* 1988*

HSMiLff { t h , }
-'Sas Rixehengro'M.eB i n . H r c h r i s t e n t u m .
' { T h e e l , S i . 198?)'
IILSIIFIL (A)
' l e r P a s s h a s t r e i t Aer a l t ' e n K i r o h e .
- H a l l e , 1869.
' l i e Setsergesehiehte tea irehristenttmss*

L e i p a i g , JL884U
S9L1E (L.Ejr
t h e e x t i n c t i o n of t h e C h r i s t i a n Cfaurohes
in f o r t h Africa*
BQBSER (&.}
JSILLI
(1.)
fhe S t a t u t e s of t h e a p o e t l e s *
-JlflKia-(A.)
Ln&. 1904.
Si f e l e r a n z e r i a s s e r8 K a i s e r s
d* C h r i s t e n *
#fIfKLAS9 '(E)
Lon* 1398*
fir
B e r l i n , 1S9S.
Die SemeInto Bifpolytus'*
L e i p z i g , 19S8
. leire. .f oreeteoagen zxm i r o h r i s t l i o h e a

S i r e h e n p r o h l e ( i e u e iireh 2 sitting*
1935).
* %M *
Kim
(B*J.)
A h i s t o r y ' e f t h e 6hi2*sh.
V, I - I I I ,
Qseff. 19SS,
JOgJC {K*}
f.ls i s i o u cf Sod*
Lond* 1 9 3 1 .
B&s AsgeMiehe. M a i l a e d e r i d i o t *
V* J . SIS' ( Z e i t e e b r * f $ r Sircbeng*
M . XL. i92S}
P e r rat CJlesenshrief ( L e i p z i g , 1S9S).
0$B f l . }
'Die KSro&nbbsse d e s K a i s e r s f h e o d o s i t i s .
( S i s t e r * J a h r b * XX7IZI* 1907)..
C y p r i a n und d@r rSsisoh P r i i s a t .
L e i p z i g . 1910#
^ y p r l a s l s e k e Bxxbersue&ongoxi*
Cathedra P e t r i #
Bonn, 1926.
-^leseen,- 1950*
K a l l i s t im& f e r t m l l i a t i
('Sltzangsberichte
d e r l e l d e l * Afead* d e r Wlssenseh.
S Afeh. 1919*
KQLm
(k*\
Qypriaa IJ d e r BiBehelt d e r K i r e h e .
( 2 i t s o h r . f i r d i e ge&aas. I f t t h e r .
ffeeol. land Kiroiie 18?*)*
LASRXOLLB (P#> -Saist Ambrose*
2nd* d. 1 9 0 8 .
MffLGS '(!.}
giisebiana*
LSSSBEiP ( A . |
A S i s t e r y f t h e Oeoumenioal.Oot^ncils
Gxf.
ifis.
of t h e I f & f". e s t t a r i e s . { i n R u s s i a n )
Koslnra, 1888*
LEI11W* CB*}
E u s e b l u s of l i o e s . and i - a t i a n .
Veefexdlt { i n R u s s i a n ) *
tMmm&M CM*)
Theolog.
1* 4:&'S*
&ur a l t o h r i a t * Y e r f a s s t n i g s g e s c h .
(2it
. i
Wise* Xfceol* i d . s 1 9 1 5 ) .
, | fh AfNjstoiis F a t h e r s .
V o l . X-VX.
Load. 1 8 9 1 .
3JIPSIBS
{li.A*}
Crhreaologie d o r RSxaiaohea 3isohaf

K i e l , l@69
1912
-. 13 L*vanglle t I ' e g l i s e .
Bellvue 2 ed.
1905.
LOOWS (P.)
Paulas von Samosata (Text \m& lint.)

Leipzig* 1924.
LUBEGK (K.)
Reiehseinteilung und Kirchliche Hierarohie

des Orients b i s sum Ausgang der 4
Jshrh.
Mftnster, 1901.
Bie Kirchliche und We I t l i e he.

Eparohialverfassung des Orients zsar
Zeit des Konzils von M e l a .
Marburg, 1901.
Hie Weihe des Kvnikers Maximus sum
Bischof von Constant.
{Jahresb.
d. K6n Sam. an Pulda, 190?).

1ACLEAS (A.J.) fhe Ancient Church Orders.MABfEOSE (F.)
Gamb. 1910.
Une l e n t a t ion de r e v o l u t i o n s o c i a l en
Afrlque {Revue des Questions H i s t .
X, 1904 & I . 1905.)
METZIEK. (E.)
Die Yerfassung der Kirolie i n den Zwei

e r s t en Jahrhunderton.
Danzig, 1920.
MELIORAISKY (S ,} Lectures on t h e h i s t o r y and teaching of
t h e ancient Ghurch ( i n Russian).

0
. S t , Peters<5 1912.
MIRM
(-0.)
Quellen zur Gesehichte des Papsttums.

4 ed. 1924 Xftb.
MG8CE&B& (P.)
H i s t o i r e l i t t e r a i r e de 1'Afrlque Chretienne.
I-VII.
P a r i s , 1901-1922.
MSHLES (J.)
Die Einheit der Kirche.
K#LLEB (K.)
Beitrage zur Sesehichte des Yerfassung

des a l t e n Kirch
Ale. d. Wiss.)
1928.
(Abhand. d. P r e u s .
B e r l i n , 1922.
Kleine Beitrage zur a l t * Kirchengesch.

{Z e i t s c h r . fur 1 .T .W. 1 24, 1925, 192 9 ) .
* 14
M&LLIE (K,'5
E e n s t a n t i n d* gr* u n d - d i e o f c r i s t l . Kirah.
(Hist. leitsehr.
IELKE (&*)
Sd. 140. H. 8 . 1 9 8 9 ) .
i Qta?on0igi@ d e r rrespondeaz C y p r i a n s .
t h o r n , X90S.
I E I M I 1 (K^)
Stswat und d i e a l l g e a e i n Kirehe "bis ataf

Mselefciaiat*
I* I I . L e i p z i g , 1890
. Mippolytus ?s BGEU
11SMAE -(JH.|
Leipzig, 1903.
A r i a n s of t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y . 4 e&
X*<m& 2 8 9 6 .
VIESEHBBS9E& | J . ! }
Bi Lehre d e s h i . Asfcroaitts von Reiahe

S e t t e e auf Erdem*
FWFEK*
Mains, 1004.
Bi Lehre s tel* ijpri&K TOE d e r l i r e h e .

Ltisesfeerg,
PPMf&ISSH (,T4
1870.
Bie &#.. l l e n s t a a t an d i e Vereamlung d e r

Beiligesi.
schrift.
Xi& .PXA3Q {)
v
( S S S u p p l . &i r8r*, y u a r t a l ~
freife* i/&*# 1915)'*
' .fne Ronaa @hurh. a t t h e end f t h e seeend

century*
(IfcriF *f h e e l . Rev* J u l y 1 9 2 ) .
PI!gSAiS3l (M-4 ' The- l i f e ani. r e i g n of t h e E , Septindue

Several
P0!RGSlf ( 4 4
Qscf-* 10X8*
- 3 ^ e synods of t h e f i r s t t h r e e c e n t u r i e s
f i n Russian}.,
P D s e i l A i i "{BO'
Serg~Posa&. 1914.
B i e Siehtto&sfcelt d e r Kir#h e a e h d e r Lehre

des' h i . fypriam*
FIJIilR (F.W,)
JPaderb. 1908.
. P r i m i t i v e S a i n t s and the. See f Rome.'

- W ed* Lend* 1906.
BABE (M.)
. .
IMfSSSES ('6.)
S a m a r a S i s e h e f f en B O B ,
âfcrBfbher den o h r i s t l i c h e n Kirehe u n t e r

deis E&ieer fheodosius.*
SEIAI C?*I34
*
1ES01 {,)
P r e i b . 1688.
I**Sglis hretienme*
Marc. Attrdle*
. F r e l b . 189*7.
P a r i s , 1879*
P a r i s , 1882.
l ^ e #-posteMeret n&eh s e i n e r a u s s e r Icanonisehen feefcgestalfc*

enters,.)
Leipzig, igos*
(text
u*
MMILIM- {i*}
I t m d s s stir l s s e r i g i n e s de l * p i s e o p a t .
Parisj 18fl.
Lea O r i g i n e s " d e . l f l p i s o p a t *
airiM '{34
August i n i s c h e Sttadien.
P a r i s * 1894.
Qotha, 1 6 8 ? .
Bie Enstebung d e r a l t feat o l i s o b e n X i r o h e .

g d.
Bonn, 1SS?.
i y p ^ i a n YOB K a r t b a g o .
&tt* 1885
ROS1GWTZWW (&) f b e S o c i a l and E o o n o s i o a l H i s t ory of

t b e Roman Empire.
*
Grf. 19B8.
& l i s f e e r y of t h e A n c i e a t World.
t o l a * I & I I . god e d .
SAXJEGg c ^ 4
Oxf, 19S0.
file i n f a l l i b i l i t y of t h e Sbere-b.
(Lou. 1B9Q 2 e d . )
SAtElfLUS ('<J*B*)Lelar!n30h des E a i e l i s e b s n K i r e b e n r e c t s

( F r e i b * 1/8* 19S8),
Ztar S-es^biobte dee Atban&sitas
( l a o h r l o h i e n v . d# 8 n . S e s e l s l i a f t
d . Wissensob&ffc z a d U t t i n g s n } *
B e r l i n * 1904, 1905* 1908, 1911*
. Ilbristlicb and #udisobe S s t e r f a l e n .
' B e r l i n , 1905*
35er Secbst l i e & e i i i s e b e Sanon auf &er
Synode Ton'@halke$don (Sonderausgabe
ams den S i t z a g s b r i o h t e n P r e u s s i s e b e n
A&ad* d . Wiesens&h. S d . X X f l l .
Berlin,"1980).
Bas Bieaentsn raid d a s S o n s t a n b i n o p c l i t a r a o a
atsf d e r Synod won balkedon.
( Z . e l t s o b r . f I s u t . Wissenscb.XX.V.
ime)
gHEEL (0*)
Hie Xirob i n grobrlstentuffi.
. Ttlb. 1918.
Z s r U r o b r i s t l i o b s n Kiroben und V e r f a s susgprobleiB.

H . 3 . 1912).
(fbeol* Stud. tu l i r i t .
- lfi -
Sstisrreabt, imd S t a a t na&b de-r Lefare des

a l t a S i r e b e *
SOSLX1& ( B . )
Padeborn, 1914.
ItelXgicnsgeschiebfeliene Untersuch z u
-den 1 goat i n s g r i e f e a *
SSHMIDf (S*)'
6-iessen, 129
Die P&Bsafel.e? i n dex* K l e i n s s i a t .

Kirhe
(f-ext 12- U n t e r . )
Leipzig,
;1919
S t u d i e n z u dem i?sed element i n e n .
, ( t e x t u* I n t e r ) . L i e p s i g j 1950.
Bie list e r f e s t f r a g e aiaf dem ers&en allgeiseisen K o n s l l *
V i e n , I90S*
n P r i n e i g a t sias B o s i s a t u s i .
Sas
d e s rSmieeben Kaiserfetzmsaer
#abr2ua&3?%e
ffesen
dritten
Padrbpia.j 1919.
#es<liibt-@ d a s I n t e r g a i i g a des griehj.scb

Tom-*
Seidenfruits-. I . I I . Jena 18S?-92*
file E a s t e r n bsaerebes and the
Papacy.
Load. 1988.
SSE11HS -(A)
Si b e i d e n l e g e "and das A p o s i e l d e k r e t
Leipzig., 1906*
Bie f&dache da fPu&ent'urss isod d e r
rebistenneit
SllllES' (.)
L e i p z i g , 1908.
Bi Synods iron Ax&iooh 3 2 4 / .
Berlin
191S.
SEEBSI
(a.)
Der Ss.grii'f d e r Jurist l i s b e n K i r e b e .

Erlaages, MSS.
SEE@E < 0 . )
.esMbtJ d e s l a t e r gangs d e r A n t i k e n
Valt I - * i .
M e r l i n , 1896-1921.
Q,tiellea taod Ifrteaden fiber di AnfInge

d e s Sonafciswis.
( Z e i i s s b r . f-ftr
Ei3?.bngesli Bd. X . H.4..

S1SA1 ( V . )
Sofcba, B8S9)
Kirob land S t a a t in. r t e - b f z a n t i s e b e n

Eeiobe a e i t E o n s t a n t i n den Grosser!
' izernowitz 1911.
- If
SOSES {!* }
Si $ y F r i s 8 i s e l i 9 r B r i e f 9*&lung ( s t u d . 11.
Untersuoli*) Leipzig* 319S4.
l i e Ij&teiiilsolae Sen ?&atassnfc i n A f r i c a

zior 2 e i t Sypri&ns (Sfctad* ta. Onfcersueh. )
L@ipsi.gj 190 i .
Her S t r e i t zwislin EOB and K&rtfcago

ttfeer d i e Kt*er&auif
( Q u e l l e n u
F<3?selaasagen' atis r f e . i t a l . A r c h . u .
B i M . EBm*. 'ffr&imsm H i s t . I n s t i t t i t
&B, XX,
. '-''-v
E o s , ISO'S,)
tlrlmnden star latsfeeisangs a e s c h i c h t e des

HoBa&issras*
S0P4 ( a . )
'
Kirobeareobt *
Mona, 1 9 1 5 .
L e i p z i g , 1892.
I s s t i t u f e e e f . BC&an Law
in
pxf. 18g.
..
W-eaen vm& Sr5p*Eig des Katlaolissisuais.

L e i p z i g , 'if 12*
S l i t H . J M N M 9 and 1A01.
A d i c t i o n a r y of Qlsristiazi
Mogeap&y* L i t r&t lire* S e c t s and.

. Booirines doling the f i r s t
e e n t i a r i e s . I-VX.
eight
Lend* I S f f - l S S f .
SPARR0grSX2GPS05 (W.) . f n# @at'&elle ocoseeption of t h e

etsareh.
*
i'St* Aia-gustine &c& A f r i c a n Shurcfe D i v i s i o n s

LQB&.
ff
Loud,.1914*'
191
f b e p l a c e f t b e L a i t y in.fcJa GfcrurGh.
Lend* 1918*
SfAIS CK*|
Bey Pfi&itiker g i o k l e t i & n und d i e erst

gross hrlsfcyerf olgimg.
S f g l l . fS*)
; - ms&Mme
dee Sp&trftnisofcen B e l c h e s *
( I . d8<-4fe}*
.SflElfSSt (&*)
Wiee&aden
H e n , 1928.
fli@ P r i m i t i v e Gburob*
Lead. 19S9.
- 18 S f M l (B*}
Essays en .ttie e a r l y Hisfc..ry of t lie

S'fem*h .and tlie Ministry*
Load. 1921*
In lew .ImffVIersog EasyXpedia. vols.- I-JIII*

ge* .tor*,- 190S*1<
TAEfAM (S)
f&e Apostolie ^lonstifcutions.
fSSEIIfOf <iU)
St.. Ambrose*
H0IIM1L |F*W..)
Eta? .Beurfceilung des HGnstissas, HaIIe ?
Loud* 1679.
less,
flitmeif
fill 1AIISE).
Keao'lrss gessr e e n r i r a I ' h i s t o i r e
eoeleeiaetifiae dea s i s premiers

sissies*.
vv.
faQltZJCf <9ft)
P a r i s * 1901*12.
History of t h e d e e t r i n e of tfae Ctaurob.

( i n Brassian).
fOSfAZI {<!*}
Mos!w&, 1912*
. f-iss eo'omomlo l i f e sf t h e an lent world*

Iond. 19S0.
IHH1L (#*5-
Ststoir dii dgta de l a Papant6
.' : Paris* i s o s . - '
f BSIM (6 * >
v
fii M s t w j . " and ' us 'of creeds and

anathema in: the early saturies of
the thareh.
s ed Loud* 1910*
.Qsius of Cordova*. {Jcur* of Theol*

Sttadies. Vol. X I I , 1911).
* .
, St tidies In .'early Shiarea history*
Gxf.
leis*
0UfHE CB*5
Ber Brspnsag dee donatisisus*
Freifc.
u* fb, ISSg*
. *
WAJSOS {!
Pely&arp and Ignatius*
Leiden. 1910 *
fa s t y l e and language of St* Cyprian.

Clssays n Ui&l* and P&tr* Criticism*
Qxf. 1896)*
. 19 -
wAiaezms.
Etude h i s t o r i a n swr i e s o o r p o r a t i c n s
p r o f s a s i e n n e l i e s chess I s s Remains
dsptais l e s e r l g i n s s jiisqii 1 ;^
de l*Eispl2? I . I I *
WEifZIL*
Louvain, 1695~*
S@ G b r i s t l i c h e ' Fa'ssaf e l e r i n d s n d e e i
e r s t s n Jahrlmiadsrt.
*WtZ
(E.)
1S34
C h r i s t i a n i t y and n&feiotmlisin i n t h e
l a t e r ' Romn Empire*
WSBSfi CW, 1
Pfoshsim, 1S48
Ber h s i l i g e Amkresius taad s e i n e 2it*

frier,
WOOSffARD {)
I s eirai
ioneU 1918*
intsrsiithiiBgeii aim e r s t e a Klessens'brief

S^ttinges, 1891.
ZAU {*&.)'
Weltwerlehr wad l i r e h e wlfcrend &@r e r s t e n

d r e i <3&hrhmdert@# 18?*r
Xgnatiiis 1 irn Amtioh,
Set h a , 1875.
S i i z a e n a u s ' d e s Lefeen d e r a l t e n Kirehe*

I r l a n g e n 18981
.B e d .
g i i f f is.
I.
Tim ualty of the Chureh during

the f i r s t three seatur-les.
* 1 <*
At. the end of the first eeatury the Christian Church
the Ohi&rsfc
mm
3:*MM'iBm..
already existed as & distinct and Ind.epsMe.ot hodj, separated

by &a equally deep gulf from Judaism &n& from the heathenism
of the Roasn "Eapire*
The utt? religion was o&vu among; the
#swSj sal the first, followers of J&sug Christ tried to preserve

their affiliation with the feapis of Jerusalem, aafi to remain
irt the soa-os of the tractitiosui religion of Israel/
fhis
transitions.! period, howewer^ lasted only a short time.

new QtmrnrnXtî
The
in spite sf the issig&ific&at aniher of its
s^shera and their lour aogiaJ. r&nls, possessed a d|'S-&i&ic power

whleh Isuaed lately brought it into agate conflict, first ith
the J*eish authorities &&& soon afterwards with the whole
Sosaii world*
St-Paul*0 ssla&iomry worM as the last blow to, ail the

aitesptB to consider Christianity as a legitimate sect within
JuSaii8:,^ a M after &ha destruction Jf Jeru.:.ie*i the Ciriiitivis
no lon^>?r foriss.: an iate^r&l part of &*iy of the Jewish coaxuaiticJ.
Ihu "ew Israel h e e ^ e se;:2f'U>o-i fr^-i u.o old :.?
stood ih ""irfoct o.;â-sitxo:: t^ the religion out #? which it had
sproag'. *
fhis'stormy time of the traaîtioa of the Christian Chureii
froa the position of a Jewish- SMtot to .sin independent existence
is fcaowa as the Apostolie period, ana church history in its
proper sense h#gins with its <*M, that Id, misn the last iiaiss
that hound theae tiro h&Sies together v?er ev@otuai.ly destroyed
and tht Church appeared ss an independent organ is,
the begin
ning of the .
Church * B
indep-esd-
ent exist
ence.
the jesru
Immediately. following the apostolic period are
p s r h h p s t h e l&ant IsiQith p a r t of ohtiroh h i s t o r y -
The Church,
after
~-~--^-^^-^~w..^..~,,.,_~^.......,-~ ..,..._.._....
1. Act.; I r i<".<**. : a i?".2*
v.?
S, Acts
IV.!-?VI.
1?.
VI!.*?*
5* A*Tfar:mc<;. ""Tie "-Ciaîor. "io-t Au3-jriuji;5 ass Ghristeatuas,
( L e l p s i r I3C4) v . I . - c . ^ 4 .
4. 3%tiffol. Primitive C a t h o l i c i s m
(Loa.lyll)
plrh
h@f b r i l l i a n t s t a r t %m&er the leadership of the Apostle a,

sjrHmly -ils&^/ears from -or 3l>ut ; --id xv^r Ill's >r."cr Lie
r-*le Df t h e i r succcsôra. i s covered by siicu^t
25as.
cî. 1. ;e " s r c -
This period, liotrev^r, lass a very great importance for
Chureh h i s t o r y , for the f i r s t n-i a e o n * o e ^ w r i f *i r'Or the

tirse ^hes sl&ost a l l the irLnci;sA
c&ae i n t o be i n c .
I n s i s t ^tiooi Ss !> Caureli
2t ^ i s ihea tcv.ii trie fir.>t ~ti,?~. iro --*-re
saâ to ?s~\,ly C h r i s t ' s te--chin,;, t s &:i& every~uy i i . x
vf
th*
Ciiristiai.1 c a s u a l t i e s , xfi\ htiyatji by i-,** xi .'it of I r i e r

i t i s t s r y th<*s nsy rp:-?sr eail-ii./u a^d i ^ i t a r * t ?y . Ju^?-^cur T-tich ofteî ca^sel t ie^ t:> bregarded s s the i d e a l p a t t e r n by l a t e r pariadau
fit psntapat@iie a.g has sis a s p e c i a l si&nifieaaie
fop th# stilly of th@ problem of ShMreh u n i t y .
Tuouxta
iMiievIpM i a asBj ^rays, t~<? Ciuroh at t a ^ t Uê , J . ^ . .^c,i

sl.resdy a Icenn sense 9f hr>r .mity, .&l ,;r.>vel t * .t .>:-.& c; .l*
1ei>fi-! i t aMer the s o s t i i f j - i e ^ l t c i r e ^ ^ t - t ^ u e a 7 ît,..out
res.>urss t o ssy e x t e r n a l cutli^rity or ih,/sl;r,i , o v ; r .
tJnfar-
t u n r t e l y , re hnsm rs-ry x i t t i e about tne iat< i rAa.. , r . i i a a t i o a

of th? Curiati-i:i somstisitiee. of t e a t . T i o r l , in- o t i l i l e s s
about the rrla.tli.a3 e x i s t i n ,
hwenes.
between the var-.j-.j-
IJCSLI
But l a s p i l e of the scantiness >f c^r m i n i s ' a
of d e t a i l s , we h&m a number of u n r ^ s t l J u s . jif* . r , / j t - t

the Chares l i f e of t h a t %ism T,S,B rarltablfS for i t s unity.
Before w proceed t the -analysis of acme x." i:is e j'xf-.i<~i:,s i n
whicM ill unity of the C!mrh -sas cas>ileriêd end T ^ y : t
preserved. i a t a s t ? e aiist make a b r i e f survey of th New
Testsaeat doctrine ef C h r i s t i a n unity # p a r t i c u l a r l y i a i t s
bearing upon the early eoneeotion of s a l v a t i o n .
Hde*iption
B e l i e f i n t h e Xae&*aatl&& semat f o r the e a r l y C i i r i s t l s . a s
M'Ji t h e
u n i t y of
r e s s i l l a t l 0 a between #e? sad. t h e i n d i v i d u a l %mnt a s well
the
C h r i s t i a n s . &a t i e r e a t o r & t i o a of t h e e r i g l s a l memaa
of s a a i l M which
mm l o s t t h r o u g h s i s a s ! r e v o l t a g a i n s t t h e C r e a t o r .
J e s u s -Christ ifa s t h e P a s e h a i Lash wwfto- t a k e s * t h e s i n s of
p
t&e worIc!% aa3 He was a l s o t h e second Maiaf t h e b e g i n n i n g of

j t h e sew r e a i i s s j t h e head of tfee 6huroh^hich. |ttft t o i n c l u d e
I e v s r j regaer&t<3 sseaber of ra&emmei, m & a k l s a /
fla e t e r n a l l i f e nhieh t h e itiiiroa prcxsiseij t o h e r j&aiabers
was tli hssioieal of t h e Holy Qhost J f o a t h e h e a r t s of t h o s e
irtio r e p e a t e d fro t h e i r s i n s aad b e l i e v e d i a J e s u s C h r i s t .
fhoWF r@eive<3 t h e g i f t of the Holy S p i r i t s s s r e b o r n ,
h e t a s s .as e n t i r e l y s e t b o i n ^ arki ti@ ^ o ^ t . i t r i ^ i A . a/
ls&B$eii produced i n i l l s r&a ttw c x i . 1 &e
lae
^.-laforvuii.-'.-, J / She
n a t u r e of UIB r e l & t i o a %& the r e s t of ssuaiciad.

wm m
4 Chrislias
l a a g e r an i s o l a t e d i a c t i v i t i u a l , & m i s e r a b l e v i e t i s of h i s
o r a s e l f i s h n e s s ; he was & s e s h e r of S h r l s t ' a hc!|Y l i v i n g a ssi?

an*. happy l i f e I:i c l o s e f e l i o r 3 h i r sa-! b r o t h e r l y lore
His f e l l o w C h r i s t i a n s ,
sith
rfe o r a l d bs r c l c . i c j f;o^ 4 ;,; r .-/.
h a t r e d , aa'l fr;>a r c r . e t u s i i *tr.*'t>e , c^ct.t. h i s ,ioz_~D n ^ a .

and h- "vâ aol<s t o oht'.iii a h^rjOfiivu^
; "
members of the.sa body,

t h e i r uorrow h i s s o r r o w .
j.itx-1 * I t h t.i_
vihsr
T h e i r joy had t o heooiae h i s joy^

He waa ahl sotf t o r e j o i c e i a t h e i r
fj@rf#@feios a s ? g r i e v e f o r t h u l r s i n g , "
t h e C h r i s t i a n s ?sr &z i n t - rê e^l&rit tL.it t i c
10 t i c <s
o r si&fulaje&a of each mîib^r 3f tit- Oh-Jf-on c ^ t r i o a t e ' 2

d e t r s s t e a f r o s nh-2 ^ l i r i t u a i l i f e of a l l .
21 C o r . V . t
Col.I.sv--.- ^
f*. I Cor.XV.43-.47
*. II Cor.V.4*.
^ . j s t r i ^ c :f t.- s
. r C:-r,x: .*"",.
" f . i . V l . !~2
Ri-h.Il.li-i'
P h i 1l . 1 2 . ' - T T* -: s^ r u
ICor.X-TI " .
V **
II::or, 11
.r
hroLurrij
r
K . r h . 1 . 1 ~ ,"S~
"%;
1
'^, I P a t . :- ."*.
By i i e i r
to
- g sr*. #
love and their prayer tor one another they ire re released fro
the burden of a in, and they were able ts help eaen other "By
Sise voluntary sufferlags. for the sake of their fells* ae&bers
in Christ.
This new and striking vision of the fundamental
unity of aanltini,revealed, through the Incarnation, Is

especially emphasised by St .Paul ?rh wriisa: "*% */wl^>Jr joise
in sy sufferings for you.and fill up that i?hieh is beaind of
the afflictions of Christ la ay flesh for His Body's ssie
which is the Gaurefc" j{Col. 1.24 .).
All previous distinctions -were annihilated, all the
divisions nhish had kept hua&aity separated in various hostile
eaaps were broken down;- for by one Spirit are we all baptised
into one body, waefcner
VS-JB&
Sews^ &r Seatlies, whether -w be
b o m or free; and have bees all made to '<B.rlxiklnt-0- $nt.

Spfoifc (1 dor.XII* 1"5.|
le are all one in Christ Jesus'5. {Gal. Ill 2
But. this new life ia. eoaaon where selfishness and. feat?
were conquered by compass ion and love.di&hnot seaa the denial
of' individual existence.
ffee Church, was not a- conglomeration
of indistinguishable creatures; she was an organic body la

which everyone
had M s ra place, 'bat ia which the different
gifts and various services were bestowed bj the saae Spirit.

the Church was the gradual rebuilding of redeemed humanity iato
a new organic body, capable of being the vessel of the Holy
$h00&.
She iras an attempt to transform the rough and
insubordinate material of sinful lives into & harmonious unity

which should msLke thes transparent sad consonant ulta the calls
of the Spirit," She offered to every one sa untrue possibility
of perfect development,. and she introduced form ami rhyths into
the history of a&akiad hisli--had previously been a chaos,
1 JsMe& V. '*>-1'_
1 Fet.IV.'V*.
t. II Gor.I.3-7, ...
Cfi&i-%%. H&.W.2.
3. G4l.XXI.g-*.
YI.I5.
Sph.III.6.
4. 1 Cor.111.12, f4.2?.
Boh. IV. tUlg.
5- EGh.II.1-2.
Troita&y, Hist.of the
doctrine of the Church,p.6.
6, lfaJ.f3~l6*
d i s t u r b e d by the ûrasL h o s t i l i t i e s of LiVUvi I.,-*- I d ,

nai nations.
Sh<? ^mSvdt&d
': .*-. \ti&vlioocl
tri&es
o 1o;i ' .v? I,SIS
brotherhood s f aers s -anr! brou i i t t o & e a i Lhe d^cila^ccx of In

s'ai sSs&th vet9 M s s ' s
ehlldrea.
?he Ctairels i s a th.eoara.sy.
od ilor.c n ^
.<-r ; . j > ,e 1^3
g i f t s b~ a b s o l u t e r u l e r , , &&& every a s t i ^ a * e r ^ r y y ^ c ^ i t * --?-it

,f*i
..
i v e only If i t proceeded f r ^ s '113.
-~ j ; f i v c t -
Ho^, : a wu-^r - .-- <>id
e s T e n a a t , hsd .its ehssea. 3ervK;i^s, s.;satl'.5 ^r3.!i*i.b *~ /'

rrlcsfcs t a n a ,h ^feaa He sr.îe t o ixic
c i e ,
b u t t-.f-rr " * i ,
bsêirer, an e s s e n t i a l ^ i f / e r c * ee hpLêo.* lê ^1-1 ';.: 4 t:>- ,--%'

svitiists.
fii old lsrrei l i v e d ander tr.e ; o w r ~e' U -.;-,! i:. -
, fbtqu&ttb-
r-svDlt S ' / ^ i a s t Q-od I t s 3 0 v r e i j a .
r.ie ^r... h ' - s "-no
d e c l a r e d Hia h o l y UMrd vrre -sOhcd iad ?r ,?<* ted by . >eir

c?i3-tsb@ilea b r e t h r e n , &r*d t h e "IVIBS t ? i i l < a ii;r5 yu .-> , , ^
.,.,
& esni&i a a i s i s f u l people.

l l s i e r t h e aew _ eeên&st e v e r y t h i n g i?ss changed.'
Every
Si?j2ber of the "Pet* X&r-iel ?-'^ ro&ora a/K* arj] jr.e^-e t t v ^ - ^ e l

?
of t h e Holy s p i r i t .
He ^tt u.psbi.e oi rie^r-us^ CTO"^ V .lc 0*-
&d T i l l i n ^ , l y obeyed t h e -IIvine ts JO ^ I * 1 ^ a t ^ .
Thi* .. FQ A ~ an<I
t r a a s f o r a - i t i i i i of tiia r<?iatij.i b-;it?e:i G~v-; - : i a c a i s
f.s^
e r i h e d i n t a e b r i s t l e t o t h e Hebrews,, t a e svl.vor- ; ^ t c :
. r^btrjs Jereai-s.it XJXl.^f-"^
c,ad a;-;Lyif*:, l , u , n , a ^ ;
to ^ : s
C h r i s t i a n s , s&ys: 'Par t ^ I i I s t.n> cov*Ki&itL t:<.st 1 y i l l _.^ *c

u l t h t a e tr.u&e -if IS.V5MI a f t s r th3ê 5^>i -_'_tb die Lor^;
I w i l l put mf laws i a t a t a g i r siswi, sacl w r i t e truss l a t h & i r
hftrti fiôd. 1 w i l l be t o t J n a 6 , as3 they s h a l l bg t o
1
'"An'"* th<*y a h s l l n o t t e i c l ^ -irj

every
ttau ills b r o t h e r , âyiri,', "r*o t a e I,ur-';
knsw ae-j, f r j a t h e 1-at t o the

I
.a.^ i l ^ a ^ i
wr*.w^t.
^r,
f j r f-^l 3-&*!
{.leo.VIII.i
.'?.}
^Tery iristisft T-<S ÔI a. ^..u<?r ^f G ^ r i ^ t 1 * >-'"/

i
-&$,& ;iyi%3 ; p l s 5 t , S o d ' s friend*',
.i^ 2:af.i/il)r
I . 1 Pet.II.-->-
?. I I C - r . Y . ?
*.^
"
.,.i? uD-t
,* '
St;f.f'--.>:
"
4^
""
^c'
-61
behalf;
He -goulcL speak I n His i;a:~ and a c t QV, his

v. c
- c i.-.l- 1
^ 1 . t-
-,y t, ^r-j* f- >- r ~:f

;;.c:. tec c
cr^_r
" :rr
&JC
**.>~ i.r t
ol'.-vce! i . <.-" 3-c;/ 3
-, - r- o-' - . : ; . , .
^.L,
"
..-
t i t , > w r." . ;.
;:. i .--..-.> c -
-L.t OicusiF- t ^ c j \;c:
.,
Is si'
"Vs
- : C _/;
ss?e S p i r i t s a l l r.--e.:icr -:f " t r l s t f s boo-y, of His flesii i

"'is t>oe s (l. ph * V . 3,'; *} *
eo - M . I cuj
f b i s t b e o e r s t l c eono_ t*^r. ox "v r<~
3
-. 'c
:o--rr
-c
; n l ; .IK. *-~Pt I-^cr :. " t

:~
.to i c r ; _f- -
t -t->
4
pcceii/ed tb s _ c ~ i r U
I - v - i . " cr
domination of s DCT-tj. -_' . c r l . ^-yfcrmajority,
i.
fo-
,"C, c c i -1"
"^., a
'Fop i f the -Christlsms were c*i%-l c r 1-
t h e n i l l of' the Holj u a o s t .ess so f s r s ^ t l l
if,.
she
. -c t - .
.3
Ctiui-cftji aim l a t h a t e a s e c mm scraM d a r e to l:.;-oose a cieelsioi

m
>r> ex cefc o t i c - l i c ^ c c
am! t h e i i*:
_~c
^"
**
i.u::f
^r 'her
--
_.*; .,.,:-, c v s i r . ".
! ; . " : .e : ; . - j - t
condition
fr two eoc::atKte?er;ts, t o lotf God. a a d o r . I s neigh'bouFj
o r e o r 3oc
, e r c 'n ~ iA"i\1j
".rrueied
",.e^ ^*:
T.
" :I i G U 1 ^-
zo* ';~s c r o s e r t I..: ev-i-rj -re .sr of
."-: Ghrrcl"
7
CLiristifi. v&s . ^csrer- -f tXc d i v i $ l i f e ? t--.s
vXolvtlcri
1,
&t
I
of t - - / c t-f . -?-i ; ~
ST.
1..
cr* ~IU
cv~vj
i,it-;/ ; i;s .-.r ^-trr~.ci,.
-i-.
Ii.
.*- .
11
.. ''
<;.
^ ac";
6 . 1 Cor. VI. 19
ct~ . ^ s i i i ; c - 1 0 .
7 . :v'att.
,-.' .
- .
-7against God
The Christians,, united together pepresented their
Master and Saviour
and possessed the right of acting on
His behalf7
To then was promised the power ofpardoning
sinss and of loosing and binding on earth and in heaven.

Blvided and -separated.they- -sere "deprived of all their privi4
leges and power/ -aad- they became -the salt which had lost
its savour and was good for nothing^but to be cast out and
to be trodden under foot of sen;"
fhe meaniiig of
unity.
Unity was the sublime gift of the Holy Ghost sent fro
6
above upon regenerated and purified mankind.
It was indis
pensable for the further spiritual growth of the Church

and for the reception of the still greater gifts of the
Holy Ghost*.
fhis unity could never be achieved through un
supported human efforts, jet'it depended on men's co-operation

and QQ. their endeavours to find concord and unanimity,
The
Christians had a hard task in preparing their hearts and

ainds for the new life in eoasion.
They had to fre them
selves from, selfishnessj, ambition and self-assertion; for

only when this work had been done could 'they receive the
A ^
gif t| of the Holy Ghost and only then could the divine seeds
produce the new life and bring forth the rich fruits of love,
peace andconcord.
The Church was the meeting place between G-od and men;
ft
and nowhere was their eo-operation
so deeply needed as in
the preservation of her unity, which was at once the 0 a 6 e of

the fellowship of the Holy Ghost and the most effective weapon
Matt.V.15.
1. John XIII,35.
Marfe IX.50.
Luke XIV.-J4.
2. .John XIV. 14,
Troitzky,
Hist.of the
XV.?.
doctrine
of
the Church,p.6
3. Matt.XVIII.18-19.
Troi.tzky, Hist.of the
4. Hatt.XVlXI.f7.
doctrine of the Church.pp.35
Aquilonov.The Church,{in
Russian) , 1894,P.2J?2.
-ft.
for the destruetiois. of uuaaa t&lfishaess and prigs - those

ay&elest enemies of the Xir^dDSt of Heaven,
This Hew f$sta:sst oonceptioa of church uaity Is
!aaalaity
i s the
beautifully Illustrated by the description of the life of
early
S h r i s t i a s thus ghrlsilaa communities as gin-en by the lets sf the Apostles \
e#anaiiit j ,
The ne* br:>th?rhoj's is sciieh sats >>iu bevcee.i inliyiiur.l
Interests ".y; 5Vt revise finfs t ore tê folloviji^ vlvi*
rer**esetttl.}a:
"Art! the aultltuhs of v3e : â:.t *3eii'-ve" '-re
f one heart ana of arm soul: neither said asy of them that
e-mght of the thiags which. lie possessed was his own, but they
halt all'things couton". (lets iv^t.)
It is also noteworthy that all Jinf" iaportant $Mtd**&.
cr^rP^
decisions w#re nadettn&ni&ausly,ana. approved not only by the

.apostles bat .by the whole bsdy of believers.
That was the
ease ia the election df Matthias instead of Jud&|(Acts X. 15-16;

a326)> is the iftstltufcioa of the diaeonst (Acts' 1.2-6.),
and finally is the taking of the important decision concernlag the attitude of Lie Christians towards the Mosaic Lsur*
(Acta XV.s.^Sf^J^yse.
The uB&nialty ot 'tU u^Lpft &LUA^L ..t. ;;
present <\t the gathering (wIt seeded good unto us, he lag
assembled with one seeord..* lets* X?*2?.,!7 was the guarantee
that they a-pok in accordance with the'will of the Holy
Ghost, {"For it seeaed goad to the Q-hoat, and to as".Acts XV,?-.
With the abrupt 'Close of the lets grhU the no^t perfect
estposition of the life $f the Ghrlstiaa o-j^drAvj
ever been written.
îch has
As Marnselc rightly saya." Mthoutsh the
book is ostensibly aa aesoitat of so msny different events

mm. people, yet ultimately it deals slisaya vsith God Himself;
Clod is repealed to the -world through the coraunlty of His
people * united la- love sod obedience to His will snd forming
1. A*t I . U j . 11.43.
t . Hsraacfc;, -Ble Mission. : 1 ,vol.I.pp.39;3.
HhFi3t*s holy SM4. undivided body.

file mx% ataa was tried to continue the work begun by
St.LtiSce was lissehims .* the father of ehuroh history, who
- lived in the fourth century* and imsse writings represent
the life of the 0hurea di*riag> the intersae&iat centuries
in the terms and notio&a of his om aê,
flms there is
a larje ;*ai in the history of i.,s Guur; oeL?.ee fh L B .

and i l l A.1*).,, the -robaole -*a^c 3f t^.3 fir.ii. edition of
Euaebiuss* history. 1
Our iiir0r.3s.tiyn ab->ai tax.* period of
ehttreh. life i s therefore baaed on the doeusients,, scattered

la time' and spuse^ which ire re either incorporated in
ISusebiua* history or prose rred separately far the aake sf
the hi^h repute of their authors.
Ar.jnj thee ritin/.s,
St.Cieisat*s epistle to -&he Corinthian.* undoubtedly has?

f i r s t îace fraa the point of vio* of iscartaiice.
This
year
l e t t e r i s usually ascrlbec! to tae ->r> or V anc i t affords
mm east valuable iafsrsatioa concerning. the unity of the
Cihitreh at that early period,
The f i r s t
" Very ' f* doeuse&ts of early Ghris&iaa. literature have
spistl$ of
a
St,Clesumt
better established authenticity th&a the f i r s t l e t t e r of
to the
;>
Corinthians. St.Sleseat to the Corinthians 7 A detailed discussion of
. .
i t s srijgia sad authorship does not lie within the province

of this essay**bttt i t nay be found in the Mommen%&l work
of ÂMghtfoot.anfi ia a bash of R.Knopf.''
t* B.Lfettlor and OuXtoa, Eueebius, (Loii.iit?) ol.II.pp.T-g.

2, Ll&atfi-ot, The Apostolic Fathers, {1C?~} vol. I . ;-.;>."Me-*^.
I.t.rhrnacii:, taa Schrelbc-n dsr Reviser:?/! Kirehs a:i die
Xorintische* (I Clesenatoricf) ;?.?-;-'. (Leip, 1"3;??|
3 The best review
of the literature ^--alii;^ witn St .CL; :eat 's
e . i a t l e 13 _iven in 0.B?.rdeahs"*cr*'3 ':>c :3-ic ::iia der a i t icire-iliehen Liter&tur, vol. i . ; p. IP:.- f? 1. {t ' 13 S^d ed.}
4, fh At-oatolio Fathers*, (Lon. 1 "-^"/ voIs.I.and I I .
5 Br Irsta Ciemeus-Brief, (fext uadt Hater. Leip. t
'},
-10
Fros the beginning this letter enjoyed an authority
alaoat ecfual to that of the Holy Scriptures, and attempts
were even isade to include it in their saered number.*
Its
particular importance for the study of Church history lies

la its mpdeievtg.
and weil-bslanoeil tone.
The letter was
written is the aaae of the Sanaa community, and a very persons!

and transitory'.element was carefully avoided by its author.
1% was the real voice of theAChureh, and very part of it can
tffr be considered as as adequate expression, of the doctrine and
feelings sonson to the Christinas of that period.
Before we
proceed to an analysis of its contents, we aust dwell briefly

oa the .general position. of the march in the years 95 & M to.
fhe Church
file sad of the first century was an interval of comparative
at the esi
of the
tranquillity for the Christians. After the death of the
first
century. great Apostles6" was had kept all the communities under the
sway of their authority, and after the destruction of Jerusalem,
. the chwohea bad as single centre or person tm eotiM universal
authority over them.
The Christians were scattered all over
the Hossn Empire,and lived is small ooaawniiies ruled hy their

fes*|fefe^ Muhsps and deacons. . As no exeats of tiosentous importance were.
oecarr#i? in the Church at this tise# this period of external
peace provides us with a good opportunity for a study of her
everyday life.
It is easier to observe just then those
details of her practice and organisation which are apt to be

overlooked in a time of great calamities*ad upheavals.
fl%B _
occasion
of the
^ l e Corinthian eostiiamlty.
epistle,
St.CieaenVs epistle was provoked ay a disturbance in
Aaysber of i t s members, d i s s a t i s f i e d
with sose presbytersj, succeeded in depriving thess of tne-ir

office,
This revolt was the e&tise of a division asonc the
e
Corinthian Christians, and the Roman ce&sunity, troubled by talus
event, sent there three as HS& envoy a.?
fhey took with thes
1. The "5th ipost.Canon attached to the Apost.Constitution, tae
Alexandrian aanuscrtpt etc.
S. It Is possible thai Jt.Joim #-,* titixl alive, out t^re re ao
si^ns th'-.t his presence ^ a then felt in l.-.r.er .- c ^ i..:
oirclso,
*f., I Cless-'B-C t)
-It..
t&e a&3ve-m0]atiofie& e p i s t l e i?iHi a vie t o r e s t o r i n g unity

and p e a c e asoag tjjs C o r i n t h i a n s .
finis t h e e p i s t l e t o u c h e s
a t oaee upon a number sf v i t a l pol&ta soiics5riilag the p r o b i s i i

of tmrh u n i t y .
I t r e p e a l s the i n t e r n s I l i f e s M organ--
i s s t l c m of a l o c a l easEKaiity,, as w e l l a s the r e l a t i o n s
1st& d i f f e r e n t
ffee Gimnsh
SM bar
unity.
l a e a l ehureh@a.
St.Clement's e p i s t l e opens with na 1JL_ ."-^j.*ve ?..jd

solemn p r e f a c e :
ff
f!ie Ohursh of Sod tsMsa sojouriiet.ii l a
-Jf* { I ) "
-"*=, *%M,\
7.
2 Ci^;.^4
{ -)
writes:
"Love jolneth us unto uodÂ-love h^tn no < i v l i i J/U.,
love aafceta r*o s e d i t i o n , love
OJWI
a l l t,:.ir* ^ In c r 4 c ; r r : ; a
l#v@ were a l l the e l e e t of (km amde p e r f e c t , without love

nothing i s v e i l pleasing t o God2(I Clea.49 (5> )
And
f u r t h e r , "Blessed were w e . . . i f we should bs d o i a s the coassadmeats of Crocl l a esiiedrd of love to the eaa that our s i n s xa&y
through love be forgiven u s " . ( I Cleat.50 (5) #
f M s sacred amity of the C h r i s t i a n s i s due s o l e l y t o
the heavenly g i f t of the Father.
I t s r e a l foundation S@s
not. r e s t on any font of organisation, s r systaa of government*

i t i s a n a t u r a l consequence of the f a s t of election*'
(cf.^fh
d i s p u t e s . . . s o a l i e n sad strtjige t o the eieei, of &dn.X Cies.V{i

flats f a i t h f u l menhers of the Ghttrchjpiarifled &ad reaeratea by
the Holy Ghost-could not hut d e s i r e t o resi&in one, for t h e i r
h e a r t s -sad siaaa were sovect hj the a&as s p i r i t .
"An out
pouring a l s o of the Holy Ghost f e l l apon a l l " . ( I Cleai.f<2)
|.
" . . . E v e r y s e d i t i o n and every sehisa as aboaiiaahla to yoit'*{5).

A local
casualty,
3t.Glefa*rnt*4 conception of th? Church -ncl of her unity

f l a g s i t s concrete manifestation in the l i f e of a loe-al
C h r i s t i a n eossmtnity.
l a every jjl&ee where a group of fellow
Christiana hstjpened to l i v e , toê-the?" tney - jezisd r or:?theraood 3 & - - r t of the Ifew s.id 331/ I ^ r ^ e l .
" -iay i-Ârt .-. l i f e
i n coisiaon, helping each other s p i r i t u a l l y aafi s a t e r i & i l y ,

and, by reason of t h e i r s u t u a l love, they were granted the
forgiveness of t h e i r s i n s and admitted i n t o a f u l l smmmiiaia.
The
hierarch*
leal
eleaient.
with their Father,

But not all the seah^rs of the congregation irsre ecual;
for a l o c a l hiareh was not composed of a d i s o r d e r l y crowd,

hat on the contrary possessed a strict and divinely establishes
constitution, in which each member occupied a position
\.
I Cleat. 64 |1).
S. 1 Sleia ?a (g).
-Ifappointee! for him trsm afeova*"
For a perfect coaeord can
be established only 0s the basis of a perfect order^ wiser

everyoneteiou'ghis proper pls.ee and is ready to bear its
'hum&n .faithfully - / Let the whole body be saea In Shrift%
St.Clement writes^ ma,sA 1st eaea aaa be subject unto his
neighbour,, aecorîag as -ila:> ,:e *:a. pp, Dints*'? wit,L bis
s-pcial. grac* *'. {I Clea. V (13 )
He câp^res t'.e Christian, oroth'jrUoo"-'* vith the BxiaE.
srsy an-1 *rith tne huawn borly - t**o thm-- c'ifferinc wioelj
from each 3"Dh<r, anrt yet eael of "P-iioa v-\? a stroll:-.;
example of unity., rter aS discipline.
"Let us talc our
body as an example...ib head without feet is nothing;;...

but all the aesbers conspire and unite is. subjection, that
the whole body may be *aved*.(I CXea.3?{2~5) }
St.Cleiteht gpests of different gra.des of hierarchy ia
2
the Ohureh; he ate at Ions bishops sal lie&eona^ presbyters
ana Xayaen. All these ministrationa were inaugurated by
the apostles vmA&r etlreet dUrine eoanandment, and the
bishops had to rentals ia obedience to the rules of their
itffig, just AS -'*& lays&n was bowsd by th layaan^s
6i>3lnsnde".{X le&.49{5) ) .
fhe clerical order is distinct
fwQm the rest of the Sh%>a&,b*!t god rules the Church

through ail her smabsrSj although He uses ties 1 B various nays,
awseorfling to the nature of their ami ling.
I.I Glea.40<5); 41{1); 4f(P)
g., Thsre i s a c e r t a i n i^fsssstia %$ to J t . u i c a e j h . ' s d e f i n i t e an
of the rsrxoua degrees of h i e r a r c h y .
l a 3.2a?.*? - l a c e s he
apeinc* o.ij-y of b l s h ^ .* Siid. deacjna.\ I 0en.4P(4^S,').
In 3t.ieri3 he r e f e r s t o the p r e a b y t o r s , ^ I Cie.i.vM''} ; 3"?{?) )
The _ j - t : robable explanation of &u".i> e x i t r ^ i C L i . ^ n io
t h a t 5^ê^t by R.ooh- ( ? i r c xenr'-cht,; *".) &ad f u r t h e r
devel^p^d by Canon tf.H.3trecter - namely t n a t ''1 le t e r n
p r s s r , ; ' r ,*>.-rs t o i~r;iy Jtat.ua r a t a e r ^nî ^ffxec end
t o be somewhat wirier t :au chat -of f . i i c o , uc , ' J.Il.iStreet^r
?he Primitive Church,?*?"?.). A f u l l i ^ s c u a ^ i ^ i >f -ne
niR.io-.ry in. i'c& Koann Chu-ea esn &e f-xnr i n ^ t r o e t e r p^?5
and Lifratf _ t v o i . I . pp ' "'*.
.|4-
Sense the goversseat of the Shureh i s c o l l e c t i v e , and

S t . S l e s e n t always aêaka i h the p l u r a l when mentioning
tjiSlidpSj daeoaa,.or pFsfhyters.'
point
Be i s Bifhstie on th
t h a i thi el'lsr&. ought to be oheyci .< 1 highly eiftes.iod
ay a l l ; '
bur, t h i s r e s p e c t , iu )u^ a , i a i x , i s -xii;- ^rtc of the
manifestations of t h a t love and. mutual f orhoarano whish a l l

i h r i i t l a a s should, display towards t h e i r brothers,, and h
ap5F i?h3 x-o defend tne ^-oîti id i.itrfc ch-i^j-oe t:? the
presbyters i s in i t s e l f a ^JLiirara,-e of v c r ^ t i x . ; . i ? ' .
I t i s very i:r,,-.orta^t to .i^tlse t h s t St.ic-^:-.at .'.r; c s ,AO 5-ch
attempt d e s p i t e tils. -lee; a-hxr:.;tl*.n l o r _->ier- -.th J I~-cx t l i n e ,
aa-2 in ^ i t s of h i s rrof D-jad b a l l e f iii hie r *" :* c *: j * ... ?, divine
Mstltiitioiu
His s p i s t l * rprsisati the s t a t e of the Church, when
fell i r msiabert isert s t i l l responsible for her unity and
peace.
Wevj
cieeislon af irscoriaaee hr.i -u.- V: ?..: roved
by the wbole- congregation- (vr in.tauoy the: tendon consent

^?j needed in a i s vie"*' e'^t* xu the -u -.->_- ~r _"._ -1- c t i c n ~f
the presbyters by the aô^tle-a.)
e p i s t l e itf ^freâea. ^
Hhr L __ "> c .-.: ; t . C l i e n t *
ihic ^ u i e Sorint . i c . u.ui"-5it/ :^.i
not to i t s p i ^ s o y t e r a ; a.'if ,.;..> , ,_c^ - - - 5l?a 3 -
_^;^f n r-.t
the i*i^.u i ^ r l i n the ce&-\ii^t. -Ki^xiêl i~ ... ? i -- "o>i-.ui

itM not t o i t s e M e r s ,
the ahseaee of the idea that the unity of the Oharsh
f i s t s i t s guardians and i t s stronghold ia the clergy i s
me of th< strlhin," r-sutures jf thi e~i-**.!*-.
I t Id
explicable in vis: of t y . i :, ov%-\zX c.^r-.vt r i s l i c * of e a r l y

S h r i s t i s n l i f e aM t e a s h i s g ,
the f i r s t i s St.Cls&ent*
eomrleilcm t h a t the C h r i s t i a n Biniatry Is the A l r s s t as-
1* I 0ie.3i.4g ( 5 b
*4 ( 3 - 5 ) ; ' 54 (s?);
SI,. 1 Clea.1 ( ? ) .
5 . X Clem.44 {3), cf.At& 1,5*
5? ( 1 ) .
t . w j { t i e 1 r-btl-.c*1 ii. ii .,o uei? f^niixji'i, Tar ln**c^ *.i h&

at en ifi; .- <? ic r.il**" b l - ,- -
<n
at
j*
* i * 5*
i*>
" ^
?--?.
J . 4. 1' i - ..
i.
v-i t-
fr1"
rfJ
"j I
,J%
V
i.
* ** ""
-,.."> i "
Urn*
- i . ^ .
**-*.
i **
c ..v ?: * , ^fc"f
"
.V
*f
u-
"
.*
*"
?>r,r^îL^7
i-
"M1
*""
-4-
>- K^-
* *t*
* \&
*>
J.
* -we
*^
v - r -in*, i'1 t -? -** ^ A ^ *
-i. .>r.r.c,A^- & ^ : ' . - *
"I*-
^5
i.ili'j
5"
'we
...
s^^rl- - {.Leip. !929> , pp.. 9 4 - 9 6 . .
'
*r
.j.
3v i c e 13
t
?% - m*.
"* i&1
5f"*
\ * *
->riat,
(*%*%
:1-IAS.
"^
- " - - =
Y*-fL5,
"
fit-ST*
**.*it i f c-rz:'i."
/ ? w i . .v. "-li -**:r "ez", j u t
"**
<*"
",
"S
i. M
; rjw_>..,* - - . A '
~c _ , , 1 ! t-
>
&* ..
..>_.
v a t . ".; ' t .\/ j.,-.<' ?-,, in - i v
'-",.__. _c
.i'
e^-a'I-t-^
-. J j U I
'
** ~
-,: 1 c e r ;
u - I -i~< J *._* I
% _%
. t-
\ -i"
^-.'~ ,^*- J ; .-i-rc..v?,
Crf>-i,<Ji, ' ^ *
J r s. *i-r
Zr -fit
,>.--'r LLI bl$

t wJji /. .r if i
rt
:r-l4.\
j.r.U";FI..jii_-i>1"4
4 J
j'J
1-
fulfilled
Tit:i l o v e ?
l/?t **i3 i>%y i f *Jy rr- ->>ii ?f >? t a * r e
Isc f a c t l . M ~ntf c t r i f e *tad l l v i s i o n ^
1 r c i i r e , I -le / . : ' t . .
only le-t t h e f i o c : J.r C h r i s t >>- ..t ;..?^te x.ita i i i
!a-/
C h r i s t i a a s .,i/t3 a f i r s t r u s t i n lut .^rt. U K : P ar' t-.c

^îxbera uf the C'-iurcZi, 5,,-t'l t . c i r i ^ r r e s s i v r a p p e a l - c
,, ,
d i r e c t l y aiise-l %t she* C h r l s t i s , : ! coiiscisiivS. OL' tut? U^ri.ii. i i 1.11&
v i o l a t e she s p i r i t of trie nn-r-. cove&ant beiv?ee^ tu a- r-&;.f-*i

F a t h e r aM'j C h r i s t i a n . a&ryriefi.
3t.Cle-2St*s e > i t l e I s t;i? f l r v t . ' - j s i t l v e
c-x-rcj&Lsa
^pf t h e a c t i v i t y of t h ? Roiaao. Churea, a.*? i t i s t.verof ;>r?>

c o n s t a n t l y r e f e r r s r j t o In t h e c o n t r o v e r s y r ^ L s t l t t , t'j ; !
dri:-;ia an*?
;> r3wth
af t'ie papacy.
*'?îy : r x j i u e u t hi-j-ksri":*;,
bel^tiîr+o t o o^ro-aite f?oetrxaaz o c a j ^ s , have c o ^ i ^ - r o d

St.Gleiaexit's ; i a t i e Lh*r f i r t &i_.ni.Ti>-3..Jx xy-T-.-. :jf 1 a**.*/'** ^
p a p a l .< reâoy.**
A l t . ^ u j i a t h p r aldt-.Ti.:-^.,* u ^ e r e Jr-clc-i
t h i s . ' f i e * 011 ti:c ^r.juiii t h s t t.i*-' c-. t - : t l ? e/r*t?.l.c ,..:, ,ii
titjfe
H9f"0 t h a n t"a# ejEvre&rfiori JC Qr^tLcrlj

f. Shrigti&ii u n i t y ^ y e t &v.* aazr^ver^'j
*.o*/e r*.:i 3 l e e , ><*&

c-.~tj.rue.s i;C ~>u.
Giesiiit ! l e t t e r I s e r u & i i y u t i l i z e ? hy o-i.^ >A. ; r t e r & .aricS
reôAi*tr&sce a s tk- f i r ^ t <-tci t o s r-: l-.vÎ S'^.r-3-.Cj .

Am yf-t u i ^ s a b t e ^ l y t h i s i tn-s C - J G .
*r t u r t l e ^ L s r l y c x t r i . v a . r - a t ,
i e "&:*, r.i i..&--ry J^: -:^f a c t t a - t tr,e Corijitbiania. i c i c ' j -^ j-^ceived ?Aviz: f r -Tt
f i . C I e a f a t - iit,re'e:r*& *ucc^êor ~ <nrl .--ot f ? ^ t :e
A: cstl<~ John a t i l l l i v i a _ l a A-vii :i,,.cr.
T . i j ^r -,? .. ^ t
i s v a l u e if as jn rjcejuat or 1:^ c o i i : l r t ^ 1 CA ^f inro^j%-.i ,
o n e s M : c l i e * *?;*t* .-a* I.^:>=t;ier J t . . . o l n c t i L _lv-l 1..
rx
" *i\t?:j^t^<;t he hf^ i n . ^ . ; ^ r - i .^r.y c^r.L , c t i t h u .c
C o r i a t a i H a c^^r/iîty^ -:-* l - l . t f ^ t c t r t ic 3>ri.iv ,--.'-^ , i - f i * ^t" i
V ,-.#
<- ,
i.
t< V
iEt i 3 !
4 - P u l l e r , r r i . - i t i y o d-iintd ,-...
f-
v u ifc i
Jwuoii.il
.ig ,jee of "t_;uii?', , ,
i X
' .
oi-'t'Oaeata of tile Roa&a ei&iasu

f : iu t:is f i r s t . e...istle t~- i-he C o r i n t h i a n s aay a ; : o ^ r
t o preheat. us ?ifch i, rorti j u a a l e .
Gn. i-ic ot/ivr nâ-: It,
B&Qiia .ulso^t ri5iealo.*J t o ooaJu:*er it- *..;;* tao i i r . i i

s a n l f e s t & t l o a of pupal pcwer* f o r %h& Haass eoaiEualty
s s w e l l @ > M i of _ 0 or l a t h i s r e p r e s e n t e d - 'l3f i t -i> ..-over^r-d
% & c o l l e g e of ,|Fefeftrs ; -^^ not 'by it., s i n g l e oisaop."
Bat o.i t a e o t h e r !isi3/! t h i s ? ; . l a t l e br-*"vJ>*3 L ?; : r i t
s i n g u l a r l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of til? S*^..i e-ajrch sa-5 of tiie
i^pspefu
I t i*s i%"Oisli3le t o 3-3X1/ t ^ t i . iisrclly s t s ^ r C i u r s ^
could s p r Siave used t^.e s o b e r ar^f a ^ t ' . j r i t a t i v e &oke -J?

S w c i e i ^ & t * ^ p l a t l e ; aii'I f r ;n t i l s j , i a t of vie*' t u t s
iet-Ler i s f;e f i r s t a.tl one of t.ie btwt x a i i i f r j x a t i .*:** of
t i e t y f i e a l l y Hoiaaa ;-,trt f JF o ^ t e a s . - . ^ a L i . ouî or&ery
w*icii ian^ boeoae t.;e very easeae of tli- i ^ r s i ^ J T C T .
Relitior.^
between the
lQQa_i
erwrehss
T-iiJ c o a t r e l i e t l u a , ôiefe-r, i^ y^.r-ecxaoly r e d ^ c e c

w.ieci K ta*i;e i n t o cccouiit t.ri i&v>r.i&*. motive ~*i "uuxa
l e t t e r , a s r t ? l l a s trie t y . c :>f r s t i ^ i x i f e T ac-a e x x o t o l
between. t a e vsjrious c*-arcti?s z-t U";A *>/*-" -~ ta"* f i r . - t
ee , t a r y .
^t.Clsu-ât*** i s t i e r v~.s w r i t t e n i t s i ; ^ > r ^ i - ,
i c e ^ i s t i i i e t t i ;a ttetêen i o c ^ l s.-wrîeo s a o t y e t -jis
rly
crdtrtoliahei^ r* .f f o r ;ii2 ti~e Cnurc:- is* ou>? t a M v r " 1 ooc:/,

ca T S 5 t,ne I s r a e l of o l d .
esi'Tcssc^ i n i :e ; i-ofcer
ccu-Î f e r v o u r a t wuc **;/.
*?!!& LcSen, ,.<; -?.^n i cc.i3?

tz
i-.te E . i ^ t i e , i~- r:\tr~t*,* \-:*.ln

"Aa," r e 1 I I e s : r i t \ i r u ;.ey
of ^ r s y e ^ cor? -up, Aiegt*u.a > t ^ t
t;..'> er.s ^r oi' 1 ,r
^.iivorse-
iiajf ^,ueri i n t a c t a a t o t h e en-l lae iiuslx r ta^v. h-v.t:i oeeu

mifflbered of His el*?<jt tarâ^**,at t>;e >,i^.iy w ^ r i d ,
aFyu...
His bcloT^fl 3â -Jes>us C-iriui- t.ir>^.;4* w.xâ He c%;I^.oi ;&froia Snr&ifss t o li.tlit^ from i ^ u r ^ j c e t ^ tac raj - . . o ^ i e : t . J Cl3S.>" ( " ) ; 44 (*-?;
- ( " ) ;
2 . Hariiôk, V r s t e C X c ^ e a ^ o r i t C , ; .
""-~ ; j ,
j i >: *
oi t h e cw$
Inz
f H i s n&m?*f". {1 c l c ^ . S *)
f . , i s e^;iceyfc-o.; l a si.-îrxcfc'..- af t:,9 itix<:...>e f"-oIIke*.

>> rc&^ a a & i M I I t y * izeh ta C h r i s t 4-r.u.M; o**c~o. " i n
rec.srsl W the *l:'e of :ê .-th*jr exa^x-iillc-ft,
*.io
So^s/is rrifce?
c-tcd
% rcc.jjn 3f * . a a Me.'* nu<? ft
c a l a m i t y t.*i r^vsraet*
sitlcii "re o e f a i i i i t u a s
onl^ce-^,
?-e e^nsidef 4 t . ^ . t r e :iavs bsea ciseCiî* t a r 2 y x.a

&e$d t s to.e s e t t e r s jf d i l u t e ? t h a t h,xv&* -iri^n
73u',( C l e s . ? 0 ) ) .
,-.y.^
v.j-ri,
?he '"IsirfssiCin ;>f a;i l : K " r i ^ u
t o n e " ! ifftisti.. t h e : p i s t i s may proits, at one d i s a p p e a r s

f^tt.s e3iis.Mr t h a t Um BomSM C l a r l a t l a a s b e l i e v e d t h a t
, they. lias t o answer f a r tfe# a l a s c a s i x i t t s a ~&y t h e S o r -
ciee~~r^jfcel o a s Y i c t x ^ posulfels, I r ^ a t.A-1^ xi-*^ c c i c s , tx-iU

ol* vL .re.ii.cl3a*; thiit JI&,_IA t o exit, h e t ^ e e ^ t h e .i.-^j-er?;
of r e s c u e d s a i u i a - l .
Zhexr l e t t e r *"-; v;rxxfeeB UTS- ; j i
of a -;$slre f-?r doaxarstxc>:i,
* i t asy & r r e ^ r ^%> s.x-a s.
COP,, ^ r a t e feeii-r;^ a r i'ci, ss.,L^x**ij i ^ ti.20w& e ^ . \ l c ' . f . t |

-jstizifct auj-o c Chrl^rxr,i"u> >at Milev
arxsxexy -.Jh s u r r >*.?."5
The r i ^ c e
af-?,he
tue --i.r'csa ^f > r
I t x-->y hs f w e^ ho-vc-v- r ruy the ^.xar* cxsxj'i..:,/ i~ ._*,

a l o n e l i e a r re ^ l a - t, AS>^ Ciirlsixa.ii i V e i i a r a xf auuiAl
r e s , ^nsx.jxXity.
a3 t j t s u
!?o <?r3eruate S'asîr c.'i be-
tcfl^rtil con.3ItI:?riS m.'ter
0t th^t t l a e .
Iv*r* v> z. xx**
r u i c n t^.e Cliurci Ilvftl
But irxo Teexxaj sf r ^ s . j n a x ^ l l l t j f yv t.:-r-
d e ^ t i c y 3f a t n e r ea.'aAuiiXt.tr^ "r..> J.^-C t ! ie ^ r i v i l i c- at t.-i,?.a^?n c a a r c h -alone.
risiiy j t h e r j ^ t s t a ^ d i i i ^ C ' i r i - t x .:
l e a d e r ' s , b ^ I o a ^ l n s t ^ vapioi*t oaurclies, d l s ^ l a y r ^ t.,c -;::_<

a c u t e a n x i e t y c, t o the wc-X.fre of o t h e r cc^.'.unitic-a.
f. Lifixitf oot > Apoat. ?a the r ^ , {i"' : "~)vc*l. I , > . r ; .
*. ! Cle.".' ;'C-);
^- {^')j
** ( 4 ) ;
f,
% <4>j
65 <<).
I"C.18.45 ^ ) t
"? t * ) j
56 ( I ) .
S t . D U a y a l u s of C o r l a t i i { F U S . . I . T : . I V . ? - ? J, s t . I r e . . r . c - ^ vf
Iôa& i"S43."-i.*E*V.S"Uh ^ ( f 7 )
** ft?x* o&.Cy. ri;-..* -f C i r t . n.,o
f a r IiiS:^;ice "&-~re ^s aasli e ^ ^ e r n e ^ .<r v:e j r i c r -xu'"

of t'le awsurcat-s of Hoise, S ^ I i i aa.: &L.in
srelfer** 3f t . e i r ova l o ^ X
Ir:oi' ', f j r
ce
i t-
cure.-v,
r e f l e e t e . i . l a j5t..Cl<= .ariti's e :Ufci^, -fa Car.rt.s&cr.U,. : o/ -.i

i n t e n t ? Tceil.. *J j^-JLty .;:: -.-ifcu ,1 r_ , : ^ . ) t . . ! , u .
f I r e n e s îx/i tri<= l i r e of s.^l
s ? CJ. . ^ I O / * ,- r * r r ^ J
' 3
n -o*jt le_-1 t i t r a t e i"i2 i^*i ? x re 5>SJ. i

,f
fr;-;t C*'"?L.tuition ^-iiea ^3
l*iur~
JI'
C..ra.t>t *..."! A > . . C J 3 .
xve ^x.e to "X-.av*?r* I
> /
?..^
exce-M la*;, a a ^ f j l f a r i t j o i n e t l i m unto tlie w i l l of Ctcd?

{T I e a . ~ ' ( " )
I t I s i -,. OSSJLJ-IC l - s,.,- ;_c jf t i-
tre'î-
osji.-uaitxes; f Jr- V';e l i n s i tic* uaiLt-^. t.,-. 1 *":> ^.n- aor! jf

f4r*> OnriSwian Xor/e T-leli i a i/.i-;* vsr^* '3e.'il:ai yf f a s
-t^s^pz
f a e a s i a îlstiiicti-'fi feiicii tries exi^t*,-! 'aefciree.-x ^ne

l o c a l cliurclies
wr-, t ^ e i r s r . x r i t u s i i n - i i ^ M a ^ l i i y or..' ted
bj tileA.izzio-i o.r. r.^ct^risx.i.vS if U. e j-r L e x e r s .
^.Jh.ui
!ir;?e ^3eQane s e c a n t as? 1 t o l^.r.X+f'j
vioê t . - j f.w>-*f^
S t . G l e c e n t ' s c f i e t i e tm- tlicref >re &rM re^nr'g*^ "a j -.= j:f

t m o r r l y aa;*-f r t ^tat .ÂiJ uf : :e f '. %crf
- - ^ - r s - l i i v
*.t
and 1 | | r'eprea-eats en"; e a t i r e l y llffei'siit e o a s e p t l o n of t h e
t r ^ l v i - u . s ' r e . 3t ^ s j ^ j a ^
He r e , f*>r - ~e;*
%,
AS.
JLinost a t luo .:c^::^ zLn,c i *i , _ i . ixw-cul

caisi; L i s J , i s t i e , an u*,.s.viio*:; J o t t e r ,
to
Ayostl^sJ-
' t^^kj
.rot ^
w \ir^~~
u. S'tflta,
"
'
f i i i s doeiaaefit was lci.elv sp-re-asi and s u c h
r t a d I n t h e e a r l y eeritMirieSi but latej? on i t l o s t
its
pop-alarlty ^ was eGiapletely t e r ^ o t t e s ana only rfetiisoo#res i h fee l t h c e n t u r y * '
I t aetis s o t d i r e c t l y
t r e a t th y r a e l a a . ol' simresii u n i t y , "but I t iSAisbiitc,

w i t h t h e s p i r i t sX oisiitisus mo c i i a r a & t s p i s t i o of t h e
early
Sbristiajaa.
OB t h e isliole i t s lajaûacjeîs very isueii fcQ& &&m cs
t-iat of
rt* Jiic.runt*? s c j,atis:, s ?<..<< v-^ t,-,} t, >u %,
J-.viJ54i âc N,iiCvUY~c t- *,*"~ tui-Lyei, $4t4'a<*i kfrxli,*. t^ *ii

t/it. CKS.fe -fellies a s as %Ste ;-!.u^cli ^ i ' - ^ t i j t o i .
JOCÂV,.
- i V
W * i i . *. w
> ,
-A%h,:l *.vi ( 1& ^*t . C4.i ^ . ' r t ciî s 4. t i c oi v . i ^
s*sw r e s e l l e r s ted jaasiiiiia.
t h e aeiaoers 01 i t a s s i s t each
o t h e r b o t h s p i r i t u a l l y nA i m t e r i a i X y .
lite a u t h o r
in
s t r u c t s îis r e a d e r s t/it tucy r.aat "re^r^Tfe v*ic t i . ^ l h ^ r

n o t i n F i i ; c r s out in ^ u a c s , t o c r^Yc 2* *n lM.i > Qoy 5 ..u,''
V i C S : L t O C<Vr2 d
-.4,i.A-
\ /
l U r i i A J f e '-J f i ' l t v i
'*r^n 6î & n o t uiiio tr.ti wv,aw .^c **i\.if, t . <-.1 w K,-, .
cJ i ; t^v. v r c s / . t r , r,c, iv..?!^ r,wt <:.- w- , ur.,, !,.> ii_ ~, ~> .a-,
am*
?r i f we a r e f s i l 0 s . a i i s r e r e l a t h a t *'a.ivh i s
i M s o r t a l , hw s u c h s e r e s h a l l ^ s be i n tin* t u i n y s t h a t ? r e
u o r t a i * * . 1-id.l"* r . ;
/A A, v^ri^Lii-iis lrc. '.ta.u.'" i:':.w^.u ; .it;;/
a r e else- include.cl i n t_i. rf-:u&

jutioc i& Gil o ^<aiiir*^j .>,!.-'
.JC-AIC
t/i. l o v u ,
'!*, v
ir.. ca a^v. t > v-'ul* o c a . "
i*,<.. i i ,i;
I , jEiioE >trc&t^r u _,^..."&a? ^,~c x> t-j.a UJ2".*-_^:.t c^ vîu . .

?(*.'*'2.ott I r a c r ..:ai\ Ii.i_.vr tc-Jî ciw J v i . ^ : ,,._tt A j , 3 ,w 1 v
t h e L i t e r a t u r e i s gi'?ea i a
Jtrutrr.i.w.^rî.pp.tO-iO^,
iiiifUt
j JJ_J E
-,< 4? i<-&
VC J ' J i k . C i
iv
'-***
-i*-o v i t
*f- j ' O l ' W ^ *
- v,
*.<.** .<_ t/v r
. I l l ' s - ^ i l S .
,!V,IJU,;.^
-*
o.
<*?-
^ -^ -~ V
v.
S
^
- * y
^ j -?
c -j
pre<i'fer her^" McLX.^Jl
-LiJ
Cl3Mit'& e;lstle x. > I'nn G h i n t ' s L'ns o;:ena * merles

of c o n f l i c t s a l l or wîch are r--i^ted t.s itio i'sejs.iii.i
the r-roper cor*i>titutiiaA of a Cnristi&n co, t juiity.'
of
?-ie
cuestion of the ^l$ce Jf t,.;? jis.ho., i s ;-c.r-isû^rly

ftiscusse^
in
OJOSC
of the- <*oc.*ise!its v.r >voke& by t .-e.-e
c o l l i s i o n s , &n& as a r e s J i t tl.e ~r&f?d?,l ;r jtr, of "- .e

prominence of tae bishop*s office i s uotic^tsble 1A :;11 -arts
of the Catholic Church.
This process, hoi?evi!>, bein_
spontaneous took ^lace a t d i f f e r e n t r a t e s in the v-.vi .os

l o c a l churches,; and whilst in srê of taea the unity of &
community -srL* fro s very e'irif a:-ie chiefly ex;; re &?-.''?
tnrou-;h obedience %o aue b l e ^ p , i s others t n i s >=>>,'te:a ?/.s
2
not r e a l i z e d u n t i l aaoh l a t e r .
the n e s t .Socaiaeats which d e a l with, the qaeailon of
Shureh unity,nod which have a p a r t i c u l a r bearing an the
p o s i t i o n of she episcopacy are tne fs/sous sevsM l e t t e r s of
S t . I ^ n t i u s , trho TCS prof>ably the second bisho;- of
Astioeh ( ' " - t 1 5 ) .
fhese l e t t e r s ire re a l l r r i t t e n aôut 115, when S t .
## S t . 1
Ignatius
letters,
I g n a t i u s TiS on h i s ir&y t.> Roîe tr.^ro he ".-- s a r . r t y r c l .

Four of t.iea t o fcne l5!;- hes-ia^s, -J- ^-.-si^ns^ TraiLis-ns
sri'l Roiasns - ware coy&i:ose& in Shyrna, suirT the Jthor three t o trie Philsdelphians., 8:ayr&eani *ui(3 t o Polycarp
:r vets.
After the Reformatiia z.ie authenticity of t -~-e : c o r s

bes;ae a subject of v i o l e n t *tn -.net-sin- : , controv^r^y
irnich w-is only brought to a close ac the very enfi 3f t "a
nineteenth century.
the l i t e r a t u r e e&ii-i;- ^ i t h t-.iis
! . A now stuHy of Clement's conception of a ChrLoz.i-r. com

munity has been ssde by Pr.'>crhe m "îe liteilua -'c-s
TGleaensbrlefes
i n e r h s i b 4er STnturie&lur. - *or *ilts r i s LI icier;
"eneinê%rerf&sswns, {Lei 4 .1 f~*!.}
of Church *ov<* r e s e a t , ^ I t h i-artie Î^r r-f&rs.tce i~> ô\o
s.id Alexandria, i s "iven by - l . . a l i e r s "Teine Jeitr-s
o
aar s l t e n ilircheivesahiehte, (Sell~eh.fur die "C'-'t-1 Lcz*$'ii&.&ft
problem l a ^.lorr.âs, a -" tr.o b e a t s u r v e ; of i t c*.', b"

Ihnmd i s 0 . f i ' 3 ^ r ^ e n h e r e r * s
'"eso":ic.ct.e "er* A l t / i r e ' ) .
. L i t t e r . { s ? f * J v o l . X . , /* f 3 t - l 3 ~ .
?*: vL ^ ^ t a c i t j *?;-
f l a a l i j r e&taolisiie-d jy F . X . F J Z I : , T::.2a.-iu, 3^.5 ui

artrf t . : e i r >rl ;in&l t e s t r-.3 ^ ;re-f .*!
htf^t/
? u s - l :u . u i o.i - ' j /
t a s - . ; f a F j -rob&bly S J ~ C t t s e i u t h e f i r t h o e a t ^ r y , ^',;;
&;rio e i ^ t l ^ s ware l a t ^ r / J - I t e * % i t i the ^'*ven "^f
3t.I'.'*' t i ^ ? .
At s. i , . : e r t,l~tf a i . i l 1,
.n^.lbly i:, L.i2
e l ? v e ~ t h c e n t u r y , f :ur *:.>r , I F I J U - ^ .. ll*& -..-r a ^ t ' e d

*2SiS I t * -. l a 1 xiw rh>r : Lhtft lu*: 'lêr_r; L ?< r^c.*- .;:*
aiii use I oy t h e Usurer, a .tl_ t:i
r Ty-_1 u . ^ r . l . - r .
n r i ;M^ a t ; s c is <> -*int t . " . a i ^ a i c x t ;

v r l t i j u is.
jf u t . !
--t-<-'
1' ? s t o e - ^ n 3 t c i r " u i ' i a r ' a _ '**** ~ */**-1 "
-Price
o f , iss5 r ."c> -*?i, the >aly .-livis,?*!-/ i u ^ t i t - . t e * ' f^rn of

Church ;5crrie/it.
The f i r ^ t i l f f l c ^ i t ; * nns ' U c a r - - r r e i
s o * , feat the mm& I s ' s t i l l aliir# mail, DM a s p e c i a l b e a r i a

upcm t h e problem of ehtirsti u n i t y *
Their
personal
character.
Proia yj@ e a r l y ays of _ i m p e l s ^wtomefr S t , l g a a t a . u a *

l e t t e r s Ivv bee a jme >f t.w beiit :c:.o**n <u;3 ;>-' ^ d a l r e d
sSoearsents of C a r i s t i a a l i t e r a t u r e .
Tneir
;&s3ljujtc
laaûac^y tr*e d r a m a t i c c l r c v u s i c n c e - tmTer w.uch t.-e./

mere n?ritteii s 3-a f i n a l l y tnc i.-ihle &,.-j ^ a j s ^ t i e
fiâre
of t'--?ir a u t h o r eûl-2 /tot but -See1: i f i.3, r-s* i&T-ryjsu ^ to

happened t o tttcA taea
They a r e u a i r a e s i n c e ti0jf v d'wC,
a s <2oes no atht*r w r i t i n g , of t h e t i s e , t a r evsriv C h r i s t h-ch

1 Bie " c a t x ^ i t -3er I^n^ti^.'-ischea j r i e t e , (Tub^î-1 ""
9* I;n?^l4& van A n t l o c b . ('i-ot/ta 1 ""* J
5 . The A pj j s f a l i c -*itbrs, ?nrt " I . d t . I - . ^ - t l ' . i e ^r^ ^ t . r ^ L y o a r p
iLon. t 5 ": I ' T J ^ p ^ r t i l . v o l ^ . 1 - 1 : 1
*. One >f t h e l--tfdt worses ;rj J t . I f ^ - . L l , - * i s h . ^ c j l l - . r ' cftIi;iaê^c--xicht-lLche ""LtcrsJjich'aA-^C". J-U ierj I
-ii*s
A
.ir^yiey, frifsco ZJ the trarislatloii of Igastias* l e t t e r s
enthusiasm and longing for the crown of a martyr's death.

But we zrast approach then with' a certain reserve. if we
intend to find in them
an objective picture of church
life at the beginning of the second century,

From this point of Tiew there is a striking contrast
between St.Clement!s epistle and, St,Ignatius' letters.
She former was written as carefully considered advice; .
*
its author sicoke not in his own name but oa behalf of

the whole community, and every word of it s an
obijeetive expression of the common doctines and feelings
of"'theyiChristians of that- period,
StIgnatius' letters,
on the contrarys were the passionate personal appeals

of a man/êxpectlng a martyr's death and enduring the
I
acute suffrings'of an enforced journey,.
Sriey were,
written as a final defence of the doctrines and instit
utions for whieh their author had fought all his life;
aM
the last thing which ire can expect to find in the
is a balanced and objective treatment of their-1 subjects.

f'
H&esa^li preoccupation oft&e last days of St.Ig
natius was the preservation of Christian unity, and

his letters offer us rich material for the understanding
of his conception of it.
.l^bit-*a, we find in these
writings exactly the same emphasis on unity and love

as the main characteristics of the Christian life,.*?- we
have met in St.Paul's and
St.Ignatius writes*
St.Clement's epistles,
,?
I sing the praise of the churches ;
and 1 pray that there may be in thr-m union of -%tee flesh

and of^-fee spirit, uiiie-fc- are-r Jesus Christ *s, our never
falling iife. Is unionAOf faith and love .which (is pre-
cjtc
'
-3
feTTM.: be-f ore - all - things ". f3I&3Sb.-jk?-.-}~

t. Rosa-as -,!.
&. Eph.14.15.
Tral,t"5."
f-<e* 7 C r :
But whe re the re
*$$*>
i j rlv.t jn jtiS eii,c\ t.J.'-r- 2c<-Z a b l e s t ~ ~.oi \ l& . i i . V t l l , t,

fê^t
J" saw
"i
l ii~x t \,:
--rw "H**" *ire -fW-
* J *.#
V ~*. ^ t t ^ t ^
*_"{.
-.
j r S . O i ;
* .-m
^ ^L _. ijfc * 1! a
JL S t Jr. i t /
l i * rf-"^
b e t t e r 1. .si* - >? - ce i~: * Je>.
-t
fc
. 1 * 1
_* #
' - ' . 1 3
/i'i
J -
v * . * . . vV~<* *, u
v-.l
"^
o *
4. . * i>
-l._
.*
v_!|
J*
1*
kt','
. *<* ' j .
'.
? -
J .>-
1.J
:-irt bfeo.JtccS a.. .i t-hs
C.JC;_>C.*
,r.;c V
;si;it.
*, .
*i
in^t&.iCs, ~-i 'Ua l e t t e r v"" Tjlyc*? 4 : :
^-a"",r " 1 A .?: ,
a l s # t h o u 5O0St w .
?hus tac- u n i t y of crx- ?^rS3"cian.3. v u
as f o r ^:?' s :|jfer
FUIPP
t .;, -- .
if it.*- kernel co^-.aîfc,/,
>vi I',*-
s%&ss of rrcsoi*viii5 t t i s aaers*^ c o t t ; ^r-. very l . i ' k r coAceived b j tr^nK* tau a.t.. >r^.
c e n t r e of 2 l o o I c w ^ m ^
o&-. I ,,v-1"*.^ >** > t w ? J
-*. A''&^ -, ~ J.VI i 3 a^*

W ^
-it.
## ..ill c . r . t ' )
tij
V.
W^w
.* -
t iPtam-
-47-
mtmities scattered over **!08^T'$8^-'&&. ;f the best
exposition?' of It is contained in M s epistle to the
n
Smyraeans:
"Shun divisions as the beginning of evils*
So ye all follow jour 'bishop as Jesus Christ followed the

-'father, "and the presbyters as' the Apostles; sad to the
-deacons pay respect as to Sod1. esumsiidraeat.
Let no
aan do aught of things pertaining to the Church apart from,

the bishop.
Let that be held a valid eucharist wliicn is
vender the "bishop, or one to whom "he '-shall have eosa&itted

it. : - Wheresoeve*"'the bishop shall/appear, there let the
people'"bei ' even as where Jesus n&y be, there is the
ami versa! "church."
It "is not lawful apart from the bishop
either to baptiss or-to hold a love-feastj
bat what soever
he shall approve",'this is well pleasing also to G-odj that

everjthing-'whioh ye'do SJS|-be sure and'vali&l'^Ssnyrn. vTII. f.2)
fh sain "points ' of "".St*Ignatius* doctrine an be
Sttissrised under the following" paragraphs.*
i."Every local,:eoisaKinitv' must have as its head one bishop.
St.Ignatius always uses tae word bishop in the sing-ilsr-;, and whexi lie is addressing the local churches he sentloi^
by name their bishops.
Eis epistles contain the na.i3S of
the bisnops of Ephesus, Magnesia* fr&lles/Philadelphia

and Smyrna.
3
ii. The bishop is God's representative,the visible oe-vtre
of clrareh unity.
Only those Ais-ho are with the bishop are
a
with Christ "and belong to the Church.

I. Iph.f,{6)
0. Hagn.2.
3. ?ral.t.{f)
4. lph.2-ill
.5* Bpfe.6.
Magn.j. . ?ral..t.( f) .5-
- .: Phil.j' (2},
All the lswf...j
fit 'Uî
"
r*
*
4 &
,1
w
rz
V
h%4**.tt'W CdteM&h. ,
w
-* V* A " .
"
''A
<" 3
, e
.,, -,-. *>* J^> *,! * -wy-
l ' , *\ 1 | *
#*
i* \
* 1 *.g? *
Tft
Xi^f'tl, *.'
,.
i-
f V i' - ^ t ,
,Vi
yg-?u-
/9l9&*~
e&^..
frh tte
&$ i tm't *t%.
5*&S
*< ^ "
Jfe
( .*
. - * .,
- , . . 4" , . t
uf
, o
* * * .- 4 ^
j,,.f
, El-:
-v.
.
r
*>
-, * l *
* t
- ^
"j
^ #,_,
t
'
~30
sad S t . I g n a t i u s m s one of the n o s t ardent M staunch

supporters of t i l l s fora of church government.
Ever* I s
the face of desth Ills chief care was for the defense a a !
propagation of h i s beloved d t r l a e , sad undoubtedly h i s
l e t t e r s were the s e a t i s p o r t a n t cause of the f i n a l victory
of the s y s t e s wiiieli required t h a t every C h r i s t i a n b r o t h e r tidal mu.8% have &. s i n g l e bishop &.S i t s lawful head*
the relations
S t . l g s a t i a g * l e t t e r s are exclusively concerned with
be tureen the
local
t h e lane? c o n s t i t u t i o n of a Shristl&n eoanauaitf.
fh#
6hureb.s*
r e l a t i o n s between various l o c a l churches are outside the
province of h i s preoccupations asd i n t e r e s t s .
Sat never
t h e l e s s , the e w f a c t t h a t h i s , l e t t e r s were addressed to

s e v e r a l churches j | i s a reminder of the i n t e n s e unity sad
intimate fellowship which e x i s t e d between the aiffrent
C h r i s t i a n communities i a 8ap?$&,
They c o n s t i t u t e d one
g r e a t faisily, aM St.Irii&tius^ asfche4*s*.&S&&&&, addressed

h i s l e t t e r s of admonition t o the various enurches which
h s i t e s t t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o meet, the M*&a# rr^rtyr
on h i s way t o Sane*
The f e e l i n g of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the 4#stiny of a l l
$m C h r i s t i a n s breathes through every l i n e of 3 t I g n a t i u s '
letters.
t h e communities s c a t t e r e d a l l over Syria %re

&tytefiffi
SLhU*^
-' '
Cote.
$p*U&.ed
e s p e c i a l l y e-ft3?--jto h i s &e#H*t; sad-he ever* w&lXs hisieelf /fe

u**M* $<?&<#
0JM*pk fa
4fcfK&4ae- "the *&&# Syria i f . (Ron. 2X. {1 ) t f r a l 1 . ^ . ( 1 ) }.
But h i s complete s i i e a c e regarding the-ike-aa# of lr*W.rimîm?he^mm^mm
l o c a l churches i s an i n d i c a t i o n t h - t ,
-#4*ela^-î*:.-Mi ; etiae, t h i s sic* of church l i f e wrts not yet

troubled by any serious conflict,,. *smt t h a t the Chri a thanf A s t e r s
:mei?-e. not theri i a need of any system to r e g u l a t e inter-church
relations
-3*~
the Rosas
primacy and
Among the seven authentic letters of St .Ignatius which
St.'-Ignatius, have been preserved.,
ae is addressed to the Romans.
Its
subject is entirely different froa those of the letters -he

seat to the communities in Syria., and is of a ery special
nature.
St..Ignatius was afraid that the Roman Christians
/< would attempt to save his life by 'interlacing with the

| Roman authorities.
A saartyr's death'was the last ambition
of the aged bishop, and he sent a nest passionate appeal

to the Romans, imploring theet to allow him to be ground
Xi&e--wheat by. the teeth of wild beasts; {Rom. IV.)-
this
document,,-as .-one might expect, contains no polemical

elements * and in general .no doctrinal points a-re mentioned
in it.
It Is a strictly private letter, dealing exclu
sively with the above-.mentioned 'request, presented in a

.very excited style and in language shieh surpasses even the
.M&&mf and poetical manner normally used by St.Ignatius.
Two sentences extracted froa this human docus&entxare
usually euoted la support of the hypothesis th^t 3t.Ignatius
recognised the special prerogative
of the Ro-aan coaaimilty -
its precedence over the other churches.
taej
aê as
follows:- ..'*fhat hath the presidency la the e#%ty of the

region of the Romans, being worthy of God* vofithy of honour,
worthy of felicitation.. .and hairing the presidency of love''.,
(RoauPref.).
**Reseaber in your prayer the Churcn -^Ksfeb-is-
1 ,. In the preface of the saae letter* St. Ignatius ^cscrioe-s

the Roaan Church as $Ibein, wholly fulfil led rita the
grace of God without wavering* (iflfytkfiZTfc/J ). i-iis
expression could be easily used in poleaic as a -roof of
his belief in the infallibility of the Ronaa Churea, if
only the saae expression irere not applied by St.I&natiaa
to the little Christian community of Phtladeipnia.(Phil.
Pref.)
fhis example shows the danger of relying upon
separate expressions in St.Ignatius' letters for the
building up of theological doctrines.
ia Syria which hath Sod for its shepherd in. ay stead.

<fesus Christ alone shall be its bishop, fM and jour
love*. (Roa.IX.{t) I*
fhie-'foiitt -or view is -held by all
the -leading -Roi^s>"tJ*t&altc~-Mstoria*i&.

fhit& whole ,fee*f5S.r#- ahtsnt-"tle r-iht- -ia-t*r'Fetation
of these two sentences from St.Ignatius' letters aisses
two points of iaportance.
la the first place,hath the
preface and the quoted'verses: are most typical examples

of St.Ignatius* hyperbolical, language.
He is a prophet
and a poet, he is not interested ia exact wording or

precise definition, his purpose is to impress and to stir
the imagination, f his readers; and the sere striking, the
examples he finds, the better he considers his task
accomplished
these sentences cannot he interpreted
literallyj nor can they he used as proof of any doctrine.

They, are pare poetry expressing the intense anxiety which
their author was fee-ling at the time; and it would he as
unfair to hia to deduce from the that he believed himself
eg.ua! to God, as to insist that he was proclaiming the
Roman- primacy over all other churches, and ia particular
over his own church of Antioeh.
there is yet another reason for reject lag St.Iga&tluS'1
letters as evidence either for or against the Homan primacy.
If t?e asls whether St Ignatius, writing to the Romans with
the above-mentioned special purpose, needed to discuss the
position of this Christian eosaunity in,relation to the
other local churches, the answer must undoubtedly be in the
1. &&ti(fal,
Prim.Cath. pp.!40t4.
Buehesne, Trie Church Separated, p.':5
The Catholic Sncyclop. ( f M ~ ) vol.VII. p.646
Chapman, St.Ignaee d*Antioca et I'Eglise Roaaiiie. Rev.Bened.V
|
i
- J.fc*G-aacuet, Studies. St.Ignatius and the Ro.ie.zi Privacy,

< We a t. ? y*}
pp. 369-2* t.
The same opinion is shared by t>r. Scott, Trie ^n a tern Churches
&n$ the Papacy, (Lon.t?2') pp.2 a -^2.
a. Qod as shepherd in siy stend. Eoa.IX.{1).
-35-
negative f. and this sup posit ion is confirmed by the

wh0le text of the letter.
St*Ignatius deals- with no
questions of general doetrins In it, and. partieul&riy not

with, the prohlea f the .Ssaaa primacyR
Whenever he
intends to explain or defend a doctrine or an Institution*

he is not only explicit 'but almost exaggeratedly so.
3e
is naturally Inclined to %&m an. extremist position ia

all his statements, and he sever leavets- say possibility of
a doubt in his reader*&fii&tas to his doatrliml opinion*
either on the Incarnation, or mi the plas of . bishop, or
on any other point of iiapsriaiioe,
If he had desired to
dtiseuas the j?i&@ which the Roasu eoaaualif* should oecupy

in relation to the other ehtirohes, he would have set forth
his views la his usual ap&atie and lucid was?.
those who
attempt to fiat in his letter to the Roaans a definite,

though concealed* proof that there as an early Christian
doctrine of the Hsa.a pria&aey, have not talcea into sufficient
account the special eireumetanees under which this unique
human document was produced* and the particular type of
a i M of its author.
onclusion.
St*Ignatius* letters are Indeed i:riiaarliy sn i~
St.Ignatius
ad is
passioned defence of the. need for the -jio:ioê:'iac'j^ *il form
iviae
fa-****
origin of the * &overnsiec.t in the %mvs% -Christian coat--unities In^yrlA.
plecojate.
But his grû|;meats i;;piy fs.r nore t.*an tn? aere ex. e-ie^cy
of the sy^tea.
He insists thi.it this for.n of administration
is alone beloved of God, and th^.t e bish-v is G-ad's unieue,

direct and authentic representative.
"Plainly, therefore
ve oufht to regard the biano: sa the Lor** Hiaself '/T^FTh.".

l3ji."s,>
This 1-fst assertion la carried to ltd
fâi
logical eenelusi m in 3t.Ic:x;s6ius* lftte^3 atid Ic-'-ds -,1

fe&.the statex&nu t,-ir,t -^^3->**" r**_ iêc n~ in the a-'ai dot-r%tioft -o~the Churca >f An&ioch.*
-34Ssthoiie Christianity has never accepted St.Ignatius*

doctrine la its entirety$ but at the same time his Influence
has bees enorsaovts;* *s=l it 'was he who originated the type
of Christian S4%*4w*i?e which declared that S-od approves
exclusively of this or that f o m of Church organisation
ah," condemned without further consideration those Christiaas
who dareVto doubt the expediency of the particular method
under discussion.
Church history shows as that bitter
'conflicts and divisions almost invariably followed every

new step in this direction, though,as far as oar knowledge
goes ^sip##fe, St.Ignatius* letters*prov*3>k@d no such
result,. \
If' that was indeed so* it iras probably due to the
fact tnst, iii spite _*f their ;o:. ul&rifcy, ^\s doctrine con
tained in them "Riss carried V xir a-.it..sr U* -*uci a-.'* ^stre&s
conclusion that- lê"0uld--neifr hesuxly approved-or art lied
by the contea~orary ChristUni^n *****? $ * * * ^
Jrt**&e*
The nest document dealing irith the s&ae groble- î

Christian unity is of s completely.opposite temper to the
letters of St.Ignatius.
Although its author is also &a
Asiatic Christian, he is an occupant of one of the most

western sees, and he brings us from the Bast to remote
Hoisan Gaul.
(
,UC
li
')i\l
"<f
f" ' 5 v. *
r% n e c ^ e*t
Iv
,K M*,f
-5
*.
^ *
, to If
- % i "- -
"
jsp02*tanss F evidence of the r e a l docks* in
esrd7
Sfeuroii.
StÎrenaeus mas a. p r o l l f l ;
i
i
..],3
J.
"Q-J
sic;
x;f
12 ""'ii't': i " - i
j *
Tii^sr
.\
'-u(.*"U
J:"C
Tj
4
w r i t t e n caring.' tiii?t eestury
J_ *
u r.r
*
3-
<*
^ ,^ _ *
h i s I s be-c<nisr*
<- VI ,1 - I S t .
* *
-c
r
>. * , L
J.
sit J \
ft
Tit
;T<
.""
rf
*"*"
LJ
/1
b ^ WJ. ^ 9
O ' P -i "i1
,, (
". r ' ' * \

*
-n
<
<,-
Jfr
<#
&
- _ *
<t % ^ r t
>
> W J
-** ffl <r
i3n**&tfs.-fc jSe^f
r*~ t j
, . ?
r&
(*^ 2
*****
'
L -
.*i~l
# i
w, ..
f <
ao. oc
/">.
-f.
J&2
^
31 - '
*
'.If .'
*\ i
%\
t
&
<
!*
-^8-
/
J '"
r- <
r s
M4pw>s:
It
V.?'l
7
e-**
S* '
-7t
i
0
sfi-<f9^
T *1
_ #
* .. V * *
<t <, -
-39Wt*.
'C/,.4
tfttp
fs
/fe<^ $JU*4, ti&n
m#
ft
a>n&l e&*?wLC&4i4iA*
^ * m $
* .*
*4
* * C # i
if" f"v -"& ?-
teis*
*>-'-
Y* & <* 4> **-,
^ ^ . e^t*9#&/u**i*cJ< *4 H** ***<***-te*e&&e*->

C * i
-4
u. .1
40
^ j
ff
+ v
^ v
O.
^ A,
~'
., "
J * j
. o T . j ?*
-a
t~-
* t~*
**i
r "rr *
J*8
J"** _^ v n m ^ s * ^
,.* ^ t
&
* *
**
P.
to
* T
p~ r _i
, - -'
--f~rr"' c r~
^
"*
fro
# -_ f
vM^fc- f' 3 1.
*" ^ u_^_
U. 0. c
-Jri
If, ;
JF^"1 "-Ws|B.n*f
'
4r&-j"7&R-~.ir JZ. i _ I n
i A O1
cffL.-c
j
(!
~f"*
' I c,"
"'f"
T*
~ J
-|f * ,
faHUl
*i- ~ " C f
"' '
., ' i
"A-*"* -
_ ?
^ i - s c :~ * ,.>: -1 .-?
-1"
*"
ntt
"
" -/"
gj/ ^ ^
- I s ; i ~ r rit
5"
wf-nt * . 3 . * . *-
C ; r ,x i
h &*%*~fi~
. ,
.L:3
et.A^f' U*U4- $ U^^f^ft^
0wn**$ t *U to~*.t***~Jj
tGfo
JtA'd*'f%4htî^C'
PL
t*'
J Q I <a WSfc *M S * Atklt JJ*(B * M :tfpweD^ jft> 1 U * wSf =
* * * J>
n$tf^
4f~
nt*" * -
__ ife
B-*i .f #
- -r ' >'
*- ^ * ""*" *** i
-4 5 ~
tim fssehal
controversy.
the hisisry of the neesad estUFj for the stcst part- \ .

sffords us osljr scanty asterial for the study of the problem"
of church unity.
Bat at 'the end of this ceatury a very
ac4^@ conflict *rj-ie '^ to &nc rlit. " A / of ihc fariciÎ

f-,ii/it
-..TI ffj..: Lr.la -arc cr,a derive
.îi i^: octane I^for-v-tlon.
IVrlr._ the course "J T~e ^d'ta-Z
u e ^ a r j , ;ae r-*oe of
the Charui "'.- frseu-rtily dl~i,.raei by u i j criitrov-r-y.

Thus la trie middle of the century OS^-tSS) St.Polycarp
. of-Sayma, in spite of his advanced age.undertook a long.
voyage to Rosa in order
s?
t have a conference with Pops
Anic-Jtus ^n a c:ictl;.n conccrîn^ the day of ihe. ?achal

feast". (2aJ.ni.st .Fee.:,. K . c . H . t . ! ) ,
A little l-ator on,
{about !$?}, "tilers arose in L&o&leea a threat strife oan^

Kiiag, the Paassirtrw,Clti5.H,'g,|^ I?..?.."?}, which
caused Melite, bishop of S s M i s , to writ "two books on the
Passever".
{IT.3.II.?.f\V~''."?.
Tb* ?aschxi c-estion was
dieouisced in r.jyrt too, in-; Clonent of Alexandria also

produced a boolc on the Passover.
M
{Ss.B.lI.fS,4}.
the very end of the same century a new asd far sore
violent outburst of the name controversy occurred, sad
I, The origin of the Paschal controversy ins it.-* p ; o u in

the very beînnin-5 of Christianity,
It is probable t;r;t
frost the first c-ntury there existed ia th> Church Oiffero.it;
practices for the celebration of r s*;sr.
jiu..* diêr e ice
v&s til?* r-ssjlt of the various interpretations of tho
connection between Christ's death ani resurrection^ and
the Jewish Passover, wuich in turn provoked trie wider
conflict concerning tie relations between t;ie Old sd
<sw Coveoast3,
A iiscuegion of the- ioo&ri,v*i îie of ti;s
Paschal controversy does ;ot 0021 within tr.e * c ^ e of this
work,
?he best stud? of J.T, cs-i be fo~,vl la;
i. êlisel, T>ie Christ11she ?ass-?.feirr in êr. drsi erate*..
Jaterhunderte, (?f or2 he in t "4r\ *
' 11. A.Hll.-*e.hfil<*, B 3 r Pnachastrelt -*er AiU-nîrch* ("ell.
ill, L.ûchesie, I A Cueation do In Pacru aa Goaoils dt Mice,.
I. {Rr/.*es Cuest.HIst. 1 ' ^ . ,
_
^
"44 **
Euaebius provides us *itb & l e t & i i e t d a a e r i . t-iaa of i t i&

H#Bboo>.charters ?, $4 earl 55,
f a i s i-crt-leu-i ;r
QîUi.Xim
arose betisr-ea tb:>**e Cftrlotlaaa r-.ic sdbercd ta Slie &;-o.*Wiio

trsd&tioii (derived fron tae a, Katies* <2 JOZL r.^l P b i l i ^ l< t-a\t
the f j u r t s c a t h Sif&aa, tae 3&y os' tue ôfcisu ^sâovf-r, is tae
':'-''
proper ~?fsj far i*ue C h r i s t l a u Isv>ur, i*d ii-..^~e ^ o e,6C_JÎveivceiobrated i t ;r. trie Lor*1 *-*/ t. ~icb i ' ^ l l ^ s next ':ft.tr v.ie
J b f i s b pass-owr.
fbe Cbrist!".a '"au'.^r, accord!*^ -^ us
f i r s t t r B d i t i x i j , *zas f r i n - ^ r l l / :* comer-or'i^ljji of Gufiwt**;

sufferings and ."'etrfeb*
I t -:: obc^rvod galaXy by la.- C^ri.rc-
iarts i s tlin w:strn c i t i e s

. "
JI*
sl"*
,IUJT
{Vptx&z^z, i . y r a t
S-XQ*}.
fiie necoal t r i ^ i t i i j - i ecnbnaised i.se r e j u r r s e t x i or J e ^ s

Christ asHI
KP
ir. foreo over a l l ti1-.
r ?&& of Ciarlyt-o ^_ci.
JL-.---
Ewsebiua*
Euêbius 1 a^rr&tlvo ;l~;f a t,,e f n i o ^ i n , , de.ior^w.JA of
account
of %'ae t h i s sta-te 3f trie sro&r^cted c j ; i i i l e t *
&fc t.. cnl : t.*'.
coatro90O3a5 o^nturj a l l &b.' eburcbess ^r^.j...)..'v, i,::o ic-ypl* * re
versj.
sua^riXy a..,it.te-a, bv tê <Hsca&ia4.o*v r e l a t i n g t-> the iuv>,ei
day for the E a s t e r celebrant
DC.
OJEOSJ
: frc Gaul to the fc.r e'ît, a t Oerboefie.
Fere be IS ovsryîvre
^:-SJT
a r r i v e s a t -.
uaa/iiaoaa eficiBloi^ opposed t.: t ^ A s i a t i c t r p " i t l j c : , 'odt tr_e

cburohea devoted t o t b s l a t t e r êf'jsel t o cbaa-.;$ tl;\:ir caatoa.
At tills cFaeIl r o i n t Victor> trie ?>ie of R;ae {? r - 1 ; , ; ^.;o
bM alrendy j l a y e ^ a lo?riii_ f ? r t i s u.v.1 . r"-vX;,a a e ^ u t i " tij.it>
aisd a t mioBe* or-ter ta# -Jther cbura.-i-,& Ha; vaa . c n ^
took u|>oa biascilf ta prer .5 s t i v e s ^f tê
.JUT-*
-jru^,
of i.. C u r c b
s-M %t-te^pta t o exeoa^vaslcitte a i l tbs Asi^îc &5&Zu.aiiLe&.

This aetlon^ boêêr, a e t wltb tiie llaap^rovÎ o*f a i ^ or^-ther
blsii^'ps who u n t i l tben HBA îiiiri.5lj scc&rted ni-s 1-i - -ers..*:.^
and lriiaeu3, the peaca-Ioviag b i a b ^ of I v ^ a s , ^ e:.ij
/-Jtetoufead b i s f o f - b i s laatle-of s b s r i t y siii t o l e r f t t i ^ a .
d,paft ^.iM>--9W-K|r-^'^^^.^-'!4i<f,j#ei $ : .*.. -i|f -#*,*# * * * # *"- o - # p me ^SBfr ;*. * * &/*>aw- W ^
-I* las,S*l,S4 s i?5,
Eusebiua
-45
Closes Ills aapfstiire a t t h i s ' v i t a l point and ieaes
toe f l a a l r e s u l t s of Victor* policy uaexplaiasd.
fills important @vent of ehareh h i s t o r y ' h a s seen
aanliioly cnsieis>rfi I* h i s t o r i a n s aa the turning
point i n the r e l a t i o n s hetveen
local. churches I
I t was
tile f i r s t in.> thrice of a s e r i s u s c o n f l i c t lietwees the

various cos -.unities, aaS i t was a l s o the f i r s t occasion on
which a pop claiaed t o a c t i n the capacity of supreme
l e a l ' of the Guthalie Ofeirah.
Such d e s c r i p t i o n s of the
Paschal controversy csa he fmtfih io n i l the chief aanaela

of church h i s t o r y , asfi Ten thc#@ h i s t o r i a n s who issr
l i t t l e inclined t o a t t r i b u t e &a early o r i g i n to the papacy
were ohiireot to r o c o ^ ^ s e t.-Jt n i r f l j a u.
o -I of the
sec^n* century there r c r c îir;xa--aal* a^.r.i JI" :.&

a c t i v e fi~al f c i l c y i the Charca.
!he only y s i a t of Cwiit>j..ti--i Lfet/see^ i^s
7:;fiî
h i & t - r l s n s n*"!S the ûe^t-en. whether i h . i Y~ct./r slrf.'^hy

pOissease^ the r o r e r sf e>xa:: i anlcatisi/, t.-.e j>i.h</r s.jrcr.ca,
cr whether t h i e TSS hlr- rir<-t s i t e J:J " x. :: i>yi j t 1c
?* A r e v i s e of t-ie l i t T i - r e i - îvs.i l a he Tele Lêl'.rer*;
IUJt >ir -*es Conciles, {! " f) v o l . I..j>. r~%-s-- ,
Sh
t^&ce, ^ a r i y History <: r>h;1 d - n ^ v . ? wrah, l?%~>~**

3 J . ? 1 M , A Hlatsry of t..e Caurch, (./xâ. ? *TJ .i*""'-*""
Bsfctffsl, P r i i l t i r - cat i ^ i i c i -.., . ; -" " ^ T
S&rr.ack ^Grretsêsch: cht&, v;>i. I . r ^ - *
HefÎo-Leclsrcc?, î^t-jire l e s C ^ c i l a s , J l . l . . ; . ?''*r-:f
L!T>U3
3 Fr.Be-nsa, h?rc-Aureie, ;F'.ri.s? f"^"j ^ , " r * - '*ec -..: r.uve

t*ue a ra.-aute $is.it rse,^ aee -"-t 3ij._ ~>e. e ," vJ if
i * iscroyaale Sesaein re Iss tor-aî*.. * I,:i;, Ir-lrs- t
Victor.
11 ,:rete ".-lit s x c o ^ u u i e r , l, :tfer i e I ' r ^ i i & c
uriivrsiiei lee /roviuces k s i-Xus i l x u ^ t r c s , .arcera*
e i l e s ae f a i ^ a i s n t r~3 ; - l i e r / lurs tr-v.nitj.>^s *;eva it
i s d i s e i i l i i ^ roaaiiie",
Aohe Tur;asl, H i s i a i r s e ie, '2^%e It; f dt.T.ute,, ^ P i r i ^ ? ' )
; . "-. *La r a e s t i ^ i ê I s ?ê*ae ^ 4 t ^ -s hn, ^ u o "e la
PspavJte'*.
Li.:htfc3t, Tbe Apostolic ?ti%hers, l.-.?1*, s,%ys th-'t,
t ^rei s " a l l the 'lifferexiee in the worll' 3?twce::" Cl . r . . t ' Errf Victor*s trentiêiit cf t?ie -Jt:.*r cuurciea,
*s,
formidable -sfssroa..
3oas historians, sac; a "vh*2&..- ..
maintained that this power alre-iCy hfclaf.â la Victor*

who actually essosaaaissated the Asiatic eoasauaitias,, and
that this separation from the rest of the CathoXle Cnur<sh
had disastrous effects on their welfare.
Others
asserted
that Victor oould only as# the sere threat of seosjiaiisieaiioci

and never went beyond it*
She objections
Euaebiua* aeemint of the Paschal controversy at th
against the
lase'biari
t i a e o f victor's pisoopaey represents the Church aa
narrative.
already pasftesaiBg a definite systems of central organ
isation/*^ the he id zt
VZLZ*.
btnsd ^ v e Viet-r,
:i
felt hlaa&lf res; oâihle far raaintaini.:, <*_iif omit;- Is

tiie rites
LUJ&
ca3tjss of ii;e vari^-.^ a-jCii co^ ^ m t i - -*.
He aai:,oiMrd jf^xiods &id he ôjaeddei cne > v*?r >f excoxiunie&tlsg the disobedient communities.
this deaoriptiaa f the church life of the sesosii
century coses,, however, from a sasn. living is the fourth
eatery, and it sharply contradicts the witness of contem
porary doeusants.
The question therefor arises hem far
we an trast fusebi***1 aarr'>,tive? iu --^ Irî ~*-t .J;: -sf

arriving at any conclusion is. t-< aiocy t..t fr;tt^'-t'* *"
the original doeunt-nta relied to tol* cj^fll.rl irs'< im
uac
vhich Eusebiaa himself ssfi of then.

Contract let ions
He begins his narrative of the Ba&ehal controversy
between
Eusebiue
with a description of the eone!liar itoveaient Milch
and the orig
inal docuspontaneously sprang up in the different provinces of tag
seats.
Catholic Church*
He mentions the synods aa4 assemblies
f bishops discussing the Faseh&I question ia 0ai*l# in
1, Tieltêrêhr und jrirohe ^:!hre3/l ,'er eroten are*
Janrhunderfce. (I*3??) r4 f t. Fuller^ The primitive oaint-s sa-? the oee of Roue, (Lsn. I.'-X> M ed.) p* r>.
G.Saiswn, The infallibility of the Church, (Loa.i^SC.
f.13 e.) p . ? ^ .
3. Batiffol, Frlaltiv* CathoXicldaA P*fS8.
Italy* in Foetus* is $re*ce, Is Palestine sad t the far

last .ia Q&rhmnm.
Me does not suggest that any particular
vnfr or person provoked this corns lli&r &ovemenfc, asi at rely

says that "all with'one consent through autusl corres
pondent drew up mi eooleslastloa,! decree,, that the mystery
of the resurrsstio&'Of the Lord should be celebrated on no
other* bat the Lord's hay'h (Bus.H.B* f.^.S?*)
le eads Ills
fjjrtl ehapter with the following optimistic at ate meats
"lad
that mhieh has bo#a meatioaod &bov& ways their laaaaiaous

decision*. {tusuH*t*,3,j,!.
The ^4th ehspter Introduces th* reader to quite a sew
set of events*
Its first Terse sayg3 "But the Bi&fetops of
Asia, let by fiysrstes# decided t hold to the ola custom

iamtded doma tc theur'. (BusH.F.V34,1,}
Zr* order to explain
this attitude of opiositi-m* Eus^bius eites la extrusts

?lycr*ifes* letter addressed to the Haaaa ooiajuoity,
first ori.rittal doeuterit preserved by Tso&eolu6 conis.hu
This
two
very important statements ^hich coosMorahly change the

picture of tse conflict drai^ by Shêbiuw himself Art the
previous chapter. They ars- i. titeHftfeet t.isi, t;ie syuod of the
Asiatic bishops held at Ishesus for the purpose of discussing
the Paschal cpiestion was aaaaoaed at the deslrs of the Rosas
eonss.Ity. (EUS.H.:E,V,'24,$.) sad ii. thst the bishop of
gjfcliesus was Bnot affrighted by terrifying worast!(lu8.1,lYa5?45 )
contained in the letter received from Home.
these two state-
nests indicate that the synodleal soimseat was not spontaneous,
t.'Eua.H.B, ?*t3 (2~"$K
f. Pclycrates i~ t h i s l e t t e r saha- ao aeotxon of Victor.

hie iror^s an? addressed t o the uiial^ Rosen co^runity.
zweirfrt^ftyrvv
/* rt/*retsc
&$s
v/itis
hfrv
6*c
All
For
also
" t
s.
.-
?. , * V
->r
: *'
s* j *
* - * " > , "
Cl
C
'
-t t .
f;
U-.
>i
;A"..V
r . . " v r c .*-.
/. >
. ps
i t .r
/i-
w
~
C'f
' * < 1 * , ft*
U.,.
0
->-
"1 { " - "
TS*14
'
*49
hmmr
as- &rer cast* -out on account of this peculiarity^ but
the presbyters before thee, though they did not obaerve it)
seat the lycharist to those from the cotsmunitleB^
!te i . )
who observed
Eus.H.E*V,24,{t4.t5).
fills. l a s t p a r t of S t . I r e a a e u e * l e t t e r a s s be*i &

block
s i a i a b l l a g / f o r majty ehureh h l s t o r l a i i a . .
SLaee they beli'd
t h a t i t i?as h i s p r o t e s t a g a i n s t t h e excommunication of the

A s i a t i c caasiunities - , they were o b l i g e d t o a c c e p t the I n
c r e d i b l e f a c t ' t h a t the r e g u l a r senclsg. of the "Euehariat
fros
Rose t o Asia usa t h e viaifals sxga of interooajsusloa. bet*r@n

the churches.
f a l s was i&eosrp&tible with h a t h eossaonaeria
&B& t h e evidence of o t h e r h i s t o r i c a l documents, but no

s a t i s f a c t o r y xpl s t a t i o n ooald b found ' " u n t i l t h e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of l i t . l r e u & e j a '
abrui&or.ed,,
lezur-
traditional
r:,*5 . l i - ^ e t -->r
^^ T * ' . c r ^CLI*!:. > of t.li , ^ : 2 _ ? s ^'-- :t. .1 it.
bech di&covtr?'* sir! firmly ., ûii<-ic<i "QJ 1 :-. Jih^.o i n . . . a

remarkable r-sr^ Th Ko.^xi J : , i r c u HL t .$ "..jln .h
Century 5 *. {'l8.r\%r<l TêoI.I-te v . ^ u l / ?
3
c o n s i d e r 2d as r--ferri.a.- t o the i j ^ r . i Z
y . i c e ';:"
w *J "2
:3i; A c. h^t-ee-i the
Sasnis Chi&rtodaeiasiis sad t h e a a j o r i t y of t h e msahers oh* the

saise c h u r c h , f o r the Rosas hla.. ,, 'i*,** -.o sad t h e E u c h a r i s t
I . L.âc i<4,^ Is. ' N vr~t.< a _ Is. Taûe^ x . i ": , r , ue l'..i -'.t
j a n a i s zlu vyy? e r I ' s ^ c u n r - t s t i o s* one -'I a t a-co ?a-aoi
ra?ide cues c e l i e ~ui e ^ ; p r s l a vi_if* 'c - J " J do ir. c c v
d ' 4 . s i e , o ? i t ui. chase e s G î h i ^ a l o . r o b ? b - s " .
g# r f e f . L e e l . , :i,3&.~e Cor., voi . 1 . , . 14' ;.'f?;-j z ^
i n t e r , . r e t a t i o a : a.rt '""a* 1-s a u c i c - ^ _ , a** Tt. ;.ire ,u l e: ^ x
^ver^^to C'irstiaris o;ir"&3de0i3mna
c o l vl.arn."& - ^ ^
c e l e b r o r l e J ^ r v i e e ^Jivt.-: 1 . h "c **ZJL = . v o / e r e ^ i i._
3 a t t li^- 6XÎaritiO:- I D - . ; : l *J^_W *. ,;> ^ r : o l e u J : t, :c
s e . i . ' i ^ / of to* -"hic^^rîtj f i r 34 x i r " C';*cer\,^ f u r . r : ^
d e s i .-.a G^risti-.a^ ;."Su.h
iii -*->-, t .? " v u 1 JC '"~c*_/r
5
t o tno c j-X.arî ^,*i, 'zii' e x " a c . ^ r i a u wâ.-. ..zz. >? ^~ X I,
t "ifeiTl
to tile Asiatic congregation settled in his eity.
(Note ii.)
Thus we ha? before us tiro separate accounts of the

Paschal controversy, representing it under -very different
aspects.
One is given by Eusebius himself, and the other
by the fragments' of the two original documents -which he quotes

in support of his orni version, but i?hieh in reality tend, to
contradict it.
fhese two versions may he presented in
parallel columns as follows:BuseMus
The original documents
Ju Eusebius represents the
-Polycrates' letter points to the
various Synods Milch set to
Roman community as the initiator
discuss the Paschal question
of the 'synodical movement.
as the result of a spon

taneous movement which sprang
up inside the Catholic Church.
B. gusebius describes the excoa-
St.Iren&eus* letter in reality
swaic&tion. of all the Quarto- deals with the conflict between

deciaan churches.by Victor,
Victor and the Roman Quarto-
ana refers to St.Iren&eus'
deeimans %-hich is never mentioned
letter as a proof of it.

G. Eusebius quotes Polycrates'
by BuseMus himself.
In his letter-Polycrates mentions
letter as showing the revolt
at the same time the "terrifying
of the Asiatic bishops
words" received from Rome and her
against the common decision
request that a synod should be
of all the churches.
summoned.
These tiro statements
preclude the interpretation which

Eusebius put upon this letter in
his use of it.
It is evident from the comparison,..of these two versions
that there is an obvious inconsistency between Eusebius on the
1. See lote 1,
tyfif' 5h
I
J
I
gem'hmsA* nad Xratsaeue m i PvSLytonAna <as the ether*

t h e two <xrl&iA toCHBcnte point t o
FICTO
as the eeese
|
j
j
f ilse eofliot iefi they s t primsrllf a protest
agadijst tfe emds&asetlosi &t the itei QSJartodectTiSEis
PiKS30URod by the local s p d .
Sfeilsi tSie -Aoeeuat
of* the oeatroireray* as flings by Ktseehiue represents

i t so l#tar*s a t t e s t t o eerreet the tragltiene arsd
etteteoe the Asiatic Christiana*
These two WF
clone preaiippoae entirely Slfgferent ty$*e3 sf relations

between the etiristiao <srsislti*s# aetl the diw-rgeaee
" between then i s scs atrtfcing that they are Irreooa-
etieiae
I t i s obvleue that the s#<ii version of the
ecnfllot* that baaed. on the original oousents has
a gatt* authority behind i t * o& i t i s only In the
l i ^ s t o* thia aêcumt that i t I s possible to scii?r~
etaofi the rtasosg both Sfer the eyaodieal aawtsiai and
fer tbe bet eet&rov&rey tihlcfe e^rang tif betveezt the
Booan aofi the Aalatle Christian.
t h e sjrodtdal
We bskve already nbs#rwecl t a St* d e c e n t *e cpl&tle

that a fiistssrfeaiee l a the l i f e of a loeal eecaiunlty
tiMKM&ly {Nrovokea1 m keen reeetiass I s tlse other elmreiheef
#a#s of Yttiohf 4feei& iteaXf' ree$enalfee for tbo
' peace &t the its! cfenmii* t r i e d to i r i s g about a s
^T0S3nnt between ill e m u l a t i n g parties*
the efcurehes
wre ûiei&y ifteimd of the imstaSng of & eonAlet

l a *j <ae of tbea Hhrou&i ttselr frequoBt mef-tafsgt ot
l e t t e r s * m& hf the ease memm they hslpsa e s A other
t o u i e unity anfi 3sI#
Particularly i s cases
*#feere a group IT ^ i r i 0 t i i s hafi ! # B eêoarsssieatecl #--r se@

1*
I t s t * 8#1#W* 'Si*
doctrinal reason,, the interference of the other churches

tag absolutely Inevitable.
fas Church was one body arid the
same Holy Spirit breathed through ail her aestbers,
She
lit not yet possess one central institution sr organ which

fcwiM speak in Qodss name for the nhol Catholic Church.,
this privilege was beatowed on every local oosnunlty rules
by its iooal synod.
the unanimous decision of such a
Christian gathering was eonsidered atss the authentic expression

of HGi,* will;
and this decision, therefore, though made
by a local church, had. the authority of aa inspired ordinance,

an! a s applicable, to all the other churches.
The other
casualties* however? were also in direct ooaiauaiaa with

th# Holy Qhost? and a decision made by say one church had
i be approved sad- sanctioned by all the sister cuurch^b
before It became a universaliy recognised rule?.
O.iiy v..eu
all the soiasmmities, on# after an^th-rr, h v unaîu- uiy

rejected soafcahisgor disoipline, could- the Christians
be sure- that this ondetisatien mas really the will f G-od.
For in smcit a case it was eiaar tb&t the scattered Christian
tonFgatioiy# 'all voting isd@p@ai#htif, isusi be obeying
the same tiviaas voiee.
|S#t iii.J
?h@ syaoaieal aove-
sent pFSfokei. by the fasehal controversy an be rightly

understood only in the light of this conception of the
relations between the decision of the local synods and the
will of the Holy Ghost..
the condemnation of the Hasan Ouarto&eeim&na by a
t.
loaan synod
was bound to raise a nave of strong excite*
aasnt in the most distant parts of the Christian world.
The
a&is reason was that the Honaa synod condemned in the name
of &od a tradition irhieb. was accepted by many leading
1. fhis synod- is nentiosedf 'hj Eusebius/'And there is also

another writing extant of those who were assembled at
Rome... .which bears the name of Bishop'"Victor". (Eus.H.E.23.ij
eojtiiiiaitieii a i i had a i i r e o t a p o a t e l i e a u t h o r i t y feehi&d I t .

t h e deep r e s e c t which the Church. of the aseeoad sefiturj
already f e l t fay mewyttalmg nhioh bat* the sane " a p o s t o l i c "
was i n i t s e l f a s u f f i c i e n t sgsois for t h i s reseatmeat..
AM
t o tliie was added the sasulsmate defense of t h i s custom hy

a s t r o n g Itsdy of i h r l s t i a s s who were nestierei, l a staaj p a r t s
ft
of the world."'
flie two o r i g i n a l doemaetitf quoted fey Basehins an be
properly taiiderstood only i f they are read as aasf>rs received
fro Ephesus and Lyo&a t o the synodica! l e t t e r froa the
Roaan corsrosity,
In t a i e n t i t l e i t ^r,* . roljôly .."~.r.i t ^ t
the Eosaa caartsc^ciasfla 1ml beu a c c o r d ~~ JiH&l^r.* i . %

a f t e r t*ceir r e f u s a l t o submit, H%^ been exe'.-u-ivajL i 1 .
Tie
Roaan ayaocl asked the other churches t o s t r o v e tuifi dac.i*i~&

and t o convoke l o c a l synods t o eoafira I t .
roiysr&feeii8
l e t t e r i s a d i r e c t answer t o t h i s r e e u e s t .
The
tans held a synod and rejected tae Hxtaa v e r d i c t ,
ASISLJ-C
jhrist-
insist!.^:
t h a t th Ou&rfcadecijaaass! p r a c t i c e ?;as && a,.o^t iîc t r ~ a i t i o i i

aal
SCRIM
aeirer lie coadeiariei
The
t e r r i f y lag words" which
did s o t frighten the A s i a t i c C h r i s t i a n s were the, iiewu t h a t
! L Pi&ao, the loams Church a t the sad of the gond atury >
o* fhe casrr-sl^ja s t a r t e d hy t*he Hasan 2 3&uu:i.ty r.-,il*:w t:
a p o s t o l i c t r a d i t i o n of the f-utrtodeeiiû'i-. ;*si r ^ t ^ y
faeiIiv>te-3 by the f i c t t h a t the l&txêr rare accused -w
Judsiaerss.
fhe general auisoaiiiy if t.a* C .r-l-"-.irA':s
a g a i a s t the Jetrs secured to the L a t i ^ .majority c* c--o
Roasa C h r i s t i a n s ir*@ u. 3rt of the
well as the f i n a l overthrow if the fu^rtO'locliaaa
s^;,;:..
cT.Coastantir.e'a argue .seat 3 *u,ai--t tno C , ^rîeelr...>
**5^**
t h e i r b r o t h e r s i n Ism hM been axcossimnle-ated a.s J M s i s e r s ,
St.Iren&eug* l a t t e r , to., an b e s t be understood as a
!*$8,lf t o a s i m i l a r eoaiaualcatieai frees Ease.
He writes on
behalf 'of a l o c a l ayuod of the- parishes In Gaul
a M begins
frith a general statement t h a t the Church <!8S not possess

any u a i f s n t r u l e csnsernifig the c e l e b r a t i o n of E a s t e r .
then prbcee&a t o an account of t h e i r l o c a l conditions aad

d e c l a r e s t h a t i s 3a a l too they hv.ve Cua,rtorleci:Aas, but t h h t
they a l l " l i v e i n peac* with one ar.rfcb.er a n ' tne -f.ibs .ree-ent
i n regard t o the fs>st confirms the &graem@iit in the faith**.
I'lma. H,l. 9 ,a4,13).
His further arguiient r e f e r t o the past
t r a d i t i o n -of the M&nm& Ofauroh* and fee Gentians f i f e of V i c t o r ' s

g-reifeeesiiors ms exsa^les sf tolerance t o the A s i a t i c euat /uis
i n s i s t the Rosaaa cosaaunity.
Xre&aeus does a s t s r r r o v s
^f*ssiisllf of the A s i a t i c t r a d i t i o n , but lie does a o l find any

reason for it-s eos&emjmiioa,, considering l e g i t i m a t e and
i n e v i t a b l e the divergencyof the manner of f a s t i n g even within
the-same l o c a l ougreâti.on,
Viewed In t h i s l i g h t , -the synodie&X sovaaent which *v-;J
provo'ted by the Fa.seha.1 controversy bet ones a striding;
! . Only t h i s a r ; r o a c h t o Polycrates* l e t t e r can solve th#

c o n t r a d i c t i o n s of I t s present t e s t .
According t c the
t r a d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Paschal controversy i t
*rae e i t h e r an answer t o V i c t o r s e n c u r y eoncer'an,; the
various racdes of "Easter celebration,, (tnxs i s the view
of I A i&no? The Roman. Church nt the end of the second
century, pJ?5^) or a reply t o h i s e d i c t of exooa.-uaie;'ti.,a
a g a i n s t a l l the fuartodeeiaon coa.vonitiee
The f i r ^ t
explanation I s contradicted by the mention of fchoê
" t e r r i f y i n g words'" which were obviously o-it of ^l&ce i n
ah e n r i i r y ^ ana moreover the su^-ixiiiig of % jjynod V/H.-. h/.rdly
necessary i n t h i s c a s e .
If inforsmtion -?'- a l l t a ^ t ?:?s
needed* Polycr?.te&, s s well as a l l the other bih3?^ ; c-ijia
provide the Roman church ?itb. f u l l d e t a i l s cancer..hhi t h e i r
cusioss without recourse t o z synod.
The second ex-jIcu-ati-T*
i s also unsatisfactory,
Tne f a c t th^t in t h e i r l e t t e r t e
Soaan Christians asêd Polycrates t o susuâ a ^yno-i aakes i t
impossible t u e t taey sh)uM -at the stvie t i ^ e h-'ve sano traced
t h a t they h-.vS already exeoisuunlee.ted the A s i a t i c cxaâaxtics*
f. l a s . , B..7*33.{2)*
*55*
The maoi."
aanifeafc&tion of the ChrlBtizns*
dsep Ser^ss of unity
i e s l aofsasJit
^^ ^g
Rossa eossanity.
sm& mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,
l a t h i n g l a i s l a n < i s i e s a,r;
.
. . .
.
.
attempt a t a o a u s a t l s n on, toe pi"t jf trie do-man oaurea.
On the contrary., i t sao-ws her keen d e s i r e for- s.he a< j ô'rt.
and s i l s e af sae- atner cciutiaitie*;.
Uo so, joy eospiete a r u a l i t y ,
A i i alilse z, :&w
The ^ f i a h e a of C-cuI, or
3 Cl3.riai.xaa eoauaasity s i Jasrê&e 37?-,"& u i t h iiie- i-aae

eor.fiieac$ aa the &re-h churches of Hvne 4r Ephesafi, i;i'1
a l l havs the same ls|j#rts2i#e.
fh# Xsat
*?&* sentence ag&i&st the E-oaâ Qmrtsat.tisftti.il it p r o s t a g e of tiie
p&schni
aomaeed fey the t o s a a eo'a&eiX* sM refuted hy the ehurelies
costrovere:/.
i s Gaui aiirl Asia UisoFs r* - ^ c s s i h l y re*c^-5.trsd fry ather
l a c a i syno-ia -shieh may also luve sxcj;L-.anlca,ie# t ' . e i r m
tiiartodasiasaa*''
A./nsui interns correspond&c then
sprang up s a l i t inÎmit-ifi asw the l e t t e r s s o t only h@tiM?in

Beta ana the &t&ej <&tt*ebes, M t a s gsshaagg of t p i s t l e s
htse the -wmimB lentil siaiiiiiities*
fuaeMaa* itpasiie &&mv%iom t h a t
VItp'.. ^ t t e ^ i ^ e c t
' i s cut off f r s s the nmmmm. a* t y the p a r i s h e s f a l l Asia*'

Clas*ll,l',?S49j &a #aiy r e f e r t h t h i s stags of ih
Fast&al e o a t m m r s y .
1 r l g k t i&terpret&tisn of t h i s
a e t i a la e a t s s t i a l i f ne &:m to understand the nature of

t h a t uiiitf waish Louisa a l l the C h r i s t i n a co;&minitia
t o o t h e r -2% th'j,t p^rio-i in ths >roth*rno.; of tho Cxt.ui
Church,
^-asehliis 1 account, ta:r* Ir. it.* l i t e r a l j e a ^ e ,
Î.-cs.'ss of the excossaaicatiJii of she Asi&vis cos x a;itie*s

i s . t e r n s f a a i l i s r t o the s e e i s s i s n t i e a l s f g a n i s a t i o a of
t h e fourth etstafy*
ffe# Sisiian s y a s i "declared a l l the
I* The .list, t avv,o-ln ae^tioned fc H'lSealu^ s ^ ^ ^ t . ^ t : v t

tiie Rosaii rlecisiaa provoked the JIO.-D leais? IrV^ r-j^t xa\
th:;5e places ??here the aoii^re^^tiojas -ai-jht '.<Qii i n c l i n e
ssae G:-,tiT^s fro;s vostern Asia hino'/"-? '*- **" >* *"-? c--~^
In Lyons, Pale^tir^^ Por.tu^, Corinth a.i^ C^rh^'nG, -.11
hsloisîa^ t o regions whieh *seve cl-îciy relate-2 t>
a i t i e s life Siayraa arid Sihests-s,
I?. SU8.S.S.V.S4.19.
hrsthrem wholly exctiamieatdH1 |lii8.1*Bef.f49) exactly

la the &mm way as th@ synods of the fourth osntyrj used
l
to exfcOa&uaie&te those Christians who disagreed with them.'
fills representation of the f&ets* however# so sharply
coatradiots the the? doeimenta of 'the second aaa third
centuries that Its reHnhility needs careful consideration.
Moreover there is another reason why we should adopt a
reserved attitude towards It.
We h&ve already sae.i tlvit
Eusebiua failed to give an accurate explanation of tha

origin of the Panoh&l ontroveray, sad the question arises
hew far
dare trust his description of its final stage*
Although Eusebius' inaccuracy is evident* yet his narrative

definitely .pF&auppoaes
^.that'.'Victor* a letters soiiesriiing,
the exoossiiaieiitlaii, of the Asistie tharehea still existed

whn h# was writing his history* mm we s&v a direst
reason for rejecting this- isiplientisn.
the difficulty In deciding what Interpretation osuo,
safely be pat on guaebiua* narrative is, ho s ../.rent extent*
resolved by another conflict between the Roo.au couîiUT-y
and the Asiat-ie churches, w.ien toox pisce in the sesx-:d
part of the third century (*>*<-^v) t whe>n Stephen aua/enied
the COS:Junion between the church?a of Co., ,-adoeis ivil Cilloi^,
and the Reman cossumity.5
If guasbiua i3 ri-'.ht r,; tetH"
really ^deelar^d ail the brethren there (In Aaio, liner*5

wholly ejccos!inie:ite||% then we nay arfeiy mU.-rt.rot
Euaehiâ* nor'? 3 in the livht of Stei-aen.* ssti^s 2. sJast
the Asiatic Christians,
fhey waul then "-o&& th?:t Victor,
lite Stephent la the name of sis soiiro..:itl>n. *;nounced

to tns other cnurehea that in future tns Asistt*io* r. .u
t. Socr.I.Sj
So&.I.tt,
2, 8u. 1.1* V.84.9.

3 tie S.S.' VI1.5.14) .
my?*"
can to Rome would be refused the sacraments as weII as

that -hospitality usually offered by the Christians to their
brethren.
la sMItiatt to these punitive seastirgs, Stephen
sutpesiM the sending of alas from Eoae to Asia, as would

naturally be expected after a breach of the brotherly
reflations between the chars-Iiea* aaa it ia possible that Victor
114 the same*
.But just as Stephen ami M s local synod had no authority
cirer other independent esaip^gstioas
and oala not exeojs-
sumioate a^yssa soept the members of their o& coisiiiialty#

either,--did fistoi* possess any power to eat off from the Ghursh
of <3>d the Asiatic Christiana.
Suspension fro^ cor lanx-ju,
not excoûntcatioa, wûl-1 be the ri&ht definition of Victor's

action, unless we accept tae incredible fact that Victor
possessed a rl^ht which n-*^ entirely lost by hi& successor
Stephen who ruled the Rosaan church seventy years latsr.
Thus although we have ao e#t conclusive ground for
altogether rejesting this part of Eusebius* narrative, yet
our general knowledge -of the controversy s*^mm^~ su^.ests
that the action of the Roman syavd had no abject beyo^-; the
exaossaunication of the Ou&rtodeciaians settled in Rose-
Tnis
supposition ia su; ported by the fulionrinc f^cts:i. We do not possess any document directly referr-m^ to ?.
break of communion b^tweeji lorn and Asia, which would hat
been an outstanding treat of early church, history:
w@ do not
en find any oMlctiie allusion to it in the writings of the

third century.
ii.Susablus himself only cuotss the letters dealing islth the
I*. There ia .io single document dating troz V.e first three
centuries which implies the right of one comisuaily to
^communicate another iocsl churea.
far 1$$ iapsrtaat fact of the xcossssualc&tioa of the

Hasan uarfco&ciisaa i M usss tassa as p?#df of trie excoamitsisittlom -of ta Asiatic churches.
ili. flrmili&a and St.Cypriaa definitely ignored ?letoi*fs
action sgsiast the Asiatic soaiauaities, although PIraillaa
does actually mention the. Paschal conflict la his letter
seat'ta Oarth&ge. {Up. 75.(0) )
Stephen?s suspension of
intercsiisaaioa appeared to his as a striking novelty never

b#or heard of in the ihurehf//4w&- //</
SB##Mus
ffe@ -Paschal
controversy
pus ale is
&nl the
.
.
.
# has always
<* bean a *?aseha-l
Chuifoh history.
It hastiea'de&erl1)*&as the re salt of
ecatr^vsrsy.
'ta ambitious icfcr*s unlawful desir# to dominate over all
tie cither churches,
It has aaig th development of tile
church rgaaiss appear revolutionary and spasmodic, la a.s

far as it revealed the Chureh of ta second century as already
.possessing a satr&l organisation wtiioh is agsia lost in the
sours' of <ta ,;h|rd oatury.
All these coatra&ictions dlsaiêar., nrr^wp- tr en STS
begis to looSc at this srlod not thr-iuâ the eyes of in
fourth century but hp tn# light uf the original documents*
fa second ceaturf was a tia 6uwafca atteatioa of all
church leaders was 'primarily concentrated oa the preservation
of peace i M order inside the loeal Christian cosuauaities.
Interested as they were in the welfare of the whole Church
as th body of GbFisfc, it s&s in the IF awn local emsiunity
that they were empowered to sot exclusively.
fo other
churches they could msM. their brotherly advice, but thr
"But that they ho are at Ross..*vainly f.rstead ths

authority of the Apostisa; any on n& .mot? *lco frjis 4-''.
fact tnst concerning the celebration :<? faster, , i.-^r;
are so&e diversities a&on-;-' the^.ClTp* ^.i'^J ) Firsiliau
here writes only aoout the conflict in&i-?e t:\& 3.^?,:*
coiaaunity, end beia^j, a ler/Unj bisno*- of ihe Asiatic
Christians, he would certainly have .ciam a "3 out Victor*a
actions against ais chureaes.
2. Sp.?5.<6).<5?5).
-59'
were no eouaeils hr hlshopi eosasttssioaea for the s.aeral
hweti geirerfisent,
fills sewer was acquired by the Church
leaders only i s the fourth century when the -Eos&a Ea^rr^rs

r#eogiiised the Catholic Church sad gave thea access t o the
machinery of s t a t e eospulisI am*
l u s s M u s waa one of the
leading hishsps of Ills time who wholeheartedly we loosed.

t i l l s -fundamental change l a the l i f e of the Church, and I t
I s therefore nut s u r p r i s i n g t h a t in a i a account, of the Paschal
controversy he should r e p r e s e n t the -Church of the aeeond
century as organised along the l i n e s of her c o n s t i t u t i o n i n
h i s owa day*
Pope f i e t o r trait an outstandi.% enuren Is.eder, oat Ll3
r e a l concern. was the 1strodaction of a a t r ^ e r unif jf^lfcj
i n s i d e the Sanam community, asd'hiii ambition was | p s t e b i j
t o a l l a i a the p o s i t i o n which h i s t s i l e a g u e s already possessed
l a t h e i r smaller hut koiiegeaeous elmrtlieg.'
l a Stiseolus*
a c c o s t of h i s he s h e a r s ss aainiy i n t e r e s t e d ~-a the

establishment of uniformity tnroughoufc tne waole Church.
lusehius* siiarepresemtatioa of h i s action can 'he explained
l a two d i f f e r e n t wajta*
I t may be said t h a t Buseblu; was
unable t o r e a l i s e the deep gulf nhieh separated the l i f e

f the Church of the fourth century from t h a t .of the second,
and t h a t m read i n t o documents contemporary tsith the e a r l i e r
period a meaning f i t a i i i a r to h i s omm day.
This explanation
nay he trjufc* hut we have t o resseaber t h a t Bu&ebiu8 had aose

s e r i o u s reasons for. .laying emphasis a the esaoamuaioation
of the iuartodeelmaaa pronounced* already In the second
t * La ria*i3,
l a s .i-sasnMChurch a t sue e-*S of iê a e c a d C* ,nury
h - . ^ A h -"^-r>i",
7r-jti t'.v- t^-.l/iTii;.. ^h* Chriatia.*
0 53Lsu.*itie3 of the â^t ^,d <iore ho&jên-jsltiy in I , a -ir
members .1; ^r^ ^-tsre unity in ' / . " i r 3 r - 5 u : i i ; u , i l.iai. tee
- & > -
e-atury, in the name of the whole damrch.
the P&sohal
Qtietioa was still acute is M s ems fciae/ although the

points of contention had changed^ s M lusebias himself *
published a book dealing isita this aatter.
Moreover
uniformity in tils oslebriitlom of ISaafcer was especially dear

to Constant iaae? Busebiue* adored master,
thus Eusebius
would be naturally inclined to- lay particular stress on the

condensation of the ûart-cdeeimai&s$ who dared to protest
against the tradition, of the majority of the churohea,
this supposition is supported by the fact th-?.t :8usebius*
himself was definitely hostile to the H.uartodeciaans.
For
instance he ever calls their tradition apostolio ,v hat only

old,' although, he lasw that it had an apcatclic origin* ' sna
ia .anofcaer passage he even goes so far a to describe the
Asiatic churches as "heterodox8...
fhas even if laseMau did
not deliberately try to present the fa.ssh.sl. conflict In the

controversial aspect of his own time, hs *as psychologically
inoliaed to give a one-sided description of it,
I, Bus. fits Cos,III.5;..

It. L-Buchesne, La Uuestisn de l a F&cue, 3ev.c>s Oueat.Hiyi.
t .XXVI11. t w - VP . 5 - 2 2 ,
J . S e h s i l l , M e Osterfra;;s auf de:: erste.'* ill-cseeiri*:-.: Kouail
von Kieaa. (Wien n>'"5) E,Schwartz, C h r i s t i i c h e und Judische Osstertafsln, ( B e r l i n i:rH}
3 . Bus. Vita Con.IV.i4.35Hef.Lecl. v o l . I . p . 1 4 $ .
4. Bibl.Sova Patrwr., t.IV.p.?*^,
fhona extraeta which nave
been preserved are published by Kai.
5. Bus, Vita Con*111,14,1?, IV.at.
?heod.. H.B.I.9
6. la the ease of Ila.stuss Buaeblua even calls the Quartodeeimi
tradition as "innovation" which is obviously absurd.
7. Bus. H.B.V.4. I,
B. Bus. H.B*V.S4{*-3).
9. Bua H.E,7.g4.9.
~&u
Sonc-ittsisn.
t h e Paschal controversy of the end of the second
the unity of
the Church,,
and the
Passtiitl
e lit rove r s y .
|^_
century is of great importance M the problett of Share!!
unity.
V
I t repeals the Catholic Church r.s cue wori&-wia
brotherhoodf eota:.oae& of eûa! and ae-if**..overnin{5 cos~

sunities.
fhey are ail ruled by 3d alone and no one
asong then has the"srrecisi jriviiag wf daoia-rin-s tne

divine will.
The Ea-sas Cnristlsr:^ ?-.. J; f^r.-cd the nost
iaii-ortr-iit ecajsunity of Christendom, toccoj:.Juucnted their

Cu&rtodeci&an senbers; hut the huifois? _ anshes of CJaul..
possessing only one bishut, raised Coir voices in
brotherly admonition and were act afraid %> t*-&ek ths
Boaan s;ynoi that its action ?ns not jawtlfir-,',.
t-eo ather
church esuM compel the Hoa&ns to alter thsir decision*

bat the other ehureaes were free to disagree with it and
to ash the Rosians to revise their opinion,
fhe moat
intense feeling' of unity arid' mutual responsibility wss

e4 that time oablned with am extraordinary sense of
freedom s M indefesdsaee.
Ta@ttg&sia&i.ainaltaae JJ
manifestation of -these two elements is ex;inlned by ths

fast that lave i M nonaon f&Ith, were the only posers which
kept the body of the Church together* ' the Christian
uiiity, intense though it %!ss, yet remained an absolutely
free expression of the Chrlatiaiis1 love for oae another.
this unity- had no institutional .or formal doctrinal
hS9'
/v^&nds as w le*rn fzva Ir^naeuo' letx.r-r, eve:: in t-;e isiat

local ooa&unity Cnri-aiiana often difiired* even on a
point of such imp art sacs as the day a**! ânner of the
latter celebration, the priaeip&i feast of the Christian
year.
For & long tine the Fasshal controversy has
been regarded as a-witness to ctiite another type of 'relations

between the Christian communities; bat this impression
was due to the fast that in dealing with ths Paschal ooatitj
versy hitherto, history and criticism have/kbeen eoaoeraed
*|ill*
irltt? the sBiereppeafintatlon ei" tlstor 1 aoti?<*? ^lvan b-/

'&m*tbt\xB9 rtttftr than wtt!t the f*si# as they actually
0êw6 at tfee sefi of the seosnt semtm*f*
the Faeehal etmtrover*? nas really pxtm&efi fef the
#Setis%i nHMa the Es eocssuBltyi I t&g next
o&i&lat of tep62*ti# slue appseg feaa the ease
peet&lox* mm&timm fa the l i f e ot the dfcurch of Hesse-
pot*tii*u
Hist i . so ^97 t.~ t * :, -."
~.i^;"^â .
tlOi^.^C^ Xil Ji.Vivu 0* *.& )- w, _!.) ,*? C7 J t ' V U . -f,
,r i_
**aw B^-%ifl <ft w -we <*.4rm.-e*,..#*g#*Uf B^mânw*iw**9.jen*^6**^<fsWaiW Hi H <J ^ D * - ^ w .4 w ^
1 ,c
^^>.*
fee iwafcian oftibi^Q *rbo Ls<M bocc ^?t , r,e~':^ . ^ t

Ciaawsh*
fru^-mtiuo
e-,o
@ ôxilsh -soot o- i:*o /i-'t
v-jDise ineM#nli(j fr-st: t,i*.z
3JL?Q
o~ w.'O r;;-^:.i-f 1 J,}_ o7.;;t-:;s,
sos o IIi:iS0i5,*v# sffi:o ;;',; :XHe^ v>

' ?;il-' ^c-'jôa* -^
t i l l s ,#s^ c ^ t ^ p s c e ' ^ r ^ ^ r tLo r-JUvvrlrrl v . ^ c i t y
slCaZj ***#.. HM! sees* iia:c-2;;# k t i ,
*r*.vin . .
c>
T '
/jfT- 5W
i:bi2.o-30a5l'ssii^js# .ii,?r; :J3C boc*? Tm y' ..n
objections
i. cs J.*^ 2 ,-*-
I s p^ccj^tr-ot" x;^fi ^7 ^ o : i j :v.^.; rjT
^B)ftfi*a!B; na*flfe *wi)J) w*>i*W.St)*SpaVlSBPaB#<*!ft a ^ >iiSf rfffi * . * # apft- *ft. ^ 3^-.*hi^**W--*î*s w sH > W E - ^ ^ ^ . =W5*w ^
ef S i r e n ' s .
-1* v# *as*r:snh0arer
COJ?C
**> ~ - ' *K" ** *t *W *** "?
ii^ .It*; &***{. :î\
f-r-oj tisc4 t e x t ol*, Crt^lco} Xp#'U (cr: 1, .xr.

5* i#Tsiei-.e3i'Ja# ?k\"2,y .-^.,-t# (IG03) j , * t f , 2 ^ . \
z:i
if.
ismit e r a on fowa;; i a t^> cu\s.tis*g3 ci* l\s}J l a ^ r - ,
2
3
4
5 "
Ifovsaantt
? l g k f i t 3ai3 ^C5KW? -Mae U s g tfso, ;vilh
xaio exoep&lon off &{?toetj 6*?,1 cowalSe;* lUpcttlyuw
@s & 4oei v i v o ! bisip
l i f e iawc fceon fe.3t<M"e* *iic p o ^ s o a s l i t y -.vêi-is a

s t n i i c a puou&&*
IJ0
Sliis r who <* s tr-e - " f ^ ^ - A
s:;s %lm siiti:^ o 5>r.e 1'iiMt " c ^ ^ r i r,:*{ fl.-r.
~1:K
Jb&KsolJf is loatSe;? of" & eost BaC fc:;e V ? J ^ l * ; a'tot:^7 of

tiio v"..i2M>2i. p e s t o V.KJ lessen 2a,r,u,ife &-u" î* i t s
Tuo l i f e ator$ oa" ^WHAnpoIytus i s --x* îrfcftbl

rm
t,%m poij&u of view:
CD i t
revoais
t o uc tê
peeU&p 6osu3î.0O3 l&slde turf* >sxxmi e*e~* '.i ~iV;r t.lo5s

$we&K! not only tCia f i r s t j^s&at t ^ i s t i e n sc&Isa,
tro "5OTtlui3t isovoiier.t, taifc s i so aosio <\T U-e ,'ojt
b i t t e r c c a f H e t s o* ifrs seoosig su. t.:;.i*^.! conU*.ily3, oa #
(,) to al<JO tieips us t o uaccr^B-ic 90trB ?.-f t4iO
k;e?e were sis s ^ < ? a 8 ^ ^ Itit ^;T/iS0si b o i ^ s;e>;:;lvi,
i O.Piefe? :>Widien sail? H3î3fayt*3?c,o Ctcioslr lC-t7f
2b& C:?8t&3 ectiutiaifcy l.i 5ot Mas H* t , o t t l ^ s 4iis

f i : c t f r o s Uio pcdat of vJL of i.r2u&.K;o* i*o'.3Sh O.VJ
gbai*llyt
QFt&o&os
It* s#e sis &JO i ' t r s t eg r ^ - r c ^ s t J RU ^ V ?
BJH2
het*rtoe
Q2&&*
tt**> 61c! iwi <*< : o . ' -; * ^
Ac a ruXfe trials? %*.iK? wr*s IV,ifi.!2c^!

Ujej. oo* .mi act! j&b-jo
SAMS
?.&>LK1
^cai*? ci* 1 " ^ ^
vi-.s-u* ,?a:.? .C t;>
.".1:7 ei'
"6L G;iFiai/ia:i oolo.^" c t .ct-u vs3 eft--,;^êd
f 1. Cfje atsjx-r oi* îi^Fonfc v j*i3tL&u ;:s, cola %4ao
and Urn siz <*i* tUaij? oF0nni3Stic-a*
j...ti->
OJCU*&.;G
Soft, s i n e #** acssyeoec or w r i e u s ^nca&ic 3ots sLXc-li
lipâijr toe ci, eriêfi 62 s go?Kilmi ;*& c ^îst.lon.?;:#

Eiioy s a w Msx&ly
ra^c^9^4.203o:$4.<?
a^-^rls^
ofcooS t&ftfca ;&3"fele a e c t j C:i-1. c'ofi^ûS;: triplet* t o

tase tlia j&aee oi" k.e .Tuureii and , oasesaef k . e l * o/n
hi#*w*ciiy# guiio&r&ct. or^ fta&igju&js for* !iuizsicl
#GP0il2*
s i i t e c oif
*1MM> OKW
thoa* Ztvintl^-z
4MQMI>\ Cm%pL:i0 G%
sorsi^lp*
C&Flotlciu seiioois |tr- use ae>
OOFC
%FO&P*
who
ihooo l o s t
.;t*:-!lp:>ol2'vur,*
-rlstt,cHt ,^so i n the aftO:^ 05^ t h i r d ce:itu?ioa

eîgssj, ?olyeo3*?, ZTS>nB@&a9 -Sz&oSf&aQ, J?cz:&^$3
*
La Pisses ;icftn ";aar4 c t ti:c o.:c! of .Second
q.
Jfeaan felsiaop* 02? tiioj wsr-e I n toc^vc^*^ oelilar* v.it:; l;Ztu
Xtt;* vo VltfOc? ti-oy u5o t o y v c i v o tZiO Xirj^:K"jkit
t*,*gul;r3y !"\*cr: t..o bX,-3:;op :' y;*j?# as ti.,e s i - . ; or v:;.:i:*
. uatcaf
JU ill Xsitai*, ti* .sâZjgê:?^ a-lho 'JioocZ .';t t:io:L?*
ii$s acZalaSctor-Ov t..e . vJM2i*fei?i3t I r ^ ^ ^ r / ' c ^ / ? . ^ *

*& fa,; ccctn*C'a*U :< jy&s&w&t! v'J.eZ', ^ - iVcr. ti;ia
pNSS**od ss r*&s ac;;5CfcZ lii aOCsCs soru'lsri i";i"; ;"iSt<:;*o-
but trse 35ie|is#Bt ^f r^ntins <$?~!12.0} laxe-^ u r ^
ot*0lFîK.*3 p l a t l a ,
g#
makes the following most
1 OHe&i &# ( 2 ) j S f *
{!}*
5* Sswmn; 5 t i 6 t o ? 5cpi$iari in pi.3is3.iag i^xif'?:*: r*

tea ;JU3?8t0,in .3&0O& 5o.^Cf*?ibI'ig ?:m^t:a &s a ^x-.-.ôn
siao l l v s d i n t&a slcidlo eiZ tfca 3$ec-:x<2 c o n t u i ^ ? (nrx?
t i a s niZld n e t be CXamst*^ soaW^/xs *32**) #s an
Ovt-^^pt t o ftonprsKsiac; ts al<Sospso:>^ I*i?lii;ice of
&i;e Z l s d ^ M * (^plaiACl'Ai'j^cti, pp*i!04-6l Can:! >t,*-*cct</2*
0tti?2.'b&t&s feis #ttc*c t o iZlppoS^tus, (opeit.jj#8-?)
0p<j0Bcstt of t!i p*?05t'OtJLe 3t>i?St t*3$P03'Xits Z?yv i e r ^ J *
Uliis m\^:;63t.J,oa i s iûi*t*S9? s o ^ I ^ i e - c b;- t i>< :t, i ; x t
kipool2ftuj Hug oloo o z>tujF c:\x&jt "*>r tito Zxsl&ef
Cbriatim
i t ' s s t i s i n s eîxiittec 'U*ts2 b&^ti&t.
a@ls c!ootrinea rijwiiiCi. --;-ei*^<.i stood*

ss3i;s # VX j . p ^
&iis f111 ehap8 #6 # f * a t e *

ffee authorAii&p i t h e ûsetOTidn Oaaon I s J i i l l '
'4^w, rm&k diteuis^t? ^ # s t i i * (si B^rsas'stjesrep, ?^sefc*
ltls* ULtevoUuf VolXI*pp611ia) :.d elt-uoigk
|ji^stfot s^C'iy^d ^^?icis gi;ji^s fos utt2?ll?utnr? I t
t o ZIlppolTtaS {Asat?'.'tSsesî; 22X*P9*CS-.S2.;55 r-.>r*oj!t
St%^ iîKJa to $l&m i t s o ^ c i n <x;tsc!e t:;o ;SSjsn
ecKxmnltyi (ZSee Z-l.ZiocSj, zêaeio i"va*# C$a fV^t?.#:Jcji3c?â
tirapsuxtg iS#r ?SiFat*FcZ5i,teîa ftts? Zl&ut*."!,:..;on,
iis^ sdstsk
about Zfe.uss e#a be escplcslsod V %ho
a 3 t ! f f 3 Isek of firet-âaad Z;,i^Zldge f tho bXstoiv
C t h e i-tea easafanlty*
;ja Gi*;ipt6 ,\Ju2 aO,i^3i.o5r. 1. e ;l<
Cc so*
o:\liiU3*
"V-**-- ,
'-lut* T I , ;JL?3 r o v lno
*!* ^ i * * * *"
% *
T!*
"..V"
V"*7
*"^
? I 1 J U*C
*^V ***
'* j ,
^ a , . ^ ^ 0"*5
pro*' - i;/ sccai,'. ir.cl :>3 i/Jiv
toixxi'p.
>o.^ *. ;
-t;,,^ W3BXJ C x rO.o
c . - ...
:* : -A '
2ISJU,
.#XPC;*oi:;'.f - v<icr t.- ,<.. ,_ a ,
f "Jr
a . v* >
v*^
**#
*î.
vf
*,>, ^ ^ r ^ j . rf
* ? *
."^^3*13^ ^/:-5 c* ô ..- >#
, .
v^XiX^
v #
.**}"!!
;* - V
**'"*
*"*' -
" , * - ' **- # #
. %" * i i ; v , .
* J S
. i, *
^ c v
*fU'. '/'"' "* ? "C
- * ? " / .
rf
,. * *^
.
a.? ^
. * * ; *
--*
"
j*
**- . i j ,
7.j..il!erM > , ' . f . 5 . ' V*>X:JZQ i%
^CTiOîisa ilia a-t.*ftpl-6-
. :- i . t r a s -
1.-;^ : j *r. <* . *- .r- vwHiu;/
i;]i &vi,o tii.-.j ri" 7i^to;* f 'i *U"^0I-J;>J
^ p i ; ^ - ^ ^ ^ C * ; ^ . " ' '.*
opitjco^^t^j c--' f i v e ,,<x,cr; ,ji3l;opu ;<--"* . i r ,1^-ân 1J-05
u s ce^C2?S-Jo<2
cc;î,r:i^ pec^scfTvi i l OS * t i . V V ' S r s ; .,l w - ' 1 : ^ '>>J^
-itillppolybus
*). oari.tcta .<" 3t4',i,x ;
ii *
Xv"> # -i#
<;. , .:"
, -
. -.
* t*c? * -i
- k ' . & ^ l i u a IhiO QlXO
u o "iJ'XlG^ t*" i . _ ">'
n 1.
7o.
x. ,-,C-"JJ 'sees ,o aven ffotMe ai't-n* l ^ X i ^ - . ; ! 1 . i 2 ^ , ^ " ,
opposition aal .^5
O3-':CUK:
: x*lwX kiaricr;.
:.:. I
letl K*irily Sss" ^3510 ;>->-:?s iiiio cX'" &ofc t-V^j. t .000":., >rr
tl.e osoet aiae

: oi" vtlis ;tcK. >
' *5 ;XwJ altîO^,., . JLj-oolûtf
îTi.jrlf /'ivos <.C6 -i;'&J r*5> jc. 0 ,?s? ills c ^ u ^ ' a
o
f*c -î f-
S.V A *
i.< v??44*Jti*AiJj,
tfj.
<* 1,1 ...i^/jji*,..-,,_ V w u j
^ bo ut*"...0 o* 3irv d*iwlwi. i^Te "- i

v&l%f&%$ of 0:; $;>iai3r;js2 c l ' ^ ^ ^ o / *
v*-
* jl
1 s .***
- ^ -
^t, T^ . ', ; i
i:
ciiX-'isr^lv -&o t" ,*cu..t U.-^rviso i'or iil^ ^'t^ô.'t'Xrr-X''^

I,ctil2i3ti^,s#
^C*2Si>5tsi4 8*6.':? *w: ^ c i t . r - j ;o>i, :-X.r3,
sur*C'>i.v* V";,t^ .> ,; - * o i i X."-cc t.v.y wS-:. ?-,'iv_'5 A..,lci;
) " 4"?
T>
,;>
"?.>-*
* ,* />
7ff
ii:tt?in^ i?caa^vY :; S,C 0 c a l c e s c-^k. ^
p*-lv*
. >
- :: f r-1
LI., ;<o2l itii -Is ^'*or a.; ~ o, . 1 w~~'? ^ -v,-"
via; "',j a..; jso ^Xunet. I>"L loot a,*n
i s yse l?3Ui?Oi> o*
'* . ,,
-~ " T n
cLOtXl-;.^:; iU " _?" i .; r ;
*>*&. era
un&- ;r.&aê-f "io fo.s/.l: >-.* . 5 oa -. }?>-) u.',c,m *.;- *,jLtl

3'ftsH &$$$&? t.:.e*xs 2.u^ t*tc t^Cile* ' nt *>. ,-1 .?- ,"s . ,;a
AVJJ4
-J^j'5
^* T ^ " a " ^
*X"&
VwVv
, "
%F-L^ w i * , , * / / ^ , ,
i r % '
a*X#
l t
' ;
* - i
w-*.wf ^
* V-
. ;.,fv u
v**4 f
"r"*-B
.^*
sen,5
v1 ^ -
i .ii,;UAXi
1*1!
'^,**t *v
^ " / v
5,v
Cw , , .
v_
3honl Uo ccrtii# 9S& ^ r v i ^ r e : u o ;

1,1 net, ^skoissC
J^SÛ:*
t*ae s i - t . r v ~^;r
hit;* jjt-cvi-e'11 -"."si; : *> u -'fr:
m'i t o tlifc aeraool or 3a33X..'&us*

^jecrS^t by nstttepciid sorts* 11
-.*.-; /-ji:r; -5.' -'-r^
(?!:ii".#:-.c.-.2w#pC3)
7lil% c'-i?2*ii>tioa ir.pllas Voat tfo*- Ci-.yi^ti is iii ..- .s>

ifere Aivi&ed I n t o mrrxrous astf s.ii-'t'.iv -"'$% % " -*:rj"r
-Suels 9 p i c t u r e oi* &is iict sn ootTrunivy *;H - - In

stmtiftidlet i n e atPjUcLv, ^
*331 ' : r ; . ; -1 ct'. ?s* '-.:,
ini'XiiiiBe^ &n;! iû îS^ntiij*Oi-'le s a ^ i r i v l -,;
Jr./
in&otfnal ^ I v i s i ^ i a asm ^n^c^p?&i"bXs zl%ih cLs \ik; t^r-'
91* i t #
2w 1* ^03Sible tiiat tr.;3 s c i i w i c i oJ i> :!'
l i t t l e Irs oeisctosi s r i t ; tfc If.tar 3Mso ..xls'i ^>">;>

Xftetely <3i?ld9 h^c- ?.,?i.3ti!Q3 i n t o h $ i t i ? c v ~ ; 3*
3fr33S tli03e iiiio êla?'-ie t o mictiiQ^ s-?;^Î ;se-
:Vil
W*a 0. v j o l i e cocar,uaifcy <?-* 3332itu& ..s*>, -so '":J.'ir;.?.v;
to* &hia
:NW;HMI
;l<!fc * G 3 U t
ife-;* edaog&ai? i⁣, e Î;3
<toi1*P0$>4>d* dJ*d t h e
-SriSlflLlS
VI
,U*?J:
ViV>2?
deganei^t^-d iciio l&ibtei* *ê ^*j-tm"tivd fo^r^X 3 3hia .:*

~2hwj wot pffobntly rso*i*s l i g ^ . ^ t n o r ^ l *iF.ftr"^:>l3 ^ c - ^ a
1
imfisi-ii^!i rj3SQ" t h e JO.US1 "iiPLnteîr- vcnaj?r,;.?*J e,u'.11;*
1#
r*iiil#l>:.ca2.ii*p*44o
'J.
t o itocy.j f";*^- ^ ^ i \ i i ,
^;iit
*&.;&;
'?-' ' f , -~i '"''"><
i^
syFivor: i t t,"&$ ooselusion Ujst I'if; >ol;-fcu.i3 X'~ o *<> *.ii:i

clsnUi i3U-t lijê hf.o*tc reconcile'" 1 iv.lt:. t::o f t.-^'IIa
Sjnpeii*
3 s t there id no -i?0l piôf ^;rx. r.o -"id i.i
f-cv 2a s o , and it. i s y i i t c pe$ss*>1o tJ-.' t:.ft .r-r^B
UT3
*?$ vjn wr;o ;*$ Tzsoz. -*iv$l h i s
",O;J$
or
^J
Iii*i u$e*i3?ka*3it# as* t o tlie c-2.u:$ .*> 1-,) c.~4u3

b<? f i l l - e l l a *!; 1i/f? of* %ti3 t:~:xv,zXj .; JLS. . ^ C
ami
AS U%|5!!.JW
b^ *i. %h;3~> -^ r a i s e s i^yîl'-
, #";#
aud or&^dU* ti?* < r tea A . J ^ tS4i2i; 14-i.e , < &cr, *>-*'
t*i:e i*csuu*,k evaUiriÂ*
Hie d i u i n t e ^ vl*vi <* ^:<?
Ides? tr/ae of c^c^jl-;-T5,ion . c c ;>en :?-:-fu-i -'< -no
1#
lî,#aeî0 S-rX^ hi>u- ?oi2 ;>#>;4i
7-
joisisfi ulsu
.Sit evtsn attr* Lia ser.da^ c*f. n ^ K ^ t
otto, ->&*itoîo:i oi* -;or^ {rf*7) câui xi&e in .*.i-i

opinion tMi&i d i s s e r v i c e s a/HKi t h e t5h; l iwi;^= ";v tx>-
isaposities of ânds Xils en o^diaa^v porJL^Q-.fc 3lr,v,*
.CÛa^ts of tho 2li*o o* tm
,-izozi oK-i.i?,-J.L.;- -." w ; ^ j -
t o tfec taw pur^tf? 2vsi:sd :$j? .-ji^wlytus 1 2.1*-3
jxippoSjFttta
l a r ^ i i s oJP aii> s ? : V ases? foj? aatr.occsy 1'*:

f fVIfc sail puS'i.t.y i n isorrtla 4v/il ; v.ftl.r a u'j *<- i:< I'l^Jl
30 laco inai'te s::i$ V'V;*elic Cj&:rshj suo ""."
c?l:*?
t o "bêcr-s # lfr> doJ? 02* a s*tsi?ian
%B
i^^#*^^ w ^ * ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
1*
ot.Gsrpi**^.^
J;OV;:3.;
###(-* <XA ^ ^ ^ - o ^ . - ^ . ^ ^ ^ - j ^ ,#>#,w^-M&ww
{1}
t.:e tn*o necuo'^-i a* V, l i s t ' s %o^
7oi" ,L% : . n o
*,uj^tf aot > J i^nt' 1 C*!<?lent? l a vî3e,nee ?^ 'V- ** ""
-,-,, jij
t \
.aWBSfaWM*a>tM[&OT*
1 -
<^rt.v
i * "T
"1'r'"i"t
"Sir"-
'v
/ W *
l*
saw
" I * ' 1 .. *
iu?ve.itf (âi**/.i.i. !**&)* V-. i s , ?.*>t; t.ô -^.rvr^
@f;fi&s oug tlio OiJUj'csi,, t o C- l&k&irlde% o-r"- 3^
i,r;j
%hlnQ,3 a s y cou?.d bi^lur l<?.~u~Sfî* r\n w i n j o i n t oc

t; - ;j3 îv--*jp2*oto<!*
ii*<3>i r;y:c*eFS boiv*, >', "?5v-n! by
0 iXrî.ii*. (*ostrXr Z,3^" i : tise r ' ^ y ti t TOP :.io

r i c a t tenciiis^ and 1:0>\ 3. :xiv*it;? cc"^?-cv v~ >, u, e
bees' m 'jvotUszm o~ tC& i^ ^:iul oT'j friz- x
''sm
v^Ôl'I Of Ul'3 JO!; C-'.O-t., .1t 2JJlKt%~i
^J*-*B6>
M4
J- 1 **] -M
'Ssiy* ;fri,ouji 1 r-o fctiO &&% of pa?c>. ocy f-c -..; .ov*
s t .'.4 <3*1 r^?stG2*ifM Svrd a l l l-:iio,iiei%oj
-a-y t TrL
bostoiv e l l 1^7 fr;oot}ti f,o f&es3 ^x? ?ecc# irr: ^*f>t,,c:h I

;le r<p* bOiSy t o "JC m i s s e l sue- -;;vo jaot er, .*:sA;f> fcX
"out* -3-3 UiKJblo t o .ir.3i*ii*Ic't? ci". c m ,r 3J~L*Vir.t;o<x,.s
f< 1<1 n e t i*auîa In?**., & ^>r* ^1*4..^;.-, aÔ'.:-; c&: -"-30 i i
l o v e , tft.iw y~& !>eiu^ t o ôoot'.o t-rtoi,; A:I l^->I-wod
C2G0-#^0) ;xo : *'.?>o# "x^r^.:* &;" 1,;.eaii3*o ^ i ^ o ^ i a u ^ >-s ocw- *.c ^0 1

^.,
& 3-*<%H
fr
w * v
; .,
v-, tub
ilp.-oljiua* u ' ^ U ^ 'iC3-'0? s e u ' . I i " 1 a 1 \A>r l o a s l

owifc In
-.O?;Q
3f:rl r/:js 3c,va roirtotleri *- t i *
t h e epr/:i&*>t-ts to t*Lc îriaop*,?, *.. r<li*#
-*Q
'. ; ; ;er
*X"t; n"c nra* Cosily y r r o c k '" t^s e ^ r ? - - ! ^ o.
OyppJUm the Lki;3&& of C^thcj-;^ r.d ,t
.....rt* ;
w i l l e#dl sjlt: s i s ec'ii^l^mtlon t o -co
uviloj <
. *^
;jt:
e 5 i ? f 11
n.
St. Cyprian aact the first atteapt

%m formulate %h aoctrlse of
St- Cypxias,
hihep suci
aartjr.
X&sius &m,MlmB % p r i a a u s , bis? sp of

Cartilage was the f i r s t theolagi&a to a t t ^ p t ro f~ee
th p w t l t e of church u n i t y i a I t s dost-'jujal a s p e c t s .
Hie s i gsaifx canes l i e s in the fêt t'"<5 ,e ras *,hs
f i r s t 28sristii-a t s ooaclud? t? r t t> ?;:-' '>:> *'*<*
church i a issse-d OK *?rsd gu^rst-iiêo. Lj . s. z-p.-oi: 1
i n s t i t u t i o n fowi&m "by Chri&t M ^ s e l i .
i n s t i t u t i o n , aeeexuiag, to S t . Cyprian.,
of the universal e p i s c o p a t e .
rîc
^ s \r.c ~:ty
fills idea i s the
t u r n i n g p a i n t l a the h i s t o r y of Christian oneness,

a s i S t , yprlais* theory with i t s p o s i t i v e sad
negative elements i s the Icey to a l l levirer syat-sas
of church uisiiy.
The outstanding Import, i ;:-ce of
S t . Cyprian*s d o c t r i n e r e q u i r e s a short survey of

the Main eteatjs ef M s episcopate* nhioh had a very
d e e i s i ? e hearing #Q M S teaching.
S t . % p r i & s , aalilas most e a r l y C h r i s t i a n s ,
heidagei t# the highest lass of Besses s o c i e t y .
S i s p e r s # s i i i i t y f a t smce strung aui d e l i c a t e , was
t h e prot&et f .all t h a t was best i s Ilia c u l t u r e d ,
a n c i e n t world.
He was a wealthy lawyer of Carthage
and 3 leading character i n t h i s second c a p i t a l of

t h e ' w e s t . . fie m i s t , t h e r e f o r e , hay 'bees
a s f i i s i a t e i with the best legs,! schools of M s tarn,
.ant had M s mini, trained to sash c l e a r l o g i c a l
i l i l s M s g as prsaitgeS .that system of Bossa law which
. has reiaai&ed the i d e a l p a t t e r n for a l l l a t e r
Jurisdiction*
Bat St* Oyprisa was s o t only a
hrillia&t thinker.
' He was a l s o as ardent
Christian who eshrseeci every Qlixistiaa Yirtue and

terminated: h i s episcopal service to the Ohuxsii toy a
jisrtyrdfisi niilelt he here with a r a r e ceur&ge.
It is
p e s s i h l e t m y t h a t , fares t h e day of h i a baptists, which

igic plane aliiwt 24S A J L , stows? t s the p r e s e n t time,
S t . Cyprian h a s always hees ;ggardei i s the Church a s 021
of h e r most M f l ' i i e a t i s i 1 e a t e r s His w r i t i n g s -
St Uyjirisa was a p r e l i f i e "writer*
Already i s
:Ms owa day M s t r e a t i s e s and e p l s t i e s were considered lay

'
the iSsristisiis to possess a s p e c i a l a a t h o r i t y .
This
&mi3?&itp& ia^rsasei' a f t e r h i s s a r t y r i e n (September 14th.

J2S@ A 3 . } sad f r s n tilt s.iddie @f the t h i r d sesttiiry u n t i l
t h e l & i t e r p a r t of the feurth he was the l e a d i n g thsologian
of the Xatla <fcb$irsites.
fhe B s n a t i s t s c M s i was a s e r i o u s
thalliSiSg -to l i i ififiuen.ce, Mil eire& the use iftiieh the

Bon&tists made of his-'wriflags itas usable to deprive h i a
sf M s influence*
Sis l e t t e r s sud t r e a t i s e s were carefully
rseopieS- sad preserved; and attempts were made to include

3,
thaia i s the nsaibtr of the eajiiical s c r i p t u r e s .

SufJi iafj?ia-tiea #3 we possess eonesrning M s
l i f e , h i s &fe|.3 i s t r a i l #ta of church a f f a i r s , and h i s
theologf, i s mainly deriTel from the e e l l s o t i o s of e i g h t y one l e t t e r s . * wMili iaelsdeS' h s t k S t . -Cyprian f s own l e t t e r s
t v a r i o u s people ssct some of the saswers fee receitred fro&i
t h . ' Mo l e s s Jjffpsrtas.4 a r e .his v a r i o u s t r e a t i s e s , 4 ,
, ? '
' .
I.
2.
Eidd, H. of Gh. (Jk Vol. 1 , p.4S6.

Kis l i t e r a r y a o t i Y i l y i s discusjssd in Bsrdenhetirer,
**0e8Oh. dar s l t i c i r . l i t . s "0,1* XI ^ 452-490.
S Bardeithewer* o p . e i t . Vol. I I .
p.
452.
4.., Saay other w r i t i s g s ha.tre hee preserved as h i s cMsh

were in r e a l i t y the worlc of contemporary opponents or
supporters of M s d o c t r i n e .
Acong t h e s e , two
t r e a t i s e s haYe a s p e c i a l importance for the problem
of church u n i t y .
Shey a r e t h e "Xiher de Beb&ptlegate*
and sAd Sor&tiammi^.
She hept study of thesa #0
t r e a t i s e s i s giTeo in !~ellte ? s^Chronol der . ; lorrssp.
Syprianus (Shorn 19;>2].
e s p e c i a l l y iiis famous book "Be ,rQatfeoliesg^ .gcoleglae

/.
IMitate*"
Ocairersioia
and e a r l y
episcopate,
1,
fprohably writtea in 251.)

St. Cyprian entered t h e Char eh. m i l l a l l the
ferTour and s e a l of hi g i f t e d s p i r i t .
"2,1B e p i s t l e
^d
Sonatina*, in which fee describes M s vision of rJie sew l i f e

reseiTad i s C h r i s t i a n brotherhood, ear* only ce soi-jûrc-d
with, the Confessions of S t . ihagustine iss i t s v i j o u r ssd
i t s powey of $on.ictiaa.
fhe sser? convert h**d a l l the
q u a l i f i s a t i a a s f o r rapid prcaotion * "ê leciuing p o s i t i o n

i s M s e calamity.
3e i?as a n a t u r a l r u l e r s eloquent ia
spaeeh f "sriife persuesiTe Daaners, strong-willed acd f u l l of

eoispassion.
At the same t t s e he possessed a l a r g e f s r t u s e
which he generously d l s t r i h u t e d among the poor and ne$dy

4-,
mashers of h i s new brotherhood-
In the yeor a f t e r h i s
b&ptiga he had already become -a p r e s b y t e r , while o t h e r

distinguished members of the eosauaity had to await t h i s
honour for aany y e a r s .
But St, C-yprisa only xesaained ens
year ill th# presbyter*g . s t a l l , sad %n the susamer of 348 he

was pfelaiie#. Mshop of Carthage ? the chief see among t h e '
s
S e r t h African chitrgfees*
t h i s , t s f i i progress h a t a tremendous hearing upon
the ishsie fm t a r e l i f t . of S t . ^ p r i s s *
He heeaae a h i shop
almost a s soon a s h# had. r e a l i s e d t h a t he tsa a Christian ,

1-
a e authenticity of S t . Qjrpriaa's w r i t i n g s i s a well

, e s t a b l i s h e d h i s t o r i c a l fact*
A discuss!on of the
question can he fgggd in Bardenhewer*s n esch-der
a l t k i r M l . Vol. II pp.493-456.
jL
Bardenhewer *CJeseh. d@r a l t k i r . i i i .
.1...
Pontloe Vit. Gj-p* 6*
44Tfth^Sp.VII
5.
i.
p.461.
Foniius Vita.Gypr. S.
for h i s early episcopate see Benson, Cyprian

{Lou.1S9?) p.26 sq.
*2y the jtzdgaesi of ?od and the favour of the people
he was chosen to the office of the priesthood and"xhg
-degree of the episcopate -sshile 8 s t i l l a secrchytt and
as i t was considered a isoirice.
Pontius, Vita,Gyr>r. 5.
Tbxm iftiitt iM.mit&"blz? h i s e s a e t p t l e a of the Gk&r&h a s l af

lies* sdsiini s t r a t i on *?as coloured hy M s foxa-sr ueôership
of the l e g a l profession, and by the f a s t of M s early
. '
episcopate -
So St* Cyprian, to he a C h r i s t ! at; .3*ant to
fee a "bishop,, and lie prehahly could hardly l o g i n s hl-zself

.to any other p o s i t i o n in the l i f e af the TSrurch.
Another 8onse<iuence of h i s quid-; :3rccia";.i3:'i -was
the opposition which he had to n e e i fros* t*is êg^riiJ^g i s
.
Uim mm' harsti..
a-e future' sshiesi f j m i i e i s t i s t a s
asi^loirsiiis had one a f ' i t s r o o t s i n the affeaee wiiieli

mm of' ihn pr^sstnyiers sad iaytteis took a t St, Qyprian*s
sudden elevation to ike e p i s c o p a l .
Thus fro:n the
"beginning S t . Cyprian makes a " b r i l l i a n t s t a r t in the l i f e

of the Church* hat ireirer lie appears, s t r i f e and
eoniro-reray are s t i r r e d up, passions a r e roused and the
t r a d i t i o n a l forias of Church order are challengedS t . Cyprian $ s e l e c t i o n too& place at the end of
She Becima
persecution-
a long period of peass which followed the ds-atli of the.

l a p e r o r SeTerus i s 211.
The new r u l e r of the losssti
Soapire, liecius (40-51) put as end i s t M s t h i r t y - e i g h t

years* intsr?a.l "between p e r s e c u t i o n s , and in 249 published
an e d i c t a g a i n s t the C h r i s t i a n s .
!he p e c u l i a r c h a r a c t e r
i s t i c s of t h i s s e ^ attscJ was the p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n

p a M . t y t h e g@rve.ssai.ent to M^hops sad other lead l a g
iremhers of %}IM C h r i s t i a n mmami%ims wta had to "be
puitlgMd with s p e c i a l s e w r i i y . '
"
ip. G ^ t h a g e t h e per'&e&itisn 'began i s April 250.

' i t was a d i f f i c u l t , time .ft i*h# -Ghureli t&ex.
flag
C h r i s t i a n s had already forgotten t h e i r escperience of

preTious p e r s e c u t i o n s , and I/hen t h e proconsul in charge
a r r i v e d in Carthage, a siost disgraceful scene occurred.
1,"
St* % p r . % . 39 (l) timilms Vita %w5*
Hu
See Benson for the Sedan. persecution,

Cyprian p.6465;
KIM H, of Gh.
Vol.I.pp.43-3S.
-...
A g r e a t mstfen* of Cliriiit lists were s aaxiens to dtny

t h e i r f a i t h t h a t they crowded with t h e i r -wives, eiiildraii
aad g l a r e s to the C a p i t a l , "^hsre they s a c r i f i c e d to
t h e pagan Sods, m s t i l i lag ; to vt&At t i l l the .cext
morning.'
fhe t r a i t o r s belonged chiefly t c the l a i t y ,
"but there were a l s o sane p r e s b y t e r s &aet sg-reii bishops

arassg thgeu
2any store C h r i s t i a n s l e f t th?sir hoM-ss aad
ireat t o s t h e r c i t i e s where they were uhkaoiss..
Gf the
rest,, a f& holslly s e t t h e ehallenge of the heuthss

x
Skapire
sad were e i t h e r tortured and s l a i a , or e x i l e d .

The personal p o s i t i o n of St* Cyprian was
extremely d i f f i c u l t .
He bad deoifiei t h a t h i s duty was
to preserve h i e l i f e a s loag a s p o s s i b l e for the sake of

M s flock aadi he therefore l e f t t h e c i t y said went i n t c
cosee&ltseat* where he remained for nearly tô y e a r s .
M safety himself, i t was yi h i s duty to
eaooarage others t o aocept marigrrdosa, aad be ^ u s t preach
what he eauld. s o t practice*
He wss s hOTever,
mffieiestly s t r i n g &&& wise t # endure' t h i s eituatlou*

ami he pwalstf8*lly iMieamretreS t e goTers, hy e p i s t l e s ,
h i s 'aJaaeU't riiliaei.' etnntsillyy
laterresiien
f ihe'Boaiaia
Presbyters. '
fery s#ss a f t e r M i r e t i r e m e n t , the C h r i s t i a n s

iia esrtlta,.ge"re#eifei twp* l e t t e r s from Base, w r i t t e n
Up"* 10.
U*
His biographer Pontius jaeatioas a special vision

which persua&ed St. Cyprian to withdraw,(Postius
4*
*e still possess the following letters sent hy

St* Cyprian from his place of concealment to the v
slsrgy aad laity of his Church. l o s ^ S ^ ? ; ! ^ ! ! .
12,13,14.1S*l6jl7,1319 26,29,52',33,24,55,59,40,43)
by i t s l o c a l p r e s b y t a r a t e -
l a one of t h e s e , addressed
t o " $ t . Cyprian they described the glorious martyrdom

of t h e i r . b i s h o p Fabian;
i s tag other', they exhorted
tiie- Carthaginian clergy to remain steadfast during the

time of t r i a l s .
H i e - l a t t e r e p i s t l e i s one of the
manifestations of t h a t strong sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

which the Beman Church f e l t ' t o w a r d s the other Ohurehes.
I t also contained- a naraber of very e l s a r a l l u s i o n s to the
unworthy conduct of the f u g i t i v e Bishop of Cartilage',
fhis r a t h e r i n s o l e n t i n t e r f e r e n c e with the
inner l i f e of h i s eomsunity was a heavy blow f o r
S t . Cyprian, hut here again he showed great wisdom and
an exceptional power of s e l f - c o n t r o l .
He sent & l e t t e r
5.
to Hose praising the martyr bishop, and at the same time

asking the presbyterate there whether or not the epistle
received by the Carthaginian clergr was an authentic
document.
He explained his doubts on the ground of its
style and other external irregularities,
but in this
way he implicitly advised thes not to interfere further

is the very complicated situation that the persecution
had created in Carthage.
We do act know the effect
produced hj St. Cyprian's letter, but it is probable

that the Soiaan presbyters continued their policy of
ignoring the Bishop of Carthage,, for in another of
b.
St. Byprian* e p i s t l e s we find a dignified but at the

1.
The See of Some was vacant from the martyrdom of

Ifehiaa, Jan.20th.250, to the e l e c t i o n of Cornelius,
Harch 5th.251, ( H a d . H i s t , of Ch.Vol. I . p . 4 4 2 ) .
2.
M s e p i s t l e has not "been preserved but i t s

content i s c l e a r frora S t . Cyprian's answer to the
presbyter Bp.9.
3.
Up.8.
4.
Bp.8 (1)
Ep.9.
fi'*
p.so.
same ttsse obvious attestpt to J u s t i f y h i s conduct again

before tlie Boiaan clergy.
ultfe i t 3t Cyprian enclosed
copies of M s t h i r t e e n l e t t e r ? addressed to the Church of

Carthage ('Bps- 5-7 and 10-19} , as a proof of h i s -unceasing
s o l i c i t u d e for M s flock,
Share i s na expxemIon
of
b i t t e r n e s s 02* offence in t h i s e p i s t l e , but undoubtedly the

c o n f l i c t could not have occurred without leaving s. shadow
on St* -Gypimifs, soul,,
Ihelsp&gi.
Soon a f t e r this., new t r o u b l e s changed the policy

of the Boaan clergy and St, Cyprian became t h e i r a o s t
intimate a l l y ,
fhe problea which the Church had nei? to face
was uhs treatment of the l a p s e d .
The Decisn persecution
had l e f t l a r g e auabers of a p o s t a t e Christians behind, i t ,

but very aaay of these lapsed were far fron intending to
bre&k sway frora the Church a l t o g e t h e r .
so repentant that they sought si&rtyx&ora
Some of thesi f a i t
Ihe majority,
hcarerer, preferred to look for e a s i e r ways of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n .

During previous persecutions* the a t t i t u d e of the Church to
such as these hud bees uncosaproiaisiiig.
All those who had.
fled frosi the f i e l d of b a t t l e were l e f t outside the Church

for l i f e , and t h e i r deepest penitence could gain thea 11s
iaore than a hope of pardon mien they should cose before the
throne of the Bivine Judge.
fixe Church on e a r t h refused
forgiveness to those who Had denied Jesus C h r i s t .
But now
for several reasons the s i t u a t i o n was very d i f f e r e n t .

1. the number of lapsed was incomparably g r e a t e r than in any
previous persecution,
g. She majority of martyrs and
confessors ardently desired to give an i tamed is, te pardon to

a l l the lapsed nha proved t h e i r repentance to be s i n c e r e .
1. - g p .
Mi
' ,'
-83.
ftie threat of a new outhmrsi of persecution sate it
imperative io strengthen the ranks of Christf s soldiers

through the readmittane of the penitents.
fhese new tendencies found their zaost acute
expression in the Carthaginian essnaanity. ' .Confessors and
;
;
martyrs issued letters of reconciliation without lie si tat ion..
:.,;.'. even in some - eases forgetting :to mention -the names of the
v
- -
.people to irhaa they referred.
Some presbyters accepted
the -principle of complete tolerance and at once opened the

3.
doors of t h e i r Churches to tne lapsed.
She r e s u l t
' was disorder almost as serious as t h a t caused by the

persecution/
Strom M s place of concealment St* Cyprian t r i e d
to h r t o g order out of t h i s - c h a o s .
:and s o i e r a t e .
:.
fie
S i s a t t i t u d e was wise
was anxious to r e l a x the old severe r u l e s ,
t u t he was aware f-the n e c e s s i t y of introducing, i s

which
, eomfonaity with the ether Churches, a new practice* by/some
penitential.' d i s c i p l i n e should precede the s e t of r e c o n c i l -
i a t i o a of- the lapsed.'
ffais policy n e t with
powerful .support in lose,and .Jlov&t ian, the spoilsman of

tM.S':.-.Siarshj stood f i r m l y on the side o.f the ah sent head of
the Carthaginian Church... ~
The Schism of
' Bat St..Cyprian found a strong r e s i s t a n c e i n s i d e
Ifelicissiiaus.
h i s omn'coâausi'^.
A deacon, -: y e l i e i s s i i a u s , a man of
:
.influence -and energy, supported hy five p r e s h y t e r s , formed

' t h e nucleus of the opposition a g a i n s t S t . Cyprian.
1.
Ip.ÎoV ( 4 ) . ':
9.
Sp. 45. ( 3 . 7 . )
4.
I p s . 1$, If, 16, I f .
lt>. of lovatiqpi, 30 s 35.

Sp. of St.Oypr, 25, 27.
. #.
l p . 45,
(3).
BiisagressBeai in t i l l s p a r t i .alar matter was interwoven isith

the êrsonaJL a&tagoaigm of theg men a g a i n s t t h e i r bishop.
Hieix* o f f i c i a l progracsae *&s is.-isdiat r e c o n c i l i a t i o n with
the l a p s e s .
ffcey disregarded -St. Cyprian's? ^rdnrs.

/.
r e j e c t e d M a a u t h o r i t y a s a bishop and threatened to expel

a,
,I2. h i s supporters from the. Shtireh.'
Sash-as attempt oa
the p a r t of saias of the clergy to &.e&mmmiea.ie the bishop
and a l l the C h r i s t i a n s whs &b#ye& h i s , tro-ald appear
Msngtroap in l a t e r times.
Bat i t was-quite a concrete
and reasonable plan l a t h t t h i r d sentury.
livery l o c a l
a&sembly had t h e r i g h t to exoeejmsnieate i t s hi shop and to

3.
e l e c t . a <sw one*
the long absene of S t . Cyprian eouia
be givea a s a. proof of M s axiworthlaess to r u l e h i s Claur-ah

and t h e p a r t y of S%li#i0siaia,s which probably included
already the majority of the p r e s b y t e r s , had a reasonable
hop of winning; to t h e i r s i d e . t h e ishol oengregation of
the Sarthagisian C h r i s t i a n s .
At t h i s c r i t i c a l t i a e S t . Gyprlaa, for some
sy^terioaii reason^,wat u n a b l e ' t o eons home i n s p i t e of
ihg f a c t t h a t t h e per s t a t i o n ifas a t an. end.
{He accuses
the opposition of preventing h i s r e t u r n * but; does s o t

4-,
s^plaSa tew they could have managed to do t h i s - )
His
s i t u a t i o n had become almost h o p e l e s s , as we &&n guess whsa
we read of the extraordinary measures which he decided, to
enforce a g a i n s t the breakers af the pease-
He was a sa.ii
of r&rt courage* and, when h# satr that the l o c a l congre

gation was unable to support t h e r i g h t cause, he suddenly
noaitiaied a ooiiaigsi.011 assisting of three bishops and two
presT^ters,who were p r o t a b l y h i s only supporters among the
Carthaginian p r i e s t s , and ordered the to judggj, aed, i f
g. - l p . 4 1 .
4.
1*8.
3p. 43. 1 . l3 for the malignity and treachery cf

t B f ^ J Lnot
t 1 1 !bepallowed
r f f b y t e r st had
t h i
s , t h a-**
t
J,f ^should
accomplished
+* & t^^--^-
**.0~
neeesssry
to execcamanicate the l e a d e r s of the r e b e l l i o n .
As far g.s we 3m- a t p r e s e n t , so one before St. Cyprian hc4

thought of doing such a t h i a g , nor has i t hee=2 r e p u t e d
since.
His snesaies c e r t a i n l y could s a t h&T$ expeefc^d t h i s
s a u n t e r - a t t a c k , and they %-sre beataa.
2he coirsrdssioii
sxsoissnaigatei Bslieissimus- and- some laymen, 'but could not

or wtmli s a t apply the saiat iJimlahaieat t s t h e f i f e
a.
p.resfey t e r e .
I t I s d i f f i c u l t to gay what .v?<mM Isars Men. the
3
eossacitteassg of mteh an i r r e g u l a r exco^BS*oaica-tion i f

S t . Sypriaa had a s t thes a t l a s t rstiayiied to Garihsg.
He
apgeiarti i s the c i t y mmm time a f t e r l a s t s r In the year SSI

siad imsi-Iisi-ely taolt thi .most asrgstic measures against the
T i s l a t e r s of iese@ and u n i t y .
fliis time h$ acted laatireiy
i a aecardas.ee with the s a s t s s s o f the Church asad a l l the

lade;?s of .f^lielssisttg* p a r t y were exgoissBiaicatei i s the
f o l l 0 i a g lj>r.il (251) oy the r e g u l a r synod of the Church of
<J&r$hage to tfhich * s r s iairltati ssaay neighbouring bishops.'
f h i s was t h e eo~'8aHedl f i r s t Garthiigisism -Oottfteii, a t which
S t . Gyprias. r t a i h i s f asset* s t r e a t i s e "Be g&tfccjlleafs Eeelesi&e
tlsltate*.
f&# r e v o l t of S t lieiss.i3ms had a great hearing on
the whale h i s t o r y of the QaurQh.
I t i s probable t h a t in
t h e formidable struggle a g a i a s t t h i s p a r t y , S t . Qypriaa

pas-srei through the s o s t t r s g i e and desperate days of h i s l i f e .
WQT the ' f i r s t tin when he r e a l i s e d the l i m i t a t i o n s of a
1.
.If.
41 4 4S-
2.
Bp.
42.
i,
He a.s f?eli aware of the fact t h a t eaconsauaicatiois

must
he pro&cmneed by the whole Xooal Church. ?iJp, 16.4.
4,
M M , l i s t * f Sh, p.447, T o i . I .
.Eg.
i.
mm,
f,
%.
- '6
Hit etf Oh. Tfoi.I. p.45g.

4.
-4.
Int-al $mmm%%&' and t i n taeaps-gitf i s r a c i s t ihn s p i r i t
at
p r i s e ass s a t i n y $0 strongly represented i s t."~e persona af

Felisissiiatis asd &ovaiua.
3 a t t h i s b i t t e r 3-srIi'e gave
hi also M s psseiossSe l o w far Chureh u n i t y , shieh

produced h i s vision of the lmr:aoai#us aas milted bz-Cy c-f the
n a i venial episcopate, the only sure guarantee* according to
h i s ssihd, of peace u n i t y sad cancers*.
She severs shook tsrliieh the sohiasa of .Fsli alssismgf
Based 34* Sypriati was cs*ly the f i r s t of the bXo-ê shiah he
had. to s u f f e r a t the end yf 2$ p e r s e c u t i o n .
immediately
a f t e r i t Me was eoafyoated .-tith a new sad evmi rs-ors iraportrust

e a u f l i e t , tlie r e b e l l i o n of Sovatia3a h i s forr-ier friend and
a l l y , a g a i n s t t i e Bosmn bishop-, Cornelius-
St;. #priaa
rushed into t h i s ae dispute ifhil M s s p i r i t was s t i l l

deeply d i s t u r b e d by the sraiihy s i t h i s M s oi ccaunaity.
3-ae rigls
of Uo , vatiaa*s
sehigm*
Ga the 5 th* of war eh 51, a fet? days before
St* Cyprian has been a b l e to- r e t u r n to Carthage, the Hcnaii

GhBroh had elected a. new Blehsp.
2h c*aie point of
ootitexAtiois between the v a r i o u s p a r t i e s t h e r e a l s o sras the

treatment of t h e lapsed.
Sbrratiaa, the leader of the
r i g o r i s t s ? the man whs hail every re.&s2 to esgtsot the

bishopric* sad whs had g r a e t l e a l l y ruled the eosariasity
while the see âa Tasaat, w&& suddenly re,$ctd.
!fhe
Emim. e h a i r was offered isgte&d to Cornelius, who -sas

i n f e r i o r to J?o*atia from the p e i a t of view of le^rsiing
end c h a r a c t e r , b a t who stood for a middle policy te^nrcs the
lapsed t asd thus represented the isais body af ihe .sesbers
of the Somasi oomtuiiity*
She opposition was n o t ; ho'tfever
X.
Se H a l t . 3*4*
t,
JEidd* M-ai of @&. V*l. 1* 9443
preBsrei to gaffer t h i s i e f e s t , s a t a aoath l a t e r SoTstisn

was a l s o 9J*#sia.e by h i s p&rtis&as i s ike Sanaa see*
Its particular
/.
importance.
She s e h t s a s i a Borne* a s we have already sen5

were very frequent * "bat as a r u l e they had no l a s t i n g
effect.
fee
new c o n f l i c t , howeTer,, by v i r t u e of sots
of i t s elements, marked an epoch i a the h i s t o r y of the

Church.
Two of these are of p a r t i c u l a r ismortsaxce, the
f i r s t being the a c t u a l point of contention between the

two Boraaa p a r t i e s .
ffe# treatment of the lapsed, 'ims act a
loealj. or even a regional problem.
I t was a question
which occupied the a t t e n t i o n of every Christian e o u a i t y i

for the Sseian persecution raged over the whole of
Christendom.
Probably every l o c a l Church, was divided
i n t o the aaiae two groups, of r i g o r i s t s on the one hand and

supporters of the more moderate policy on the other,.
fiovatian,
who proelaiaed himself to be the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
of the t r a d i t i o n a l nn compromising d i s c i p l i n e sad sent

l e t t e r s everywhere to t h i s e f f e c t , met iritk approval in
z.
many p l a c e s , and thus instead of regaining the head of
a l o c a l Seuam e c h i n i , he becaae the l e a d e r of a w i i e gp?@4 mtvetteiii
Si# second import ant element in t h i s par tiemlar
Ôhiaaa. i s the c h a r a c t e r s of S t . Cyprian and KovatianSifS* were both mem of out standing energy* deeply essvincedL
of tfee ri#s-tnesg of t h e i r p o s i t i o n s and seeking divine
sisseti'On f o r every a c t i o n .
?feey were pot afraid to probe
to t h e 'very foundations of the l i f e of Idle Church, and

hence they turned *hat could remain merely a question of
expediency in e c c l e s i a s t i c a l p o l i c y into a d e c i s i v e
s t r u g g l e which had f o r i t s object to define the. l i m i t s
and n a t u r e of t h e Catholic Church.
1.
see Kippolytujp, Schisaa, p t>Q.%*KL
2.
WQT instance in the Church of Antioch, Stis.E.S.V1.44

f l ) ; Bp.Sfi*
I*
9m.*. H.l* 'YX* 4# Cs).
*XS'*~
flist p e c u l i a r
c h a r a c t e r s of
division.
$& C h r i s t i a n s wer already ustd to facing

heresy sad geMeau and i s the previous cl\&pt*r the
t r a d i t i o n a l method. of d e a l i n g with tliaa i*ae "oeea
described*
I s r e t i e s and seMsssaties wsrs as -a r u l e
r e j e c t e d for the two fallowing reasonss
i t h a t they
were d o e t r i b a l iito,9Tstoya "who despised the Apostolic

i s u i i t i o s i u or i i - t h a t i h e j opposed themselves to t h e
e s t a b l i s h e d o r d t r and d i s c i p l i n e and neglected the
p r i n c i p l e s of the Apostolic gueaesgisn.'
In t h e case
of Sovaiiaa and M s seals these two wll*triad

argaarits *ere of so avail*
Herat!a w?i.s the
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the orthodox theology ana he stood

for tits t r a d i t i o n a l and venerated d i s c i p l i n e *
Moreover,,
lie had been ordained according to the Church's

r e g a l s t i o a by three bishops and thus could d a i s an
a.
uninterrupted a p o s t o l i c sacoesalos*
th new HoiHsa schista therefore included a
ntsabsr of problems which a t once af fee ted both the
#nsti%stl3t of %&* fisarih s n i h e r tsaefeiiag a s to the
saisiss of tS# essisslfts bttiffs#ii oi s n i Christian
aaaJgliti *
Utey sssy be f s ^ a a l s t e i &s f oXXows: ~
' l l i s t hist t i e a w l i t o d with two r i v a l Mshops

and t&eXf partisa.ii both belonging t o the same
l o c a l c c s a a a i t y , s o t d i f f e r i n g in t h e i r f a i t h but
isatnally ^ e l u d i n g one another f a r some other
reasons?
wre they n e c e s s a r i l y both waagv
gemM both 1# jrifhif

X.
Or
r sa&gi on of the p a r t i e s
TertsIXlan. d e s c r i b i n g f o r instance the h e r e t i c a l

congregations w r i t e s ; "thus one man i s bishop
today another toasrrow* He i s deacon today who
t a r r o f i s reader* and lie i s p r e s b y t e r today vrha
tomorrow i s layman* f o r 1even e*t Isysea they
isajscs p r i e s t l y function* * TertuX. jfeibor de
Pras@cr* 4 1 . ( 7 ) .
Migse.P.i* JX 57.
2*
Adv. H. I ? .
BS ( 2 ) .
$.
3a*. K.S. VI. 45 (B~9).
le. o s s s i d t r s t a s stlili-f sad orthodox and th@ other

a s hstersdox said stMastatic?
ii*
What s p i r i t u a l r e a l i t y esaM there he in tim

Sfborsaefits a i i t l a i s t e r e d i s these riT&l groups, which
broke the bond of csiaeord and love -with one another
or with the other p a r t s of Christendom *
iii.
2>id the Church possess an i n s t i t u t i o n higher

than the synod of a 100a! enssisaiif ifith
sufficient
Mitliortty to ijrltitrs,ie feetw-eea two riir&l p a r t i e s aad

to prtiipiSfJ a f i n a l Juiîeiit in the case of a l o c a l
fiifisioh'?
fh efcureh of the ihi&"oentury had us
Mtgwrs t s th## opg:ptias .
Qse.s r a i s e d , they
obliged the l e a d e r s of tn# Chureh t o consider the

very fo&n&atiea of the C h r i s t i s a brotherhood, and i t
easy be said t h a t at t h a t isostat the destiny of the
Chttren was. determined f o r say c e n t u r i e s to oatae.
As i t happened, the aftttlota^nt; of the rôst important
p a r t of t h s doctrine or* the u n i t y of the Ghuroh was
a c t u a l l y aohisnred is. the isicist of t h s high passions
roused fey i n s mswly bora sohigii.
I t was S t . Gyprisu
sfa&t through h i s f a i t h a a i will* foreed the Church

i n t o t h i s imeaepeetedly s f s s i y forasulsition of the
p r i n c i p l e s of h e r u n i t y -
Bat in order t o understand
St* 0ypi?ig*8 personal isfluende i s the matter, n

must f i r s t study the a t t i t u d e of oilier Church l e a s e r s
towards the c o n f l i c t between Cornelius aad l o v a t i a n .
The coaimom
fh# 5o?atiastist s t l i a produced a very pious
attitude of the
contemporary
Church towards
the Romas
schism..
poieaidal l i t e r a t u r e .
-
' lsfortum.ally most of the
docustii't.a h a t e heea l o s t assd,, i s addition to StCyprian* s numerous l e t t e r s s we posses only a few

other e p i s t l e s dealing with t h i s schism-
The Main
arguments used by l o m t i a i t and by M s opponents, can

n e v e r t h e l e s s he approximately restored*
Siey were divided i n t o three main groups,
the
f i r s t eoiasi.stei f various &ousatlsii of personal
HEwsitMrnts-g, la&nehed fey t h e two r i m ! hishops a g a i n s t

each other.
f o r laststiee, we l e s s i fresa Qemelius*
l e t t e r t o frnMas of Afitioeh t h a t Soiratiast eauoot be

snsiier@4 a lawful bishop f # r i k e fallowing reasons:
t h a t he was a "clinic;, -.. a person baptised
@s
Mis 3$eaih bed sad therefore esMBludeid from promotion to

the e l e r i o a l order-(Ens. H.E. VI. 4 1 . (12-XS);
t h a t he was a t r a i t o r faring: the l a s t perse euiisn
(Saa. H.2.VI.43. (16);
t h a t M s ordination was administered a t an unusually
l a t e hour and i s a s e c r e t place (wfeioh means without the
eonseat of the people} and by bishops who were drun& and
sicJs (Bus. H . 3 . VI. 43 (89).
Srom S t . S y p r l a a ' a r e p l y to iuatoaianus who was
a l s o , Xi&e. f&feJ&s of i & t i e e h , i n c l i n e d t o support Mofatlan,
we can guess t h a t f o w t i a i i . t o o , challenged for a aaitbeif
of reasons the personal worthiness of Cornelius t be
regarded as a bishop, s a d . a s s f o r example* Coraelins*
eosssnnlon with a certain, Trophiraus ana M s a s s o c i a t i o n
with the s a c r i f l e e r s ,
t h e reason why comsiuniOQ with
fripMsma could so adversely a f f e c t Ctomelius t h a t eves

the v a l i d i t y of' h i s episcopate was called in question i s
n o t c l e a r l y explained by S t . Cyprxst*.
. l e t i t i s quite
fiieat t h a t 'the a a i a balls of t h e smtmal accusations

hrought by l o t h G*rael4mg ami Howatian had ao r e a l
fâaSatien and 'Were the proimsi of the feet passion roused
by t h e i r dispute*
1.
Bus, H*E, TI.44. (I)
.g,
% s,
3.
4.
5-
Sp. 55
{2}
Sp. 55. (11)
.For instance Cornelius f arguments are obviously indef
e n s i b l e . Sovatian, a l t h o u ^ i a c l i n i c , h a d already been
previously ordained a pxtshyter on account of h i s
s p e c i a l m e r i t s (see Ad lfov&tianum,para.l3 (Hartel i i
(65).) and outstanding l e a r n i n g (Jerome, 3)e V i s . I I I .
(70),) and fee Ran congregation sanctioned t h i s
breach of the t r a d i t i o n a l @ustoa (BttB.H.B-TI.4S {l?Vs
Cl@)
fhe sieil group of argosies i s had t o i s with

t h e i n s t r l s a l -eaufeslits*
l o v a t i a s seeugei Cornelius of
~th@'profaM#ii f the eaeran.iiits w&ieh wire offered by

the l a t t e r t the lapsed
CortitXims eoades&ed Hovatisa
a s a pergola i i aisrspre-gesteli Sod's n a t u r e , deprived the

lapsed of t h e i r h^pe of galv&tioa and threiF thiia imt
despair.
fhese. arguments were e s p e c i a l l y Impressive to
the eestestporasy C h r i s t i a n s asd the maia p o i a t of sstan

t l o n between the supporters and opponents of jfovatlau âs
t h e question whether he $r earaeiitis were/ infending the
tfme i o o t r i s e .
smbjest
the Synod in i n t i e e h wag Melt oa t h i s
and Monygtius of Alexandria wrote several
e p i s t l e g os repentance ami s e a t thea to various Churches.

Bius the majority of t h e Church l e a d e r s who were not
personally involved in the nafliet were l a o i i a e d to think
tfesf the {pestlon a s to who was the lawful Bishop of Borne
eould Ely be s e t t l e d a f t e r Sie -whole Catholic Churoh h a t
a r r i v e d a t aa a g r e m e s f a s to the proper treatment of the
lapsed.
St. 0ypriaass
attitude.
Si# third. type of arga*i&i was very d i f f e r e s t

from the two preceding ae@, a a i Was t h a t used by S t .
fyprian...
To hiffl the saia' charge a g a i a e t ovaiiaa was
oooereed n e i t h e r with h i s teaching aor with h i s personal

q u a l i f i eat loss', but s o l e l y and primarily with the f a s t
t h a t he had heeoae a bishop when another aaa was already

e l e c t e d to the ease e h a i r ,
S t . Cyprian w r i t e s to
i&ii<mia&u&, *iaorw that i s the f i r s t p l a c e , e ought aot

mm
to he i n q u i s i t i v e as to nhat l o v a t i a a tsaeh.es so
5. coat.
l o v a t i a a was the l e a d e r of the Hoaan clergy (Bp.65 (5)}
a f t e r Fabian's martyrdom and eoald a o t therefore he a
real traitor.
SMnally he had a l a r g e mssber of ardent
supporters aacl searoely needed to he ordained by
drunken bishops e t c . (see L&wlor and Oultoa, "Susebius a i
Vol. I I . pp 233-35).
1. Boa. H.B. VI. 46.
(3)
1.
(1*8).
2K?.-B*8.
VI. 46.
*17
Jtesg BM he iea.$be# Mt f Hi pai f the Ckmrela*

faasweir fee ja&y fee sad whmteirer k nay he, fa who i s s e t
i a i k e fSiar#i @f d h r i a i I s nut a
s
Ml. again
fihristissi.?t
f p . S i f4)
.4ai as a f t e r the f i r s t there aaiat Is a
seee&A, wh#eir#.ir I s &a4e -after e s s wbs tnzght to Be alone,

i s a#t. se@iti t# Ills M t i a in fat no&.e a t a l l . n
i.
s p . { a } .
St- Cyprian i s very reserved in the matter of

personal accusations a g a l s s t l o f a t i a a , for
he was
probably aware t h a t the l a t t e r was unatta&kable n t h a t

ground*
He was d e f i n i t e l y opposed to Hovatian's
rigerls in p e n i t e n t i a l d i s c i p l i n e , t u t he was emphatic

t h a t i t was not M s d o c t r i n a l divergence ljut solely the
T l s l a t i t f t t f eietliaitieiii d i s c i p l i n e whieh s e p a r a t e s
3.
fNyvattaaa fro the Ctsureh
asd evea deprived hiss ef the
Sit difference i n the Qharges of the Tarioas

&oreh leaders a g a i n s t i o v a t i s a i s s i g n i f i c a n t , not only
f t h e i r Mirmgmm
of p l a i t s , as t the l e s t seans of
s a M s g pea# i a 'the Buss &wmmiitj-s
bat of t h e i r
diiiitip?e@aeiii a# t e t h e n a t u r e of the Shaseh s a i of h e r

unity.
Bspeoially does S t . Cyprian appear in t h i s
e o n f l i e t as a man "who differed fundamentally from the

# t h e r M s h t p g , a s amah l a h i s pr&eiie&X proposals as i s
h i s i n e t r i a a l : definite, ns.
JBstt, i s s ^ i t e f the f a e t
t h a t he stands alene In t h i s way* he expresses h i s p o i n t
1.
Alao %- 44- (8), 4&, e%.
I.
.if., i i
fgl)
H.. She same argument is also mentioned in Cornelius'

letter to âbius, Has. H.S.T1. 45 {1X5 hut here it
is nsed only as one amongst others* ana Cornelius is
far isore interested is enumerating the personal Yiees
of Hovatian thsa in this senstitatioaal question.
4-
Sp. 44 (2), 55 CS } (S4) 59 (6) etc
19of "wim with such a pwr or l o g i c v and he i s so firmly

convinced of the d i f i a a t r u t h of M s statements, t h a t one
i s almost teapted to regard h i s opinion as the general
TO ice of the Church of the t h i r d century;
particularly
a s M s well-pre served l e t t e r s are almost the unique

source of information t h a t remains -
But though the
p o i n t s of Tiers of other Church l e a d e r s have been almost

completely lost* and nnne of t h e s ? so i t seems a t p r e s e n t ,
possesses! any such c l e a r scheme of action as could be
compared with S t . Cypriotes proposal, yet t h e r e i s s u f f i c
i e n t m a t e r i a l a t our d i s p o s a l to proê t h a t St- Oypriaa's
d o c t r i n e was n o t shared hy other l e a d i n g Christian.
S t . Cyprian i n s i s t e d upon two main statements
which he h o l l e r e d were in complete accordance with the
t r a d i t i o n a l d i s c i p l i n e of the Church and represented the
isssutahle w i l l of Clod.
i,
They were as follows:**
fhe e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d i s c i p l i n e i s divinely i n s t i t u t e d
ace and for. ever.
Every v i o l a t i o n of i t s unchangeable
precepts i s a, sin gr&re enough to separate a Christian

completely from the Church,
fhere i s no difference in
the s i g h t of God hetween an a p o s t a t e , a s i n n e r , or an

opponent of a lawful bishop.
C h r i s t i a n s who a r t g u i l t y
f any one 9t these crimes cannot remain a s Hiring

aeshera f C h r i s t ' s "body,
t h e p r a c t i c a l conclii#iss t h a t S t . Cyprian deduced
froa t h i s statement was t h a t Boiratian, a f t e r he had
revolted a g a i n s t h i s lawful hishop, {the s o t i r e of
tee
r e m i t had s o r e a l isperts-ace) ceased to he a C h r i s t i a n .

1@ then heeasie the ^ r e a t t s t gn@y of Qd, wrs@ than any
ordinary heretic,- f o r hd ' S t i l l pretended t o 'be a Mshp
1.
% . 5S ( 6 } ; 69 (1).
and deceived the mashers of the Church hy offering ihasa

M s s a c r i l e g i o u s pseudo-sacraments.
ii.
S t . Cyprian*s second statement was t h a t in cases

in which a l o c a l Church i s divided. the other bist-ops
hare the sacred duty of intervening in i t s a f f a i r s .
iliey
a s a "may received frosi Christ a coHmissicm to jceep the

u n i t y of tke Church i n t a c t , and t h e i r c cession decision must
fee the f i n a l a u t h o r i t y in the settlement of a l o c a l atiny.
fhe consequences of S t . Cyprian "belie? i s t h i s
doctrine was h i s ferment p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the Eossejs
sehigsa and h i s s o l e r a excoaasjunication of Sdvatian which
he pron s l i c e d i n the name of a l l the African bishops. t h e s e twc p r c p c s a l s wtre a r a d i c a l departure from the
trsditiffla cf the Church. . Only a f t e r a. hard s t r a g g l e did
.it*. %rpria .succeed i s a s s e r t i n g teae af the p r i n c i p a l
elesiente of h i s d o c t r i n e t hut they h&ve nmeT "been
accepted i s t h e i r i n t e g r i t y by the Catholic Church..
Ssftigtlifled a d c p t i m they received, sialy frcas the v a r i o u s
sseci&riaii acyesetiis which made utse #f theis l a t h e i r
I a t t a c k s againis-i tb Church.
fhe place of
ecclesiastical
discipline*
S t . Cyprian's f i r s t statement was p a r t i c u l a r l y

s t r i k i n g and was t a c i t l y r e j e c t e d by o t h s r hishops.
For
i n s t a n c e , though M e s y s i u s cf Alessandria* who was the s a i n

cppihtat c.f l o t s t i o i i . in. the Sa$t severely condemns heth.
the 'teaching; and csaduet sf t h e l a t t e r , he wag mry
far
freii agreeitig fith 9*. Cyprian.* c a t e g o r i c a l assert!a.

t h a t Ststtan i s 110 longer a Christian and i s e n t i r e l y
cut off from the Church.
Bionys-tus, w r i t i n g to Bov&ti&a,
t a i l s h i s h i s "brother s and he t r i e s to persuade him to.

r e t i r e w i l l i n g l y from the b i s h o p ' s office in sueh a way
%,
ftp.
4S | 4 ) , 5 (24).
a,
i p s * 44, 4&t m
fg).
,. ..?sr instance % flae B c i t a t t s i s , #ee p s g t ^ ^ - w ^ ^ '
-80as to restore peace in the Omrch or Sad,
Eus. H. .3. VI. 45.
Even thefiaaanbishops Cornelius and Stephen, who were

most direetly affeetei by this schism, did not consider
the breach of eeelesiastie&l iieeiplise a criiss altogether
separating a Christian frost. the Church.
Cornelius proved
this by his negotiations with I'eXiclssiMis* the schismatic

deacon faroa Carthage, which deeply pained St. Cyprian md
i.
proToJce4 from him h i t t e r rebalces of Cornelius.
Stephes
as eves soire emphatic i s h i s r e j e c t i o n of S t , Cyprian*s

d o c t r i n e 4 and franlcly opposed h i a a every p o s s i b l e
occasion.
For i n s t a n c e , he recognised the v a l i d i t y of
the sacraments administered by the schismatics &ad refused

to talcs any a c t i o n a g a i n s t n a r c i s s u s , Bishop of Aries*
whp v i o l a t e d e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d i s c i p l i n e by refusing to
support the decision which was sanctioned by the eonsssi
of' th* wslrsraAl e p i s c o p a t e .
fhas i t be#ase obTioas t h a t St* Cyprian was
the f i r s t theologian to he COSYlaced t h a t Hoiratiaa and
h i s s u p p o r t e r s t s o l e l y OB account of t h e i r rsTO.lt a g a i n s t
Cornelius, ha4 eased to he C h r i s t i a n s ,
and to draw, hy
the i r r e s i s t i b l e power of h i s l o g i c , a l l the conclusions

t h a t i n e v i t a b l y followed froa t h i s conviction
fhe bishops*
iaterveiitiia *
fhe second proposal of S t , Cyprian seemed e?'@

s o r e unheard of t o the Ctmreh of t h e t h i r l ceniuaey.
According to t h e ancient t r a d i t i o n s every l o c a l schissa
had to be d e a l t with by the eossaasity i s which i t
. originated.
Other C h a r g e s s i g h t send advise and
. rsbmkes t# t h i l e a d e r s of r i m l p a r t i e s # h a t they could

%. ^p. m ( 6 ) .
8,
Bp. 6 6 . ( 1 ) .
$*. Sps. 45 ( 1 ) , 46,4?,49 (!) , i t ( 1 ) , S9 ( 6 ) , 0 <1).
00-
a s to r e s t o r e peace la the Churoh of
fed,
Sus, H.3.VI.45.
Even the Hosaaa Mahopa Cornelias and Stephen, $?h were

moat d i r e c t l y affected "by t h i s s e h i s s , did not consider
the hreaeh sf e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d i s c i p l i n e a eriise a l t o g e t h e r
separating a Christian frost t h e Church.
Cornelius proved
t h i s "by h i e n e g o t i a t i o n s with Felicissirsiis., the schismatic

deacon fxoa Carthage, which deeply pained St- Cyprian and
provoJced from h i s h i t t e r rebukes sf Cornelius.
Stephen
as even more estphatie i s M s r e j e c t i o n of S t . Cyprian's

' doe t r i n e , and franlcly opposed him on eTery p o s s i b l e
oee&sioa.
For instance* he recognised the v a l i d i t y of
t h e gaeraaiente administered by the schismatics and refused

to take ssy action a g a i n s t Marciasus. Bishop of A r i e s ,
whg v i o l a t e d a e e j e e i a s t i o a l d i s c i p l i n e by refusing to
support the decision which was sanctioned. by the consent
&t the u n i v e r s a l e p i s c o p a t e .
t t e i t heeeaes: obvious t h a t S t . C&rprian. was
t h e f i r s t theologian to he convinced t h a t l o v a t i a n sad
M s 'supporters* s o l e l y on account of t h e i r r e v o l t a g a i n s t
Cornelius, h& ceased te he C h r i s t i a n s ,
and to draw, by
the i r r e s i s t i b l e power of h i s l o g i c , a l l the conclusions

t h a t i n e v i t a b l y followed from t h i s conviction
The bishops*
intervention *
f&s geetsid proposal of St* Cyprian seemed eve

a^re asseard t f t o the Ctatrfh of t h e t h i r d century.
Aetordittg to t h e essitlent tradition.;, every l e e a l s-ehisat
had to 'fee d e a l t with by the essaaisity i s whiah i t
#ri.giasfd.
ther Smr8$*#& n i g h t tend advice and
. reisiies i the. l e a d e r s of r i v a l p a r t i e s * hut they could

- 3,.' %,-* Si (e).
$.. % s . 4 Cl), 46,47,4$ <1), 52 ( 1 ) , 59 ( 6 ) , 60 ( l ) .
*^'jsyL***'
s o t be t h e i r Jmdges..
pat I t s house in order.
flit lecml s p i o i alone had power to

Bras in the ca.se of Mippolytug*
long drama out schism, the Eomsa Church eventually healed

t i i i s painful d i v i s i o n by recognising the two r i v a l bishops
equally as her s a i n t s and martyrs.
She scrae histhod wss
applied in Jut icon l a the ease of Paul of SAeosata,

Ihough the neighbouring bishops were i n v i t e d to a s s i s t i s
t h e settlement of the l o c a l c o n f l i c t , the Church of Antiocfc
z
remained the f i n a l judge of the case.
Properly speaking, as long as a, l o c a l Church was
divided against i t s e l f , i t could not hare a lawful bishop*
fey the w i l l of Sod, who was the r e a l e l e c t o r , could be
teo^n only through the unanimous decision of the whole
3.
congregation.
I t was extresseiy painful to have two
eoiapetiag p a r t i e s each claiming to fee sole r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

of -fee Qhuroh of God*
Such a s i t u a t i o n s i g h t l a s t f o r
is&ay y e a r s and. end only with the death, of oat of the r i v a l

Mshofg*
1st' t h i s treatment of l o c a l schism was & sure
gtjarsstee a g a i n s t perjtitaeai d i v i s i o n s of Christ*s body

aad corresponded to the Christian d o c t r i n e t h a t every
s p l i t i s a sin of which both p a r t i e s a r e g u i l t y .
1*
2.
3.
t h a t i s Mosygius a t t i t u d e in h i s l e t t e r addressed
to Sovatian Bus- H3UYI. 45.
S U B . H.S. T O . 3G ( 5 ) .
fhat was the a t t i t u d e of fee Ghurcfe of Adruaetine,
irMch sent i t s l e t t e r to Home addressed not to
Cornelius t bat t o the Eemas p r e s b y t e r s and deacons.
The rtason was t h a t the African bishops had a t the
beginning of the c o n f l i c t decided t o ignore the two
r i v a l candidates u n t i l further i a f o a a a t i o s had been
received fro Home. (Sp. 4S ( 2 ) ) .
f h i s situation-,
however, l a s t e d only for a short while, for St.flypriaa
succeeded in persuading the African episcopate 4 l that
. . . t h e whole of our colleagues might decidedly
approve of and Mmaintain both you {Cornelius} and your
cbraaunion . . .
~&p* 4 8 . ( 3 ) .
&iiQ'
Wstm this very êgiiming of the schism St.. Cyprian

was a b s o l u t e l y c e r t a i n t h a t So Tat l a s wae the ei'ieiay of Sod
sad of the Church", and he "became convinced t e a t the schism
would, "be u t t e r l y destroyed a f t e r I t s soletan exeorm-unioe-tioit
was pronounced hy a l l the "bishops.
*?iib h i s out steading

at
energy he worked f o r the r e a l i s a t i o n of t h i s scheme arid had

& complete success-
The IToYatianists were expelled from
the Church and severely condeianed % the majority of the

Msshopsu
'fhe re s a l t of t h i s aetioii, however, was ant the
d&s^pearwtee of t h i s s e i r tet the formation out of i t of

a s t r e a g a&d lining'hdy.fiMek existed far c e n t u r i e s
isdepeniefitly fro the r e s t of the SSturoh, end was only
destroyed i s t h e seventh seatury as a, r e s u l t ef s t a t e
3-
persecution.
St* iypriaa f -s sMStif istetrraatioit i s the l i f e of
the Roman fSaarch,. %ad espeeiiiXly h i s "belief t h a t , the hoiy
#f hishep a must -he the f i n a l eettrt of appeal la the ease of
|hi@ d i s p u t e hetwee^ Ceraelis and JJairati&a., was such a.
ms#3% t h a t eves srseiiiis, whom he was so wholeheartedly
pappsrtiitig, #3fpreiiied seas domMs as to the legitimacy of
t h i s procedure.
l a defending h i s p o s i t i o n to Cornelius,
S t . Cyprian was obliged to explain h i s theory concerning

the place which t h e u n i v e r s a l episcopate ought to occupy
i a the s e t t l i n g of a l e s a l s c h i .
Se w r i t e s :
"But in
d e s i r i n g the l e t t e r s , from r colleagues who were p r e s e n t

a t year or# l a s t ion . . . . we d i d not forget the ancient
Mfage* n o r did we geek f o r ww ntweiiy*
for i t was
! *We considered a t once t h a t they (the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
of lloYatian sent to Carthage) aiust he r e s t r a i n e d froia
coEEiuaion with u s . " Up* 44 (l)~
H.
His e p i s t l e s dealing with, the eaccojatswnieation a r e :

44-47, 1-53; 55, 09 s 6S
9.
I3ie lew Sehaff -Herzog Encyclopedia (1910) Vol.VIII

Novatianism hy A.v.Harnach p.202.
s u f f i c i e n t for you to announce yourself "by l e t t e r s to

h a r e he#n sade "bishop
unless t h e r e had been a d i s s e n t i n g
f a s t i o n os 'the. oth#r i#* *,
l e s e t t h i s matter a t
I'^-st, w ^.uiljged, &% aeesssary t o o M a l s t k t a s e Hat strong

and d#@4& a u t h o r i t y of omr eoileagases iPho wrote to us

... .
For t h i s w . . , .
tight t# labour a f t e r
to 0
e&refal to maintain . . . t h t u n i t y delivered "fey the Lord

asd through H i s a p o s t l e s tt m# t h e i r sasoesgors. 1 *
% . 45. ( S ) .
& i s passage i s "iae key 'to a l l the l a t e r notions
of St... eyfiriss.
He believed t h a t In -somal circumstaJBees
| h f t r a d i t i o n a l order f t h e llfeui'Sh* is. which the e l e c t ! a s

ana ordination st&ds hy a l o c a l synod iras eoasiiierei t o be
f i n a l and not subject to the a u t h o r i t y of any other
i n s t i t u t i o n * ag^tt t o fee prese3?ed
But when a l o c a l
Church was divided a g a i n s t i t s e l f , a new m& higher' author

i t y had to 'intervene, and t h i s should he the body of
bishops, t h e tsao#essors of the j o s t l e s .
She mals''tlifiiitrts I* S t . Cyprian * si dog t r i n e a
ghitreli m i t y hf#as# foriiiilat#d d a r l a g fee s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t
t h t y o m i i s a i s t geMgst.
fit
sjerivetl a t the eoaelttsiom
t h a t the CSlssqreh $ Sod i s ideatie&l with those Christian

. coasaunities which reia&in f a i t h f u l l y obedient to t h e i r
.lawful bishops* and t h a t the u n i v e r s a l episcopate i s the
special body which received a eosmissioa frosi Gad to keep
t h i s v i s i b l e unity of the C&iiroh i n t a c t .
S t . Cyprian
spent the remaining years of h i s l i f e in attempts to

secure p r a c t i c a l recognition f o r t h i s d o c t r i n e .
file reasons f o r
S t , Cyprian*s
success.
Jhe v i c t o r y of St. Cyprian *s p r i n c i p l e s was a

r e a l r e s o l u t i o n t h a t only h e , with h i e fervent b e l i e f in
the absolute t r u t h of h i s d o c t r i n e , could have aeeoxaplished
St. Cy >riaa possessed two of t h e main c h a r a c t e r 2 s t i e s of
every great reformer or r e v o l u t i o n a r y ;
a clear v i s i o n of
the end he wished to gain* and a determination to a t t a i n
.... *S4*
f t Wmimm- the .gt:.,
fkmm m e & strSJc&tg difference
fettweeit t h i s *&*?geti* mmm Xgoye? ana" the riisary

Church l e a d e r s of fee t h i r d century.
The l a t t e r often
did s o t h e s i t a t e to use extireaaefenfioleofc language a g a i n s t

t h e i r a d v e r s a r i e s , but the harsher t h e i r words the nore
Caution t h e i r a c t i o n s .
Is cases where sorae person or
d o c t r i n e had t o he denounced, in the name of the Church,

they "re s p e c i a l l y r e l u c t a n t to &t p r e f e r r i n g to discuss
and argue r a t h e r than come to a decision,
i'rjsre was a
good deal of genuine wisdi in t h i s a t t i t u d e and i t

preferred the Church from many blunders>
I t sprang fro
the firm b e l i e f of the whole Church t h a t her r e a l r u l e r i s

God Himself, and t h a t "before she takes a,ny d&cisive action
the Church must r e e s i v e setae r e v e l a t i o n of the divine w i l l .
The Church had taken t h i s stand in her dealings ^ i t h the
Montaaists;
the case of P'tnl of Saaosate. had been weighed
by three successive councils;
and i t took sane cersturies
for the Church to s e t t l e fehe question of ho?/ she should

t r e a t her lapsed zna s i n f u l members.
0t % p r i a n was a nan of quite a d i f f e r e n t
nature.
He a l s o believed i n the supreme r u l e of Sod ever
t h e Church, hut he &s tempted s o r t than e t h e r s to claim

ex,ct Joiowledge of the d i v i n e w i l l .
fhe d i f f i c u l t y
for
"him was hot to r e s t r a i n h i s tongue - indeed he was unusually

r e s e w e d i n pcAesigal language,! '''.but t e r e f r a i n from
p u t t i n g h i s idâs into. -deliberate a c t i o n .
fhe e a r l y
Church * however, was such a conservative body t h a t eves

S t . &ypriiin, with a l l h i s outstanding personal <ualific'aiic&s, i;tt.M .hardly have persuaded. her- meatbers .to accept
h i s dactria.es-..
But S t . Sypflsii had & prominent a l l y
whose gpp#rt proved a d e c i s i v e fator in h i s v i c t o r y ,

and that, w&$ S'svs.tian. himself,
Se was a aaa of the sane temper sad mentality as
the Bishop @f C a r t h ^ e and it# alone a t the beginning
4.
wtlfsmtd. t h e %fflaiii# ieniirAaei with M s f a l l sgtprsval.

He introduced them as a worMng systest into h i s own
eosaeaanit-y and thus l e n t lavaluahie support to the proposals
of M s e M f f adversary,
higaa t 3?tepii&
Jlie f a s t that the $fovatianifs
feihsii#s.f
to define t h e i r sect along
the d i s c i p l i n a r y 1 lists l a i d tows hy St., Cyprian* and Is

deny any v a l i d i t y to the orders of riv&l bishops, forced
the other Christians to appl$ the s^-ae êthoas in t h e i r ana
intem&l struggles,
I t s i g h t well lie siaMs t h e r e f o r e ,
t h a t St* % p r i a prepared % takers tiaal. j.srfeii@atis for

a. ne?j CSmroh ord#l? and ff@fs.tisn helped to Introduce i t int&
p r a c t i c a l CSmrife li.f#*
5h s p l i t
at Aries.
*^% j&iili:î. iâaea.!*

fhe Sauliah appeal gave S t . Cyprian a fresh
opportunity to apply h i s aaethod of preserving Church u n i t y .
MareMaus, the Bishop of Aries (251-254 A*B.) had taken tip
an ^compromising l e v a t i a n i s t a t t i t u d e towards the l a p s e d .
fhe l o c a l Church of Aries, as well a s the neighbouring
eoisntmaititt of fia.ul, were d#p2y d i s t u r b e d fey the conduct
of t a t bishops, hut net a c t i o n could be taken, probably a
fi.tcoa.nt of i n t e r n a l i l s s . ^ s s i i t i saong the C h r i s t i a n s a t
Aries.
F a u s t i n a s , the Bishop of l y o n s , together -with other
bishops of Gaul who were perplexed "by t h i s c o n f l i c t , a p p e a l e d

to lose BM& to other l e a d i n g .CSiurehss for b r o t h e r l y advice.
f'opt Stephen, h&ft&vr$xt r e a a i n t d I n d i f f e r e n t to these l - e t t t r s
and sMd. BO' d e s i r e to i n t e r f e r e in t h s matter1.
% * 75.
Li,
..
Benson., Qyprian
;s.-$i'7,
-fi
st. Syrian's
attitude
towards e o s f l i e t
i s Aries*
S#% @9 S t . dyipidaa..
lit h i s usual i#Ii.-at
way, be explained Haroainas* eonduet as an open

T i o l s t i e o of C h r i s t i a n u n i t ? , for the r e j e c t i o n of
ths' M'âtisais% 4etria# had alra&dy $ea s a a e l i t a e i
l y "the o-easttts. esasemt of a l l the bishops."
Aoeospd-
img to S t . ypfissi t h i s meant t h a t Mareisaius had

d#priirid. hia#3..f of h i s episcopal offiee and t h a t
i t was th# 4a% of a l l their Mshops to expel hi
from M e sea*
la a irary e n e r g e t i c l e t t e r St.Cyprian
demanded t h a t pope Stephen should s t a r t t h i s

r
tgastpsigs.
fe# ton of the l e t t e r i n d i c a t e s clec-rly
t h a t St, dypriaa was a#a-st@a.e4 to command o t h e r s .

Sg ioa s o t ask Stephen* s opinion* "but siaply sends
hiai f u l l i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r h i s future a c t i o n s .
S t . Cyprian i s so confident t h a t he w i l l be obeyed
t h a t ha d.s h i s l e t t e r with a r^q&t&i to Stephen
to imfoHt h i s who w i l l he appointed to Hareaiims*
p l a t s , . i s aeeordaaes "fith h i s proposed scheme.
As
we eafi see now, St* Cyprian was not aware t?ith what
kind of s a c he had to deal in the new Pope of Rome. '
Stephen ae Hgither i n t l i n e d to f u l f i l the cossaadmeats of S t . Syfris-n, soy #siae*l t h a t they
were fight*
S t . Qyprian*&
seheiae of
motion*
S t , Cyprian's soherse of a c t i o n i s f@rj

important* for i t i l l u m i n a t e s "both the oonie&por&ry"
p r a o t i n e of th cSmttiKh and h i s oa. ideas as to
1,
Bp. 68. ( 2 ) .
1*
Stephen was e l e c t e d i a the Spring of 253 or 254,.

S t . Oypriaa*s e p i s t l e "sss w r i t t e n probably in the
Autumn of 54 3 according to HeIke and Ritschl*s
chronology of h i s correspondence.
See
Bar&eehewer S-esah A l t . L i t . V o l . X I . p . 4 8 ? .
3ha seae is 8oclea*s opinion, whs con sisters t h i s
e p i s t l e t o he fe f i r s t a c t of the h a p t i s a a l
eoatroTersy.
Ber Keisertaufstreit pp 8-9.
%tXlen Forsehaa . K$ffe.?reu&. K.X. in Boa.
(Eos 1909},
*,JIII,"<
His mmmm.lm
appear t &&%&ln Bmm sUfinit^
@#ii t r a d t@ti sag u M i h Imvt flea been psisitft out "by v&rians
i.
historians*
For isst-ft-itei ,s. to I n s i s t s 0s, tlit a c t i v e i n t e r -
venfcion of Pope Stephen in the Inner c o n f l i c t of the Church

of A r i e s , ' y e t at the S-r:@ t i ^ e M s l e t t e r suggests t h a t the
3.
f i n a l action w i l l belong to the l o c a l Ofaureh i t s e l f .
It
i s : the esBgregattssi of ArXtf? whieh lias t o d-eprive Sareaians
or M l ffiee and -to ehooss a new sad wort&y anaidatt*
epi&cop&te as a "body has also an important r o l e t
fht
for
Stephen *g l e t t e r s arast "be d i r e c t e d tc h i s colleagues ir*

J
5-
G&ul*
a*
' ''
J!hfe. p r o p o s a l invclTed two questions;

tlie r e l a t i o n s h i p between the body of fee u n i v e r s a l
episcopate :.ad the l o c a l congregation i s regr-rd to the

suapenai&a of a g u i l t y bishop;
'%*
the r o l e cf tli$ bishop of Koae in the procedure of
02te mmemi i oa t i an
A local
8 t . Cyprian held a eons l a t e n t eharisraatie point
eosssunity and
the u n i v e r s a l of view concerning the CSbxistian p r e i ^ t h o s d . @od alone
episcopate.
6.
ooaifiated "ail the bishops aal. other t l e r i t s ef His Church,
sad i n His hands alone lay the powsr to deprive & sail of
1,
B a t i f f o l . t r i m . aih#jb pp.3?8-890*
2V p, #S (1*3)
$.*
*Let the l e t t e r s
province and to
whereby Mexican
be appointed i s
be dispatched from you into the

the l a i t y who stand f a i t h f u l a t A r i e s ,
having "been
@xcQrm&unlo& t e d , another aay
1
M s room,* Sp. 68 {),
4*
Benson* Cyprian * p . 318.
Wherefore i t behoves you to w r i t e a very copious

l e t t e r t o our fellow bishops appointed i s Slkul.68 ( 2 ) .
Sps. 58 ( 1 ) ; 45 ( l ) ; 55 ( 3 ) ; 66 ( 1 , 2 , 6 , 9 , 1 0 ) .
6.
-28
t h i s sSt#. o f f i a s ,
fills iifi iaiss-fel i t *
Qy^sim^n
whole l i f e and only i n the l i g h t of i t can M s a c t i o n s Im

properly understood*
Ha believed, as did the whole Church
In M s day* t h a t i n normal conditions the TO ice of God was

heard through the unanimous decision of the e n t i r e congre
gation, and t h a t i n such a er-ge no 03a a c t even the
u n i v e r s a l episcopates ted anything to do with the confisc
a t i o n of s i e l e c t i o n .
0o4 spoke, and a ss&n became a bishop
and reas&itted a bishop f o r ever,

whfsm a bishop f e l l front gre.ee-
fhe soae Idea was applied

If he lapsed or s o m i t t e d
a grave sin* ipso facto he l o s t h i s "sacerdotal o:-.-der;
far
these f a s t s were evidence of God* a judgment ana there was

BO a u t h o r i t y which could r e s t o r e hi to M s previous o f f i c e .
la t h i s case i t became the sacred duty of the l o c a l congre
gation- to depose h i a and to e l e c t another bishop ia h i s
place.
But when i t happened t h a t a l o c a l coagregatica m s
divided sad could not agree unanimously e i t h e r to e l e c t a

bishop or to exeosasunicate him i f g u i l t y , then according t
S t . Cyprian, the body of the episcopate had to a c t instead of
x
the synod of the local Church- '
He believed that in such
c.s$-## the voice of' Sod would be heard through its unanimous
i.e-cisioii*
fhis m s precisely what happened in Axles.
M&rcianus folio-wed IbvatiaaJs condemned doctrine and cut
3
hiraself off from t h e Church.'
Bat h i s l o c a l congregation
kept s i l e n t and thus had ao poêr to sot in the name of Sod.

She s i t u a t i o n s i g h t then have become desperate, but S t .
Cyprian saw a i?ay out.
He c a l l e d on the conscience of tfes
u n i v e r s a l episcopate believing t h a t i t s voice w#ti.M rous@

the l o c a l CSisreh. of Aries frs. i t s s i n f u l -apathy to
X.- Sp* 4$ (3)*
$,
% i-S | 1 )
-ftf t t t l u t e *&$&$&?$& a g a i n s t i t s unw#rth|* M s h s p s .

She p o s i t i o n of
the bishops of
Home,
the r o l e of 'the 'lestan Mshtp- u a -reify

prominent #ae im. Mt,G^Tism*B
schsse*
Me had to gpeafe
f i r s t , and to rouse both the bishops of Gaul and the

C h r i s t i a n s of A r i e s ,
Urma. the e p i s t l e i t s e l f i t i s
very d i f f i c u l t t o deduce t h e exact reason f o r S t .

Cyprian*s i n s i s t e n c e on Stephen s t a r t i n g -the esaapaigs.
Hie u s u a l explanations contain a c e r t a i n ataount of
confusion and although i t i s c l e a r t h a t Stephea had no
2
f o s s a ! r i g h t to govern the Church of Aries t for the

co-operation of the l o c a l eostsaiiity and of the Gaulish
bishops m s r e q u i r e d , y e t h i g a c t i o n had to&a very
important influence anon the eourse of the proceedings
a g a i a a t isfare&lnns*
S a r i S&iller r e c e n t l y as.de the vary
i n t e r e s t i n g suggestion t h a t the Gharch of Aries was the

daughter liter h of t h e loans. ccsraanity, and t h a t the
Bissau bishop had thus m p a r t i c u l a r place i s i t s l i f e *
S i i i byêthesis well explains S t , Cyprian's i s s i s tenets
on Stephen's exeesi&iieits-lioii of Hsreiaass and f i t s in
For i n s t a n c e I 1 abbe furrael gives t h e following d e s
c r i p t i o n of Cyprian*s plan of a c t i o n : '"Xtienwe d o i t
d e c l a r e r qua Marcign n ' e s t p l u s da sa eosniunion.
Alors l e s "eveoues gaulois d i r e s t an peuple
d*Aries
de poavoir su replacement da son pasteur* 1 . H i s t . a n
Bog. i e l a Papaattf, (190S) p . 1 2 ? . A s i m i l a r
explanation i s given by Beechman, M e S i c h t b a r k e i t
der HXrche, (Padebr.1908) p . 5 4 . Koch held the same
opinion i n , Cyprian-Eos,Primat, (1910) p . U S , h a t
Ranged i t under the Influence of W a l l e r ' s suggest
ion i a Cathedra P e t r i (1930) preface v i .
S
Some h i s t o r i a n s attempted to prove,from the f a s t

t h a t St.Cyprian as-led Stephen to inform, him of the
Base of the new bishop of A r i e s , t h a t he recognised
the Bsaan j u r i s d i c t i o n over S a u l . ( P e t e r s , l?ie i a h r e
des Hi. Cyprian von der linfaeit der Klrche, (Luxe&b.
i a ? 0 ) ; Sohs, M r c h e n r e e h t , {Leipzig 1SS2) p.$93;
2r$x-eppeX, St.Cyprian, (Paris 1865) p . 5 6 ? .
But
t h i s request had another meaning.
deal and
Carthage seldom had d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s with each other
In s o s t cases they had t o kaire as intermediary in
Rome.
fhus i t was ignite n a t u r a l t h a t the h i shop
of Boiae should have been the f i r s t to men? of the
events in the Church of .Aries, j u s t as ftt.Cyprian
would l e a r n of the before any other bishop of the
E a r t h African Churches. (Si the ssse way S t .
Cyprian informs O a l l i s t u s "who are the Catholic
bishops i a Korth Africa; ^p.m ( 9 ) . c e n t . n e x t page
-3-
wi#i the o.ihrwist e#at3fa41et#3f3r statements of His

episiie*'
2s the l i g h t of t h i s supposition the l a s t
aM@iiiies disappear" and I t hees p o s s i b l e t

r e s t e r e t h e #osipi'ete pieiuare of Cyprian*s o r i g i n a l
teei#i*
St.Gyprisii's
St,Cyprian*s e p i s t l e t o Stephen aaicss If
plm sad the

C&ureh.
p r a c t i s e of
o*6Tiss feat the SanXisit Mshsps h a i s t i l l so goner id
his tlae.
deprive lar$is&us of M s office s Inag as Is was

- $uppr$#d by Mis <sogr&g&tisia.
!8i.#y weft ?ily able
to p r e t e s t s g a i s s i h i s p#41ey intd t iufons the User

Shsurohes #f h i s aigim@t*
She -Bssiaii Ghurch alone
had a f .ratal r i g h t to i&teaFfex* * f a r the eommnity
of
ArXes n&s- s t i l l #itsMer a s a ga^t f the Koaaa

8tliregatXdaiiit I I prshahXy soon beesste f r e s i 'fya
the *tt&ity f i t s mother. Ghtirela, HBA n e i t h e r Cyprian
8S3e Steptian were tsfiieiat t h a t the tfoie of '-St lonan
CSaureh would be re tired a s d e e i s i v e .
Thus ih# XoeaX
r#h was> i s fast* t h e f i n a l judge i s i t s cswa e a s t ,

m Cyprian* d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h i s order s, t r i e d to
g i t e t o t h e - u n i v e r s a l episcopate a g r e a t e r power of
eatroX*
8e used a l l .his g i f t of elegueiiee and
perSua*ie t e t s t s M i s h the r a l e t h a t the bishops

ghuuXi give Juiipeiaf upo a l e g a l sti.gr? gat l e a .
The
p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n miiieh beXcaged- to the l e s s a

esatsasify with rt'gari to .Aries was for h i s only a means
2 coat* See aXa jgbel^, Cyprian end der Hesisehe
Priaa.t {X9XG p.1X7. / jQiis efeat undoubtedly f o r e
shadows the begiasiiig of t h e future metropolitan
system, though i t had not as y e t any for t&aX e x i s t
ence i n t h e time of St.Gyjsriajs.
3#
Beitrage sur a l t a a lUreheagesehiehte,

furff.T.V. 1929) pp.300~308*
(seitseh,
X.
I t i s p&ssible th&t the divisional isslete the Eoaan

eesEtuitity i t s e l f were connected with t h i s decrease
of t h e loiaas influence a the Charm of ArXes -
*m,~
ef i-tfiixisg Ids-
f i n a l HJeet.
That t h i s was the o u t l i n e of S t . Oyprisn*s

seheme i s proved; % the language f M s e p i s t l e .
#oy instance # tie w r i t e s to S t e v e n :
^l&rcianus
...
hae departed' *. from the agreement of our hody and

priesthood . . . which Matter* d e a r e s t hrotherj i t i s
m&T tesinees to a d r i s e for and to add in* H
^-therefore i t behoves ym to t r i t e a very
(63 (1)5,
copious
l e t t e r to ear fellow Ms&eps appointed t Saul* s o t to

s u f f e r any longer t h a t Ha?-&d2i . s h o a l i i n s u l t ear
assembly,.1*
(i'S (s))
S t . gypriaii does net mention
any gp;eeial riga-ig of t&e Bunas. mmmiij over t i e '

Gh**rh of Ar'lee;
he s t r e s s e s t h e isportstsse of the
corporate a e t i e n of the Mehops., and f e e l i n g t h a t sunk

action had net y e t aofiiirei s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y lie
t r i e s i s persuade s t e l e s t e supperi i t with the
an test p r e r o g a t i v e lielesgiag t Mis eawaaity.
St* Cyprian*s
failure.
Hie SaaXish appeal was the f i r s t instance i s

which liie 1*0 sgrstsss ^
t e face;
Ohureh organisation eame face
the old, in wMeii the Mshsp was eon t r o l l e d
only "fey h i s l o s s ! songregatiene i and the new, in which

ether Msjaeps exercised t h e duty and the r i g h t of
eel-tUng the e o n f l i e t s .is e t h e r Churehes *
ftiis
first
attempt to malse a t e of t h e new system m s s o t r e r y

suteetsfml, f o r the leading h i shop of the 'wost, the
Pope ef Base* ae opposed to i t s African a u t h o r .
St.
Cyprian o r i g i n a l l y proposed h i a scheme only as a

temporary a e a s a r e to "be used in som urgent cases,
tet
the h i s t o r y of t h e Ohureh shaisrs t h a t quite another use

was made of h i s d o c t r i n e .
Complete control "by the
Mskopg of the s o r e issportant sees over t h e i r l e s s

1*
She i n s t a n c e s of mother and daughter Churches

do not disprove the u n i r s r s a l i t y of t h i s oystem*
f o r the i a n ^ i t e r (Sburehes, although tiiev naM ft e 4 4
t h e i r ^ o u *ishop,we*e considered as i ^ r t a &t th*
&
p a r e n t mwmomti<*.
*
~
^
*3fc-
premiagnt colleagues lees-sis the very tesis of t&e ^hole

s t r u c t u r e of the Church, IIG the fcigfoop of Rmt?-e proved to
b@ tee a o e i powerful chseaoion of t h i s new 'jrdci*,
& this
wy t h e d r g s n i s a t i e a of the Church as an united iîelci

fceca&e sore efficacious and concrete,? feat a t the er_Tae *iis
more f r a g i l e and unsta&le*
S t . Gyprian SilrassXf l.iv^d to
see th$>aiasr eaaseûenee of M s proposal.
xr^sse
were r e t a i l e d to Mn eterisg the b a p t i s m l aostrotreroy

A i & was t h e l a s t g r e a t c o n f l i c t of M a s h c r t M storesy
tfist#nat#*
*3ie Gaulish appsl TMH the f i r s t
mllia^m
between S t . i^priau and Stephen, ami I t wait followed tij a

sew alii susxe M i t e x a l t e r c a t i a a , %%*$ i h s s e ts?o leading
Wfetteris ' f f t l a t t i - .
fh$ fsartfe Council af Sio?tha|# reeeiTed l e t t e r s
#rai %ai& sgklag f a r el$ @gg& sM&iri&e.
fw Spaaisli.
Mehp ; S a s i l i d e s of Leoa and M a r t i a l of iiarlda, i t was

alleged* were men of unsteady f a i t h , s t i l l vac i l l : : t i n g
eetiseea C h r i s t i a n i t y and heathenism,
The former, a t a
time shea he m>& dangerously i l l * h?;d 'bls.spheised the

C h r i s t i e s Sod* and t h e l a t t e r i n t e r r e d h i s child trith
pagan r i t e s .
3s t h e time of
persecution they both
atûred Jesus S b r i s t and wars afteimards received cask

i n t o t h e Church as laymen*
Their fcsraer cotaamitiea
elected new tsisshops sud peace m e restsrisd, but only for s

s h o r t time.
for some reasons u&known to as* B a s I l i a d s
and. M a r t i a l i t # M # tltat th$y w M
r t g a i a t h e i * episcopal
3U. Hef*ltech.HistoJLre des Coneiles aX*X*|s.i?I* places

t h i s c o a s c i l a t lh* end sf 2 M . BeoejasCypj?iaii,p,wS
confirms t h i s d a t e , ftIbut J l i t s e h l aad l e l k e are? i s fa^cur
of 25 * B&rdeahewey eseh . a l t , l i t ** Vol Ii'. p . 4?.
t,
Sp.6V |6}
-sa*
dignity.
B a s i l M e s appealed in Bsa said uas trea-ied "fay
S>pe Stephea a s a lawful b i s h s p .
a h i e return,, both ha
and M a r t i a l , probably supported by a p a r t of t h e i r two

eosesranifcies* Bade an e n e r g e t i c attempt to recover t h e i r
sees.
As a r e m i t af these e f f o r t s , the g r e a t e s t
confusion m a created i s the minis and h e a r t s of the

Spanish C h r i s t i a n s .
The p a r t y which supported the ne^ly
elected Mshops heard of the outstanding p e r s o n a l i t y of

S t . Cyprian and h i s experience i s Church government, and
decided to ask for h i s judgment on t h e i r complicated ease.
t h e two newly sleeted bishops, F e l i x and SaMnus, brought
the l e t t e r to Carthage i s person and explained the whale
isafti** t St* ($jrp:iris
#nfliei in derived
Oar i u f s s i a t i s a e e a e t r s i a g t h i s
fssai Sp. if.* which i s us answer
addressed to t h e Churches i n l&m and Merlin,, coapesed %

St.Cyprian but signed by a l l the bishops who were p r e s e n t
a t the fourth council*
The cosnioit
Shs Spanish appeal was coaaaonly i n t e r p r e t e d i s
ijiterpre t a t i o n
of the
the following way;
Bas H i d e s , d i s s & l i s f i e a with the
Spanish
appeal
deeision of h i s l o c a l congregation, went t Busts and
reversed i t ' t h e f t with t h e h e l p af the Eo&n bishop.
His
l o c a l Church i n i t s t s d&s&nr#ed with th Rsaaii v e r d i c t

and appealed to fee Carthaginian Council which r e j e c t e d the
decision of the ?ope and supported the l o e a l Church.
x.
Some
h i s t o r i a n s i n s i s t t h a t the Spanish, Churches recognised the

Eoaaa see as the dispenser of f i n a l J u r i s d i c t i o n ;
others
. deny t h i s by showing that the Carthaginian Council reversed

the: Bsm&a Jmipaent and e#s@Mer@i i t qaite'lawfrni to diseusa
1* Benson, Cyprian, p.3XS.
U,
Bellinger,, Hippolytus and CalXistu t p.155 (1655).
-S4~
/.
the Spanish, complaints a g a i n s t t h e J?op of Home*
But
in r e a l i t y t h i s view i s based on l a t e r l e g a l notions of

appeals from one e c c l e s i a s t i c a l court to another iftucii
have l i t t l e to do with the case of Basil i d e s , autl the
f a c t s r e l a t e d in 3 p . 8? are incompatible wit'.' t h i s
t r a i l t l o n a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Spanish appeal.
To
accept i t would mate i t iatpossihle for us to explain e i t h e r

the s o t i T g s of the a c t i o n s of various people involved in
the c o n f l i c t , or the subsequent development of events.
the d i f f i c u l t y
The two Spanish Churches i s Merida, and Leon were
i n accepting
t h e cosmoa
small and p r o v i n c i a l Christian Gossan i t i e s .
The majority
interpretation.
of t h e i r aeahers were even probably less strong in the
Christian f a i t h than t h e i r haif*pagan Mghopg*
ffee
q m e t t i f n ' a r i # # s how i t @oiil.I ha*f*e h a f p t n s i t h a t they

h t c a a e the ceetff of each an Istperlajit c o n f l i c t , i s which
the March of l # s e ani t h e Starch of earth&ge, the two
g r e a t e s t Sherehet of the West, took & most a c t i v e p a r t .
I h a t i s s t i l l s o r e p u s s l i n g i s t h a t BasilMes^ a. nan of
l i t t l e courage and poor education, should have otae to
h i s audacious decision to persuade the Bishop of Bos to
r e v e r s e i s ' h i s favour the i l s - c i p l i a e of the whale Shureh,
StStephen s
restoration
of the lapsed
clerics-
which unanIJESUfly eongiiered t h a t a lapsed lri$ cannot

h r e s t o r e ! t h i s office!" and t h a t he should thus have
s t i r r e d up t h i s acute c o n f l i c t .
t h e Spanish. c o n f l i c t hecoaes iatt.3J.igi Me only
uties i t i s viewed as. one of the Instances f Stephen*s
general a t t e s t to r e v i s e t h e e o e i e s i a s t i i s a l iisfipli 1 1
i t h regard to lapsed c l e r i c s *
the Bgeiaa persecution
had Men charac. t a r i s e i hy & n e * Method introduced by tit.

1. Benson, Cyprian, p.313.
3,
The Council of Aries in 314 expressly p r o h i b i t s i t

in the 13th. CanonThe saae opinion i s exprsaed
by mmj S&stem Synods:
H e a e a , Canon 1",
JiSCyra Canon I , fhe Apost*Canons* Canon 63, e t c
BafHsroX' himself |
the C^kristians user sow ies-terni and
isapriâsatd* tet- g#ld# f u t to death*
fins government wasted
to make a p o s t a t e s , hut not m a r t y r s ,
fMs ase sygteai was
mainly used i s I t a l y and i t s ohief victims were bishops and

tiler leading C h r i s t i a n s .
.Pop Stephen waa a pra-cticsl and
fiitj'getis mm and everything fh&t we igtow aherat Mai sap-parts

%h$ iw$&&&&l@ t h a t he s s a l i h&v h-e th$ f i r s t to ificif
t o r e s t o r e Sat lagged o l e r i s n t@ t h a l r ffis#.
fbis
4tfairfare 'froa the tf&di ti#a.ai ftistijilia was undoubtedly

a r e a l revolution* h*tt the time mis sAreskiy r i p s for sti3a an
$mmvs.tim.
Bie aaoiemli 0mr$h h&i hgy to d i f f e r e n t ways f
punishing her seahere;
exeofisausicatiom f o r a 3naan and

2.
deposition f o r a c l e r i e *
Jk person -#io suffered these
isunishsaents as a. r u l e remained under suspension u n t i l h i s

death.
This severe d i s c i p l i n e "became unbearable as the
number of C h r i s t i a n s increased,, and Pop C a l l i s t u s , according

t o S t . Bip;polytus t tools the f i r s t step towards amending i t .
He admitted a p o s s i b i l i t y of complete recovery of Church
aesberehijs for those C h r i s t i a n s #1.0 were xconaaunicated for
sosae carnal sins*
Bippolyius a l s o accuses him, with a
grpeeial
of the s t i l l g r e a t e r innovation of
fcitterneas,
r e s t o r i n g to t h e i r office c l e r i c s ondesaned for the e?.?ae
6
transgressions.
Hippoly tits f a t t a c k s were not a l t o g e t h e r
justified*, f o r U a l i i s t u s m s a c t i n g | E accordance with the

general i d e a s of the e a r l y Chureh. ' If a laytaaia could through
1* Writer* Studies on. early Ohurch H i s t o r y , p.109, (Oxf .1012}.
1* A fieacois, g u i l t y of f o r n i c a t i o n i s deposed* not excoseraaniaatad* f o r the a n s i e n t aiion forbids a single crime to
he twice punished, the f i r s t oeaonical e p i s t l e of S t .
Basil* Canon H I .
H&raack, History of Bogsiasj I I . p . 115.
4*
!&6 Shilosoph*
B.IX.Cfe.ia. p,445,
i.
the Philosoph.
BXX,0h,,i2,
JJ*444.
ÎNH-"
repeatanee become ag in an a e t i T e member of the Church,

t h e r e were Re insup able o b s t a c l e s its prevent a e l e r i e
frasi being re l a s t a t I i a M s o f f i c e ,
Shirty years l a t e r
St Cyprian and Pop ,- Cornelias took a second step i s the

ssae direction*
Taey admit ted the r i g h t of those
C h r i s t i a n s who had abjured Christ during the persecution

to be reconciled with the Church* but they were not
prepared to go further than t h a t , and considered i t q u i t e
impossible for a lapsed o l e r i e to be reaeiired back o t h e r
wise than ia l a y eomrauaien.'
'tttis breal: with, the 14 order- was gladly welcomed
by the amjarity #f the C h r i s t i a n s s with the except lea of
the Firratiaitist j a r t y * and heoee t h e r e i s nothing
i s e r e d i b l e In the a$i t h a t St.Stephen should have decided
t pursue to i t s l o g l e a l eonelusisa the reform begun by
'
M s predecessors,. and to allow lapsed e l e r i e s r e a d s ! t i s s u e

t # t h e t r thalrS'*
In I t a l y , a s we said before* t h e r e were
$$$ s j e e i a l tad. urgent r e a s s for the introduction of

fhle s t a t u r e , , and they were probably the imsediste s s t i v e
tm
Stephen *s reform.
Basilides*
BasllMes* the lag$$& Spanish bishop, had prsbably
v i s i t to
Eome_ heard about t h i s oh&nge i n t h e Reman t l i e y . He was well
gm^ferted i s h i s &m hureh' by these Christians who
f#sibly p r e f e r r e d to have a Ms!*&j wh was s o t too s t r i c t .
Hsweve.3?y they dared not v i o l a t e the t r a d i t i o n a l d i s c i p l i n e
.without a. .ganetiiin f r some other leading Christian
: ^wsiaities.
B&siXi&es i n order to e l e a r up the s i t u a t i o n
undertook a voyage to ! . e * nos&tibiy carrying a l e t t e r of

r e e a a e i l i a t i s n SMaiaed frea h i s i#al syniid.
His
endeavour m s #r#wie#. with smetess mud he returned to Spain

with the s e n s a t i e s a l nm feat lapsed e l e r i e e were indeed
1.
% . ?'($).
heiag r e s t o r e d by the great Chureh of l o s e , ana t h a i he

himself had "been recognised
bishop.
hy Pope Stephen as a lawful
Tills d e c l a r a t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y produced a most
s t r i k i n g e f f e c t on h i s r e a c t s coiasainity.
Brery word and
a c t i o n proceeding frea Rome possessed g r e a t a u t h o r i t y for

the C h r i s t i a n s in. Leon and Merida.
colleague
B a s i l i d e s , and h i s
M a r t i a l who was in. the same p o s i t i o n , with t h e
help of t h e i r supporters seised t h e i r former s e e s , k i t

they were s o t able to persuade the r e s t of the Spanish
C h r i s t i a n s of t h e r i $ h t o e s s of t h e Boman policy -
Probably
some of the more outstanding s e s b e r s of the congregation

(presbyter Felix in Leon anci deacon Laelius in Her Ma) ,
determined to r e s i s t the innovation and to support t h e
r e c e n t l y elected "bishops.
But t h s i r influence proved
i n s u f f i c i e n t in comparison * i t h the a u t h o r i t y of the Roman

0har#i asd they therefore''appealed to St.tlypriaaa.
t h e i r J e t t e r t w#re t a r r i e d im person by the expelled
hishops', -ifee i*ere received with g r e a t love by S t . Cyprian,
He had evry: r e a e t a to digapprt'tf of St.Stephen*g policy*
' asd he gas.e theaa sue of h i s most elequeht and impressive
epistles*
We do not 3mw the end of t h i s story and we are
unable to say whether the Spaniards were more impressed hy

the a u t h o r ! t a t i v e example of the Bosah "bishops or by the
b r i l l i a n t l e t t e r of St^Cyprisueu
secondary importance* for
Bat t h a t i s only of
the personal destiny of
Basilides. and Martial Here tfily an i n c i d e n t i s the great

S t r i f e "between the tar d i f f e r e n t prin@ip.les of Church
d i s c i p l i n e represented "fay St., Cyprian and St ..Stephen.
fh reasons
f o r St.Cyprian 1 a
silence.
'Ehis i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Spanish ggspeal solves
many d i f f i c u l t i e s and makes i n t e l l i g i b l e many f a c t s t h a t

are -otherwise hard ic aoesunt f o r .at p r e s e n t .
Bat there
i s one comsiierahle obstacle in the way of i t s acceptais.ee;

1,
Ipu i f C'lK
-us*
namely the absence f any d i r e c t a l l u s i o n to Sp#'? f#
S t , Stephen *s genes!. decision as to the jNiisf oration of l#:fi
oleries.,
f h i s s i l e n c e as* however* he s ^ l i i i n e i / . hy--te
p e c u l i a r d i f f i c u l t i e s of S t . S j p r i a a r s - j # s i t i @ s .
la t h e
f i r s t * place tfee innovation InfroimceiThy Stephen was a

conpiate contradiction of the whole eharis&atie conception
of priesthood held "by St. Cyprian.
the lapsed cleric,
froaa liis point of vletr, was dapriiretl of Ills office "by Soil
Hiraaelf and nobody coald mitigate the severity of the
divine judgsieat.
But a t t h e same time lie t i l l hoped
to I r i s g St .Stephen, hacfe to tfc# t r u e i o t t r t m e and AM s # t

wast to sake an pea hreach -with h i s .
Si content
of S t . C y p r i a n ' s
letter.
fhe#e tsr factor deierstlnei. the content of the

e p i s t l e St.Syprian seat to the Spanish Ohtirehes.
0J3@
Oa t h e
hand the l e t t e r i s a most goieian d e c l a r a t i o n , signed
hy t h i r t y - s e v e n bishops, t h a t there i s no power i n t h e

Church which can hangethe divine law t h a t a lapsed c l e r i c ;
ipso facto loses h i s order and o f f i c e .
I t i s a very
careful polemical t r e a t i s e against the new Hassan doctrine*

and t h a t i s the reason ishy i t contains so many quotations
from the Old and lew ^testaments.
On the other hand,
5t*0ypria*i does n o t a t t a c k St*Stephen d i r e c t l y .
He t r i e s
; to r e p r e s e n t h i s action ae a mi minder standing and h i s

| ecrcsmmion with B a s i l i d e s as t h e r e s u l t of deception on t h e
i. p a r t of the l a t t e r .
But i t i s quite evident t h a t S t .
Cyprian i s p u t t i n g aa a r t i f i c i a l coastrtictios on the

siatter..
It St.Stephen siiipiy did not Snow t h a t . l a s i l i i e s
was a lapsed hishop, then a l l Si> Oypria% a r p i s f e t e were

wineeessary for its need have done' no more than explain t o
St.Stephen t h a t h had he@s wsmgly imfwmM$4 'Bat t h e
whole i n t e n t i o n of t h e e p i s t l e c l e a r l y shrg t h a t .St.Syprifgi
1* %, (11).
&. % , e? i),
3. up. sf (s)..
*89*
wm ws% tsiWf tftftt tbm @# f liiilt#,s i*e s s F t i j

one mifl.i #f fH# ss pel toy -#f S%# St#f, aaft tti&t
was ih* reason nfey he vested a l l Sue bi&h^B to si^s.
M a l e t t e r * wad itif* he aentlcsss so es&lieitly tJjc
i
dlf&rent wssduet of Somelitaa I s s teii%p natter*

Another pfoof tfist tff S p o i l t ! iript-.wi ?rtg &
deoier!** struggle f&t* tie actual priizoiple-s of Churd*:
61ssipile m$& ttw>% %h& pwpmfml destiny of rtssill&es
m# of l i t t l e topMPtaROs In i t i s provided by the :ftrs
qumt reritersades sage i s the pietl6 t o the an of the
ascend leased fel^tiop* it&rtial *
H did rsot j to ;!&
and tbtw eet&d sot bwve been personally r&ttam& to M s

offiee by St* StertwNQ! yet lw also r*oXae& M s see
o
and etxteiFed into sBtmiea with Stephen*
TSs ease i s
tt*e hmBt proof -of t J eaplfste â&sen of sr.y l e j a l

lsni#Bi in the Spwi#i ^t*#a3L#
Th* Bos decision
and t h s opfMos of tSso Osrl&iagi&lart Oouncii **ere no

sore thass ferotfeefl^ seffiee seat t o th$ Ohristisr. at
hmm mA Unrt&k #* mere free #t3ier fee accept or to
vajeot titans* St* Cyprian** l e t t e r ieaves no doubt
ttwt tbat wns t l sature of tfee 80~9/alied Spanish
a&peal* M l M s argyKais teal* sot with the r i g i t
of the t e a s e felsbo? to p#stf Hasilides *$ *rsfcial
but itifts the heavy g u i l t tot the Spastic Christians
will inour i f tfcey ftolloir Steifeen's addles* *OR "toiflfc
1 i # i f C}#
9m B* U0 (14)* wEirrfe6 should be feearti t&cre

nit#F# the # f t 2sa& been ssmitt#d # *
**40*
a#regat j3s#l# . . #sighi to etpfffat# ihiiaaslTes fafcas a
Eirifml ' p r e l a t e *~. espselail^- sjiose they theiaselê have

$&s p . o r e i t h e r of oha&aing wart% prieet, ox* of
rejeetiag
umwwthy' *n#a#*5 i?3?It^St*%pyias t o ths, Bp 67 ( 3 ) ,
Be-
#* a l l h i * ffifj3ueBe, fox lm i s oaaTiaoed tlaat hi hm%m&

a^# shsolmttly free to shoos* ai.iher of the riT&l bishops,
Th l l l s i c s i
"betwesa
p o l i c e s of
Stepheis aM
Cyprian.
i&&ll>* tiie aost d e c i s i v e proof :lo f.-tvour of

tliia sppro&ch t o the c o n f l i c t between 3i&phen &ad 3t*Cypriss
ssii he fousd l a the s s s t e s t s of s. maeilimx
l e t t e r ts
Si-ejMm f # s t i s the> nume of the; Afrle&a pls#dpat#

S t . %-p3?ia .and- M s e&lieagstes w i t e :
'ffVg a i l *. with
##iaosi @mimm% and a u t h o r ! tgr t h a t i f soy pysjihyigjrg ar '

deaeeiasi rfm *,., Iiae htfti toef w 02?iaifgi i a the Gatholie
Church havo s&l&sequen^ly stooo* forth a s t r a i t o r s and r e b e l s
&gaa.E3o the Churcui
*, thai; these alao be yeas Ifed ,?-lieri
they return* an t M s condition t h a t iiu^ cofiEOunioiiie as

layiset* * . . ami t h a t they aught s # t . . . to $* s t a i n those
-asms s, o M i a a i i o a *,*M Mw>*7% (S)*
f h l s follows after- a
102g ax&uaât frcffi the s c r i p t u r e s i d e n t i c a l with those

used iu the l a t t e r addressed to Zp&in.
I t i s ^ u i t e oh?imm
t h a t t h i s synodieal decision was d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t tise

Mshops ho had hegua to xsstcfe lapsed c l e r i c s to t h e i r
former o f f i c e , sad the p a r t i c u l a r bishop whosi St.Cyprian
and hi colleagues had i s Jiina was ,iene other than. Stephes
himself t s whoa t h i s e p i s t l e wag in r e a l i t y addressed,
although here again he i s a c t raeistieced hjr aasit as the
promoter of t h i s innovation.
1.
2 p . 78.
^ s | | l |
f & i i u r t of
pelley.
***.
flat- psM-ty sf St*Jt#phiti f m l i s i , fa* pJNJhahiy t i

liis iaiaediat saeesssor l y s t u s already rT@rtit t t
the
d i s c i p l i n e nhi&h had existed in th$ F.oaiaa Ohureh during the

episcopate af Gomîiit-i, raid in the l a t e r con t a b l e s tlif
d o a i r i n s -feat a i&psod o l s r i o mimiot yi? xaamreci to h i s
office rânsygd i t s ss-.T^y in the ^ s t .
Shat i s on?, f th
reasons nifty t?e hare no ?thar infarristioo. enmit t h i s '.aost

r a s i s a l of &%> Stephen *s n i ' o r n s Mix oh produced sjuch -^cute
anxiety bath in Spain and i s Horth Afrtea.
'Hie general
mni.ltim
of
the Chuxeh
ar the
Spanish
appeal
She Bpsaish appeal proTids a f-try viTii

i l i u s t r s t i o s of the A s t e r n Church i i f a in %'rm t h i r d
eaatnajy*
I t giTss u s sosa Yery Important Infstf-s&tion as
to the prcjoedurs l a episcopal e l e c t i o n s and shows us the

general conception ctf Cliristisn pri^stho^d.
It clao r s v a a l s
the fa-et t h a t t h e r^X-".tiunship feaiwees d a t f e r ^ t
local
Churches i*3 s,s informal and unorganised i a t!:s "z\C.&lf* of

the t h i r d eentusy a s they were & th second.
fe-etwesc d i f f e r e n t Christ I as, Qtmmnitieu
Il'-a contact
d s p a c e d en t h e
personal &isd eânereiaX ueiness of t h e i r ê^bers.

Christendom was s t i l l a. g r e a t humaa fsoaily m *?hich Tie
find q u a r r e l s , iatrigii&s a;*a competition. Xrat r*o l e g a l
sanctions o r i&ppogisi
ao rltaX r i g h t s of aiiTrjrect sees s
nor &ny ids& t h a t ORB l.ve&l Church ean co-îscîd another.

fhg &uthrity of t h e Bsisiai Chmreh i s isiiipsjfs.My girt&ter
1*
J^t-ntiiis* TJta yprias.i {14}
JSS.*
v e&ilOll ij.A-11,
1*
Arh*Bensa d e f i n i t e l y introduced the l a t e r no, : Uon when.,

i s describing: t h e Spanish appeal h e v/r^tfi;
I t s rsaia
pwsrpthgt i s the d i s t i n c t accepting c t l rtucXut deciding
of an appeal frtaa the Ohureh"of one ru*tior to r,r. otherin r e v e r s a l ox* an ecsleol^stic&l ôcisiot; 'by t h s bishop
of Eont. w
Gypri^s, p . $ 1 3 .
O*
wtO
k**5t)lf^ C A J .
tiX
-,!"A.QS \ v l '
43-
thm
timt
Q -fee Bihsm
authority'
tet i t
i s purely- a moral
S r e r y XQOI&X (Jhiaickx d e s i r e s it? j - u i t a t e
AI power to foxc i t s yivcwias cto iJie l i f e ox v t h o r

esiasitiiiitits,
tfe# lag.i pro'elest e f iiaports&s iirrolTed in t h e
i p a a l i i i a p p e a l mmmwrm
til api$eât#*
St %rpriLa*ifji ^ m a e p t x o a of
Ht i s Tssy tiiipliatie t a
three
iti ilf#I**3B t ^'iBtSI

i-
th&t t&e Old. Tes4ar*KMi'l laws iaust "b*s a p p l i e d

d i r e c t l y no fee lisw !2estouient p r i e s t h o o d ;
14,
tfeat a paring t s&i#$ toe pt*r& arid mar&liy

wustaiifced, st&@tii# t&@ C h r i s t i a s s axe
p^rtitipatiitg in M i
slssj
Hi.
wi#t & i s # s i C-iuircjEt Ijag to. ciisc*.icliiij|;
&i.#e i a ilie t l t e t i s a
sad erdiaatissj.
#.C a Msls.<ap., s,&4 f a l l $ow<sr t 4ep#se

Iiiit i f ia pres miHfortlaf'.
Any a # t i o s t h a t o r d e r s &r$ i M i e s s l M M i s
a i i ^ e l y t t l i t u . t o S t , Cyprlsyj* mind.
Posoliaan i s i s u a ^ r s t a a a e t h e r e l i t i exits taiêe.u

tile Cfourched wiiea he t i i i a k s tsfcat fcfee s>paB.isli
a p p e a l i s a proof t l i a t "'Die geraei^5oii&.i"t rait
dm P a p s t e 1 s t f a r j e d e n Bisehof i i s t u m d l g , B
Die S i c l i f b a r k e l i d e r Kire&a (Pad. 1 SOS) p,33
i.
Up. 67 (8*3)
JL
Up* 7. ( . }
s41
fhe baptismal controversy was the &u!aiaati&g
2h* Baptismal
p o i a t or S t . C j p r i a n f s l i f e -
Bits c o n f l i c t r a i s e d
the pyooleai of the nature of the vlhurch a&d of her

unity ia all its fullness, aad plainly revealed all
the fii82ttatai q m a l i t i e s ma,& defeat of St, Syprias 1

IetFis*
Our information esiic.raisg i t I s derives
hiefly from seven e p i s t l e s (Sps. 6?5) fnm. the

c o l l e c t i o n of St* Cypriss*3 l e t t e r s , anil from four
h&pierts f the E e c l e s i a s t i o & l History of Bueebius
(Boot VII, chs. 2 - 5 ) .
The maim l i a s *
.of i t s
13xe beginning of the baptissa.1 controversy

i s knoim to -us l a r g e l y through a l e t t e r recei ?ed by
St. % p r i a a from a. distinguished laymaa called Magnus*
isho asked the opinion -of the Bishop of Carthage about
the v a l i d i t y of the l o v a t i a n i s t baptisms.
Jfp. 69
e o u t a i a s a very elaborate exposition of the point of

view @f i t , %^'?laa s ulie refused to reêgîse may
r e a l i t y im sasrasefits aiiaiaitttergHt eitliei? i s heresy
or lit' schism.
Seem aftmwm*$s t a gramp of IfftffltMi&a
biihops again raised the saase quegtisa*

St* Gypristi s e a t a j-agtrei* f%,
fiiis tin
?o) supported by the
ig$&tares t f t h e Ih&riyHme bishops present a t
thefift* 1
3.
Csftlmgiaias. Syscnl (55 A.D.). S t . fi^prlsa'd opinion

h&d d e f i n i t e l y prevailed a t t h i s i\thexing, but n o t
without opposition^
for i s 5%4s l e t t e r ' he e s a p l a i a s d
1*
2Ma l e t t e r i s umaslly described as opeaing the

controversy, but H,v. Saden produces serious
evidence f o r p l a e i a g i t a t the v@ry end. But
whatever i t s place,, i t does not a f f e c t the
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the eoatroversy suggested i s
t h i s essay*
See Soden, 3>er S e t a s r t & u f s t r e l t (Bom 1909) up
25- g8.
Queues and Iforseh. Hist* lust* i a Rom.Banfcf XXI*
g*
Hi r e a l i t y there were S2 bishops who signed th@

e p i s t l e as Sodea r i g h t l y reK&r&s t but the Vth.
Synod i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y described as a ^mo& of SI
bishops.
Sodesa Jtes? K e t s e r t a u f s t r e i t p . S .
I*
4,
KMd . H. of Ch. ! 2* p,46S

Bp. 71 ( l * g ) .
of t h e f a e t t h a t some of h i s aolleaipaes were a o t of t h e

sast m i n i a s h i m s e l f i n t h i s important m a t t e r -
2&e
c o n t r o v e r s y then began g r a d u a l l y t o spread over t h e

ishole of A f r i c a , and immediately a f t e r t h e a d j o u r n i n g of
t h $ Sjraot S t . Gyprian had to s a t i s f y a sew e n q u i r y ,
r e c e i v e d t h i s time froa s t a t u s , a b i s h o p of M a u r i t a n i a
{%.
?1) ,
f a s h i o n s became h o t t e r , and S t .
gxottt tiro t r e a t i s e s ,
it layered
Cyprian
2e Boa P a t i e n t i a e and s De 2elo
i s which lie a t t e m p t e d t o o&lsi b o t h h i s own
f e e l i n g s aad t h o s s of h i s opponents ,
In t h e f o l l o w
i n g y e a r |SS6) a new eounaxl was g a t h e r e d a t C a r t h a g e

( t h e s i x t h C a r t h a g i n i a n C o u n c i l , t h e second on b a p t i s m ) ,
a t ighieh s e v e n t y - o n e b i s h o p s 'were p r e s e n t .
'She d e e i s i o a
t h i s time was r e a c h e d unanimously, and i t was i n favour

of S t . Cyprian 1-s p r o p o s a l s .
A d e l e g a t i o n was s e n t t o
Hose t o s e t t l e - t h e same q u e s t i o n there> f o r t h e Bishop

a.
of Some was encouraging the opposite tendencies.
St.
Stephen refused to see the delegates and ordered his
4floofe to shut t h e i r d o o r s t o t h e A f r i c a n gueats".
In t h e autisaa of the same y e a r (September 1 s t . 2 5 6 )
a n o t h e r and even l a r g e r c o u n c i l
(the seventh Carthagin-
ian Council , t h e t h i r d on bapiissa) was convened i n

Sarthage*
f h i s time t h e r e were p r e s e n t about e i g h t y -
seven b i s h o p s , -who eajae from t h e p r o v i n c e s of

Hi&aidia, and M a u r i t a n i a .
Africa,
One a f t e r .another each
s t r e s s e d h i s opinion and b o r e t e s t i m o n y to t h e
t r a d i t i o n s f h i s Church.
75
I t . w a s a soleam d e c l a r a t i o n
i.
%.
(m).
2*
MM,
5*
t h e s e d e l e g a t e s c a r r i e d on/'synodieal d e c i s i o n
jXii own a s .^.p / et>.
4.
I p . 7S. ( S o ) .
5.
S l i d . 1 , of h* T e l . ! , p . 4 6 9 .
E . Of Oh. TolI p . 4 6 ? .
~4"
f the u n i t y of the African. episcopate, and one of the

g r e a t e s t triumphs of St. Cyprian's l i f e .
He presided
a t t h i s i a p r e s g i w gathering and read, a t the "beginning

of i t s session, h i s long l e t t e r to Bishop JtihaisKUiS
(Bp.73), the hest exposition of his doctrine on sacraments,
St. 0gpriasf:s teaching was maanimously approved, and w@
possess aiijates- of the Council, consisting of brief
declarations hy all the.hishop1 there present,
Our
l a s t , documents aye St. Sypri&n f s answer to foiapey. Bishop

of Sahratha, on the S y r i i s Csp.?4), and the l e t t e r
of
l i s a i l l a n . ; Sishop of Saesarea in Cappadocia, to St,

Cyprian (Up.75),
it f i r s t e p i s t l e i s a susaaary of the
whale tontroversy and was seat to Poaipay along irith a

l e t t e r {now l o s t ) fros St- Stephen defending an opposite
point' of view and with other documents.
fhe second '*as
received hy St, Oyprias before the l a s t council (the

seventh) , and was read t h e r e ,
Ws do not Mow what
p a r t i c u l a r event brought S t . Qyprian i n t o contact with

FiBfiiliaa;
hut t h a t i t should hare done so i s not
a s t o n i s h i n g , for the baptismal controversy soon spread

over the ;whoie Church,
We possess evidence of a
@rresposdenoe e x i s t i n g on t h i s matter "between Rome,

9
Alexandriaj Asia Minor and northern Africa."
From
F i n s i l . i a n ' s l e t t e r we learn t h a t S t . Cyprian sent one of

h i s deacons, Itogatin, to Cappadocia with copies of h i s
w a i t i n g s , anil " t h a t Firra-ilian'g answer *as hrotighi hack to
Sarthage hy the. saa.e seaseager.
Causes of the
'She I s s e d i a t e cause of the "baptismal controversy
"baptis&i&i
controversy.
wa& the question' concerning sohissmtical "baptisms, -with

1,
Hartal I.
436.
2.
Bus. H.B. VII. 5
(l-Jg),
*44t*
p a r t i c u l a r reference to the "baptissts administered by

Jfsvatiaaist bishops*
But l i k e any other c o n f l i c t in
Church l i f e , i t had many d i f f e r e n t r o o t s .
There were
involved l a i t personal antago-niesas, l o c a l divergences*

dogmatic differences said, above a l l * i n e v i t a b l e human
misunderstandings*
She opposed p a r t i e s very often had
in view q u i t e d i f f e r e n t problems, and even when they

supported ens another, they did so getaetltnes frosj a Tsroag
understanding of the p o s i t i o n s held "fey t h e i r supporters
or opponents.
But behind a l l these confusions and
passions lay the fuadsjaeuic.1 problem of the d e f i n i t i o n of

the l i m i t s of the Church, though t h i s fact m s not
d i s t i n c t l y r e a l i z e d by most of the Church l e a d e r s involved
in t h i s d i s p u t e :
for none of them except St. Cyprian
d e a l t d e l i b e r a t e l y with t h i s c r u c i a l question.
To-day
we possess only very scanty remnants of the r i c h polemical

l i t e r a t u r e t h a t was pro-voiced by the controversy.
However,
we have enough to enable us to d i s t i n g u i s h four, or

perhaps f i v e , d i f f e r e n t t h e o l o g i c a l p o i n t s of view or
tendencies represented, though i t i s probable t h a t i a
r e a l i t y t h e r e were nany more in the t h i r d century,
She baptiisaal controversy asy be approached
fxtm t h e p&ini of vispr -of the various d o c t r i n a l prsbl@as
imrolvei l a i t -
But t h t fues-tioa which I s important f o r
our subject i s i t s bearing upon the d e f i n i t i o n of the

n a t u r e of Church u n i t y ;
t h a t i s to say, whether v i o l a t e r s
of t h a t u n i t y - the heretic and sehisnps.iies - axe, &8

auoh, n e c e s s a r i l y outside the one Church of ad.
S t . Cyprian*s
d o c t r i n e on
baptism and
&m Church
unity-
Caa t h i s matter we have f u l l jsnowledge of the

point of view of St. Cyprian* -which wag shared by the
majority of fee SForfch African bishops.

Briefly * S t . Cyprian % teaching was a s follows;
Our Lord êsus Christ founded one Holy Catholic Church..
w.4*?*-
mttosse mm&eXB a l o s # form Hin i i ^ i a # l o t y .
fills Church
i s separatist f r o * a l l h e r m t i t s ugid s e c t a r i a n s a s sis oh by

her sound teaching and high moral standard as by h e r
divinely instituted ministry.
S t . Sypriaa refused to
siaJce any r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n betoees those "who BTV in

d o c t r i n e , those who s i s , a a i those who disobey
bishop*
itmir
He saw t h e l i m i t s of the Church c l e a r l y S e f i u e i
by the imi?ersaX brotherhood of the loe&l C h r i s t i a n

Qowmmxtim * each governed fey i t s bishop.
M l trie bishops
were e l e c t e d by God* a l l oeompied the same c h a i r of S t .

3.
Peter and preserved the înterrupted succession fro the

Apostles,, as well as brotherly aaios with their colleagues.
the purpose of all the saeraaents is to bestow upon the
souls and bodies of the Christians those gifts of the Holy
Spirit which alone eas sate them*
Outside the one Catholic
Church there is no EXy Ghost, asdP therefore* no sacraments

and as saltation.
Baptiss ia particular is the regener
ation of a mm. through union with the Holy (sheet; it

signifies entrance into the oas Guiholie Church.
loas of
those who are outside her fold can, gift ts others the gifts
which. they do sot themselves possess.
finis tmcossproiaising
rejectioa of all the baptisms perfumed by whatsoever group

of Christians exsept the oae abediest to its lawful bishop*
was the most emphatic expression of St. Cyprian*s belief
that all hitretiits sad s/skisat&tifcg art oenflttsly separated
$.* lip, 41 ., | | ) *
Sp* 66 ^8),
69 (1J
Sp* 45 (5) S t . Gypri&rt's teaching about P e t e r ' s c h a i r

i s s p e c i a l l y d e a l t witfo on page loos*.
4.
Bp. 9$ ( x ) .
*. Sp 73 {21} It is iiaportaiat to note that the creed of

th Horth African Church contained the following
question: KDoet thou believe the remission of sins
and life eternal through the Holy Church'?81 lp.69 (7)5
7 0 \*&) i
*4B-
fTQm the -W&wmUt alii tltat t a t y t a s a s t b t eonsM s r e i as

0hritiaj$$
Liber Be
Befeaptisstate-
l a a t t ^ p t to opp0 tills e l ear anfl I3gi@si

systtis. 1* fount i s an 8ii.nymus treatie e a t i t l e i .
"Libex So Rebaptisteiate t
ft
*<fM,oh wag preserved "by sons of
the c o l l e c t o r s of St- Cyprian's wr*. t i n g s nu *?es edited

f a r the f i r s t time "by E l g a l t i u s la 1643.
*Jost of the
modern h i s t o r i a n s consider I t to --liite fr->i the beginning

of the b a p t i s m ! controversy.
l i e un&nowi author urns
a.
probably one of t - e bishops oi* tho J o r t h Afrie&n Church
and a b i t t e r adversary of S t . Cypriari;, both on personal
groiixiis ana s s qMtstito of doigsia.
-Ar&hbisaop Bensoix "
thia&g t h a i M s point of "figir was n i f i t l j d i f f e r e n t

tfee Rsmm*
frail
Pusi .M#iia#aas, es the eoatrajsy osmsKleirs
h i s a s & Mricm
p a r t i s a n @f Pope Stephen.
*h$ ustiior
m&*%? mgEtifjas Si plies or any other contemporary parses

by n a a e , but lie aalces soi&e uir&ist&kable a l l u s i o n s to
S t . Cyprian t and always in a Tsry sharp and c r i t i c a l
jaaimer.
I t i s impossible f o r us tv decide -with any
p r e c i s i o n hoi? f s r
e Hebaptismate
represented the
Boaaa. point of view, but in :*ny ocse the opinion sf i t s

author i# i:a i t s e l f ytry important for a f u l l e r maierstaaiiijig of t&# Ie.pi8.ti0 conceptions involved in the
1* Up.. '54 {%$); '#$ ( 3 ) .
!Efae
o r i g i n of t h i s liAOOtaieat i s discussed by Benson*
s
Gypriaa s pp 390-399.
fhe l i t e r a t u r e on the subject
i s given by B^rdea!ir*ter f-Se soli, a l t . i i t . Y o l I I , p . 4 5 0 .
See also* ifellce " M s ohroaologie der Korresponde&s
Cyprainus und (ley pseiidoeypriiaiCiseksnB Schriften ad
jffoyati&mini tsad l i b e r d@ Bebapfcismaie.
Thorn 1902.
Barttanfeeve?, "Sssslii a l t k . L i t . " VX.II,p.501.
4,
lesion,
Cyp.risn w p.S4-
Is* Koaeeaicc H i s t o i r e L i t t e r a i r e &e l*$|tf.

8 Chret.
Vol. 1 1 . pp.91*95, ( P a r i s 1902),
#*
Se Bebaptiastate
I,
10.
*4#-
$&ptig&&&l esstrovsrsy*
Jail this pre&Xaa which i n t e r e s t s .
ms mmt i s -aSiettiea? he pl&eed h e r e t i c s ami schismatics

i n s i d e ear eutsid*? t h e fold of tt*e Catholic Church.
The author begins Mis t r e a t i s e with the bold
i s due to the
innovation.
assertiom t h a t the tshole oiitroversj has bees provoked

"fey a 4s&j*t*osi s p i r i t of issatvatioB wMtlt eosesses seas
of the le&Aiiif M lisps*
S t wjritwsii
"Ho controversy
eotild havt a r i s e n a t &13U i f s&o&t en ef ms had been

content with the venerable a u t h o r i t y of a l l Churches* aaS
with hecoaing humility hail d e s i r e d to innovate s e t t i n g . *
Shis a l l u s i o n to St, Cyprian, *#!i s t a r t e d the 3strut-grey,,
i s a s iiasortant i l l u s t r a t i o n of the accusations which
wif p#pil&3f aiiaftg h i s aiMr#as adversaries*
to' them t o i s f i r s t of a i l as. innovator.
He seemed
The author
then t r i o s , t o prove t h a i the a s s e s e e of c o n f l i c t s

#@staraisg sap t is oof or $ St.. %prian*& time i s a s i p i
t h a t t h e r e was a o l s a r and w@ileetabllsi&ed t r a d i t i o n .
'But h#i he i&a&es a f u r t h e r atfsstpi to define t h i s
p o s i t i o n * he becomes so eeafased t h a t M s t h e s i s l o s e s
a l l i t s ore&iMIity*
fkis
f a i l u r e i s not due* however*
to MJS personal IsaMlitgr* im% i s s i g n i f i c a n t of the

f a s t t h a t this Chureih of M s time had s t i l l a p r e c i s e
d e f i a i t i s a of h e r v i s i h i e l i m i t s .
I v e r v hapixsm
i s valid*
He dpeas h i s sage with t h e statement that

every baptists administered i s the nass of J e s u s Christ
i s v a l i d and cannot he r e p e a t e d .
Se enumerates js&oj
eases in -sfhieh such a baptissa was conferred by s i n f u l

sad igaoj^nt m i n i s t e r s , and laia-ii (having in. mind
St* Gjfprias) j
*Aiai jmt* e x c e l l e n t a# 1st as a t t r i b u t e
and allow t o the heavenly agencies t h e i r power, and l e t

ms concede. to the condescension of the divine majesty
i
Be Sebaptissiate
(1).
/.
i t s appropriate operat i o n s , s
Sere wad in mxty e t h e r
plsc#a he d e f i n i t e l y a s s e r t s t h a t eTery baptism of water

lias i t s iaersdieaM effect on the soul at a t&aa.,
He admits also t h e aKisieaea of an irapassable
galf between h e r e t i c s and heathens, and proposes to readmit
the former through the imposition of haads.
"Jews and
Sentlien* ft*ily fetXlftviag as thy om#it* sure i s the Xi&e

ataaii-tr Wptis.#d*
Jfctt hereti&s who ajre already baptised
I s water 1ft fh asae of <Je&s S h r i n i Hast only ha baptised

with t h e Hsly S p i r i t K
3Ms statement sees to i n d i c a t e
c l e a r l y t h a t t h e l a t t e r a r e already members of the Church.

Bat the author does not accept t h i s point of view, sn, h i s
main d i f f i c u l t i e s "begin tsfeec he attempts to define the
(exact meaning of the baptism of water..
Sae b a p t i s a
of water.
la the fourth and f i f t h s h a t t e r s h@ i n s i s t s t h a t

baptism* without imposition of hands, i s the legitimates
entrance into
saltation.
t h e Church and & s u f f i c i e n t means for our

In support of t h i s iiapozfeiti p o s t u l a t e he
. adduces many examples s s for i n s t a n c e , the cess of the

Ethiopian eunuch f r o s the Acts of the Apostles.
Hoêrer,
. he i s not prepared to t h i n k out hiss d o c t r i n e to i t s l o g i c a l

eo&olusioae, and in the l a t e r p a r t s of his vrork h i n t r o d
uces such a, $harp d i s t i n c t i o n between the baptism of ^ s t e r
and of the S p i r i t , t h a t h p r a c t i c a l l y deprives the foraer
of aay p o s i t i v e jse&aisg.
Jhe b a p t i s s
of h e r e t i c s *
lm the t e n t h chapter hM suddenly r e p e a t s S t .

Cyprian* doctrine and w r i t e s :
"Because outside the Church
t h e r e i s so Holy S p i r i t , sound f a i t h laoreorsr cannot e x i s t ,

s o t alone maosg here t i e s hut even ascssg those ttfeo re
e s t a b l i s h e d i s schists* *
chapter I S :
Irost t h i s ha oess on te say in
"A here t i e who by confessing C h r i s t ' s name i s
1. Be Sebaptissate
(10)
-Sl-
put to death e a s s o t subsequently c o r r e c t any erro3? ; wMihilii

h& has thought wrongly of Sod or of Christ* since "by
b e l i e v i n g 011 another oa or another Christ fee lias deceived
himself; fee i s s o t a confessor of C h r i s t , but only of the
sas of ShSfigt.*
la another p l a n e , in the twelfth
eteft#f' he a i d s i
k h e r s t i e abiding only in His name would
not lie utteti advantaged;

that sases
nay, a e t h e r he i s even burdened by
And f i n a l l y in the seventeenth chapter he
speaks Tea about the âdulterous, yea, murderous baptise 1 *

f soss h t r t t i a i i y e t s e t ^ p l a i s i a - g how far t h i s perverted
arits h a t a l s o to fes sMtept#d by the Shmir#i a s v a l i d .
from these quotations i t appears that the author
considers the baptism of water to be a r i t e which becomes
e f f i c a c i o u s only a f t e r i t i s soafirraM by t h e g i f t s of the
Holy h@gt,
When t h e s e are lacking * t h i s must scored Tit
of the Church remains nothing but a strange formality, even

s o s t dangerous for himaa souls if i t i s performed by
h e r e t i c s or s c h i s m a t i c s .
Bat n e v e r t h e l e s s the fact of
having received the baptism of water p a t s the baptized.

h e r e t i c s * according to the a u t h o r ' s aisid^, into a very
differast position
from t h a t of heathens &xi& Jswe. and, i s
some exceptional c a s e s , i s s u f f i c i e n t for the salvation of

souls baptized i n t o t h e t r u e Church.
Schismatics
and h e r e t i e s
are inside
the Church.
Hies confused and contradictory statements taaJca

i t aetaraatiy d i f f i c u l t t o a e f i i i r t a d e a * idea of the
author* e l i s i o n a s i s ishetiitjf h e r e t i c s and schismatics
are within or e l thou t t h e fold of t h e true church.
She
reason for h i s wavering a t t i t u d e was hi avoidance of the

l o g i c a l conclusion t h a t a l l those nfio are baptized i s t h e
mas of Christ are Mesibers of the one Catholic Church.
g..
^ i r a i l i a a w r i t e s ; wPor they who are baptised doubtless

f i l l up the number of the Churches*' Up.?5 (17),
-58-
i?or staae c-sv&se. th&i we 4o a o i teo#4 th@ anther vf
i=e
Eehaptistaate * eoaM net r neuM not express t h i s

Sfinlos frankly.
fhat fng, bovever, the un$9rV iB S ^ @ a
of M s oft! t r e a t i s e ;
for to Jaim hereiie.8 a."-*! s o h i e m t i o s
are l a the saiae p o s i t i o n a s those Catholics who cc-rjsltted

grs,ire M a s ;
thugr are i n s i d e the Chisreh, hut behead the
reach of lies' s s t i a g grses*
Both these groups of
C h r i s t i s a t eau he r e e o s e i l e d hy the Holj Ohoet through

the imposition of a Mshop*s hasfis.
2 th e^s* :?f
s i n n e r s t h i s a c t c o r r e s p o n d s to t h e s&er&ueat vf pgrteaagti
in t h e es-se of h e r e t i c s sn*i sdiissaatiee t*? the l a t e x
a&crssieRt of coiifinaatios.
But n e i t h e r thelapsss! nor
the sshiesaatlee scad h e r e t i c s could ever he baptised
&gaia for thejf were alretwiy mothers of the Gr.uroh, and

the gsttreit jrit of ghyiiitisa i s l t i n t i n g lias iisTfrr repeated |
% tits stthilft fistttitiu
St Stephen's
p o i n t f Tiew,
iii#3r a r t ngsst r#s,g#s# f o r supposing t h a t S t .

Siep3ssn was i s a g r e a t e x t e n t i s agreement i?lih the main
p r e s i s e of the author of
Be Refcapiismate sv .
Jrifortaate-
2$- a l a e ^ i the ouly d i r e c t efideaee for h i s standpoint i s

contained i s one short sentence quoted by i'it* Cj^riati in
hi l e t t e r to Pospty,
I t i s as f o l l o w s : -
*!/ myin&t
there-fare, site ?o you fro aagr heresy ^h^tever, l e t

Bathing fee iaaov&ted whs.eh has not been hh&<?& -vr*3.j to
wits t h a t hands he imposed QQ hist for repent-* r;oe, since
the; h e r e t i c s themselves i s t h e i r ot proper e..'.y h o s i e r Ac
not h a p t i s t each as oosae to theta freea oae mother,, but
oBly afetit t h a i to ^mmmmXtm,1*
Stoa t h i s esitraet,
-fhieli provo&eo St* Cyprian *s v i o l e n t imdigâ-tioii, i t i s

p o s s i b l e to 4eiaee only one. anciueat-iosshle feet* i . e . t h a i
3U %* ?4 {1}
B* Sp 74 (4) i t t&s a piece of "sad lati& &.&. well &s of
fea4 theology*
!*
St Stephen f a i t h f u l l y fallowed the l o c a l Hsiaan

t s m l i t i f n which haft .already e x i s t e d i s the time of
S&Xlist&a* ateoriiag; to w&ich. t h e v a r i o u s Shrisii&n
l a d i e s s e t t l e s in l o s e jautually yecegnised sash ether
a n i without fea&a&liiies reg.slfi converts probably
merely through the Imposition of the bishop*s hands.
We cannot* however, feite i t to ae?m t h a t S t . Stephen
professed t h e d e f i i i i t e d o c t r i n e -Stint a l l "baptised people
are already Sfflstbers sf the Shur^h, for we have no f a r t h e r
expos i f i o n s cf M s pinion*
Mereover, i l appear frees
t h t f a c t s a t our disposal t h a t Stephen was not a

t h e o l o g i a n and the d e f i n i t i o n ef the l i m i t s of the
3
v i s i b l e Church lay outside the province of h i s i n t e r e s t s . '

B i t in any case the fundamental fa.ct reuains
c l e a r , t h a t S t e v e n was d e l i b e r a t e l y opposed, to S t .
Cyprian*s doctrine and considered i t a dangerous innov
ation.
fans we possess an important proof that there
was in t h e West very strong resentment a g a i n s t St,

Qypriaa , s d o c t r i n e s and t h a t the objections of both h i s
I t a l i a n and M s African opponents were very s i m i l a r .
1.
'mw-p&^^^milmopmimn^*
#.I.eh.X2.pp.443-444.
g.
See F i r s i l i s a ' s derogatory remark concerning

Stephen ? s theological ar gmients * Ep 75 {&} ;Sp. ,r/4
li****) *
3.
,
/
I
[
In f a s t t h e Bo-man Church as a whole isas often inclined

to n e g l e c t d o c t r i n a l i s s u e s .
Her r e a l genius lay i n
her strong sense of the expediency of t h i s or t h a t
r a l e or d i s c i p l i n e s though here too ehe had a teadeacy
t o m r d s estreaie l a x i t y an3 &mgrmiim*
Instances of
t h i s a r e to be found i n Sephyrinns* wavering a t t i t u d e
towards the Montanists and the Medalist (Froelua
versus P r a x e a s ) , - T e r t u l l i a a adv. Praxesa c-i.Migne
p . L U . e e l . 17? - Bttaeb.H.S.U. 30 ( 6 ) , 1X1,51(4),
1,20(5) f U d d E. of tin. V o l . 1 . ppS8&-284 C a l l i s t u s treatment of the h e r e t i c s - Hipp.
a
Fhilosophumena a &, .Ch.X2. p.445 - and Cornelius*
n e g o t i a t i o n s with Felicissimns - S t , Cyprian-Sp., 2.
-S4-
St.Motqrsitts*
opinion on the
heretical
baptisms.
2he-.-tnird p a i n t of view i s represented by

S t . SioaysiiiS of Alexandria.
Here again the main
documents are l o s t (the e p i s t l e of the Church of

A
Alexandria to the Romans, e t c . , and a l l we possess i s

soae e x t r a c t s from S t , Bionysius 1 l e t t e r s preserved lay
BuseMus.
She d o c t r i n a l p o s i t i o n of the famous Bishop
of Sgypt is a o t vary c l e a r l y defined, for h i s K.ais

coacgrm. *&s t h e r e s t o r a t i o n f pea*? r a t h e r than the
s o l u t i o n of i t * Qyrla f s pr&hlsja:.
M h i i writings
.fee i n s i s t e d prisasrily t h a t those who h a f t he en h a p t i s e t

i s the Sat&el&e. *burgh, hat ha*?e f a l l e n away asi, f i n a l l y
a.
have returned, tsagt nt he baptised again.
fhis
d a e t r i n e wms- I n d i s p u t a b l e and S t . QygrXaa himself wsy
3
frtfarei t# admit it.
He then goes en t eite the
4.
s t o r y of a taan who was f o r many years an exemplary

mesher of t h e Church.
On day he discovered hy chance
t h a t he had heen baptized by some h e r e t i c s who performed

a r i t e quite u n l i k e the Catholic use*
S t , Moaysslms
was i n c l i n e d to think t h a t the man's long aafi pious

l i f e i s the Shares and h i s frequent gommmions could he
considered a* a s u f f i c i e n t substitute: f@r the lack f
v a l i d haitis..
Jle refused, therefore* to r e b a p t i s e
t h i s unfortunate ancl desperate C h r i s t i a n , who implored

hi to cleans h i s soul and body from the iispure water*
He-we^rer* 5i.eiiysi.a'g was n o t Quite mim t h a t he had acted
s o r r t e t l y and h e , therefore-, a t t e i the adrie of Pope
Justus.
flieee i n s t a n c e s are not
d i r e c t l y connected
with the problem of schismatic sacraments raised by

X* $ua. H.JS. y i .
46 | ) ,
Bts 8*2|.* !!,
f, 4
:4.
l a g . 5*1* t i l *
t (1-1),
5. ,iis. KiB, ? I 1 ,
f -flj.
-SS
S t . Cyprian.
laseMms* only reference to !e*?atia i s
to he fousd i s a short quotation froa Monysius* l e t t e r

to M s 82&#s&e> the Bishop- of .lame,
SI ays ins eeadessas
SgTati-ss is- *wmy severe terms* M t for a- purely d o e t r i s a l

reason.
He t r e a t s kiss &M & herst-ie wM introduced
Impious teaching concerning Sod.
J e r o a s (Yir* 1X1.69}
thought t h a t S t . Monysius supported St- Cyprian^
llmj
modern h i s t o r i a n s , on the a the? hand, place hisi 021 the

x.
side of St* Stephen.
B i t to da t h a t i s to ignore the
3.
statements found i n Mojaysias 1 l e t t e r to Xystas*
"Shat
<?-
in a t t |irohahle i s t h a t h# was i s sympathy with n e i t h e r

5".
ef t h e ^ t r e n t e pafaetiees i s mge in Hose a t t h a t iiiae,

t h a t i s i s say, Jfevaiiaa-'s r u l e t h a i a l l h e r e t i c s and
sushifssatiCrS mast he re'tesjittsei, and Stephen*a p o l i c y s f
wtmîzims
a l l baptisms without eesssideri&g fey wh#a they
wrs atofcaistsred*
S i s p o s i t i o n tfomid he best described as one f
expediency and deserialisation > êconomy* in laterlanguage) .
He was a g a i n s t my r i g i d and uniform r u l e s ,
and stood f o r the a n e i e a i d i s c i p l i n e , according to

ffeiiih every l o e a l ^ngrega>tis* under t h e gut Mane sf the
Eoly Sios-f * considered s e p a r a t e l y the case of each inner
s r h t t i i and was f r e e to s e t t l e t h e p a r t i c u l a r method
of M s apeee&eliiatteii with t h e Cimreh f Sa (ef.
the
ease already quoted of a r e g u l a r coiamsmleant who had

received a s a c r i l e g i o u s baptlsai* Bus. H . E . V I I . 9 , ( 2 ) .
1.
Sus. H.S- Til* 3 ( 1 ) .
2. Suchesae, H* of the On. Vol.1. p.423.

Batiffol, ?rim.$ath. p.392.
5. Eus. 2.B. VII. 5 (S}
4.. Susehiug 5 statements are obviously sontradicfeory:
E s s . I . S . f l l . S; 1 1 . 5 ( 5 ) ; and VII. 6 ( 5 ) .
$ lawlx\ EuseMtis Vol.lJE. p..MS.
-#...-
f l m i l i a m aod
tli# 0ehi@%s.tle
l^fiass*
fee
l a s t pei&t f i#w I s represented >y the
itsyftie BisiKr^ o-f Caea&raa* i$aill&tt ifao i s h i e l e a g

M i t e r to St* 'Oyprisai* taieailf-i in esfutaitl both M s
3Hi?$e8&3. sfisis ami Ike ieiiiil-sat @f the A s i a t i c
Csiaaeilss.
Most unforttm&tely t h i s !îparii* a p i s t i e
i e of sizcsh a nature t h a t t h e r e a l doetriixo &f the

A s i a i i t f3iiFigh@f tan i i s r i l y h# 4#iie#S f r o s i t .
Fissaiiian*' l e t t e r 1 - l a a h i t t e r &%tmU &m St.Stephen s a i
M i pili'ggr, .&& i t was w r i t t e n i s a very hot t e s t e r .
In the t l # l i f i e s @f h i s anger .fimilitiis mis eager' I s
eesut a i s r e p l y m
SMSS
a t i.gg#ibl# <> aa&, t h e r e f o r e , he
e&iefly re$eate& the sniS: afgiaetits imm St.Gypri&s s a

srfisiJ# t e Mm*
fifmiliim himself p l a i n l y a t e i t s
t h i s , mil. e r f l s i a s i t p a r t l y hy h i s M i n g in eeajslete
X.
agre esses t with S t , G j p r i m , and i m r t l y by s i s :'<ast.e
to
sesd the'answer before t h e winter season teganu

Sias i t i a only with a eaaslc^y^ble amount of
reserve t h a t we esu accept t h i s l e t t e r as relt-KLe
evi&eace* hath of ?irsiiliasi* s p o i n t of vim
raid of
the A s i a t i c t r a d i t i o n with regard to the rullAvlj

sehissatiesl baptises.
Per in a l l the uo;r? independent
p a r t s of h i s l e t t e r , e s p e c i a l l y wh^rs m a l l u d e s to
the tleeleiofi of the A s i a t i e Councils* ht? '^ss in nind
the baptisms a i s j i s i s t s r e c by h e r e t i c s , gneataes aae
1.
% . f i (4).
t,
% * fS (4).
4.
%- w !)-
-57Koataniets*
She "baptist which Me p a r t i c u l a r l y .
r e j soted was- " t h a t I f which a st wio&ed deista teg %iE#d

through the mesas of a wewan* t$p. . 7 ( U ) )
Se r e f e r s
twice t o t h e Council of leoniim which "decided t h a t every

fcaptiaa was a l t o g e t h e r t o "be r e j e c t e d whieh i s arranged f o r
without t h e Church* (Ep. 75 {19})*
Such a pranountBe&t
seerae a t f i r s t to be i a cetaplete agreement w i t h @t. Cyprian's

doctrine;
but the connection disappears shm we reaesber
t h a t t h i s Gsaaeil was summoned to deal with t h e Kontaaiste

z.
wim WX@ excluded on a d o c t r i n a l and n o t a d i s c i p l i n a r y
ground;
f o r their- teaching eoneeraiag'the'Holy ghost
was cen&emed a s h e r e t i e & l .
f i i m i i i a a -ssly oa-oe
mentions the w@ri -s#hisia* wh&eh had gush a primary

importance in St*Gyprias*s d o c t r i n e , and when he does he
lias i s a i s d SiStephsa, whose baptisms he would almost
eeri&ialy never r e j e c t *
Urns, i a s p i t e f h i s acrat e n e r g e t i c support
of St * Cyprian a g a i n s t 3t Stephen *" Firssil iam 1 eft a
one side t h e r e a l problem r a i s e d by the -Bi.sl.ef of Carthage-* .
And i t i s very probable- t h a t the Biishop f &$area t e s l i
Join with the whole' of the l a s t i s e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e
f r-^ntie^s of the C&mrcsh along. f .gB%in nattier- than disciplinary l i s t s .
la s w s i a f i s i a g ?ixKtilia , , s and Menysius*
p o i n t of view, we may say t h a t the two Eastern
prelate' agreed with t h e f ^ a a m e a t a l p r i n c i p l e of
1.
I p . 'f$ (7.10.19)
2.
I f . 75 ( 7 . 1 9 ) .
5,
Sp* 75 f i j
Bef.Lecl. V s l . I .
% . 76 ( 4 ) ,
4,
pp 359*161.
^
?
-8S-
S t . S y r i a n ' s theology t t h a t atsife the #t. !3km;rsii f

& t h e r e are a# g i f t s of the Hsly Sfiuiit aai* therefore*
a s ss-Oi'soasaats;
hat they never g r g l i e i t l y aip"tM o r
r e j e e t s d h i s p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n of the limit of t h i s
t r a e Church.
Hither they were a s a b l t to perceive
hour a^w and daring as t& proposal s a i e by the African

bishops* <or e l s e they d e l i b e r a t e l y refused to pufietrate
into t h i s most complicated p r e b l s s of Chureh l i f e .
Ihe l a t t e r explanetios i s the mere probable, for the
Christian l a s t has neves- triefi to define the p r e c i s e
l i m i t s of the r i s i b l e Chnreh.
fhe B a s t e m Chmroh has
always t r i e d aotl Judged each p a r t i c u l a r s s e t o r heresy

by i t s e l f , an 6 has neve-T laid do-sn asy general r u l e f a r
the treatment of separated groups of C h r i s t i a n s as
i
Qti&h, i . e , jttjs, sehiematios.

!&e a n a l y s i s of the d o c t r i n a l p o s i t i o n s of
the various Christian l e a d e r s Involved i n the baptismal
oontroversy c l e a r l y r e p e a l s St.Cyprian*s eainpleie
isolation*
With t h e exemption of the African bishops
ijao w#ye under h i s personal Influence, a other Chureh .

leaders n i i h s r i s th# S a s t
the' west i ^ g e i . with h i s
d e f i n i t i o n - o f the n a t u r e of .the 'Shmreh saaft of h e r taii%> !

But so passionate were the fe-elisg-s rotated by t h i s
acute controversy t h a t they probably blinded St,Cyprian i

to the fact of h i s i s o l a t i o n .
la aay case i t i s
-\
c e r t a i n that he -ms s i n c e r e l y , though wrongly, eoa-vissei.

t h a t the A s i a t i c Churches supported h i s d o e t r i a e ,
1.
J3r. J , Srnst
He
"Me JfetJaeriaafangelegemheii 8 p*5.
A recent discussion of the Eastern Orthodox d o e t r i s e

on h e r e t i c a l and s e h i s n a t i e a l baptisms can be found
in &, BoulyaJcoff *s a r t i e l e "Study of t h * teaching
about 9 the Chorea* (In Bassias)
("Put , Tol.jr,
i.7-10, P a r i s W ) .
''
-59--
k&d m-B tiiae to' discîrer .that t h i s was only an

illmi3i@ii. Ills p&rt*.nd t h a t he and Ills As tat. I s
a l l i e s were f i g h t i n g fox e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t p r i n c i p l e s *
But' i f S t . Sypr ian nmm tmabld to r e a l i s e the
novelty of M s definition. of the l i m i t s of the Church*
he ufas obliged to face the u t t e r r e f u t a t i o n of the
second p a r t of h i s d o c t r i n e , *saleh a s s e r t e d t h a t the
u n i v e r s a l episcopate i s ths guardian of C h r i s t i a n
unity*
This wa.3 3 t . Cyprian's ?aost "beloved i d e a ,
and the baptismal c o n f l i c t became for him the

occasion cf i t s t r a g i c f a i l u r e .
For the breach of
ecjaEaunlon so harshly brought about by Stephen,

. I between Borne on the one hand and t h e "î^cps of
' i Africa ana Asia on the other* i&s a proof of the
< t r u t h cf t h i s statement,
Stephen^
2he baptismal controversy had a very abrupt
exciaasuii ica.t ion
of the A s i a t i c ,
and African
Churches'
^^
puasliag end in the breach of coiamjinion between
S&ae add t h s African anfe&*iastic Churches.
fhis
event has a -quite p a r t i c u l a r intportaace for the study

cf the problem of Church u n i t y .
i t reveals ths
fundamental d e f e c t s of S t . Cyprian's doctrine* and at

tlie same time i l l u m i n a t e s She type s f r e l a t i o n s which
existed a t t h a t t i n e among th$ various l o c a l Churches.
i*e possssa t h r e e zuore or l e s s independent
sources of information concerning Stephen's a c t i o n :
(&} the l e t t e r of F i r m i l i a a , Bishop of Oaesares in
Capp&doeia ; (h)
several of S t . Cyprian's e p i s t l e s *
e s p e c i a l l y Up. 74 w r i t t e n to Potapey; and (c)

Suaebitts' n a r r a t i v e , chiefly based 0a e x t r a c t s frora
the l e t t e r s of Dionyoius of Alexandria r e l a t i n g t o
the Baptismal controversy.
1 p . ?5 of the c o l l e c t i o n of St.CSypriao*s l e t t e r s ,
*!#
Bins I t may appear t h a i we are well IiifosrvsCI iJeoai t h i e

fiisul atage of the aontroreray* feat in jc-eslity tftere are
oaBsl&eva'ble gaps i n ear 5siowlt%u about the rflsnsoas fox*
Stspbea'e seti#ii s wMgli ha slirays teen tteecaribea a s the
second iseplieit aaifstation of iha earl;- papacy, garphasing I s i t s r i g o u r and sespe V i c i o u s <?xc??t:.u.iic t i o a
of the Asian
a tva&ltioaAl
Qnutthee*
SCg?* BatiffoX g i r o * the foXlotfii:*; ^wcxi;-tioia
appm&Ji, i s t&
eosasiunicatii'?r aau

g i r i a g to t&e bishop of Bose s r i g h t ore** ti;-* -vtrmr bishops
of t h s C h r i s t i a n o*l<J.1'
P r i t i . Catfcol* p . 36 '-
l"r:s s-m
loaan h i s t o r i a n s as a m i s support itgy. P-siiffol 1 ^

i3i$7p?$t&&ioxi of Stsphen*o aotion. though s'sjeetiag to
t h e Jmstiflea.tis of h i s claiiss.
Hais appi?sao*a \?ss
f a c i l i t a t e d %" a general e o a r i o t i o a t h a t .v-'sph?*^ at t h a i

time was a s r s l y following the preoeder*t vf Pc:'-^ Victor*
l o r iisgtas.ee* I.*Abbs *imsl gives the folloîss^ ^sxy
tgrpisai ascplanatisia of -3tsph@n*$ position- ^ t i e r i n g , l e
prsstliey* nous Xe saroas par ?iyjailiau, & essplo#e
ie
m ep, ..ffs^fflf, an s e r r i c s 4s l a pjeissauie da s-.p.
st
*$si ee qul
4ISHH&
a sea l&tssrrsntiosi dans l a q u s r e l l e
baptismal ms &sôrt&oo$ e s p i t e l e *
3 B excs-^rsriiant
l*Afrl*gue e t us p a r t i s 4el'Asi* i l a*& f a i t

1*example 4S8,t pea4 Victor
aa
ens s&iirre
. . . . &&ia, i s faiise&t &p?sX
,^ ss^g^tirffja,. i l a dosae a l ^ a u t o r i i e ii sisge
apes-
t o l i q u e l a plug e s l e b r e ds ees Bases acri^tux^^Tsa*^

X Ptr> ?eierg$ S i t Xehre a t g Cyprlim pp,54S~556 i s
mm mars sspfcatie In h i s # Unities" of th? r i ^ L t s
'
of t h e Beams see as r s r s a l e d throuj-ajh &-iis cscatiov-^rsj.
I . 3 . E i s t o i r t 4e Dogue fie l a P^saut (Pfraris S.9-'S; ^,1^6,
\
Exietl^
the aas a t t i t u d e toiisxtig Glapli^? p s l i e j
/
i g to b f u 4 ifi aae of the l&teat woriiis o*T fciis
mtbjoet, 1 . Oe^rpar's: Seseh, das Papsttuzas. {r(ab.
X93C) vol.i. sp.ax-es.

2.
cf..Puller, The PrimitiTe- Saints, third edition,

pp.64-?C; Benson, Cyprian> pp.434-5.
'HSU,,**
SSma i t a-ppwara t h a t i n the second p a r t of the

t h i r d e a t e r y t h e Sharsh possesssS a d e f i n i t e head I s the
jMsesoe of Stephen, flfeo was reeponeible fox her d o c t r i n a l
p u r i t y aa4 unifezmity.
His p o s i t i o n was so f iaroly
est&felitiheA t b a t lie had power to exeossaoaieate almost h a l f

the Catholic bishops for professing erroneous d o c t r i n e s .
A&sescs of
t h i s impreeaive d e s c r i p t i o n lias oae fundamental
the real
esstee of
defect; I t t o e s s o t provide me with the reason f o r
Stephen *s
exe3tttal~* Stephen's e n e r g e t i c r e j e c t i o n of the p r a c t i c e of rets&ptiss*
aticaqt.
All t h e h i s t o r i a n s who have i n t e r p r e t e d the h a p t i a m i

OEtroversy along the above-aientioned l i s g s ha?& been
obliged to account for Stspiieo^s exsamsisaieatiaa s i s p l y
by h i s l e s i r s to see the whole-Church f a i t h f u l l y
observing
a tmiform p r a c t i c e in her treatment of h e r e t i c s .
But
t h e r e i s nothing In any of t h e o r i g i a a l doeueients to

suggest smeh a a c t i v e * which i s i s sharp contradiction to
the general conditions of the Roma Church a t that time*
S t . Stephen only occupied h i s see f o r t h r e e years (54*25?)
in the midst of a very stsnay time indeed.
JPaMas h a t been sax-tyres in 26C%
His predecessor
Bie two next bishops,
d o r a a l i u s and Xaaeine* both jsuffered e x i l e sad were- able to

eacerciee t h e i r office only for a very short while {Cornelius
for two y e a r s * and Lucius for less* than one*)
She Roman
annuity was r e n t asunder by the ifovatismisi schism, and

tlit other CSiisreh.es were a l s o disturbed by various i n t e r n a l
4asd e x t e r n a l t r o u b l e s . '
I t i s therefore esetre&eiy
pus^ling t h a t Stephen ahould&t t h a t time have concentrated

h i s a t t e a t i o a m introducing uniformity lists a i l the
1. Igili.Jfay 354 - gad .August 357, U d d H i s t . o f the Ch.
Yol* 1. p.44.
S. Eidd. Hist.of the Ch. Vol.I. n.4439.
Sidd. Hist.of the Ch. Vol. I* p4.4
4.
Bis* S,a. 11
B (1-2} B$**6?.68,
'HS^**
Shurehes, Whilst
eêa i s h i s emmmiitj
preserve u n i t y and peaee*
lie was usable to
Squally s t r a n g e , too , seems the
f a c t t h a t nose of the o r i g i n a l documents give us a reason

for Stephen's a c t i o n .
t h i s i s very significant,, and St
leads .s to the p o i n t i r e s urMck the I n t e r n a l caaxsss of

the haptisssaX controversy ess tee b e t t e r sees end tlie
p o s i t i o n of various p a r t i e s Involved i n i t aan be more
properly explaiaeS.
"v have t reseahar t h a t a f t e r a l l
ear information i s r e a l l y derived exclusively from

S t . ypriaa*s writings,, since n e i t h e r Final Xi&n nor the
s c a t t e r e d e x t r a c t s farsa Plonysius l e t t e r s pro? lues us isdtk
any r e a l l y important m a t e r i a l , and we possess no document
w r i t t e n hy Stephen himself.
As for St.Cyprian he
d e l i b e r a t e l y avoids explaining the reason f a r Stephen's

aggressive eosdi3.eis for though he i s very e x p l i c i t niters
theology arguments a r t concerned, he i s
r e t i c e n t afcout t h e f a c t s themselves.
particularly
But h i s p o s i t i o n
and also the motif""es of Stephen s s hreaeh of communion

can perhaps he b e t t e r understood i f we attempt to approach
the heptlsmal eoatroversy from another angle*
fhe o r i g i n
of the
Bi@ mm phase of the b a p t i s m ! controversy'
conflict.
which seems us a t present was provoked hy the Sov&tiani s t a who hegsn ure hap t i sing a l l converts to t h e i r body.
She polemic about the r i g h t a t t i t u d e of the Catholics
heeam# e s p e c i a l l y acaie in Morth AfrJba, ushers the h i shops
3.
were divided i n t o two p a r t i e s *
Si majority of than.., lead
try S t . Cyprian, stood f o r the refe&p tiesa of eseiy one mho

j
i
\*
The question of the v a l i d i t y of h e r e t i c a l haBtissa was

r a i s e d hy Ifontaniim for the f i r s t time.Bp .75* {19};
Sp,?S(S); 2ttBH.S.VII. 6 ( 5 } .
t*
3Ep. 69(1);
I.
Eg. 71 (1*2);
% , 75{-'2).
Sfe.73 ( l - ) .
-s-
had bees baptised e i t h e r .in heresy 3? in gekiss;
take
minority considered'the laying. on f a b i s h o p ' s hands to

be the proper method of t h e i r admission i n t o the Church,
This difference of opinion was s t i l l
further
embittered by the personal animosity a g a i n s t St.Cyprian

f e l t by the p a r t y opposed to him.
in the '#|>iheri: de HebapJ.lsmate. *
Si i s i s c l e a r l y shewn
S t . Cyprian was aceased of
v i o l a t i n g the free w i l l of h i s colleagues and ietrodiising

a novel p r a c t i c e i n t o the l i f e of the Chureh.
He was
deeply revolted by these accusations, -which were the very

d e n i a l of h i s whole teaching concerning the c o n s t i t u t i o n
and purpose of the u n i v e r s a l episcopate;
but h i s strong
p e r s o n a l i t y n a t u r a l l y put him in the forefront of the

controversy, which soon, i s consequence of h i s a c t i o n ,
becasi a world-wide movement.
la t h e i r a t t a c k s on h i s , S t . Cyprian's opponents
continually r e f e r r e d to the Somali community, which did s o t
use r e h a p t i s a of converts, and t h i s example was undoubtedly
a - r e a l stumbling-block to St..Cyprian and h i s s u p p o r t e r s .
The d i f f i c u l t y of S t . C y p r i a n ' s p o s i t i o n was again increased
by the f a c t t h a t Stephen, the new Catholic Bishop of Rome
departed, even further from t h e t r a d i t i o n of the Universal
Shmrohv and began to- r e s t o r e lapsed c l e r i c s to t h e i r
o f f i c e s (see the Spanish appeal, p a g e ' r g ^
St.- Syprian wag
VQTJ
bishops a r e ixe^
},
Although
emphatic in all- h i s writings that the
to follow d i f f e r e n t courses in t h i s
d i f f i e u l t question, he could not r e f r a i n from administering
' 1.
Be liebapti sra&te (1,.1-Q) .
$. J p . 73 (.36) .
S. '.Sp, 74 {2} .
4-
Bpa.69 (17)
i &
\<u j
;o
\ (CO /
-64a b r o t h e r l y relmlcd t o M s Hasan colleague.
i s the yesx
a fee held. a new Council a t Carthage, a t which seventyone bishops were present*
She purpose of I t was to
c o r r e c t the abuses wMeb had c r e p t Into the l i f e of the

Boman eosnuolty
A epeelal delegation was cosinisBioned
to e s r ^ r to Rose the c o n c l l i e r e p i s t l e , which contained

two p i e c e s of b r o t h e r l y a d v i c e :
namely t h a t zhe Hoaass
ashould (a) introduce reb&ptism, and* (b) ee#s* rs*&.'Jjaitt-
3.
ing l a p s e e l e g i e s to t h e i r former functions*
2he l e t t e r
however s a f e i t c l e a r that the bishops were not attempting
to Impose t h e i r wishes* hut merely suggesting that to
adopt them would be t o eonfom to the r i g h t teaching
4-.
of the Church.
KUW, K i t . of the Ch. V o l . I . p.46 1 ?,
2*
Bp 78 ( 1 ) .
4 . *W have brought these things* d e a r e s t brother^ to y e a r

isowledge both for the saJse or our cossacn honour sad
f o r s i n c e r e a f f e c t i o n ; b e l i e v i n g t h a t to you too
according t o the t r u t h of your p i e t y and f a i t h , those
t h i n g s a r e p l e a s i n g which a r e a l i k e pious and t r u e .
Bui we Isno-ti t h a t aeeis are unwilling i s lay a s i d e what
they have once imbibed, or e a s i l y to change t h e i r Kind..
instead of retain.lag together rsith tJae bond of peace
and concord with colleagues unimpaired, c e r t a i n " s p e c i a l
usages which have once came to p r e v a i l among themselves.
I s which case we n e i t h e r do violence to no? impose a.
law upon any efee, since each p r e l a t e has In the admin
i s t r a t i o n of t h e Church free exercise of h i s ^111, as he
s h a l l give an account of h i s conduct to the LST^..^
Japs
(^
\ w/
5rom this passage it is evident that St.Cyprian had

for soae time been opposed to the Kenan practice-, and
had already experienced Stephen's opposition (probably
im the cases of Gaulish" and Spanish appeals.) ~At first
howerer he considered that these errors must be
temporarily tolerated; but at last when the scandal
had become apparent, he decided that the time had seme
when the other bishops must raise their iroicss to
correct their colleague Stephen,
#l
She effect of this brotherly intervention
was
altogether unexpected, Stephen forbade that any hospitality

should m offered to this delegationf and broke off all
coa&union with the African Churches.
from
that time
A,
onward the Roman Church became the centre of the c o n f l i c t .

<JhjLxtttA>in*. fihy tMj~j3hli^
should have
t r e a t e d the African delegates go rudely ag=33^cifcisl, aê aa.de
'
c l e a r e r by a knowledge of the g e n e r a l conditions p r e v a i l i n g

in th Hostah Church a t the time-
the
peculiar'
relations
between
Christian
sects is
As we have already seen (see Sippolytua 5 seMsai ;

$ufy+*vj
I&B C h r i s t i a n cosaa&uiity i s Borne Hired under very
p e c u l i a r circumstances, which probably had. ao analogy in

those of say other l o c a l Churches-
fhe Ionian C h r i s t i a n s
were divided i n t o siacy groups arid schools, but a t the same

iim they preserved a c e r t a i n a&ouht of u n i t y among thaaselves* and f a i t h f u l l y Jcepi an unwritten law according to
3.
which they a l l recognised each o t h e r ' s baptism*
The
Catholic bishops were probably the i n i t i a t o r s of t h i s

t r a d i t i o n i nM2fc the s e c t a r i a n sad h e r e t i c a l bodies hut
followed t h e i r easssurple.
f h i s r u l e was of v i t a l importance
for the p r e s e r v a t i o n of C h r i s t i a n i t y i a t h i s isasieuse

eossiopolitas city* under the very eyes of the c e n t r a l Roman
goversaemt*
f l atholig M i i t f g @.f Boite, -who obviously
Bp- 7S (25)
-Sp-r~f5%
ftwrflWSfTV^7-t*h
*K-r49-.
H-
Hie iasportsnce of t h i s p o l i c y was e s p e c i a l l y emphasised

by Stephen and i t pro voted a stoxm of indignation from
St.Cyprian who was obviously unable to grasp i t s
p r a c t i c a l s i g a i f i c a a e e . Sp- 7 4 . ( 4 ) .
4*
See E i p p s i y t u s 1 b i t t e r reraark concerning C a l l i s t u s *

p o l i e y s fhe Philosophuzaena , IX. Oh. 12. p443.
#.#
S>sesed n g r e a t e r '&m&& of ecrpor&te r e s p c n a i M i i t y

t h m t h e i r jaiisifl?#ujs t l ' t a i s , n&s.3?Xy r e a l i s e d t h a t t
introduce the p r a c t i s e of rehaptisGi there troald fee
d i s a s t r o u s , s i n c e I f would hinder the r e t a i n of many
C h r i s t i a n s to t h e i r C&tholie eoMEissioa, prici tvould BQ
g r e a t l y embitter the r e l a t i o n s "be twees C h r i s t i a n s of a l l
s o r t s as to endanger sires the existence of C h r i s t i a n i t y
t
in t h a t city*
The HeTatiaa schisia ^fss a formidable
challenge t o t h i s w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d order,
h'otati&n, by
i n s t i t u t i n g the re"feaptiers of a l l Christians desirous of

J o i n i n g h i s s e c t , n a t u r a l l y brought up a g s i s the whole
questions of Church jBemhership and of the 'Riming
of
l&apiisau
Stephen
sad
That a.s the s i t u a t i o n i n Setae a t the tirse of
S t . Cyprian.
3 t . S t e p h e n ' s e l e c t i o n , which was a new irietory for the

moderate p a r t y .
Stephen went sires f a r t h e r than h i s
predecessor Cornelius, for he hegen a l a s to r e s t o r e the
Xap-ssd c l e r i c s to t h e i r o f f i c e s , | M - s s 3 / i ^
thus undsr h i s episcopate t h e two p a r t i e s in Sce reached

d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed positions*
fhg Ctholiss ? policy
waa characterised hy great t o l e r a t i o n , and feat of the

Soifatiasiets by extreme s e v e r i t y .
At t h i s c r u c i a l
a..
moaeat St-Cyprian, ifho from tim vexy osi-inîng u h i s ami
episcopate had hsa "busily engaged in intervening in
the l i f e of the Bassm Church, decided to intervene once
ors.
Stephen and he had f i r s t cone i n t o eollisfcn
over the ease of i&areianus of Aries aid t h i s bad heen

1,
t h i s argument i s d e a l t with hy Cyprian i s Kp.73(84;
and t h e r e i s a great p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t he has in mind
Stephen in t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e .
2,
Between 253-257 Hovatiaa m e s t i r r e d to renewed

a c t i v i t y sd b-ecpsie a formidable @ne.-ny to ecclesias**
t i c a l d i s c i p l i n e . H.Lawlor & Oulton* S u s - V o l . l l .
p*25.
-#7~
followed hj an eves acre b i t t e r clash, on the Question

of the two Spanish bishops.
fhage matters gradually
convinced 81.Cyprian t h a t the new Kosaaa bishop i s e r r lag

f r s s the truth and i s i a danger of becoming a h e r e t i c .
Ihere Bad probably beta as exchange of l e t t e r s ^liicii
only strengthened t h e i r rssitual d i s l i k e and then S t .
Cyprian, with M s usual r e s o l u t i o n decided t o take f i n a l
action.
Sae r e s u l t was the sirSh Carthaginian Council
sad t h a t appearance of the African delegation in Rome

which has already been mentioned-*"
Even before t h i s ,
Stephen's p o s i t i o n was not an easy one*
His policy had
been b i t t e r l y attacked by the Roman Movat-Iaaists, and i t

i s p o s s i b l e t h a t he had already received soae very
1-
',
!
',
;
Sodea in h i s work Der X e t z e r t a a f s t r e i t ascribed

l p . ? 2 to t h e seventh Carthaginian Synodt and thus
placed i t a t the very end of the controversy. ( p . 2 4 ) .
His a a i n argument i a t h a t before the seventh Council
Stephen's e p i s t l e was already c i r c u l a t e d i s Africa,
f o r Sps* 73 and 74 are Oyprlan *s oblique answers to
t h i s l e t t e r , (p. 16}*
Soles* believing that
Stephen was attacking Cyprian and 5the African
Churches, conjectures t h a t Stephen a e p i s t l e must
have been w r i t t e n before Bp.. ?2, which was the l a s t
a c t before the formal breach of eorssuRion between
Borne and Africa.
His argument, convincing as i t
i s , cannot * however, meet two mais d i f f i c u l t i e s ;
A, t h a t Sp. 72 contains two requests addressed to
Stephen*
i . to r e b a p t i z e the h e r e t i c s and,
i i . to t r e a t the lapsed c l e r i c s as l a p s e s - w h i l s t
the Seventh Council d e a l t exclusively with the
f i r s t Question a s we know from, i t s a i n u t e s ; (only
one bishop, Sfovatus of fhamugsda mentions the
second question)
B. fhe second d i f f i c u l t y i s
t h a t I p . ?2 contains so reference to Stephen's
supposed r e q u e s t s addressed to the African Churches.
Soden i s aware of these objections but h i s attempt
to a e e t them i s not convincing, (pp.21-25.
She r e a l solution f the problem can be found,
however i f we accept the f a c t t h a t Cyprian f i r s t
attacked Stephen,
In t h i s ease i t would he q u i t e
n a t u r a l t h a t Stephen, a f t e r he had refused to
eosgauae with t h e envoys from Africa, should send a
l e t t e r to Africa i n which he should explaia^the
reason for h i s conduct.
fhiss l e t t e r was answered
d i r e c t l y by St,Qyprian } and i t ?#as cot even d e a l t
with a t the seventh Council; the reason for t h i s
i s t o be found in the p e c u l i a r a t t i t u d e s (which a r e
described l a t e r ia t h i s essay) of both Stephen and
Gyprian towards 'the c o n f l i c t .
-68/.
unpleasant rebukes from finmilian
and froa other bishops
too, which he refuted i s a r a t h e r aggressive way. '
But
the s i t u a t i o n becasae q u i t e i n t o l e r a b l e to h i " .then the

deputies of the African bishops appeared in person In
Boae, with t h e i n t e n t i o n of saking a soleras. d e c l a r a t i o n
in the aaae of a l l the African Churches, and of t h e i r
head, St-Cyprian whose a u t h o r i t y was recognised toy the
whole of the West, t h a t he* Stephen, m s wrong and h i s
adversary Sovatian r i g h t on t h i s most v i t a l point of
Christian d i s c i p l i n e ^ i f not a l s o of doctrine*
After t h i s there were only two obvious courses
open to Stephen.
E i t h e r he isust submit,, which i^-ej?nt,of
course* t h a t he would d r a s t i c a l l y weaken h i s case a g a i n s t

t h e Mmmn o v a t i a a i s t e ;
or he e a s t prove to the African
bishops t h a t h i s policy m s docrtrin&Xly sounder than

theirs.
B i t n e i t h e r of these a l t e r n a t i v e s seemed
p o s s i b l e to him, for he was not prepared to allow a

seeming v i c t o r y a p r i n c i p l e to the Hsaan r i g o r i s t s ,
and s t i l l l e s s was he able to r e f u t e the clear l o g i c
of St- Cyprian*s arguments.
VSe have already sean how
entangled the author of DeL rjBeiba3ti,âate became when he

t r i e d to argue with S t . Cyprian).
Howevert Stephen
found a t h i r d way out of the d i f f i c u l t y .
Ea refused
t Oiipiisse with t h e African delegates* and gave orders

I.
I h i s i s suggested by M n a i l i a n * s l e t t e r , S p . 7 5 ( $ 5 ) .
S.
l a s . H-S.YII.fi ( 4 ) .
S t . Gypriaa W&B not afraid of the irapli cat ions of

t h i s statement f Sp. f5 - {2}.
*#i*
t h a i the ds@rs of the Gfaurehe sad Qf Catholic fetuses
i.
should he shut i a t h e i r faces*
fhat he a s ahle to
do t h i s shows t h a t he m a supported hj the Catholics i s

Host,
who were well aware f the &s3ructire implies t i o a s
of the African proposal*
S t . S t e v e n ' s reeoZiite conduct
as explained by h i e a d v e r s a r i e s as an expression e i t h e r
x.
of M s presssiptiofi and obstinacy, or of M a profound
ignorance of d o c t r i n e .
was s t r i c t l y J u s t i f i e d
$iher of these accusations

the f a c t was t h a t Stephen had
siaply êea forced by StCj , prisa ? s awkward intervention

to have jTeooiirae to t h i s extreme measure.
I t i s somewhat d i f f i c u l t t o renter the exact
a&tur* 0 f Stephen 1 a t t i t u d e towards the difference in
d i s c i p l i n e between Rose and other Churches, f o r only a
s h o r t e x t r a c t faros M s l e t t e r i s preservedfrwa. S t . Q y p r i a a ' s answer to i t and firaiiiiac?e
However,
coasaent-
a r i e s a i t , i t i s p o s s i b l e I describe i t as follows;
Stephen i n s i s t e d t h a t the Eeaaa custom had a p o s t o l i c
a u t h o r i t y behind i t , issce P e t e r was the founder of the
loKiais- iurd&, and h e , Stephen, occupied h i s throne.
He
held t h a t the African proposal was a s innovation s said t h a t

1.
p. ? (35).
8.
Sp 74 (11).
5.
% . 95 (5*14).
4.
3Bp. 74 {&),
5.
Bp, 75 (17).
#*
33a is- p o i n t i s s e n t i o n e i only in Firraili&ii s s1 l e t t e r .

I t i m p r o b a b l e t h a t Stephen used St*Cyprian a express
ion about P e t e r * s t a r o n $ , misunderstanding i t s
o r i g i n a l meaning and d i r e c t i n g i t gaisgt i t s author,
see page
Sp. 74 (1-2)
7.
7S ( S ) ,
vofor t h a t reason t h e Bomsa eoMaiialty was j u s t i f i e d in i t s

r e f u s a l to ccunamne with those who xebaptized schismatics
.ami h e r e t i c s .
fhe p e c u l i a r character of Stephen's policy lay
in the f a s t t h a t he did not argue with St.Cyprian on the
d o c t r i n a l i s s u e , nor t r y to cocTiaee h i s opponents? t h a t
they must change t h e i r t r a d i t i o n .
He merely refused to
recognise a s brothers those Christians t belonging t s the

* r e b a p i l s i a g ? s o a s u a i t i e s , who came to Home.
He display-'
e i s t r i k i n g indifference to the destiny of other Churches,

being e n t i r e l y preoccupied with the very d i f f i c u l t
i n t e r n a l conditions of the Eoiaan eosfflaunity.
(3*. 3 .
His
a t t i t u d e i s the m a t t e r of the Gallic and Spanish appeals

had bees characterised by t h i s ssaae i n d i f f e r e n c e .
He
refused to i n t e r r e n e in t h e a f f a i r s of the Church of

Aries;
and when B a s i l i d e s , the lapsed Spanish bishop,
ease to Hose* h e t r e a t e d him a s a lawful c l e r i c , as he

would have t r e a t e d one of h i s l o c a l clergy i s a s i m i l a r
ease* without considering the consequences h i a a c t fomM
produce in S p a i n ) .
S i a t t h i s was so> is c l e a r l y shown
by StCyprian f s arguments a g a i n s t Stephen.

he describes Stephen's conduct thus;
l o r instance,
But i t happens,
through a love of presumption and of obstinacy, that one

would r a t h e r maintain h i s own e v i l and f a l s e p o s i t i o n s
than agree t o the r i g h t and t r u e ones of another*.Sp.
74 (10}.
Stephen was not so much a t t a c k i n g h i s
opponents a s persming a r e s o l u t e policy of defending the

l o c a l t r a d i t i o n of h i s Church,
expressed in these words:
S i s a t t i t u d e s i g h t be
li you are i n t e r e s t e d in
preserving your coasatmioii with the Bonsai Church, you must

change your d i s c i p l i n e . u
1.
Up. ?S {4-38-}.
fhis statement does in fact
,.?!exactly correspond with an e x t r a c t fro. Bionysius*

l e t t e r r e f e r r i n g to Stephen's conduct, which says:
^Stephen therefore had written
previously concern lag
Eelenus and Jflrmilianus and a l l those in C i l i c i a and

Gappadocia. and S a l a t i a and the neighbouring n a t i o n s ,
saying t h a t he would a c t hold comma ion in future with
- ---'
them e i t h e r for t h i s same reason;
" " . . xefcajpfciae h e r e t i c s . s
since * says he s they
Bus H.E.YII.5 ( 4 ) .
If Stephen
, _ i had heen animated by aa eager concern for the unorthodox

teaching of the other Churches on the p o i n t and had
t r i e d to correct them, the arguments adopted "by S t .
Cyprian and J i r m i l i a n would n e c e s s a r i l y hae been e n t i r e
ly different-
But t h e i r s p e c i a l h i t t e r n e s s was due to
the fact t h a t Stephen's reply represented the f i r s t

occasion in the h i s t o r y of the Church %'hen a C h r i s t i a n
community, and one so isrportant &s$ the Roman, declared
i t s e l f s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and i n d i f f e r e n t to the opinion of
'': o t h e r s .
I t was t h a t aspeet of the ease which was
r e a l l y of motaentous importance* and which provoked such

wide-spread r e a c t i o n from a i l p a r t s of the contemporary
: Church.
St. Cyprian's
attitude
towards
Stephen % s
policy.
(tfote
\/ll.9*}&'S-
).
If St-Cyprlan*s i n t e r f e r e n c e g r e a t l y harmed
the Church of Boise j u s t when she m s slowly recovering
from her i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l t r o u h l e s , S t . S t e p h e n ' s
reaction to i t completely destroyed StCyprian's beloved
vision of the u n i v e r s a l episcopate as the body which had
r e t s i v e i trust f i d a ooaaission to keep the unity of the
#ia.rcii i n . t s s t ,
fh extreme anxiety whitli fee so openly
displayed, lifter Stephen*& refusa-l to maintain ssaamunlas

with the African hi shop $, had of t e a he#it explained as a
*?i~
proof of St. Cyprian * s b e l i e f t h a t

Ohurch xm.it$"-
KOTO SBM
the centre of
I t followed from t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
t h a t St.C&rprian had decided to preserve coramunion with

the Hainan see a t any p r i c e , a i s c e lie was aware t h a i
separation from Boiae meant s e p a r a t i o n from the Church*
His d e f i n i t e a s s e r t i o n that Mshops could
d i f f e r on a Question of such p r i a a r y importance as the
v a l i d i t y of h e r e t i c a l baptisms was &I00 i n t e r p r e t e d i s
the same sense.
Such an a t t i t u d e appeared eves more
i n c o n s i s t e n t when compared with h i s policy during the

conflict at Aries.
Jhea he had. i n i s t e d on the severe
puaishaast of M&rcianus, who had dared to disagree with

other Mshops;
and sow he accepted without scruple a
divergency of opinion on a fa* saore important m a t t e r . ^

the p o s i t i o n of St, Cy^Titm was indeed
deep^r&te, hut what made i t so was not t h a t he believed
the Bom&n Mshcp to he the head of the Church.
d o c t r i n e i s sever expressed i s h i s w r i t i n g s .
Such a
Tim reason
why the c o n f l i c t with Stephen appeared to hiss no t r a g i c

w a t ^ a ^ & ^ B ^ * ^ ^ 5 - Slat i t \&m f a t a l to h i s whole doctrine
of the BHiversal episcopate a s the guardian of Chareti
iptity* . S t - i y p r i a s mm well aware of the power of t h a t
s p i r i t of r e b e l l i o n which TBr,gi the Church of h i s timeBut h i s d o c t r i n e of the oneness of the episcopal "body had
provided him with a refuge f o r M s f a i t h in. the strength
of Christian love and soncord.
1
2.
3.
He conceived two ways
Chapman
^rof.Soch en St.Oyprian pp.457-0 (Sew, Bened ,Cct ,191c),
Sahesae s Early H i s t , v o l . I . p . 41S.
St.Gyprian* d e c l a r a t i o n a t the SevanfiCouncil of
Carthage, and In Ep, 69(17); 72(5); 7S(2C).
4-. B a t i f f o l , p r l a i t . O a t h o l . p.SSS,
m^
through, -which t h e power of e v i l eemld a t t a c h t h i s
fortress.
She f i r s t was t h a t an i n t r u d e r s i g h t t r y to
destroy the u n i t y of t h i s "body "by a f a l s e o r d i n a t i o n ;

and the second, t h a t one of i t s sesfesrs should disagree
with a decision ones made in the naaie of a l l bishops.
?iheix both of these things a c t u a l l y happened, as they did
in the ease of WoTatian and Hareianua of A r i e s , the
p o s i t i o n seemed to St. Cyprian to admit of no doubt ,
As he sm i t , iloTatian and Mareiaaue, and the two lapsed
Spanish hishops, had a l l openly transgressed the ill of
Sod and ipso f a c t o were separated fro the body of the
bishops and from the Church.
Biey were bishops so
l o n g e r , and thua they had become incapable of a f f e c t i n g

the unity of the episcopal body.
But in the ease of Stephen the s i t u a t i o n was
Taetly d i f f e r e n t .
St-Stephen was a lawful bishop,
chosen by God to occupy the See of Some.
He disagreed
with the other bishops on a point of primary importance,

oa Tsrhioh, however, no f i n a l agreement hail yet been reached
i.
by the Church.
from the p o i n t of view of
St. Cyprian,
both p a r t i e s ought to have waited- u n t i l the t o i c e of God,

speaking through the whole Church, should be heard-
In
the meantime BO one had any r i g h t to speak f i n a l l y in His

nans, and he himself wee only sending advice to Stephen
x
sad had BO i n t e n t i o n of oorssanding hiss.
But Stephen
completely misunderstood S t . C y p r i a n f s a c t i o n , a n d , without

any further n e g o t i a t i o n s , destroyed the unity of the
episcopal body and openly demonstrated i t s i n a b i l i t y to
be the guardian of Christian oneness1 . B. 72 ( 3 ) . '
Bp. 75 (Sfi),
2,
Bp. 72 ( 3 ) .
He i n t e r p r e t e d
74-
.St.Sypriaa'â. h r c t h e r l y i a t e r y e a t i o n us tinlawfal
i n t e r f e r e n c e in t h e l i f e of another community.
This
accusation found a wide'response i s a l l the African

opponents of' S t . CJypriaQ!s policy,. and the author of the
d o c t r i n e of episcopal quality fosni himself "bilged to
r e f u t e i t i s a solemn d e c l a r a t i o n addressed to the
African hishops gathered at the SeTenth Council of
Carthage.
He therefore declared;
N e i t h e r does any
of u s s e t himself tip as a. bishop or bishops, nor by

tyrannical t e r r o r does my compel h i s colleagues to the
n e c e s s i t y of ohedieace;
since every bishop
. . . . can no
more he Judged by another than he himself" can judge

"another.
Bat l e t ms a l l wait for the Judgment of our
fjord J e s u s 'Sarist, who alone has the power both of

advaiicifig u s to government is. t h i s one Qhareh and of
judging our action / "
(Mote VIM* /&0&-+L
- 2he reason ,
' St Stephen's conduct proved c l e a r l y enough
for S t .
Cyprian's
that he not only did not profess S t . C y p r i a n f s d o c t r i n e of
s i l e n c e about r
!-- *Stephen's breach
the u n i v e r s a l episcopate as 'she guardian of Christian
of communion.
ioneness, Out had not even the s l i g h t e s t i n k l i n g of i t s
1existence.
I t was c e r t a i n l y most painful for St.Cyprian
to h a r e to accept t h e f a c t t h a t a lawful bishop of the
g r e a t e s t Church could TT, and on so important a dogmatie
question as the meaning of baptism.
But to him i t
probably appeared even more t r a g i c t h a t a lawful "bishop

could so e a s i l y v i o l a t e the bond of u n i t y , and so
^ -completely misunderstand the r e l a t i o n s which, a s he saw
i t , must esfcist between the bishops.
' t o
St.Stephen seemed
him a s a i&aa completely devoid of the s p i r i t of l o r e
and concord which was the rery essence of the episcopal

i.
Migne ^.L.rd, i l l . c o l . 1003.

Hartel
JL. 436.
IK
wffim*
ffeii't Si.Stephes taught erroneously, S t . e y p r i a s
could bear;
but t h a t lie should r e j e c t the b r o t h e r l y
i n t e r v e n t i o n of M s colleagues tended to destroy the very

foundation of S t . Cyprian *s b u i l d i n g of the episcopal
unity-
S t . Cyprian was deeply convinced t h a t
5i
the
c h a r i t y of s p i r i t , the honour of our College, the hona

at f a i t h and p r i e s t l y concord a a s t be maintained, by a s
with p a t i e n c e aad gentleness*-'
3p. ?3 (26);
for they
are the a b s o l u t e l y indispensable conditions of the s p e c i a l

charieaa of esh bishop, asd only as loag as hs preserves
them cas such a sue be considered a s a p r e l a t e r e a l l y
elected by 0od.
St.Qyprias*'s magnificent v i s i o n of an episcopal
u n i t y to which a s p r i s e or s e l f i s h n e s s or discord had
access was v i r t u a l l y s h a t t e r e d .
g r e a t e s t i d e a l l a y in r a i n s .
His l i f e work, h i s
We do not know whether he
r e a l i z e d a l l t h i s * or whether he t r i s d to convince himself

t h a t the f a t e t h a t had befallen i t was but a temporary
shadow which would goon pass away.
Bat in any ease
there can he so doubt t h a t St*Cyprian*s b e l i e f that he

could find asaosg the bishops t h a t stronger s p i r i t of love
and concord which was lacking among other C h r i s t i a n s was
a piece of self-deception 011 t h e p a r t of t h i s g r e a t man*
For the body of the episcopate m s b u i l t of the satae
m a t e r i a l a s t h e r e s t of the Church, and the bishops often
experienced eves g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y in remaining adequate
t o the Christian i d e a l iii t h e i r s p e c i a l sphere than d i d
the ordinary laymen in his*
If t h i s p i c t u r e of St.Cyprian*s d i s t r e s s i s t r u e ,
i t can account for the f a c t t h a t he never explained the
reason faz St*Stephen's breach of coaasuaion,, i f indeed he
himself f u l l y grasped i t .
It was a matter of deep
humiliation to Ma*& manifestation t h a t h i s b e s t
inisatiomg fcafl been eoiapletely aiisrepreaefttedj
arid
though lie W&&g&g2^ complained of St.-Stepher^s Conduct,

I
he altfayi t r i e d t o #f@i giving say -Sinur tg3plaatisa$
of it,
hopixtg tm domht t h a t yeane sad enttiial u&dersta&&-
Img. womli r#B-|s&3.lsr $> &&%&$&&*

FimlXiaji 1 ^
descriptioa
of t h e
cenfli&t*
ffiis i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the "baptismal controversy

say geea to stand in c o n t r a d i c t i o n with F i n a i l i a a *s
'
l e t t e r to St.Cyprian* in Elicit the. bishop of Caesarea

seesaws openly to accuse Stephen t^^^M
axco;u;axE.leyixas.
of the A s i a t i c aod African Churches.
She fâous passage
in which t h i s a c t i o n i s described ruas as follows:

**for what s t r i f e s and d i s s e n s i o n s have you s t i r r e d up
throughout the l u r c h e s of the, whole t M .
KareoTrer
how gjN&at in have yon heaped up for yourself * isiies yon

cut yourself off from so many flooks:
s e l f t h a t you haire ant off.
For i t i s j o u r -
So s o t deseiTe yourself *
since he i s r e a l l y the s e h i s a a t i c who has isaae hiraseif

an a p o s t a t e tztm the ocMaaas.ioa of e s s l e s i a s t i e a l unity*
For while you t h i n i t h a t a l l say he egcoossiuaicaied by
you, you haT@ excosssunicated yourself from a l l 3p.?5 124).
Tml& passage i s w r i t t e n in scuch a hot
temper, t h a t P i r a i l i a n addresses h i s iwsrds to Stephen

d i r e c t l y f o r g e t t i n g t h a t i t i s to St.Cyprian he i s
writing.
2?irmilian*a anger p r e f e c t s h i a froa giving any
precise
f- ^^^ J- o-ûr <&y
i i t w ' ^ l a s a i i o t i a s t fetsi^ t h e esooMajuaieatioa -fessta#%sasi2:y tasseh "piaee-r'7 - < ' "
In the Heart Chapter* however* fir i l l an i s
iee &cited and noye concrete, and h# gives the
foiIoia,g. further d e t a i l s of the e ^ w m a i o a t i o s , which,
u n f o r t u n a t e l y , axe s t i l l Tery -vague*
He w r i t e s :
for what i s more lowly or sieeJc than to have disagreed

with so many bishops throughout the whole world, break lag
peace with eaoh one of them in various Muds cf
diesoerd;
a t one time with the Eastern Churches, as we
mm jgntr$ you also- laifif;
a t another i i s e with you who
nar i n the South
,.*,K
Bp.7S (25)
I t appears
fyoa t h i s passage t h s i Stephen lias ease i n t o c o l l i s i o n

with the ^ ^ M 0hurch.es soas time before h i s c o n f l i c t
with the African communities
Fixmilian however does* not explain the reason
for t h i s breach of essB3P2iioii# but a most i n t e r e s t i n g
l i g h t i s shed on i t in J}iony&in& l e t t e r to Stephen*
SuseMus "who preserved some of i t , begins the e x t r a c t
with the following p r e f a c e :
DIoajsius therefore having
comuaioatea with Stephen e x t e n s i v e l y , on t h i s question

by l e t t e r , f i n a l l y showed him t h a t since the persecution
had, abated, the Churches everywhere had rejected
the
novelty of Hovatae (B&sebius raeans llovatian) and were a t

peae smohtg theaselves*
vf' T3
' t f -T T
4**
He w r i t e s as fellows:
(las.
"But teowt ay b r o t h e r , t h a t a l l the Churches through

out the Bast, and beyond, which formerly were divided,
have become u n i t e d .
And a l l the bishops everywhere
are of one mind

S i e o ^ / i s t u s in ceasarea
Thus Sesetrianms of Aatioch,

**..,
HeXcnus of Tar suss and
a l l the Churches of C l l i c i a , P i r a i l i a n u s j , arid a l l

Cappadoeia
. . . . And a l l S y r i a , and Arabia, to which
you end help when needed and whither you have j u s t

w r i t t e n , Jlesopotaania, ?oatue, i ^ i t h i n i a and in short a l l
everywhere axe r e j o i c i n g and g l o r i f y lag Clod f o r the
unaaiiaity end b r o t h e r l y l o v e . *
Eus- I I . 3 . ' i l l , 5, 1-2.
Bioaysius was b u s i l y engaged in the r e s t o r a t i o n

of peace between Home and the A s i a t i c Churches* and from
t h i s e p i s t l e we are able to r e s t o r e the cause of the
t r o u b l e which Monysius t r i e d to i l l u m i n a t e .
Bionysius
informed Stephen ihs/.t the Ba.st cecsed to support l o v a t i a s

and h i a p a r t y , so t h a t there i s no reason for Stephen's
suspension of b r o t h e r l y r e l a t i o n with the Eastern Churche?.
fitus i t appear' t h a t the last-era bishops a f t e r
*78-
Cornelius* death agaiis became inclined
to support a
more r i g i d p o l i c y TJlth regard tc the lapsed and to r e c

ognise on t h i s account I-JoTa-tian's claims to the see of
Hone. ' They probably hoped in t h i s 'ây to bring the
Bo-nan achisa to a c l o s e , f o r juovtitian -was? for a time
the sole hi shop.
"i?hen the Roman, commnniij
elected
Stephen arid sg&ia r e j e c t e d IJo,.iians a breach of

ccasttunion occurred tefeeen Stephen and the 2 a s t , the
f u r t h e r course of which i s unkneym to us*
rir3ilianTs
e x p l i c i t ' unwillingness to give s o r a infom&tioa about i t

to St .Cyprian can be e%*ia,ined' by his. Joaoirledge t h a t
Cyprian would r e v e r sympathise with, the policy which the
" s s t e m Churches t r i e d to persue in the 1 'internal
c o n f l i c t s of the Roman cesErsunity.
She ambiguity of S'irsiili&n *B p o s i t i o n
influenced the content of h i s e p i s t l e .
He supports
Cyprian wholeheartedly but merely by a r e p e t i t i o n of the

l a t t e r * s words, f o r i f he had used the arguments of the
previous A s i a t i c c o n f l i c t a g a i n s t Stephen, he and Cyprian
would immediately have found themselves i s opposite
caups.
St.?inailian*s
conception of
Church, u n i t y .
fhe v i o l e n t language of S l r m i l i a n , and

e s p e c i a l l y h i s exclamation to Stephen t h a t "while yon
tfcini: t h a t a-11 may be exeaflmmic^ted by you, you have
excommunicated yourself fro a l l "
(2p 75 (24)}, has a,
a r u l e been taken in i t s l i t e r a l sense as fax as

S'tepiies*'^ action irss. coseernedi
and t h i s l e t t e r of
1.
The f i r s t sttes.pt of t h i s Mnd was rs&de by Febius,

bishop of ijntioch, a t the very beginning of the
Kosian s p l i t . {2as. M-'.VI. S i .
2.
dospare the a t t i t u d e of Karitantis of Aries;, a l s o the

conduct of Xafeius of Aatioch. (Sus. H.S.VI.44 ( l ) .
6C-
everywhere j o i n s and couples His own people in the hond

of unity . . . H fSp? ( 5 ) ) .
She u n i t y of the Church i e
solely and uniquely Clod*a g i f t .
P i r i t i l i a a believes t h a t
**s0wls cannot in any v?ay be united which divide them

s e l v e s from God*g unity' 1 , and a s a proof of h i s "belief
lie 'qnotes John XVII, 21;-
"Father, grant t h a t as Ittou
and I axe one, so they also raay he one in us. f S
(3p.
in. the whole of M s long e p i s t l e Firtailian

n$r Mentions any s p e c i a l i s g t i t u t i o n in the Church
nhiel, i s the. guardian of Christian onesesgf*
and indeed
M s conception. of Church s a l t y did s o t leave any glaoe

f o r nuch an institution.,
even l e s s for a s i n g l e person
who should fee empowered to d e c l a r e , in the name of God,

t h i s or t h a t Church deprived of C h r i s t ' s presence.
Therefore, to accuse Stephen of d e s i r i n g to exoosanunicaie
to
o t h e r s was for I'lrrsiiiaa tantamount to a t t r i b u t i n g / h i s
adversary the most absurd pretensions which i t was
p o s s i b l e to imagine,
The Bishop of Caee&rea would
undoubtedly he astonished to l e a r n t h a t 1: t a r h i s t o r i a n s
have taken l i t e r a l l y <sn expression of M s , used in a
moiuent of acute anger, as aa unquestionable proof of
Stephen's j u r i s d i c t i o n over the Churches of /-sis. i i n o r .
Thus i ? i r t a i l i a n f s l e t t e r does n o t c o n t r a d i c t
the proposed i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the baptismal controversy
and does not contain anything which r e a l l y i n d i c a t e s
Stephen* e l u i a to a u t h o r i t y aver the other Churches.
1,
P i r a u l i s n uses tiie expression * the rooi: upon which

one Church i s based" a g a i n s t Stephen's doetrins.1
p o s i t i o n with, re gar a, to baptisx,
This i s an
i n t e r e s t i n g proof of h i s unawareness of_the P e t r i n e
claims of the Roman bishops, gee 3p.?5 {16).
-T9~
?irffiilian*s has been rsga^decl s a proof of the JfffHjunquestionable s e t of excwasranlection of other Church ee
en the p a r t of a Banian bishop.
But i s r e a l i t y the
words j u s t quoted *er@ used fcj f i r a i l l a n to r i d i c u l e

Stephen f 3 action of suspending the iiitereoasimixoa between
the Marches,
.firmiliaa, probably could not even

/
imagine t h a t e i t h e r Stephen or any other bisnep could

e&coiamunic&te the A&few# Churches an4 e a t thsa off
frora the Catholic u n i t y , I.e from the body of C b r i s t .
He apeak i s the following way of Stephen:
"But l e t
these things which were done by Stephen be paoead by

for the p r e s e n t , l e s t , while we remember h i s audacity ami
p r i d e , we bring a sore l a s t i n g sadness on ourselves,
from the things t h a t he has wickedly done."1 Sp.75 ( 3 ) .
Mmm&liem eoal4 sever have m.#e<t sash language,if he had
ha# even t h e s l i g h t e s t p r e w m l t i o n #f the r i g h t ssf t h e
E#mas etwataity t e s e r e i s e ^supervision ever other I s e a l
Ciiarehef,
f i s t S l i a a held a irery conservative eoasepiien
of Church u n i t y .
For Mm i t was siaply c r e a t e s by the
f a c t t h a t Christiana a r e lest people in whoae h e a r t s

dwell the sajae C h r i s t .
He w r i t e s :
God i s a i g h t y to a s s o c i a t e and j o i n
of c h a r i t y &n& wiity
^For the grace
of
together in the bond
even those things which sseis to be
divided 'by t e i t s i i e r a b l e space #.f e a r t h , even as also &i

#M uiita. the d i v i n e power e s s e e i a t e i in t h e bond sf
itaafilstity .SseMel and M n l e l t e JTok and liahh,
though separated by long space of time.
f o r even as
the I<ord who dwells in tie i s on and the soae, He
''
B a t i f f o l , P r i m i t i v e Cat3aol.p.$9, B Firailian does not

ijig.gise tht a Judge of d i s p u t e s can be nseflsdjhemce
h i s indignation
en eeeiag the Bishop of Rome claim to
11
be t h a t Judge.
Shis sentence well expresses
Slrmilian f s a t t i t u d e , hut misrepresen t s 31ephenf s
*8J>-
Such an approach as we hare suggested to the
and t h e
breach of
Coasaunion,
tils-tony of the bapiiem&l controversy i s s t i l l
further
supported by tli conduct of Pionyaius during t h i s

conflict,
Eis sole concern #ae to r e s t o r e peace and
t&srefore a l l M s l e t t e r s are addressed to Rome,

no reaaaa nhatever to w r i t e t o St .Cyprian.;
He had
for the
l a t t e r , in s p i t e of M s v i o l e n t a t t a c k s a g a i n s t the Roman
p r a c t i c e , êmphatically i n s i s t e d t h a t t h i s divergency of
opinion s u e t not i n t e r f e r e with the cosEiaaiors among
bishops.
As we have already pointed out. Stephen was
probably very strongly supported by h i s congregation,

f o r the sohifm of BPv&tien was a diversion deeply
a f f e c t i n g every C h r i s t i a n .
The rebaptisss p r a c t i s e d by
t h e S P v a t i a n i s t s v i r t u a l l y implied
t h a t a l l those
V8XQ
were not menbers of t h i s sect die not "belong to C h r i s t ' s

body and could not hope for s a l v a t i o n .
Sierefore
MoaysiuB t r i e d to persuade the Roman C h r i s t i a n s as a body

Churc\es
to change t h e i r attitw.de towards those/which t r i e d with
the beet i n t e n t i o n s to intervene in t h i s trouble..
BuseMuB mentions the following e p i s t l e s of h i s addressed
3
to the Senas community:
if.
one one pea#ei
"H..B* 1 . ill {5)5'
a diaconal e p i s t l e ; '
i i i and one on repeafanse,. ( l a s .

Biosysimij: a l s o eat sansy l e t t e r s
stealing with the mm fabjegt to m r i o a s leading persons

in Borne,. a s for iftetaiie to .Moaysaas {the f u t u r e Bishop
of Raste}.* to Bhileiaos CSiiit.H ,B*?X15 {&)}, and to Bishop
1,
Its, 5, (1?)
p. 73. (3)
lp 73. (26)
i t i s almost c e r t a i n t h a t Bionysius had an exchange

of l e t t e r s ît-h the A s i a t i c Churches hut because the
l a t t e r gave up t h e i r attempt to support E'orsilan t h i s
correspondence could not he so i n t e n s e as t h a t with
Boate - the c e n t r e of the c o n f l i c t .
$*
She expreesioa f a diagonal e p i s t l e * (iJfôwA^

)
iiaused a very considerable d i f f i c u l t y for the
h i s t o r i a n s who have attempted to explain it*Val*siua
contd. os s e t t page,
flJS*-
Xyatue*
Stole Acws that th# ooitfllet was provoked
sot se cmdh by Ste&foen as m individual leader, as

by the a t t i t u d e of the tihole Eim eoaffiunlty*
t ! unity of
tlit Cburtib
and t b *
baptiflttal
etw?sf *
Few ewnia i s ctaurob JHetory haw been eore tsieisnlerstooa than tit ba$tlseial controversy* aed @speei~
a l l y the tepeadh of eosouoion between Sense and &ai& aid
Afrlo&
i t has alvaya been twsMS# that t h i s vae
oaused by ae arrogant a&teraot on the part of Etephen

to i s | s # the a3s ctsetois upm other Ctnarehes* S
by Ills dssir to eorreet t h e i r ostrii3. errors ever.
at the pi*t0 of exeoardanloaiiogu
l a r e a l i t y i t mis
the outcae of a defcersinei!! efeuoe by ^
Besssa see*
tsunlty of i t s its particular traditions against the

attatafca itiiali top ^JXarent yestoes both St* <Jjpi*taii
and the lilfs?s l i ^ s i# # i t
St.* St#flMis has
no fount* to ejateseseate the other âirohes and #sp*iire

titan eJM&e&r s t i # * I f *f -fttrtst*! bo$y but he oot&d
re&ise ooBBojR&en t o tisti Qbrlafcian v i s i t o r s in Hone as
i n f l a t e s that itevatiass and net he was f^llowing %h%
trm
eiesirin*
t*^0M*tt*:W^9*ftwiMIteSs
SPr^^â^Jes^r^s^jMaSr-as****!
S # ;S*wHSa
iat#rî?t I t as refe:pri*iys to tJse datf.es of a

cieaeeB* &agiatrle tboucgbt that i t had to hB read
by a deaeea* (see H&itffert* t h e Clsiirsti ftist^ry
of Kusefelue* p SMj at$ let and also Lasftor
and Gulten, Etiseblust Tol II* pf SS0>
This
espresaloii can is# translated
ss
e
p
i
s
t
l
e
is
*i** (&&* *<** servloe ,l )# tfeish tmmm that fell
Boaae eesgaslty* teisg i n & a t a t e of great dis~
turbaaoe and tsa?st>f resolved brotherly advice
froa ftionysltts* Vhioh did s o t however ioply any
authority J M S part*
I t i s possible t h a t i t
$as sentf by 3>ienysis Jtsst at the tirae pre!ag
St#|5hB s eleetlettf when the Oathslie part of the
HOBan 0^3iii^ teijag dteprlir&d of & bishop âs
eapeolally atttaoked hj the HsrtaticiMsts
1* Eas* *E* 111* B (SJ)f
VII. f ( I ) .
-6S-
Shig c l a s h of o p i n i o n was t r a g i c ee-cfaase i t ^'UBfceecd oa a d<?.p rsigimd3?Btandiag.
E i t h e r E1&~ vê ^blo
t o p ^ r c s i f e t h e <iifferenow between c o n d i t i o n s in Ec&e a a i

elsewhere,
fo jaadrrJLt a h e r e t i c through bapt-is-.i was &s3
trouditioatel a o i a t o a f o r tfco Ag5?;t-iee
?.s i t srietipd *
dangerous p r o p o s a l &', -"h* c%fhoIicc i s Karso,
atsphen
wcs e n t i r e l y preoccupies" ;?itla tl-c8 *asr,^s*'.eiat -f
toe
d i f f i c u l t l o c i l a f f a i r s of t h e i-njrtri of ?,or,;s.
"rfe xade
ao pii>tantieme t o citsr.lrr.tf* tr-e e t h e r hi&ho-m tax c - i s e i p i l n

32-y QT d o c t r i n a l q u e s t i o n s , frm t h e rlis&rri^fvX t i t l e of
Bishop of Bishops was supplied n o t so r-.uch to ii~< .is t o
h i s forgiidat-le a d v e r s a r y s?t. Cyprian -
Stephen, 012 t h e
ee-titrery, s t r i k i n g l y t y p i f i e d t h e tendency to l&cir of

sympathy aatcazd tJie Chrc"^*s;
af*xf i t was lie wt:-o f i r s t
used tfc3,t-iTeapoanîiuli oelong^t exoûaivftty-ta
the Horses
Crairck on4 gave }ier a unique p o u i t j e u cuaong the o t h e r

eowaMiii tie-SiThe C a t h o l i c autarch, which *?ots 5 si 11 f a s I g r .
Ba-ciffcl w r i t e s ,
'a sseio-I b r o t h e r h e r d s e e u r i n j i t a
Tmt"oTz from jpigery asc1 ^ s ^ l e o t , f '
i?g eo^pasec* af l a r g e
f-na s r r f l l , rir/f. - i d pocr l c c - 1 ff-yrciâ.
I t ^ ?La=iri;
coasr.uîiy helv. t h e jc-sit:".-', of -a n<-*^rx church in t h i s

numerous f t f i l y *
fed
??err
Chr?$t*v r ei f r o r -11 p u r t e ,.f t h e woria
erme en t h e i r t ,r!t-uo h v n i n r r r e E to Ecrae, -*.herc they

fV
*^ T-'slcr-Te g u e s t ? of t t e Kcr?^ b r o t h e r s .
In titee
of ^ i e t r e s s s they i p p f ^ l e d t o êrce *i r e c e i v e d ft* enee

hsrlp and pi 1 tecII0E', . UiooysiiiB of Corintoi a l r e a i y
i*
l a s . H*l. . T O . f { ) .
S.
&s** H',1L 1 1 . 3 .
$,
P H a U . C a t h , p . 43,,
*iU4-
mentions the nek
a l a s received everywhere frora Borne.
a.
Monjrsius of Alexandria speaks of the tsarae 'thing; asd
B a s i l the Great a l s e describes the a s s i s t a n c e y&kioh the
3.
Church of O&ppa&ocia received from Borne i s the y e a r 259

a t t h e time of Dioaysius p w a t i f i e a t *
S t . Stephen m s t h e f i r s t pope i s r e a l i s e the
tremendous power which belonged t o the lamas community hy
v i r t u e of the m a t e r i a l dependence OR her of the ether
Churches.
He wasilso the f i r s t to use t h i s power against
M s d o c t r i n a l opponents whose argssteute he m-s livable to

refute*, and whose p r a c t i c a l proposal he could s o t accept,
His energetic action saved t h e s i t u a t i o n in Borae, hut a t
t h e p r i c e f t h e f i r s t s e r i o u s breach of t h a t brotherly
union which combined a l l the Christian coimmiait-les in one
u n i v e r s a l Church,
f h i s c o n f l i c t might have had very jaosentous
consequences f o r the further deirelofiaent of the Church*
feat
i t "was brought t o an abrupt end by Stephen f s death in

4-.
August 257.
Blip Test was followed by S t . C y p r i a n ' s a r r e s t
6\
and sartyrdom in September of the year 25S- ' After S t ,
Cyprian f e 'death there was ac one to continue h i s ardent
osMp&igti a g a i n s t the Roman t r a d i t i o n .
SM Church of Eojas
then, f e e l i n g h e r s e l f onee a a r e i n a safe p o s i t i o n , r e s t o r e d

her cwiBiinion with the other Oharohss and began -sac more
1* 'Sue. H.S. Ig3 (10),
S* Huis* I . E . 1 1 . 5 fS),
3.
B a s i l . Sp.XXX,
Kigne* P*0 7*&. X3DCII. eel,454*55,
4.
Kidd, l i s t * of t h e Church oi*I.p,44*
&$, 9**1%.
p.477*
,.<-
to send
r i c h alms %e Asia, although she eon tinned to preserve
her ma t r a d i t i o n , with i t s fundamental difference from t h a t

of tlie other Churches.
Mms t h e r e i s nothing whatever i s t h i s whole
c o n f l i c t which can i n d i c a t e the existenee of a c e n t r a l
organisation i a the Catholic Church, and s t i l l l e s s t h a t of
the supposed primacy of the Roman "bishop.
At t h a t time
the u n i t y of the Church was s t i l l fea.aed solely on the ?autuai

loirs and coaaaon f a i t h of her members.
ffee Church was
Disposed of independent and equal l o c a l communities.
Bach
sheared in the l i v e s of the o t h e r s , and f e l t t h e i r mutual

responsibility*
M t so an among them' had any fewer r
j u r i s d i c t i o n . ever another * or possessed the p r i v i l e g e of

speaking with g r e a t e r a u t h o r i t y in the name of Crod than could
her s i s t e r coisaiiaitie.s.
fha Mamas eaiffiKumifcy was the g r e a t e s t and most
important;. member of the u n i v e r s a l Church.
But she was
a l s o more affected by hsaan paegions and ambitions than

any other coaa&mnlty in Qhriatendeat, aad she suffered .more
from d i v i s i o n s sad eoaipetitioa.
The ether e o s s u n i t i e s
were v i t a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n her order and peace.
Dionysius
of Alexandria, St.Cyprian , Jirrailiati and other bishops

intervened on occasion in her l i f e .
Sometimes they were
able to r e s t o r e peace ana imituai under standing, hut at

t i n e s i t happened too t h a t t h e i r advise and intended help
only aggravated those eoaf l i s t s -which arose out of the
exceptionally d i f f i c u l t and e duplicated conditions under
which the. Bci&sn coisaunity l i v e d .
u
\
I s the ;*ireeeiir*rr chapter -roriius o a f ! l e s s -- w.-? "**?*&
3t.Cyi,ri33*S
conception of
"Cr i l . S
*rtf j . i %X& VJOr ^
sisciiei which--sere proTal*-'? hy -ui'ferse st.useF - : i e - u r i a d i f f e r e n t pert?, at" t*;:e Church,
wne l e ^ t a r - %: i :&r;
* r.J.1
these eoatroirersies as t h a t they a l l centred round the

jserssa sf 3t* Cyprian.
.far t h i s there were soiae p a r t i c u l a r
reasons, F i r s t l y , t h e bishop of Carthage, the farmer l e a d i n g

lawyer '-of M s c i t y , had a t t h a t t i n e sore a u t h o r i t y than
i&sygne e l s e i n 'Latin Christendom, sad secondly, from the
Tery e&ily cl&ys of h i s m i n i s t r y he had sissiiirecl a concep
tion, & the Church which differre-i on some p a i n t s from the
t r a d i t i o n a l b e l i e f f the eontenpomry Christissis,
mis it
was- t h a i fcrfcuglit h i s i a t s some of h i s imst h i t t e r c o n f l i c t s .

fite Church, according to M s t e a c h i n g , 'was the
catatiau&tiois of the Oli fes.taaeat theocracy,
Ser msmbera
mnm 'the e l e c t people, the Kef? I s r a e l s. and only t o t h e s m s

salv&tion premised" ana* grace .seat from aba^re.
Outside
t h i s one C-atholi-c Church no s a i m t ion, as fjr&es, &=1 t h e r e

fore no sacrsaaents could he oh tainted A
fans far .-?t.
Cyprian followed t h e t r a d i t i o n a l h e i i e f of the e&rly

Clarels*
S i s departure fro i t hags ttlmn he attempted t o
i e f i s e her viari&le limits? msre p r e c i s e l y ,

fine l i m i t s of
til Church
t o S t . Cyprian the Church was a body eS- sep&.r&ted

from the r e s t of t h e s u r l i hy an IiapassiaMe ffulf, -'3he m s
2
a garden enclose*, a Koala*s srfe f l o a t i n g saaidst the
issues of hiss&n gassiooa &ni s i n s , a c i t y of God surrounded
1* Sp54 ( 2 5 ) .
Be Ualt..S.
2 , Sfc.69 ( E h ^4 111)
hgr liif^s wail# Mii f r o tested &er f r the- h o s t i l e camp

of the h e a v e n nations^ 1' fSasssiiy -SHIMS diîiec! i m o twe
l i w i i s e t j^srtss those who were its-si #e the fold of the "-'ii'/reh*
asti t h e s e wh# wee w i t h o u t .
!# #e smil-i fe# i s the Churc&
. aat-i at- the- sssa fxa# T&smin in t h e utorlsi

aasiitsi t h e &Tres t#V
l a the arts s n i
A Christ iaas .ac! a heathen -were two
a m i r e l j # i f fa-Teat haia-g-s -&B4 so emfiasioii s s t o t h e i r i i s a titjF igas jassihie.,.
1 St,, CjrpTiêt the- llite- separating' the
CJharch of Sod from t h e irarlc! e s s e t l y cdrrespondef i s the

limit-s of a l o c a l Christian coamuait^ "-hose members pr'yfes?e>-i
t h e t r a e faith.,, l i v e d ' & .par moral l i f e anil regained obe&ieisfc
t o t h e i r isasfml b i s h o p ,
t h e s a i T e r s a l f r a t e r n i t y f these
Steiigtias eiissiiii-i tiesr forced the I s l j - Catholic Church,

H -ee e@tl4 h e i e s g ' f a h e r u n l e s s he had e-siisted a s a lawful
setibeir of a p a r t i c u l a r C h r i s t i a n eoaganesgatioia,
iisyoa who had
&&&& as* mmy tmm h i s eossaaaity was &A ozioe cut ff .from
Christ'% &> t t e G h o r e h of Soi*
fewtveea fe&vesgF, e&isB or s i n .
fhsr w&& ao diff&reaee

y hatrre? reason a man had
heea -e-seelmie-i Crss hist looal fesf-oh,. the s e r s fact f h i s

exclusion ssffi-eei s i s * to expel M a from the sacred e i t ^ ,
t o deprive Ma. of gawee'. ami of the hope- of s a l v a t i o n ,
this- ipreei deCibaifclon of the l i m i t s of the Church was
St* -%yjriaji*^ origiital eostrifemtioa t o ShrisiiiMi theology*
I t m s the f i r s t a t t e a ^ t t h a t hs,# b&exi m&de I s describe what
those t h i n g s atrg" ifhielt '-Sod r&fiaires- Cross His e l e c t people -as
<asa iaJi-0f#assMe -eoaiitioa of Ills union with them.
The defects of
S t . Ggrpriaii was a rtoman hj? c u l t u r e , sr-'3 a Is-t/yer bj
3t.Cyprian*s
d e f i n i t i o n of t m i s i i a g arid profession, but he d e l i b e r a t e l y r e j e c t 3 - a l l h i s
the l i m i t s of
the Qhuxeh^
p a s t , M t h i t s refined eiasatiofi %m4 -jsgaa t r a d i t i o n s * i t i s
3* Se t f m i i , | 6 j
. t BffrMi 6 C); f I l k
SI
& rea&rJcable fact that in all M s numerous writings ha
sever quotes- sr .makes the least allusion to the heathen
philosopher? sr poets.
St Cyprian did everything in his
power to create as impassable gulf between Lucius Tacitus

OyprianmSg the rhetorician and lawyer, and Cyprian the
Bishop of the Christians at Carthage* Bat he m s unable to
change completely the fery nature of his being, and the more
toe fought consciously against his legal and logical siads.
the sore strongly and unexpectedly did this quality of his
appear in all his thoughts and actions.. His act ire nature
crated for precise Rsulas and- rales and he found thea in
the esaBaadaeiits of the 015. Testament, -which he eagerly ap
plied as. they stood to the life of the Christian Church. the
Sod of St. Cyprias. mas the Jealous Soi of Israel,** merciful
and compassionate to tho-se who love Him and serve Him, hut
uasparing and terrible to the enemies of Bis Church and to
the transgressors of His divine cossaajsSments. '* St. Cyprian
thought that the punishment meted out to the violators of the
Old festaaent law was a divine precedent for the Christian
treatment of heretics and schismatics.
(Hots IX.) ÔACSJ^
the way he loved to see the Church was ms an a ray,

*ilitia> Ctoistt*, nho-ss chief cosaander is God Himself aad
hose. members are Sis faithful soldiers,
file soldiers are
divided into well*-trained cohorts, obedient to their officerbishops whoa Sod elects and presetss to this high office.
5
to obey a priest of Sod "or a representative of Christ was
to- obey iod Kissel f.
l.
fo- revolt against a governor of the
Ip.'fS (10)
2. Sp.69 (6); 74 |5|

3... In--Up..67 {1} he applies for instance to the life of the
Church Sx.XXX.22; Sx.XX7III.45; Lev.XXI.27;
See also the lps.67 (4); 69 (6-9) 74 {8}
4.
Sp.lO ( 1 ) ; 1 {3l
5.
Aatistitea.e
Sp.#6 | |
H
0hureih was to destroy the order" and discipline of the
divine- anay. and t arsse the indignation and wrath of the
X*or<l. In many of his epistles- St, Cyprian uses this met a*
phar of an army to describe the Church3 and his language
beesse-s powerful and- persuasive fMeii' he writes about the
.glery sad happiness of life and death under the standards
}
of the hea-realy company, >
this -approach to the nature of the new covenant betwees @od and Christian jaahkind averesphasiseil some of the
elements f the Christian message apt underestimated others,
St, Cyprian was apt to forget that Hoi the Father as revealed
in the Gospels Isês the human soul sore than discipline and
order,. and that- He desires the free inclination of hua&s
hearts rather that their sbedtenee and submission,
The
Mew testament eouli tm% afford 8t. Cyprian sufficient aaterla!, for M s emphatic assertion that eTery violation of eccle
siastical discipline delivers a Christian to Ged*s wrath
and indignation, the aetaphor of an arays useful and im
pressive'&s it say he,, did not find enough support in the
Sew festaaent revelation of the nature of the Church There
fore- St* Syprian wishing to formulate a mere precise and
exclusive definition of Church membership than that given
by the Church f M s ties borrowed many elements from, the
Oli fe stament9; little considering that membership of the
Uhareh was based .on principles very different frosa those
that had governed election in Israel,
It was this confusion between the purposes
of the
tiro covenants which .sometimes made the loving- heart of this

16. Bp,6S |S9)
2.
3,
4
H,
Bp,S9 (4)
e.g. Bps. 55 (4); 59 (ll); 14 {8-9};
76 (5.6.)
Bp,6f (2|
Especially Frist's words- "one is your teacher and all ye
are brethren,
Sat* XX XXI,.8. -sere underestimated- in St,
eyprianfs conception of the Church,
@, the Old testament in its relation to the new covenants is
described by St* laul as a tutor*, which brought people to
M
g r e a t MBM i n t o l e r a n t and ineleaiaat, and M s ' b r i l l i a s t mind
narrow aa^ sectarian,
The need of
a special in
stitution for
tile preserva
tion of church
unity,
3t. Cyprian's definition of the visible limits of

the Catholic Church -syas of such a kind- that it was ontinu
ally in danger of being destroyed by all sorts of h u m s
ialqaities,, If every doctrinal -error, each sin or breaoli of
ecclesiastical discipline and order were to cut off church
ae&bers fro-aa the rest of the b##y and condemn theat to eternal
punishment, the seed for a special institution to act as
.guardian of Christian unity became obvious, if Sod wished
to accept within M s kiagdo-a only those Christians who had
faithfully observed all the rules of His- discipline and were
perfectly obedient t the ecclesiastical order, then fie
would have to create -a special office for the maintenance
of the constitution, of the Church,: Shis- conclusion inevita
bly followed frs St, Cyprian* -definition- -of the nature of
the 'Church and of her visible limits, and the discovery of
this special bo:dy of guardians of -church unity became the
the universal
episcopate,
"" -
maim tasic of St, Cyprian's life,

St, Cyprian *;s solution of this problem was his
famous doctrine of the universal episcopate aa the divinely
instituted- guardian of Christian oneness, lie taught that
.'
Jesus. Christ, the divine Architect of the Shurch, began His

1
work by choosing -one mas, Peter t whoa Me made the first
bishop of the Church,2 Peter at that point of history stood
as the sole representative of the whole body of the On
Catholic Church of Sod.,, and thus it is that he has become
ah everlasting example and unchallengeable proof of her
5
fundamental oneness,.' **. that Be might set forth unity
.Christ, but *we are no longer under a tutor, tor ye
are all sons of Sod,8 Sal, IIX, 24-26,
1,
2att, xyi, 18,19,
2,.
Sp,53 Cl)
s,
sp.fo (3h ?i-U); ^3 (?) Ill I
SI.
He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity as
1
beginning from one8*
Afterwards the other apostles were
glided to- Peter# and then the episcopal coHgais-sion was dis*>
tribnted equally among those twelve men* the first bishops
of the Church.
"Assuredly the rest of the Apostles were
also the sase as- isas Peter en dewed with like partnership
both of honour and power.*
With, the passage of time, new bishop succeeded to

3
the old ', &&d, though their amber constantly increased,
each of thea received exactly the' same eoamission and power
hi@h had first been giTen to Peter alone.
Thus the unity of
the episcopate remained unshaken, and as integral and solid

as it was in the days when a single man, Peter, alone repre
sented this institution-. *fhe episcopate is one, each part
4,
of' issieh i s held by each s one f o r the whole 8 ..t h i s body of the uniYerssl episcopate formed the
foundation -of the u n i t y of the Church.
Since i t -as c r e a t e d
by Sod' S i e l f f a r t h i s special purpose, i t would remain the

faithful, guardl&a of Christian truth, p u r i t y and oneness
t i l l t h e second cosing of J e s u s C h r i s t , Bvery bishop of the
5
Catholic Church s a s c a l l e d by Sod Himself and m s respon&
*J
s i b l e t-s Bias a l o n e ,
Se oce spied P e t e r f s hair
anet|r
possessing the same eesnaission a s Peter had received, ims

a b s o l u t e l y qat t o a l l other bishops-.
S t . Cyprian likened
the bish@p# in t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o each other t o holders f

1 , 3e U n i t . 4 ,
.. Be TJit. 4*
.3.. %. mi4)
4., Be U n i t . ffi-)#.. I p . ' ^ t l h . 4 3 ( 1 ) ; 48(41; 55(8); 59(5); 66(9)
6 . Sp.f9Cl*?h 72 | 3 h 73{2S).
?.. S p . S S | l ) j 43C&h 70(5); ? 3 ( ? K
3*3afcn, Sirchenreeht (Leipzig 1892) pp.252,354.
H. oh 6yp. und der Son,. P r i a a t . f 1910} p.39
8
K.i:eli, Cathedra P e t r i (Mess-en 1930) p . 5 d .
91
s h a r e s i n t h e saae j o i n t p r o p e r t y ,
fhe wtsaisaras agreement
and b r o t h e r l y love of a l l t h e s e efnal bishops guaranteed

C h r i s t i a n oneness* and l a obeying t h e i r r a l e the l a i t y f e l t
assured of belonging t o the one t r u e Chiareli of God.
.St* Cyprian*'*
attempt t&
g i f e concrete
expression to
fhe body of the a n t v e r s a ! episcopate- s s the direct

.saceesser of the Apostolis College was S t , Cyprian f s o r i - !? /
h i s idea,,.
g i s s l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o Christian theology*
This idea,, al I .
though i t say have- e x i s t e d in the minds of other C h r i s t i a n s ,

had never bees e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d before S t . Cyprian f s i i s e
and hence t h e Church had not possessed any special organs
t o express the w i l l of t h i s l a s t i t u t ion.*
8t Cyprian, by
seasis of M s outstanding energy and perseverance, succeed

ed daring h i s s h o r t episcopate i s c r e a t i n g two channels f o r
i t s expression...
Episcopal ,
letters*
the f i r s t was the s e t ise made of the very ancient

Christian cust-osi of an exchange of correspondence between
the ehmrches^.
these l e t t e r s were a s a r a l e sent e i t h e r in
t h e naiae of a l o c a l eoismmity or on the personal a u t h o r i t y

of some outstanding C h r i s t i a n s whs were u s u a l l y b i s h o p s , 4
Bat. i n t h e l a t t e r case i t was not so much t h e i r office a s
t h e i r individual g i f t of visdoia which gave weight to t h e i r
epistles,
Si* Cyprian was t h e f i r s t w r i t e r who composed
a l l M s l e t t e r s p r i s m r i l y in M s c a p a c i t y a s bishop,
Ee '
wrote t o laany d i f f e r e n t people,, laymen and c l e r i c s a l i k e ,

but the general tone i n h i s correspondence i s a l m y s t h a t
1,
M i d , H i s t , f t h e Church, Vol. 1, p 0 46,
2,
A complete account of t h e importance and of the v a r i e t y

f t h e forms of t h i s correspondence can be found in.
Bl0tov f s | i n Bassian) Lectures on the h i s t o r y of the
a n c i e n t Church Vol., IX, p,4.f2-5f.e.
3,
a ) I "St, Clement., Pref,

bj s e t t e r of fee Sayrsaeass t o $hi%<m<&llvtmt Sref,
e | l e t t e r from t h e C h r i s t i a n s of Qaal t o the churches
in Asia,. Bus. M,S,Y, 1,(3-}
4,
Ihere were the collections of letters of:

Ignatius of Astioch;
Dionysius of Corinth (5tts,E,J2,I?23}
Xrenaeus {Bus,Hffll.*20{l)
Monysius of Alexandria {Sus,H,2,vT.44,46; T i l , 2 - 9 ,

0rlgen,(2u8,H.2.TC,36(3*4)
11,20-23)
JS.
1
of .a bishop aidressing- other bishops,
M s colleagues.'
these l e t t e r s , ' so' earefi&ly preserved by S t . Cyprian

himself,*" were aftervmrds c o l l e c t e d and reeopied by M s
admirers* and thus they became one of the important f a c t o r s
in t h e establishment of S t . Cyprian's conception of the
episcopate as a ' s p e c i a l body of church r u l e r s who, ijsdepeadanily from the r e s t of the C h r i s t i a n s , discuss and
SOITS
the problems of church government.

Local Sy&o.as,,
Hie second i n s t i t u t i o n ishieh underwent a considera

b l e transformation during St Cyprian's episcopate was the
l o c a l synods.,
'they too were one -of the isost ancient organs
of government of the Church.
A local congregation, gathered
t o g e t h e r in the place of worship and lead by its^ b i s h o p s ,

surrounded by h i s p r e s b y t e r s aid de-aeons, f a s the final
a u t h o r i t y in a l l decisions of importance.
<?ad, the r u l e r
of the 'Church,, .spefce through the unanimous TO i c e of t h i s

local, c o u n c i l .
At. i t s meetings s i n n e r s were pardoned in
S i s name and' reconciled to the Churchy bishops &i4 other

A
clerics were el.ee ted and or gained " and false doctrines
Si
conSesa&ee' and r e j e c t e d .
St Cyprian, according- t o the custom, r e g u l a r l y
held synods- i s h i s own church, but he gradually changed
them i n t o councils of the North African e p i s c o p a t e .
There
was n&tMng unusual in i w r i t i n g neighbouring bishops
or
o t h e r C h r i s t i a n s of d i s t i n c t i o n
t o the l o c a l synods, e s
p e c i a l l y when the question a t issue was p a r t i c u l a r l y im

p o r t a n t . E x t e r n a l l y , St* Cyprian followed the ancient
1 . $ p * 3 ' U ) ; 5 ( I h 59 (V)i 61 {%); M ( j ) ; 66 (1) e t c .
S. Sos. H.B..T..28 ( 1 2 ) : VI.4.3' () *St.Cypi&A'' hp.30 ( o ) ;
Sp.31 <6); Sp. 55. 1 5 ) .
4 . 2us..H.l...TrE.43
(17); St.Cyp.3p29; 38 ( i - 2 ) ; 39 ( l ) ; 4 0 ;
55 (a);-- : 59 ( 6 h 6? C34}, S . lus..HS.;?,..16 ( l a ) .
6 . .Benson*. Cyprian w'fhe eastern of admitting l a i t y was- dying
out under..Cyprian** p..42f a
7. *w.. H.B..TII. 30 (3)
3*
tradition,
1 for M s .s.yiio-ds remained as they had been
before M s .episcopate-, gatherings- of the local synod of

Carthage, at iihieh the bishop, together with the presbyters
and the laity,. decided all questions*
The neighbouring
bishops were only honoured gaest% -who bore witness to the

tradition of their local eoaEaunities, their number haw@Ter
increase! very rapidly, aid irery soon their irate became
sore powerful than the -roiee of the local congregation, St.
Cyprian himself'never acted without the con-sent of his
c2e?|gr and people-1 and he always insisted that their assent
was essential*. Bat nevertheless his m&tm. concern was the
unanimous feels!on of his colleagues the bishopa,"* and it
was for this reason that he m s : so particularly interested
is i.a?.iting an e.irer larger number of then to his synods-.
At the i'.ifth Council (25-5 A. 2),) there were thirty-G*fc bishops, at the Sixth fin the spring of 256) seventy-one, and
at the Seventh -{.Septe&be-r 1st, 25J eighty-one
this astonishing growth in the masher of bishops at
succeeding Carthaginian Councils shows that St, Cyprian used
ell his energy and personal influence in order to aehieire
this Increase, Seise it is possible to call St, Cyprian the
father and creator of the idea of the new type of Council
which was however officially introduced 1st the life of
the lurch only by the Jfeperor Cosstantine in. the fourth
mtsry,. who -began to easvoke .SyiieMSs with an exclusively
episcopal membership , the Chursh of the first three
centuries did not taow this institution until the idea of
it- was bora in the aind -of St, Cyprian, who became sore
convinced every year that 6-od can speak with greater precision
1,. Sp, m;:
38 Cll
2, Sp, 58 (1);' M tl)l

5,
See the, lote if
(1); 70- (1);
72 (l).
ff<
' through the- voice -of the bishops* than through the
assemblies of the local churches which so often
presented
the sad spectacle of passionate party struggles. But

the time was still unripe for the full realisation of
St., 3ypria.afs ideal, and so his synod's still preserved
their ancient coast!tation and êre composed of bishops,
presbyters sad laymen,2
fhe weak point
Q& the new
institution,
St, Cypriant:s ardent belief in a body of bishops

capable of preserving unity and order in the Church was
based on. two premises:
(l)
that'Jesus Christ himself lay the aet of choosing

the twelve apostle* instituted the episcopate^1
as a.special feody^ and laid down a -divine rule of
Church government by a college of equal and independent hi shops.,'*
-(iij that the. episcopate being directly created by

Sod is an institution which is^ as each, capable
.-.=
of preserving the unity of the Church.,. JOT itsmembers receive a special grace of mutual love^
and of unselfish service for the rest of Christ's
body,/
.Ivem during his lifetime -8t* Cyprian was forced
- '. - to face the collapse of each of M s fundamental prinei.. v- pies,
In the first place identification of apostolic
and jHmi-âai* offices was no more than his personal
1, f, a. very interesting observation on this point in

Benson's Cyprian, pp* 4.28-4.31,
2., Sp, 1(1); 4(1); 59(15),
3, Ips, (3);
33(1);
45(3);
4,
48(4); -&{S,2lh: 59(5.14);

72.(3); .73(26).
ft
lp-,4S|5h
66(9); 69(17);
52{2),
6., Bps. 5S( 24 ) |

7.. Sp. 68(4)
66(4).
S6{ 8 ) ; ' 68(5).
opinion^ which was neither shared by the Church w^Ps&s

%mm^
nor corresponded to the historical place which
ike apostles aai bishops' had ia the life of the Church,

Sven aor aiistafcen was his belief that- the apostles
received a divine eoseaanelsejit to establish in every
local Gh&reh exactly the same type &t mono-episcopal
govensseiit as obtained la the African Churches of the
third century,
'fas theoretical defects of his theory were
revealed by various conflicts in which St, Cyprian
was involved,
Hie body f bishops did not, as & mat
ter of fact possess any greater amount of Unity and

lore than the rest of the Christians aai St. Cyprian*s
cosTletioa that "there eomli not be as sag us (the
M$hops} adverse feelings is utioa there -sas one spirit
(8p, 68(&| was utterly disproved "by the events of
the baptismal controversy.
Bis attempts to introduce
more order and unity into the Church, by seams of

better organised- and more authoritative action of
the bishops were also a failure, for they only pro
voiced even greater chaos and disturbance in the life
of the local osmnuiities,
1*
Gaspare for- instance St* Ignatus* comparison

-of a bishop with G-od and presbyters with the
Apostles,.
Sagn, 5, Trail, 3,
3].
The refers which Cyprian tried to introduce can
be explained by thinking of the body of the Church as a
triangle, Before Mis time it stood on its lase, formed of
the local eosBsunities which were the source of divine life,
the guardian of Christian unity and tlie filial Judges of
1
all church affairs,
St. Cyprian inverted this and stood
the triangle- on its apex.* the episcopate* which thus "became
the foundation, of church unity and the source of sacramental
grace,
fhis change in. so way strengthened the unity of
the Churchy but on the contmry made it more precarious.

For the opportmities of quarrels among the "bishops increased
as their interventions* becoming sore frequent, acquired the
importance of a f sisal Judgment between the parties of a
local e@Hsuitity. &% the saste time there m s no authority
to hieh a final, appeigt could he sade in eases when the
bishops disagreed asong themselves,. and this was bound- to
produce the aost deplorable consequences ia the life of the
Church*
Finally the bishops* disputes also became more dan
gerous far the peace of the Church for yet another reason.
In so far as their college was regarded now as the unique
foundation of the Church,, their conflicts deprived the
members of their communities of their guarantee of belong
ing to the true Church. According to the ancient tradition,
only discords among members of the same brotherhood imperil
led their coaaunlon with tod the lather,. According to St.
Cyprian's doctrine,,: Christian could be cut off from the
Church if their bishop quarrelled with his colleagues.
In/his .viem-:&. bishop ceased to be only a representative of
1,. Spft. 19(2);
3 0 U ) ; 31(6);
2. Sp. 4(4); 33(1);
66(8).
59{l&).
n,
1
2
M s local eonssiiity and became the source of its life,
Hbedienee to M a . was^ to St. Cyprias*'s Hind,. the only m y
of belonging to the true Church of Sod,
St .Cyprian
and the priisacy of the
Roman See,
St, Cyprian's doctrine an church unity, with its

-special emphasis a Matthew's text of Peter'* election
and mill its use' of the teraa 8 Cathedra Betri* naturally
raises the problem- of his attitude tomris- the p r i m e y of
the Bosan See,
It is probabl# that .this part of St, Cyprian*s
#oetrine has attracted' more attention ad met with more

different interpretations than any other question of' church
history,
fhe difficulty in arriving at a right understand
ing -of St, Cyprian*s -mind,, does not lie -either in the ambigu
ity of his language or the scarcity of the material at our
disposal.
O H the contrary no one sai&mg the early Church
leaders left behind hia. such a clear and logical scheme of

church unity as St, Cyprian,
the real stumbling-block is the
restoration of the exact meaning of St, Cyprian's terminology,

of, for iastanse^ such expressions as Cathedra Petri, a*
u
geeleaia prinsipalia,,
.tuadte unitag sacerdotali-s eaaglta, est
@T nut. ^Beel-esiae .-Catho3,igae!. Matrices et. radices agnosceretttiui

et tenerent
etc,
All these terns in the course of centuries
1, the .ancient church order is described by Barnacle as follows*

8
,,,lhe prisary question as regards church membership is not
connection m t h clergy. It Is rather connection with the
eoaaunitys fellowship with which secures- the salvation that
say indeed be found outside its pale, but not m t h certainty8,
History of Bogs&s. 1,J1, pp.ll-120.
2, "jfrom St,
considered
but as the
of Dogmas,
Cyprian $ s tine, the bishops are no longer to be

primarily as leaders of their special communities,
foundation of the one Church". Marnaelc, History
Tol. II, p.87.
3,, Matt, XT1, 18-19,

4,. Prof, Koch., Cyprian and der Bomisehe Primat, p,3,seq,
gives an impressive surrey of the number of modern scholars
involved in this discussion and of the variety of opinions
expressed by thea,
S, lp. 5fl4.)..
6, X p , 48(3}.
M
became inextricably bound up with the idea of the primacy
of the Boman See and acquired a fixed theological meaning,
feat the question arises whether their author used them in
the saae way as the later Westers theologians have "done.
WQT a long time this particular problem received
so especial attention and the main controversy between the
Boaan and non-Boaas theologians consisted chiefly ia the
quotation by the Boasn Catholics of the texts from St.Cyprianfe
writings favourable to their authors1 belief in the primacy
of the Boaan See, sad quotation by their opponents of other
texts, as well as accountar of St. Cyprian's actions, incoapat3 the bitterness of this controversy
ible with this doctrine,
isas increased by the fact that the most crucial text of St.
Cyprian's -writings on the Bonaa primacy,, namely, the 4th
chapter of the b$ek Be. Ilaitate^Catholicae Beclesiag comes to
w i n two v e r s i o n s 2 which
give r a t h e r a different
representa~
t i o n of t h e i r a u t h o r ' s view^"
A considerable advance i a the r e s t o r a t i o n of the
a u t h e n t i c seaaing of S t . Cyprian 1 s t h e o l o g i c a l language was
reached however w i t h . t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of Prof. Koch's book,
SyprianÛBd ,.der Boa., Prig... ( l e x t and l i s t e r s , 1910).
its
1. This type of controversy i s dealt w i t h i n Fuller,. The Prim.

S a i n t s , pp. 77-95.
2 . fhe h i s t o r y of these two v e r s i o n s can be found in Benson,
Cyprian, pp*209-212. Also a special note p.544.
3 . Sp t o 'file end of the XlXth century the pinion prevailed
t h a t the f i r s t t e x t , c o n t a i n i n g l e s s mention of the Rasas
Church, was the authentic one (See Season, Cyprian,pp.216221.1 the Eoffian 'Catholic scholar, Boa.. Chapman^ challenged
t h i s opinion &n4 brought forward s e r i o u s evidence t h a t both
v e r s i o n s belonged to St.Cyprian, (Les i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s dans
l e t r a i t e de S t . Cyp. sur 1*unite de 1 ' B g l i s e . Bev. Bened.
1902*3). S g r . B a t i f f o l went even f u r t h e r and declared the
.so-called- i n t e r p r e t e d t e x t t o be the o r i g i n a l , {Priia.Cath.
C1911} p.372.)- Chapman's point of view i s supported by
\fjkrnacjfi. ( f h e o i . L i t e m t u r Zeitung- 19OS p.263). Also
_.0hr#nol... altS:..Lit. ..(1909-) p476)., but i s refuted by the
Ramsm-Catholic scholars,. E.Adam, {.fheol. l e v . 1910 p.476).
. -P. de L a b r i e l l e (.Hist, de l a l i t . l a t . Chret. ( P a r i s 1920),
p . 18?), and, in particularJfcJfH. oeh who deals with t h i s
Cuestion a t l e n g t h in both of his-books on St. Cyprian,
lCyprian und der Boa. Priia. (1910) pp.l5&*160; Cathedra
P e t r i (1930) pp.115-147).. thus, the opinions of the scholars
a r e s t i l l divided aid f a r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s obviously
needed.
/t>oauthor convincingly pro-Ted that; S t . Cyprian's terminology

does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply t h e meaning which t h e same
expressions- l a t e r acquired*
Two p o i n t s of p a r t i c u l a r
Importance were c l a r i f i e d fey Prof. Soeiii
the place which
J e t e r eseupied i s S t . Cyprian*s concepti-an of church unity,

and t h e .sense- i s which S t . Cyprian used the c r u c i a l words
' ^Cathedra P e t r i g
Summarising the results 5 - of these invest i -
gat-ions we may use. Prof. ch f a oa words: *Peter i s t n i e h t

r e a l g n a i d , niehf Ifrsaehe ud Mittelpuhfct, sondem nur
geitlich Auggaaspuntet -and der Brkentnls-grund i e r Xerehliehe
l i n h e i i * |A and f u r t h e r / Cyprian betr&ehtet Jeden Bisehof alsv o i l e s Beehtsnachfolger P e t r i .
Bs giefet in der Kirehe nur
eine. Cathedra die augieieh Cathedra i e r Apestel and Cathedra

Bisehsfe is-f*. A these sentences d e f i n i t e l y i a p l y t h a t S t .
Cyprian, in s p i t e of the s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y , between h i s
language and t h a t of l a t e r Soaias Catholic theology*, professed
a doctrine of church unity which was e n t i r e l y based on the
e q u a l i t y of the bishops and had no place f o r the primacy of
t h e Bea&n See.
o:-:@h*s view met -with v i o l e n t opposition 1 ,, which
One of the chief Roman Catholic opponents to Prof, Koch, Bom.

Chapman, i s obliged t o recognise that from the Roman point
of v i e * S t . Cyprian **enunciated the absurd doctrine" t h a t the
bishops a er e e q u a l . (Study on the e a r l y papacy, {1928} p.40)
and t h a t h i s outlook was extremely narrow and h i s logic was
very s h o r t - s i g h t e d * . (Prof,Koch on St,Cyprian, aev.3en.1910
p , 4 5 ? . ) Bom.Oh&pisan p l a i n s S t . Cyprian's policy on the
ground of h i s episcopal ambitions, (Prof. Eoch on 3t,Cyprian
iiev, Ben. p , 4 5 9 ) ,
Another a t t i t u d e to- the saae problem i s taken by the
eminent Soaas Catholic,K,Adaa. He a d a i t s the fact that St.
Cyprian never t h i n k s of P e t e r &% the founder of any p a r t i c u
l a r see* but only a s the person f i r s t chosen by C h r i s t , t h u s
remaining t h e i r i t n e s s of Christ *s w i l l to see the Church one*
(fhe2%usrtail,1928. p204S), And y e t he t r i e s t o prove
t h a t P e t e r had, according t o S t , Cyprian r s view, a special
--authority t o keep i n t a c t t h e unity of the Church, which
'J-authority mas t r a n s f e r r e d t o the bishops of iioae. This opes
" ' c o n t r a d i c t i o n shows t h a t Adas 3**MI m&& warmFaf<m><4 St.Cyprians
..doctrine.
* w***/**/"*^*^
f
-' ...
Soch .s view i s shared by the Abbe Turaei. mAmc yeux de
.-Saint Cyprian Saint Pierre,
e s i , son pas sans doute l a source
. a a i s l e syabole de 2 f u n i t e I ' e p t s c o p a t qui doit toujours
r e s t e r i n , eoaiae a 1'epeque u c e t apotre en e t a i t I s unique
depositaire*.(Hist.dm Bogme de l a Papaute,pp.113-114).
the isajority of Anglican, scholars a l s o hold t h i s view,
e . g . Bright, fhe Boaan See, (London 1896) p.40, "Peter was
0'
however, was unable to shake M s fundamental premises.
the attitude towards Si, Cyprian of the modern Roman
Catholic historians is well expressed by Mgr, Batiffcl*
mho writes.: 8St., Cyprian misunderstands f u 8 Pet rag, For
his it means not a priaaey special to Peter ever the whole
Church bat the. episcopal monarchy in each church". With
the essence of this statement so modern scholar can now dis
agree, although the expression '^misunderstands*5 is liable to
very different interpretations,
thus in .spite of Tar ions abjections to Koch's flew
his main arguments are now accepted., and the soiaBtsn accusa
tions against St.. Cyprian of ineonsisiencs between his sup
posed belief in the Soaan priaaey and hie actions, have lost
their weight .*
fhere is a striding paradox in the fact that St,
Cyprian's strongest, proof of the absolute equality of the
bishops, liaieh he found in the expression wCathedra Petris
-mutm-m.mn>;+
i w r n c n m w f c i i w j n - I ' l i i m i B njrtmMt.iiiuimm.Mnmi'jn iiwMa*aww>Wawii^riii'.wwijjMiiangW>,*tiJiiii|i<>iWiiii mma#|wi*liiiiifwwiii'"iini'ili[ia | wmM'<Mllfr*pjwwiifcMiii^wiMMiîiiiii>uMtai^^
a u f n i w i ' m n J W m m .<*
thus to represent the Twelve and in thea the future minis*try and the Church"; and JH,Bernard, Sssays an the early
history of the Church (Lon, 1921}, p,246
Hgr, Baiiffol also expresses a very similar opinion,
He writes, "Hence in the eyes of Cyprian Christ's words to
Peter aean only that each church is one, since the first of
all the churches, that founded by Christ on Peter, is one*,
Prim. Cath. p.38
1.
Br .J, Peters, Cyprian von Carthage, .1877, pp.478-479.

.1, Srsst, Cyprian .uni ias Papsttua, (Mainz 1912} p,42,
Chapsa, Prof, Xoeh on St, Cyprian, (lev. Ben, 1910).
p.4(61, &r Ales, La fheologie -de St. Gyprien, (1922)
1*I2,
2,
Sps, 4 3 ( 5 ) ; 55(8); ef, sis 7 0 ( 3 ) ; 7 3 ( 7 ) .

H, Sohffi, Eiffchenrecht, pp,252-254,
ICoch, Cyp, Boa, Prim, p . 3 9 ,
Opt&tus, bishop of a i l e v a , w r i t i n g in 573, s t i l l
uses t h e Chair of P e t e r i n the Oyprianie s e n s e . Arguing
a g a i n s t t h e Donatist bishop of Carthage, he says t h a t
C a e c i l i a n , the Catholic bishop of the same c i t y , occu
p i e s t h e? Chair of S t , P e t e r -which v?ae also t h e 3 t ,
Cyprian s Chair, Be Schism I . ( 1 0 ) ; I I , 2 , 3 ,
/At
was turned against its author, and
;s
Cathedra getrig
accg&ired, in the course of the-history of the Church, a

meaning Just the -opposite of that which m s originally in
tended.
It has become- in reality the most effective a a i s
for the elevation. of the holder of sue particular see ver

all the other bishops,, and- brought ah out the final destruction
of episcopal- independence and authority.
St, Cyprian has a unique place ia the life of the
Church, for he was the first Christian who attempted to show
that her unity is based on a special institution created by
the divine will.
St. Cyprian failed personally, since his
doctrine in its original fo-rm could never'hare been realised

ia practice. But at the same time the idea itself was ac
cepted fey other ChristJMS, and siaee his time the Churoh has
bees&ae the seeae of various attempts to find a guarantee for
her unity ia different fonas of government, ia varying doc
trinal formulas and is diverse types of organisation.
Hence
an analysis of the causes of St. Cyprian's failure reveals

the fundamental principles- on -which all the later attempts
have "been based.
She most obvious reason for the collapse of his
proposal as its practical inapplicability.
It is quite
evident that no effective institution could be formed of

aeahers who were all -e*goal sad finally irresponsible before
it.
this defect was so basic that it inevitably defeated
all the attempts'to apply St. Cyprian? s doctrine in practice,

whether they were made by its author himself or by other
church leaders, ffhe concilia,? movement of the fourth cen
tury is one of the best examples of this] &@3>gg8
1. .-Caspar, Geschiehte dee Fapsttums, (193C-) p79. "Cyprian

pat sit des 2auberwrt Eathedra- Petri die Idee des
roaisehen Priaats aber dê~'gssaSte~Kirche entfesselt.
Brhat a-uch jene Sauberlehrlings^tragil: an sich selbst
103,
f s i s weakness' of S t , Cyprian*s theory was very man r e a l i s e d
fey h i s followers and a l l the l a t e r doctrines en church unity
were built
up on a' p r i n c i p l e rnsre humanly reasonable.
In
p a r t i c u l a r the next great scheme* proposed by the popes of

the f i f t h centuries 9 had a l l t h e advantages of a normal sys
tem o-f government.
Monarchy i s one of the b e s t t r i e d forsss
f o r the organisation f society* and i t proved as e f f e c t i v e

i n t h e administration of the Church a s i n many other instances.1
Bat St,. Cyprian's doctrine had another yet sere
fundamental defect and this remained an oh served by his
wmG8&QT& wh repeated it ia all their proposals, 2his
error ay he best described as a desire to prove store than
s possible,, St. Sypri.au firmly believed that Jesus Christ
Himself instituted the monarchical episcopate whose severs,
.being all eâal to- one another, received a special cosaaissioB
to keep the unity f the Church intact.
She only proof that
that n&s- s- which- he could produce w&m his personal inter

pretation of some' texts- taken fr-osa the -Old and the Hew Testa
m e n t ^ and- he seess to he entirely unaware that the Church
has. not only the M b l @ hut also her history,
fhis misunder
standing *as due to assy cireuststaaees which it is impossible

to analyse here, the important- point, however, is that
Cyprisa as one of the first great Church leaders -who placed
his otm theory above the experience of the rest of the Church
aai he thus started a new period of her history when personal
dsetria.es as-d speculations, based on biblical texts and
{gustations frosa the fathers- he-ease for the leaders of the
1,
fhe elevation of particular constitutional foras (ex

. pedienf as they may be), to-the position of divine and
unchangeable lavs le&dst\%m m toxba^ to & rapid petrification of the Church and eventually provokes violent
reactions and revolutions, {@&ms^mg
)
tot
Hhureh a complete substitute tor
the living voice of
til Holy i0st as revealed through the unanimous decisions

of Christian eosaiiiiities.
f$e St. 6yprian*'s personal theory was not only
inapplicable from a human point of view, bat what was worse,
it pretended to "foe the only divine truth and the sole right
interpretation of the intention of the 'Founder of the Church.
St. Cyprian took the monarchical episcopate.,,, the most expe
dient form of church government, attri%nt6rd to it such a
divine sanction as it could never possess sad set it to.
perform. a function -sfaieh it isas unable successfully to ful
fil. His proposal nas bound to fail and it did fail; but
hec*$i^ it pretended to possess a divine sanction and this
presumptuous claim was gradually accepted "by the Church,
its failures was responsible for divisions and'bitter strife
among the Cferigtiass. the Bo&atlst schism and the final
disappearance of the flourishing Berth African churches were
the inevitable consequences of the persistent applications
of St. Cyprian*s doctrine by his disciples,,
St, Cyprian m s a great &as squally great in his
achievements and in his failures. He has been the subject
both of bitter attacks, and of unconditional acceptance and
admiration. But it has become easier nom to see M s real
limitations and to understand M s unique aerits before the
Church. He- m e the first theologian who dared to face that
most difficult of Questions^ the problem of church unity.
Me had so chance f arriving at a satisfactory solution.
but those whe followed him on this precarious ground have
been no mere successful than he< Tet though it may be ne~
eessary to criticise his doctrine,. his personality stust
always ooaaand our deep and sincere admiration. He m e a
faithful, servant of M s Master,, and he did his "best with
the gift which he received from his Lord.
lew people in
the history -of the Church have sacrificed their- lives to

the welfare f the Church so completely as did St. Cyprian,
:j
jpr.
and fewer s t i l l have "been a b l e to- remain s-o u n s e l f i s h
and s t e a d f a s t in a l l t r i b u l a t i o n s and temptations a s he
did*
there eaa "be so s o r e f i t t i n g summary of M s life*long
s t r u g g l e than the. l a s t words of h i s l e t t e r t o jrloreHtinus

Jâpianus* one of h i s most b i t t e r opponents* which so finely
express .the s i n c e r i t y of h i s faith, and the firmness of h i s
soul,
*-these things of the pure conscience of my mini and
of ay confidence in ray Lord sad ay Sod 1 hare w i t ten a t

length,
foa have my l e t t e r an si I yours..
In the day of
judgment before' "fee t r i b u n a l of C h r i s t , both w i l l "be r e a d . " 1

I?anl of Saiaossta,
bishop of jkntioch
The case of Paul of Saaosata provides us with -very
interesting and quite independent- information concerning
the .same problems ultieh a r e t r e a t e d in S t , Cyprian's eor

respcadence.
3?aal9 Bishop of Antiooh* fa e l e c t e d to t h i s
2
important, see -early im the second half f the third century,
He tg&s a very gifted man who soon be ease one of the sost
outstanding personalities in the Capital of the 3ast* His
worldly influence- and wealth surrounded him with a erowi of
' '
admirers and partisans both in 4ntioeh and in the neighbour

ing cities. But he had to face -also a very strong opposition
from the sore conservative and ascetic members of the Church.
Be m s -accused by his eneaiies of heretical teachings concern5
ing the person of Jesus Christ , of excessive world! iness,
and of immorality, He was so sagaeiou$, however, and had
.such a great. masher of supporters that for many years all
the attempts of his adversaries to eondeam hiai remained
1,. Bp 6(10>.
2,
Earaaok.*Me Zeit des Ignatius* (Leipz.E&^S) p % 51, thinks

that he was ordained' "between 2B? and 260. Susebius puts
the. date of his accession in the year 259. Eus. H.I.YII.
3.
the latest study of his teaching is given by Fr. Loof

B&uls von Saasosata (text usd llnlers] Leipzig 1924,,
w*
106
futile.
Eventually a learned p r e s b y t e r called Mal-ehion
succeeded i s proving the h e r e t i c a l c h a r a c t e r of hi t e a c h

ings and Paul of S&aasata was excommunicated toy one of the
synods of Antioeh* (probably a t some date {sharing t h e years
265-268} ,
n e v e r t h e l e s s he- did s o t disappear f r o s the
arena of church h i s t o r y *
lie refused to obey and prseeeêd
to r u l e ; t h e "Church of Antiash u n t i l , t h e Imperof Aareliaai n t e r f e r e d in the c o n f l i c t and "thus t h i s san*, a s Jgusebius

writes s *was driven out of the Chareh with extreme disgrace
"by the worldly power,*
Paul r@3m.ined insubordinate even
a f t e r t h i s chastisement sad became t h e leader of a sect of

h i s 0a9. which i s mentioned in t h e 19th Canon of the f i r s t '
Oeeunenieal Council and which probably disappeared in the
course of t h e fourth centurs?.
Bmsebius and
t h e episcopal
Synods*
S m t i s a short account of the indictment a g a i n s t

$aul of Saassata a s described by l u s e b i u s in chapters 2?*3
of the seventh book of M s E c c l e s i a s t i c a l H i s t o r y .
Busebius
here 9 a s in many other p l a c e s , has good sources and: knows

hour to use t h e n e f f e c t i v e l y s b u t he colours the -shole s t o r y
by h i s own conceptions.
He quotes i s e x t r a c t s t h e e p i s t l
in which the condexsnation of Paul -*&s cesmualeated t o t h e

other churches, and does not a&d such t o t h i s . dtocusest.
fie
does however p r e s e n t t h i s whole c o n f l i c t i n such a way t h a t

many details : of i t have b e e s misunderstood, even by
SOB
oat s t an d lag a s dera, h i s t o r i a n s .

We a r e concerned h e r e only n i t h one side of t h i s
s t r u g g l e against the Bishop of .astiseh* naaely with t h e
procedure of the accusation a g a i n s t hia and the use made
1.
Bus. I . E . 1 1 . 27(2}
2.
Hefele-Leclerq,' f o l . l . p*196
3.
H.S. T i l . 20(19).
A>7of i t fey the Church, of the t h i r d century s
Eusehitts* n a r r a
t i v e gives the impression t h a t Paul of S&sos&ta /as judged

by a council of ."bishops gathered frost the different p a r t s of
the Eastern B s p i r e .
t o obey i t s d e c i s i o n .
He m s eondeimed by tfeis body tout refused

f M s nas the usual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
the -conflict, aid the-one t h a t has been accepted by Doll lager,. I

Ifefiffert
and aaay other theologians*
But i f those were
the f a c t s , we should be obliged t o deduce from then ( l ) t h a t

t h e e a s t e r n p a r t f Qhristendom possessed already by the
middle of the t h i r d century a special t r i b u n a l composed of
bishops for t r y i n g & g u i l t y prelate.! and (2) t h a t S t . Cyprian*.
d o c t r i n e of the pisco-pal body a s the guardian of Church u n i t y
and the f i n a l c o u r t of appeal ?ias in- operation in the l a s t
during 1 h i s l i f e t i m e *
2he f a c t m s t h a t 2msefeimaf consciously or aacoasoiously. r e l a t e d t h e story of Paulas accusation in terms of the
procedure against- e r r i n g bishops t h a t e x i s t e d in h i s own time.
Constantine t h e Sre&t introduced i n t o the l i f e f the Church
a new i n s t i t u t i o n , , an episcopal t r i b u n a l *
I t was held for
the- f i r s t , t i a e i s Boise in 31,3, f o r the purpose of judging

3
between Caeeilian and h i s Bonatist opponents.-' From t h a t
time o a m r i s t h e idea t h a t a bishop can only he condemned
by t h e v e r d i c t of h i s colleagues was gradually accepted by
A
t h e Church.
Susebius- 1 personal cojs@&ntarie-& are obviously
w r i t t e n in t h e l i g h t of t h i s l a t e r procedure,
For instance
he w r i t e s : '"Baring h i s reign a f i n a l synod composed of a

great- many bishops m s held,.and t h e l e a d e r of heresy i n
1.
*Calliatiw and l i p p e l y t u s * , p!SOa
2-.
t h e Church History of 1-usebiiis, (Hicene and post-Sleene

Fathers). Qatf* 1890, p . 315, note 24.
fie-feXe-iesierf,
Vol. I . p.*2?^
5.
. #.,.
See f o r instance Canons XXI, xiv*, and X? of the Council

of AutiQehBfaf&fe a l s o Canon VI of the Synod Constantinople
v
1382)
jplAntloeh was d e t e c t e d . . , , * '
0 r again # fhe P a s t o r s whs had
atseiabl@l about t h i s m a t t e r prepared by eosB&on consent

an e p i s t l e addressed t o . Monysius, Bishop of Boea and
Saxiaas of Alexandria and seat to a l l the province 3s52 .
J?aul Judged
by a Synod
J r o s I M t i t ay s e e s t h a t the bishops toofc t h e
of a local
Chureh.s.
initiative into their mm hands in condemning and excomuni-
e a t i n g B&tal of Saaosata.
Bat t h a t impression would d i r e c t l y
c o n t r a d i c t t h e o r i g i n a l document i t s e l f which has the f o l

lowing passage!
"''-
?o Siosysi-as and Jisxiaus and to a l l our
fellow m i n i s t e r s throughout t h e world, 'bishops, p r e s b y t e r s

and deacons, and t o t h e whole Catholic. Church under aea?ea,
Helenas, Mym&ms,'euma, Hieophilus ( t h e names of the other b i
shops follow) gaJeMon and loacius | t h e s e two were presbyters)
and a l l t h e o t h e r s who dwell with us i a the neighbouring c i t i e s
and n a t i o n s , bishops, p r e s b y t e r s and. deacons and the Churches
of Mo4f g r e e t i n g t o the beloved b r e t h r e n i a the Lord?
And
a l i t t l e f a r t h e r a SuseMas gives another quotation from

t h e same' e p i s t l e s *?fe sent f o r and c a l l e d usany of the bi
,:
shops from a distance t o r e l i e v e ms from t h i s deadly doc

t r i n e , a s Mosysims of Alexandria and i ' i r s i l i a a of Cappadocia
those 'blessed men*.4 After t h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n cases & long
description of the d i f f e r e n t crimes eoraatiited by iaul, and i a
t h e l a s t notation the reasons f o r h i s exeoaatmicatios are
explained i s t h e following ways
^fherefore we have been
e s a p e l l e i t o eitcaiKUiiieate him since he s e t s himself against

od and refuses- t o beyi and t o appoint i s h i s place another
.bishop f o r t h e Catholic Church*
By divine d i r e c t i o n as we
1 , H..Bli,2S|l3, the l a t e r Church leaders: mention a very

l a r g e number of h i shops a s present a t t h i s Synod. Athan
( i e Sys.4S)iaati#iis seventy Hilary of P o i t i e r s (Be Sya.
86} e i g h t y , b u t these numbers a r e u s u a l l y l a t e r a d d i t i o n s
and Suseblus gives only t h e names of fourteen bishops,
2 . M,S,TtI, 30(1}
3 , S.B.TIl. 30(2}
4 . H.S.VXI. 30#&)
M
believe, -we: have appofsted Dosmus,.-* We have informed
you of I M S that yoa say write to him and say receive let1
ters of e#aaBio-s from him.*
Jfeosi these quotations It becoaes. quite evident that
jPsul of Ssasesata was Judged and condemned not by a special
synod of bishops., but fey a local council of the Church of
Jstioelij to which was invited from the neighbouring churches
a great auaber of distinguished Christians, bishops and
presbyters and perhaps even layaen, fhe wards 9 we sent for
ass called-aany of the bishops* do not leave any doubt as
t# the kind of "'body is whose sane this epistle was published*
Ihe long: list of bishops4 names at its beginning is only a
sigh of the high egtees with ishieh these honoured guests were
received by the Christians of Aatioeh.s and does not aean that
they were the only responsible seatbers of the council.
In
the next sentence it is definitely stated that other neigh

bouring Christians, preSbyteiPS* deacons and laymen9 took
part in the decision of this council, sad the greeting is
sent in the sane of the CJnarches of Sod and not in the name
of the bishops,2.
Tim.8 to the question, by whoia Paul -of Ssmosata ttas
Judged and condemned;, the answer must be, by the only institu
tion which existed is the first centuries, namely by a general
assembly of the local church,
the feet that such an unusual
number of Christians was invited froa outside must be ac

counted far by the prominence of Paul, by his reputation for
shrewdness and scholarship, and'above all by the internal
factions in the Church of Antisch, as a result of which she
1, H.S. 712, 39 |1?)

2*
H.S. VII. 30 (2)
111>was s p l i t i n t o two p a r t i e s ooapssei of the supporters and

, ' ' apposemis of the "bishop. (Bote %,
. :fhe a u t h o r i t y
of t h i s a s sesbly*
fhe second <|uesiio& i, on whose a u t h o r i t y t h i s

s y s o i acted*
answer*
lo- t h i s t h e doeuaient gives a very impressive
J?aul. Q Saaosata was excoamsunieated in the naae
of 0o4, whose enemy h e appeared t o 'he i s the eyes of the

members of the council*
Shey a c t e d , as they believed, under
d i r e c t d i v i n e guidance, without any fonaal sanction support

ing1 t h e i r promouaeeaent,,
She absence of .any established
canonical syste& for depriving a 'bishop of M s office made

the p o s i t i o n of fee authors of the e p i s t l e extremely d e l i c a t e ,
"
' fhey had t o show other churches t h a t they r e a l l y a c t e d in the

naaae of God am el t h a t therefore their- exeosarauiileatiera of Paul
was valiaU
Sieir 1 b e s t way of proving t h i s isas t o enumerate
the names of those Christians* e s p e c i a l l y bishops^ whose

personal a u t h o r i t y mas recognised by the whole Church and tio
had supported fee action a g a i n s t Paul and h i s p a r t i s a n s ,
Shis weapon i s %?ell used i a t h e e p i s t l e and i t s authors men
t i o n every d e t a i l of t h i s kind i n t h e i r favour*
I t i s very s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t there i s no mention a t
a l l i n the document of the existence in the t h i r d century
of any -written e c c l e s i a s t i c a l r e g u l a t i o n s giving a l o c a l
synod o r neighbouring episcopate the f o r a a l r i g h t t s judge
1
a bishop aa4 i f necessary t s exeoswunieate hi.
Both a
bishop and a l a y s a s could be exeoaaisnicsted by t3s Church**

but t h e v a l i d i t y of t h i s s e t depended on i t s divine i n s p i r e t i o n s ifiiio-h i t s e l f had to be proved, but ishieh did not de
pend <tm c o n s t i t u t i o n a l procedure.
33ms fee case of 2?aul of S&sos&ta h e l p s us t o see
froM. another a n g l e t h e p e c u l i a r combination of t r a d i t i o n a l
and new s l e a s n t s in S t . Oyprian' f s conception of church unity*
the bishops appear in t h i s c o n f l i c t a s a body n a t u r a l l y respon
y'J
1 , Ep.'6?(3).
sible far pesos and. order in the Church, hut they are
still unaiiara of any recognised doctrine giving them for
mal power to intervene in the life of other local churches,.
and as a body to judge another prelate,
the possibility
of acting in the name of God as an independent and supreme

body has not occurred to them.
St* Cyprian* in formulating
M s dim doctrine,, took as a "basis the traditional practice

of his time,, hut he gate a sew direction to the develop
ment of chareh organisation by introducing his own inter
pretation of the existing church order*
.Aareliaa*s
in"1" ^rf eran.ee
in- âe con
flict.
the last point of importance for- our subject is the

. interfere ace of the Emperor Aureliaat (270-2?'B) in the in
tamai conflict, of the Church of Ant loch,
this m s , as far
as ire know, the first ease of state interrelation, and it

ms-B a sign of the approach of a new epoeh for the Catholic
Church.
Unfortunately* Susebims is Tery inexplicit in his
description of this interesting incident,. He merely says

1
that the ilaperor s âs petitioned* # and thus we do not know
on whose initiative this first Christian appeal for a de
cision to a- secular power took place.
Sany different ex
planations of the origin-of this, petition are possible. It

sight have bean made by the Church of Ant loch herself., or
by the leading bishops present at the Council, or eves by
the civil authorities of Antiosh nhs -would naturally be con
cerned at the unrest among' the numerous Christian colonies
in their city.
Although
cannot now tell which of these
three groups was responsible, there are serious reasons for

supposing that the intervention of Aareli&n ifas chiefly
connected with., the general political situation in the eastern
parts of his empire,-^
Tery close relations existed between
2.. S.l. 11. 30(19)

" 2... See B. Caspar, Uesffi des Papsttuas* pp. 94-98.
,J?a.al of Saaosata and Zenohia,, %aea of âlaym,

Iheoetar&tor Saeen&rias: he seemed to te.
whose
In 3?2 Aurelian
defeated Zeaobis , thus quite naturally lie had every

2
reason to prosecute her influential favourite.
Hasebias gives a very significant detail of the
lsyp@rr*3 v e r i i e t s " t h e b u i l d i n g ( i . e . the Church a t Antioeh)

t o be g i v e s t o those t o whom the "bishops of the doctrine
{TMU di^fi*-^^
i s writing.*
\ ^n xt&ly and fioae should communicate

Busebims- himself describes t h i s r e s o l u t i o n as
aost e q u i t a b l e *
and t h i s approval of the imperial decision
i s deeply connected with the new conception of the Church and

of her g o v e r a s e s t .
f o r the secular a u t h o r i t i e s whose judg
ments t h e h r i s t i s a s were ready t o accept were unable to

a c t on t h e b a s i s of the eharsisftti conception of church
arevemaieiit..
fhat c h i e f l y mattered t o the was t obtain
acne c l e a r , external c r i t e r i o n t o define the l e g i t i m a t e re~

p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the Catholic Churchy and the e a s i e s t method
s e e a e i to then t o be t o declare t h a t eosBaunion with t h i s o r
t h a t .see i s fee proof of aihereaoe t o the Church of God.
She
s e c u l a r o f f i c i a l s were unable to e a t e r i n t o an i n v e s t i g a t i o n
concerning the i o c t r i a a l discrepancies over which the various
p a r t i e s were 'struggling, and even, l e s s were they prepared t o
aoeeyt t h e a u t h o r i t y of divine guidance,
thus the idea t h a t
ec&amimion with a, prissainent see t a s a mark of one'*s membership

of the Catholic Church was bora in Bosan state official
e l e s , and penetrated thence i n t o the Church.'*
cir-
She Church
continued t o believe i n the t r u t h of divine guidance, but
2.
fiefele-I*eoler<|,
o l . I* p.2G4.
Kidd.Mist.of the Church.

Vel, I . p.498
2... I'aul of Saaosats r e t a i n e d the church b u i l d i n g for four
.years in s p i t e of the s y s o i i c a l decision. He l o s t i t
only when Aurelias appeared in Antioch and took the p a r t
of h i s a d v e r s a r i e s . See Laul or aad Oulton, Eusebius
1. I I . p..259.
3.H.B. VII. 30(19}
4 . fheo-iosius, .Idiet of 3?eb. 28th, 3SQ.
Cod. Th. XVI. I (2)
0,
by recognising the r i g h t of the s t a t e t o intervene
in
h e r l i f e * she succumbed to a s y s t e a which stood in d i r e c t

contradiction. to fee charismatic p r i n c i p l e .
the old order had he come v i s i b l y obsolete by the
aid die of the third' century.
The s p i r i t u a l power of Chris
t i a n i t y gave'the Shuroh a new t,?or!ty prominence unknown

in previous g e n e r a t i o n s .
She now possessed considerable
property and sen of ambition l i k e aul became desirous of

e l e c t i o n t o episcopal s e e s .
Her influence was not to be
compared w i t h ' t h a t of any other j}~meT in the Bofflan Umpire.

'Ihe s t a t e could no longer- ignore C h r i s t i a n i t y , and i t had
become impossible f o r i t t o h i n d e r the progress of the
Church by sporadic p e r s e c u t i o n s .
I t had t o choose between
complete. a n n i h i l a t i o n of the Church,, or a l e g a l recognition

of h e r existence.*
.Staring the next f i f t y years the Hasan
S a p i r e aade an a : t t e a p t to a c t on the farmer of 'these a l t e r

n a t i v e s . .But this- f a i l e d and i t m s then forced to adopt
t h e second*
g H I P f 1 1
III,
. Constant ine the Great m& CSIJB taut las ( jOfi-jS! )
fie transitional period

in t&fc history of
Gaureh IMity.
-I-
Tlie 0huroh
the fourth century, froa various points of fie, is
at the begin
ning of the
etas of the isoat slfpifiOMit epochs in the history of sisafourth
century.
iclsS. It was the tlae of the rapid decline of the Roa&a
state in the West, of the foundation- of th Bys&ntlae
Inspire and of Its capital nstsotln@|jeof the beginning
of. the history. of those aei? n&ti&as which be ease later
masters of 'Europe
This century is also the turning point
la the history of the Church, the sost decisive period of

her history.
The Church entered ucoa this century wsaksiieil by the
, internal divisions provoked oy the Hovatisnist sohisa,, s M
I
-: hsTing t&$i>& to her m% the @^^^2^p^#êm of the Cyprianl

;
dootri.ses,
The eruel i M violent persecution. waiea she
had to undergo at the very outset of the eeatury prodused

general confusion and distress aaosg tier lasiaoe r&, a M as
a result of it two particularly bitter soaisas sprang up
limit her hoay,. one is Sorth lf?lgs and the other In
Sftrpt,.
Dossils. in the test and Afisiilsn la the East
{the latter soon var&hMog#/:Its isniodiai predecessor J^the local Me lit lan sohisii of Egypt) were provoked externally
"~l
hy different causes, hut thsir deeper spiritual roots wero

very similar, and they confronted the Church with exactly
the ease cmestioB whieh she had 'been tysaale to oi@ is
the Seiratlsaiai S C M S J S ;
namely, what is the reel seining
of tia&siaity in her life* sac! does aomamaion between God

aad mankind depend primarily on the mutual love of the
Christiana or on nose other divine resuireiaests and laws?
It Ss impossible to say nhst the final solution of
these t*?c ssost momeatoun prohleas sight hcv been, nor how
quickly the Church sight have. arrived at it if she had heon
-2~
left alone as she had bees ia the preceding reriod.
But
is tile fear 15.13 her relations with the Rosas Er.îre cere
fi.assat&Ily hanged, and her for&er Toe iiU'?f:eaiy be cane
not sly her friend but even a aost active partner in all
her decisions.
fh introduction of this new factor had
& ttrefoli effect on the life of the Church.
On the one
hand it t M i It earn intense and hastened the process of

it
her development, but on.the other it sMe/far sore eoapIt as/tell
by bringing into it elesents entirely alien to the
principles of the Sew Covenant.
Indeed, the close alliance
between Church and State deeply transformed both these

bodies,, but one of its oat important effects WIB on the
unity of the Church wiiies could no leaser be preserved and
defended on its original fouad&tioa, the vaiantary
allegiance of her sttssbers.
The ancient nations living, in the Mediterranean
basin develo. et
tiro forns of political orgaaisstxoaj the
ii&!spenle-rt asrchaat city* and the vast despotic isonarehy.

These two for~as hai each an advantage as -srell as a defect.
The first offered its leading members free scope for the
exercise of initiative and adventure, isuilvst ex a-ir^ tne*a
to continual strife .mad eoftpetitioa.
?nia s ? * ^ t.^t very
often the raost capable citizens were either ex;:exled3 c*v

that on the contrary tuey began, to ogress t.:e oihers.
fhe seond sysfcen of government ispaaed the heavy burden
of the r!esTiie sill of >ne "aa OH all its ;uc'~.b?r i5
thus au~, reused individual coupes*t;.^,u
3ut <. i, h fr
this reascn it did not command the full capacity 3f i-s

subjects, it *#*s at Icist able w
uag the c>eoincd life-
*ner,sy of enonaouo jsasaea of :e*--;ie f >r a co.vi^n . ur oi-e.

these tiro .foras of society were involved ia a p~rsalient struggle against each other.
For a x -n-, period
they were able to hold the balance* and neither of the
r i v s l powers was able t o obtitia & d e e i s t v e v i e t o r y .

f a i t h e r p o l l t i o & l system, however* â& r e s l l f s h l e to
advance t a s s o s i a l devslop&eat of sankind. for milker
eo^M
s e t t l e the problem of tbe- -relations between the iadividtf&l

and the rtotsmuGity-. The s i t u a t z o o t?aa r*"'"iaaliy chs:: .e-?
when Vrw* ftasjan He public entered i ;to the fiel'* 3f eo,* i i t i o i i
I t soon obtained an overwhelming v i c t o r y , for th# clt-iaeae
of* tone knei? hon t o combine personal i n i t i a t i v e with d i e *
e i p l l a e , order i M ohedi&iiee s i t s respect ?f* human dignity
flie Mw-nt^-es o? the Hoa&a policy t'.?r ô obvious, t a ^ t s,ll
the other nations ^n& s&'ites of 'ihe cmexep.fe civi*.ia*?d i?orl~.
êre obi iced t o recosulse the r a l e of the Bs.n&n St? i s .
I t s rapid growth however, eaused i t gradually t o lose i t s
o r i g i n a l sseia.1 &M mor&l b a s i s , MM& the tyrsumy of one
utroag ch&F&eter followed ae s a I n e v i t a b l e esaseeueass upon
the e o a f l i o t i a g i n t e r e s t s of individuals sM lasses.
8
fh@ f a l l of the B@pnMi4 *as a scene of vaia struggle m:A
h e l p l e a s d r i f t l a g ; .sen could find no nay t o saMs$e a c t i v e

e i t i s e a s h l p with, the msiateaariee of peaceful # r t s ? s .
Is
t h i e wsj the decline of the arir.ii.ax e m ^ t l t u t l x i af the

l e s a a S t a t e i s characterized by a &odera rr.^liah scaolr.r,
W.B.Heiti&ad.'
1?he .>r;il aa.* rcliîDaa *-riruji-le^ whivh
hiid brought sbo*^ the tvV*aTh of ihe /ûa c ; ujaioieêoaii

r e p u b l i c were aol 3,ifficlo .tly deep-rooted -ind -r^r -n.; Lv
proirM a solid b a s i s for the trenon&ous cossopolitaa
empire into which the Itosas State was traiisformed i s the
f i r s t century.
fhie had d e f i n i t e l y 'been realin^d by the
S t a t e * s best r u l e r s since the seco*3d century, bat tr.e

iiecess&ry reforms *rere riot iîsu^r'tted u;ii,Xi Lhc rei,;A of
Biocletiaiij {&^4-305)? the l a s t s r e a t emperor of the heathen
? li,era-i, ;*.4^ or A further ?ioe".3\o;. " .,../ \j~h:i rhte^Gassb,

den a l s o h i s The Roai&n Fate, (Cenb. I T ? ) , &.5 s
?985)
Last ôrds of the ÔTUT* "hnJLci. s l i t i c i ; C s . ~ o . i " 2- "*} .
4.
State * fiie twenty years of ills reign brought a greater change
than the previous three hundred had clone, says Professor

Seeck, the great authority on this period.
Diocletian
transformed everything, the capital and the provinces,

administration and finance* out his s&ln task was to form
ulate a nen religious basis for the declining Empire.
Hiaself a compound of rough soldier and visionary, he
dressed of & new State and a ne iray of life, and as was
prepared to sacrifice both his own interests and the lives
of his subjects for the sake of his vision.
was obviously chimerical.
His scheme
It Bought to deify the rulers
of the ' Bap I re g *ho were to divide the Roman State aaong
themselves and to hold office only for a limited period,
after which they sere .to yield their place to a younger
monarch by voluntary abdication.
Under his government the
Honan % spire lost the last traces of its republican origin

a M became a despotic monarchy'/ which, however * neither
possessed the religions aspect usually implicit in that
for of government, nor was based on .the supremacy of
nation over- others.
religious units.
one
fhe eastern monarchies were primarily
Their absolutist rulers were considered
as incarnations of the gods, and their subjects accepted

their slavery and misery as the inevitable hardship of
earthly life, or>.as a divine pmalshaeat for sin.
Diocletian's attempt to follow this example failed to produce^
the expected results.
fhe enslavement and oppression of
the people was thorough enough,'5' 'but the religious

I.. Prof.O.Seeck, Ber Uaterg.&es ant.Welt. vol.IV.p.8.
For instance,, the Roman Siapejeorsamd to bestow & kiss on
those who they were cre#ting1^ffnofficiais of the State,
but Biocletiaa eaaetect that these should prostrate themselves before ais as Men prostrated themselves before
Bivisity alone. cf.Seees:* Ser Wnterg. vol.Up.?, and
Rostovtzeff, fhe Social and Economic History of the Roman
Empire {Oxford tf6) vol.II.p.333.
5. *Gnder Diocletian and after M a the lap!re did indeed
establish equality among most of its subjects In the sense
that all alike were beggars and slaves51* Rostovtseff, op..
S.
I
f
*
eit. vol. 11.p.-5,3!
-5significance of these actions could not he impressed on

the, since neither ruler nor subjects could wholeheartedly
believe la: it.
H&fcurally one of the -.aaost formidable obstacles in the
m&j of.this achievement was to be found In the Christians*
who openly denied the divinity of earthly rulers and preached
the equality and freedom of sen*
the persecution of the
Christians wader Diocletian and his associates (301-313) was

not only the sost cruel and bloody, but also the aost
consistently executed! of all those inflicted by the Rom&n
(3)
State upon the Christian Church*
This terrible struggle
between the Christians and the despotic aasters of the

Umpire ended in one of the greatest triumphs of the Church.
The ancient world proved unable to find a satisfactory
settlement of the social ana. religious problems of united
mankind, and was obliged to ask for help from the Garistian
Church.
Although this, actually hsptened only sfier
Constant ins had overthrown Haxentius %^%1-31B)t
yet already
after Biocletian1 abdication.in 305 such a course became

inevitable and the persecution lost its previous virulent
charster.'
Diocletian, in accordance with his own scheme, abdicated
his throne in 305 la favour of O-alerius.
The new ruler
w&s a cosson type of cruel and selfish despot*
H and his
chosen associates were eager to torture sad oppress his

subjects,"" but they completely lacked the lofty idealism of
Biocletiaa which amd the latter majestic and irresistible
even in his- aost impracticable proposals,
Under their rule
the Roman State lost its laat religious basis.
Civil wars
and general moral decadence quickly followed Diocletian's

abdication and his whole wor& of rebuilding the State would
1. Kidd, Hist.of the Oh. vol.I.pp.513-522.
3. O.Seeck, geseh.des Ont. (2nd d.) vol.I.pp.29-3 1;
-6aave been is danger of complete collapse if it had not

"Happened that la the year 506 & boy of eighteen called
Constantine ss proclaimed Augustus, by the Gaulish legions.
-Constantine was bora ia 274. Hia father Constant!us
the Saperor
Gosstantine- was a soldier 'who had a brilliant career, and was in 293
elevated'toyDiocletian*s .sN&si&esgsE colleague* Hsxisaian
Hereul (286-305) > the lap-eror of the Weat, to the runic of
Caesar with a commission to pale over the provinces of G-aul,
Briton and Spain.
. He beemse Bsperor after the abdication
of Mocleti&n and Maxlaias. in 505, but died ia the following

#
year.
HHd
By birth and education Coastaatius l@^smîf^
differed
from other soldiers who attained to the imperial purple

aMer the system inaugurated by Diocletian-
But what
strikingly distinguished him fro all his colleagues wm

his high aoral standards.
He was neither ambitious nor
cruel* arid he alone was untainted by the conspiracies asd

Intrigues against the other seabers of the family of
Augustus F
Although a pagan, he -was Inclined towards

t
aoiiotaelsap'sni. in his provinces alone were the Christians

4
spared from Moody persecution,,'for he was the only ruler
who thought that to demolish the churches was sufficient
action to take against this proscribed religion*"'
Coastantiae* mother, Helena, ims of evea sore huabie
origin than his-father, beiag. the daughter of an innkeeper.
It say have been froa her that Coastantine inherited the
}. He belonged however to & middle-class faailj a M received

a certain amount of education, -which was exceptional
for the rulers of the BspireSee K.Mailer, Konstaat.
Aer Srosse, Hlst.Seitachr. B- 140 Jr.2 = p.S65- {192^}.
"%., According to Diocletian*s scheme, all the rulers of the
State were the sons- of gods and thus related to each
other., Every sew Caesar was a relation of hia pre
decessors, and Diocletian declared Qaierius {305-3H) his
Beirut be his adoptee! son, ef.Seeek, Gesch-dea tint*
(IM ed.) vol.I.pp-U,5,t?S.
5. luseMus calls his a worshipper of the one supreme Q-oaj
cf,Vita Const-X.I?.
4. Ins. Vita Coast.I*13.
5- Laetanius, de Mort.Pers. o.t5-
7physical strength s M dauntless energy so often lacking

among members- of the higher social clasaes.
Constaniiae was talcen early f'roa his parents and
bis youth was spent at the Isoerl&I court la the East,
under the supervision first of Diocletian and later of
Valerius.
This life at- eourt wss at once & Military
tr&iniag for the prospective ruler
& M a pledge of his
father's faithfulness to the oriental Emperors.
This
life as a hostage would. have ended fatally if it had not

happened that by-a lueky caanee he escaped at the last
sonant from Valerius, who decided to dispose of the
dangerous youth.'
Constantiae fled to Gaul and arrived
there just before his father*s death.,
The legions pro-
claimed his Augustus and thus his brilliant career began

in the year 306.
Constantin ^&a a true genius-
He combined in hi a
gifted nature the qualities of an invincible military

lender ?ho never suffered defeat, with statesmanship of
the first rank sad with & high moral standard which he
4
preserved' throughout his long and stormy reign.
But
above all Constantine was a. asa of exceptional religious

s.
fervour, a prophet and a visionary ~Jwh.o was able to see

things which were concealed from the eyes' of his generation,
and to anticipate truths nrhish could he appreciated by
others only after a&ny centuries ef experience.
Thus it
was that he conceived his audacious plan of building the

new capital a the shore of the Bospaorus, and thus it
was. that he believed that the Sod of the Christians would
\,
Lactautius, Be Mori.Fera. e.4.
Se. L&etantius* op.it. e.@%.

Bus. H.15.VIII. 15. { H )
3. ûs. Vita Const -X.lt- 4.fjLact. op.cit. c/i8.
Eus. Vita Const.1-39*>. B u s . V i t a C o n s t . 1 . 3 $ .
Julian orat. pp. 15,96.

^'> K
\i <
. *,
.- -
-8proteot liia and save his

I
empire*
There is a lasting controversy among historians as

to the real, motives of Constantine*!* keen interest in
ehristianity.
\A:'--:":-*'~"
Both, his policy with regard to the Church,
and. Ills epistles, clearly indicate the primarily religious

character of it.
A farther analysis of his personal
religion cannot be undertaken here, but there are certain

elements in his approach to the eharch which mast he
mentioned in a study of the problem of church unity, for
they have & particular bearing upon it*, development.
Canataatine
and the
Chiiren.
Coastantine wus probably deeply impressed by the

s^^tnighty a M
^ ^
figure of the great Diocletian ia trhose
presence he had spent his youth, sad whose polities!

principles *ae faithfully followed throughout the whole
of his Ions reign.
A perfectly and uniformly organised
empire, in which everyone had a definite office and each

detail of life was regulated by the state, was the ideal
of Constantiiie aa'tsell as of his pagan predecessor.
Only
at one point did he sake & complete departure from

Diocletian's scheme^ and that was in the- sphere of religion.
4s a boy Constantine had witnessed the execution of
Christians and he iras never able to forget the terrible
sight of the tortares which they had to endure."
Frobably
this early moral revolt ws,3 the starting . point of his

revision of the religious policy of his imperial master,
but whatever the reasons for it may have been, from the
beginning of his reign Constantine was free from asy hostile
feeling toward the Christianss and after his brilliant
victory over Max&ntltt8 {306^.ft} he openly hegaa to show
I. Seecfc, Geseh.des lint. vol.I.p66a. Sus. Vita Const. II.25-2?3*i
Orat.ad S&net. (S.C.) c.5.
IV.ts.
-9liis favour to the Ghurch.'
The siiii principles of Gonstanilne'a religious pssiafeif

wars as follows*!
I. He believed in One Supreme Divinity who is the absolute
master of the universe, as be Const&ntine was master of his
empire-,7
IZi fills God established one sound religion and the Claristlaas
alone tele* his holy las and faithfully observed ita precepts.
Ill* The sain foundations of this mew true religion are
unity, peace and. order among its ieasarSj sad also sets of
charity sad mutual forbearance especially with regard to
the poor and needy.'
IV. God, ^ho crested this body of the true worshippers, hears
the prayers of His people i M is able to ao anything they
nsk of Him.'
Their constant supplications addressed to
the Divinity were, according to Coastaatine, the surest

guarantee of His personal success and, of the divine defence
of the Roman SEppire
fhe^fter 0^* not Constantia intended to create a

Christian lapire is still a, subject of acute controversy,
hut it is more probable that this waa not the sis of his
*?. The sources for the resxir-tis,^ ot" ..;t, euncettion are
T^Beoi'JS' Ilia Constant m e a,!-' 3r<iti3 -.4 Sanct. The
authenticity of this Ia.it book ia -ell êov^d is J.?fa<?(flfiscn's article, Qie Xedeftcn^tantins?n dle*fe*&W5aer
Heiliien. pp-r-c-f*!. {^Con.j'&.der ^rceJde. ed.Fr.l>blger.
X12 Supplier Rosiseh-o Cuart&lsebr. ffrelbur- 19?3)
3. Bus,. Vita Const. 11.64;
III.12. nQo& the Universal Xing".
4. S U B . Vita Coast, 11.24.

5. Or-at.M Simetus (A.C.3)
Eus. .Vita Const.IX.?.t; Jif..ff
6<. Orat.sd Sanct. {S,G.g4)
7. Bus., vita Const.XV. !S.
-10efforts.'
He believed tnat the presense of the body of
hritl&BB within the Roasts State was enough of itself to

secure tae benevolence of the Supreme Q-od, and therefore his
.main concern was to protest this body and to preserve its
unity, without which it .could not accomplish Its service to
..the State.
, -Cojastsatin had a very high conception of his own role

la the life of the Church.
He believed that he was specially
elected qniealied^ and considered aistaelf as the guardian

of the Church and of her unity and prosperity.
He felt
that If the welfare of the State depended on the preservation

of peace and -concord among the Christians,, then he, Constantino*
to whoa Sod had entrusted the Sieplre., was obviously
responsible to Hi too for keeping good order in the Church.
fais Ides formed the' background of his whole religious
policy, sad he expressed It clearly in his address to the
Council of Bie&ea.
"For, in ay judgement, intestine strife
within the Church of o& Is far more evil and dangerous

than any kind of war and conflict....Accordingly* when, by
the will and with the cooperation of C-od 1 had been victorious
over -aji enemies....as soon as I heard.... the news of your
dissension I judged it to be of no secondary importance, but
with the earnest desire that a remedy for t-nis evil also
might be found through ay means, 1 issedlately sent to
require your presence".
1. E.Seeberg, Die Sysode von Antioeh, (Berlin 1913} pp.19t~20t

a. Bas. yita Const.11.65; III.?*7.
lÂstc,
, 3. "Constantine accordingly cvuaed twelve coffins to be set up

in the Church...in nonour and aeaory of the ajroatoiie
number, in the centre of which his own yc&& placed, having
six ?f theirs on either aide of it'1* Fua.Yltt Const.IV.(60)

r
l myself then ~,s the instrument who*ie servioea lie (tue
Divinity) chose". Ett6.Vit& Conat.II.2^.
Alao Su&.V.C.XX.*?; III.17. Orat.ad Sanct.(S.C) e35.
4. Bus. Yita Const. XXI.la.
Constantine never identified the Church and the Eapire,*

and he never pretended to rule the (Ruireh with the same
absolute authority with vhieh he governed the State,
Mei'ther
did he try to reform the Empire according to the preeepta of

the Christian religion.
He believedthat Sod would airae*
uloasly protect his and his subjects as long as he venerated

the divine law and respected the people she faithfully observed
it.
la his.legislation as sboiished soae of th mast cruel
forms of punishment, such &s crucifixion,"and the laws sharply

contradicting the Christian aaral principles.51
But as attempts
were made to revise the general despotic type of state

inaugurated by Bioslstisa-. It m&f he aaid that Conataatine had geniune insight into
the essene of Christianity.
His deep conviction that love
sas charity, unity and concord, are the foundations of the

Sew Covenant, shows that he had a true vision of the nature
of G~ad as it is revealed is the Gospels.
But for all that
Constantino belonged to his own epoch too, and he was unable

to ria himself entirely of the magic conception of religion
which was the dominant tendency of his. tiae,"
The Church for
!. the coinage of his reign bore heathen, Christian and neutral

symbols.
Victor Schultse, (Jesch.des 0ntergangs des &rieehisch-Rosiiach&
Heldentiras, vol.I.pp.55 and 6S see, {Jena i88?~9i)
g. Victor Sextus Aureiius, Historian Boaaaae Breviarus de
Gaesaribus -fgJ^Ced.Schottius, Antwerp 15'?f )x pp. ?5?-#68.
3* Caa.Th.TII.16.7i EC.40.&.
Eua. Vita 0oaai.ZT.S5.26.
Soor.X.B.
wj
4. Constantino's dominant ides was "peace" M he felt that the

Christians possessed some special access to this mysterious
gift. As the expression of this conviction ha built a
church la Constantinople and dedicated it to the holy peace.
"Irene" Socr.X.16.
5. ^Compare our religion with your own*
Is there not with us
genuine concord, sad unwsarisd love of otaeraf If we reprove
a fault, is not our object to admonish,, not to destroy?....
Bo we not exercise not only sincere faith towards God, hut
fidelity in the relations of social life? Bo we mrl pity tte
unfortunate?" Qrat.sa 38&et.(3.C.) c.Sj. this is the best
exposition of Constantino *a attitude towards Christianity.
6. A"*i his aaaoelatea nrofessed a religion of Slavic* Ens H-B.
Till. 14.5. Bus.Tlta Conat.$fr.M36).H^
See also Seeck, Sea eh. des Hater. I.p.126.
him was leas & regenerating school for m&mklnd than a

alrasuiaus Instruiaeirt by neaaa of which God's be&eiroiena
could be obtained and His help secured.
That was why he
asidersd the bishops as jxlasrlly tag absolute rulers of

the Church, who fiouM-speak la her imae
independently of
the rest of the body, and whose prayers were particularly

acceptable to d-od-
He eaa&idared the love a M unity irhieh
he observed among the Christians store as expressions of

personal piety, blessed by &od than && the new basis for the
rebuilding of n u m a society,
This was alstoat the sole defect ia Constantino's
attitude towards the Church, hut it was one that had most
disastrous eonaectuenees both for the Church arid the Saplr*
It meant that, ia spite of Coimt&mtlxie*B decision to exalt
the true rel-i'siou, the Rosas State remained heathen la gsseajg,
based sa 'before on slavery and oppression,
Its Christian-
is&tion acquired a syabolie rather than a real meaning,..
It
.meant too that the Church, ia aesepting this %yp of relationship between her aai the State, had to abandon the deeply
realistic nature of her treatment of aan and of his sins and
needs.
She became a aaîfieent .symbol of , lovs and unity
and concord aaoag saskiad, but ia reality the relations

between her members -scarcely differed from those betêea -other
people.
The Catholic Church and the Christian Sstpire were
gradually identified by the nations, but sec&ase the Empire

had not really heemm
Christian., the Chureh m&s hound to
eeaee to be Catholic.
As a ruler, Constant-is was one of the greatest
geniuses huiaanity has ever known.
He had enough vision
F>r srhatever is determined in the holy assesb-iss of bishops

is to be regarded aa indicative of she divine "ill".
Constantlas tn the cnurshes respeetia;: the Council of
Sisasa. Eus.V.C.III.^C.
*> i s *
t& a# %hm% dterisiiaaity wm the @I power hieh eould

r#g*nei*m,l# the d@s&diii I s f f r s aai 3&r@i&de s tru b&sis
for the f t s t ^ f s t i s a * msltf saxl p to the suffering
i #
ts&iicsns*
Bui. tn the I*ealia*fcl#i5 nf5 b i s whist he missed
the fîl I wsfgsisg f the lew 0<maaa&i*
His raisseiie-affcios
'was d t e fch# sitmtalit.f 0f M s ig# aasd berein lay i t s

$%sl wttgBWp for M S sistalres wwe. pmshiy repeated fey
alesosi a l l I" M s ixsperl&l sia@#ii?ei #
0etituri#8 of
eriw as# sgiars'lsii6iss rsaiiltei and the general

Belief f s#ci igip widespread* iit&t# i s tfee reconstruc
t i o n #f fetiS'im sosI#ty as a ifeflstiae b a s i s , saithority
night r t p l s e s lore* and for #eM fe# a substitute for
fre^do*
A stbdy #f the tvo S1B eoafliets of Consta&tine'a
r#i$a tg.*iagt 'H#nfsMaii .and ijfiaeltgtt#. rwealfi the begin
ning #f" t h i s process tail explain Mn share in the 4is*
integration of -tbo feri*tl*B Statroli*
I* Sao, * I I * 88*
-4.4-
~- ,*.
- 4^L /-.
(-.
.11*= o: t .
.i " C
' *
1, "
v * " ' 2*
* '
J.
-1*
-,îvft. ***,.
pj?&nrsm.s>
. .
j-v. < x - v y
1 4 ~~ -
el -
. -
,:< c
- -_
*r .
(.
,.(." would b e s'.\le
>
i f 5 ' - '? i c 4.-.V

,j . i ,
^ ?^. ,
"t# L - . *.? J -
".'
r*aoxa aece'Dt^nei
\.
**> % 4.
î4>
" *a
- ^
-^
l/
_^
^ L
"
t %5
"
JH
^ *
1$-
but a l l the mm
i t would.never have bees r e a l i z e d so
successfully i n t h a t short time i f the 22rsperor fca4 not

oMaioedjarm support and d e l i b e r a t e help from aorse
d l s t i n g a i s e d Church leaders*
-"he establishment of
t h i s new type of r e l a t i o n s h i p between Church and c.tate

required very s k i l f u l a s s i s t a n c e on the p a r t of someone
who not only possessed f i r s t - h a s d Imowledge of the l i f e
of the Ghurcth and a u t h o r i t y asaosg her l e a d e r s , but had
a t t h e same time the complete confidence of the Irsperor.
Hie s i t u a t i o n gave r i s e to a number of very d e l i c a t e
and yet most important questions *?hieh c?ules :>?.ly !iave
been solved by sash an expert,
and it- was, t h e r e f o r e , a
piece- of exceptional good fortune th^-t Const-"*'? t?.ne

(Should have s e t a t the very beginning of h i s reign j u s t
such a 11941 in the person of u o s i s : Bishop of fiordova.
"?'e isaow n e i t h e r exactly wnen nor ho^ Constantine
and Hosius f i r s t met e^-eh other, hut one fact t h a t i s
- beyana any doubt i s t h a t during the period between 512
and 525 thsy remained i n s e p a r a b l e , snu each a c t i o n of
Constantine*s with regard to the Church was r e a l i s e d
through the assistance- of Hosius-
*liieh of the two was
the dominating: influence in t h i s long friendship i s a

Question t h a t s t i l l awaits i t s s p e c i a l study, hut t h e r e
ca*e
USQIJ
reasons
supposing t h a t i t was Hosius and
not. the young Bipersr who tooJc the l a s a in t h e i r co

operation*
in any case, Eoslue began and ended h i s
e c c l e s i a s t i c a l career outside the l i m i t s of Constantiue*s

r e i g n , and in a l l
1.
h i s thoughts and a c t i o n s one leading
For i n s t a n c e , the nomination of the bishops for the

Judâent of the C&eclliais case, the e l e c t i o n of tKe
members of the Council of A r i e s , and the n e g o t i a t i o n s
with Alexander and Arius would have bees impossible
tasks for a heathen esiperor ^ho had suddenly mcotae
the friend and supporter of a previously despised
and persecuted Church.
priBeiSiic i s %rm(iml&
:? r
'Wt '
f* 1 "H
it-C it
*y
'>
-r. c i
r;
*-"- *
J?~ "^t". 1 * .
1 ~*~ C.^"*' I
'
'"
"
'' 1
* , s^-.c c* ?*~ei; cu Z: **~ o

-", . c
t.:c Cl"*.'-;r. ~*H
Llf: *
'jLrJ.
'
;," ' -
J : ' ~ " T - ~' -~ -j- -etc
I ~ c : ~ c OI.< r:p~ :-<-<* ~_

* ~ c~--~ I'- - I :
vcr-tj-fc:. "c i;r
*""
~ 1;Lrv~ \ "c ~;
'_ '
.or'//
V ,~: s
r.~ one >
c A"
<,1vr.
vCC.S' . .
'-~". 1
-fi% \ r ir.-o f J *~ -. " c'.c r o f -
%r "- I ' ~ : .e' I eg/tit? sitionn *
all
z.'S ,~' ~*> - C 3 l c r " s
lc f -"
i *
" t ] y r>I -* r
-*.5= '^?i
""
-17-
1
Aples (514), Antioch (324)
\
(525) and ills Ipst
and greatest vork, Sarcica {.343)
when almost alan<
S
dictated his. will to the V;stern Episcopate .
le ccez-ees
of t h e ;
e synods d e a l t
enormous tj&m'ber of widel~* -P^T^ H -3.

Bowevex11 p o s s i b l e t o e x t r a c t <-o. 0
-J
a l l of .their;, which d l s t l ^
.*-,
>~ /- ^
cnelr' .Leader1.
hosx-is
0 "' r
-1-
.->-
* <- - " y- -*-_- , * <
_r
apparent'In all these canon?, was the desire to fmil

itate friendly cooperation between the Catholic Char-ch
and the'Roman Empire,
He tried to achieve this in twe
He endeavoured to influen,..
ce Constan
ways*
end that the Roman State might offer
n e> ~r> n r
.viier-ert
m a t e r i a l a s s i s t a n c e e x c l u s i v e l y t o t h e C a t h o l l c v l ~ ."-rehv
.^J^-^!>&1?*?*&
I* -h qvrstîon si t i e Z10 c l
^*-
W~
t~--
j ^
^~** -*
D* ?
c" -H-n^loc , 1" t
> ~7 - ^
" *>
I-.-: tf"3chte -1 o ( R i i s s i a i i { l " i l I n l v l '

:PX')M
t n c i- x3 =t > Co* urovers

^ G
r-
^.k
S,
1-
u.^
,1
1*^
-L.^ w . :
0p, > - i 3-
?eo
-is
1
;j
IT
%*>
t,c fl^-
--=> >z^ >

-
cer~ s
C
i(- r - . j
+ -c^nt r-gfc
' t l o n zn
LJ^
( " fl f "
* "
} .
i.
\ _
"" 3
_ ~
v
1
\ C
^..^
~*
J
-i,
O" ;
a.
.E.E,X.6.(l-5)j
7.(1-2)
z
^'
1 c
la
cy
3
>v'^
i/V
- t*V
i,
f "*i,
w~
V > .
3-
,*
r
*y-
<f *" f"
V.:-OH
*. ? **.i .
jf^ _
4 *. J. i
fi
J * *.
j. i
*,
* -
jjr
tfn
^ ~ , *
^ -.. f- a- * - -
UISl;,
A/^rU.X /t
I
CZZi
y
U J ~ *J
I" 4
. r
i. t.
\.< cc
on
,i - ' r v-*= rail*
ti&ed
plv^mdr
j ^ j ;*;;;<
'"i
r > - -*
Ol
.,
- -f
-, *
* ^
*,-
4 * * ~ #-
/ ^ " U . ^ , , ^
_, ^
* # V \
W ***! *
w *
^ ^ ^
^ -|"
CL
* -. ,
'
r '
^
J*
" . c
C*
.v
--
.-
'"X " l "

^
1-
,->.
* " ~ *"*
, ,
<r *
C'
*.
J.
*J.
s
^
1 - -'- t
)
w?
T*"
" "'
.,,,*
' ,
- * * ^r"
**
,.
"^ ~* Mr^
* - . * _ _ , .
'" v /---""/--s*-^
" ^ S T l l c'fe
. ,~
-211.
u n i v e r s a l episcopate, and istien flie Saperor, under the
*>
inflaene of Eastern p r e l a t e s , began to think of him

3.
s e l f a s the head of the Church, th r e s o l u t e Spaniard
l e f t the imperial court for ever.
Hosius* deep
b e l i e f i a the independence of the Char eh i s well expressed

in. the "filth. Canon of Cardisa, and i t can j u s t l y "be said
that as long as he was r a s p a n s i b l s for Constantino's
e c c l e s i a s t i c a l policy ao v i o l a t i o n of the Church's r i g h t
4.
of sa if-government was coiBBiltted.
Hosims -was firmly convinced f tht, value of
g r e a t e r uniformity i a organisation and s t r i c t e r d i s c i p l i n e
i a the Church, and he t r i e d to r e a l i z e these p r i n c i p l e s
by means of episcopal synods composed of equal bishops.
But he was aDie to carry through this plan only with
the support of the Roman Emperors.
A strong man him-
s e l f , he championed for many y i a r s the masterful policy

of Oonstaatine.
But he found t h a t he had embarked on
a dangerous e n t e r p r i s e , f o r a f t e r the Roman S t a t e had

become a p a r t n e r ia the administration of the Church i t
soon became impossible any longer to t r e a t i t on equal
terms,
Hosius lived .to see some of the most t r a g i c
consequences of h i s policy and to become a victim of the

b r u t a l coercion which was introduced i n t o t h e - l i f e of the
Church under the pretence of preserving her unity and order
1 . The Canons of Sardica dealing with appeals to the
.Bishop of Eoaie do not give J u l i u s any s p e c i a l
p r e r o g a t i v e . Ha i s merely a aenior brother among
h i s numerous colleagues.
g. SusuT.eon.IV.48.- l a s . f h a Orst.Const.Oh.2. . (4-5)1.
3 . S.T.S. I ? . 4 2 . 6 0 .
4. Hosius wrote to Constantius that God had granted the
kingdom to Constantius and the care of the Church to
the churchmen. Athan.Kist. Arian. a > 44.
5. Athaa.ADol* Tare fujm.7.
i
^
-21-
1.
universal episcopate* and when the Epror, noder the
2.
influence of Eastern prelates, began to think of his3.
self as the head of the Church,. the resolute Spaniard
left the imperial court for ever.
Hosius* deep
"belief in the independence of the Char eh is well expressed

in the Tilth. Gaiion of Oardica, and it can Justly he $aid
that as long as he was responsible for Sonstantine*s
ecclesiastical policy aa violation of the Church* s right
Hosims was firmly convinced of the value of

greater uniformity in organisation and stricter discipline
in the Church, and he tried to realize these principles
by aeans of episcopal synods composed of equal bishops.
But he was ahie to carry through taxs plan only with
the support of the Roman Emperors.
A strong man him
self, he championed for many years the masterful policy

pf Qonstantine.
But he found that he had embarked on
a dangerous enterprise; for after the Roman State had

become a partner in the administration of the Church it
soon became impossible any longer to treat it oa equal
terms.
Hosius lived .to see some of the most tragic
consequences of his policy and to becoj&e a victim of the

brutal coercion which was Introduced into the-life of the
Church under the pretence of preserving her unity .and order
1. The Canons of Sardica dealing with appeals to the
.Bishop of Rome do not give Julius any special
prerogative. He is taerely a senior brother among
his numerous colleagues,
. Sus.V.Con.IV.48. Bus.The Orat.Const.Oh.2.. (4-5)y.
3. l.T.C. IT.42.60,
4. Hosius wrote t C o n s t a a t i n s t h a t oi, had g r a n t e d t h e
kingdom to ConstastiB's .and t h e c a r e of t h e Church t o
t h e churchmen . A than * Hi s %.. Ar i an * e 44.
5 . Athaa.Apol. pro f u g s , ? .
Hist. Ariaa, 42,44.
Socr II..1
file Boa?a&xsi
Schism
T h e b r i l l i a n t s u c c e s s o f C o n s t a a t i n e ' s a t t a c k a-.ain.at
Blaxentius in "StS safie h i s
sole .sastef oi the western
g r a t i t u d e and adoration
S f',r,f
:ror
newly acquired s u b j e c t s toe re csdie also
received froi
n e w s o f a d i f f e r e n t and isore u n p l e a s a n t n a t u r e .
the p e t i t i o n received from
Tola was
l o r t a A f r i c a , signed by aoae
b i s h o p s from. H u m i d i a , s a d c o n t a i n i n g c o m p l a i n t s
against
C a e e i l i a n , the n e w l y e l e c t e d b i s h o p of Carthage,'
It is u n l i k e l y that e i t h e r Caixat&atine h i m s e l f or hio
e c c l e s i a s t i c a l adviser 1 -Eosius could have had e v e a t h e
s l i g h t e s t p r e m o n i t i o n of the importance of this
new-bom
s e h i s n f o r the future o f the C h u r c h and ILopire.
Bat ne?of-
t h e l e s s C o n s t a n t i n e , t h e ic-*cr -f - c s e -nid ^;jiL-r

ise*
iiealf?
snowed a
. & ana
ordered the b i s h o p o f R o a e ? assisted by 30.0.6 other b i a r u p s

from Italy and O-aul. t o a d j u d g e the c o m p l a i n t s of C a s e i l i o
r
opponentsf
f h e B o n a i i a t m o v e m e n t is a i?:sil illuminated page of
Church historyt
A f t e r the scanty i n f o r m a t i o n t h i c h s?e
p o s s e s s of the p r e v i o u s p e r i o d ,
the nuaher ai
variety
the d o c u m e n t s r e l a t i n g to t h e ^ o n a t i a t schisc
i i i l
iO
I m p e r i a l d e c r e e s , p r o t o c o l s of official i n v e s t l o t i o n s , acla
of s y n o d s , p o l e m i c a l writings'
aforaatioii.
are the s o u r c e s of our
f h e t i l b o o k s or u p t a t u s . oisho^
'&
<='-
(3?*5I a g a i n s t the B o n a t i s t s , and n u m e r o u s controversi.

w r i t i n g s of A u g u s t i n e , give us a n e s p e c i a l l y vivid pi
of t h i s conflict
fnere i s
meterf
, Optatusj 7)e Schism, %

2 . Ens. H.E.X.Y
one p a r t i e u i i
iUlty
TEulCil
Tie Bonat,ist
Schisjs.
?jle brilliant success of Constsntine's attack against
Maxentius In 3 IS stade aim the sole master of the *e-#tera

part of the Rosaa Empire.
With the manifestations of
gratitude and art oration which fee young Baperor gratefully

received from his newly aeemired subjects there esê also
news of a different and more unpleasant nature.
This was
the petition received froa Isrth Africat signed hj soiae

biaaous froa Musidia, sad containing complaints against
Caecilian, trie newly elected bisnop of Carthage.
It is unlikely that either Const&ntxne hisself or' his
ecclesiastical adviser Hosius could have had even the
slightest premonition of the importance of this new-born
schism for the future of the Church and Eapire-
But never
theless Constaniine> the lover of peace and unityp showed a

keen rieoire to bring the two parties into agreeaent and
ordered the bishop of Rose, assisted by soae other bishops
plainta ofCaeciliaa's
The Bonaoist movement is a weii-iilusinsted page of

Church historyt
After the scanty information which we
possetia. of the previous period, the number and variety of

the docuoeats relating to the ônatist schism seems prolific.
Imperial Peeress, protocols of official investigations; acts
of synods, polemical writings,, are the sources of our
information.
The 11 boohs of Qptatua. bishop, of Meleviss
C5"7?) against the Donatists, and numerous controversial

writings of Augustinef give ua an especially vivid picture
of this conflict.
There is, however, one particular difficulty nhieh
1. Optatus, Pe Schlss, ? (2)..
t . Le d o s s i e r 3u B o a s t l s a . J$$&. J*e^sJ-%^
^-d$MAt.%U,
2. Histolre l i t t e r a i r e de I'Afrlcue ehretieiine, vol. IV.Li

Bonatisse, (Paris 4f1t)
3-G-esch. des Untergang des ant.Welt.
4. Tier tlrspruag des Doaatisaiuss {Frelb. tÂ^)
5. St.Augustine and African Church divisions> (Lon.l9!'"|
6. 2ur Beurthellung des Bonaiisaus, t!P>93)*
Otlier accounts of the senlss. are to be- found In all
the principal annuals of church history.
-24-
fh cause of
Donstisas was one of t h e oost b i t t e r aiid d i o s o t e r o o s
the schism.
seaxsaa shies tae Church has eer nown s and It finally
resulted in the complete'obliteration of Christianity froa.
"""srth Africa.
'The eaestion of the real cause of so import-
a at '-, ov@aent has attracted the attention of EL a/ .hi..... .o i"o-,

^.TYaîel ' distinguishes three different types
o ..
t~ I*O.AO Cfueotiorij though in this he still under**.
;."c
t~, - :. .o
variety of theory on the subject.

The first groups according to fhuisaislfs division* is
composed chiefly of Rosan Catholic scholars of the eighteenth
They sms
century.
the Boaatist revolution as oil' of the
assaults of the spirit of heresy against the infallible

authority of the Church.
BarsniusT and Valerius/'
Among
these c i ~ oe _.5..t_- : ;
A very similar . .i .: J! : . -
held by Meander s 'and lay Siobeeh.-'

Further study of the origin of the schism revealed so
aany new facts and presented such a vivid picture of con
flicting personal interests a M
aabitiona^ that the previous
explanation seemed too abstract and therefore in&detiuafce.

After the middle of the nineteenth century the Boaatist
Moral corruption as
the cause off aeaisa -was interpreted && a personal strife between rival
the. sehisa.
African bishops.
This point of view was held by laany
6
/
distinguished scholars, for Iriotsaee by Wsicii, "DoIIinger, *
p.
Yoelteri Deutsohr
iJ
and Seeelu
It has strong support in tae
f. Zur Beurthsiliiiig des "".;,:ii.s. ^ .

A.!*> r"^tiesJL_.otiai!( toaug;
(1893) PP
it!
Coloniae Agripp, (loco)
? *?e r o_atisti^. i A . an appendix to the edition of Euseai^Sj

{Forio r*=~
4. A l l j e ^ . j e s c a . ^ T Christl.Relig.und
3 . Bonatus und
ftugustiaus^
6 . ftetser H i s t o r i e ,
(Elherfelcl ! " 5 -
vol.IV.p.4.
? . S i r e h e a g e o c h i c h t e ^ (i'P^6)
vol.1.p.?6.
spru-t, ' g o *o.i*= i i -uo, {_'r$_h.r , ? - *"

f. T r a i Aztest#*he z j r 3eôh.
'<". ~ s s e h . ; e s U.iter iu>~_ 1-:% i.
. 2
evidence of the moral corruption of assay leaders of the

Bonatist party, striking illustrations of which are to oe
found in the various .documents relating to the Donasist
' schism.
fhe acts of the Council of Cirta (?c*5). saow that
the future leaders of the soveiseui were themselves traditores

ghd one of thes even a. murderer.
fhe acts apud
Ze.f$0igM$ri
revesi the sane absence- of eoral steadfastness arsons other

prominent Bonatists.
They showed thesaeives cowards in
peril, they were easily bribed, and they robbed the

teaples.
heathen
fhe picture is so repulsive, and"the later conduct
of the TionmtlBtB
is often so inconsistent* fanatical;, and
cruel, that there is a strong, temptation to explain the

sehiss as the revolt of leaders who tried to conceal their
own crises fej spreading fanaticism asang, their folloner=,
Even if we reject sosie of the extravagant details related in
these acts as polemical exaggeration, such as, for Instance,
-the story of the aurder by Purpurius*. bishop of Limala3 of
his nephews* we have sufficient material froa other sources
to show the moral degradation of the Bonatist leaders.
It would, however, he a gravo misunderstanding to draw
fro-s these facts the conclusion that the Bon&lists were
people without faith or conscience.
Religious enthusiasm
is often coabined with an extraordinary degree of moral

irresponsibility^ and that was undoubtedly the ease with the
/Donatisfcs, who eoahined the heat and worat features of tîeir
race.
fhe Bonaisfca iere Africans? and we have to consider
them as typical representatives of this gifted and passionate
people.
dreed was the main stimulus to the glorious achieve
ments af the Carthaginian Republic and it m s also a
teaptation which few of the Donatista could resist.
For
tao ^dhe of jaoney tins 1 ~r, ^lat Ic^-ê '^-r :r=- ?=s to
de-riii? slêly fro- _-ir ori;I-I -'i.clrlcc.
.h
not indeed to abandon them entirely, for it sast be

remembered that Paul sad Masarius, the eavo|s of Constantine
were finable to bribe
DoxmtuaJ
Secondly, envy and strife ravaged the Church of the

Boiiatists just as It had ruined the Carthaginian Republic
The Church leaders were capable of sacrificing everytuin^
to their vengeance.
Of thia %tm role of the Deacon
tfasidius in the acts apud Senopfciluaa is the best Illustration*

the Boastists s-affered heavily froa the d-ar& and
violent passions of their race*
Sat thsy wers Christians
nevertheless. They were capable of sacrificing e?en their

lives for the sake Qt the ideal imleb seemed to tries to be
the divine truth, and they rer moved JJ j-îi-.t - .-"* ~*~\
by the cold sad sceptical calculation -/f dîta.- i :-; rt-..
the saovgaent could asirer have dis-i-vyÎ - *eh v:.L-__.iy
and faced so saoy persecutions if it had been rooted only
in moral corruption*
the character of tae Boaaiiiit leaders
aiereiy increased the bitterness of the struggle? the real

eauae- of the strife sust be sought is soae iaore funda
mental characteristic of the life of the Church in North
Africa*
Constitutional
Professor AeSara&ck in his review of Voeiter's booh*defects as the
cause of the
gave a new explanation of the T>onatist rsvolt, na:aeiy~ the
schism..
constitutional defects of the Sorth African Church.
point of -vies is also upheld by Moaeesu who writes;
Tma
n
L&
rsisori orofonde du rapids sueces da Donatisa p&rait etre...

KlA&f Hist.of the Oh* vol.11,
pp.112-3*
Theol.Lit.Zeitung (13B4) So.4. p.Sv
fae problea of the relation between the national,

social sad political elements of a cossuiaity has soaentous
importance for the study of church history.
It has,
however* been. so little investigated and it raises BO

many complicated questions that only a very general survey
of the eonaitiofi.8 ia North Africa can be given here.
fhe aational
problem is
' So part of the Hoa&a Empire had such a difficult
Worth Africa, national problem as North Africa.
These provinces had
three different strata of population,., which, inapiie of

their long contact la the aaiae villages and toisas, still
remained distinct and unassiailated. fhe bulk of the
1. Le Bonatisiaf p.8, {Hiat.litteraire de 1*Africa ehret.
Paris 1912)
f August inlsc'he Studies., (Goths 1 ""* ..34.
f.
Harnack, Bogia.&esch. v o l . I I I . ;. ."*^. r.oie %.

D o i l l a g e r , E i r e h e und Kirchen, ifar.aê.j. ? ' ' t )
Moxaseaux, Le "Donatlsm, p . 4 5 .
p.4.
popuiatton was eaapossd of Berbera, ine oriîn^l

inhabitants of the country ' fiiere ere
tin
SIAO
invaders, tao Punic people itdo êre at one- thste

greatest enemies of Roae.
lii tae _ v mr. i
were still numerous,

spoken even In the time of St..Augustine.*
Tne Latins,
rî ,: jj.cn!.:*- ~ t,.i4se rl' . , r>vL.c. 3 -.;_-r t* c - .*_ - _f

3'..
r, _*' * a third l-i~..u.
majority of the population
: -rn? ' . ,
only la . . ;^\.\. 3 _ .. -
the Latin language was dominant in t .-- ,.,ti' ~ ~ ~1 iÂfrican provinces.

there
Between
the Latin and Punic blool
wss a profound antagonist a M
it can be s.Id that
tlie Hosaas hated ao other ra.ee so intensely a, they nated

their Punic neighbours and rials
It waa xsi this landt so impregnated with animosity
and contention, that the Church had to face the first
national schlsa.
Political
and social
conditions.
The political and social conditions of Mbrth Africa

at the beginning -of the fourth century had such in ooianon
Tgitli those of other* pants of the Western Eapire.
Every
where the people were reduced to alnost eoaaplste slavery

to the Stats.
Ail the products of agriculture, industry
and eoiuaeree were confiscated by the Sta-te for
the benefit
of the tiro great ponera on wnich the strength of the

Ifspire depended, - it
. ^
.1
~-:f~_.
anl the functions el** ~ m o -'j^l-.alrf - ^

burden was so heavy that
\ '.
1 -I- . r . t.' LJ
__-,-..
_..::
price to pay e?ea for s e ^ d*v
"f -
Usroire of the fourth eent^r,
,.
" . ,
... ~ _ li> c ' -
J. o
r..^
-.
- ;
, . j__ -
for revolts hut rebellions ie3re bound to fail because triers

were no leaders eauahle of proposing, a true renedy.
!. Sparrow Simpson,, St.Augu ~~" Afr..h_
{Lon.191b) pp.15-16,
The
Gaulish p e s i ? i t l a a a-
I,L1-
in-r
^-TS, '^*
Hs
hhe third century 'and
le African revolution of the fourth"

leaders of mutinies were procl^-.',^
~. , i.*l
imdsr their rule the slaverf -zi-l -..? p n.-"
r>
taxation remained as oppressive as o I -;-, . '

laperbra inevitable disappeared.
_ --: ?e_ x i J_:,V
dissatisfaction of the people made taen ready to break

oat into rebellion, at may moment3
and in the nnne of any
cause which eaflaaed their laagination.

The internal state of lorth Africs was,, at trie
beginning of the fourth century? particularly dangerouss
for as yet it had sot been.affected by the barbarian
invasions and civil wars which had exhausted the resources
sad rushed' the spirit of so many of the other provinces.
Thus the national and social conditions of North
JUaJur
s t r i f e ' a n d t h e r e u e r e s p e c i a l reason;
.here should be particularly exposed
The national
character of
Christianity
in Africa.
hhurcn
fU
liilAS
Taenf and hj whoa, Christian!
i n t r o d u c e d i;ii<
lorth Africa is still unknown, but
-UViiiUCis
hot Italy
e a r i y oeeaae one or. i t s western
fissT
. as:i rapid a progress of
n o r O-aulj nor Spain* could busts
&
the Christian faith.
i!ven in too szddl*
century, (as St.Cyprian's correspondence m.ow&) s every
eoattaumtv
i . &1DDQT1, ttm d e c> l i n e ana i a i x ,
(et
ry ;
'dl..I.i?.y,'*5^-3? -*.
t. The revolt op
?irmu3tj72,
.it.de
il . TV
3.
Sse F. Msrtroye., One tentative de revolution

Afripue, {Revue- des- Sues* ,fiii>t.. U
4. Benson, Cyprian, p- jf
tor
Sa<- W
i,fl* _ h
tae aoat ready response to the call to

f ^C Is
on-
-_,*!,*
V. ,TOs-~ ^ X C i w l
H-.2 ys-2.
>_.;,= "n; hcve 7,U3Tr- 5 ~_nn
- i
>.
ne<?
ot t h e o t h e r r a c e s .
The verj
fact that African Christ:
rapid growth suggests that it was

by the passionate temper of the
Punic and serheric
religious mentality, which can t>e traced hack as eas fertulisn*s tirae."
The Panic religion wao eharacie
Ewmn sacrificee were a prominent feature
lot only sla?3j, hut often the first-bora
offered to the gods.
voluntary;
I_.s-e ;ncr_f _.~ .* cf? sn ...-;.
to he siaugoti.vd on ,;ir..i.< fe~-t.w-i- _..>
accounted one of the greatest honours/

Thie religion, "brought frosi far-a%ay Asia? n&de a
strong appeal to the Berberio population of Berth Africa,
and the Punic gods were worshipped throughout the whole
country.
But It had little influence on the latins, to
hose religious spirit the ids a. of the veneration of the

gods by human- sacrifice v,-- - ixirely alien.ThuSj although the Church united in one body the
tnree races of Msrth *?'M
yc
u.ij.1 t-is. i*'
ened by the conflict of religious elements within nor,

The Latin and the native Christians believed in the sane
Jesus Christ, belonged to tne sane Cat;.n.-iic Church, but
their religions temperaments itero so different that often
one party in the Church approved what sag rejected by
anothert and the one truth was subjected:.to inconsistent
interpretations.
These considerations suggest that
!. Perfcolian, Liber de Papa in Persecutions, written

probably in P^fh Signs P.L. II. O G I P C P
2. Thunse
.natiofial sntsgojilsm would, probably play a. dominant role

in the origin and development of the Doaatist sohl^s,, sad
its early history strongly supports this supposition.
Tile two ^
I t i s e u i t e possible that, froa the very De;:;innian,
parties xa
"
* ^ <&]"<* the Christian conauaity at Cartbasp? suffered fros the
01 earta-Egs
latent hostility between her latin and Punic nesbers*
It
is aost probable that some of the conflicts of 3t*Cyprian8^

episcopate were provoked by the ssae factor;
bu& the first
unouestionabie aanifestation of this divergence is to be

found nailer the episcopate of Mensurius {3^1-311) *~
Hen as well as his deacon Caecilian^ represented the
.Latin party st Carthage.
His policy was, on the- whole.,
wise and no-derate. -but he was obliged to start an energetic

campaign against the exaggerated 2nd dangerous tendencies
of the Punic party*
Mensurius refused, for instance, to
recognise as true martyrs either those
who a ought ne.rty#oa
deliberately, or those who, having been condesned to death

on secular grounds, afterwards declared themselves Christ
ians."-'
Ha was convinced that he .acted justly ^hen he
gave.up certain heretical writings to be burnt instead of

4
the Holy Scriptures.
Hi?. ? o~-j.cn -.-> ., rzrTl
r" '~ne section
of his parish^ but violently :<_ cs^d cp uuc ^t^r, J>
felt that their bishop was offending ag&innc, their nost
sacred feelings.
A gulf as rspidiy wir?ninn bet-ween two
sections of the sane Church.
Certain tilings which .
b r \;n nee z^% wtr-n, p j_iticn : -P.. r P~ nr,

n^xnly lue 53 the ^sar: :f c .^ _-~t -f *. - dice; ^c
Tnio t-n'^ncy corn*3 en"5 - t^ t, s -
*a= f^,i wU?Pe/ & J
P. Kidds Hist,of the Church, vol.1, pP

*-*
^
Cardinal
Henricus de Moriss Opera Oania, {ed.Bslleriai^
eroass 1759-52) vol.IV. p.t9-
4. Migne, P.L. Hist.Bonat. XI.col.???-4,

Aug.Brev.Co.il. III. e.V5{25).
nigne P.L. t.XLIIIcol.;
5- Sidd, Hist.of the Church, vol.1.
K^^'tH
Msosurius considered absurd, seeaed to his opponents

heroic;
that which tie considered mlsej they considered
cowardly sad shameful.The split, however, cams only after his death,
The
Latin party* which was- probably in the majority In the

ehurea of Carthage, hastily elected'to the bishopric
Hensurius' ardent supporter, archdeacon Caecllian (311-45)
Vtm most uneâprotsisingqppojient of the ruals religious
2
spirit.
-fhe Latin party ootained an easy victoryB out
its leaders overestimated the importance ot the formal
elements in the election.
Their adersarie? the future
TJonatists, who had chafed undr the rule of Mensurius.

were -determined not to accept that of Caseiliaiis their
most hitter enemy,, and a man whoa they despised as an
unworthy son of the Church./
fhe forsal reason for
their opposition was the suspicion that Felix, bishop of

4
1 Aptttiiss, one of Caeciliaass eousecr&torss was a traditor,

| but the further "history' of the sehiea clearly siio**s that
this was only a convenient excuse-for the Punic aeaoers of
the church of Carthage.' They immediately appealed to
the rest of the African Christians, and they met with
whole-hearted support from the Siaaidiau Province, the
least latinised part of Morth Africa.
A few aoaths after Caeciiiaass 'election, severity
"bishops, all fr-oa luaidia, held a Council in Carthage.
They declared Caecilian's ordination void and elected a
new candidates Majorinus, mio was ordained in his place.
This Council was the birth-place of the Donatlat sehisa.
| Optatus, Be Sehima, 1.(17).
S. Aus*Brev.Coll. III.e. 14.(26) .
Migne ?.L. XLlII.aoi.639
3. Voelter, Ber Ursprung des Donatissua, pHT,

4. Optatus, Be Schism, 1.(1$).
5. Optatus, Be Schisia, i,(t$),
Unfortunately, the eoncili&r epistle shieh was add reused

to all tile churches of Africa has not been preserved,
and the history of this synod h&B to oe restored from
various indirect aources.
Various suggestions have been made as to toe cause
of this episcopal gathering.
Troi&saor'Voelter,
for
instance, thought that it was a revenge of the Nmaidian

hi shop a who were offended at not he lag invited to the
ordination of Caeciiiaa. ''
Jut u i^.^ .,.. similar explan
ations have no direct coafirxo .i:ni ~* ~v of the original

documents, which suggest thatthe synod was primarily
an expression of anti-Latin feeling.
The national background of this council is well
illustrated by its peculiar composition,,
bishops of Mauritania, nor these troci
leither the
WrgmkiskX^rl&f
were present,""although the latter, being the immediate

neighbours of Carthage* h?td vet*y reason for special
interest in the life of this Church.
It is clear that
the Latin bishops froa these provinces had no objection

to Oaeeilian's elevation, hut that it 'sss intolerable to
the Punic bishops fros the fsir-off cities of Ruaidia.3
Another indication of the national character of
this gathering is found in its attitude towards Caeciliaa,
file luMidian bishops did not put
forward any objections
to either his personal or doctrinal Qualifications, and

yet they declared hie deprived of ait, CK\. >nd even of
his episcopal dignity.
CPiociliary eôr to retain hio
see, expressed the desire to be ordained for the second

tine' by the members of the Council^ hot the Muiaidians
roughly rejected this proposal."1"
This action clearly
shows that Cueoilian was fros their paint of view

%. oelter, Ber Ursprung dss Bonatissus3 p.f2B,
g. fhaaael, Zur Beurtheiluag dss Donatisraus, { I093) p. 33.
3. Thuiisei, op.eit. p.48.
4 . Optatms, Be Selii 331 *-*9-
34
unworthy
to rule the Church of Oroa<, arid they rejected him
la the Bame nay as the Fualc faction of the Carthaginian

congregation had done-.
At'the ssuae time the rapii spread of the "Dona il at
aoYeaent over the whole country excludes the ides that
the reasons for the hatred of Oaeeiiian were purely
y^rs.-ci, 'ii! pr~.rd. Of- - _o..i"-** -- .. h '. * - "C.'j,'.-,
3.x>_l t.o the I-,rue s.--^ a^ Christ .;,
A c*:-ri-~l ! x i-1. ;;<
two ssa^ or even between two factions in a city, could

never become the source of
such bitter arid lasting division.,
affecting the whole Church, unless it corresponded to

aoas fundamental divisions in alaost very Morth African
oomauaity.
fhus the origin of the yanatist sohiaei oan only he
understood on the presupposition of two different
religious mentalities, dividing the African Christians
into ti?0 hostile ca.ii,o,
3ux to.-t
.- ir.Iy one of the
causes of the sehioii; r. *tiu\:*l *- û' sjr~z
( which
fhuaael regards as the sole reason for the conflict )

cannot aloa account for all the events which occurred
during the schism and Qormot
explain Its
particular bitter
ness, as -sell as for the ineffectiveness of all the attempts

to find a peaceful solution*
Thus we have to look for
some additional elements which contributed to the violence

of the revolt.
fhe
doctrinal
lemests
*n V^f
elements
in t
Boastist move-
is
(late
^vious that these eleaerits hav^ to he sought
in the doctrinal contentions aiaong the Christians of Morth

Africa,
It is very typical ttiat, unlike moat
fourth
century schisaaties, the Bonatists were unaoie to formulate

' their doctrinal divergence from the real of the Christians,,
although they made aost persistent efforts to do so.
i* Opt&tus, who finds the origin of the split s,in the anger
of a disgraced soasa, ia ambition..in avarice" (Opt.Be
Schism 3up*ff), entirely misses the seriousness ^>f the
echsiia, and so is unable to explain its astonishing
vitality.
Tim Christians of that period, considered
that only doctrinal
difference could justify separation and persecution
Hesee the whole polsaic between the Catholics and the

Bon/it lats was entirely based on the presupposition that
they were divided--op a serious doctrinal issue t and jet
soon could prove this .point.
Even the Question of
rebsptisa, which he-ease- a party slogan in this strife^ could

not 'be used for this purpose?
for at the 6eginning of the
conflict the difference had not yet appeared^ and all the
Chrl^l-e iw lii Afr-ic:
G it,^ Jiiv.-
': C 'j"i i>z~-d -'-; c
tfei Council of Aries- in ^*"

four years old*
H#rsoer, cf;;. ".ftar :.,.; iâ^'_^.i th^
Bonatiat3 themselves were soaatises obliged to relax their

rule,, and in "}"',- the C^^/.j-- "'1n . . IJ bishops at Sagsi"
decreed that co-r-srt- fr _ ui' _shi-... n-u bodies sight
dispense with reaa^ti^c
It 2
^rv ^ i ^ t..l~ _ _,. ,1

id.} I ...-> -' - r- ihcr i
the sohisifi than for
doctrinal reasons d"
Finally^ the Catholics of forth Africa,
never considered the Bariatists as real heretics, and they

were "always prepared to put aiside- their doctrinal differences
if peace sight thereby be restored*
The ronatiats
persistently rejected ail these proposals; giving again

the doctrinal issue as tae excuse for their refusal.
It is therefore ispsaaible to explain the conflict as
one of doctrine;
but, at the a3e tiaef the doctrinal
t.of the Ch, IT.pp.40;
/jt
r .<
50-
"I - = * - P * ^ S
^Jlij
& *>
. & C rC?
rue : . \ ^ _ - i . i r u . .
-, *-
w*4.
from the Donatists, "but as affecting both parties la &

like, and alaost equal, manner.*
fhe Boaatlst movement was toe firstt outbtsrs'
yuduursii v;
-t
ja
JL~"
w .
^ rf,
-..
few
-t.
^-e.^ja
<. X\T ~ -*
<^>-^j&^zÊ^^g^
po-r-v- hi\*xe* Qo^ZrZ 'if _;>rv> ' ^ l e ' i l j

trsjPsi u,:a:_ 3-i^ otiicr 4:o*T, -
W_*
U7~î*
l/v
S t . d j p r i a n SL~A
t h e Boast 1st*
sehissa.
* f
- w? ~
A., *
eanaefuenees tor
'In^tion
,.< A. i 3*4 i. ** i
o f 'thfis
a.u;j.e
ixaiilib
.11
UQaxam&uXCB
3t*Cyprlsii taught that to the
.rue Gnuren or '.soa,

t ~
Of .thJ
m.11
&
isu^
',
- ~ ,.'
iit:
rival Msliop ws an A n t i - C h r i s t , i e i r o i a o:i

câ5aa,ea by Q-oc!*
err* .(**=> .n.^
This clear and r
.r.Ton o r
^'VV-.
^^w.
Cv.i r-_.t. r - J 7 i - - i . ^ - c - ^ i
oi
?:*/
r j l 0 : 1 1
,i-
>^
iCi-w
wevo
*C
C /.
fa
t
!=>[-_
0 J_^.-i'
^ -^^
C .&<" t o t i c s
a^Dlo-^S.
W ^ _.
-se'" T
The soao-
ecclesiastical gOYeraseirtj based on the supposition of
episcopacy and
Church member* a d-ivine sanction for each detail of eDiacoaai orasnisatioi
ship,
proved aost embarrassing to tile Church la its treataeut of
Caecillaa obviously rcpa-

an extreme section of the ;'p/:
uaaoeeptable to the rest of it,
rhis diffic;
be overcome either by electing a new and more rsprascandidate? or eve a by the temporary coexistence
aes in. uarx.aag,e, eacn
ox two
;wiii
ay i t
iiUu
Brian. * s d o c t r i n e
,<J
ii.A=
t i e
. s a u ; ; a wa
aeaoa
ilie 0'Cs!if% feUisssiji
pa,i'l#J.ocifiia ,
This meant t h a t t h e e s s p a r t y
i&rthage could c o n s i d e r i t s e l f
c a r t of
in
iiir-pi
O B condition th*vt it sDSolutely denied. Church aesbership

to the other.
At the same time neither of the factions had can-
M<s i 1->ii
- l e i t a e r or zm
Cartaagialaa
b i s h o p s was
legitimate,
elusive proof of the legitimacy of its bishop*
Gaeciliai:
was elected first, but not unaiiiaoualya snl he aa.s

condemned by the synod of his colleagues!..
His opponent
was in no better position, for his o r r.ii.il

" -tii Su "; .>--..-->- - -.
when th see was
?XaUl u
Qi.
v a e t i i i i a ,
Xtiiii
TUIixi
ri trie r i v a l a i s n o p s w&e ortuoaox i n x'axiaaa
tin lereac
between thea, l a y a t f i r a t dai t a - i r
eii
=> a
a.ûe
mentalities
a^.
'r- r
CO
a >
_i_
,A
4-
.*.-"' _J.vS f ^ c
-c ^ " -s a t ~ a. y , =5 r
' T *
J" ~
"" " > * *
-I
-1
, er:.
and not in say question of Church discipline.
la this
dilemma St.Cyprian*s theory of episcopacy presented an

insurmountable obstacle to every reasonable solution of the
problem without providing any just.alternative.
course left opes to each party was to
. extermination of the other-
WOFIC
The only
for the complete
Bu% neither of then aa strong
. enough to. achieve a decisive victory, and the result of the

conflict was the fiaal asahilatioa of the Church in Africa.
The Africans were readily inflamed by their hostilities,
and &$.Cyprian's doctrine provided the with an exceptionally
suitable soil for the vigorous growth of their passions. 'The
fh Biviae Boaatisti* animosity against the Catholics found its sanction
wrata
& nat the in St.Cyprian's doctrine that &&*s wrath falls inevitably as
schiBasties.
I
.
,^
those who are the cause of scbiam.'
We have already seen1''
ff&NSPi^^praQir this idea was applied by. Optstua to the contro

versy |
the Boaatists tere even asre emphatic oa this point.
fhey feit completely justified in their attitude towards their

adversaries;
for so long as they believed the to 'he
schissatics their faithfulness to Christ'and His Ghurch found

its best expression in strife against the.
St.Cyprian liked to call Christians "soldiers of Christ"
and. to represent the relations between Q-od sad men in. terms
of and arsy and its leader."
The Bonatiats drew this idea
to its logical conclusion sad they started the first religl#s

war la the aaae of Christ and His Church.
The Gircuacill&aa&
were not Christian son&s^ as same scholars supposed, assay of

thea-perhaps were not even Gari8t;isng>"'bui at least & number
of thea were Boastists, calling themselves "Militia Christ!".
I. Ep-69 (6).
S. lp.!0.
f.
Kidd, H i s t . o f the Ch. v o l . I I . p . , U2*

Beurth. p.95-.
lft %. K faff.
Also f h u a a e l , Zur
-?9It Is characteristic of their temp&p that they did aot

use swords because of the text "put up again thy sword
into its place % "but they prefered to eaploy heavy
clubs against their adversaries.
They called these
weapons * Israels *h and believed their use to be la strict

2
accordance with Old testament proirisIoas
It is unfair to blase St .Cyprian, for this brutal
distortion of his doctrine by the Boaatiats, but it was
to this violence that the practical application of his
teaching led the rods Musician peasants
&aa their
uaeouth Baaatist bishops.'

Thus the answer to the question of the origin '-of
the Boastist sehlsa is that it was proYafced bj the
national antagonisms amongst the members of the Church
in forth Africa, but the way for it was prepared by
St.Cyprian's defective teaching concerning tha Church
and God*s attitude toward Christian aaaxiiid.
The Bonatist schism,* which began ia l f 1, lasted
4
till the extinction of Christianity in North Africa.'
During this long period of four centuries it was like
a souad ia the body of the Ohureh.
Constaat efforts
were made to heal it* by the ecclesiastical and by the
!. Jah.FfXXF.-lf.
S. Augustine* Be H&eresibus, par.69. Migne P.L.XLII..43
lp.185 (15). Migne F.L.XXXXXI. 799.
.
3. the unchristian conception of Sod "a punishment of
heretics nai schismatics Inevitably made the conflict
extraordinarily violent, aod prevented either party
from understandlag that every attempt to defend even
a good cause by coercion in the spirit of hatred is
contrary to'the principles of Christianity,, a M can
sever bear good fruit.
(ef.#. issul Optatus*
attitude towards the schismatics, whom he considred
/
to be worse than murderers in the sight of God.
Be Sehlsa, I,to.)
This happened in the mmmm
century, (703-742). Se
Holme t *pte extinction of tr.o Christ .Churches in Horth
Africa. (Lon.t"^x rp.SCS-35-.
civil authorities;
both force and persuasion were
employed but they were equally futile,
There was ao
remedy for the African Church, she was condemned and

she perished.
Analysis of the reasons for this
failure to heal the Boaatlst schism leads us to con

clusions which are important for tîpa%fM^p& the.
whole subject of Church unity.
To recount the entire history of the Bonatist sohisa
Attempts to
etire the schism. would take us too far from our subject, and this chapter
will deal with only the first period of its development,
'that fros 311-.33?.
This falls into three main divisions;
I. -51! --513, when the Church of forth Africa trie a to

'settle the conflict itself.
II. 313-316, when the bishops of Caul and Italy are
called in to give judgement.
III.5l6-3???j when the Bsperor Constantine agrees to am
personal investigation of the conflict, and takes the
settlement into his own bands.
Local efforts
to cure the
.
schism.
fa first, efforts to heal the African schism, while

^
w a g 3tili
only & local division in the Church of
Carthaget were aade by the bishops froa Humidla.
The
loss of the eonciii&r epistle presents more than a.

partial restoration of their action,
fhere is
reason,
however, to suppose that their policy was definitely

coloured by St.Cyprian's doctrine.
St.Cyprian taught
that where a local community was divided the bishops as

s body were to intervene and declare which among the
rival parties represented the true Church of Sod,
saving a decisive end to the schism**'"
thus
As far as we know
the Council of the luatdiaa bishops at Carthage was one
U Opt.Be Schism, 1.2Q.

'Si ,
2. St.Cypr.Sps. 44;45;4?;48;59.
-4U
of the first attempts to apply this doctrine.
Bat its
results were altogether contrary to St.Cyprian's

expectations.
the voice of the bishops was not unanimous*
nor. was it accepted as authoritative by the congregation

of Carthage*
Salty as not restored, but rather the
animosity between the parties sas strengthened.
And the
final result of the bishops* action -was the transfarsatlao.

of the local. conflict into a general sehiss affecting the
whole Church of north Africa.
thus the application of
the principle for which St.Cyprian struggled all hlsiifi,

namely that it is the duty of the episcopate to rrs& 6
S&IAX^-
^& doubtful elections of local, congregations produced

the most disiusterous conseeuenee-s.
fh root of the trouble was St.Cyprian*s conviction
that always in such a conflict one of the two parties is
unquestionably right and the other unquestionably wrong.
file election of two bishops at Carthage, Gaecilian and
MajorinaSj seant that the African Christians had to sals
a choice which was nothing less than a choice between
Christ and Anti-Christ, between salvation and damnation.
It is obvious that this attitude excluded any hop of a
peaceful settlement of the conflict by local negotiations*
and a&fie an appeal to other churches inevitable.
fhe Intervention
f the Italian
.and 'Gaulish
bishops.
In "Jtjl Constantino received a petition signed by

African bishops asking him to nominate bishops from
-
Saul as judges of- their conflict.'
fhe Catholics
BOMB
repeatedly accused the BoaatiaiS' of making the first
t. 'fhe Bosaiiafcs* faithfulness to St.Cyprian's doctrine

is well illustrated by the nature of their attacks
on Caecilian. fliejr could contest his rule only by
denying to hla ana his eonseer&tor Felix every claim
to the grace of the Holy Spirit and to membership of
the Church of Sod.
i Qptatus, Pe SchiSB. 1.2a.
appe&I to the civil authorities.'
fhe Baastist appeal
to the Baperor wass however, made for perfectly

legitimate reasons.
Constantine, after his victory-
over Maxeatius, sent a deere to Africa la uhleh he

provided for the restoration to the Church of property
which. had previously belonged to it."
faia meant that
in the cities where the congregation na divided the

civil authorities had to decide to whom, they should grant
the property.
Ss.tu.raHj the BoaaLists were obliged to
take steps to legalise their .position^ for* in Carthage

at leastf they tiers ih the Minority a M thus 'were in
danger of having their elaias ignored.
the plan ishloa
they suggested contained nothing to compromise the

iadepeMea.ee of the Church.
By seeking the arbit ration
of the bishops fros &&&! whose impartiality could be

trusted by bath parties, they hoped to prove that they9
and not Saeciil&n who had been deposed by a large nuaber
ef bishops, were the true representatives of the Catholic
Church<
The 'Bonatists, as strict adherents to St.Cyprian*&

doctrine, held a^Mgh-opinion of the importance of the
episcopate* s M they probably hoped- that the bishops of
G-aul would support thoss who stood for episcopal control
of elections made by the local churches.
It is also
significant that they claimed to m tried before a

special tribunal, composed solely of bishops, whichP
according to their view, had authorify over the assembly
I. Opt&tuss Be Sealan* I;?i.

August*'8p-8.!.
Migae XXXIII. 00I.30S.
:t* gus. HE, X.5(15>.
-4*.
of the Church of Carthage.
Coiist-satise welcomed their proposal, hut he modified
Hose
it by m&klnQ/'instead of Caul the place of the judgement
and by nominating the pope as its preside-at.
know the notices far this change
We do not
It was probably
suggested by Hosius, "who hoped that the authority of the

bishop of Rose wouM hssteii the reataratioa of peace,
There is ao evidence, however, .to suppose that either
Gonet&atine or Hosius considered the bishop of Rome
"V
la
4s
be the all' p o s s i b l e - ' o f Chiorala c o & f l i e t s , ' f o r
t h e y did
n o t h e s i t a t e a f t e r the f a i l u r e of t h e Roaas, judgement

t o t r a n s f e r t h e case t o A r i e s . J
The loa&a
Court.
31$ *
t h e Roaast Court was opened en 0 c t * 2 ^ i . and l a s t e d

only t h r e e S a y s .
aiM-sad effective*
t h e bishops* d e c i s i o n was a t onee

fney condemned D o n a t u s , " t h a
leader
of t h e A f r i c a n p a r t y , h a t g r a n t e d peace t o a l l t h e
b i s h o p s who "supported h i a .
I n places, where two r i v a l
b i s h o p s were a l r e a d y e l e c t e d t h e y d e c l a r e d t h a t the
s e n i o r by e l e c t i o n , should r e t a i n h i s see and t h e o t h e r
should he t r a n s f e r r e d , i f p o s s i b l e t o a n o t h e r pl&ee.
\,
Zonst-j . t i n e , n o had 3niy COGO m t ? c o n t a c t nz< zr~*

C n r i & t i n n s cuitie rscetiy, c ^ u i i . s.t. luat, t i c e . h-ve
hue h a r d l y any e x p e r i e n c e of t.:e r e i s t i D n s tit"
" tht
Catholics.
He needed ôst ej.ch'-Licaîy an a c u a e r ,
*wi-: e v r y t a x a g suj.^c^ts t.hat Hc&iUiS neld tiîss r o s l t l o a *
2 . ^ i r a a e l , Hisr,oire *.* "lo^ne de i s I s . r s u t e , {I9 r ~? P. ,"9-2C

3 - t h e h i s t o r y of t h i s e ; i a c ^ s i t r i b u n a l s..." t.i& ..lace in
i t of t i g Eosan his.i^^ is di3c*.3ed by "E..C&S. *r -Cieine
3 e i t r a ^ e a u r & l t e r e n PapAtgesc 1. ^ s i t s e i r , r - r h r c n e u êsG'i. h i , ; ? 4 . t?2>""\ ; .-*~"*-l4:
Also 3 a ; c r t J-e^cn.
de* ?a;-stta3i3 ( i r * " ' - _ * " ~ 1 i < .
4 . H e f . L e c l . Hifit.des Cor.cilea, v o l . I . p . 2 7 3 .
Opte.tua, "ê Sehidiii 1 4 2 3 - 2 4 ) .
5 . The s t a r y of !?ou*Llu? t h e r e a l l e V e r of t n e ioniss,
i s c o n v i n c i n g l y F e a t u r e d by ^.u^<, Chapman, DsrxuUo t*ns
Greiit and B^ns-1-*-^ of C&^s* i l i ^ a e . (Rev.oen. J ^ t . - T '
6* Hef.Leel;. o p . c l t . 1.273.
eol.4^6.
Manai.Co&eil.Aapl.CQli.
TOIII
-44"*>
fiiia decision pro-red a very significant fact, that the

bishops from Italy and Qaul 'did sot nadsrstasa the influence
of St.Gypri&n's doctrines upon his a&tte churches..
They
completely ignored his touching arid had no scruple in reeogaising .the validity of .the schismatic ordinations.
Also,
they were probably saaeeiiii teased to recognise the right af the

ether bishops to contest an election made by a local Church*
this disregard of St.Cyprian*s principles was alone sufficient
...to alienate the Africans, sad their indignation was increased
by the syperficislity of the treatment which they received at
.Bosse.
the Mshops there completely misunderstood the nature
of the conflict*
fhey approached it as a personal quarrel
between two aabitious prelates, which could he easily suppressed

by the punishment of the one and s pardon granted to his
. supporters. la reality they were faced oj a strong national
aoveaent, the destructive power of which was enormously
increased by the defective doctrine of Cns Church held by its
enthusiastic leaders.
She eoimeii
~ê Bonatists imsediat1j appealed to Constaatlae sgslast
of Aries,
*,
jl4.
the judsfisent, complaining that the bishops who met at Rose
had not even discussed their sain charges against Caecilian's
coaneoratorf Felix of Aptlfcagau
Gosst&atine probably had
reasons for thinking that in Son a serious blunder had been

coasaitted, for he decided to souOie iamediately a new bishops'
tribunal at Aries, in order to remedy t>he Roman pronouncement.
'She development of the Bo&atist sshias mosr brings us to
'the faaoiis Council of Aries, one of the aoai sigaificent
iand-aar'ss la the history of .the Church.
It can be called the
birth-place of the Oecaseaieal Connelly, the origin of which

thas depends on. the conflict between Saecilian and aia iuaidian
!. fiiere were % bishops from Gaul sad 15 fro Italy,

De Sehioa, 1.(23).
g. Bus. HS* X.5 <22).
Aug. Bps. 43 (20); 88 Cj).
Opt&tus,
.4$<
opponents.
In ihe'Hiddl Ages the Council of Aries m s the subject
#f mmh legend.
It was believed that SCO bishops were
gathered together there from all parts of the Western Empire.

We. know now that sly casapar&tiiraljf few bishops were present
at Aries.
The real signifiesnee of this conference is
learr to us than to the sedlaeimi theologians* who did not

realise the tremendous gulf separating it from all the
preeeeding synods.
Later Christiana became so familiar wilh
the Idea tfest bishops should sieet together to legislate far

the whole Church? that the Council of Aries was regarded
Merely as- one instance'of a traditional usage of the Church.
la reality this Council was an entirely new departure, on
of the.first deliberate attempts of the Emperors to govern
the.Church by means of episcopal councils and la this way to
aeet those difficulties which arose from the changed position
of the Cf&thoiie Church in the Reman Empire.
Constantine's letter to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse,'0'
hews that the purpose of the conference was to appease the
Miter resentment of the isoaatiats against the Roaan judgesent.
The Bonatists* objections against the Roiaan court are
reported in this letter'in the following terms*
fhat those
who expressed their opinions {in Rome) were few or that they
had been too hasty and precipitate...in giving j-ndgesentj
before all the things nhieh ought to have been accurately
investigated had been examined ...'" "
Thsa complaints determined the constitution of the
cosaission .to the new gathering.
Constantino eosasaanded &
mimb^T of bishops frost & great aiany different places to
!. I#fLel. Hist.lles Conciles. I. s?5.

a. m m . Bee.Hist. X.V.21-24.
3,'lus. ice.Hist. X.f.f^..
.46*
assemble ia the city of Aries, 'and %o investigate anew., with
the utmost
Felix.
ear, the charges against Gaeeiliaa's conseer&tor

The Council had probably 'also the task f examining
the doctrinal principles involved in the schism.-
Proa the
little that we know it seeasi to have seen successful in neither

f these tasks.
Our information about the Council's decisions coses aainly
froa twenty canons Q the synod, and from its epistle to Pope
Silvester.
?he latter document is, however, probably spurious:
such at least is the opinion of the leading Hasan Catholics

authority^ Boa,Leelereef although he is not supported by all
modern scholars.-' We> have,- aonsecjuently, to -rely mainly an
the Canons.
Judging by these it seesss that the bishops at Aries
continued the policy begunat Itoi&e.
they exco&asunieated
Felix's 'accusers for the rest their lives (Canon H ) , but

they tried to win over the rent
of the Boast1st episcopate.
fwo ether Canons deal directly with the ffueatio&s raised by

the African schism;
the eighth prohibited the rehaptiss of
those who had been baptized in the n&ma f the Holy trinity:
the thirteenth enacted that a bishop who souM he shown from
the official records.to have been a traditor should he deposed?
4
but innocent .clerics ordained by hist should retain their offices.

In this' way the Council showed its desire to seet the
lôaatists1 eoaplaints against the slackness-of the Catholicss
and the sain emphasis was laid on the fact that Pelix had been
1, las. Eec.Hist. X v* 25',.
2* "On l i t dans l a l e t t r e t Fi&euit etiam a te ( S i l v e s t e r )
tui majoris dioeeeses tenes per t e potissiaaia oanibus
N
iatisari,
line t e l l phrase as seahle guere acceptable a
l a date "5*4,
font dans l a l e t t r e synodaie p a r a i t dose
suspect?' {H.Leeiersse, H l s t . d e s Conciles^ v o l . I . p.gr?6n,s,}
f.
f o r i n s t a n c e 3 imeimBne, f Bossier t e D o a s t i s a , ( I ^ Q O ) p*6f7p

"t,& l e t t r d Conelie d Aries an p&pe S l l v e s t r e - . . n ' s e t e
eonteste'e par p e r s o n n e l
P r . C a s p a r , Geseh.des F ^ a t t - u s , ( p . ? " " oeLievea i-. i t s
a u t h e n t i c i t y , as does ".S&pnes, Joar:4S.i of f . . e i l . u j ' P
0ct.-fv.'2.p.44.
4.. 8 e f * l e i ; . H i a t . a e a Coa. I . ;;..--',<->".
.47falsely accused hy his enemies,
fiie Council of Aries was ready
to admit that the principle itself for which the Doaatiats

stood was justified is part, and that the traditor must he
deposed from his ^ff&ce.
fhe failure of this second attempt to restore peace in
Africa was even aore complete'than the first.
The Bon&tlsts
violently rejected the decision and again appealed.to the

Esiperor.
Even the Catholics did not seea to value very highly
the authority of the Council of Aries, for Optatus never refers

to it in M s treatise against the oiiatista/'ancl even at the
Council of 4l! the canons of Aries were not mentioned in the
delates between the Catholics arid the Donatists,-1
The reasons for the Boaatlets' dissatisfaction are obvious.
At Aries even
sore than, at Some they felt that the language
they spoke was not that of the rest of the Catholic bishopst
who neither shared their Gypri&aic conception of the Church
sad of the episcopate nor. had any real-.under standing; of their
grievances.
The attitude of the Catholics is. more pugg ling, but its
explanation can probably be found ih the following facts.
I. The ides of a special synod of bishops which could issue
decrees in the asae of the whole Church was a novelty to the
Christians of the fourth century.
To the great majority of
tfaem the authority of their local synods wasuaifiite sore real

than the decision of an assembly such && the Council of Aries.
by the Gon temporary Churchp although they contained no

innovations or seriously contested points, fop the idea of
1. Epist. Const, lisp', ad Episc. Cathol. post Sya. A?$i scripts.

M&nsi. Gone. Aapliss* Coll. tJJ, col.4??.
2. This is also Augustine's attitudej see Aug. Brev. Coll. col.I
e.5. Higne P.L. vol.XLIII.col.6t5. See aisos Ep.CXXYIII.
Sign P.L. vol.XXXIII. col.489.
"5* fhuaunel* 2ur Seurth. des Bonat. p.25.
writ tea canons sade*little appeal to the mind of the

Western Christian at trie beginning of the fourth century.
II,
The bishops were convoked by the order of the
Eaperor, who openly declared that the courts at Soae and

Aries eaanated. frost his .authority.'
The West showed
far more suspicion of the State*a intervention in the

life of the Church than Sic! the East/"and this being the
first attempt of its kind realised on a large scale it
hut
could sot/be confronted with s. definite opposition.
III, fliers was nshofij at Aries who could eisiia a real
personal authority.
The local Churches were accustomed
to consult distinguished Christians in the- time of trouble;

C this was the role played by Ireaaeus of Lyons, by Qrigia,
by St. Cyprian, by both Bioaysius of Rose and of Alexandria,
during the conflicts of their tiaes,}
The Churches
willingly asked their advise, far they trusted their

personal sanctity and wi&Soia, but they were free to accept
.r reject their proposals.
At Aries the situation was
ery different* . The bishops gathered there had no

personal authority ant yet they daisied a general sub
mission to their Judgement."
U lus. H.E. X.t-3-24.

f. This wetera opposition to the E^-er^r's *>o..troi over
the Church is traceaole tnrxugnout. the fourth century$
it is expressed in the decisions -jf i* m Councils of
Sardica {Atnan. Apox, e. Ariaa.III. 3":\&o? Ariîauaij
(4th de Syn.e.1?), as sell s.a in tne T r U i n ^ if
Lucifer of" Calabria > Hilary of Poitiers, Se^tiîus
Severus, and especially of St.Amorose if Milan.
5, If the syaodical epistii.to Silvester is authentics
(see p.46) its humble, almost ingratiating, language
can only be explained on the ground that the bishops
at Aries, feeling the absence of any real justification
for their attempt to issue canons of the Church,, ware
therefore particularly eager to- win over to their side
the bishop of Some* the leading prelate of the West.
The reasoa for''the bishops' attempt to publish
the canons has. to be sought in Hosius* general scheme
for the reorganisation of the Church government, and.
is dealt with is Mote xi.
-49-
I?. Finally It is most probable that Coons t&n&iae.'s intention

to collect a great' number of bishops at Aries was frustrated
and only eooparatively few'prelates appeared at this gatherlag. the doubtful epistle of the Council to Silvester
contains only thirty-three signatures "sad it is "reify unlikely
that there were more than this present at Aries.* .
the reason for this small 'number is difficult to- espials
at present.
Besides the QB'nBra,! protest of the testers
Christians against the State's interreatloji* there was

another circumstance in prejudice of Aries*
Constantine,
'who probably intended to ap-pesr with Hosius at the Council,

was suddenly recalled by & new campaign against Luciaiuss
ta#'final issue of which fras ery doubtful;
and it is
probable, therefore, that tat bishops were especially i&utions

ia their response to the Imperial invitation.* not knowing
trtio might reign, tomorrow ia the teat.
In any case, it was
because only a minority of the Western episcopate was present

that the decisions of the Council could be^disregarded by
orthodox Christians.
{Mmsta&tlBe's
^h@ Council of Aries was the last attempt of the
ia. .. rrention. Catholic Church, to s o l T e ^ ^ B ^ ^ t h e Bcnatist schismV
After
its -failure Constaatiae took* although, unwillingly j. the

pacification of Africa into his oim hands Sl. and there begins
a new period which is characterised, by the attempts of the
State ..to restore unity between the Donatists arid Catholics.
\, f.c-s nuaosr aj. :-ears especially insignificant if we reraeaber

thst there T?ere about *?r bi^hors jrrese .t o. the Council at
Mome? and Aries ir;&3 sun tone: ffitn the special ides of
revisins this decision at a larger syno^,
. Hef.Lecl. Hist.flea Gosciles, vol I. pp.275*Sf?6.
Eveats hmlansim
to' teis Period are chronologically
confused., but their general sours'caa be to soae extent

retraced.
Constantla .or a long tia refused to hear
la person the Doaatist eoaplaiata.
But after aaay
hesitations and changes of plan*. he decided to g i w a

personal judgment.
la 316, at. Milan,. lie vindicated
'C&eeillan and condemned his adversaries.
the Bonatlsts
refused to submit even to the Iaperial aeaience sad

Coastaatine started a forms! persecution of their partj;
but seeing that taia.oaly increaaed the .evil and frustrated
eyerf hope of pease, he .abaadoaed thia policy at the
beginning of the year 35H. $
Until the end., of his riga
lie maintained an attitude of complete indifference, and

even ?hea the Ponatists seised the Church of Ultra, ifhieh
he had erected for the Catholics, Constantino refused to
punish the rebels, and Kusebius writesthat he salj
"l&wshed at these prosreediags and declared their Figia la
be froaa the Evil One".*
Gonstaatine had a genius for statesmanship, and a
rare gift for winning the' hearts of his subjects,4
And
there were few instances in which he was sore eager to'

achieve success than In his dealings sri'ta the Boaatista.
He used all the means of pacification which he oould
devise*" himself or which isers suggested by others, and he
ft
*"
*W MB-
* U* am . MS. . iUH a - 4Ut 4K - , . * , . ^ . . , .* rt*. w>
due , -ÎU, JHfc -rilt, M as* -
A**8- Ep.4-5(4.aO). Aug. Contra Creacoa. III.7f.as.

t. Hef.Lecl. Hist.des Gone, vol.I.p.29?.
Kidd, Hist.of the Oh. vol.I. p.540.
ff. The decree of May 5, *?2t, addressed to Yeriaus* theVicarius of Africa. Aug.Ep. 141(9 an.) Mlgne P.h.
vol.XXXIIIi' col.58]
3. gaa. Vita Coast. 1.45",
"'
4K Eusebius tellsof the admiration imich he excited

fro the blahops gathered at licaes. (Vita Const.111.
to.15-I
-51g&ve special attention to those proposals moved hf the

fsonatists,
He convoked bishops* courts; lie sent
Impartial bishops to Africa for personal- negotiations with

the leaders of 'both parties; he ordered ills officials
to Investigate into the legal questions raised by the
charges;
and finally he himself gave the imperial judge
ment ia person.
Punishment and coercion, persuasion and
pardon, all these measures.were employed, hat none of

his efforts bore positive fruit.
fa reason-for
his failure.
Constantine* failure was neither a sign of negligence nor inability;
it had its roots in his funda
mental misunderstanding of the nature of the Shurch*

unity.
His imagination was captured by the vision of
brotherhood .and concord among the Christians, so

strikingly contrasted with the conflict and enmity in the
heathen world.
Peace was the highest ideal of his life
and the final sis of all his efforts, and this peace he
thought to find ia the Christian Church,
In Bonatlss
he set for the first time a denial of this fundamental

trait of Christianity.
He was even less able than- the
leaders of the Church to see its- real cause, for he eo-uld

never understand that the Church was the place where
human passions are revealed and yet overcome, but only
through aoral effort and struggle.
His attitude towards-
the Bonatists frosa the beginning to the end was merely

one of surprise and' indignation.'
?his prevented hia
from seeing the seriousness of the situation or from

achieving an effective* and beaef icial- settlement.
His
conception of the Church as a perfect society, having no

place for human freedom, led his to think that sere
' obedience to the legitimate'1 bishops was in itself ?
1 . Eus. H.E. X.5.(51-24)
-58-
sufficieat to preserve the unity of the Church a M

to guarantee tier ordsr.
He tried to Increase the
authority of the bishops and thought in this way to

protect the Church's oneness.
Const&ntine's policy Consisted in the main of two
sain principles.
firstly^ he sharply divided the
Christians into two groups, those belonging to the

"legitimate" ; Church and those whs were in rebellion against
her.r
Secondly, he considered it his priiaary duty to
-grant all possible privileges and material advantages %&

fa
the leaders of the legitimate Church, "''and to-suppress as

far as passible the activity of the illegitimate bodies?
Increased prosperity and the growth of social
distinctions, however, did not strengthen the unity &f the
Churchy and it only embittered the rivalry between the
tno parties.
The greater the "Emperor's favour to
Caecllisn and his supporters, the greater sas the

Donatists*. hostility and the stronger was their hold om
the sympathies of the dissatisfied and oppressed Africasa.
Gonstanilne8 active support of the Catholics merely fed
the flame of national antagonism.
fa Eosaa Empire,
nhieh for long centuries had suppressed all expression

of national feeling among the Africans, was nom
continuing this policy within the Church itself. _ And
when-the civil authorities., by means of fines, con
fiscations, itsprisonaent, and executions, tried to induce
1 . T5us. H.K. X.-5.(20).
a, EU3. Ylta Coast. 1.48.
3. Bus. H.E. X.6 (t); Vita Const.111.63, 64, 65.
-53the Africans to accept- the authority of the ^legitimate*5

bishopa, it is no wonder that the Africans, in,.their
hatred of the persecuting poirei% refused, to aake any
distinction betmeea the officials representing the State
and the Catholic bishops proteetiasg'xhem.
Thus Sonatantine's intervention, though made with
the hest Intentions} aimed the fiaal blew at the life of
the African Churches, froa which they were sever able to
recover completely,' and the r@saln.ing years of their
history Is the story of their .death-agony teiiag is the
complete distraction of Christianity sad civilisation ia
these provinces*
:Ooniusioa.
fhe pl&se of the
Boaatist.seklsa
..in th# life of
the CHurch.
The Bonatist movement pat before the Christians of

the fourth century three tfueatioas of iritis,! iisportaaeej
a) the relati-on between. Church -and State, b) the place
of aatlonalisa in the new- 'Christian brotherhood-
c) the
justification of St.Cyprian*a doctrine of the Church

and her unity.
lone of these problems were properly faced by the
Western Christianst who tried to pursue a policy of
eompromise and evasion ir* their'dealings with @aeh of
them.
But the Questions -were all so vital aad -affested
so deeply the life of the Church, that this attitude

only aggravated the situation.
Chureh. m& State*
fhe Bonatist seaimi saris the point at whlh the

history of the independent Church merges into a period.
of her close alliance with the Eapire.
the Church
entered it still composed of independent eoaraunities

bound together only by their free' consent.
?he
Christians were still ruled -by the synods of local congregations and no institution more authoritative
54-
than they wastoow?..to them.
Proof of this is seen
in the origin and the consequences of the courts held, at

Horn and Aries ,
They were created ad_.jbtoc by the will of
the Eaiperor and they claimed no other authority than that

implied by the voluntary submission of the rival parties
to their judgement.
not a legal force;
Their decision had only a Moral and

there is nowhere any sign.of a system
of* Canon LAW or of a tradition that certain sees had

authority -over others.
miring this first period of the
conflict, the position of the Roman bishop was not yet

associated 'with any formal right of jurisdiction.
Catholics and DonatiatB alike had no scruple is iimed lately
revising the judgement pronounced by the court under his
presidency.
The P-oaati3t conflict, honevei% could not 'he settled.
under
this form of Church organisation and it resulted ia
the birth of the new type of Church government based on

episcopal synods which have a binding authority over the
local casaunities.
-This radical change was introduced
by the Roman Empire, and the Shureh1 though reluctantly,

has been obliged to 'accept- it-
this was only &***
of her surrender to the State-, and the last. years of th**

period already show the Church living under this sew
tutelage,
Tne reasons for this momentous change ure
discussed in another place, and here- it need only be said

that the sacred independence of the Church sss, in the
first instancej, lost by the hatred and pride -of'"her
.members.
The inability of the African Christiana to
cme&ch their passions left then- powerless before the . .Constantine, writing about -the Roman Court* B&yi
M
thls- dissension which ought to haveteased after the
judgement had been'already given by their own .
voluntary agreement*1. (Bus. H.T2. X 5 (22) ).
35-
,;
sight of the Roman
The Church and

:21a
on
: BtS
âe
Ciiureti
once
Empire.
united with the State, hec&me
involved la six urn sins and problems of her new partner.
Asiong these one of the most conspicuous was the question

of the treatment of the eoneuered nations.
Christianity,
by promoting a. higher development of husaan personality,

always awakes ia its followers their national consciousness,
Ihus the ancient Church had inevitably to face sooner- or
later the problem of nationalism.
Unfortunately, when
the time ease the Church had already beeoae united with :
the' State.
This fact enormously aggravated the difficulty
of the Ghristiaas in finding a proper attitude towards

nationalism, and they were soon crushed by this
tremendous
force,, which ean be used equally for creation or des&ru&tigm.

;
The Donatists and the. Catholics of Sorth.Africa sere

the. first unconscious irietisis of national passions bora
inside the Church.
They fought each other in d&ftoess
without even understanding the reason for.their animosity*

and until the extinction of Christianity in their country
not one of the Christian leaders there was able to discover
" the real root of the struggle.*2
-Th
Jhureh and
**ie
B&m
? hesitation characterised the attitude of
'
St.Gypriafs
'doctrine.-
^ h e Church leaders towards St.Cyprian*s doctrine of the
Church.
I t hers never feee. coapletely accepted, hut a t
the aaae tiae noone aaong then had the wisdom and courage
:
openly to refute his misleading doctrine and thus to dhow

!, Mi account ,of. the ignominious e M of Christianity is
Horth Africa "is given in L.A.Holme'e book, The
extinction of the Christ. Church.in North Africa, {Lon.
1-'91) pp.254 sc.
'
2, The Doiiatistg were so l i t t l e prepared t o adult the

n a t i o n a l elements i n t h e i r movement t h a t they never trifti
to t r a n s l a t e the Bible i n t o t h e i r own language, aa was :
done by the Copts in t h e i r similar, r e v o l t a g a i n s t the
Greeks.
-s~
the Ucamtlsts ih<&2* fteiii.t&l S I * F
'Thus tfe
Shrlsti&ns begins t h e \gtsss f ssi iaal%iists. ea

eptin of $d*s r e l a t i o n s ifitii 2*#il#@ii#3 naeMii
Una wre ngssare& bf Sedfegtlf &i?l3sltisis 0? th#
CIlSttFsis #
Const!SK prsnictss sue sfVtlse ssgf. t r a g i e &t
tiits g-asafi t i n s itistrastt'irs f-agss 0* Stmmh M M w f *
i t s lessons 5r&-? s t i l l t o be learned by the members of"
fhe Church rssxt I t i s small winder t h a t those C h r i s t i a n s
who .first faued the pmfetmB
f s i t e t isj t h i s # s n f l i 8 t
trur u&a&le t o fittcl a t*isiijf jristisia aaa&- #iisti*iiftl>"fe

s s l t i t i s s t o th&m*
1# St# Augustine's a t t i t u d e I c pe#uli**

He safe t h a t
- S t . Oyprisn i e s o t i n f a l l i b l e * but lie ossinot s#
h e r e i n l i e s Pie root 3 St %pi?isfi *e e r r o r *
Os
s a p t l e a , V* cto* 2S*m(m)
2&(3f}*
S* Opt&tus, f o r instaruj* explained t o t h e S e a a t i s t s t h e
Ic?<("rl-\1 r.^raocutlor. an the punisftssent lziflioted a
ther. fey God for t h e i r disobedience t o t h e legitia&t#
biefceps,
t e Scbiafi 2X1*3*
S7
Rts-ntinp nnc! h i s
-
ecclsolfistlcr?!
s l u s . iisd f a l l e c t o r e s t o r e Dcs-ce i n lorfcli
J!
picpfs, t r e y v;rr> conx j?ont:ecl wiiila t h e ne?; nmi o:se

v . JU. X j .
I t t p s k of orvpesnrlng eliupoh u n i t y i n t" : e whole

T ~ :f c
L.
'
o r-
'.''..
.' *
.' * I
-1 *"
"{"in*
1 1
~ "? t~~*r cr , i j ~
; "'
" ;>' ctft 1 * *r "i'V*-"* c . ;
"&?-?.'- t ^ 3 ^;.C" t.cf c - I T ' I I

; \-
; - 5
or
" ti_ <-_ -. r- r-~ r r ^ c v e e
- -/t"~t~*
""3 "* * f
*w
iT-
r
'
* *
**- e"
/**-j
r* c
~*
^ "* - * - ^ ^ C * " 1
i ^ Z T C I A'- .
" X **"", c
s%
:
^ - t .*. * - . r 3-c:"c I Isr:-"- *

" j; I, <~^ -'r-n.'ti't lor
<~ r- ?". c < \
* c t:.e Lie. o^ 'f
of a l l the C b r l s t l e n s In tfee
;e5 ci . , : - - , Libya sne ^ e n t s p o i l s , end
'
'C
r^
rr^r
^**
h *~ f
C* -1" *~"*--~ jf* -wft ot
?ns
S e p s p a t l o n fpos tfcr botSj of t h e Church

Qtf- *\&- ^Mfa
*>
> * * z
4 - -a
* i =u
s&<*
f " r-. v* v,
*K?*yWfc - *
*&
v,
*.* x
* ?* ;**
e"~ .-
* ^,
*>
k
J~
r v f% rt ~
r""t s s o t eopj^spondiap t o
if
- ^J
c*
f*
.&. a
V*F
^-1*^1
33
T i f ^ <? <^ .
r* *2 "j*&
-e./
J
*-> -t <"*
**tj\
Sf
;!..,
O ? -*-* r*- *M>
-,f
-j- *-
-5 ^ ,*, ^ -* ; r
^ .p
3+ ^ y
r &
T*
i?ygZ *
I':
* r
" n , *
*** ylf
- *~ i
,** 4"
A. ' A. ** 1? ."** r* , * c
^.
A.
^ i>
XT,
PX <~-r
-at
S -r -
,"!* *
. ";>_IT a "-.:-C r --c ~r ^'ic
" " ?i=
r i f ^ n
e<
oti*ep
c î - ^--v*-*
oi
,*>
A *- -
r-sr-~:
of".r
-- -
* - -.-,
~ ^ ~ ,r '^<!*
*s
% f
?" *<
~^*
(?LI,
-:>-
<!-!'
e-
r"
3r
i t s U G S S u . i i *OK*
JII4
Hefele Leelerci l * p^SSl* Hote.S
-a-* B.E*VIII 1 5 . ( 2 ) ;
.V & C- * A -i & -
&o.
321."
Very soon afterwards a synod in Slthynia declared
his innocent and sent a request to Alexander to restore hia

to his former office-&
The sa.se opinion as pronounced by
another synod held in Palestine under Suse'biue. Psaphiilus?

Alexander regained lap la cable and. the tteest of a general
split inevitably menaced the Church.
While this doctrinal conflict was disturbing the
-Christian eosraunlty, Constaatine ^?as rap icily progressing with
the eonouest of the eastern part of the B-rspire.
The Eaperor
Licinius was finally defeated hasr Ghrysopolis- {10 Sept.^Sfls M Constantine hecase sole lapewor-^
There is a striking analogy between Constantia*s victory
ever Maxentius in îtj frhieh gave him possession of the whole
of the ?reat and at the ssae time forced his to interfere in
the Bonatist schism, and his victory over Licinius in jarj
which opened the rich provinces of the last to his, hut also
revealed to hia the hitter contention over- Arius which raged
there.
Conataatine* who had at last succeeded, after
tremendous efforts and sacrifices? in restoring the political
unity hf the impirej was not the nan to remain i n d i f f e r e n t . i n

-
the face of this new schism.
Sis first action was to write
a letter which he sent by Hosiua to Alexander and Arius,

requesting then immediately to restore the unity and peace of
the Church."
This embassy, however, failed to produce any
effect upon the opponents, and Constantine decided to have

recourse 'once again to the convocation of the episcopal
tribunal as a last resort, for the pacification of the Church*
! Hef.Lecl. I. pl65'.
2, Sos. 1.15=
3, Soa* I. 15Hef.Lecl. 1.p.3^9.note %.
4, Bus,Vita Const.U.63-72. Socr-H.1E.I-?.
Sos.HhE. 1.15.
a
nmmA
Txm o r i g i n of
t h e Comneil.
fhe f i r s t eos&eiiieaX Sonse-il mas t h e t a r s i a

1
'
''
point i s t h e h i s t e v y f t h e wrolu
I t i s possible
t o divide i t s i l e eotiroe tat % p a r t s , before s a i

a f t e r Me&ea*
I*at0? generations have n a t u r a l l y ileeerioe*! t h e
#ri|giji anil meaning of t h i $ s f i I aear41sg' to t h e i r own
oeneeption of the- Shamtt's org&nioatios*
Satholi h i s t o r i a n s
t h e losaia
were. <s&mf$*w&$ t h a t S i l v e s t e r , t h e
oonte^porary Hehoi* of l e s s * f l a y s i a jsrosiseitt f a r t i n

t h e convocation a s well a s i n tit $r$eeetinga of t h e
Ckmmeil*
H i s t o r i a n s ifes oitei&er t t a t sjucnis of
M*ip
have seen t h e h i g h e s t a s a t h a r i t j i s t h e tsor#lt f n t i e

beginning of hesr h i s t o r y believed t h a t Mmsa- u s s a f r e e
mmi aonaal expression of t M s h a b i t u a l form mf {government*
Ihey supposed t h a t t h e hnreh ones 4ej.ive;md fro p e r s e
c u t i o n , i ^ e a & a t e l y f e l t t h e n e c e s s i t y #f an. -oeîiiaanimi
oeuneil eo&posed of a l l . her 1& shops, a-sl. a i l t h a t Qoa*
s t a n t i a e did was t o offer h e r $raetiea& ooave&ienoeo fey
t h e r e a l i s a t i o n of t h i s desire* :
Both of t h e s e isolate
of view bring forward f#i* t h e i r support m nasher of

proofs* bat a l l tli pass they eoatrad&et t h e main ba-llt
of t h e o r i g i n a l doe&sents and haw t h e r e f o r e t o be-y@
Jeetsi.*
(SoteXl/}
1. Hie l i t e r a t u r e dealing with t h e Oennoil is- enoriicms

t h e l e s t l i s t of t h e p r i a s i p a l works i s given i s
Eefele i e e l e r f * Sist., de Cfeoeilec* vol-I*pp*S863-0#*
2* Bell&ranni U i s p u t . CSarist* f i d e i * Sraet*
Concil.
e t Seel* (13J t*X,C* XXX. X a g a l s t a d i i .
53ae saise opinion i s held by H a s e l i a , f a l m i e r i a n t o t h e r s .
I s r a f u l l discussion see Kef, 2.eel* t o ! * 1* pp S-SS*
403-409.
3* Bstiffo-I
*X<a S a i x Constant**
p* 88*
63.
the original
farpese #
Stie Ssmaell i i e a e a mis a f a r t h e r steji i n t h e
the Samei2*
i n t r o d u c t i o n f t h e sues? s y s t e s of elatreh n&wemiBeiit t&ieih

began a t I H r i r a , nas e&ntiis*ed a t Aries and reached i t s
mm&t
a t Sarnie.*
M l t h e s e $yisde* a s we 1ST a l r e a d y
g-@fn, were planned % H#sims # Bih$p ^ Cordova* ana

H e a e a mis siiipe4 along t h e saaae l i n e s a s i t s us3eiqf
western pfedecessor,, t h e @p&opal spied #f Aries*
Its
isansediate purpose mis t t e l iftresgtheiiiiiii* sf' maifjfsit^

i a o r g a n i s a t i o n - as f s I e s i a s t i e a l discipline- nfeieli
had feeen t h e le t a s k f a l l t h e e m n o i l s mm&k&tk i f
Oosatantine i a "Operation with ifesias*
J.S a t Aries*
t h e bishops a t Ilieaea, hast ite@t a a i s p o i n t s f delisr*

ation*
I,
In l e a l with, m new^hom schism*
11 f introduce mnif#sity i n t h e c e l e b r a t i o n
f Buster*
III* fs crest greater order is the nenersl dis-
iplise and a4ii*iistr&tia f the &nrch
1st like other hietorloai events f supreme im* .
iiortaaee, the Council f llieaes "imm aefair-ed* daring the
process sf its gradual reception "by the Church* aa en*
tirely different meaaing from that isfaieh it had for its
.--'
, authors*
I
Itfeeeamepriiaarily the final authority is
the definition of the Christian faith.
-&US8&
Sais task irMeii s i a e e lieaea. has teeea regarded

as the ssiis purpose of a l l Oecumenical Coajteils* m s
achieved through t h e p u b l i c a t i o n ef t h e m & t t e n d o c t r i n a l
formlas*
Usey have lissome t h e tA.miL t e s t s f CS&areh aes*
berehip* f i r s t i a r e l a t i o n t M A s f s s l e n e , and l a t e r on
t t h e liable !%* of t h e C h r i s t i a n s .
Tim. f a c t t h a t t h e pruXgS6ti#it a w r i t t e n hli*
gatory reed m a not a p a r t f t h e o r i g i n a l agenda f
t h e Council e f Jlieaea i s s&oim by t h e slena. e p i s t l e which
1 . Stis^Vite Const* i l l . 56* .
\:
62.
S s s s t a s t i a e Msseif" nidressed t ih nfeoie &areh a f t e r

t h e else of t h e S$raod.
2 d l &&& a t length, t h e
s&preta importable f m s i f o r a i t y i s ih ele'fefatioa f

l a s t if and. did s o t ewea s s e a t i o a t h e ar read pas*
31 shed liy th Mshops # ovi*m2y t M a M s g t h a t ih f i r s t
tpustieit iia4 g r e a t e r igisifia!t t h a n th ggc$s&
fa r a p i d m y i u nhieti t h e s y a e i nas tfsiisfoist^
from -a bishops* ouri* i4sg isttfe t i e dl.sipliaifc$y
<iga&ti&, 2 at u s a&oa&eaJL ^stassiii toriag f i n a l aath*
# r i t y i s m a t t e r s f f a i t h i s t h e isost ar&arjfcaa2e- fatar
of M a ^ ,
I t -ms ism p r i s j a r i l y t s ites r&dieal ehaag
isMelt J a s t thoa fcegaa t o &ffot th ida of ehsreh. js6sfcr

ship aM istii'cii fsmss ssfsrt j^rssi i s i&e ai t h a t
Ooastaatia feat sash a m i p r i s t rol i s tits <$2iheratie>a
aaS doisias f t h e @ese2,y
1 s t hefor * preed
t a d@sriptioa of M s prsoaal p a r t i n t h e a2ia?

proeoediags* w m s i aa&lys t h e vrntitms ^ s a p s #f M ^ .
op ife .esptd Goastaatis* i a v i t & t i o a mat appeared,
osa t h r e e aaadrd of tss, i s ta Ispsri&X pmla a t
M&& I n th ssissitr f S2 (Joa X9t& - ifcu,gust 2 t h J .
fSsiteX^
fiwffiesibership
of t h e C o u a c i l , '
t h e aishops nit wer# gathered timore earn h divided
into- thr ssaia grmp
fits f i r s t m s a _ s n a i l M M ' o f
ardat theologians: wkm ems t lie&ea mitk th firm i&

tatioa f lag t h e i r 4ietrJlim2 piaioa approiF*! mai
saaotioad by t h e o t h e r bishops*
JPor t h e a t h Uotmeil
isa p r i m r i X y au pportaaity f o r a foaaa&ai&X dlso^ssia

of 0aritiaa dootria*
flis sesii ^*mp is p r o t e b l ^
ra 2ss &o&ro& taaa t a e f i r s t .
I t is.g e^sd of
taos bishop wfe MS s l r e a 4 y eoa it outset witii: tfe

i^p^ri! er;t a a i had t s s t s i th twe-et f r a i t of i t s
2 . Ba#Yita 6ast I I I , 2'f*SO*
6V-.
fmmnr*
Siey y &mxe 0f jttesi^lp*^ 8 s I n t e r e s t
i n t h e p?$s@??&tid& of pe&ee asel mitf'-mtg .the 0 i s

1,
t i & a s , ani. were px*af*l to meeept say geoloioa itii^ls
iso&ld r e s t o r e ma8itaity ^mmg t h e Shristiimss and s a t i s f y
tii-e Bapesposr.
Hig tuts gromps m i s l a i ooao of t h e
leading Bishops s i Meaoa, teat t h e majority of the $*

longed to t h e t h i r d p a r t y ,
f h i s m s tstpe itsi sr t h e oisaplo s t a t M pmsiors
wlsasre sawi liigeMiis i:sefies i n t h e folloi*ig n a y i
#
A. sea a t&as. a s thm imperial mjmitii#ii was geaejraliy
smi# timwmw a l l (the Mshops) with t h e Mta#8Ft w i l l i n g n e s s

feisttaei
t h i t h e r * a s though thsj" nsul& outo?ip< mmm
a s a t h s r I s m r a s e ; t^ny w # f ' ^ # l l e *ej t h o f m t i o i p a t i o s of a happy ^snJtf to- t h o eo&f esfesse* fey t h o hops
of oiyoyisg p r e s s s t pe&oo, &&& t h e &&&&<& of iltMiJig
something # a M strange i s t h o pearses of sft a M f i f e l s
a s Sopesw**."2'
SMs l a s t seiif#ite# prohasly p?;i&sst
i p t t # acleaactt-siy t h e s t a t e of aiast of s&iasjr of t h e M s l ^ f s ,

ffee Oh&roh i s th e a s t had suffered fj?i pgroooatioa s i
ne s t 'sine** t h e hm^maiim
of t h e ooBta&sy,. uwA the i f a s t i e
change frois a despised l i l l e g a l pooitiom t o a s t a t e

of hoiseur and t h e eisjuyaeiit of isgjerisl feesevolesee ha#.
ssai# a treaumôuo Imja*essi#s wp&n. t h e s i m i s of t h e iaaj
di*ity of e a s t a s hishops*
Shore were f mwtw among
%h-mfi persons lilc J^fttssttias msi. SgjyiSos tlfeo,. though

u n l e a r n e d , exereisel. a a t t s ^ t e d l e i i e d amttisifify F t h e
ishole gatherijsg If* Tfrttie of tfeeir gefssaml h@liSg ^mA
mls4mm\
But t h s r !# a l s # # t & ^ ' Mî'f im @asldsr4
I a B i s , Vita &3gt* XXl.,69*

2
JSISS
T i t s -00.31149 XXX *6.
65*
t&e amiieil a s a msiipi-' opporttusitif of
teiagisg
@fTe
a s otherwise uaapproaolaaole Ie?psr:F a l l tl&oir sorr/ovo

a s i eosi&l&lists* o f t e n dirotod a g a i n s t t f e i r fellow &lm** '
istors,
I t i s o&rlo&s tliat t& d i f f e r e n t groups of bisis&ps
nag* b a r e had e a t i r e l j diffesreist eojaseegtioas of t h e pox*
pose of t h e Ckm&oil*
fe t h a f i r s t .group l&eaaa urns a s
opportunity for fr@# t h a o l o g i o a l # i e p r t # ; f o r t3s@ saeoad

a st*r tats i s s s t i t u t i o a r t h e ads&ait strati of oh&roh
a f f a i r s a n i f o r t h a ihixd a s isspeafial ooart tshara a l l
S
tiieiy oomp-laints oould find a s a t i s f a c t o r y 'sol&to&*
Hi-eats h a p p i l y s a t i s f i e d t h a d o s i r e a of t k a f i r s t two
groups* "Hit Ooasta&tiae i e f i m t e l f rafkoed i s f u l f i l t h e
a
a s p i r a t i o u a of tha t M f i .
fli eoaeiliair
âroeeadiags.
lent t h a t ire ha? diâaased t i l e o r i g i n a l p l a n s f
tits Cosaeil* SB prepared If* Eftsims,. and t h e Tarioaa t f p a s

of bishops t i i s were i s r t t e d t o take sii s o t i r e p a r t i s i t s
d e l i oarat ie&s * we e s s 'deal with, t h e l a s t -4faestto8 oonearj**
tmg Mieaea # s a s # i y t h e user i a tahioti t h e e a s t e r a Mshojis
understood sad p i t i n t o jêaatiee t h e aoh.e offerad t o
t k e s "by So a l a s and sanctioned Ihy (3oaatatiiie
Gar information concerning tits apsstlieal. p r a a a t e r s
i a derived s&inly from t&o deserij&i&n of i t given &gp
s
.4.
B&sehisas
&
S o a r a t e s , Soaoieea a s i H&eedor'et
1 , l&8?*'9m.iJlJ3.Sse.l < 8*
4 18ttsViia O&ast* I1I4-S2

^
Tjf
'&
*&
"O'sf*
fh h& ataxy
\.
':,
a
ml tfe on&iteil ^spssed By Sslsslms #f ^ s i e a s i a t h e
3,
f i f t h @tu*y e#s%&ias wmy Mtf Xe> taras&s&rtfcy iBf#asi&#ii .
asd f@a l e s s ^lisTe-le' sore t&e s-tissx" lat#j? aarr&iiYes #.
th i H r s t 0#ata@aiesl &ftei3U
Secrat^s*^
3Si <my ethet* s u t h a a t l e
\*d possess mithsae a s aa&i&sa&le imperial. d#r##
by -âiob tii bisihops wire .satsitmai t # t& &33i&iX, ney M s *

u t e s &t i t s prseeecli.agt," I M s seams t h a t asny iapuriaiit
d e t a i l s i s t h e w r l s of t&& SauiseiX aa& tir#;f 1# r e s t o r e *
and. osuly a very gasmX d@scripti$ #*. i t s pree#ar# esu
naw
IJH
gives,
.-
2h d^stEisaX i M f t f
*rsry tharoujjhly stu&Lsd
t&# Si##m# d#jisi#jsg &as @es
and i t dses aaat e # s e e r s u s Is&s&Mft&Wly
tlm problems of i a p s r t a a e * l*er th study of d&arch rnsity i s

th isay i n wMeii 3fess l a t i n s s f t h e fJ&smeiX were aeepted
by i t s mettiamm and appli#4 latea? t o t& Mf# *f .ting Utaiafîi*.
fares SassMms 1 narratiira* itilfsii I s f t l ^ t M Isgr S a s r a t e s
sad S.sdtnt i t appears ttsst i s l#gim mitli t&e Ms3p had
Xetsg' discsassiese #a t h e 4#triaa.l. ^ ^ s ^ # e s l a w s l ^ d i s
Arius* exeossaasection 0
Mth&m(^. & ^ y a sfcs&rity, (as-*
srdimg to Sn sautes e d y si^Bts w Mshdpa) isapparfced Arias

d e e t r i s a l l y * a agreement amid fee reaehe&v and i t i s pa?*'
hafels t h a t a t Hicaea* a s i n tit e a r l i e r s t a r t s ef t h i s
1 , Bef t^X l'|5*Sist
2* 3&er. K*3.1 *8,
S Kof.wesl. e w a denies* t h e i r existence a l t o g e t h e r .
?ifcus crsyoxss ptntvoir affirsser <jn $ il a*3asta J a a s i ^
Q ^-atras a c t e s de liieee fs.# l e %b$Xe l*s Tiagt
eaaeas efe le- deeret syia^.le. 4i M i s t . d e s Csae*TaII 8
4 Hsxâok, % **Hist. u t the S&gm? \ f o l . S.* p p . l - 5 S ,
-2-imtkia Studies of ^rian** 2nd.8 edlv*Ot pp.10-55*
SiSflc*-^sIer<|, Hist des C3one Tol,X.pp43I*448.
'^ 'Sssâes H1S.Z.18 r e l a t e s t h a t i9T^B p a ^ a p M l ^ s s p h e r s
took a s a e t i ^ e p a r t In fch ^ s n e i l i s x defeated# l t fee
do-? s.t ?*5!p2'aiis tfcîr mmet p o ? i t i n .
6 . Sos*XSO
(n ,
6j
iispat* sly w s s Msbeps s a p p e ^ a i . i&e&as&er'* stei % exe^smaiss-tiît,
fli a t k e r * afeJeetsA ,4 it& J u s t i f i c a t i o n
e,a v a r i o u s gpomis&s aad des&n&ed t3as ffe'st^r&ties #f *lriiis

t# i i i s f3?saer of fie,
Xf i s ispeariiifit to sa-M- t i s t a a n j
of t M ? e -she h^&d th^ l a t t e r giaiuc w^re fey fro %@ig

dootrirâl p a r t i s a n s of t&s 3.0guii8t .SJL&K&ndrlan pifesissrter*
ajnwS tai2* spp si tin t JjU93s&?i&@sr f * s $sa& *>a t&eiar feat*
f t h e apreaaey t&e Bisissps $f: M e m e l r t s ^ a s ! s t # f
M.st.-2*y $f Arianiss? e l # s r i y .slisws*
f!feg fsriMxs i.ffS<sripf-i#Bs mf M s stig# # H e etm*
e l l l a r is&.irk gtY a. T*s?f $nfu^ 3tcta3?# # t n e pr&@$gdl&gg
feat t h s y a l l agê-e u s t h e point flmt flat #&f*trm pisfri
wlieti gatlses^cl tagetMeap',. pre-Ted. t e "fee spfatly d&yl&ed*
%
ljot3i en personal sjad dêtriiial gspotm&s.
At feis e r a e i a l
Ts&-m*mt Cozmttrntins *ip.petoped ea t h * g<wma snd sasplet#2y

ahsiigeS t h e s i t u a t i o n , .
He sfft*ctd an a t e o s t s i m s t x l s u s
t r s a s f # m t i s i i im tlie tats -mt mini #f i&e Csa,uiiil*s @ssb@r@

^ i suddenly ftasag-ed t o as-riim a t a sssaarlf mnaniaiims e
e i s i o n #m a l l t h e psiBts &f important*
2s.sMms asg. %hm
o t h e r h i s t o r i s n are iiiiite essph&tie i assrifciBg t M s Jbisppir

r e m i t -asiipely to Oonetantine*** i a t s r r e n t i s m i n tits n&rk
of tit OoussciX.
*Cîsststise &t l a s t sssce4## i a
feffisgisg
( t h e Ms-Mops) to sue n i s i a.M j B i g a s s t 3?p@etl.ag sffWf

disputed <|uestioa*, w r i t e s for i j i s t a s s s liMw2
s t s t e f f i s s i s aê.smds liy Socrates
St^Pta1
4
and Ssg^ftsu*
* do a s t Soaow ulistliajf 5etaiitiJ3# Miss#lf arriv<e*

1 . 2tm?ita Coast .XXX *13.
Sg* X19.
2* 'Si.s f i t a . Ceast XXXX3
4 * 3^s* H.1*XS0 S
a t t h e eo-ailiisia t h a t nitli&tit M s mmrnt a c t i v e i u t e f r e m t i e a

the peace of Mi 'Cgsurch
ISMIM
sever fee restore*!*
r K&e-
t h e r t h i s m s t h e wrieti#i # M#sius 8 therefore; i n s t a t e *

t e d M s hsm t o a c t .
S i s <tattr smggs-stioa i s ssora profeahiie,
f a r t h e fioetriaaa, frs&&& ^hlch -asas eresteaXly ^Mscepted hjr '.

t h e Ceuaeil under *ireet pressure- fro t h e Jaêr*we {wmtmffilll' |
as a. t e s t e r s creed. g o s s i h l y p3fi##s*i ljf J&sii**
Hie
Hsperer himself s s 1 s t si* eressfcs c l e a r l y ss&ew* Jii s ioc

irismX c^pi'sies of M s tws* &ad h i s s n i ^ p e i n t e r e s t mas t h e
siiitf* of t h e Shttrek nfeiili fee m s reader t c achieve a t ma^
p r i c e s i M "bg ms&ss s f flfcatsver reasonable esepeKlieei,
iaiaarlsBifig t i e general ssitaatioa a t t h e ftffl
saay say t M t Sostas s i i $& ther j i f f t e a % i&easasSer
grad&ally a r r i f e i l a t t h e e e a e l s a i s s t h a t tti# @ê^siiiieatia
@f Jiritas enM sever 1 j u s t i f i e d ttaleas t h e Ussiieil iiceepi*
ed a s p e c i a l dectriaaal f o r m l a vindicatiiig ^ e x a M e r * a c t i c s * idiieli uss ppssei hcth "by'a p a s t f M s csgreigati*Ma
and toy o t h e r .charchee,
I t I s s e n t probahle t h a t t h i s e o s -
elusion m s reached during t h e d^lifceratioss and t h a t t h e

f o r m l a t eo^pjsed t M l t the Cssuacil m s s i t t i n g *
Basins
asd M s p a r t y weret however at stnuag- ea&sgti t c a r r y through

t h e i r jp@sai ami they wmTm # l l i g s t o have rscsarii^ t
&asta:B.tia f s assistsa.es*
fhey fsfgasfei. Mm t h a t t t e m s i t f
# t h e Ohare& depended #m theaseef^tasee of t h e i r t&mmima

1 . .'his point cf vie% i s s u g g e s t s by fimtkiru "Btu-ii^s 8 p3S
2* ;ârr*aoI; 'int. ci* iJo-gia. irol* IV, p* 56 # *Eosias iiitrodueed
fk& d o c t r i n e of hoiaoouîoa a t iaca^*
f!i& disie s o l $ i s a l s o aseri*&ed to liosims by t!te
s a t i s i e e s e M s t s r i a a I M . l s t r ^ s : # 3 e f r e t h e Syn&d
s f ;icser. ^ i s ^ a s d e r Bisliap sf Alescaniria ^ s e to S i c s s s i i a ,
^fuS aJtr> s efwerti#n t d t h iiosias of CorSorm aiii t h e
o t M r MsIiGp&- vykaj were witii Ma* ^r<r9ailed mp&a t h e ?3pl
to rfe^lsre t h e ^ a eoastTostaiitial f d t h t h e J^ther
a4 ex
p e l .'.rius frsn t u e ôsrsiijiau of the Cxus-dh^m 2f*
6S.
and thus sectored Ills skilful. i s t e r r e a t i o - n -sshioh eaaoleNi
. thest t o ists a emplete i r i e t o r y , siitee- only ti?o M shops
refused t o sign t h e i r propose*! ereed.
Uzmulmlty*
fii Miease Ootmeil Ms' h> ose of t h e i s f saece^s*

fa I '%is*s^pa;I g&therisgs i s t h e h i s t o r y of t h e Ctaireh*. a-MS
ereit i t s M t t e r e s t saeiaies iair not a t t a c k i t 4ir@etly.
Here -again,, ae in. rmaj o t h e r inat*a&e* Gowfcaiitiiie's geait&s
fe? penetrating' int t h e es*ge*ie of t h e ifW Covenant neesrei!
f o r 3ie8.es i t s uni<?ae pistes i a t h e l i f e of t h e Onrush,
Seso*m i t r i t ^ s t
t h e 'KEiperer ** regarded t h e maauiraitj
of t h e loafer*3*:* to hs a 'iivirie spprtjbaiierf 5 .
I M s fan-
-i-H-ntiX pri'Aciyls of tli*'~ l i f e of t h e Oisireh r s s l a i d
mim
hy Cte-ost'-mtiste as . s-acrei feaiJiSsticra of the Couseil of

:iies*?a tshich eecitreft to t M ? sew type of e e e l e s i s s t i e a l i n *
s t i t u t i o a i t s oêristieling PHiits
I M i maantasitj', so
sioaderfailjr scMeirett by aiifita.atifte # S8jaotiifie$ Bieaea ami

WB.Q.%
i t .possible for t h e Caiholie Ghareh eventssally t o a s *
-e<pf the episaop&X Synods a s h e r l e g i t i m a t e sutil a a t h o r i t a *

tiire rasa,,
Comstastine mas shlo to mmmmmA t h e CSoaaeii m t h
fhu utisls spleadLomr of t h e Boma ispe-rial s r t
yet a t
t h e taste tin he isasm-gei. to ' s r e a t s a r*sl#. though temporary*

a t sso sphere f 11 Basin! t y a s i tsuttisl for&ear&iioe saoiag. t h e
r e c e n t l y g a a r r e l l l o g bishops.
fhs e a s t e r n eiehoiss were
osKfuered fey the Jfapersr and t h e i r f e e l i n g s were p e f e l i i 1

BOt irery d i f f e r e n t ftrea t h s s of HJusebiiis tfhos i a des*
eriMiig t h e f e s t i v a l arranges* hy t h e liiperor s t t h e l a s t
solestfcity of Kiea3# e^laimecU
1
fta^
1 "?^
2 , stts. 7 i t a Const* M l * 10.15
-Qtm s i g h t h a r e t&otight
7t>t h a t s îetmê of CHirist f s Mmgioti as i t e s slsaiowei f o r t h

1
sad s 'ires #ath@r f&giii r e a l i t y * *
33t saa s s a t i s e a t ol* a g r e a t stlsaaia.gf c r e a t e d by
doiiirtatifj# breathes through t h e I J e s e i l i a r pi@tle t o t&e
sarali of Alexandria*
At t h e iwigiiising t h e h s t e p s w i t # . ;
'8 Sines- hy t h e grao of Sod a g r s a i sad h o l y syo4 lias ba

oonroned a t l i e a # a 8 our t p i t a s &arr#rei,pi âstsitt-iiis
hairing msaoiiM a s l a th& f i r s t pl&oo thsm t h e impiety
mn. g u i l t @f I r i t i s mad h i $ adherents were txsmiB#i and i
tit pf,^#ii.gt of w&m
BOS
areligiOiis lii^gror*
fiesstsatiii^;
a s d ' i t s a s msaaisstisly *ieM##*** As4 a t t h e s3 t h e y s M i

#
Sjieisg therefor im t h e s e oohelsisiens aaad .is t h e general
unanimity and pe&se * wmmmxw isitit t h e g r e a t e r h s r sad

m r e aMmfiaat Xoire # s r fII#w s & s i s t e r and y w r bishop,,.
^lessmnderv*' '
2a flits e p i s t l e t h e musftinitf" i s t h e t e s t #f t h e
i*iglitsassess of t h e Jtrffpseat # and t h e h o l i n e s s of t h e Sottm*
s i I seems to depend s e t only # t h e i a ^ i r a t i 8 of t h e Holy
Gi^nt isii spo&e throiagh t h e m&x&i&ity -f t h e tSsfistisiis hot
alt on tli preseaee of t h e .Iiipr#F -sho a l s o -hms t h e a t t r i b u t e &f h o l i n e s s ,
After the l a y ^ terninatie*! of t h e @ss&eil*tlig M A *
ops s?ers disiaissed tilth rieia p r e s e n t s a s i t h e S i ^ e r o r f 3 ad*
i g n i t i o n to remain i s perfect u n i t y and peaee aaaoitg theis*
sol? * * * *jiit5 wat as of t h e isest d e c i s i v e hanges i a t r o 2 . Soar* I9 M s s p e c i a l s t a t i o n i n g of M.^3a,m&m i n the oae i l i a r e p i s t l e &mbin@di wltls the sixtia Csit^s, pi?o4ucs a
fiufinits ii-aprer^siss t h a t 2!ssea -ss a gi s eat pg-rsonal trimigpfe
for the hlsimp of A l e ^ a s S r i a ^ ^ i ^ i i n s r e a s e ^ M s r i g h t s ad%r- sn a p p a l l to t2s t r a d i t i o n a l rfisr. fo go f u r t n e r i n t o
iisis aAlj-jeet wmM h a isatter of s p e e i ^ l study. Some f a r t h e r mi3i?eetions i n KilaIler # Beitr.îr.5<3seh*der Verfess
PP23gg* S s r l i a 192S. A reeeBt study of t M pise of 3&non
VI i s giTrei br "'e?*Scbssarta 2fer Seeftste llic.Ssnoa fFras*
Alad.dr TlissBf$eratTOl.SflX,B@r&19,30j.
5 i%e b e ^ r m i a g of t n e s o - c a l l e d aatetl rest (i-tay 22 !'5*iie
itethîie ikit*i itss publisfood i n t h e pressêe of our H&st&
tha 330st r e l i g i o u s and g l o r i o u s l y ^riotorisus Ssperor Oon
Rt^ntitts *aiÛ3tastha e t e r n a l aufi sspist Aha&d@ sgiiX8*
a l s o 2Susa,a.CatI7a?3e (Cos.B^'sntiae i c represented on o o i s s i n
tho *>,et f as5f*3tlisg: to S S S T S I ) S
n
dit.el i a t o the l i f e of t h e C3mrhs,. alas t h e Gtt.ail eon*
ve&ed far the disease* it ef 'di s o l p>li miry measures m s re*
s # i w d SB a sysod,-lees-irsg k M , M i t a' w r i t t e n m>-%A as s
t e s t of the e a t h o l i s l i y of e r e i y M@ho$v
The oase*
^mesees. of
Jieitea,
Sits1 r i e t s r y f Garisiasrfciite .s4 Hosit& a t H e a e s

sesasd to be eonrplete,
Sie bisis&pe, i n t h e mane of t h e
Church s unamjaouely signed the s s a e i l i a r r e a o l u t l o a s * a s s

t h e Isper** grelsaMj
1S&JM&&
t h a t .fifes then o&sssr&s they tsoaM-
resists,, @ssietA#.fiei by th# S t a t e t e t h e iadispifc&hle I s

of t h e Qmrtzh* o b l i g a t o r y f3f a l l hex* setsbiaf*
tâly tn#
bishops ferei to oppose t h i s settIseat* but they were s e a t

into -exile*
at t h e -amity #? the- Simrek was @ole&8ly es*
tabliehed e-s i'-ilf nc? ha s i s sf e s i n g l e ereeed reeognleedi fey

the rio:3A Mrap-^ror t"Qa t h e majority of th* bishope,
3ut in. the ev-wst of the Mie""?ie eou.ia.eil old not
i t s mith&Ts expects, t i one,
I t proved instead
4.
fulfil
t o ; he the h&
gifmisg of a r e v o l a t i o u i s t h e l i f e of t h e Qhureh s vie l e s t

t h a i i t e-aa o-aly be soldered -sitli tit Hefortistiojs of t h e
s i x t e e n t h eentury*
t h i s r e s t i l t \:is p o r t l y proTSked by s>is'
und--*rstasclia|T between Qeiif; trusting 3ia t-li/* e e e t e r s bishops*

aM. p a r t l y due to the a c t u a l jirincif-les of the. sew order*.
Ph#- mi sunder*
She luperor aad the I s s t e r s bishops- lias, liscl as time
standings he*
tweem on&t&&* mf&TQ liemsa. t o get t s kasw eae astih-ex f o r -Geaetaiitiii
t i a e aal. the
Santera biehops.had only appeared i s t h e e a s t i s t h e y#sr before t h e Sotmeil.
M s oireusstaxiee m s t h e suse #f tie- fiiTergeaei.es of ttp-lai s a between Mis s a l t h e o r i e n t a l etsiseopate*
Mffereu# i s
eoaceptioh of
piseopal $f*
f-iee-
*e f i r s t of
t h e s e was t h e differeaeg i s the eo'seegtis-as of t h e -episcopal
o f f i c e held l y Seasta.atiaa at by t t o ^ s t e r a bighops, -the

1 Soer, X,0,
ii3 a I*21.
2*. The wiater of* 323-324, Seeefe* 0eseh.de3 Cut, T 1 * I
pp. 170-1S2,
7X
!mp-j*;ge?fs f e i s t of view i s w e l l e g r e s s e s i s h i s e p i s t l e
air@ss#fi t o tits eh&rohes* ' S* omsi4Msr& t h a t t h e Maho;ps
were the plei*ipte2itiarie$ f t h e ehars&es* even a s he mm
t h e master of t h e s t a t e *
W e f f t M u g -tfeisli h& nee tees.
decided fey them heoaste a s isîsFrtmbl a s M e m eossaaafiis*

H*at was t h e ireasoa f o r M e p a r t i c u l a r .interest, i s e M a i a i a g
t h e i r signafettres*
Be %e2tred t h a t H i i -legal coafizafctifttt
f flie decision -me t h e s M a t i t s a s pavt f t h e #@iiisr p

##iifigis*
t h e east-sam. biaftvops, a t h e o t h e r tend* a l ~
thsmgSi they signed t h e !i-@ee ereed* hs<t -a iaeeti@& of f&o

iseaa&isg: f t h e s i g n a t u r e s ssi. #f thir f l a s e $& t h e l i f e # f
t h e CSmrsti nitleti a s f a r a s w esua J-fig sow* haA * l M a g t #
is with any l e g a l sotiosw
A M ^ i p , from t h e i r p s i s t #f
view, a witness of t h e f a i t h # f t h e S&tetrolu Xe was eat

a b l e e i t h e r t o a-*M anything t # t h e t r a a t i t i o s a l #setriii@ # oar
t t a k e sway eves t h e l e a s t p a i n t f r # s i t *
i%@if -state
of mind <e#ttM probably be exjarosse' time* i f tlie reed they

signed were t h e r i g h t ne # t h e i r 0 i i p a t t t r e s w%34 ha Xanfel
hat wemM add mtiling
e s s e n t i a l to i t s iarath* but i f i t
were a d e p a r t u r e fro t h e apostoli r a l e , then even t h e eiu-*

a a t u r e s of a l l the M s l p s etmlci &t fsa&e i t V-aliA*
though sose of t h e M shops? signe-i. merely from f e a r
J&
th#
ass of the gave t h e i r asaaeii ifiXXisgly* tho&g& i^ê n a*

e#iii of t h e Bsêror* aeeiare than from any personal eoa
vioMoa of t h e ezpedienoy f At*- -Sit t h e i r a o t i o n i s t&i$
1 . Has* V i t a Coast, I I I * X?*20*
2* **Receive t h e n , . . t h i s t r u l y S i v i n e iaJuBCtien sad re^r<4
i t a i s t r u t h t h e g i f t of 65 Sor whatever i s detef~
s i e d iB the imlj assemblies of bi^hope i s t o he r e g a r d
ed as i n d i c a t i v e of t h e I&viae w i l l , . * jpoa a r e hoand from
t h a t time forward to a&apt l i t ) f o r yourselves**
fea
s t a n t i a # * s e p i s t l e t o t h e charelies, a i s . f i t a Soaet.XI30#
3* fhere e e r t a i o l y s such a grsm^ of hishope a t liieaea*
Hil* #0 3ya81. 2%ilostI^^ reg*llaz* o r a t ^"111*1^ p a
542. f h e sul r-?aitl a oiehep of Ilieaea i 9 nose t h e -ârse
for a l i t t l e ink* ;Iû5iee of iirian (M&^k} ?*50*
7s'
m s h a r d l y blaaeissaftiiy* 'for it
Qo&siasfeis believed i b s t a:
Sstuseil' eff Bishops coal a iape$# s s t laws txpon t h e ds&roh*

t h e bishops ihe&selves tid s o t pa?f#st t h i s docrfcriae
She s y m i l e a l e p i a i l e t # t h e c&nroh of lagM3$ri& i s t h e
best ^position of t h e i r a t t i t u d e , ,
f&a l i e s u s bishops #o
not jnsw aiiy s p e c i a l prerogatiira # r iasyuMag m t & s r i i y be

i&sgiag to the- ootmoii*
Siioy ma?s gatherac! 'fey t&e n i l l of
t h e Siap5rr? M i n g a s i n t e g r a l yarfe of t h e oh&r.eh* they

t r u s t the pareoeaee # t&e Holy fifes s t nts long a s ttoty ra*t
i s u-O&slgsity sra& o&oor&'"
t h i s typical eastera feeling i s
erea tsere c l e a r l y exf-f^ssei. lit til persOB&l eots-asts si*

3osrst&s o s &*EstaBtie f s- l&tt&rs.
He p l a i n l y says tharfc
*aot t h e Mishaps 1 o f f i o s ' tet MisaiiiM.iy s M t h e iiisj4mti#m

of t h e Xaly aiiost. a*s tii.^ g&srssise of truth. ..
ffeis from t h e p a i n t of -Tie* Kf the bishops* tit &em&
ftiej
stgr.sd had to bs eeBfirersa "by t h e islxsle "body of the
Church and esM be c e r i s e 4 by St ,* Jmm t h e anperor* point of T i r I t urns h& f i n a l sufi maeh^lloagsable d@is3.urat i o s of t h e r i g h t f a i t u *
Hie- *3as.s of th# ssscoita ani noro b i t t s r iaistaBi.@x**
s t a s d i n g wme th$ astsml nsjxtast of tha lieeiae ereed*
&
bishops a t Me&ea were nsers-atives- * they -is-finitely

I . ' Seer* l #
2 S i s i s tsepportod by G i ^ . i f e s . ?%*> iS&jgBltes. Orstt.21 (14,
rtt^nr.âus * h o u g h ^ t y a t y ^ ^ e c aEng t h o bishops
ae..t> m s f i r s t rani- s ^ s f ? tfc* nt*mhe>r& of th* es&neil*
ior_r.r*fftj*ftr.'ss v.s g i ^ a io v i r t u e J u s t s s -BUCII a s t o
3 e ->en
iaî,
noly
fw>r
i f thos* ^;? coB^titutfic* t2i3t <3jn4 fed b*en Imjr*

y-it bîns iilttaia^si by God aax tH 3?&ws of t h *
3 p i y i t they vwJLd hsrrs he*a u t t e r l v unable to **rr
t h * t r a t h . i o o r . i*9
4 S i.-as i s tUo point of ri?* e^re^fiô by ^ W i : S i s4

Afros* a ; al-w> of 3s3bitis l a h i s 2tt*v to h i s
. 5 - Bus, Vita Const..
Illm*
5* Gwaticin, ^Stalea of Ariaaisar 4HM# p*52
7#
r e j e c t e d t h e esrp&eitioe of t h e f a i t h pet fernard hy t h e
iiriaaitting p a r t y a aceotnit of i t s n o v e l t y , sftd they were
at prepared t o izstrod.vitire asy eth#r iHRoretion i n pise
of t h e d o c t r i n e they ha* J s t r e v e s t e d .
fhe o r i g i n f
t h e Kieeae fortnaia I s too v a s t a 'jgrohlaat t o 'be treated,

here*
I t s steamy h i s t o r y c l e a r l y is&io&ted t h a t i t mm*
t s i n s 4 a d e f i n i t e dsparimre frosi t h e t r s d i i i a n a l expressions

asset oy t h e e a s t e r n ehwareh*
M s p&ytieuXsdF point feeeaae t h e secure of saoeas.isg
misuadergtaiiaiiigSj of laixieh "both Comrtsotine **n t h e Masters
g
h i shops isere the T i c t i a s .
The 3r.ipersr SCTCK- h& &hy pa?*
t i e u l a r ctepsa-tisal preferences,
Be 4aired t h a t t h e
peace of the Church should r a s a i s iaylolafele, asd nftieh he

s o l e a s l y declared t h a t he haa always aoeepted t h e t e n s
:|S
Eo
i#iiî#ns " he probably bslietrsd t h a t he m s supporting t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l estpr^ssios* of the 70e s t e r n Charefe,
the hishops
for t h e i r p i r i n*ir* eowiiseed t h a t t h e *Hmot:sio:ns *ms t h e

^ r ^ r o f 1 ^ c ^ e ^ n foraal** a ? i t h o i he w u l d ?tt allow th*s
to elyts 3Py o t l ^ r Otûrs*.^t.
i n r e a l i t y t h i e d o e t r i m l de
f i n i t i o n ha<l partieal&* iiaportas only for r a t h e r m l i m i t e d

miraber of Mshops iris hoireifer were supported 'fey 'Sositus* _
the duration of t h e Ootmoil itas too short t allow tht
faet t o be appreoiated
CJfily .ften^fds * %hes t h e iiioeae
ere**d use ^solemnly proolaitsed by t h e bishops and saaetioiiei

'by t h ? itnpfror. ^? t h e o s l y o f f i a i a l exposition of t h e
2* ihe l a t e s t s t u d i e s of the .Sicene Oreed areJ~ I>oof, Sae
iicaesaaa i n irestsafae f 8 rl*iAiller 1S22. Lietsmaaa. Symboletu3isn, JIIX, (Zeitsobr. XJSiss. XXIV, 1925) Also ôf.
&&?{&%& ,;;i3t*cf l&efisa.vol.XV ji-S68a. J . Beiltaae Baker*
the iseaaing of hosoousios i s the C&net.Creed{a^b.1te:xt &
etud.l90&}v&l.VXX#g,l J.BetiHtae Eeker,2he M s t * o f iheoi*
!TVnVWhatr~nc,'{Jonr-r^l of Xfceoi. study. 1901-2.7
S. :** ncht?ert t h i n k s Siffesfgntly* AccordiB to him Cosstan-aiae d e l i b e r a t e l y i n s i s t e d on hsssoosis-n as a westers f o r sails-- f o r he hoped by it?? n e u t r a l iitflueti.ee to s e t t l e t h e
c o n f l i c t s of th^ . ^ s t e r n s . (las- &esoh ilthasa.sias) ^.eh
Koru Ges, i?ioe, Gcttiii, 19C8, p*3* p.S?*
S. ^ e . V i t a Const.XX.69; Socr.X.7; Hef ,X.ecl. e I i i s t * des
4 . Socar. 2S SuseMms 1 e p i s t l e to M s o o a g r e ^ t i o a *
7-f
S t t l i o l i s faith did t h e %wm p a r t i e s Ssrolved i n M s p r o
cedure r e a l i s e t h a t a e i t h e r of-the& r e a l l y desired J u s t
t h i s ereed*
fh@ gradual rs&Xisatioa of t M i simaderstaiiSiiig
and t h e Tarious attempts t o eseape fr i t s c&stseû.ga&ea
trere t h e m i s o h a r a o t s r i s t i n g of t h e post-lie-na f e a r s of
Coast a s t i s f s reign*
t h e l o s s by Bo&ius of M s forger i s -
flmessa and fait disappâsaae&isoe from court i s d i o a t o t h e Haperor*s disappoi stalest a t t h e r e s u l t s suMiê-i. a t Sieaea*
aad M s r e a l i s a t i o a t h a t t i e Siesae forsula' had o a l j satis**
fied some of t h e e a s t e r n Shr$*tiaas*
the t u t isisaisderstaadiags wer t h e e x t e r n a l re&soas
f o r the oo&fliots iBtiieh* i s r a p i d l y iiseras$ag tsxffiii#ri-# f o l
lowed t h e attempt to- apply t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e Ci@un.eil*
"Sit t h e r e a l root of t h e t r o u b l e lias t o he sought i s t h e p r o fousd i r a a s f o n s a i i o s of t h e irery essenee of -Mr-eh isealersitip ?iiIt ims brought about by t h e first- eessitaieal douseii a .
t h e new i s - .
porta&ee of
t h e oresd.
fjiite uaexpeotedl:^,, t h e exoosra&iiie&fcioa of Arias , p r o s l a i a s i b j Alexander imfi f i n a l l y sasofciosed b j -fee Haperor

asd t h e Oousoil provoked a. suddett s M f t i s g i s t h e p o s i t i o a
ishieh t h e oreed ooeupied in the- l i f e of t h e Snireh* aad t h i s
e-hsnge has had iaauserabXe eoas&iaesioes f o r harsh u n i t y *
Before Sieaea t h e ere-ed was eoaaidared a s a t e s t n&ioh was
applied t o a- eoa?ert d e s i r o u s of J o i n i n g t h e Church*
It
isae t h e soot saesre-i p a r t of t h e S & r t s t i a s s d o e t r i a e * e a r # " 1

f u l l y kept s e c r e t fwa those ith do s o t belong t o t h e Ctaireh*
Tm Cathsli eonjsaiiiti es used oreads t i i i e h v a r i e d i s t h e i r
v e r b a l expression,
fit Slmreh sever t r i e d to- istroimo-e- u a i -
f o r a i t y i s t h i s s a t i e r v f o r she did s o t need a# a&iv.srs&l

t e s t of neisbership*
Saeh of her embers beloaged t o one of
1 Cyril of Jerusalem (550-86) i a M s es.tehetieal leefeares
s t i l l disapproves of w r i t t e s oreeds He w r i t e s ; ml wish
you t esicrsit to eeisory nf&m 1 r e m i t s t h e ereed**. s o t
w r i t i n g i t out on paper . t s k i s g eare -shile you r e h e a r s e
i t t h a t so eateehuses ehaace to mmTlimr it.** V.1E.
tim sasae f e e l i n g i s expressed by 3o0$r<ea IeSO*
7t>
^/6
her oosasaaaities* t ^ on' the strength of that m $ &4&itte&

"ty other Uteri stiaa frater s i t i e s a preseatatioa of a l e t *
t s r of reooaseaaatiea froa h i s OT bishop, Bat #e a
Christian m s iaeorporateo; is. the booy of the Charoh, ao
farther t e s t hy aeass of a ereed omit' be applied to Ma*
II s M excluded fro the tSstreii only for grave s e r a i
s i s , for aposiaisy* or for ia&rodaeiag nose r a d i o s ! doetriisaX
or disoipliaary iaaovatioas,,
f M i t r a d i t i o n a l s t a t e of' things as oospletely r e *
versed by the Heaf deoisioa,
lhe aooeptaaoii by the
Co&a&il of oae reel obligatory for mil, the f ^ r i s t i a a mm

inanities eaat thafr a Christian ifeo had previously bees sidered a,g a sound um& JanCm! sse&besr of the'Qfms&hoti.il.
sew hs esspeilei fros the asmber of the eleot i f he mis s e t
sole to satisfy t h i s additional t e s t *
I t i s <oite ehvioas' that t h i s eoase^&eaoe of the
sigaiag of the creed @spisteljr esna|ii the attention of
the amjsifity of the bishops a t the Couseil*
it is alii
o d i o u s that t h i s reform w i M never have M i a ehsmee of

'feeing aeeepted l y the Sharohes i f i t had sot foasd a
mighty seaport i n the jjny3 of sstastls^. g . isi ssw a t
l a s t i s t h i s -sew t e s t a lear aad objective li&e i i v M i a g
the legitimate Slmreli fron a l l the heresies asd stMsas^
Coastaatiae m t h h i s legal a s i el@s.r*thiali3ig siint drew

a l l the logical eonel&sions frost the fact that the hi shops
a t iJioaea swelled Arims by proaneiag a aew u r i t t e a creed*
Smm M s point of view t M s oreed, o&ee solesaly saaotiesed
ty hisaself aad the &fsil # beeassi froa then oasmrds the
sle a&d iadispatable t e s t of the membership of t h e Catholic
l' f 2at i t as asns the l e s s a iasntoiis change to draw up
a single document s s a standard f orthodoxy for the
iîole of Christen&oa, to pat 321 end aot oaly to t h i s
hat to a l l future controversies* She plan seems Soa
etaatiae*e
o^m, l i k e that of the Oecameaioal Ooaneil
i t s e l f # Gâtkia* Studies* p.40
Church.
:Sveryiae i#i# u s s - w i l l i s g t # sign i t had t o fee
adssitted i n t o t h e Church, s s d fn-eryose whs refused istst he

excluded*^
I s a e i i s t e l y mfteir t h e d i s s i i s m l of t h e Stmneil, &&**
s t a a t i n e s t a r t s a s energetic mjiplieatioa &t t h e mm grim*
eigle.
Ail tlis s t e s of t h e sys# ifeo refused t o ' eiga
t h e eireed uter sent I f t M Hsfntraf i n t o
exile,
a*ft It
made i t $&te c l e a r t h a t eêry f a r t h e r attempt t o f i o l & t e

t h e sswly e s t a b l i s h e d &ifif fpsttld he paaishsd with ttste
s e v e r i t y %y h i s i s h i s eap&eity &s t h e j p a r d i n a f Ohxlstiaisi
otieaess.
i e i t h e r t h e Mitioj nor e t h e r wmh&m of the
^ ^ . .
a t t h e li#tinisgAja?it;par## t o accept t h i s ftuidases&al reform*.

l a t h e wmmt * up t o t h e seeoad iuslf of t h e fmirth ee&tsry' t h e
esdLstene of a w i t t e n creed hliigatery f o r a l l co-asuM-tiee
wm.s simply ignored s i s wea^r pCLeeas.
M s ? s s s# i s Siisl.
At l e a s t * i jEfr t h a i
1 B t h e east t h i s p o l i c y of iptoring.
m g t so easy t o pars&e* hut h e r e to Che hsho-i t r i e d

a s f a r a s p o s s i b l e t o eeeage tvom t h e s e e e a i d t y of i*#ogiiis*
iaag t h i s b a s i s f Church iseatbershig*
&* e a s i e t s a a j o r i t y ' .
1 , f h i s c l e a r system affesrsed e r e r y B&wmi o f f i c i a l a s

easy a ^ uaefaiimeal aethod of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between
t h e l e g a l l y recognised and t h e i l l e g i t i m a t e bodied of
the C h r i s t i n a s , a t a s k tsaich had biesly been wery
d i f f i c u l t f o r thess befer' t h e Sieeme fJotiaeil, and
tsbieh use very important # f o r t h e S t a t e ' s g r a n t s users
offered sly to t h e elergy of t h e l e g i t i m a t e eosgrega- . \
tlons,
:!
4^- as-
=C$? %** -ss-
*& O
I . At t h e ease tlate Censt&xxtine isas e s s l l y emphatic t h a t

t h e #@ s i g s s t u r e tmder t h e Mcene d e f i n i t i o n -sas s u f f i
c i e n t for the y e a ^ s i s s i o s of a Q i r i s t i s n i n t o t h e legifci*
laate ^ m r e h s and t h a t was h i s p&liey i n dealing tsith A r i u s .
3ocr,I,S5*27. Ssz* Il32 fhe e p i s t l e of t h e Ogsseil of
Jerusalem 33'5 i n Athan.Ap.o*Ar.o84 C o a s t s n t i a e ' s l e t t e r
to Athan: i n Athaa* Ap*e w Ar.S|
4 . rlil&ry fie fiyjis$5K S M brethren yon ha-re h i t h e r t o
beeB i g u s r s s t of . i s r i t t e n e r e e d s , yom have not needed the
l e t t e r ff yo a'sminoî i s s p i r i t * Hit n e c e s s i t y has
intro<iuce#. t hs e eusts of expousdiztg ereeds sad s i ^ i i s g
ex0 s i t ions ** C 356)
\;
7
i s i t s desperate s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h e l i e s a e p a r t y for a
long t i a e f r i e d t o avoid t h e use of I M s weapon* Basely
t h e t e s t of efasreh fseabers hy usaas of a creed...
fhey
were #-sly forced t "begin applying i t a f t e r the- Council of

Antioeh i n 34#
Bat even t h e n , hy predueia-g a muiaher of
d i f f e r e n t speeds 2 t h e y es-mtissed hviofusly t o deny t h e very

p r i n c i p l e emphasised I f t h e Sinese decision*
Bat s l l t h e s e
e f f o r t s t o preserve t h e aneieiit ehareh order ner-e frustrated.,.

and t h e reason. f a r t h i s f a i l u r a ns the l a s t s e t -#f the
Council, t h e e x e B i e a t i i Arims and his- supporters-,.
followed hy t h e i r isiaediate exile..
Aris* e m i t
am _ A ts eon*
s@-pfi@es.
file a c t u a l exeo&s&nieatioi* of Airi had a l r e a d y * s t s i a s d some m r a i a g signals..
Altlmte^ the- g r e a t majority
of t h e bishops considered h i s teaching erroneous* they were

' s t i l l s e t prepared t o v o t e snsMiasiisly i n favour f h i s
espaIsi#B***J
fhus t h e very may 1 B tiiiieis Alexander a a i M s
supportersovercaise a t lieaem t h e ppssisg p a r t y m s i n i%

s e l f a great challenge t o t h e primeipie of m s i s i i y % t h a t
r e a l foundation of t h e Chung*.
I s t h e h i s t o r y of t h e Church.
t h e r e haa a l r e a d y "bean cession liieii a .grsup of C h r i s t i a n s

1 . As long a s Ooastastine m a l i v e a opes p r o t e s t
against t h e Kieeae creed was allowed, and t h i s f a e t
n a t u r a l l y ad t h e s t r u g g l e en a d e e t r i n a l ground
p a r t i c u l a r l y dangerous f o r the smti-Meene p a r t y ,
2 . Ishe Council of Aatioch of 341 accepted four d i f f e r e n t
exeeds.
Hef . i e e l *ol I *pp ?2S-730;. Athan. * 4@ Synod.*
3 , Seer. l . H .
So-s. I&1.
4 . fhere i s undoubtedly a. s t r i k i n g resemhlsaee between

t h e c o n f l i c t of U e s e t r i u s and h i s p r e s b y t e r Origea,
and t h a t of A l e v a d e r and h i s presbyter A r i a s .
It
i s t r u e t h a t Arius m s i M e e i g u i l t y of a d o c t r i n a l
oxroTs but in. "both i n s t a n c e s , t h e Alessandrian h i shops
behaved tsith sueh rashness and p r e s a s ^ t i o n (Sas.H.S.
Y l . ? . 51 t h a t t h e thef e a s t e r s churches moved t o of
f e r a m r s i^lese t t h e persecuted p r e s b y t e r s , ("Ms.
K.S.VI. 27 and Soer. I 6 . )
5 . As has he en described t h i s voetory w&s mainly due t o
Constantine*s laterventio-ji i n t h e i r favour.
11
had triced t o asceXuda as- exposing s i o w r i t y f s t t&e as*
n&it aXlatraliip # i&thcmt hsrrisg f&Xly &aed t h e -purer #f
persuasion.
Bat t h i s danger w s altssys kept i n cihaek by
th ftree an4 i s p a s t i a l â&ips&xs&s Q t h # r e a a a a a i t i a s *

M t l i # i f a n a a H y thay Its*
1
a&ted psrsasis.
siglit t # retail* ^xaaimiisi-
I s smet.i#e# i f tliay f#l.t t h a t t h e J u d p w i t
p t s a s i a iium i s s saesM## # . ih$e- f3?*êiitXy # f f r i t h e i r

s p i r i t s s t ! hssfdtmlifj' t a araahly aat*diiBi0& l l h i l g t i s s g * ^
fhara i s as daa&& t J s t t h e aa&e mmms^@ms tlLt
' h a w feXXoisad t h e d e e i s i e e s #f t h e Sieeiss $&&weiXM *&m
hishops nii@ -mre not &>mt%mce& &f thm agpedianay of axeost*
mnimtXng
Arime ould hsrr tsautiiuafl f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s
ns&th iitfUj, sad Arianisrs, illce many o t h e r ewaf** wmld e i t a a ?

iaafe disappeared i ^ a t e a l l y , as* h a t e bean transformed i n t o
' a t J i s t i a e t h e r e t i c a l 1*fty having nothing i n fiussa -srita
the
fethelie
Ciasreh*
S&is p r a s s s s of the peaaeffel over*
ei3isg of a r r nan h o w r e r oo&pletely aw@rthraisi hy S@a

s t & n t i s e ' s s a s r g e t i e iaterir estiva*
ika mnte& t o see t h e
Cimreh i a a s t a t e of p e r f e c t u n i t y and he eensider@l t h a t

any&ae itt# disagreed with a f e r s a l dee$&on ns i&g&a$3g
pi.Mi order and should he l i a i s e t o $&@&$hmen& l&e a n
r-iiasnf oriiiiaaX*
fee tesôorary and e t a p i t ^ t i i r e i y s l i d - p t i ^ t s t
%ihiah Constantina ett o&t t o t h e Mi e a t * opposition mm .
isaflieted with, t h e heat iitiniiaits # inoa h e s i n e a r a l y he*
lieved t h a t t h i n seasisre na t h e h e a t nay t f ^ t e a t i n g g t h e
i i a i t f f th xli s s i -sdTiag h e r sad tfee ^ ^ i r # fieeit ^ a ^ r
tfsiiHfs.
T@t i s s p i t #f tliat i t predttead darastle
1, C^so-a .^#1 -f Arle aad af Miaaea.

S a , arig ar^. %"h p s l e g t i a a ^ C ^ J ^ u*'H,.V(, {
hm Stephen and t h e lapsed M s l p s frs Spaia* St.Cyp*
s* SJaf* Uaatanista aa^ t h G a l i i e c s ^ s a a i t i e s *
So
s e ^ e s e e s j for fey i t the.:ila|*erer fetite mp&tttlagly atmefe
m f a t a l Mw a t Sdise of the f&ada&ent&X prised j& ear of t h e
lew Seirenant hetwea. 84 ana Hiri'stiaii 'saalkiiii.,,
\
latil
t h a t t i n s 'the l i f e of t h e Hi&fN&h h a i he$& tesei # s t h e en

t i r e l y f r e e a l l e g i a n c e mf heap .tssmhera*
Utey mere mil l i n k *
5 t o g e t h e r y a t s t rin&re&a tesi of a t f e s l r e p # n & l M l i t ^

hat. 8# one h&S any s t e r s t t e pouter oirer a f e l l o w nearer*.
Ifeasl&ity an4
t h e xule of
Majority*
His CSImreli^s exeessi-re i n s i s t ens oa ohefiienee a a s softened

"by t h e irelttntary a s t a r e of t h e surrender*
Jayose m o s h i r k -
4 h i e Writes m s e n t i t l e ! t o lea?re t h e filshii* ^ i e h

sit t h e ye&e of t h e Qtaristisis i f # i i # i t a n i i t s a a a r t f l e e
easy a a i J#yfml*
fhe i l # of ^ r i a a or&ere& % @&&ta&t&e n a 4
e i s i * e a^parttsre f r o a t h e *r#tti*iii aa&eegt&osi o f oh&reh
laesbershig*
I t m a s a t o n l y a sasirti&Jiiiifi of t h e r i g h t
f t h e majority t e 4 i e t a t e i t s iXI # ' i n t h e mmm of Soi*

1
t t h e s&nerity, hat i t a l s o &reirl4g& a s e f f e e t i t e neapon
for the ^ l i e k ami raciest! appXieation of t h i s newly me
fpireui rig*ii*
33reovey a f t e r Ifioaea m@mer^sip of t h e
eh&resh eeeasie ea&|ialsary a&4 siyon $13& h&4 enee Raised

m s tuaaole t o leaf.
M@ m a oMigei, hy t h e t h r e a t of
piBishseat t o #l>ey those r a l e a of" f a i t h asa -aan4aa& ahiah

were approved. lay t h e 'State a* esinpesmug t& C&thalia' t a a a h *
ifeg.
H a s l a t t e r dang mas |*arfcilsrly striMtig<,. f a r
a f t e r Hieaea t h e S t a t e a$fieare4 i n t h e l i f e of t h e S h a r d
i s the r o l e of a f i n a l *erMtr i s t h a t sa&st e s s e n t i a l
aeetlom a s to miiiafe of hex' stemhers "as -êa3c$^g i s t h e
1 . flie s t r i k i n g ahsenoe i n t h e e a r l y eh&roii of say i d e s

t h a t t h e majority lias a rigtit t o d i c t a t e i t s w i l l
i s t h e siinerity i s w e l l e^ssresseii i s S t ^ ^ p r i ^ i *
oarraspondeaea { ^ ^ ^ . - ( l ^ T S ^ / a & d esfeeimlly i s h i e
deeiaa?ati#m a t the opening of t h e Oawaih 0 a r i l a ^ . n i s s
Osmaeil,, Eart*. I , 430.
O I'
same of <*&&"*
I*"rvieusly i t Mai. been -possible t o s e t t l e
t h a t *pestien s e l e l y "fay means ef aifmsl j^srsixasien* aad

only wlies t h e C h r i s t i a n s tea a r r i v e d a t a a n a n i s s s s decision
were they air t h a t . t h e y knew t h e r e a l m H # f M *
.'Bit'
''
new i t "eeaiae t h e prerogative; of ' t h e S i ^ e r e r t # d a e l a r e ' '.'

t h a t t h e opinion of one grsisis- aaseisg tint eenflieti&ig; p a r t i e s
gas i n s p i r e d hy G&9 while those e f t h e o t h e r s w r e gsft-ds&n*
ed hy Eiai.
f a i s r e f e r s iirod&oed a &$$% r u S l e ^ l anil rsrolwlio-iiary

ffce igdivldtz&l
and tl&
Jmnge i n t h e r e l a t i o n eetueea am I n d i v i d u a l Christ Is. and
eesssunity
t h e Christian e e i m i n l t y ,
I t epeasd a # # through miiJLeh
s e l f - a s s e r t i n g sad arrogant Isman indiTidmalisia a t l a s t

found
i t s nay i n t o t h e ' l i f e of .the Chmreh, . An epiatoaated'
s r ambitions p r e l a t e * an e a e r g s t i e asd not #if e r - s e r s p t l o s s

' p a r t y ef bishops* oald new net only seen re- t h e p r i v i l e g e
of spaiag i s t h e name of t h e & i ? ^ bat oald' a l s o iftfott
t h e i r opponents t o reeeigaise t h i s r i g h t - without recourse t o
t h e d i f f i c u l t and mseertain method ef p e r s n a s i e n , s i n g l y
by winning t h e fa-rn-ms1 ef t h e Bsspesor*
fha l e a d e r s of the
l i a e s e p a r t y (as -ye stay s a i l t h e viewers a t t h e UsamîlJ

sineersXy eenvtneed of t h e t r u t h # ftiir epinien* were t h e
^r
f i r s t to apply t h i s s l i s g l i f i e i a e t h a i , lm% y e r y seem t t e

o t h e r Mstisps followed t h e i r sasstpte^ sftd 13ms a aet a s t i v e
persecution of sue gwmp of C&trlstiaas by another began. i s
a l l p a r t s ef t h e SUessan H s f l r e .
OoRstamfcine v e r y -ineantie&sly
offered t h e aeabers of t h e Ctmreii t h e p o s s i b i l i t y ef u s i n g

the c i v i l gasrd a g a i n s t t h e i r M o t h e r s and th&s transform ed
1
TtiB l**aiB|| Hessian church h i s t o r i a n * 3&XiYw?itess

**2he eojiselsmsaess ef t h e f u t i l i t y of r e l i g i o n s p e r s e e s *
ties* and i t s inconsistency isitli the irery essence of r~
lisLeus f e e l i n g begins to he obviously overshadowed *.
At l e a s t Censtantine*e a c t i o n nas not contested- by t h e
meisbers of the Gouneil**^ 3y f i n i s h i n g f o r d o c t r i n a l e r
r o r s t h e S t a t e acquired t h e f i n a l a u t h o r i t y i s t h e matter
of d o c t r i n e . * V.iblotov* *Leetnres on t h e H i s t o r y e f
t h e HisiTcW Vol. I I . p* 4S
f i s t had seem m. d u f i s t i s s SHmmM>w> of %&fe and freels

i n t o a pewerf&X usi. effeetiir rgasimtios- t&iott h#weiref
urns based n spilisoify membership, and tfeas beâse esqpssed
1
t t h e hiama passion of ambitiis& and h a t r e d ,
At t h e begisiKiiig I M s new rder c h i e f l y fte@med
the bishops.
Si l a i t y sad t h e r e s t f t h e c l e r g y sly
suffer! i s d i r e e t l y from i t s a p p l i c a t i o n , .sad t h a t nag

t h e a s # iiiy t h e ? # l t t t i # i i .is tfc@ Ciarii #f fee msrtl*.
oeitt&ry* prote&ed I F t h i s ois&age,' m s a&soet eaeerlaîrely '
an e p i s e s p a l asf-eKes!
t h e i"f msid t h e
'
fit tis s i t e n s e periods i s t h e h i s t o r y of t h e

hti?ch haê 'bees t h e fourth aad t h e s i x t e e n t h centuries*
. I s both eases t h e tension uas jiroirakei by t h e bresMsg
doia of as type of Q i r l s t i a a u n i t y .
CfeitstaBtime d e s -
troyed t h e family t y p e , based os t h e voltuitary sllegiamee

of hey members to t h e Chureh.
l a t h e r and "tee ! @ f o e r s
proclaimed l i b e r t y from t h e t r a d i t i o n a l type of t t n i t y

based .si obedience t o t h e papal a u t h o r i t y * -BeH& changes
had a s&iseatoas iiôiftaiaee f o r t h e l i f e of t h e ' S i r i s t i a B
brotherhood and massed a long &n& i r i o l t t
ttais^fslfe
&# .
esBeeeslTe saiiber f syasris held i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c #f 'the

^
f o u r t h - ee&t&ry a s well a s of t h e s i x t e e n t h * a s ! i s both

eases they *rer@ prles&rily out-sari expressioas of t h e eoafmlsi-re a t t e s t s of t h e C h r i s t i a n s to adapt themselves
to t h e Sfr b a s i s of &'mr&$. aesberghip*
The i n t e r n a l stsmggle from nhieh t h e O t e s i suffered
i a r i s g the r s t of t h e fourth century i s t h e ? s t o b j e c t i v e
1 . fihe stain esase of* t h e s&hsdLssion of t h e e a s t e r n bishops
t o the Sfcsperor has t o be s&mght i s t h e g e n e r a l mental
i t y o f t h e pop&latioa of t h e e a e t e f s provinces* Siave r y -w&w a dosiaafit f e a t u r e of t h e i r l i f e , and i t s d@pp r e s s i n g influence imrked t h e i r iteol pôhology* Sig
nlilennt
of t h i s i s Valens s s t s i i n i e ^ a t f i a S i n g t h a t
St* Basil m s diiTferenl froa t h e r e s t of t h e e a s t e r n
hiehops. Soz,Vl.ls ef * Greg iloa* Qrat XMI1 49-53* r
fheodosius* s u r p r i s e a t Ambrose*$ i n t e p s a d e s t behaiiomr,
$y
ftroof f t h e s i g s i f i e a s o e of Hie slumgg tMefe Stesstantia
sa e a s i l y &iro4med a t Misses*
^Mfe-
| .'
Si aaim. t a s k of tlie Sieeae t&iaiwsiX m t o r e t t e r i ? .,
ISm Mshops*
stxuggLe.
JMSS#
i a IgjFFfe*
Mm f a r a s n t o l l f r o s t&o s#saty -
i&fons&tioa me possess msr aho&t tits years. i.fateiy

fellosaing t h e Couacil, fine i a i # r s s l e o i i f l i s t i s Alessan
d r i a m s s o t ipsselie^ asi. Measait&er, s a M i r a t e r s frost
Hieaesjj s e t n&th trezaes&mo o p p o s i t i o s fT@m t h e supporters
of Ariite asd of t h e H ^ l i t i a a s *
I t mas prohahly i n ooa
n e c t i o s ^ i t h t M s t h a t ^.seMiis of Moo&edia an. Hieogsis

of SI mesa followed Arias i n t o e x i l e a few s&sths after-_
mria f a s j irers
tesistiet
Isy t h e personal r@r of t h e
Sfesperer, fcui i t i s impossible t o &iseo?er t h e esesot i s %

of t h i s froza t h e e & s t i s i i e t s r j i a t e i a t of t h e d i f f e r e n t
contemporary antiiers*
iBowever* i n 23 CSSIJ t h e y n e r e
reeallfsd, sgsiit fey t h e p e r s e s a l r4@r of t h e its^peror* aaH

reeeiirsfi t h e i r fera^y s e a t s *
&ross t h a t time #mfar4s
tegam t h e unceasing s t r u g g l e betwesa t h e supporters a a i

opponents of t h e Meene Ootu&oil ntiitt nao o n l y t e r a i i i s t e i
fey theodositts t h e 6r*ntt a t t h e onnel of Constantino^!
i n SSI*
.Atlasa-slas *
explanation
Atfemimsias* stto m s followed tey o t h e r aneient M s t o r i a s s , esplaisefi t M s ^ o n t e i t i o B a s a farioms attempt on

t h e part, of tli: &rias t o n?i over -tlte C t e " # t o t h e i r .is*
trise*
Hh&t t h e ^teotriiml iifsagreetieitt erinialy payea
s vexy i o p o r t a a t p a r t i a t h e tKBttt&es of t h e fatxtfe o t n t u r y

i s well est&l&islied' l y t h s pveaSjtsggf* r o l e of AtlBSasasi^; h
s e l f i s a l l tits o e n f l i o t s Isettseest Bi%a s. M s death i s '
<&t0
i^G^-e
JLme'%. ^J.1.'(((;
2hood. l l i
Atliaxi. .^pl# i r i a s p f s St*
g . 3oor X1420*
n.
Sf3
I M s great sets mm only I n t e r e s t e d i s t h e d # t r i s a l
asoeet of t h e ease* sail lie sfspr#&eheit t h e whale' eo&flict

ess&irely tw&m t h i s p o i a t f view*
A Sotibt s a y 1 .raised
imwmwBT- sn t o itietlter h e did n e t read M s sn i d e a s Sate

t h e tsinds of o t h e r s * asd i n t h i s m y Misrepfeseiitsd t h e
hist&ry of t h e fourth eatery f o r l a t e r g e s e s s . t i 9 a * ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ K
Aihaitasias p a s s i o n a t e l y and 2&rstta$ively i n t e r p r e t s
M s s t r u g g l e i d t l . t h e 3&sehiaas (s-s t h e f i r s t generation
of sptiaie'@# hishops i s us&ally ustlied) mm a $afliet
lirsimlsed %f t h e i r ^riol-eat a s s a u l t agadmst t h e t r u t h js?o '.;
elsiss-i. a t H i e a s a .
S a t ' t u s e2J#if|sMi'h@d feets on*
tra&iet I M s versions
1.
2hat cMriag the f i r s t t e a y e a r s hetveen lliesea ami

I*yj?es t h e attaekiBg s i d e m s t h e M e a s e p a r t y vhloh
s&de every e f f o r t * isith t h e help of the government v
to get r i d f t h e IttisehSans*
2.
fhat t h e StiseMass and t h e i r saeeessors t h e honiess**

si-ass sever shewed any d e s i r e t o introduce Ariasisia
a s a s o f f i c i a l t e a c h i n g of t h e S h a r e d and t h a t S i e i r
h i t t e r s t r a g g l e f i r s t a g a i n s t Athasasiias as$d l a t e r oa
agaisef t h e a s t e r s h i shoos s a i t j ? he e ^ l a i a e d o s
as exclusively doctrinal
tests**
these two considerations i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e causes of t h e

e o a f l i c t were Trideaf than Athaiiasins represented,ad i s *
eluded, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e t h e e l o g i e a l eomteBtioa* some
ther v i t a l i>risslples of e&aroh l i f e , 3
l a rtier to understand t h e rents i a s e d i a t e l y
1 . f h e i r g r e a t e s t t r i a s p h m e t h e syaed of Antioeh s a d e r
t h e l e a d e r s h i p of Busabius of 3fieoaedla a aad t h ^ v
p&hlished a ureed -ikSh i s daserihfd a s *Sns f i e e e s
dat l e co&tesu j*e p r e t e l e f l a s c a SKCBBS a t t a p e *
Hefele 2*eolerg,4I*i8t*des Cfej3las # ol.lg*?54 9 lfl
3 a Wean Athanasias mud d i e Oeeiêataiea Jte-siwoa i*i4<^ttiad sînen Asshangem Arianissais v e r m r f e n i S o Set das
a i c h t s a l e u n r e d l i s h e PoleMJsf B^SehnaTts* a&r fiesssh*
Atham (S&chr.G* i?i9SQott19XX) FaSSS,,
S* i%e s t r u g g l e "between Aâaamis and t h e Sasehiaiis was
a s r y d e f i n i t e &tmp C i t i e s f o r su.preaasy o#r S a s t e n t
Ghrieteados!, && ashitious p r e l a t e life 3iteeMs of Bieomedia could never aecept the snale of the Mshop f Alex*
s a d r i a s n& h**nee M s r e s o l u t e e f f o r t s t o get r i d of
the energ*stie and laaeteifful Athanaeus*
following the close of the lieea Coiaaeil, we h a r e t take

i n t o account the i n t e r e s t s of the- various groups i n t o
which tlie e a s t e r n bishops- ere divided*
Hie g r e a t saja-rity
the feishops sensed t o be both paasaled. and ispreissei by t h e

soXessi a s 5 magnificent. teisadnatiba f the s y s e i i c a l debates*
ftisy -were ua&mre s f the implication sf t h e i r d e c i s i o n s , but
ii&ppy' atid pleased a t t h e astonishing JlMffl i n e s s of t h e ' . .
Emperor, and a t t h e v a r i e t y of g r a n t s sad p r i v i l e g e s offered .'
t o them.
And.new t h a t the Council -was over 'they loofee-d for**
mx t o t h e enjoyment of i n t e r n a l peace in t h e l i f e of ."the

Chuseh sad t h e opportunity t o concentrate t h e i r e f f o r t s apsir
the s t r a g g l e with the -dying pagantsa.
Similar* f e e l tags were
possibly experienced by the bishops l&e-l&se&&$ of -Gaesaifea

,
sfeD, although d i s s a t i s f i e d t d t h the d o c t r i n a l ' d e c i s i o n s , were
quite
prepared t o accept the a s l o n g a s they were .ant pressed
any f u r t h e r .
3ut that m s not a t a l l t h e a t t i t u d e of the v i c t o r i o u s
party under the l e a d e r s h i p of
of Atiaoh# s a d Athanasius,
fiareellus
of Aaeyra, Sust&tias
For t h e s Sieaea m e only t h e
f i r s t s t a g e in the d e c i s i v e s t r u g g l e against t h e i r d o c t r i n a l
eneaiss xmo hz.&, f o r t h e a o s t p s r t s escaped condemnation by
signing the eresd s
After Sicaea a d i s t i n c t aew tendency
appeared i n the l i f e sf the Eastern Church*
Athanssias of
Alescsiftdria, iJustatius of iiatioeh a and t h e i r supporters deolared t h a t only those whs wholeheartedly accepted the t h e o l o
gy contained in the creed authorised by t h e Council could be
considered as aaeaabere of the Church*,
All those mim showed
doubt &n& h e s i t a t i o n mast be expelled from t h e bodj of Christ

ami t h a t , under the sew conditions* s c a n t -exile and-perse-
cution by t h e S t a t e .
*Ihis point of view seesied t o t h e conservative s a j o r i t y
of fee e a s t e r n bishops t o be both a dangerous novelty and a.
6 b>
great mil sauce.
At first they tried simply to ignore
these logical conclusions frem their wa esadaet at Hicsea.

.Bat as the implacable minority continued to attack them,
they were "bilged to start a counter-campaign against them.
She first part of the straggle hetween Athanasius and the
eastern "bishops lasted until the council of Ssrdiea, and re
presented an attempt on the part of the latter to preserve
the. ancient church order under which thelogical diversities
of opinion were tolerated, and no one school of thought could
claim the unique privilege of speaking in the name of Sod.
The first actual clash "between these two parties oe1
eurred at the Council of Antioeh in 530 It m s provoked
"by Hustatins, the Bishop of that city, who froaa the beginning
of his episcopate had displayed great zeal in theological
2
contention*
TAB Ulcene Council stimulated him still farth
er and he started to attack in a most violent usay SaseMus of
Caesarea, Paulinas of tyre, Pathrophilus of Seythopolis and
3
some ther prominent prelatesâccusing thess of open heresy,,
His uneoffipromising d o c t r i n a l p o s i t i o n roused a hot c o n t r o
versy i n M s OTO eostnainity 4 ishieh had a very strong a n t i nieene t r a d i t i o n ( i t tras the home of tlae laieien Catechetical
I . Mf. L e c l . H i s t , des Coneils. p . S41**47.
2* Hastatias* episcopate a t Antiooh i s c l o s e l y connesteS
with t h e mysterious Council of Antioch of 324/5, which
i s not Mentioned "by any church h i s t o r i a n s * t h i s Synod
m s probably an attempt to a n t i c i p a t e t h e decision of
t h e l i e e n e Council and was composed of t h e very stress
m a g of pro-Hicene p a r t y , t h e r e i s a f u r t h e r discussion
in Schwartz a r t i c l e , 2r deseh, des Athan. l a e h r i e h t ^ a
K. dessel der Wiss i n Gottingen 1 9 0 5 ^ 3 8 8 . 190S Uett 5
p . 354 sg. 565-376.
3 8 Soz. 11.19.
4 . I t i s t a t i u s was a man of f a n a t i c a l temper and he succeeded
i n dividing h i s TO church so deeply t h a t during t h e hle
course of the IV century i t remained s p l i t i n t o h o s t i l e
f a c t i o n s . For t h i s reason Antioch could sever successfully
champion t h e ti other Eastern leading "bishops of Alexan
dria. and Constantinople
5 &is. Vita Const. I l l , 59.60.
11
Sea!, and t h e r e i n ESS t h e term *hedousigfels m s condensed
as heretical}*
A t ' t h e s s e time M s ocusatioiis f heresy
forced e l l t h e bishops mentioned by h i s t o choose between ..

galixg i n t o e x i l e thersselves or sending t h e Bishop of imtioch
thither,
The Council of iyrrtiach. ishieli-tt&s convoked with
t h i s , purpose, eaded i n & v i c t o r y f o r She ûsebians*
Ihey
escaped t h e danger of ' l o s i n g t h e i r s e e s m i BttStaiittB, i s '

chains, was expelled from Aiitieeh*.
S i e re&mm f o r h i s co.
T
deimatisii h a s sever been c l e a r l y explained,"* I t was not

2
d o c t r i n a l , hffiseirer, aad tJteire- a r e some i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t t h e
l a p e m ? f e l t e s p e c i a l l y h i t t e r sgs.ia.st M s * p o s s i b l y n &ccount of the. offence ithieli h i e m&ths? iletess fe&i suffered
froa B u s t a t i u s .
'
Bat on -siiatever grounds he m s condesssed* two f a c t s

remain beyo-si any doubts (1) t h a t i t nas Bust&tius hiitself
^h started t h e a t t a c k a g a i n s t t h e Sitaaftbiess and so beessa
t h e f i r s t victim of -fee v i c i o u s c i r c l e -of the-new orders
f o r every d o c t r i n a l controversy g - f feouad t o -end in e x i l e .
f o r oas of t h e two p&rties involved its it;*- s a d | 2 ] t h a t h i s opponents d e l i b e r a t e l y t r i e d t o avoid t h e use of a doe*
t r i a a l weapon against hi, end succeeded l a g e t t i n g r i d - o f
him on e i t h e r p o l i t i c a l o r moral grounds,.
The second c o l l i s i o n took pls.ce a t the Council.of
fyre l a 335, which 'was followed by t h e synods of J e r s s s l e a
smd of Constanti&ople.
At these episcopal gatJierlags t h e .
tet chief l e a d e r s of the- l i e e a e p a r t y , sthaassims s f Alexaa*'
1.
3 u , . T i t e Const. I I I . 5 9 . 6 0 . g , , ^ I . 3 3 . S 4 .
802.11.19;
2.
soor.J. 24.
3.
lite I,ieene supporters ^rere quite aware of t h e s e implica

t i o n s and u-illingly used t h i s new opportunity f o r t h e
suppression of t h e i r enemies. I t was not 2n?? however
before t h i s weapon f e l l i n t o the hands of t h e opposite
party,
J I A L a o j a ; Shi!. U..
0b >
dri& &&S. Il&reellms of Aaery&j, -sere deposed ass'-cl sent i n t o

1
exile .
'
'
ISfea i f *ms r e j e c t a s d e f i n i t e l y f a l s # jssst of t h e
accusation bxtmght be**? t h e Ckmneil by hiw e a e s l e s ,
"
s h a l l s t i l l be obliged t o . rsuognize feat AMsmmMsm 4M n e i e use of the eoereiTe measured, offered t s M s by t h e

ejhril a u t h o r i t i e s , a g a i n s t t h e M e i l i i a n s s a i t h e Arias i s
A l e x a a i r i a a 'sell as i o other p a r t s of Bgypi* 3
It
ii
evident t h a t t h e s o l d i e r * employed by h i s b&HBed i n t h e same-

b r u t a l manner a g a i n s t the M e l i t i a n s a s t h e y ' d i d afterwards.
a g a i n s t t h e Athaaasians # and thus t h e numerous c o ^ l & i i t t s
a g a i n s t t h e v i o l e n c e of t h e young bish#p> brought forward
4
by his victims, undoubtedly had a reliable backing' in fast,
In his defence &1îmsius m d e a skilful tase.-of his.
enemies* exaggerated statements* but he never denied the .
fact that he h&i used coercion,
.defeated at 'lyre* lie fled
to Constantinople and appealed'to the W^mror:: for help and

protection,* He probably lisped t&a-fc Constantine &s still .
prep-arei to sap-pert his policy mf em active suppression of
all &at*nieene sentiments^ His appeal m $ draaiatie* but
it had disastrous results for M i
33ie Saperor sided with
the Husebiaans and* after hearing their accusations* sanctioned

the exile of jiiimimsius, thus
he not only lost his see* bat'
he created & sew imperial pirer-ogative of Judicial intervention which his enemies anply exploited is later conflicts* X,
Ihsre T,?ere tmmj other bishops who were also deposed and
a'ho were sent into exile by Constant Ise* as for instance
Dioioras of ienedos (Ath* Hist. *irg,l JCyros of BeroCdL(Socr, Xs 24 etc.)
2.
i,thanasius brings very serious proofs of ex parta proce*

dure ag&inst M s . ,--p e* &&& - 1 9 ,
3W
^th&nasius* p&rtjygul&r seal for persecuting the nilitlans*

which I# even p&^&îîkbs
sending of his regular paschal
epistles, is discussed by =3ehwsrtss 2ur êseh* AthanSaehr.
IC.G. * iss Oott* 1911* p,36, seq*
' Bef * 'leel. l p,65?.
S3.
g<_
Atimmmtxim neve? c l e a r l y eatplaias fe r m i t s i for
Sonstan*
t i n e ' s snaitoa change of a t t i t u d e ton&rdsr his* 2 -.. the s t

probable expl&a&tioa of Mis exile- i s t h a t the Hajier g r w
t i r e d f the perpetual eoaplaiiats a g a i n s t 4t&ais&si38 s&i
decided t h a t res.ce suld fiefer be e s t a b l i s h e d a s l o n g a s he

continued His vigorous suppression of aii*iice?i s e n t i a e n t s
e^.o.?.-y the <3a*Isties8 i s * gypi*
'Soon &f t e m s r i i s M&rcellse of <&a&ym, t h e # t h w

staunch supporter of l i e a e a , w a s - a l s * eonds&nerd by t h e M s t
bi&ns, feat t h i s tin i t was f o r a d g e t r i n a l r e a s o n .
H&reellnat,
l i k e B u s t a t i a s before M s , -ass t&e afjgredssr in M s uaflict '

with. the Busebiaas*
He s e a t a speei&H "petition t Gofisfasa**
t i n e i s utiieh lie r e v e s t e d t h e punt i n t e n t #f 'Ms #jp#efits*

l a i t he- easpouitiei h i s owa d o c t r i n e s a.s being the .sly r e a l
rthodossgr.
.Mis h o s t i l e a t t i t u d e caused mm opes schisM i s
tli Church em<& i t nas S i i s breach. of castmsiom eaaetei t i h

a s appeal t o s e c u l a r power r a t h e r than M e teaching miieh
Bade M s condemnation i n e r t t a b l e under- Hie new system, " Con*
$t&ntn@ convoked & Synod a t - Constantinople mill A
rejected
M&roellus a s & Meretie .and sent h i a i n t o e x i l e *

i t i s i a p a r t a s t t o ssmiyae Constanti*s personal'
r a l e i s these l a s t feats f Mis f e i g n .
Atiaanasius,, Socrates,
Sozosen and- h.eedorei represented the ehaa|g i n .the Ji&peror*s

p o l i c y a s the r e s u l t of a. cunning deception on the .part of
the iSuseb i a n s ,
fliis explanation isas saaialy bused n & s t o r y
of aa A r l s n i s i n g presbyter nh# penetrated i n t o the i a p e r i s l

1 . i n a l l M s w r i t i n g s r e l a t e d t o t h i s period of h i s l i f e
^thanasins d e l i b e r a t e l y avoids anything ?iiieh shows
cosfcs>ntine*s h o s t i l e a t t i t u d e to^&r^s him. His s a i n
\
i n t e n t i o n i s t o skm t h a t t h e Susebiaas -sere t h e sole
earns of h i s s i s f o r t u n e s .
!
2-oaseb.e. P a r c e l 1 , 2*4. ^
3 , E. êfesartis disagrees v i t h the 5ate 335 usually ascribed
to t h i s Synod and has s e r i o u s proofs of the confusion
both of 3oerat#and Sosoafa irs t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s
Council a s well as the circumstances of liareellus* con*
de:5ri&.tioas He thinks th^-t ^thanasius * e x i l e has nothing
t o do r i t . . t h i s Synod. -See Bd Schwartz 'Snr esch*iithan
,-.X.G: i s s a * t t . 1911, <.GS-4G7 Utf* Hef-oegl Cilist.des
Zor-o i l e s , ^ 8 . PP*667-S .
Soz. ZX(22); I1Z{19);
Sheod.t(3l);"XZi3}
Rmf.t.ll
palace*
All t h e s e 'writers p r e s s s e that- the Ssperor had
always held sae . def i n i t e do^mtic&I opinion* and t h a t

o r i g i n a l l y he had been convinced t h a i -all definiiioiis of
f a i t h exeept t a t of Hiea$& were -laagere-ms 'heresies-*; .But
t h i s point of vie i s & m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of
pol&cy*
fioiiigteiitiite*^
He usis a supporter n e i t h e r of t h e Artists nor of
the Mleeite -ree#6
He iem e x c l u s i v e l y eosoemed with the
peaee of the Chur&, ' and- i t i s probable t h a t lit preseriretl

t o t h e e a i of h i s l i f e t h e e#nvi-tiss expressed i n the l e t t e r
he mrste in 524 t o Mexaaeler &nd <&:ri,s. that, t h e d i s r a t i n g
p a r t i e s -were v a i n l y t r y i n g t o dis&nss *&a iaeiqplisshXe pas*
sage ef the w r i t t e n tsri 8 *"*
After t h e H e e s e 'Council' & .
dismissed, he hoped t h a t t h e .victors .would be- able t o r e

s t o r e peace i s the Church*
I t m s IK t h i s hope t h a t .he gssve
c i v i l support, t o Athan&sius and o t h e r members of h i s party* '

Bat wiiea he r e a l i s e d t h a t t h e 1-ieeses i n the e a s t -sere only
& very aggressive aai troublesome m i n o r i t y hieh w&s using.
c i v i l power t o enforce i t s doctrinal a t t a s k s a g a i n s t 'the
aaj o r i t y of' t h e e a s t e r n bishops* he- bee-use isiifpgfi-t with his
fillies*
t h e r e m s nothing are abhorrent t o Constsaatine
th&s the idea of punishing people- f o r t h e i r personal eovie

tions*
He was unsparing t e - m r i s nanilfest b r e w e r s of the-
publie peace ani. order* h u t free..from'sny s e a l .for persetm-. -
fhe lm@eims a u i s o t Atfeagsasltts were h i s r e a l

supported*
Their point 'of view was i d e n t i c a l with M s , f o r
thej? s e r e prepared to t o l e r a t e &fchas&ius a s well a s Arims

in the Church* a s long a s the- former was prepared t o observe
1 . Hef, L e d . op. c i t . V o l . I* pS5S
g.. Bmtr* 2*7*
31
t h a t tolerance in the matter
s i theological opinions
rhich had always heen the custom of the Church,,

t h e i r firm p o s i t i o n fron the beginning,
t h a i *eass
Shey liefer aectisetl
e i t h e r **lexan*?er or Aihsmitelss of hsresy*
%y only i n s i s t e d ' '
th&t Arius must be r e s t o r e d to h i s fsnaer p s s i i l o n i n the

AlexartSrias preefeyter&te,
S i i s lai i s Hie {Soisiasai wm*
t i f e of e l l tsit-it' isriting's, a f t e r d i e s e s a s well s s hefsre

it,
AVassmmins e&s f o r iheia not so much a defstipes* of
teaching they dislike?! a s the a&s ishs r e j e c t e d the tr&$iiio&l

order of the Church sad clrew the se-sr l i m i t s of Clmre& meabar*
ship narrower than they -srere hef ore*
thus t h e i r
friesiîp.
i'ith f i e .Hfeperer \c.s & n a t u r a l consequence of h i s b e t t e r

acquaintance with the l i f e f the f a s t e n s Ohuiuh, ss5 the
i n t r i g u e s of a p r e s b y t e r had l i t t l e t o io -srith i t
Athasasius and t h e Saitehisjas represented tiro e n t i r e
l y d i f f e r e n t conceptions of church membership,
Athaaas&us
was emriaseil' t h a t the. '!QseM&fi# e s a l i not he' t s l a r a t e i i a

'
s i i e the Church* and t h a t - t h e y mast he Jested a t say p r i c e
s e i by sXl p o s s i b l e mesas*. He was prepared t o m e r i f i c e
e f s r y e t h e r p r i n c i p l e for tlii # t h e unique a t s mf h i s l i f e * .
For Mm. a l l C h r i s t i a s s were tSiiriiei i n t o t w
conflicting
samps containing 'the supporters and t h e opponents of &riu*feoxrifele. heresy*
'
''-'';'
the Bsseh lasts W9li s e v e r all ihemsel-yes Ariass,^'

1 , ;th&n Ap, e , -r,iv c,. 59 9:
-iocr,
1*
23
' . _
"
2* I t i s also p o s s i b l e t h a t Ath&nasias f e l t t h a t t h e -alessaitdrian see ht;d & s p e c i a l prerogative t o s-aperrise the

ortho-dossy of t h e other eastern bishops* 3oer, I I * S4
3*' t:Ve haê not been f Hearers of 4 r i u s w * t h a t i s t h e b e g i n ning of the- soleasi d e c l a r a t i o n of the Busebisse a t t h e
Council of Antioeh 341* ^ t h a n , 4e Synaa* c* 22*
^J .fa
Eves Susebiss of I'leos-edis,.* a t t h e . Councils sash &&

Mitio&h. (341j over which b e ' p r e s i d e d sad had s3pjstiftaMle
a u t h o r i t y , never showed any d e s i r e t o introduce ' t h i s heresy into- the l i f e # the CSaanjh*
He was s i are preheated-by
Athaaasius, who was unable t o i s a g i n e t h a i anyone' could
ressain neutral* a a question which was t o M t h e n*e&2. '

s t r u g g l e of M s l i t e * 'He smild s e t b e l i e v e t h a t another
bishop slight be prepared t o e.^gasmieate'.qually n i t h M a
and -siitli &rms
Such a s a t t i t u d e mss beyond c r e d u l i t y t o .
Ath&n&sius snd yet I t &s t h e sissd-po'lal? of i*s#bi*s* - Hence

i t nas t h a i iittissssias accused fee ..laseîaas of i n s i n c e r i t y ,
tsiiils they p r o t e s t e d a g a i n s t h i s fanaticism*
vonetantne*'s
Sons.
/T^f^P^X^v
Sae saJseia death of Con&tantine on the dey of "lest*'

'
..
e s s t l a t h e year 33? brought a b o u t ' a &$sitio&3 -change i n ' t h e
l i f e both of the Church -sosi .of the' S a t i r e * .Sis t h r e e sons,
Constantne I I , Ccnetagxtlus and Constant were" a l l -proslaiiaei .
emperor.
Const&ntius received the - e a s t e r n . prtrriaees sad
the two others divided the -siesfc.

t h e f i r s t s e t . o f the new r u l e r s was t g r a a t exiled
bishops permission t o return t o t h e i r sees*
. Jtthafmsius
a t once s e t out f o r iilex&ndria, carrying with M a a persons!

l e t t e r free* Conet^ntine XI,
while aul of Constantinople,
the bishop of t h e Bicen p a r t y , appeared in t h e new c a p i t a l *

**than&$us* r e t u r n -.?as aa open challenge t o t h e e a s t e r n
bishops*
lie n u l l i f i e d the condemnation pronounced a g a i n s t
hirs by the Council of i y r e - s s ^ - ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ i t M ^ ^ a ^ ^ and as l&ng

as t h e c i v i l a u t h o r i t y &s o n ' h i s side he continued to ijsnore
t:-;-5 judgments of the other b i s h o p s ,
l a s p i t e of i t s isregal&r
procedure the Council of t y r e had n e v e r t h e l e s s been ft synod
1. Atfaaa. H i s t , of J^ c . 8 .
B i l l * I I . t&m
2 , 'S&cr. I I . 3 .
S3.
of the Catholic Church, as# Aihitii&sixiS*' ae.gl.eet in leaving '
I t s decisions u&revised beesniMt. s t r s a g tre&pois l a t&$ &&&&&'
of M s nenies^*3*
-'
Hie Kusehi&as su#a s t a r t e d ' a a eaergeti e a p a i g s

sags l a s t t h e r e i m m e i b l e e p s * . t h e y feuad a peierfifit iiFepport
in tli person !* C o a s t a a t i u s ifti. i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r p a r t y with
the l e g i t i m a t e s e e t i o a of fee Catholic Chureh, sines- they
r*^ r e s e a t e d t h e dominant majority of t h e masters bishops*.
Ath&aasius
sad t h e West*
S t a i r f i r s t s t e p ts&e? t o renew the deposition of Iteal, $' *.

.
nas again driirea from Constantinople a f t e r a sjtt&li held i s
the same e i t y i a 558
QP
had pronounced a g a i n s t h i s , SBsebins-
of Hicoaiedia .then acquired' t h i s .important see*
l e x t a er* '
tSila F i s t u st was ordained bishop of Alexandria and sent" t h i - ' ther,
fhe Susebisas' dared not a t task .&t&asa$ii$ d i r e c t l y *
out .they hspei t h a t J i s t m s would gradually cone t o fee reeog*

n i s e i by other churches as. t h e l e g i t i m a t e bi$ho$ of t t t i s '
important see,
'tw0 new f a c t o r s however had a r i s e s t o a g g r a m t e
t h e i r s t r a g g l e itii M h a m s i a s *
the f i r s t ways t h a t daring-
h i e e x i l e i n Saul he had become eXXkoit.'ais#Hg. t h e 'western'

A
b i s h o p s , and the second t h a t t h e west sew belonged t o
raXers
mil pursued'an independent g o l l e y i n eelesiastic&X' a f f a i r s * .

Sis s e s t e t s esperors* l i k e *Khe.ir b r o t h e r Casst&ittias, were
anxious to preserve psaee and order in t h e Church, b a t they
considered' h e r l i f e frets t h e western p o i n t of view,., sad sp
ported the opinions and d e s i r e s of t h e majority '#f Wm n e s t e r a
bishops,'
She l a t t e r , -as 're-have already shouts, did n o t par*
;lidd* Hist, of Ch, Vol.-II.* p*?l*
O^tjF ^
tg
-^v St.
*3fe ^
ef LaeX* H i s t , de uaijeiles* X 1* p*688.
t i c i p a t e in the wosfe of the ilieese Council, and I t e ^ i ^ i ^ ^ ^ S

r e a l knowledge .concerning t h e p o s i t i o n of the various'- >>^r|l|
pispal p a r t i e s i s t h e e a s t .
!orever they uiere not \-"'-
awaâ f the cause of t h e d o c t r i n a l disagreement between
^
'/
the r i g h t and l e f t wings of t h e O r i g e a i s t s , represented hy

t h e SmseMmiis and'by t h e ^thaaasiafis*
F i s a l l y isthaa&sims*
stay i s the west had secured f o r h i s t h e strong and l a s t i n g

support of i t s l e a d i n g bishops* to t h e i r eyes h i s d o c t r i n e
appealed sound- and h i s p e r s o n a l i t y a t t r a c t i v e , and moreover
he m s aii obvious v i e t i s of t h e imperial despotism ver the
Church, a t h i n g tshich t h e r e s t e o a i i never aeeegt without
a f e e l i n g of r e v s l t * 1 For a l l ' t h e s e r e a s o n s ' &' -seat era ' h i shops s t a r t e d a most sseosprmi^-iBg angjisdgit l a f&voizr of
iitfeajta#iiis and a l l e t h e r e x i l e d p a r t i s a n s of t h e llicene is
Council*'
Se irti&lehe&rtedly -did they adopt their'ea&s t h a t
they g r s i m l l y became eoavljiced t h a t t h e majority f t h e i r

e a s t e r n - c o l l e a g u e s , mh had r e j e c t e d f&ese &mlwt$Mmmv wmt
themselves he very 'suspect a s f&jp &s t h e i r ortho-do&y
concerned, and h a r d l y worthy t o he recognised a s sound
h e r s of the Chareh.,
t h a s Athsaasims appeared both t o t h e
Western lfeperrs and toe western Episcopate s a ss&n h m s

defending t h e r i g h t cause a g a i n s t t h e i n t r i g u e s of h i s
enemies*
**he Easebiaas
delegation to
the ^ e s t .
fee
- -
1% t h e s e reasons forced t h e Basehiaas t o s-aa# t'-'.'..".'

^ e s t a' del egat iota isriose t&sak was t-s explMfi i # t h e
S^perors ana t o the 3Ishp #f l o s e by '&ths&sis hmil' feses
1. Lucifer of Cag* **iiriendisi esse pro 3ei fili**13

<âhrose 3 p . :-IXI4
3 u l . 3ev. H* :>aer* IZ5C*
hil&ry ad Coast* Aug*: also the epistle of "fee Council
of -3ardica* **than. p. c. i.r, e.43
2 , Their high a p p r e c i a t i o n #f A t M a s s i u s i s 'otpresse* int h e e p i s t l e of the Csuaeil of Milan -383, Anter, Bp*XlS".*f*
eonde&ned a t fyre.* and .also A y l i s t u s Mi- appeared "in

i&exandria,
But t h e delectation aet.nl.tli a success,,
Athaaasius, wtoo had also s e a t h i s presfeyterlto .Bise8 had

no, d i f f i c u l t y in proving t h a t Ms'.essiesatatioo a t l y r e had
been a v i o l a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e s &f J u s t i c e / sni' lie" succeed-*
e# in persuading t h e t s s t t h a t Mis enemies had a t t a c k e d Mm
s o l e l y because he m s t h e staunch .defender tit. the- ! i e e
creed,
the Suse-Mas envoys.* (abashed fey ill repfsnf s Ath&ita*
sins* presbyters* reqneste-i t h e casrocai-icii #f a new-- synod

. in Ici-at^ and t h i s proposal n a s "-m!e-mm4 -by J u l i u s , t h e newly
e l e c t e d 3?sp ,
But t h i s f i r s t f a i l u r e was so d r a s t i c t h a t
t h e Basebisas f i n a l l y refus$d t o re~*ppear i n t h e "West and the

scheme suggested by t h e i r envoy could not be r e a l i s e d ,
After
t h i s defeat they l o s t a l l hope of ; overesaing AthiBmsius fey

winning the support of the .-west, sad s t a r t e d an pea e o n f l i c t
with h i s ,
On' March 18th 33 a c e r t a i n Gregory was -brought i n t o
Alexandria s a i a a i e bishop t h e r e
f C h r i s t i e s blood,
fey-military
fare a t the e a s t
Athasi&sius s e c r e t l y l e f t the c i t y and
'
t h e unity of the eastern p a r t of &ri$af3dom mas e x t e r n a l l y

established,'
^
At^^sasius
for the
seeonfi time
s h e a r s to
the west.,
Athaitasius t i e d to itoae sad published Ms- "**'Ifrpi-stM

Seeyclica*, oae of t h e s e a t .impressive docuiiests i n a l l church
history.
He appealed a g a i n s t M s es-eaies t o a l l t h e bishops
of Christendom, and 'implored them -to stand- up in defence of

their episcopal rights, if they.did net want their own posi
tions to become the prey at asabitis-us intruders, He protested
1, iith&s. Ap,cAr. ,22

20
Ath&n. %e*Ar, c*24
S, Athan, 'Ap,c,Ar,SO; Hist, of Ar,9#

4S
Has circumstances of these negotiations are given-fey

Citapaas Studies on. the early papacy If21* p,S4* -Ar,.2,
o*
Athan. 3p, She, c.4; Hist, Arias c,9,
96
violently against the uncanonical election of Qregorius
which had been. effected with the assistance of the civil
1
2
authorities without the Alexandrian church*
taking any
part in it,. But the strength of his arguments was consider

ably weakened by the fact that he had himself relied many
times on that same imperial authority3 ,la,.,aat-4-;ta=was
AthasWsius/Who had.,first made use of this dreary weapon
which Ms"'enemies'were now turning so skilfully .against the
Bishop/- of. Alexandria..
She appearance of Athanasius in Home and the story
of his misfortune forced Julius to intervene even.isore active
ly in the whole matter. He.entered into a corresponde-aee
with the eastern hi shops and again, invited them "to. come to'
Borne and discuss there all the. complaints aade against the .
by a number of their colleagues whom they had deposed at
various councils, fhe eastern bishops then held a synod at Aatioeh in 339D and required from Julius that he should, first
acknowledge unconditionally all their pronouncements. -they
insisted however that their contentious struggle was ..not
provoked by their rejection of the Sieene Souneil, and that
there were other reasons for the condemnation of the various
bishops.
.
As a result, of this a synod was held in Hoae.in
540, and fifty bishops attended it. Athasasius and Barcellus

7
were pronounced innocent and Julius.* is the- naae of .the
1. Athan, Ep, Inc. e.2*
2.
Athan. 2S.p. Bne. c.5.7
3.
Soer. 1. 32. 34.

S08. II. 21. 25.
4.
Athan. Hist. Ar. 11.
5.
Gwatkin, Stud, of Arias, 1900, p.11-6, sote.l.

Hef Lecl, op..cit. Vol. I, p.696
6.
S03, 112. 8.
7.
Athan. Ap. o. Ar. 20.
m
Eoaiaa Council,. seat as answer to the eastern bishops, It
is aa epoch-making; document,'1 'It rings out as the T O ice
of the Church herself amidst the noise and clamours'of
conflicting episcopal parties* ..The real power'of baling*
letter lies in its appeal to that traditional order f the
Church, the free and unanimous eonsent of her members,' He
desires to bring the bishops together,, to settle by Mutual
agreement the pointy of dispute, and he keeps silence about
that civil intervention in.#iieh-all the easterners - Bmssbiaiis
as well as Athanasiass were so badly eeatproaised,, There
is. a striking power in his simple words; s 0 : .belevei, it is
not according to the Sospels that the Judgment of the Church
2
becomes the sentences of death and exile*,.
these word are
a tragic but adequate description of .the new spirit which had
begun to dominate the episcopal gatherings of the Eastern
Church,
the eastern bishops rejected Julius1, proposal and
She position
of the -ise
biaas,
they had serious reasons for doing so, This fratieidal

struggle had already reached the stage at -stitch neither of
the parties was prepared to accept an impartial Judgaeat,
Even Julius was powerless at this critical juncture.,, for
Athanasius and his partisans would sever consent to any com
promise with the lusebians, Thej
refused to listen to any
proposal other, than the complete .surrender of all the eastern

bishops, . it became obvious that Athaaasius had only appealedto Julias1' judgment- because he felt sure of winning his "cause
in the west* Be would have rejected the .authoritv -..' anv
western council r of the Boxaan see if they showed any iscliBa
1. Athan, Ap* e, Ar e, 21*35,
2,
Athan, Ap* s, Ar, 55,'
98
tia to-ards re-rising thefiieemedecisions.* '
Saus the.Eusebiass had no hope. whatever of arriviag
at any agreement' with Athanasius-, : nor after that first./defeat
couli they expect to win'the western bishops to their side,, the only pel ley open to thea as to.', avoid all further Begs-- ''
tiations with the westerns, and to insist on the final ehar-.
aster of the condemnation of Athaiissims,. Mareelius, and all
other breakers of the witty of Eastern Chris ten doa.
Sxter-
aal circumstances in the east 'forced them to be 'thus implaca

ble., fhe Saperor had aa&e up his aind to extirpate all the
divisions ia the Church, and Athasaslus* position was such
m to oblige the Eusebiaas either to go. into exile themselves,
or to get rid of" the Bishop of JClexandris, whatever it sight
cost thea,
fhe eastern reply to Julius* letter m s the famous
1
synod of Antioeh in 341*%
the subjects.of contention were
Athaaasius .and Marcellus. Their vindication at .Boae.it&s op

posed by their new condemnation at Anti&eh... : the east and- the
west gre-w more and more hostile. At that time the western'-
iteperor Constant, who after the death of his brother .Const&a- .
tine 11 had become -stronger taaa his eastern colleague .Con*.
staiitius, took the initiative in reconciling the two conflict
ing parties. He corresponded with his brother on the subject'
and the result tarf this was- that the two Saperors sunaoned the
western and eastern bishops to appear at S&rdiea, the aost
eastern town of the western empire, in order that they Might
1.. His attitude towards Llberius* signature under the Sir&iua
creed is a clear proof of this, and yet at that later
period he had already become less implacable than in the
years cf the Boraan Council. See Athan. Hist. Ari&n. e41.
2.
Athan i*p o Ar# -c*2S.
3. Hef. I*ecX. ap.eit Vol.. I. pp, 702~?35
99
arrive at a mutual agreement,.
The Council of Sardlea4" -was the last link in the long
Hie Council
of Sardiea.
chain of councils irhich -were inspired and presided over by

2
iiosius.* Bishop of Cordoba .
collapse of the
fcfea
Its failure marked the final
-^Mkn^sM^^^^m^^^^m^^^^^^^^îi
of ruling the Church by episcopal synods having a binding

authority ever all Christian communities.
This system, in
that it neglected to seek the free consent of the congrega

tion to the decisions taken, -*as both unpractical and destruc
tive to the life of the Church, and all its fundamental de~
feet were revealed -with special clarity at this unfortunate
Council.
She western bishops, led by. Hosiust arrived first.
They were about eighty in number and they brought with the
Athanasius* Marcellus and other bishops who had been condemned
by eastern synods.
They were followed by such the-same nmaber
of eastern bishops whose first request was that all persons

who had previously been, condemned for whatever reason
be excluded from the episcopal gathering.
should
.She. -westerners
refused-to comply with this and thus gave the eastern delega
tion the excuse they wasted, for leaving Sardlea issaedi&iely,
and thus avoiding a meeting with their, we stern, col leagues.
4
s
The eastern bishops then withdrew to Philoppopolis , which
was in the eastern part of the Empire, and there held -a synod
1.
Its date is still a point of controversy.* Hef, Xecl

is inclined'to, accept the year -343 as the-most probable
date. H.ConJfrTX. p.*?40 M.S.
See also Batiffol op.cit. p. 433,.
2.
for the literature dealing with this Council see Mef.I,eel.,

Hist. des Coneiles, ol I, p,'?43 &qm..
See also Batiffol, j|a Baix Const, chapter entitled
La J?apaut-e a Sardifue pp.4-03 sq.
3.
Soz, II. 11,
4.
Soer, II. 20-22.

Soz. III. 11.12.
100 of their
own which confirmed the Aatioehiai .-cree'-d and'
exceasmaiiieated all the leading iestern bishops::. Jullas .of '

Bone, Hosius of Cordoba, Protogenes of Sardica, Waacimms of*
freves and others,*
fhe westerners -followed their example.,
They exeos&Bsini'eated Stephen of -Antioeh,. Gregory of'.Alexandria,'

Xinophaatus of Iphesas," Basil of Ancyra, Jheodore of Thrace,
Acacias of Caesarea,- Heorge of &odice&, and sasy others..
Athasasius, E&ul Aseelepasr and Mareelius were again sol easily
vindicated.
Some canons were published and the bishops were
dismissed,-
Their attempt to drem up a new creed was pre*
Tented by Athasasius who- persuaded thea to adhere to- thai.

3
of lieaea.
fhe results of Sardiea, were drastic.
Instead of -
arriving at a reconciliation, the bishops. mutually exeomsunicated each other and practically deprived the Church of
her episcopate, for almost all the leading sees were now
ccupied by persons who had been excommunicated by-or other
of the Councils*
The system of church government which had
been inaugurated at Elvira and Aries and received a solemn

approval at I.icaea had utterly collapsed, and the bishops
had proved that as an independent body they -were incapable
4.
of governing the Church.
Sardiea was followed by the first
1, Maasi, ConeII An.pl, Collect, t, lll,eol,1.2-140,

Socr II, 20,
I, Athan, Apol. c, Ar, c, 4450,
5. Athan, Tomus ad Antiochenos, c,5,
4.
fhe Canons of 3ardica(as well as those of Slvirs and Aries)

were not recognised by the contemporary Church, 2hey re
mained dormant during a hundred years until Eosia&s of
Home revived them as the Canons of JTicae, Baehesne,
"Barly Hist, of Church*, Vol. II, p.180, This example
shoiss that only the pressure of the State was able gradu
ally to force the Church to accept the more eoapiieated
sysiesa of organisation based on canons and on the submis
sion of some bishops to the holders of leading sees.
all the early attempts to impose this system on a volun.- tary basis were frustrated.
ica
schism between the east and the west which exactly. "eoyresponded to the political frostiers of-'the S&apire* '
Julias and
Sardica.
Two forms
; .
Srery sovietj having an obligatory mesbe-rahip. eaa.-
acMe?s an effective unity* based either on the .will sf
..
of u n i t y . -
one person or 012 aa organised expression. of the will -f 'the.

majority.
The early Church knew- nothing'of these two prin~
eipleSj. for, being a. brotherhood. of the redeemed,, she had

as members only those mho were called by Sod and had' freely .consented to Join her society.. Only the unanimous decision
of a congregation was nocsally considered authoritative and.
obligatory, and only those rules which ifere" approved by all
the communities were recognised as Catholic..
St.*. Cyprian
This system had many iasoaveHieaees and its special'
and Episcopate difficulty was the sloisness of its procedure*
St. Cyprian,
desiring to make it more effective, developed his doctrine

that the unanimous decision of the bishops can be considered
as an adequate substitute for the consent of the whole Church.
Be -lived la a period mien a bishop really did express the
mind of his congregation, since they were elected hixa and
had .the right, if he proved unworthy, of deposing hixa.
How
ever., St. Cyprian*s theory was not accepted by the Church

except by a faction who later on formed a nucleus of the
Bon.atist movement of the Sorth iifriean Christians.
It only
fcegsan to be applied to the general administration of the

Hosims*
sehese
Church after the Boaan State had intervened in her life.

Hosius was the first- bishop irho tried to put it into prac
ties, but he %sas only able to do it by means of the help offered him by Gonstantine. ilosius remained faithful to
X.
60S. A A. i w 4
2. Bps, 68.
the fundamental principle of Christian fellowship, that
-\
#- uusasiaity,, asfl his scheme in its original design m s aa

attempt to rule the Church by means of episcopal synods,
composed of equal meafoers, unanimously deciding all questions.
Bosius1 proposal, however, âs very soon challenged
sad eventually completely transformed "by the .new sets of
difficulties which usere provoked by the' specific type of re-.
l&tions recently--established between, Church and State,., fhe
Boman Empire had accepted the Church as a- self-governing
companies organisation, sad to begin, trith the State'* s duty
was limited to the execution of the decisions pronounced
unanimously by the governing prelates., Tery soon however the
absence of unanimity among them on some pîats of .importance
began to be openly displayed, and yet neither the bishops nor
the SkaperoT- showed any disposition to postpone on this account
the final execution of those decisions. This meant that the -.
will of the majority was substituted for unanimity, but this
radical change was not frankly recognised-.aor were' any .
the conclusions which followed from it'admitted. fhe ancient
principle of unanimity based on free consent was carefully '
preserved officially,- and all -file decisions of the Councils
were promulgated on the supposition of voluntary and unanimous
acceptance by the body of bishops.' This inconsistency be
tween theory and practice frustrated Hosius* attempt to -govern
the Church by means- of episcopal councils and placed the indi
vidual members of this body in a really desperate-, position. .
She synods of the fourth century continued, nominally.to work''
on the assumption that their unanimous dec-is ions were inspired
by the Holy Saos t and obligatory for the universal Church.
Fox- this reason no legal or constitutional basis regulating
their procedure was introduced, and thus there was no possibi
lity of any formal appeal against their Judgments. As' a Mat
ter- of fact these synods had cose to be merely" the means by
which various episcopal factions expressed their pinions,
103'
but each of them was obliged to keep up- the. pretence -of
speaking in the naae of God o-s behalf of all Christians,
fills meant that every opponent of their'decisions'was
immediately proelaimed as an eaeay of the Holy hest8 and
as such was liable to the severest punishment both. by the
ecclesiastical and civil authorities*' Hie position of. m
individual bishop under such a system was almost intolerable,
On the one hand the State's protection gave ilia a very high
place is the social hierarchy f the Sap-ire and on the other
he was now exposed continually to the 'danger of losing it by
a decision of the next synod* And to be deposed thus was
identical with a sentence of exile ishieh 'often meant capital
punishment, A bishop then had power neither to leave his of
fice f his own free will* nor to remain is it by faithfully
observing soae definite requirement-, for none such had yet
been formulated, Jpii ffe had to be prepared for immediate
attack from every side, and yet had no means of defending
himself from its disastrous consequences, She synods of the
- -western bishops, for instance, deposed the eastern prelates
in their absence
and the eastern synods retaliated in the
same manner, Athanasius was condemned by the Asiatic bishops

at fyr-e i*id*'^^^â^^^*^^fe -and fifty bishops from Bitaynia
assembled at Constantinople in 360, sent into exile a large
number of their colleagues from all parts of the eastern pro
vinces*, Every unconscious expression, .every inopportune
act afforded a reason for a depositioa,^ and even, without
such an excuse & bishop was often exiled sisply because his
theological opinion a.s unacceptable to the d#ffiiisant party, .
1,
As for instance -at S&rdiea,

Socr* 1,26,
2,
Socr, 11, 42
3,
Grg Nas. rat XZ.ZZI.68
She first
attempts to
meet the new
proteins.
file Canons of the Council of Amtioeh in 341;" ;:^*^'.i

and. of Sardica ia 543 represent two attempts to tiainst
way out of this hopeless situation*
fhe method proposed-:'^-
by the'eastern hi shops was to increase the importance-Q3T

the holders of the metropolitan sees2 and strictly to prohibit direct appeals to the isaperor, hut they were unable
*# arrive at any clear- definition of the relations either
"between the metropolitans themselves or of the "bishops helonging to the -same ecclesiastical proTince. For in some
cases they considered that only unanimous decisions of the
hi shops- -were -valid and in others they spoke of the saffi*
cieney of the "rote of the majority if the minority irer
objecting '"through natural l0e of contradiction fhe
proposals of the western bishops followed those of their
-eastern colleagues for the most part* -with the one important
exception that they established oae definite court of appeal.
fhe appeal to
the HoDsan
bishop,.
The Canons of Sardica csan he called the testament

of Hosius addressed to M s fellow*iaxnistars. Mgr. Batiffol
describes them under the title ^."De Spiseopis8
fhey all
haveone object aid that is to regulate the relations he

iween bishops*
fhe unity of the Church, according to the
Canons, is constantly threatened by the bishops* jealousy

and desire to secure for themselves better sees belonging
1*
Ed8 Seiiisartg attributes these eanons to an earlier

Council of Antioch (330). Sur Sesch. des Athsn, lach,
K.W.6. O&tia, 1911, p.395?.
2S
Canons 9. 14. 19. 20.
os
wanon bit*
4,
Canon 15.
S 0 ' Canon 19.

6.
La J?aix. Const* p440
7.
Canons 8 , 9 . 1 2 .
loo
ts their fel low-mini s t e m , ^ fiosias and the western bishops
still hoped to combat these Tils saiitly by aeans of an
elaborate scheme of epissopal courts of appeal#. bat. the
unsatisfactory character of this becoaes apparent as soon;
as ose peruses it... the bishops* decisions were "bmt .eapty
words wing to the lack of any .real authority upon which
they could rely.
Bishop Gaudeiitius im the 2th Canon plainly says
that the canons *will not fee able.to obtain due force and
validity unless fear lie aided .to the decrees proclaimed11.
fhe fact that state intervention with its ine-ritabl coer
cion was ia full operation ia the life of the Church, rendered
TOii all attempts to build up aa independeiat system f church
gOTerameat based oa the authority of the episcopal councils..
This fact, once realised signified a seed for a new sysie
regulating the relations between bishops, and the -Council
of Sardica thou A t that saeh a system sight be based a the
possibility of aa appeal to the authority of one person,
2
Julias Bishop of Home . Canons III, IV, Y. amd IX decree
that an aeeased bishop say appeal to Julius and that no de
cision of deposition is to be considered valid unless its
Tictia had had as .opportunity of defending his cause before
an impartial court nominated by Julius.
from the text of the canons it is impossible to de~
eide -whether the Council meant.this prerogative to apply to
Julias personally "or to the bishop of Home in general. Bo???er to the bishops at the time that question was probably
1. Canons 1.2.
2. fhe Question of the right of appeal to the Homan see
produced a Tery copious literature. This question is
related to the deTelopraent of the position of the Roaan
bishop which took place in the *W-cent*^. Therefore it does
not enter into the study of this period of Church history.
"M Ferbure dealing with it is given by S. Mirbt. ûellejet.
sar. Geseh. Paps. {Tub. 1924) p^.48.
106
not
one of great Importance... fhey were looking for an '
ijsiaediate- solution of their desperate '.position and they

needed a haven of security .amidst the waves of ganger
that continually beset- thea*
In-the state of chaos in
which they were living the presence of one ..arbiter* even .if
he were wilful and uncontrollable, seemed preferable to
dependence on the decisions of unknown persons of unlimited
number.
If this arbiter as necessary, then he could be
either-the Emperor himself or one of the leading, prelates, .

fhe ides of a-secular judge was always distasteful to the
western Christians, and- thus they had ts last for-a cleric,
It so happened that in Julius they found an ideal candidate.
iks far as we can judge frosa his epistle to the eastern
1
bishops,, he was & laaa of wisdom and a&cter&tion. He was
free from say seal of persecution or party feeling* and he
gas untainted by any suspicion of using secular power against
his enemies. Lastly, he was the holder of the principal .see
of the Western. Church, whose .judgment all the Christians
êre accustomed to respect very highly. ..
thus the bishops gathered -at Sardiea .found an .fcaaediate remedy against the "besetting evil which was Making
their very existence unendurable.
Their proposal however'
had no practical consequences in their own lifetiaes for

neither Julius nor his successor Mherias were able to cheek
the deposition of the bishops. But the Canons ofSardica
acquired a real importance in the fifth estitry whes-' Pope
-Zosistus {417-418} used them as-the Canons of Ifieaes- and
based on thea his pretensions to receive- appeals froa. all
P
the western bishops***

1. Athaa. Ap.e. Ar 21-35.,
2.
Puller sl'he Primitive Saints*.* pp. 184-193*
107
the interval
of'peace .
{34:6-350}
The assemblies of bishops a t Sardica and P h i l i p p o polls presented tlieir decrees to their Ezsperors and requested
the punishment of the opposite party.
Hie younger Emperor
Constant-was in. s, better position than M s more capable br

iher,- ^ho ii?a-s involved in the Persian m r .
Constant offered
liis brother the choice between a civil war and the restora
tion of Athanasius to the see of Alexandria1 and Oonstantius
Atham&siu
return ' ,
chose the lesser evil.1* In 346, after the death of C-eor.orius, Athanasius returned to the east, recalled by the
s
Emperor's invitation." Ee did not forget the lessons of

the.past and this time he did not hurry to Alexandria, He
had begun to realise the urgent necessity of reconciliation
-g'ith the eastern bieiiops
and on his -way he tarried at
Jerusalem where he -sas acknowledged by a council.3
This
. was the first recognition Which Atnsnasius had received

in the east since his condemnation at yre A 335, At the
same time in the course of his journey he ordained bishops
in various dioceses, and this further- breach with general
custom raised a new wave of indignation against him.6
SOE, I I I , 2 0 .
3.
Athaa. Ap. e . Ar, c , 5 1 .
4.-
Canons XI, XII & X I I I of t h e Council of ..Aaiiseh of'

341 isfere d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t Athanasius,.
Socr. I I . 2 4 ,
Athan. Hist*. A r i a s c25.
5,
6.
Socr. I I . 24.
This instance i s an laportaat-.' i a M c a t I o n ef the early,
a t t e m p t s of the Aleacaa-drias bishops t o becoae laasters
sf t h e e a s t e r n p a r t of the Church* f h i s Motive- .greatly
embittered t h e contention bete-ea Athasastus' and- t h e
e a s t e r n s and became the cause of the a a i n c o n f l i c t s
of the f i f t h and s i x t h c e n t u r i e s . . '
108
TTa& years. 346-350 -were an armistice in the ar "between

the Sieene party and the eastern M shops. Athanasius vas
is GQwrnmlon with' the ishole of the west, with Horth Africa,
Sgypt* Macedonia* Hiessaly and Ach&iss Cxete^ Cyprus* "Lyeia,
and with the aajority of the J'alestlsiaas bishopsi
Sut he
had against hiia Syria and.Asia Jfisor;, the stronghold of'the

Eastern Empire.
She two parties felt that neither peace aor
a final extermination of the adversary &&-possible and they

tried to ignore each other*
fhe exeosHUBieations pronounced
at Sardica and at Hiilippopolis were neither recalled' nor

carried through, for neither of the lifers s strong ,e- ^^
nough to force his decision, apon his colleague. fhis awkward

situation m s suddenly terminated by the murder of Constants
in 551. the civil war which followed his death -was brought
to as end in 352-3 by Constantius* complete victory over
the usurper M&gnentius who had temporarily seized the imper
ial dignity, and the unity of Constsxrtine * s Smpire m s once
again restored by his son in all its splendour.
Coastaatias
the sole ruler
of State and
Church.
low that Constantins was the sole ruler of Church

and State he could not tolerate the existence of the two
separate f a c t i o n s i n the Catholic Church.
^P
He spent the l a s t
years of h i s r e i g n in b r u t a l and r e s o l u t e a t t e m p t s to subor

d i n a t e ' t h e isao-le Church to the i n t e r e s t s of Asia Minor.
Constantius s t i l l regarded the bishops a s the responsible
r u l e r s of aa independent i n s t i t u t i o n and he never acted
without t h e i r consent.
3ut he did not scruple t o obtain i t
fcota by manifest compulsion and "by d i r e c t l y nominating

candidates of h i s m-m in place of bishops who r e s i s t e d hixa.
His system was a c u r i o u s combination of despotic r u l e over
the Church and a s t i l l e x i s t i n g r e c o g n i t i o n of h e r indepen
dence,
In the n a t u r e of things t h i s profound c o n t r a d i c t i o n
1. Athan. H i s t , ir-ian. 28,
109
could not last Isns.

file new con
demnation of
AthaaasitiS
. -.,-
Const ant ius considered that the first step towards ""
the restoration of church unity must "be the sol earn condea
>- -
tion of Athan&slus, that stumbling tel cck of the last twentyfive years of" church history. Mis. first years as sole
ruler (until 356-35^1 were entirely occupied ?ith this
single task. Both the 'Bmperor and his court bishops who
now appear as a distinct and important party seem to hare
been so- blinded by their hatred against Athaaasius that
they sincerely believed feat after his removal peace in the
Church would immediately be restored*
In pursuit.- of his
sis the a&pero-r used threats, bribes and all kinds of eser
cion. He forced the westers bishops- to condemn. Athsmasi as
at the Councils of Aries in. 353 -and of M i a n 1 is .255. 'All
the opposers of the measure -were unsparingly exiled, among
thea Liberlus of Some"*., She bishops who hoped to escape
from the necessity of condemning Ath&nasius by absenting
themselves from the Councils isere nevertheless forced tosign the conciliar resolutions which were carried through
the astern provinces by special emissaries of the Ifeperor.
In February 356 Athanasius fled for the' third time frsm
Alexandria . Seorge the Cappadeeian was given the. see in
his stead B.n$ the desirable goal, of unity seemed -to.be near-
er than at any previous.time.
The battle of
the creeds.
356-361.
Constantius had at last gained his great victory.

His tenacious foe Athanasius disappeared from the Church and
took refuge in the desert,. Mom that, as' the Jsperor. thou|iat,
the main cause of all the lasting troubles 8'removed, he
SOS. I ? . - 9 - 1 1 .
fief. L e c l , I , p p , 869-87"?.
. : ' " '
g.
Athan, H i s . Ar; c . 4 0 .
5.
Athan. E p i s t . H e o r t . Chron.. iligne SP.S.i. XX? I . c o l . .1356...
'i
11
attacked with a new energy the problem of establishing'
that permanent order and peace in the Church that was .so
urgently needed "both by the Bspir-e and by its large Chris-
tian population. The result of his efforts was as intense
battle of creeds ^hieh were promulgated 9-ae after another
by the various episcopal assemblies held during the remind
ing fire years of his reign (3S6-361) is the east as well
as in the west.. /S^S.'J.B spite of all his efforts Constantius
failed to restore unity in the Church and his policy proved
to be most ruinous to her life.
The analysis of the reasons which caused the completecoll&pse of his attempt is the subject of this- chapter.^.
Constantly is often blamed for M s alliance-with the leaders
of various Arianisiag parties, and represented as a.ruler
who wished to impose Arlaniss. upon the Church in defiance. .
of the wishes of the majority of her members, "But to describe his action thus is to misunderstand It,^
Xike his
father, he had no definite dogmatical 'preferences... Although

he was a theologian, his actions were governed' by political
considerations. He was .primarily the. mater of his tremen
dous Eapires and M s real concern was for the restoration
of Christian unity.
He never persecuted anyone because'
of his religious convictions, and all fee bishops who suf

fered exile during M s long reign were condemned .as viola
tors of peace and enemies of public order. . We shall better
understand the policy of the last years of his .reign if we
study the positions of the different episcopal parties of
that period.
1,
-QV instance, this opinion is incompatible with his

decision to convoke a second council at I'ieaea with
the purpose of restoring peace among the Western aid
S&stem bishops on a basis acceptable to the orthodox
party. See pag $^-"- '--: ' t-al
2.
Satiffol, # X& Baix Constant*, p.405.

Hefele Leelerq. op. clt. ol. I. p..8?5#
'
ffae episcopal
parties.
la the middle of the fourth, century the catholic

epise&pate became divided into three main groups.. -She
first was led by Athanasius, Mosius and Liherius,. and sup-
fhe lieese
party
ported by the large majority of the western bishops, this;
.party had a clear dogmatical position -stitch -ms that f
the lieeae creed.
Up to t h e end of C o n s t a n t ' s reign i t s
p o l i c y was t o refuse a l l compromises and to demand the

unconditional surrender of a l l i t s opponent a.
T3ie support
given by the western episcopate t o Mare e l lias, Athanasis

iiscelepas and other bishops deposed by the eastern' councils
^.
aaade t h e i r r e l a t i o n s -with t h e A s i a t i c bishops v e r y ; b i t t e r .

iese, under t h e l e a d e r s h i p of Basil of Aneyra isho #eoupied
Marcellus* s e e , were in open imr with the. Jfieene p a r t y .
"v
' fhey believed t h a t the v i c t o r y of the westerners -after the

:
y :'G^Mil-uw-^&^^^r
t "'
'''
?;ould mean e x i l e end deposition for a l l
"5
'i
t h e i r leaders..*
*he concrete proposal of the Ktcene p a r t y
tâs t h a t a l l the bishops should re sub s c r i b e to the Mcene

creed.
Constantius, who was conversant -with conditions
in the e a s ^ co-old scarcely be convinced of the p r a c t i c a l

expediency of t h i s p l a n .
^w
Thus, even i f -we put aside h i s
personal animosity t o Athanasius, the Saperor had s e r i o u s

reasons f o r refusing to support t h i s d e c i s i o n .
Reconcilia
t i o n -ith the Mcene p a r t y could only be brought a t the

c o s t of persecution at the A s i a t i c bishops, and Constantius
would never risite sedition among the population of Asia Minor,
the stronghold of h i e ifeipire.
Sae e a s t e r n
conservatives
fhe second sroup -was led by Basil of Aneyra and

l l e u s i u s of Cyzicus, aid was composed of t h e siain body of
bishops from Syria &ro Asia i a n o r . r iheir doctrinal pro1 . At Sardica t h e leading e a s t e r n bishops were not simply
deposed; the Council declared that they vere not even
C h r i s t i a n s . Sea. 111.12.
2.
See Liberius' 1 appeal t o 0statius,/Jf35..it|) l t\

Soz. If. 1 1 .
212
gramme was the defense of the', east earn c r e e d s , among
which they s p e c i a l l y valued
the Joatloehian formula of
the Council of Dedication (34i)-
fhe common d e s c r i p t i o n '
of t h i s party a s semi-Arians i s - i n a d e q u a t e , for'we migbtt

with equal J u s t i c e c a l l them seffil-Meaeans..
I t i s true
t h a t they p r o t e s t e d against the Mi ease creed, hat mainly

because they considered i t to he a novelty and l i a b l e t'o
heretical sis-representations,
fae-y were p a r t i c u l a r l y
opposed to i t s s o - c a l l e d "Sabeilian* tendencies itiicli. were

c l e a r l y displayed in the w r i t i n g s of iJarcellus of Ancyra,
-one of the l e a d e r s of the JFieene p a r t y ,
Ithey represented
sue of the main streams of the theology of eastern Chris

t i a n i t y * and t h e i r f a i t h was e s s e n t i a l l y the same as t h a t :
of the Meese p a r t y . * 'Bat t h e s e e a s t e r n bishops were
ignorant and suspicions as t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s in the west,
just a s t h e i r western colleagues were a s to the e a s t . Ehey
were prepared t o t o l e r a t e t h e use of the lieesse creed* 6
-;30y.'western C h r i s t i a n s , ' so long a s they themselves remained
free t o use t h e i r own c r e e d s , but they were determined t o
expel from the e a s t a l l those bishops who refused to t r e a t
the e a s t e r n and western formulas as equivalent, and most
r e s o l u t e l y opposed t o a l l pretensions on the p a r t of Alex
andria and Some t o dominate the eastern episcopate.
She prospect of compliance of t h i s p a r t y were more
hopeful than in the ease of the Hicene b i s h o p s .
lor
Constantiu@ could c e r t a i n l y expect to find more obedience

among the eastern than the western b i s h o p s .
But the
A s i a t i c s lacked the moral c h a r a c t e r of the l a t t e r , and

1.
The main l e a d e r s of the Sicene p a r t y eventually a r r i v e d

a t t h i s conclusion themselves, cf. Hilary ^De Synod*"
33-62., and At&t&asiue "Be 3yn." 4 1 .
2.
Shis supposition can he deduced from t h e i r policy

during the Council of Sardica. They i n s i s t e d that
Athanasius and ilareellus must he r e j e c t e d , but they
did not t r y to impose t h e i r doctrinal formulas upon
the West.
im
were BO badly compromised by the frequent use-'of c o e r
cion and b r u t a l i t y a g a i n s t t h e i r a d v e r s a r i e s , t h a t .they
were in r e a l i t y incapable -of .say c r e a t i v e e f f o r t for the
r e s t o r a t i o n of C h r i s t i a n unity...
The Court
party.
The t h i r d group was composed of the so-called

c o u r t i e r bishops l i k e Valess and Orsaeius i n the west,
and Aeseius of Gaes&rea in the east..
fhey are usually
called the Ari&nising p a r t y proper, tout, t h e i r conduct

c l e a r l y show* t h a t they bad n e i t h e r d o c t r i n a l aor any .
other p r i n c i p l e s ,
t h i s p a r t y can never be considered a s
r e p r e s e n t i n g any d e f i n i t e teachings for i t s l e a d e r s were

unable to defend anything; except t h e i r personal i n t e r e s t s .
The sole purpose of a l l t h e i r i n t r i g u e s -was to preserve
for themselves the p r i v i l e g e s and honours of the Emperor's
benevolence, and they were ready t o side "with any other
group of bishops -which would allo-w them to enjoy t h e i r
-' '* i
'I;
ambitions.
Eie Sieene p a r t y openly despised them, and a
l i e e n e v i c t o r y would undoubtedly have led to the deposition

of people l i k e alens and tSrsaeius.
That was the taain
reason -shy t h e l a t t e r hated the Sicene leaders and display

ed such energy and ingenuity in checking t h e i r influence.
They had l e s s reason to fear the A s i a t i c s , t/hose moral
standard was not much h i g h e r than t h e i r own, but an a l l i a n c e
After the Co .moil of Sardica, Yalens and Ursacius,
seeing t h a t the poorer belonged to the western party,
recognised the Mcene d e f i n i t i o n 3ccr. I I . 24 s and
Athan. Ap e..~.r. c.58 # Acacius was a l s o c o n t i n u a l l y
changing his d o c t r i n a l p o s i t i o n (Socr. I I I . 2 D ) and the
ie bishops also excommunicated a convinced Arian
;ius a t the Council of Constantinople (360) when
circumstances zaade i t necessary (Sc-2. IV. 2 4 ) . Their
support of Arianisin,? tendencies can e a s i l y be explain
ed a s the weapon they found most expedient against t h e i r
personal enemies,,
2,
See the description of tfcem in Sa-atkin's "Studies of

Ariaa". pp. 160-162.
ft'*.'*".
114
between these two could never last long, for each party
merely awaited the first opportunity of expelling ami
exiling the leaders of the other, in order to acquire
their sees, Terbally at least the court party supported
Constantius in hie efforts to restore unity, and its leafl*
ers were the first to invest all kind of eostprosiises,.
But their attempts never came to any things for they never
really cared whether there was peace in the Church and
their unique concern was for their own prosperity. fhis
party naturally had no roots in the life of the Church and
could only exist as long as the east and the west continued
their fratricidal struggle, the court bishops were a m r e ;
of this fact and therefore they skilfully fostered the
suspicions and animosity .which divided the main body of the
\
Catholic episcopate into two hostile asps.

fhe Arians.
Besides these, three parties there-was a- ssall hand

of real Arians composed of men like Aetius, SmnOMius and
1
Sudoxius.
They -ere s o p h i s t s and r h e t o r i c i a n s , i n t e r e s t e d .
in debates and p h i l o s o p h i c a l arguments,* They -were able t
excite the c u r i o s i t y of the c i t y populace by such statements
3
as: *fhe i?&ther is impious, the Son is pious*, .but-they
stood outside the life and spiritual interests of the Cath4
olic Church and were not interested in her teaching.
Un
der nors&l conditions these men would naturally have

1. fhe latter, after he becaae "Bishop of Constantinople,
probably lost the rigidity of his previous-convictions and displayed a frank opportunism in regard .to his
former friends. Socr, If. 13: 15, . Soa, TX.fs
Phil. IX. 3a4*
2.
3.
Socr. II, 35;

Soz. IV. 12.
.;:..-
Soz, IV. 26. I'his sentence was the beginning of the

sermon ps3eeched by Hudoxius at the dedication of the
Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople,.
4. After he left the chair of Constantinople Sunoaius i^-^-j

officiated at a communion service, in spite of the fact *
that he m s a bishop. He as well as A^feius, lived the
life of ancient philosophers surrounded" with desciples
spreading their fame in refined debates. Ihil, IX,4,
1 1 5 '
established religious philosophic schools -of their o,,

and it. m s 'only the intrigues'-of the court bishops.and
their awn ambitions -ealch put then sometimes into'th
position, unnatural for them,. of a bishop of the Catholic
Church, apart from the personal influence of its founders,
Arianism ne?er took root among the members of ..the Church.
From its inception until its final fall it remained a sere
weapon, wielded, by different conflicting parties insids
the Catholic Church,
In r e a l i t y ,&riaisat, l i k e gnosticism,
was a r e l i g i o u s philosophical 'movement, horn under s t r o n g

Christian. influence hut e s s e n t i a l l y d i s t i n c t from the Church
and h e r r e a l l i f e .
^w
Only & s e r i e s of t h e ' m o s t ' d i s h e a r t e n i n g .-
misunderstandings -and mistakes made i t a t h r e a t to. .tfce l i f e

. . .
of C h r i s t i a n i t y during a period of n e a r l y h a l f a century.

She cause of
She h a t t i e o-êr the creeds during the l a s t five
the l a s t stage'
of the d o e t r i - years of Gonstantius* reign was not the r e s u l t of a deep
nal contention.
doctrinal disagreement i n s i d e the Catholic Church. I t can
he b e t t e r understood if we see i t as_the outcome of the
Emperor*s e f f o r t t o r e s t o r e the unity of the Church through
the enforcement of a d o c t r i n a l agreement or compromise on
4fc
the different episcopal p a r t i e s . I t began at a small synod

2
held a t Sirnium in 357."' *ae leaders of the court p a r t y ,
Yaleas and Ursaeius, t h e r e proposed a new solution af the
perpetual c o n f l i c t .
Ihey published a manifesto, the so-
c a l l e d second Sirmium creed., in which they declared, that'

the f i r s t suecess of the
a l l expressions lilei #homoousiOHs or
hooiousioa w which
Court party.
had caused so many disagreements must he discontinued, and
These consisted of the hurried exeosmmleatlon .of .Arims.:

by the Alexandrian Synodj of. the enforcement of- a& us- -:
ae customsd **homoousion8 f onaula - upon the east in 325 j
of iithanasiusf misleading and long-standing eenrietion.
that the Asiatic Christians were- Ariaas; and finally of the intrigues and seditions provo&ed by the f*perors*attempts to restore unity among the bishops hy ae&as of one obligatory doctrinal formula.
Eidd, *Hist. of the Ch. Vol. II. p.l&4,
and t h a t even the
-WQT&
&t/ioLas to be excluded froat
doctrinal- doetraents a s izBseriptural.^
fiiey siaoeaedei in
persuading t h e Bsp.eror t h a t t h e i r scheme' woali lie th s o - '

l u t i o n of the c o n f l i c t "between t h e east and the isest and
he promised them h i s support,
f h e i r f i r s t action uss t o force Hosi&s 'to. sign the
Bimiiaa manifesto in order t o afee i t a u t h o r i t a t i v e for
the western b i s h o p s .
In order to obtain h i s signature
they b r u t a l l y t r e a t e d t h i s man who was almost a c e n t e n a r i a n .

At f i r s t t h i s creed was received w i t h welcome in. the east.,
I t v&s accepted "by a synod of Antioch in 358", for JSudsxfms^
4
the new hut uncanonically e l e c t e d h i shop of t h a t city;
mio had convoked the synod and presided over it.8 .-was anx-.
ious to oh t a i n any support.
He as followed by .Acacias of
Caesarea who always sided with the s t r o n g e s t party*!)
Mew-
ever the success of t h e Sirmim manifest uras l i m i t e d t o

these two c a s e s , . The preponderant majority of the bishops
"both in the west and in the east v i o l e n t l y r e j e c t e d the
scheme and condemned i t s a u t h o r s ,
fhe 'manifesto was n i c k -
named the Siraima Blasphemy," l&oebaditt#- of A-gen refilled

if
i t in the name of the "bishops of Gaul'.. .fhe. African bishops

were a l s o indignant a t it,-
The western episcopate .mnasl-
mously r a i s e d i t s voice a g a i n s t t h i s compromise"prepared

by the court p a r t y ,
..fhe e a s t e r n conservatives for the
f i r s t time joined in the protest, of the. Uicene l e a d e r s ,

1.
8oer, I I . 30.
Hilary *de Syn1' 1 1 ;
At nan. "de Syn*.28.
2.
Soear.il. 31.
'
Sos, tf, 12,

. .
Athan. H i s t , Ar.42.54
3 . Kidd, H i s t , of the Ch. e Vol. I I . p . l g e
4
xtachesae, "Early Hi-story" Vol. I I . p,230

Hef. L e c l . op. c i t . . V o l . 1. p.903
5,
Soz. IV. 28,
6.
ttigne
P.L. Vol. XX, c o l . 13-30.
?.
Hilary ad Const. 26.

Soa. IV. 24.
117
"fhey ire re B i t t e r l y offended "by Suimius*' i n t r u s i o n '
i n t o tlie see of Anil sell and they considered t h e Simiua"
manifesto-to fee a d e c l a r a t i o n of war made by the.court'- .
party,.
'
George, Bishop of Xaodicea, who had been'.as a s p i r a n t

for t h e see of Aatioeh and. as fraudulently defeated "by
luioxims. took t h e lead in the campaign. 2- g@ addressed a
l e t t e r to the leaders-of fee conservative''party, explaining'.
t h e new p o l i c y of the court Bishops who a l l i e s themselves
with the manifest A r i a n s ,
Basil of Aaeym, & personal
eueiiy of Aeitus, immediately convoked a synod i n h i s c i t y

t during Lent, 558) and a deputation composed of Basil him^
s e l f , Emstatius of Sebasta, Sleusius of Cyzicus and Leont i u s , - presbyter of the imperial "bedchamber, proceeded to
the f i r s t
Siraiu.
'fhey c a r r i e d with thea a new scheme f o r r e s t o r a l l i a n c e be
tween the east
ing u n i t y t h a t was the a n t i t h e s i s of the manifesto of the
and the west..
court p a r t y .
I t proposed r e c o n c i l i a t i o n between t h e west
ern 'homoomsians and the e a s t e r n homieusians on the "basis

of the doctrine established at Antioch i n 341, a t Sardiea,
3
and a t an e a r l i e r synod of Sirmium
creed, 351),
dfc
( t h e f i r s t Sinaium
Shis d r a s t i c departure froia the t r a d i t i o n a l
p o l i c y of h o s t i l i t y 'sas mainly due t o H i l a r y , an exiled

bishop of P o i t i e r s .
He had l i v e d .in Asia Minor since t h e "
summer of 356 and tras- b u s i l y engaged i n t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n

of the two p a r t i e s .
He was t h e f i r s t aan "to r e a l i s e t h a t
the east and the xeest laere p r o f e s s i n g the sasse./faith.,,, and

t h a t t h e "bishops 1 c o n f l i c t s were due to aisunderstandings
and personal a n i m o s i t y ,
1.SG.Z, I?* 13,
2.Soz. I ? . 1 3 .
S.Sheod.. H . S . I I . 3 1 .
Guraikin "Studies of Arias, p.'XSf
4,Hilary "de Synod'1 293
US
Honstantims
&ad the sew
scheme of
reccseiliatlG-B .
She a r r i v a l of t h e deputation from A&cyra

completely changed Conatantius e c c l e s i a s t i c a l p o l i c y .
S i s s a i n concern, t h e r e s t o r a t i o n of mutual recognition
bet trees t h e e a s t e r n and western 'bishops, seemed now to
he a t l a s t aehiered.* and he abandoned t h e Sirsaium comproaiee tfeich had a l r e a d y proved to he u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ,
She new'epoch i n the l i f e of the Church vas inaugurated
by t h e r e l e a s e of Liberius f r e e 9 s d l e , an a c t which m s
1
probably due to the i n t e r v e n t i o n of t h e e a s t e r n bishops.
2
Be returned to Rome i n the Aagust of 353.
The Sicene
p a r t y also shoved I t s e l f jar spared t# .abandon i t s sseea* ;
pro mi sing a t t i t u d e * sad ores. t h e iMplaeable Athanasims
declared i n t h e fallowing y s a r (SS9 ). t h a t ' t h e * h c i s i a s s *
s u s t .not be t r e a t e d a s eneades hat as brothers* who aeaa
what we mean and d i s p u t e ^ sly abevti t h e ward*.
She court
p a r t y and t h e Aari&ae ?feo. were under t h e i r .protection were

4
defeated., Atdexius l e s t t h e &itleeltias. s e e y . ifeilst .the
other l e a d e r s were e i t h e r e x i l e d r r e t a i n e d t h e i r sees
a t the p r i c e ef unconditional stbsisia t o tke. v i c t o r i o u s
5
conservative.
A l l t h a t soir remained to be done m s ssieaniy.
t o proclaim t h e r e s t o r e d u n i t y e f t h e S i a r e h , -and for t h a t
purpose fionstantius decided once more t o convoke a t l i e a e a
an oecumenical council hteh Should sanction *&e achieved
So a . !., 15 .24*
Mil.. I r a g . ITMflU'
m i l e s , . XV.3.
fhesd.-S.il* 11*1'?.
&han. S i s . ia. 34-44*
Sttl.Sevv E . S . IX.S9. .
S p - i e t . & o e r t t Mi p i e , F * i . T i l l , eei* 138@~15?S.
ef. Bat i f f e l .
. "'
'm, j?alx Const. p p . 493*4*
g l i d . e p . e i t . I I . p 1.5-5.
3 . Be gym* 4 1 .
4 . Sen. IV. 14.
&.. Sos* I f . IS*
119
reconciliation.1
The difficulty
of the nem co
alition,
However, the scheme of unity proposed
by Basil ami his party left many difficult questions

unsettled, and these were revealed soon after preparation
for the Council had hegun.
The first difficulty was that
the nestera Bishops were still suspicious about the orthodoxy

of the Asiatics. Jven the fact that the conservatives were
recognised "by such staunch Sicene leaders as Liberius and
Hilary was explained as the moral fall of the latter. Then
secondly the easterners themselves became less comprehensive
and conciliatory now that they had recovered influence, and
it is&s perhaps for teis reason that 'they "began to protest
against the choice of Kic&ea as & suitable place for the
council.*
fhis complaint in turn gave rise to a new wave ;
of suspicions among the members of the Eicene party. Last

ly the Asiatics signified their victory by requesting that
more than seventy eastern bishops should be exiled, whilst
many other Christians v?ere imprisoned, tortured and treated
with all manner of violence at the hands of the conservatives.
All these facts possible made Constantius doubt
the permanent value of the eastern scheme of reconciliation,,
and the defeated court party be pan rapidly to recover the
lost boon of the'Jsnx-geTQr*& favour.
Siey started an ener
getic campaign against Basil and his friends. Different

fhe rise of
the Influence
of- the Court
party.
pieces of evidence ~ere collected and brought "before the

Emperor, to prove that the conservatives were incapable
of restoring pease, and that they used their- privileged
position for mere personal profit. Liherius* return to
1. Sag, IT. 16. This decision is a very important indication
that Constantius has no personal objections against the
licene creed aid that he approached the problem of church *
unity from the point of viev? not of doctrine but of ex
pediency.
2 e Sos. ITF. 16,
3. Boss. If. 2a, 21, 24.
ISO
Sams was especially exploited in this way, for the
populace had met. hia with enthusiasm mixed with a bitter
resentment against the Emperor,.^- Constantine was a Jealous
and suspicious ruler who had never been able to forget.
that unfortunate display.
thus the preparation for the council proceeded in
an atmosphere of intrigue and mutual accusations... Ho one
was concerned with the unity of the Church, but each party
was intent on securing a final victory for itself,, ishieh.
would result in the expulsion of its opponents and is a
Monopoly of the best sees. Under the influence of Basil
^^
and his partisans*. Const ant is first, consented to change

the meeting place of the Council, and the choice fell upon '
Hie media which had no disagreeable associations, :; But
shortly after the departure of the Bishops.for this city
it ms- completely destroyed by an earthquake.2 this
catastrophe caused a great disturbance in the minds of
the Christians &ni the court par%r skilfully used it as a
sign of Sod*s disapproval of Basil's scheme..." Basil himself
seemed also to be very depressed by the event and he sai-
denly changed his Mind and advised the Emperor to revert

to the original choice of lie&ea. the autumn of 358.and
the winter of 359 were spent in this confusion.
In the
spring of 359 Basil reappeared at Sirmiu for the purpose

of arriving at a final conclusion as to the place of the
Council.
Court party's.
victory.
The court party availed itself of this opportunity ,

to take revenge on Basil. Se was induced to consent to
having tso separate councils, one for the western bishops
at Ariminuiij and another at Seleucia for the easterners. "
1. Soz., IV. 24...
Jheod. II. 14.
2 . August 2 4 t h , 3 5 2 . 8oa. I T . 1 6 .
3 . Soz. I T . 1 6 .
lidd,Hist. t h e C h . I I .
P.I61.
fhls separation of the episcopate into two parts was

a skilful device of the court ".party, for it existed as
long as the 'eastern and western bishops remained in two \

1
separate camps, divided by suspicions and prejudices.
Basil was also obliged to sign the so-called dated creed
(May 22n# 359) which was another shrewd device of the
court bishops, .They persuaded the Kapersr that the netr
oee&msnical councils would iiere readily achieve their
task of pacification,, if the creed "to he accepted by all
the bishops were previously drawn up and approved by the .
Emperor*
She bishops would then merely have to sanction
and sign a document that was already composed* instead of

spending their energy on the complicated work of producing
a new creed that would satisfy-both east and west.
By persuading the Saperor to consent to this scheme
the court party regained its- previous position of laflueace,
for its leaders were coaaissioned to carry throuî this
.'plan at the w o Councils, She dated creed promulgated in
the presence "of the eternal August*'3 was conservative is
tone and yet so vague that it could scarcely satisfy, the
4k
Catholic Church. Coastantius, however* finding that Basil

had signed it and that its author was Sarc of Arethusa,
another leader of the conservatives^ had every reason for
' trusting in its effectiveness* and he ordered his civil
\-representatives( Taurus at Arisinum, êonas and Lautcius |
it
The Council
of Arminms
'-'at Seleucia) to secure unity among t3ie bishops at- any cost.
.She synod of v*estern bishops at ArainuM met first
/
(July 359). It was one. of the best attended westers synods
1. -So3* It. X*G.
'
2 e M l . Fragment- X ? . n , 3 . P . L . t < X . c o I . ? 2 1 ' ' .

Ath&n de Syn8.
_
5 3 Sso. I I . 37
Soz. I T . I s ?.
Athan.' de S y n . 8 ,
'
12t
1
and sore than four hundred bishops.were present,
the
see of Roiae however was net represented.,, for the -Church

there ias divided into two parties , . Hilary -'was' in Asia,
Minor and the westers bishops at Artwlmm.
repeated the
mistake committed by their predecessors at Sardiea. fhey

were still unable to- understand that conditions is Am&&.
were different from those in Saul .sad Spain, and that the
unity of the Church could only be achieved through mutual
concessions and goodwill an the part of both the eastern .
and western .episcopates, fheir decision was an uncompro
mising support of the Sicene creed*
they wrote- to -the.la--
peror: "We conceived that it-, would be unwarrantable" and

impious to mutilate any of those things -which have been
justly and rightly ratified by those who sat in the lieene
Council with Oonstantine of glorious memory, the Father
5
, of your piety* . 2hey rejected the dated creed, exconL*nuni~
/ oated Talens and Orsacius who proposed the dated creed to
i the Assembly and as&ad the Emperor to allow them to return
home*
With a letter embodying these results ten repre
sentatives of the licene majority proceeded to Siraiuia

whilst the other bishops remained at Arminium awaiting
Constantlas' decision,~
Though the aims of the court bishops were defeated
by these resolutions of the western synod, there was in
the very nature of the resolutions a promise of final vic
tory for the, for the decision of their opponents was
directed against the Asiatics and therefore oould neêT
1,
S u l p . Sev, Hist,. Saer.. 1 1 , 4 1 .
2.
Kidd, H i s t , of t h e Oh, C h . I I . p , l | 6 6 .
3S
Sosr* II* 3f
8os e I . 1 8 ,
E i l , S*raga,. 1 1 1 . 4 , Migne. P . L , t , X i ? 0 1 ,
"be Ratified by the laperor. falens and his p&rtisaas

als sent to -fee laperor their wa delegation* -which
arrived first ad had no difficulty in persuading, his that

the dated creed must be Imposed ipoa the obstinate. wester1
ners, Constaniius refused, to see the representatives &

the majority and declared that he was usable on account .
of the war to make any further investigation into the COntradictory resolutions brought -'by the two delegations.* . .
But at the same time he strictly forbade the westers, bishops
The twenty bishops who represented the. .
to. leave Arimisus.
two factions of the Council were detained first at Adrianople^ and then transferred to a'small city called- like.*
The. enforced sojourn in this isolated place without any
hope of immediate return broke the opposition'of the wester
ners and after explanations with Ifee court bishops they finally allowed themselves to fee persuaded,, and consented '
to subscribe to the dated creed which was slightly aodifiedB
alen-s and Ursacims hurried to Ariainni and* with
the help of the Skapersr*s representative.,: Count fsurus

succeeded in persuading the bishops, whs wer also depressed
"by their long stay in the city, to give their signatures
too.
Ihis -sas the only way in which they could buy their.
return hose and therefore the western episcopate at last

yielded their position.
fhus the Council which had be
gun oj defending the Mieeae creed suddenly terminated itssession with an enforced hut nevertheless general accept-.
anee of the modified dated creed,
1.
2.
38
4.
Snip. Sev. H. Saer. II. 41.

Socr. II.. 3?.
Athan. de Svnod. 55*
Socr. II. 3?..
Soa. If. 1.
5.
Socr. II. 41.
6.
3ulp. Sev. H. Sacr. 11.44
tea new 'delegates,
124
elected now by both the majority and the sticoriiy, were sent to the Emperor.
Thej carried the signature of the
western episcopate to the. creed pronuXgated by the court

bishops.
The triumph of the court party in the west seemed I
to be complete*
The Council
f Sel*tuei&
>
A similar proceeding tool: place at Seleuoia where

the eastern "bishops gathered in the September of 359. The ,majority there belonged to the homoiou&iaxts and they re*
jeoted the dated creed in spite of the fact that.it had
previously been signed by their leader Basil,?-
3be Saperor's
representatives, Leonas and Laurielus, tried in Tain to

support the proposal of the minority which was led by Acacias.
The majority excommunicated the partisans of the dated eree-i
and sent a delegation to the Bsrperor with- the. AntiooMaa:
creed.
The Acaeians also .proceeded, to the ' court with their
s"s?n formula. Bach of the parties carried. & long/list of

the nsffl.es of their excommunicated adversaries^ JM their
arrival at Constantinople the two. delegations' learned about
the events at Ariminum.
It e g a. heavy blow for the eastern
conservatives and their courage faltered-,
faniiae's
res*oa
restoration
|f unity.
The last days of the year 559 were a busy : time forthe Smperor, .He did his beet to persuade-the representatives
of the eastern majority to sign the document- already approved both by the Western lisene bishops and by. the' easternand western factions of the court party, His efforts were
crowned with success, The last'night of 359 -was. spent -in.;
final negotiations with the easterners, and en -January 1st.,
1. Soar, II, 39,40,
Soa. IV. 22
Xheod. H,iS, II, 26,
Athan, de Syn. 12,
Bilary, Contra Const, Imp, 12-15,
Sul, Sev, Hist, Sacr, 11,42
2, Socr, II. 39
Soz. 17 22.
. .
12B
360,- Constant i n s was able t o inaugurate his-.tenth-a*

'l
s u l a i e by a solemn proclamation f r e l i g i o u s -peace
"
Sie ' east and the ttest were again u n i t e d . : the u n i t y f ...
the Chureh,. which had been destroyed a f t e r t h e -death of
Constantino, was a t l a s t r e s t o r e d by h i s eon.
g
l a January 380 a new council was held a t Oonstast-inople
I t s purpose was to give a f i n a l sanction t o the
agreements reached a t Arisiinna mi
Seleucia.
In r e a l i t y
i t becaae a ^laee of s l a u g h t e r where the l e a d e r s of t h e

A s i a t i c episcopate ware deposed and exeoaHmaioaf-ed*
'.fas
court party at l a s t took i t s f i n a l rerenge and Basil and .

S i s friends had t o go tot e x i l e .
Shey were, a l l .condensed.
for disturbing the peace and for" v i o l a t i n g . the lairs of the

Church .
The court bishops a l s o sacrif.i#e-d t h e i r former
a l l y , the deacon Aetims, and exc-aasimicated hiaa b o t h "for

h i s impious expressions and because he .had.been the .oeea 4
s i OB of t r o u b l e s and s e d i t i o n s in the Church.*
This m e
the f i n a l a c t of Constantivat* attempt t o see the Church

once sore ûnited' on a b a s i s of* a s i n g l e dogaatie formula
obligatory for a l l bishops,
Jo^fcantius,
The u n i t y of the Church proclaimed by Constantius

was' an i l l u s i o n .
month*
'. .
I t m s unable to l a s t even f o r a- s i n g l e
I t is- easy t o blame h i s f o r h i s mistakes and "for
h i s wrong choice of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l a d v i s e r s .
His personal
moral standard was not very high., and t h i s p a r t l y e x p l a i n s

t h e influence upon him of men l i k e f a l e n s and llrsaeitts,/ :
-/
ft
1.
Soz. Bf. 2 3 .
2.
Hefa L e d , I . pp. 96 &qM
3.
3Jhsod';II,2B..
4 . -Saz^lV. 24.
126
Bat Constantius 1 i n t e n t i o n s were noble and he s i n c e r e l y
.. <
desired to.-see peace and order firmly e s t a b l i s h e d in the
'
t t
Chureh. Be" may indeed Be said to have had a more ob.jee''tive and balanced approach to the problems of church unity,
and a better knowledge of conditions both in the east and
the êst, than many of M s -bissops,
fhe defeat of
Constantius1
system.-
fhe deplorable result of his policy was due to the

fundamental defect of the system which he and the leading
bishops of his tine elaised t be the only possible guar
antee of Christian unity.
Constaiatius diligently .adhered
to the doctrine introduced by his father, for he.-was convinoed that if one doctrinal formal were accented by the
majority of the bishops and then imposed by the State upon
.. the episcopate of the whole Catholic -Church, it wo.uli pre
serve church unity intact. But we may -say with truth tha't
this idea, from the assent of its conception to the present
day, has merer been realised in practice and every new at
tempt to enforce its acceptance has proved to be fatal for
Christian unity.Constantino, Constantius, fheodosius and'Justinian
^p
were all eteasrpions and victims of this scheme. But -what

issie Constantims*' failure specially striking was that he
tried to unite the Church by means of an ambigious dogmatic
formula under leaders of a poor and unstable moral character.
fhe Church during the reign of Constantius was the scene
of unceasing struggles among the bishops, and all attempts
to bring then into hsisiony only strengthened their content
tions. And yet in spite of all the failures to arrive at
t'ais desirable goal of- peace., the Church still remained one
body which had only lost the power of expressing itself with
one voice.
Church and
Statee
Baere were only two ways of terminating this

paradoxical situation. One was 'ay the cessation of state
12?' -
interference in the life of the Church (a proposal which
was m&ie by the western bishops at 3ar3iea, but rejected
by ConstantiuiA);
and the other by a complete reorgaaisat*
tion. of the church constitution, involving the establish

ment of & definite system -which should subordinate the
episcopal sees to the "blading authority of as=fe chosen
prelate^
The Church eventually accepted this second alaj?tei~<^t%~ ft tûttvdut^-
t e m a t i v e and the next century m s the- scene odf&tê^results

set t h i s new order*
She death of Gonstantius in 361 t e r
minated "feat most stofflsy period of the-me-& relations- "between

*
the Church and the Soman ISmpire shich had been begun by h i s
.father in 313,
Bs&T&iese f i f t y years a l r e a d y i n c l u d e . a l l
the e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e s of t h i s new order and a short analysis

of thea i s indispensable before -ê^&wwixi the s t u d y of the
next period of chuereh h i s t o r y ,
She Roman Sspire., at the time mien Constantine
decided -to regenerate i t fey means of ."the Catholic Church,
^sas a tremendous prison of slaves s t r e t c h i n g from B r i t a i n
and Spain t o the borders of P e r s i a , and including almost
every c i v i l i s e d spot in Europe, idTrioa and the Near B a s t ,
I t s main task -was t o preserve i t s i n h a b i t a n t s from the in
vasions of the b a r b a r i e h o r d e s , t h a t d i r e s t menace t o the
ancient c i v i l i s e d world,
All values of human l i f e ?ere
s a c r i f i c e d t o - t h i s supreme purpose*2 and the price ^hieh the

population had to pay for i t s safety became higher and more
exhausting e v e r y year* u n t i l the people began to as3r them1, f,We beseech the Baperot-s t h a t they \~ould ooz&raand that
none of the m a g i s t r a t e s riiose duty i s to attend only t o
e i v i l causes give judgment upon c l e r g y , . . t h a t everyon#
may l i v e as he prays and d e s i r e5s to do, free from perse
cution, frosa violence and fraud ". Athan. Ap,eAr.e.43
2 "The Roaan Emperors used rrith the b e s t i n t e n t i o n s these
means which -were f a m i l i a r to then, violence and compul
sion. They never asfceo whether i t was -#orth ^rhile to
save the Roman Smpire in order t o raafce i t a vast prison
for- scores f m i l l i o n s of men. Jiostovtzeff, ^The Social
and BcoQGHic History of the Homan SSmpire*. p,47&,
128
selves -whether- it m s worth while trying t preserve this
hugs and burdensome State.** The Hoaan Umpire was mechani
cally kept together by the tremendous organisation of her
military and eiTil administration ishich became an intolerable!
and meaningless burden for its inhabitants, hut was still
sufficiently strong to.crush every attempt on their part
to revolt and ohtain freedom*
I
;,;
The Church at this time wm.& a brotherhood . of assail-'."

communities scattered all .over the world and kept together
uniquely by the free consent of their aenber which ms' bora.
f their coamoa faith and mutual help- and love..
Xhe will of one man, the Baperor Constantine, brought
these two powers into & state, of close fellowship and co
operation and, as a natural result,., a profound transformation
'took place in both of them.
We have already seen some of the"reasons for the
astonishing"''-.usoes of Constantino's policyf which was due
as such to his genius for penetrating into-the essence of
Christianity as to the resolute help which he received
from hosius. But there -were of courts* .other and more general causes wiich made possible the final establishment of
the co-operation between the Church and the Itapire, <&e-e
it had been started, there tier in theory three different
possible --says of organising it.
The first was. to preserve
the independence and equality of both partners, the 'second

to allow the State complete control over the Church, and the
1. JsffiKSie,nius Marc ell inus in his Bosan history gives .fe dread- :
ful picture of oppression said injustice inflicted by' the -:
officials of the Sornan State. 3DC7I. 10 < 11-23}. X,i1>.XXX
(5?10); and in many -other places,
2. the reason for the acceptance by the Christians, of the
State's offer cf help is too vast a problem to be treated
here. It is sufficient to state that no one in the Church
held an opposite opinion, and if the Kov&tiaiiists r
Donatists protested against the State*s interference.,
their sole motive was that it was directed against their
189*
t h i r d was fbr the Gburoh to obteia noral tfoattaatlim
over the S s p i r e .
f t original sobejae OoroMHtlas.
sad nonius m s seneeifei. alcmg the line at the f i r s t pi ar. and i t i s probable that the Gbtarcfti Aiets h&S s i *
ready bad strength to endure BO mmy feloo^y eoaflleift' _ -
with the State would never h w e sce#pte > sespiet^ .

sail inoonditlonal utteiseioa to the State offlolale
at the outset*
';
I t l a also possiM that Qojistatttiiie*
liafing been ttttraoted by the 3d>r@3, strength of tho

Ctsristiass* had no d#sis*e to violate the it3depfes
0 ? t l i i s fedy*
uut t h i s s t a t e of affairs <i not l a s t for long*

. After Xioaea- a rapid evolution ieofe pluee*
The
r e s u l t of i t was that i s the east the Baplre ssiplred

the prerogative of an s3Lsest absolute eontrol over
's.
the Chureh and I s the vest the Cfeurdb solflKed sss of .
. the principal functions of the State*
ffels p r o o f s
A attained uo definite deTOlo$oei&t atxtll the next

period (the fifth to the sewnth e m t t i r t e s } , bat
the way for I t w&e prepared mt*MB$ during the relgas
of ConstantIne and Constantlus*
i t ww msm&
chiefly by tlie^deep pessiaiam of the ecetfpFiSly

ôpulatior:- of the Kotsan &aplre "^^^^^^^^^c^^^^.
i#
-to.
The eastern aeperors were- i s r e a l i t y 'only aisle to

control the bishops of the mala s#g# but bassos
the l a t t e r obtained trie Xe-ssSerdiip of the r e s t of
the Christians* the Church alaost mmpt&t^lf
i t s independenoe*
lost
ISO*
produced profound d i s t r u s t of very e f f e c t i v e

i n s o c i a l conditions*
t h e i r age.
isprcveisent
the Christ. Isns were c h i l d r e n of
i n t h e i r cesamaaifci&s they possessed r e a l
regenerating power and used i t successfully* and j e t they

were unaware of a l l i t s iiBpllc&tionsu
lone of t h e l e a d e r s
of tlis Uhuroh was able t o grasp the r e a l meaning of t h e

challenge sa&e t o i t by Oonstantine.
The C h r i s t i a n s r e
ceived sn unicpae opportunity t o s t a r t t h e c o n s i s t e n t re~

building of t h e s o c i a l l i f e of t h e Empire.
But i s a v a i l i n g
themselves of i t they employed expedients core proper t o

t h e s t a t e and "fere s a t i s f i e d with a symbolical and f o r s a l
acceptance by the Ko&an Iscpire to? the t r u t h of t h e C h r i s t i a n
religion*
Oa t h e ether land they had n e i t h e r t h e s;ore.l
power ncr t h e wisdas necessary t o oppose t h e interference
: of.: Abe Emperors in the l i f e of the Church*

Constantine and Constant ius s i n c e r e l y desired t o
obtain f c r t h e i r subjects those best f r u i t s of C h r i s t i a n i t y *
mutual h e l p , love of peace, a M increase cf c r e a t i v e power,
hut t h e i r own r e l i g i o n was so strongly t a i n t e d "by isaglc
concept.ions t h a t they could not r e a l i s e t h a t a l l these
things cGuld only he reached through a complete r e b u i l d i n g
of t h e i r s o c i a l B,YA p o l i t i c a l l i f e according t o C h r i s t i a n
principles.
Xhey considered t h e Church net as a way t o
p e r f e c t i o n , but as a source cf divine g i f t s independent of

the cirCUBStances under which her Berbers l i v e d .
A-he f r e e brotherhoods cf t h e C h r i s t i a n s could not
e x i s t side by side uriih t h e p o l i t i c a l s y s t e a which kept
i t s subjects i n a s t a t e of slavery and oppression*
One of
1* t h e absence cf p r o g r e s s , except i n t h e sphere of r e l i g i o n s

philosophy, is- the isost shrilling f e a t u r e of t h i s epoch*
Sseei* "ueschiste &es untergang^j Vol. I p . 25Su
t h e two organisations was bouncU'to disappear,A But n e i t h e r " / "

t h e ' C h r i s t i a n s nor the Smperor nsras aware of t h i s and the
Christian eosBmnities --srere eventually s a c r i f i c e d for the
sake of preserving t h e A p o l i t i c a l , o r d e r .
But .with t h e i r
d e s t r u c t i o n , t h e Church l o s t t h e g r e a t e r p a r t of her
' s t a b i l i t y end regenerating poêr* and thus the J ^ p e r o r s *
'ultimate desire to see t h e i r S t a t e revived fey her means
could never be achieved,
This m s a heavy blow f o r both t h e Church and the
S t a t e , "but the Church was s t i l l a body of tresendoms- v i
tality.
She could fee oppressed and disfigured hut she
could sot be k i l l e d .
Her members, prevented from pnrs&ing
t h e i r former, a c t i v i t i e s inside- t h e i r eoasasinities, found

new s u b s t i t u t e s for/ t h e i r energy*
Some of thea s t a r t e d
monastic "brotherhoods where coMmuaity l i f e "was again r e

vived and under i t s post, c o n s i s t e n t forms, *e3 others gave
a l l t h e i r powers to d o c t r i n a l speculations...
Indeed^ since
t h e i r r e f u s a l t o undertake t h a t fundamental straggle, a g a i n s t

the social and p o l i t i c a l e v i l s of t h e time* t h e r e was no
other course opes to t h e . C h r i s t i a n s hut to flee' from the
abominable r e a l i t y of the decadent S t a t e ,
Some of them
found a refuge in the d e s e r t , and others in the sjher of

intense t h e o l o g i c a l thought.
I t m s a unique chance t h a t Constantiae offered
...
the Church of r e s t o r i n g t h e o r i g i n a l u n i t y f mankind..

She might have had t h e m i l l i o n s of .his s u b j e c t s a s mater
i a l to- work upon, b u t the C h r i s t i a n s were not yet ready t o ,
undertake t h i s tremendous work.
">^"'-
'The- issaediate r e s u l t of'

tfvUL
t h i s imperial offer nas the i d e s t r u c t i o n of the A-"body of the.

Church which became t h e victim of the huaan .p&arsioss' of
ambition and h a t r e d .
The .wall of unanimity : whieh.had de
fended h e r lif% a g a i n s t the arrogance of s e l l - a s s e r t i n g

human individualism had been destroyed, and i t s d e s t r u c t i o n meant the i n e v i t a b l e l o s s of h e r u n i t y , t h a t most' precious
gage of t h e fellowship between Gad and redeemed saiikiad,
îwâKW*'?^.-,.*-;^:. .
CHAPTER
IV.
Sfee f i r s t appe*ie of the nofMurcftile*!

type T c|yots u n i t y ,
(378*996)
-If
Gbureh
ftm <3eaib of O o n a t a n t i u s i a 3 6 ! r a d i c a l l y ebacgea
the
c o n d i t i o n s of t l i s son f i l e t between tfea .a ? ious s o i
ire after
dsatia o f
stantias*
parti.
f a s met? S a p s r o r J u l i a s (361*363) e e a s e s t o s u p p o r t any of taia

aa6 wr*y soeoa beg&a t o
G*sriI--i-*a*
filsplay
opes
feasibility
towards
tim
His auddes da^tii i n 3o3$ ac-5-Vi?r& 5-;3.cr. .c,"- i\,-.z3S
^SF82L& 2tsux'j3 a^&isot w 3<a_'r'OLU
Lac i^-,t
1 .c-C'*~s
J o v i a n {355) * V3l6iitir.ia 1 ;3w>-i't3. x AK^ y>ic3 I ; ^ ~ - ^ ,
t>
e i t h e r t r l t s t-e parsis a poiicijr of s e o - i n t s r t e r i m c s i n tti l i f e

. !. of tfcus Ginsr0lss o r feiiow^ G o a s t a a t i f c # ^ i a a l s a t t e m p t t o
j
suppress the episcopal riir&irlss.
f l i e i r i i d i a y was no adi*so@'
I o s t h a t of S e s s t a s t i & l ^ a4 i t p r s i u e S s o fa@tt.sr r e s u l t s .
I
ffessg l a f i e t ^ r s s i s a t e r e l a t i o n s b s t ^ s e n Qtmreh Am, Stat s e r a

b r o u g h t t o SB a b r u p t lose by iû i e f ^ - t ^ j ^ ^ r ^ a JJ; >^t>
^ i p e r o r axaa on August ftia* 3 ? ^ s ->Mfc *'* * i t . . v.~. ^-<- w r
- .-.-;
of t b e Homaa arssy., was ai&in by t a t c t * 1.: a D o t t l e ,-.*-r

Mrt-saeplsa1
l@wsr- b e f o r e bM tim
^0.1 Istw J C I , ^ .a
.:
^ p l r s seeesS so t s a s i a e s t s tlie Sa@tr pcwlaasf i a ? -^ ^^t,set.&A

t h e Bal.c^.s an2 tiic Dacyblaa r ^ j i i ^ s s ^ r a r a ^ a a e d by Urn Sotiis;
arri t a e e.ily ra-r r i s i n g "' 2h>*r o r was ^ b e / of s i x t e e n * G r a t i a i s ,
I upos sb.oK f e l l t h e taafc ef afeuding th@ asraotis f r o s t i e r
fros
t h e A t l a n t l e Osean t o %'m Caucasus a3 t i i s Supiaratss*

seiaslus
preat.
B e l i t e r a n c e e#me t o t h e l i a p i r I s t& p e r s e a of a vouag

S p s u i s r a s Theodoeitaft (37^*3^5) w&oa S r a i l s s a p ^ o l n t a ^ Augustus
3
em Jaauaxy t$th* 3?#*
? h o 4 c s l u s a a e e k e i h Gotfca, i n t r o d u c e s
o r i # r i n t o t h e I v i l a s d osXesi&siio&l .aSisirsiitpatioa of
taost
A s t e r s p r o v i s o e s slaiola fee reosiirtis trow. G r a t i a n s a,a<! i r s n t u ^ i l j

suoeeei&cl l a b e o o s i n g
t h e s o l s r u l e r of t&s nfeola EiBpirs* So
fModsaluS' a>ls sus-.t be awtribjitstl - a s 3* t i l * . ^nt ci"

u l a r foras of o l v l l oojstrol ^c
>hioe
a*, vi*- 1 **
i ** ~ J ^
w A
11^ * % j
* a <o* e a j w Ji^ & m^ a
<l. S'Sr,I a 3?*3'8. Soa t VI#4o. *

2 6 B i s BQisiaal s e l l s a g a ^ j a i a t i a i a a i 1X. waa a c h i l d At tat.
3 . Seer*V*2 Sos-VXX^s*
tlm
esMuaa sisa h i s rsigsu

beodosius
ad- the
astern
Lshops *
In jr&Bu&zy 5<33 fêosositii* then a t SHessaloaioa,
fell
s a r i s ' s s l y 111 asct 33.3 baptised^ <*n3 s s i l t h e laflaens&s wales

had wrought these changes in h i s personal l i f e r# a t i l l
ifferfciag ypos tails., m$ issitsi; a i s t'irsis s o i i ^ i - ^ v t j ,1 - i l ^ : .
ff
Guaetss fopwlos11 (Februîv -7^ o r I :-4h,, i-**] .:,:-5.^-i tc the
popniaae of 00BSt&atisc*.A*
la t h i s Îl-t; ^
isol - i d ^^.-1. "I,i
irhe are vmi&r t h e aimj of our1 eiesiêsy s h a l l Îliere to t h a t

r e l i g i o n whistle a s s e r t i n g to tils 'Be tesiiastij' sing (loin to
*'
' ' . '''
etir own d a ^ blessed Peter adclressM te- the Eossaas* aasely that.
d e e t r i a e wfeiah i&e f&atiff D&a&8ua> asS P e t e r , Bishop of
Alexaodrla* sen of Apoetolle s a n e t l t y , aos f o l l o w . . . . .
fs
a u t h o r i s e the fssliswers of t h i s i s s t r i s e to assase t h s t i t l e of

Satfeoil0 Cfcristi&ss; aai as we judge t h a t a l l others s r s @xtr&
agnat lasSaHes, s e b r s u i them frith the iafaiaoiis Bass of h e r e t i e s *
mad d e e l s r e t h a t t h e i r 00sventialee s h a l l so longer usurp the
r e e p e s t a b l e a p p e l l a t i o n of ehurofaes*
a s s i s t s ih# soadeaaîiicEi
f Divine J u e t i e e , tiaajr s u e t ezpsat t o sirftar the p e a ^ i t i e s

sshioij ser ayt&aritsr* guided fejr heavenly- Wlsaess, should t aisle
proper t o i s f l i c t msmn tarns*
"I
t h i s doeaoeiit a&rfeed a drastis eaaag# i s the policy of t h *

Eastern Bgjperere * wtiieb had r0tsaii3<S y n a i t e r M s i n e s the l a s t
year-* of Cohstastine'a rei;_;n.
In &h flr~* sls.-s> 1: - *- I c e
e a n f l i e t betsown toe Biofccp 0- ^las-kuri^, ^;:i 5, >-, 3;-ll-ic-i; cf

t a s A s i a t i c prel&te3 Tmoiost^
to-*: &*! . - ; ; ~A . 1 - -i..;_>*
Seoon3lyt 1 t*a& clash jetvee-; th ^ W i ,îi i-s S-st,, uo w.-e.i't
ad the 7?^5t4
Sfeir31y s he m.-.3 tea f i r - t lii.^r-cr ;, sail.:.a
erusi&l p a s t i e s ~ 2a ohiit_-.itory er-js-2 0:: .lis v,

Without ooijiulti^s th& h l 3 h c ? s !
r.t
.;:M,"^;J
-'îlteio
fh^ciflositis begas h i s i n t a r v s a t i o s i s th@ oeissiasjtisal

a f f a i r s of the East as soon as h aiTiet there*
Liii Oorist&ii-
i i s d y hs iaad so li-.m of the faadaaeotai aifferessess^

la sestalitfj between these two parts of the Gfayrsh*
1. Ssi .Thead *Xf I 1 s *

Seftvn#4*
sa^sciaily
:u ^ A^.V.
-3r e a l i s a t i o n of t h i s 5tirgusJ n e c e s s i t a t e d s s e r i o u s r e v i s i o n s f
Ills o r i g i n a l a t t i t u d e . As4 here a g a i n tie followed i s t h e s t e p s of
tile g r e a t prefieeessor Coast Justin* sn5 f i n a l l y g&-@ h i s support t o
t h e f a s t e n s P l - ^ a p s a g a i n s t i C i ^ . " : r l . , .j*- ?.c =>3 o s t r i c e ^-*.a sxioeraoa., krvreYsi t .;s ; . f } . ' j i i ,
>: r~r
-, <x . a : ^ ^ ..,
a i o u g a d i f f e r e n t p a t h freia that, of G s n 3 t a s t i n s f o r a rj
c o n s i d e r a b l e aksjag ita2 o o e u r r e d l a tiaa l i f e of t h e Ghur-ca d u r i n g
til pFc4 s # p a r a t ' i a g i h a r e i g n s of tii iw S s p ^ r o r s . *
dositis
.Constant-noPi*
l a tim mtmm
of tfie ^4;f j ; " . ,
-V"^r --- ^ o ^ c ^ i l _ 3 i^.r.
A g a i n s t th-$ G o t h s , l a ^ ? 1 c i j s 7-id a s^^rri: zz ~v _-r^, . _

a a p i t & l , GonstaatinopX.'''
rbe <2ay a f t a ;
^ls
.is.
- r 4 l , ~ l ,1,:".- -
380} b# antasossNa Bsssopiilys,, tia@ A r i a s i i r f - . , :_* d-ia $_.., - - ..:

'his r e f u s a l t o a s s e n t th@ Hiss Greed _,:.ii =.:-. i_
' l b s So :.* t e m p o r a r i l y acnfcr^r^j t ;.-- L ,., i- o:
>.;. -:::.w"
-,^^,r_
I'Uzi^nsea, jr'ao s-a i-afc ae.*2 ; f & cuili. cpfcrj,.- 2- ;~~ " 1 . - / 3
i a a s in. th~--t ity
Fro:r t i l l s nu - i ^ ^ o ^ l c i LW ^ .V -;.;,..; ; ^ j " -
i a t i o m f sfaurati l i f e * - feas n r s , b i ? r I % \ --s _ j ^ ~ :

p u b l i c a t i o n of anserotis e e s l e s i a s t i o & l laws*
a ^ j i s naes werss !} ITUII^S a s ^ c t l - i : ;
,c
;.,j
2a@ s o r e i m p o r t a n t
!.,:." 1.1-! - * ,_, ; 3t
o r d e r i n g u t u t ; - l l sliurah. "xuil 3 . > , 3 3^:.*_J
,0 ;.--*-3*,: *, ?r ,
b i s h o p s wlss soeeptsfl t h e $i@ss@ CreeS* ana forbldcllag a i l

BSQ%B
l.fl5^
. ^
ottor
t o iioM p r a t e r s s ^ t i a g i w i t h i n th& s i t j w a l l s j Si t a e law
of Marsb 3r5
affording " i a a s a a l t a s p^rsooaiitag nyasrsr 1 t o
e e e l s s i a r y v@l losi?iss aasstorijis , f 1 i
:?
sustds
-~*~ ~~*~ :,! *~X ~- l -?.i ^JL
?3priviss a p o s t a t e s sad Msaisfeasaiis o t t h e ^ : , a ; .0 lv..Vi

legagiesj
4} the law of J o l y i$tk' f s x M M i s g th Jaiaoseiaafi,
AriaaaâaS A e t i a a s
t o a r t s t s u i l S l s g s of Worship; :># th law of
to f a i s oa'inss t-is p r i m a r i l y 3 J O WC HIS
5 . s t # S- s lmjselisii s JstiF&aelssr 4 s r GliPietSireb@ under 3r S^Saeofi

6 . C.Til.XVI.7.1 s a l 5e.7<
7* C.Th.XVl.i*S.
'!
.*%,
July 3 t h \
e Spied
which explained and exteEded the edict of January loth
A fe?; months aênt at Constantino&Le
SOBStag*
B,Ple*
-B ( t a i " - *
^ V -
s c r o l l s a t a-3 s a t u r ^ of tre 5 l t j ~ - i c n l a v ^
the ccnolusiDC thvfe aorae s^roc-r^ct '. iwfc th ;--,:!; c . ^ . . , ^ ..Mi
indispensable. His f i r s t s t e p towards t h i s object, m s the ooavo
cation of the sjmod of Oonets&tisopie i s 33 U I s describing t h i s
a e t i o s Sososss s s y s t h a t "he ausssosed t h s p r e l a t e s of tils OWE
I f a i t h i a oz4er t h a t he s i g h t e s t a b l i s h the Hieeiat GrsaS a3
|
appoint a bishop of Constantiaople."*
ICffil jfXfe.-FtJsttQ bishops
eenvoked by the Efeperer wre aisiest a l l fros the dioseses of the

l a s t * and e i t h e r belonged to the C&ppadoeian sshoGi of theology
or wer the so-ealledl Macedonians - i s s s i ^ A r i a n s professing ihs
lisea teaehiag abo^fc the Son and asBjiag the diirlnlty of th@
Holy Ghoet}*
The eounoilj, d e s p i t e rmsserous i n t e r n a l s o n f i i o t s and d e s p i t e
i t s f a i l u r e to r e c o n c i l e the Maosioaiaas^ was a of the g r e a t e s t
triuasQS j f G-.thoiic theolC;2f for i t rado ^ - i , . 3 i . s -. f-t. . -~-c*
s s n t b e t r e e s thy Hieane Test ^ 5 the Hcx*cu~i.wi l - s c e
-,- _.^rj
bishops i t l a s t ieoiareoi t a a t "ta<s f~lsh cf ^<ie i ' > fi ct^cc

id a t l i s a e a i s Bithjrnia s h a l l not be set a s i d e , but s h a l l
remain fix5*1 (Q&nm I of Conata&tiaople*'}
concession to Alexandria .-;AS ocunWrbs
J .&w
r e f u s a l to r#aogsise t h e svpr-raoy of ti.a

i s the a ^ a i a i a t r a t i o i i of the Churoh.
e lantern
shops aai
But t h i s d o c t r i n a l
w 1W-
4-/
.-? * *
^ ^ i
>*
*d.~***
^3?E
The Ceusell asathesatiae-d the aûe.li-:;:;,
*t*
w * ^
exaa>dria ticss^ although they had the -j;.jr^ cf - i x c -7e3.rt Oounjllc

(Canon I ) ; thay drew up a law t h a t the bishoo of Alsxasdria
toe bishops of Asia should not go beyond t h e i r diosâes iGasoa I I I
they sad Coust&astinspe the seoerxl see In Christendom iOa&on l l l l s
!
a.
j*
4.
5*
G*$h.X7Z*3. So*XII.9.
Ses.VXI*?*
Hef .LeeX7eX*IZp4.
Soz ?!'?
'Masai Sasorer* Cos eil loirs et ampi. c o l l e c t * t . I I I . p . 5}7f ^" ^ *
-s
Autieeii 4 * wlao sup,;ortsd t h e i s t e r e s t i i of H , : .

t h i s , e&pit&i of t b e l a s t ' s a i who tod s?v*
_: u > " r ; : . .
f -
r e c o g n i s e d a s a lawful, b i s h o p of AXI$IQ& .:CV.
* -m?1
Bfll#t 15J 5
01 nj.!Ti:uas*
West Sad
deeisa
f b e s a e o i s l s a g j , speslallj* t b # e l e c t i o a of P l s i / l a a u e t o ttie
se of Aatlocfc. souM mot f a i l t j oayje r v b ^ . i - s . ; v~ ^î --;?:,*
f as .Council of Oenst&stissoplo* 1?; c -
edicst of t h e Sfep^ror* ifitsass-td -i n*- --n; J ? 1 I
l a t t ^ m s a g a i n s t tlaa usitsct it
, .-c,-: _,. i,,,<&
it c f R c ^ - . 1 .._,?..-- . -"
, ,
Westerns* f o r t b e l r p a r t * taaic tui* .J/r-j-- ~t A vll^*.:* -:

.Milan C361-38SI s m i l e s bjr Asabrose s i 1^1 -n -* v ;>.*.- -., s.-t-gefcis p r e t e s t a g a i n s t tit i e s l s l o a s r - 1 ^ -% W ~ L - " *....
e>*
li
t h e s p i s t l s s s g a r e s s e S t o f&@o<2oiu~ w ~ v .3 .^J re- J J..v_.-3 *

mrs o#*3aiaIcal s o u n s i l a l r ^ ^ r l a A l s ^ - a i r - i ^ ' : r i-i :',-j t
o r a r t o 3u s t r e s s tfaa A n t l o s a i x ^ zjUts,",
:,"
..t <. v ?---,,,- I;-.- v i ^
r e f u s e d t o r e e s g a l s a tla# lotioa of H s f i s u a g t o t b e see of

Aatioofc* a a i of S-nsgor'jr mai Heot&rttss^ t o ta s# of Oonstantls*
pls
s o o s i i s r i B g E^Ms'-the'vSjSie* a s AlexasJriaia claimant* to
be tti l a w f u l b l a h o p . 9
* 3lBe W. COW* 5 = ! . * * 0 ^ . i W.
W^P*â*e**,*>lI*-^>9=T*->fKr(.'ii
1 fpfe-S-GiS 7e->
/
I
2 . s e e KLubeek, Did Weihe i e r Syul'cerc ' - . . ^ - y s

J
the
-vra
stor-y of t h e oo?>fll-3t oet-ve-sn t ^ s i-^- ^ r i l - , ? *":
w* *.-.
v ^
J1
' j - "*.
- W
S J . irf *(# ***&, '
-w
** *? *>> i -* f ^ J
one Mibops, 15 tcl*-5 bj? S o c r . V o - " < 5 -"-^ 3a-7II<-*' c '
-.*^
t b a t tiid r e a s c s s f o r t a s rohl-ss v^rri : - I n l j . ci:ont--l

and C^jje-iluusaOjA^broi 3 r l i a :;-tr- .-<.' *
i s e s > s ; c l a l l j ' a s t i e e s b l y . Xâ f i r ^ t s - 3 '"it- \1J*,\
,1 t i , . i
drla s tê iscoad Its dsfeste -ili"c_c w..& _ar= . ,o;A'l--.l
s
6
T.
56
forsvI- iaas ^ôsotr^ci b j b-Î: ^ r . ^ i *

SlcMg Hist* c f t&s v*sur3ii4 7sl.lll>,.-.". *
Ambrose 2pKI26e
Anbôsa, E^> XI2I * ?.
Heoii&rlu-s i ^ s e l e c t e d by tiie .;-?-:: s C ^ t ^ e ; ! a f t e r
Tslust-ary r e s i g n a t i o n *
Grc.;r;-'s
-aI t was appareat t h a t a sew and ires srt b i t t e r schism

was l i a b l e to break @nt t any siostist between the East and th
Wsts .and the i s s y t lay i s tb@ liases f tlis new Em^&rorP ho
was faoed with th# a l t e r n a t i v e of s i d i n g e i t h e r with Constantin
ople e r with Rose sad Ai:mn&rikc Tim QQVT&Q Theodosius adopted
was a master- strefc of i n s i g h t sad cUplos&syo H@ took the
position t h a t ia# r-09giti-n of t-ê " i i c ' . o Ch-^&d
~s - ^ r ^ i o i c i t
eoaceesioE fro the Easterns njd t r ^ t she ^ i v J - ^ r J

Coumeil of Ooostaatlnople mast be 'jr. 4 . c ; t i - . r ^ <
w l -_
*~>.c ,, J.^
W A-AflB* *
he s a t i s f i e d the Eastern demand for i^-It :=::.;,and a t t i i

3&rse tii2@t by obtaining tti aeesptaaae of the Miesns Or@d froia
as* t 1
t h s i r Bajorityj, a resosi the r s i groaaa of ta@ V,,~.
host
-- -*
fas West.
The next year* 3&3 us tire fresh QGHSOIXS
Lie one held a t
Gcnafc&atlsepla and the othsir a t Roas*
flae l a t t e r Wis.s intended
t b' "oesygsenlcai"* b a t the bishops of the East trers ver^ i i t t l
disposed t o s e t t those of. t h s Wat ~i * aw. I-si-,.* -*-* = --.l^s
esougl* not to pusb. the !sstt#r further* I-s.,lii t.;a
- - , . , ; J : ^
of Q-ratisin who wasted to se@ a r@si -ct^r-ii ~i-^ tx.r; - - ~-/*

the Bo&s synod wa.3 attended by only x^w-^ ,"u:ur:. :;...,.:? :JJ;
brought with the a eoGîiiar pistls aiîi-l :>y - : c _
,..,-.'-^ci,
f h i s 4ooseat *' i s the f i r s t xsspl of t h a t e o s l e s i a a t i e s . !

diplomacy .B'hish ry soon badass the dominant ao:t l e th
r e l a t i o s s bttweea the- various aharah@s
fhe Eastern bishops s t a r t e d ifch a. d e s c r i p t i o n of th
persecution which they had r e c e n t l y suffered a t the hasds of tb
Arisas ( o i e a r l y intended as a rprossh fee t h e i r Western ooil~gy*
for t h e i r i n d i f f a r e s e e to these s^fftriagajf
they esor#83@d
t h e i r r e g r e t t h a t they w@r% unable t*

1. fbeedesitas 1 d@fetiee
of the l a s t u r a bishops SSSE 0 ddya#d
free Ambrose4s r s p i y t o i t . I p . X l I .
S Hef.Lesi. Hist* den Coao*ol e II.p.53 sq
3 fhesd* HSV,$*
t"a#ir ertlisfiexy a s i Isife
sf
râgf^ ass tafie-fi tfcitr e p i s t l e witb
as iipteatla a s s e r t i o n t h a t tiaers soalfi be BO furtliar 'Sisaussion

of the eslesilocs isai by fclis Couasil*
l a s l e t t e r runs*
!;?
Th,e
s o s t .religions l e a t s r i u a lias fos-es orSais5 in t a s presence of t

Osotiesnlaal Council * with aessosi soaseiit ff before tl i*3
r e l i g i o u s .Siapsroi* fMsisissltss aad witti tfeis
csiergj ana sf tli@ wlaoI eitju ? f
.J..-*-^
Westerns
fs
IE
-,
A similar 1-.". v,- .
e l a e t l o n of FL&yiaa and of t t e r e s t o r a t i o n
t o 'Ills tormeiT" s e e .
3:.;0 t> U
soncl^îxn ta*
to rejc-ies &t vh-.t ri~-s txj;
,j
r J . - l '
3..J:^^_^
w><^W
^_
51 i-
s e t t i e d by us
The s p i s t l e saows t h a t eoepl^te agrsestint wss already

esta.bliabad b-stwtea theo&osius aal tti i#=*<3,rs of tfee S i s t e r s
00a s e r ? a i lire s^ a s i t&at tim l a t t e r wat*e sonf13ent of r e t a i n i n g
t&eir sees,, In s p i t e ' o f opposition 1 B the West
the Q^zi^lZ
&% Hcê
;> : >
"-2 v~LIj - .
,IJ'.J
\ . :*s
l a s t i r x b l ^ , , , ; , -c:f to ~ ^ t i : f : ^ c l -,1 V L t - . - ~ . ; = . . ! ,;. ^

point of t& oreed- 'Ba-ssss ? - l e t t e r p r a i s e s t&# rsverenes of
Bast for
tbe s ^ s t o i l a sc^'% cir-3 so:.^:A3 ôi-^-w-rl-x
. <?
tm
:1 ~'~s
leaders,''
I t rc.âs 3 r.sntl -:: ;f ins a a ^ j c u . _*.- -,- i -*
C'lur^li0
I t sess timt the West adopted a, compromises Msstarius
ana Of2*11 of S-efyia^lm were reeoiiii3ii 9 "out flaîanus af Aailooli

was Sgsorst ? ' whilst Paul tatss* a st&uns'a eypporter of* tii* Hlsen
party* was e e s i a r e i tlie lawful Ma&op of AstlGcli* '
ssmasil
fhe persecution af iiaretles so e a a r g e t i a a i i y bepiia by

ftasodosltia soon .preFGfcaS a strong raôtis* A wave of r e v o l t mS.
5
aistiirbanssr passes! QYF a s n j Eastern prlnaas" and TiaeoaoaluS
was forosdl to raallaa. t h a t u n i t y among, ttie G&ristiAns eouicl not
be yesierefi zelaslvely by State pressure* He w.ass iioi?e0iis strong
I f sfsairlassi t h a t b. aloe conic! e f f t e t t h i a unity*
SK- iso OK w <a iao
5e Soor,.10=
SeaVII.I3
fa plm
of aetioK c t o 2 ^
;r.
l i g h t m the EW type ex* ?rl-.ti:,v.. i

June 38J iis g&thar-scl t o j ^ ^ r
t t:n-.^-il~;.:-
Isa pr^ssst xtl&5s Df ^11 t*i& 3::riJI I jx : = z * i ,.:, :

Couuoil the "bishops f'of fata oisa f a i t h % '' I'iiiali va
irfee srere ready to zio^:t
tlis? I I l ^ - s ^ - L ; ; . . . . .
tiaif seeme-5 tb-i-t be sl-.lre? nt ; ; ,;-'.- t >".-. .'

cf the f a i t i ^f Res a ^.rul hltrj^rAz'-'-**
3JV .- J
proves ts:c- rafc-^tslua 3Dr.3i-*ars,-S r.i-ulf \zz ".

suprer. a r b i i r ^ t ^ r >3ir^wrc a l l t;* J L ^ l - t l ~: , ^ p s r o r . * * r e e i i s g fre eassatowritieja avowal!
litsiS'Slf tip aloas aad praysfi irsrj e a r n e s t l y tfe^t
W * *?
rf
*l V
, ff
h i s &3oisi:=tljil ..clioy:
r ^ l - t e he?? u-"6j -.i^ Vwlr- : . r t l =. .^ l i e S: :=t;ij .
preserve t!i Bspefof 5 * fAV^jr*
Ii. ,?;r,. t ; ,
;..
in tti@ tfitaiapfa. of th Slesne .: ^ t;,"\f -Miô ...
*.
th.er epissopal factions ?ao " .1;* r;.*, ?<-.?:**&*

t-a-ar aors@ open to Tsssiosl'jc; x ^ - : sr.-.j; 0Ppoêats of t&e l e g i t i m a t e Oaarasu
f^rfa^r 2i3t*iristsc& 12 to. Slvrâ,
r^s-icl/ ;J.
writes* "Vjp-.at -c ::ers trio ;jjr.lc*r-ai", -;">", ^ J

1. So?!?
2a
32.Y.tO
5 ffea a i s t o i y of t h i i ajy-ieti I s -i s ^ ," ^ ! ^ 1..

authority inS x j ^ r ^ - ^ j ao pi.r-.: oy ?;.-,c; J /..
. CS .TfcuXVX 5 J - , 5 '5 Sea .VII - C ,
7 f t e ifiaicr 3ij-! ^ i l - t t i i a a a e el .ij s ciJl^=4--u
f'csc'ioslui c? ir.eonai3eDST .vii ^^ s r ^ . l i i c r i
J the h@reti.eSp thsy sr# not a i s a y s e a r r i a i n t o eji0Oi3tdeii9 for

if
'
* -
had so aeIr to peruaeute s i s sybjestsu

I the a r "J^T-JT
>
fS
''
flfOfl
!?bec5osis hro-eght t o a. close the episcopal r i v a l r i e s bspis

sad tb
sosarehi a t Mic&ea. The years 3fte33 narked th and of the f i r s t pti2*ftS
sal type
>f chyrh of ohtirca m i t j In flilsh th go"rmant of the whole l?o^y w
salty
bases on tha fi^se and mis iissous s.
saw the M r t t i of t h e new c-rdez% in '.sî-sJi c
luthcsrity to sp&&li &&& a c t I s the name of the whole Church.,
Though
fhS'Odasias was the r e a l founder of t h i s s u it.sw.
t e s t tpie e r e d i t far i t ;
jmrsaiiefit gtablishaent i o e s sot* Melons t his*
sstisaed with f^r grs&t^J
His work
'(SiS
30ae3
hands i t 3t l.vs1 rcsghfecl i t s fin:-i sot, tlo*:-i:\ii <.

Shis t r a i s
tied' by fheodosios i s often s a i i # i ' O&esare-Paplsis
sialescling for there* i s , uo r # s i s i m i l a r i t y between th@ r o l e a piayei

by theEsp^rfira i s the l i f t of t h .lAStersiy ana hy the Popes i s tiis
l i f e o f . t h e Western Ghurehs
f h# f heeiosian sshtse of c&Z *ticns bi
t h e Oaurcts "??,-ic '353^5 en tr<o lol^cîs?;
tec.-
&5
i- a _ i
1) Th& 2h?6L'Dr has tr-a f i n a l .frtco

S'hristiaa f a c t i o n s i s the trw@ Ohiirsti of G-o
his
psrcsrulgxt*?*? a d o c t r i n a l formii.r* (or s^n^-îcr.-: -y; r. :
R<3
, r p : . 3 -;
airfcsr'j in v-ss," s t b s ac?apt^nce i-f oioh Is i;i>_ -vc^:

mashers of the tfue Shsrah*
.v^f?
f ) fhe hishope a r e t h e p l e n i p o t e n t i a r y rulers* of the Churchy sac
they
;aey aios have the r i g h t t o speak on behalf of the Ohriaii
'<&S 1?
toaiaa State i s a i l i t s r e l a t i o n s withi the
the Clmi-eh -aats x<ilusii?'C
through the splseop&te* for t h i s purpose th@
te bishops t o r s A separate
body iwBldm t h s C&uroh* possessing s p e c i a l r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s
l Sa*yiJe?2 fhrs trisre sis uaiiy f a c t o r s s h i s h , itidey^nd
-_ e-rery
. ,_#. #ffe0t.i
_ _ _ . . , p^rssoution
w f the Sm?ersr*a
p aai
&s
*" %B.ire
""~
h e r e t i c s e x t r e s e l y d i f f i o u l t . They a r e s t a t e?
5
stated in WsBoyd
3oei@siastieai S3ist s f the thsaissia Cad@*
l e s York
i?p,575
faeoaoslus h i s s e l f was not a aeaiotss persecrutor. ?3lsi^
hôdosiu sesr
a|?pi*o"a of thoa whs sttetiptS to persecute Q%-h@rE*f oor.VIX.4s.
g l w n tbeu by tb State5 hut tbey a r e safeorslnsteKl t o th rl&lci

ontrol of a few s e l e c t p r e l a t e s Metropolitans mil, l a t e r on
Patrla.rab.gu
33 The 3taB 2,3 i ^ p c ^ . - i o l * i b r t b s u.-k-st.' .- -- --; iii
^îr^l-sl.1-
cal ftaialrifctr-vblonj trail - : *or vix5 _>,,;_.,,.- . ^ j - ol' . f t h e f&ltlu
Jl*c<i:-''ox|'
All b s r e t i s s ana c_ -or<triiê- b lu* ..tfeiÎ*.-; J c r i b , ,
e l r l e a l aacl i s y ailfc* a r e the eê.;lsj of -.V.1- , : ^ - r
-. c -.*5
l l a b l s t o pynishi2at as ersSiaary QCir.L;<-.. 3 . Ica i w i l -,^l-u-^l _-.feelp tiie Metropolitans to zeroise t h e i r a u t h o r i t y o^r tlie biamops
of t h e i r pro^tases^ aafi a s s i s t tfae blsbops to r u l e tbe a l e r i s s *ad,
laity*
ffeeodvSlus 1 3S&3SS a? etusrota gQfsrssaiit was b u i l t p .along tb
l i n e s X&iS 2own fey C o n s t a n t i n o s a n e l j upea eae obligatory er*>ed <&s
& t<St Olf r . - J e r o l l ^ o f
is2 l<s , { jitl , -t* s3v-^r^^
- /
,.-0.
",
" V.T3
support b|r ks 5t-.? cf th* *'w4s.,gLl-~* jr,!;--- oJ C ^ I w ^ l - ^ s ~r i . w i ;

adeavotir tc? suppress tba iaerss*
i t boetsicwfi however soa Import-
anfc a l t e r a t i o n s ayggestei % bias ^xperiisicss gained In Itm t i s a o p s '

s t r u g g l e s of tae fourtk. s e ^ t u r j *
fhea$ c o n f l i c t s ba4 smmi
ynubcr5i,j3u&i aocberb, :*teiS srv ^-ibba ^ l ^ ; : ^ t
-J.-.-II';
.lu^rlj
"
J U^C,
r e l a t i o n s ssoag th#&selves or t o prctsertrs tiie -unlt^ *nd peae* of

tli# S&urcfu
TMo&mlnM therefore e&SGur&g@& tbir foraatio.a of w t l l -
shaped eeolslastie&I provinces* each issuing on d e f i n i t e lia^d t?b.o

xareisedl a u t h o r i t y error tbj r e s t of the bishops wttiiim
* S
*ifsJ.
After tils tliESifit was as losigsr possible for & bishop of a, diossse
I of t h e Orient to-be stfcaek#i &sa lepo4 by tb I s c i s i o a of s i s
0olleagaa frost Ugjrpt or fttrme#j fet is&s, responsible only to U& mi
of tils' province 01% l a etost ass t o tils if
t r o pal li it 335*
*fs"-trn?>al
as.
JS*<* s&sn.n4
s l t s r a t i o a lay l a t a e eleTatien of t a s Snp6ror f 3 s i l l abovst t&at of

tb@ tpissopa+s as a body * fli bistiops l o s t the r i g b t of ind spend &st
l e g i s l a t i o n ; tbey bseas a eossult^tiTS bo<Sj stiasoseS a t tbe i r i l i of
t b s Stattj, giiag t h e i r pisisas esily within the l i m i t s of the
quest l o s s put t o tbSe
A t@s.<leasy i s t b i s J l i r e c t i s s oaa air^say 15
disatraefi In the t i s of Sonstaatius* but i t r;;..a. thsa eriij A tenclsnsf
5|
after .Tbeodoelus i t was the l a v . ^heodosius* reforms were as ispôvesent in so S"AT as tiaej
pjrwlded a s o r e orderly and affectIT systes of govsrnaent; but
t h a j were the f i n a l slow t o th corporate conception of tfts Shares,,
and the r e s u l t of then was t o expos the Ohurtsh to tm
teisas asbitior. ass greed sr powers
a s s a u l t s of
His a r e t e s as ioorso?fcr
defective i s t h a t the sonsrehic&l p r i n c i p l e was not developed to i t

l o g i c a l conclusion*
I t implied the existence ssltliifi the Church of
a lirsitad b c i j cf persons &::3X'2l;.L~s ^ j ^ u c c i l j

but the- aesib^
;vr I :!.. / . . : s
cf t h i s bc^y "fferw net sub-cidl.:- ;>-! l#c s s c i o';>-cr
Svea th Isperor did not asquire absolute control oar ta@s; on the
eontrary, during b i s l a s t years ffeeôsiuSj und&r the Influence of
St.Aabros of Filaa* îalded flose of th@ prerogatives h@ a&-3
|obtained from th Eaatsre bishops,, âsd rastora-3 to a, c e r t a i n s x t t n t
f.ih* aacieafc
l i b e r t y of the CJii^roh; IOfS *j&./r&Q
;-. fkeodosius* death i s 395 I t f t the C h r i s t i a n s i s a preozrious

position*
fha traditional system was In ruins.* the sew oa ssas
s t i l l I s process of sons trust Ion
A soucd e d i f l c a could sew only
be e s t a b l i s h e d s. the b a s i s of the f i r s and rwaonis@i r u l e of OB

person Ter the r e s t of the Church* fii next ssntury marked a new
stag. in the hlfterjr f church unity* and was characterised by the
struggle . f a r supress&sj hetw^ta a. fir persons *
fa Ofaurch becjais
-dlTided Into d i s t i n c t aad h o s t i l e s&spB* n&eh lea by ons of the

l e a d i n g hi^rarehe* **cd t h e i r co^fll.:-=
r * -*-~i, -.-^
th f i n a l l o s s of Christian o n e - ^ ^ l i c r u.* t,^ c -. .*s ,
-1 l ; _V;
-i;-
--"i
her old p r i n c i p l e s of unajilsitj tha Shurofi sould sesur ao sound

s u b s t i t u t e for th preservation of her unity*
la. conclusion s a j sa^ t h a t the snd of th# fourth century I s
tCi turning- 4 ^c i s t a s auêry or ca>:r,.~ i^l^y- At t h a t fclse th
c o n f l i c t oî^ssn ^ . H voles of u s J J n u d i t y
.re ,J isill cf the
Individual lassbsra of th Church iic!&d i s the i a t o r j of the l a t t e r
and i-ts# a e s t l s y .of the Cfcurcb. bcei.:>*2 bcur,: -J. r i t r t'a -v '.-.c^vi
SB3 gre&iaesses of hsr vj-rtisvl-r :.bt*ics*
3 ; ; i ^ f~ i j l . -
,n t ;
periods tlit Churcft tiacl a&^ aistlngaisfeiei snS " b t i l l t s o t lâa^rSp

wfeo doti t h e i r t i r e s fcc- tfe.e service of the Cliristiisn brotherhood,
Isttt tfasj er@ usable to p r o i e e t fa? a:It.jr
For*under ti&t nes? systes.
the passions . : pride an.1 a ^ i ^ i Q , , ;;cC111a:C 3-,r c i l M : 3
:~>
n a i i ^ i s l ~r;t^ .xciJits acul'C rse le-5--i *$ s'ltcj-.; :; '..: J rl .ni ~->s*

Ami thc?y sssuaecl suob a siraj withla the l i f e of %m Choree t b a t tiisj
f m s t r s t e i Tarj attempt to r e a l i s e is. a. T i a l b l s for* her Irs i t-rri&I
Q&A^rsR
f*
Etas Uaitjr of tbe Oliarsi
I t l a a algalfloaati f a s t t h a t i t i s alssost i s p e s s i b i s to
give a s a t i s f a c t o r y d e f i n i t i o n of the s a t y r s of the Ohurcta; a.ad
tb&fc t h i s I s ss feae as IspertsBt b@arla upon liae problem of
etajreU unity e
The Giiwrofe, I s not a ssa^pacle organizations with ih
I s g t s a l and precisely 3efis.es purpose. seiEbership aafi c o n s t i t u t i o n

prop? to syaia s o c i e t i e s *
She i s & l i v i n g organism -awafI therefore
s a&ifestatio& of the s j s t e r i o u s power which we s a i l l l f e 9 sad

wbish saa n^ver DS agecpstely explained. by huis&& reasoe *
She Obureii aigbt be aCLiscl the sesonst divine creation of
jsa&kia<3> i s so far as she puts islttiifi toe reash of a i l t^r
<s->3r =
tiis p o s s i b i l i t y of 'being incorporated i s the sew body of ao

redeeê&^ho ha -received a fresh g i f t of l i f e i s aios and
c r e a t i v e f-l _:3.>hij- îh G2I J-u^ ~<i'ir Jf,r.t:a.-i r j ; b .
i s , lio?vv^r. ~~r_ -J3 entl.-ii îfi^rejt*? yj-cwi

erections* for the l a t t e r finals with beings iriio already sis"
ani possess the poser of free ana d e l i b e r a t e response*
are ailec b j Q-ofi to take p a r t i s t h i s r e b i r t h , but aoa ia forcei
by His t accept t h i s divine o f f e r .
ffais v i s i o s of til Sterola i s t o oe found in most of the
C h r i s t i a n writings d a t i n g from the e&rly
The Christians of that tls wsre doubtless s o t
j a m r e of a i l
the i s p l i a a t i o a s t h a t arose fros t h i s s&y of regarding the Carres*

but a l l the s&se they wre steeply eoaasieus of the e n t i r e l y sen
type of l i f e which was t h e i r s as i o n s s i taey res&ioed p a r t s of
C h r i s t ? s boaye aa5 for the siOt of t h a t they were ready i s
s a c r i f i c e every other Siue asd t o suffer very possible loss
&n<& p e r s e c u t i o n .
. e a r l y . :.-^ ----Th early dharoli aas be b#at understock i ? w consider tier as
ristiaa
proaeh
the
,reti
sa attempt-; oa the part of the Christians to realise in practice

the E r-elati-r,* ^têer Gc- t.:- -f-i-^r A~J
"*i>-jc
_..-."
t h i s Church s ^ h l o i '?;a s^ro-i All cTvr t i v ?.:_ . . K r j . - ~J:C j ^ a

beyond i t s b-,2sr9 ~o;sesr:5fei _;=* I i : ~ 'I_s?y ^ L . ; . ^ t i-;- th
JdiStensa of %hm r e s t of h u s a s i t j *
a.n! r i 3 t : r : : w : ' ; . . v . ' : ; * > aeons ^ '
'H-iC a^r oi.iis-3>
l a s y i t e of f r e q u e n t
?-.ih%?~,r 1,,
parrels
r. e: ; ' . ^ i . l ^ i O
A l l at .*-. - i l - a i r k ^ ; ^ , l v i
*,rc ~'Jt . _*J~
s f tii s s s e jsocljf,, aafl t h e i r u n i t y ^2?j>ress#a i t e s l f l a e a g e r siifcu&l

ialp of b e t k a s p i r i t u a l am s 3&i&ri&i n a t u r e *
Origin* in one of
a i s w r i t i n g s * ' cleaerlbes t h e se#k &no s t a b l e O a r i s t l & s
otercaes
c i sf.Jfic-- J l t i ^ s , * s o^.
sJ %* ^ * JiC*-* f
St^lpaaaetJB c a l l s tfe C h r i s t i a n eoaiyBiai'liiJS ial-as f s & i v i t i c 2

s*
asafisi t a # a t o r s of tDlsspIaesjf *"
f a e paigaae ajau. t h e 3hri&ti--i&s ir^rs tlao d i r e c t ^ s t I c a s s i s
oae a33otb.sr*
fa& pagans were k^pt. i s e b s a l ^ ^ e aacl t m l t y bf
o i v i l law aac! s i i l t a r j tjres.,, wa C h r i s t i a n s a j Eiytu-i love and

cozj^ti&lciiv
u.i^jrraii'jl
. / c i . u t a ^ j.i-/i* trer^ gro&nir^ unc^r tho yoi:e> of

ir.*~: o i - s n x-.^:ci.js r u l e r s ? tlie C h r i a t i a n e sad a s tia@lr
I s a i s r s b i a a o p s and p r e s b y t e r s wim e e r s #l#ote<l 'by tîis
unanimous
c o n s e n t of - 1 1 , -inc. v.""*-!_;;- fx-\>.^ -*i:xic -.. ^....... ^ . ...* ;^-st.

G a r i s t i a a B ^rrij - i ^ v ;>is ,ci....1,; .~,zi:i<z~ -fl-'i ..ii. ^ i%< .
fh@ pagans s e r e <2iiaa<f i n t o d i f f e r e n t r - . ' -
;,.,.. - ^ i o i i
^-o:, c - --*-
-^
o t h e r s * &ndl only fch# f a a r of t h e Rsasai r ^ , " :
z-~ t - _-T - 1 - ^
remain i s Sia a a s s suitr a t pa.aoe asor..
?:,*-<>-.
< .*
_ ie
Oisr-istianSi alt&ouga iiaejf t o o "aaloog&l t o v a r i o u s n a t i o n a l i t i e s , ,

a l u a g t o eaati otasx 5 a s seisbsrs of t a 3&:s^ fa.3i.iy1, and ecuia
ave.
in: ._ v / A * s ^ a
^r-iSan', . ~ c . u
f^r
T-CJ
--.^._ - ^
;.~,. ;i-"^* " . - 1 ^
V/.:J
-2, . . . .
not
. s 1 .*-.-A/ &
.:. ;, .- >?..._ !.. i . ^ s
f a l l o w s , -and t a o s e wk* lilcs t h a wiaows ana tlis ? i r g i n s were

a a t y r a i i f s o r e l a nea of protsatiosij, r s e a i * d s p ^ e i a i a s s i S b a o a s
<= " S w >
and ear*
fa CJbristisss reversed @ry law of ths pagan sot@tj,
they proslaimei love t o be the l e a a i s g p r l a o l p i e of taa&a I i f s g

in place of fear and power9 asS tiia r e s u l t s a.asl#fea by thes
surpassed a n e x p e e t a t i o a s .
F s r s e c u t s i j t3spiscl saa sated,. they
greir l a ausber- In s'#ery p a r t of the Sosas world* sa5 already by

the eincS of the t h i r d century fcher$ existed* within the Rosas
S&pire> another a 1st l a s t body, the M Q&tholie Churoh of Go&
Asd the souree of t h a t s p i r i t u a l power of Oariat.l&^ltj^ t
whieh t h i s astoriiefeiBf success was dB@? was the d i vizis g i f t of
Io bestowed upon r-aStesei l a n l i a i .
the s t r e n g t h of the Oaartsa
a e p s M s i OH the f a i t h of tier aesbers in t h s i n c a r n a t i o n , and on

t h e i r - f i r m b e l i e f ia God's fattMSFhooS and issafs brotherhood*
But the Chursh was net only a s p i r i t u a l feliu "..li, : i L>:2r.i.y ..x.
were called as3 who b e l i e f s in -Je=uc Christy
a, new body, & sew type of soeic-ty* uzuriova tc
S is. w^s >;, l-^r-î/

4.JV1W:^
^sii^r-^
Ions, as<S t h i s siS of her l i f # aeeas s p e s i a i Illumination

fae most important iuestiosi, as far as the probles of caursh
r Christ*
am one*
unity i s concerned* i s t a t cisfinitie-B of i c t . . - ^ J.': ;;i ' - ^ i : . , cr
ess.
which r s s t # i the oneness of t h i s newly orc^.t^ o^-r^c-rc .i* L^JS.J"
as we can t e l l no??* the early Ghureh had t h e following answer to
t h a t question*
She taught t h a t ih = -j,~Li^ cf r.-d^ru-/' ^. w :i:,. i s
the g i f t of the Holy host* and t.:~*t, Vr ,- ..*: ^ - Q ; - cf (..: 1
. *u-s.**
of CJofi. proaiaiaeS by Jesus Christ i s the s e l f - a s s e r t i n g aecl

i s o l a t e d Imividvi&l
who considers the s a t i s f a c t i o n of h i s personal
aims as tb.6 supreme njoMte f a i l h i s astioriBe
fae new i i f s in
unity* tiisis only bees a c s s a c i o i c ic hus-Hi'ty ^.,: ,.*&o.. i'j rj _>-.

t o r e a l i s e t h a t they a r s a l l scrsb^r-i of" o::e ~n,, l^rv-r, --.r.I -ir^cc ^cers
i s no g r e a t e r te&Mis&p to t h e i r happiness ih&n t h e i r oma s e l f i s h
ness and pria*, and sontsapt for t h e i r l e s s successful b r o t h e r s .
fhe Gburati therefor was laaiaiy a harfi hut ffoti# school wtisr@
people ifere taught how to oversold t h e i r S'golss by love and a u t u s l
forbearance, ani how to . s t t s i a t o fellowship with the Holy Ghost
mb*#
who was s e a t to &X1 hsr Esssrau
Bho ^ ^ ; o i u :
^., r-> >
by means of wbisti sue transformed thu sî., *.r*. -r i : ea,s t o fa&r sawing fold for refug sîL - . ^ 7 . ^ . .
-~: -^-w,-i
to ask Ills genuine personality* sating, hiss th perfect orgaa

the Holy S p i r i t ana a p a r t n e r t& il?la l i f e *
Th f i r u t cf the- #*2 tc a r l .*; z?a 1.-*;; ô^ .
~c~; t -
^r.senae of tas? ren&F.itl.. ^ r s : i f 2,:iqc, _. i j ^ %:>;.,.: ,o

Churoh c f f e r e i a s ^ i i l a n t i j t c o w : ; : u **<aj ,- . v -i -c i - - . A:I2 b^li^va*
This aiirifite ^ I i t ^ L. ^ ; r s : " ^ sif^.. ;--^ - . ^
those ac ic,t Vsw latin
os' ~-MJ.~ $& i* of ".vj . . . ;;-.......
;i
the other ssshers of t h e 0ae body flic J;, ~,f 3 ^.Ji-..;; ._;.,
iisi s o t require e i t h e r e e s t l y 3&srii3~3 <r i ^ l . i i v i . j . _.
b s t His Holy Ghost woui-d sold only Is* v_3 h~~..- .,. v : - ^
wsrs rs-i;* to hlp oa ; v ^ ; * s :: ..co c . ^ U c ^
. *.,? .,..-
of t a e i r ntflûScuris .0 ^
-^
JJ titîr u?^
C .-. -
salvation grastwi aa<3 t h e Eiugios of Sod p r o s i t eel.
Tk&z- i s
harder task for* asm than to 16v oa asotaap sac! t o b rssdy

s a o r l f i o e thedr i n t e r e s t s for the sik& of t h e i r b r o t h e r s e
.rly v urvh r i i s t a i 3 n e l l -r.c 1c -? u> sc -^-^ 'JL:,*-,
ft?
^JI,W,J
t h i s d i f f i o ^ l t y tli.it hr s^cv.3 ^ ^ i o i r->.~ ^ - l ^ c * _.
.- . _
she rsquiredl aaitjr ani 2v@ fro her saisbtara s s t h s i-saiaptns

audition f t h s i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i a h t r a i m as g i f t a s
aha off
then a t the sas t i s e a @x@liiit p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g In ts

sereis of t h i s highest Christian, virtu' a a i t h a t was &h 1
in a ss3snait|**
5ery Christian from the Say f h i s sonsrsioa ;ss inOar
atei, .in a d e f i n i t e sc242unitj ' . . s i . ; . .. ;::^ t.^ , r , - - . i . r
<2i3gipline l a i t lie h-a t c -i-i.-r-a i.&- u^.- I ^,a i-z~ ._ __
ex.:**rifen00 j f -* c f
l i f e ii ^1..,-, c-,-o-.i ^... .-^
.. . * , J : .
Es wo , l^.i^-r AJ: i:iie--n1ei. -'.!. i*^l ^.- a v i"j

c o n ' x s t "3si3 c^ .,.r>Gli*5s a i - - - t . r i - l .is--;";
common benefits aui i s ai
1QQ&1 ehurcli^ But a t ta
a*2._; ^>J- r...
^ r . J - _.: -, *
*, ; o ^ <.;- . " j _ - .
-si-i t i r o -d^-j Cri ;î ;.
responsible s e s b s r of his f r a t e r n i t y ,
- ,
;. .-v
i o aishco or p r i e s t -30
be I#otaci without b i s sonseat s aad so -decision taêa malees lie

& a i l Ms brothers approved lie,
fb@ burden or s u t y s i aeip
irsg. xbaasfcisig but i t was freely acceptedj, &ML sisoe I t was bassi
en loir i t was bearable sm& 0reati#
I t m s d i f f i c u l t to be
reeeiv@3 2.3 r, ~?~zbr of tbe Chu-'Oht but --rij'.r^ J>G II Iw-vc a^,fbX5 as f.nj ei??n o&st> zc ticu; ** be- f ^ t
iiri<3 ." ! - . l a l *
assw l i f t audr severe but e l n s i s r y Sislplxa*j -sag tbe powerful

a s i regenerating s e t bod by s s s s s of wliisb tbe Sbareb enables b#r
Beakers-1 r e e e i v e f u l l y tliat d i v i n e rssi ehlsli ulsis eo'uld. zaaic#
Mies trfe^t t a a Jbrlsli-Ans wero la tcose -*y s - ii-->*.-*.< <- --
( t e r t i u s rsnjft\;s} *song tfco .--on p, .v^.:>oa -;- tb 1-:,^^ - . .re.
Possessing & r e a l orgsmle ttaiif
Tfeys lb** unit;? oX* the Glorab l-aî-d^ j ^ ^ r ' ^ i
-.r tae fact,
tb-ii br r^nbers bad btssoee ziov 3*L.c-^-i".. .-b^-; ,1 - -.* ._ on

&actar J^:,'. p u r i f i i d by tbe inc JJU* itio-'; cf ~b<c
-IJLW
1 .,-. J';,
to pnssarsr t b i a 4ni.^j s.*3 u. *--,. v , i * ; : . u .,_^4 c-i-î,
o.
s p i r i t u a l struggle* for t o l i v e in love asa concord, wbieb sas

the proper response of tbe G b r i s t i s a s fee ib 2ivine c a l l of t h e i r
Father* ras by so se&ns easy*
0rtiiis2t d o c t r i n e a faith*
feier&refey* oosaamlty l i f e Una eal&oi .". 1 i;. c,*^. t
- ,*
f u l , but s a l f i a So f a r us i t was _& '.a *,; t _3 ~,î*?,.* .:.. - ;

t h i s blesseS a a i t j . n'oiela isade the C h r i s t i a n s transparent to the
bsass f the i i i r i a e love en-3 opes to i t s regenerating pos^r* AIA
tfae external eidee of ebureli l i f e baa a alias in themselves i f
zu&f were net L~ e r a s i n g iba ^ i f t of l^vs .;/2 t-Jtua :::/.,
T^n Q@ai'3r tc 3o5o
*a|" î^sit ba uc^JTai
'cr^,.c~^
ri oi"i-r 1 --"-, -i.iji.
b a t t b e j w*re not tfa b a s i s r guarsat*^ cf r._:i-.?,;..<:_ . ... ^ J ,

fb tru# fcma<aatioa of t b a t was naios ! : C ; i . r1-^:.
----^
trie rssewai of the bums b t a r t ^

b@ v i t a l lb arie*is s o a f l i s t s waieb o a s e n ^ d Sijriiig t b s aeriofi
y of t b s
arij
s t u i l e i in t b i s essay r e v e a l the a s t o s i s l i i a g v i t a l i t y sa<l s t a b i l t
brlstiae
s i s of
of t"ae #arly Ofayrslio fb oerwb@isig suscesa of t a s Oari-itiâs
ity.
$m oaly b^ a t t r i b u t e d t o tb abos sstlosii ooneeytios of ta@
s a t u r # f the Sbsrsb trfeich was thou belfi b^ tbe a a j o r i t
-6-
seslssrs.
Heârtheless fiurlag t h a t a&se ptrriea
signs ape cligeersifcle of a g r s t i a g tasSiasf' to

of Gtupiaiian hr^timrhsaM
i s a. m r y
fiiffsreot
S?
r-v ?
described -as & tessasoy towards f$irlfaction-. .
^M.
-*.
wwv
<.U_
JL- ~~
^^-JU
"it
It z'~z* J.z V
s t r o n g e s t expression l a h lofati-aiiiat soYeraset s s a s & l i t t l e

e a r l i e r * l a th$ so hi. am of Hippoljtuse
Estrer a t tbe ortisi&X
'
s e s e s t nfeeji a. aoafliefc between t&ss# tw d i f f e r e s t Sis-aa of

S h r i s t i a s s s i ^ a t i o s seuseS Inevitable* t i j r s t ;:.,<. "i *>
eha^g i s tlie r e l a t i o n s tseti?s?i3 the Stnarc.3 J ^ t:& r.-
r J:-Î
r. - - 1 - J
waist! seeplj' a f f t e t s i t h e iasm of t h i s Strugs!

eoiase-
' Constaatlae* sue f ti? gr@*tost geninsss feo ser ruis4 the
BO8 Of
..-.Sfcate'sSossaa. State* fessmg damply Ijspr#ssad fey the s o r a i igour a&<2

perfect unity of ih êrêcrut^ Jhrl^ti-'irJ .-jr. Iâli^S to i;i til
Church a s a regenerating f-istor for tns d--o.^v.ri w,Cjirt :?;viXi~
za.tion of Ross,
E0 therefore' offers*!; her s o t only pess, r but
blp ss& proteoiioss*
Boweirer eedLtfetr Coasts t in 0 aor Ills ssfB3
ore were able t o :gras@ the ^^v:.*/..'.. ::it^T. of Uic* :*h..i^z -A ss

f a i l e d to use her TM^^T yro.>j*rly.
wtiÎr ^ ; l l ~ y 0/ ;-c ^ I A J
i a t s r v a s t i o n In stsireii l i f e issi.royt.3 t^c Chr-i J i l - ^ u r
.rliiis
those h o s p i t a l s shore a@tt w#3?s restores! t o a s t a t e of gssuln

fellowship with the Holy Sheet* sad although the OhristlAns to &
e e r t a i a exteat sai .up for t h i s l o s s by tlie erati& of a I^rg
awsber of s o s a s t i e aojaistsslsi^Sj tew Iis."îr* ...o i . ^ , . . . : ; . , .
anniWLlatlQB of the
IOCAX
î te
l3rotcci'U; rf ds ***~- ,.,... ^L*. I,: ffsr; ;
spbore of ohuroh lift

f"o@ Rosas Sspire c e r t a i n l y hesas Slirifitiaaissi in cma S|S
t&roush i t s alliass wiys tho Cattiolld Otesrofe,, but tiie lispfei-iali*
sat ion of tlie Ciiur^Ja oy aer nica îvb. .a^ 8uî.^ :S"^J r.ir jrtor-.,
for aae l o s t Ur o r i g i n ! ar^-*/ii s t r j o t ^ r e -.i- ^cs/îr*' ; l.^:.'l
a e o n s t i t u t i o n wfeiiefe s i g h t he eaiifKl a s&ciiaaiaal ay stars of unity
' as.3 goves^seats, for i t s a s Ijssei 00 faa,s% and pbysiaal ass aoral
eoereisa*
For t h i s reascu froajr the fourth century the GtmrQh
ba^sae & feslplsss vietiia of .personal cc;-. ^ t i t i c x
at-îonai
.antagonists ana d a e t r l n s l ais;ripiies 6 and although eh

1& iar essence the ease i l U s e b% 9 tir normal functions were
destroyed ar-3 rer* :o-er cf re::.l"ti-.n^ ^ j a ^ s t IT.- .; *.l.i.* .:'
passions ya& sir-ifciiirl/ 31iir,i.s2i:ri*
!T::t.!e fe^crv , t * w
f-^.ri
had feeea prs@st la her l i f e frosi the w r y oeginning of her history

Smt as: long a s she preserved tier proper e o n s t i t i ; t i o a she SAG baa
SM. t o sêrsos! tfaaw How* i@prtd of her s o s t ffecttve se&poa,
the 'voluntary cross of soBSimltf' l i f e * :>ht 7" o " --jr..: to suffer
os elefe&t a f t e r soother *
' t i l l s graaual S i B i E t s g r s t i o s of ia Church O'rgAalss usder the
#r*ip?0irlBg pressure of S t a t s c o n t r o l fei p a r t i a u l a r l j - ar-r@&sh*
l a g eoasequeseeg* for i t a f f e e t e i s o t only the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the
GfenreM fcut also brought ^heiat a cfc?x.e ;r. tr.fe h r - i ^ i :: u r - 3 . 1 r
coneernlag $od aai aai-vfttios*
IhJ i w ^ ' . s ; t:"-ar.iw f .r~ * i ! . - \
whieli. mas fag growing danger to eai^-eh HV- : : ~~ ---' <

century* foyrj? a ;?o*v:?ful ? ,7 ~
tv x : n it t cit
- -- a-l_
whiob i t : . : c^tAIwf a-. o?crffcX:i-j ? i ^ - , : ^ c t z^:

corporate conception of Ghrlslim.
was o a l j l ^ ^ M 1 3 - 0 0 ? ; 0 ^ . ^ ^
l i f e aod saiatSn e
c;^;:^
InL-^d ., *
aa;:abandB.ed t h a t ..the help,and , .
3??.?MC^^ i f t l p 1 ^ . ^
-for the Church, and
the h r u t s i a#the4 of coercion i a t r & t a s e i i n t o the Christian hroihsf*

hods l a the fourth c e n t u r y
Ibf'leeg. &' t h s b e l i e f in. Scd s 8 l e i a g
fathrhoed s hieh was proelvU. :i5 vrith. c-;cc fcrs~ of *
, _*_; i,y
Jesus Chri-t* t ^ s 3întîn in 5 ^z _;revivV-~ vigc*^rt -.-". ^ i ;.

asS the I s p i r s wsrs s@para.%e3 hy t e e i t e o a gulf mA no 2;'I
eosperatios- hetwees the was possible-*
Asoorairig t o t h i s vision
of Go3 ac GoersiTe s e s s n r e s eulS &e sections*! by &laP ana thei a s p i r a t i o E of the Ho-Xf dh-ost eoul a c t h obtained uaiess eonogpi
aaa la? s s i s t e l aaozig t h e Christians* ' How3er t h i s conception of
the Sew Snsst between &o<S -asd Gfcristi&B asi,ahlas underwent a
r a d i c a l ehasge during tha fourth seaturf
.Utfr.aDi
altered, hotfa the G&yrh*s l s i o s of CJo a.s:i the r e l a t i o n s &sor:g

tier ambers* aaS thus opeses s, BS epeea la hr history*
Tleterf
formals*
-0-0=1 the Father begs sew to ê eon3ilsrwl orlaiuflly as a

r i g h t e o u s hut seer# master of th universe who r e q u i r e s f?s HI?
people a s t r i c t obser?aiae sf Hie laws aad r u l e s * Such obedience
en t h e i r p a r t I s la i t s e l f enough to seexira salvation for ta
m s b e r s of the Gtmrsfcu
fhie oban in the. ... ^^î - - . I ; , . :f Qo&

joa
rel&tisB to saaMacI hM as IsseSI&te ana c ^ ; : , ^ as the C h r i s t i a n s heeaia osvlas&i t h a t t n e l r ur

5epesi@i l e s s ihsa haay had previously bÎiei^-I
* ^ ~*. -.
love ami sospasslen -\i_cc *1; .< z,c

the HoI|- Ghest, arid h$t;-> to rfclj J
' e e e l e s l & s t l e s l r u l e s ^cl
Iêi-llr^
* v2-
j,
Orrarsb u^-trs?*r.t :-. ~2~t ir_loot I t s i^r-L^r -reAaiag a . A r i ^ . ^

.,?
u*
; _ ... i ^ . _*,.., .~ . ^ w
s a n i t i e s for ^very inspired SssisioE, sad hue ^s&'s&rs of ;ih

Oiraroh feegas to regarfi her as & s t a t i c i j i s t l U i t l o s r a t h e r th^c as
a l i v i n g an-3 i y s a s l s orgaaliss
Instead of hIng t h s body upes
whocs corporate iaciir.&^s V-\s i , l , r l j ^ l
w ra
:;> : I o . c : * 'l 5 .,: 1 !
Sishodliseat of theae fizefi aad i n v a r i a b l e r u l e s which 8-cl aad l&isl

down ease and for e v e r .
t h l e victory of formalisss ha<3 sM&Blfsld so.ase%iie!io9se ].y
fisQS
p a s s i b l e the urn of sospulsisa* I t secured a l a s t i n g coops*

Between the Church SQ! the Stat, I t s&B-stionea the r a l # o!
i3If.lfinais over the r e s t of the C h r i s t i a n s f asd fin&il^ It
p e t r i f i e d th l i f e f the Ofaureia for easy osnturies t
. Ho attempt to a s s l y s e the psychological and h i s t o r l a l reasons

for t h i s ehasg.e a he isaie her. I t w i l l staff i s e ho saj th^t
i t was a product of th# p a r t i c u l a r conditions of the fourth .
e t a t t i r j wrfclBg l a conjunction isita th# unlYsrsai ausAa l a s t i a o t
t o r e j e c t lev ana freeaos as th laaing p r i n c i p l e of i l f e
effeets
t h e effects of t h i s pefcrif&ofcion of the flliureh wers very
pstri*
fclon
paraôsie&i 3 for though they ops t o the individual Christinas ;
the p o s s i b i l i t y of saafeery ofer the r e s t of the ooaj ? ana thus
n-*3te<ie- vi trie _r^s3S f -^\rs_.>;. -^%
3a-' t i r e :.<
-i
. . - i ; . . u
. .
. >
j . rlvto 1 i?r of u:^ ^ n v o : ^ ^ ", A. .--
.J i i<*
Holy &hest asajthus
f r o s t the springs, of l i f e in her Into a state',
of i n s o b i l i t j &n& stagn&vios
the e a r l j Chorea had haea a slowly
but constantly growing argshiissi 4 s l e e t ?ary p a r t of hr v?ss

E s i - ^ - o . h j the Hjly S M r l t . 3 J I *** voi.. - . 1 . - ] h ' % 3 , : - l . ^ /
> m a *#= VJC j * t r i f i e r l Scorch -f o & 1 h . - c ^ 1 - "*.-%. hseshers lost, t k o i r h e l i r f t o -i t *e IxTi i i ~.ff 13 ,ic_ ' \< . - ^
uaiqsa ruler 4 irtio never e a a s t s t-_ ^ - U - - E *. ,. _t 3- j ^ ; r
t h i s k t h a t , though He haS *v-..,2- Hi^
i i i ,.\îl.
to past -fcisraticns* i t feus n- <^:oy co v--*
--* -V---;
w.o^ th . ^ . ;>J .
a-ioh o,a th- cf -a oou~$niasi r:o^ o i l o* -* o aiicyi-ic; ,-ot .;,

i?ohe t h - t the Ghriati^ns e j u i - h~:.r His f:~zz*
Z z .-,;,.;.: -:
conviotlcr, ->& to 2h^ t i e dtfT^lao-OK*.* * . . _ .

Jg
oosssssirl s,ny c r i t e r i o n to enhoi
a.
Vw?
34>W*_
-> J . * * ' /
-~B
*>
^.-t
r ,
fasssd with th t r a g i e slterm-ativss of ithi

cIaT^lop~iv 31 uh ^hureh for* ever t t.*e y.-./i >\\-m : i - i -;
,;:
r&oohsd, cr- of ^rogresol^^ t a i"sol:t-j1 g r c u . s - ^ - - : --- - v~.'if ]-,. ..^

witliost the son-seat aact operation of the r-^st of the body.,
whish would sea pregrsas a t th e s a t of sontinisal B?w separations
sa d i v i s i o n s *
Tims tha disappearaaaee of the aoiiaaynitj' with i t s i a s p i F t a
ysaaisotis 4eclsigBs 'iss iaie#d th mrA of the y a i t y of the Qterah.
t h a t sure guarantee'of har normal Asrslommt*
Kaay s u h s t i t u t e s
haire bees, proposes! sinoe t h a t tiiae for tho o r i s i s ^ I baais ef

shuroh life f e hot uoa of thee has j u s t i f i e s , th txpsohit,ions i t
&roiisef aor been ahie to hip her r g s i s tha& pssaesful and
or(3.rlj- progress wfeiea she. hssw lis th# f i r s t oâturiss of her
esisteace.
present
flie prs#at &irie& Sferlstisadots* irtaiciti I s soiaposed of so
vlfiionfi
taany elajfoliess. sete/-aai SOBlistias. I s i a s d i r e c t r e s u l t of

tb$ al>aadoBlaf of the o r i g i n a l h&sis at CBrisiias oneness;, and a
fifti
proof t h a t t h i s l e s s was one of itie s s s t i r a g i s vents of
otsureh. history*
Ifoiers O h r l s t i a s s si* confronted srlta tlie
xtresely d i f f i o t s l t t&Bk of tiair eorporate reunion ? ^sA i t i s

options tlist a impfij s o l u t i o n of I t eaa nt*re;r be reached unless
the rmtio^B reasons. for tbe d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of V& Ostiiolls Gsurss
ar# pi*eperly stuîe** and ta# lessons of ta oast used asel applied
t o present e o a d l t l o s s ?
Saab siêts whicfe lias icons g r e a t d i v i s i o n s
aa e o o t r i b u t e sesii to ttm b e t t s r uaierstaacSing of ill various

means by walsb Fetiai-oa m fee a.s&l@vsSj,
and t h i s i s speei&iiy
t r u e of t a e f i r s t feai* satt?I3 tmiala ass t'a Storoa s t i l l

aalt@S # wiiile the .gretsai isaa being p r e p a r e for tier l a t e ? d i a l s tegratiE
And. f tiiese foar o a a t u r l e s t a s isost sign i f l e a n t la
t i l l s essanotloB i s til fourth* a s t o i j of grs&3 storsy

i s p&r&ieisl&rly IXlurr lasting; for- t*s^ n.ai::*^ - f '-i^
divisions^
SusH a study da3 ladtsad affcra
d i r e o t l y r e l a t e d t o the. '
toistoi^
4 .'--,r.v
3c_^ 3j...?i:^-:a
But before '# proa#d to a cissoriplii!
of tiiaa we s u s t a s a i with seas u i i e - s p r e a d 'ialaynder-a t r a d i n g s .

Tkese a r e eoncer-sed witii ta SQBiatioii t e a t te@ reunion of
the Churches t s p p i s a r l l y a a a t t e r of eoelesl&sfcioai p o l i c y , &ad
estili "fo@ astiieirei fey aeaas f agreement sa d o c t r i n a l formulas* 02*
of the submission of sen fimrclats t th r u l e s ef others*
fries
aetasypsa eetild c e r t a i n l y dersa.ge %h& number of e x i s t i n g Ghurshs

o r eonfeasioss, but they ceuM s o t asi8 t&e pre&issêf Ctiristlas
ueaeaa &a sas|i# for I t l a wide;? aad s o r t &sst with d i f f i c u l t i e s
than t h e setia&i d i v t s i o a s aaeeg t h e C h r i s t i a n s of t h s present day.
The task waisli f s s e s t&e s s i e r a Oferlstiaus
* 9
.ew s*
s*u am
SKS JH-S OI- O * ans HIEI <PS S* OW1^ * ^
^- ** ^V
Wf
*> r> t w
*i
*?> wr* *n- vet-
s* -n1?-
I Thea suss^stl'/as eia be i--..uly -1- ,11^-' *wf leu ;-?',

uinity 'zr.c th Ouur^hs* '-i.-o.i 1 yivScrvx . ' , ; r J t-.-Ilc
tra<Jlticns""-^3 Oa^ni^-ttiono ru ". ^*cbl^: vf ' ~,i>:il - Cîi
V ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ W V i
vi>
Jl V * ^ ^ . i V * ^
w * X * * Û-W* w*.**SJt **5;|w
y i l V *
wfi-a^'^
*J y t i * ^
^-ui'VW^X/Ww
jJ ^^rf**^* ^
\*
->*
V^rf-V^-^
v 2-
û-5-
s, i .
Okuroh i,:.' s e o n s t i t a t i o s ^hloh w i l l
ike her again one

eapabie of c r s a t i v e êêlop'aeirt* anc! of yi-yvîuji
DOCJ
ffastlvs solution f the probl&ss raised by stw sanyratier<s

The factual rtiisloa of tlaa various Churches i s o a i j a p^rt of
the proeasa of r e i n s t a t i n g the One Holy Catholic CUuroh in mr
orifCâal i n t e g r i t y , in whieh s t a t e 3he would natural,_j iaclu&#
the a a j o r i t y of the Christians*
j
This sublime task oaa Ije
.aalcYJ3 - -.1/ thrw;h trrj ;r '>*/ v.;-3 .ar^f-jl l i b e r a t i o n of th#
shtir-ih or~~r_Lvs
TCJZ,
zna influence rr.d cc<s a sciences of those
f a c t o r s which p e t r i f i e d i t an5 aala i t Incapable of *
j?omr
response to I t s filin a i l i n g .
infinite
fieliuaai"
3u&h a work o a l l s for
of treatment*sn the s u r e s t mmsms of h r i n g l s g i t to &
suaoectsful issue i s to fcilo> szc.. ,r,

Cte?rah*s 5IsInt0sratica s "-" hrn t c t r ,
>. -
. ^ 2 ,?,$& of t&
. ' : zzc-? her o r i g i n a l
constitution by s#aas of the grains! elimination of the Q&uses
, of those d i v i s i o n s whieh proirolsei i t .

h$ process
?h# final i@tory of t h e teadeissy towards s t t r i f s o t i o n wag
f vm r e s t -
r a t i o s .of mP as we iiairo t e u r , to t a e 3îtc- s 3 *,, *v* v-.li^ri lr. J J J I If** cf
hare "a
nlty*
the Christian sorr.ir'illioc, -~<r_! t h m t^w f i r L i t f ; T . :i'r\*; -1*:$
the aociem reunion scjiresent i s to I s l i Y s r the Otearah frost a i l
th for-eiip s l e s e a t s whioii psnetrateci i n t o tier orgft?iiss during
the eenttsrits t h a t she bag been a l l i e d with, fariotis seuIo.r
powers,
flits sroeeas i s considerably f a c i l i t a t e d by the policy
of t h e prese^t-Saif uGênaserits whioh &r Yaryisbere i n o l i / ^ d to

S8r tHi l a s t l i n k s malting ih Christian Stare ties with th@
t t s p o r a l s t a t e s * But the Christians thssjetiYes a r e for the aost
l r t ePi-osafi to t h i s poii3^ tfeiable to accept the challenge and
to turn i t to the Sterb*s gae4 s t h e j c-ftâ s t r i v e icet! t o
prs&#rt i s the iif<& of the Gfeurii iSir-sats horrofstl frc-s tli
S t a t i c e?ec when t&es
IIHT
l o s t a l l t h e i r p r a c t i c a l sears ins 0
Only & r e s o l u t e fl&tersissticB t r s 4 l c s t t tlies fro the i R t c r s ^ l

l i f e of the Girareh ess safce her oas sore f u i l j alibis snfi
r&st>ossiS to tii# s a i l s f tia l o l y &hoat
But t h i s process s i on
is not umigti to r e s t o r e to t h s Glmreli imr l o s t y a l t y I t i s but
13-
%xm f i r s t s t e p AIOBH t h i s arduous path*

t h e n@>:t aufi most deo^-siie OO..J I i :u
-..?
p t t r i f y t h e Qiaor-oh safi 01s i,o 3i;j~~- - - ~ ,~
oo?3pt t o oe
o.i
restoration
of tli oorpor&tt* ttaion of t i s ^ u : . ' . l . c ^ . . . u ^ , . f o r t h e p r o s e s

of p e t r i f a c t i o n thoy underwent* &s t h o . i u r - - . i U i *-.>_.,. i.,r
tlifeir c i a u a l o s ^ anfi only t h e r i a i of v..- - ^ . - . - r u ^ >... .oio.
of t h e Church snfi of t&s o r ^ i i l e ^^roo-oti t o oaiYatioi) oas
r e s t o r e t h e u n i t y of C a r i a o l - n ^ ^ ^ i * . ; *
In o t h r words,
oaij
"whoa t h e s o s b e r a of v 0::or~o beôo t c r ^ a i i a onas a g a i n

t h a t t h e s&Is&tios of eaeia depones. oa t h e o o i i o t i t y ' o f
tae
sshole body, i r i l i thoy r e g a i a t h s i r elooiro f o r u n i t y and oe

p r e p a r e d t o sarrjr t h e heary out i n s p i r i n g burden t u * t i t imposes
A s s s a s of r e s t o r i n g t h e o r i g i n a l v i s i o n of ohe Churoh
i s t o 0 fouad i s a stusjr of thos throws oroosss solos.
isrovoko'- thj l o o s of i t o,* i h uonotf^tlâ of G c i ! 3 f.*..wA&i-iJ..,u59 - : . ^ . - l - o i ^ ^1 ff-
livl,
g u i a a a e a by t h e a u t h o r i t y of Sibl$& arid s i o o i e s i i i s i i o a i w'^J^,

sm&t hteh eg rjz.s^&du&l
of iih# IjidiYic-us
f'&**/: sm&iw^>%tm^
is^rCu^p
fms&b&p$fcif\ sod
s e o a l s subatituition,
ohstitut:
/
of a foff s e l e c t Chrisfci&ns f o r the lasasisous a e o i a i o s o of ti
CariHti=s.u ooc&uriitioo,, l Iho oro-rUi L^W: 3 ... ^.f.y -*, *...-. *:,.
aod a c q u i r e onatf &ore h e r ^feiroine i j o - j i .
. J ^
- .'
-^
proosasosj, r e v e r s e s , r e s t o r e ttissir rigija&l a s a n i n g to theas

t h r e e i n heron t ij:ttOt~ of it*. O h r i a t l - i i ^fo ..,_ i~ -. f.a-*
The worfe of x\-3t*cr~tioD.
flcss?r,
,~r*,.-. 4 - ;cc:' *._,,- -aeo
a l o g i c a l sso,y&aes _f t.r,w < - 0 0 ** v i ik, ^ l - s t a ^ o ^ ~o^ ,
.'03
o r i g i a a i irielon of G o i s o f^.i.-ro..-C a-0 v>^ --.-_o *. ^. 1 - - .

se-otlons of t h e Glraroa^ "hot t-*a Jiii.tioô . , & o;i_
0 .-^-
teis.a t o t r u s t is. ths* 'JivLus? ^ , U * : L J ; S ^ . r , . . \ va*, ^ - i -;v, - oJ

t o SfiSois t h e sosEiuo-iv ?-ith it& f o l o * r ^ J . , & ..*: .t h e l i f e of fch Church.
In f a s t i t s ^
^^ 00
ados t h ^ t t a a a i h o l i o
Ghorohes a r e f a r t h e r off sow than a#r f r o a t u s r T i a i of

tfassa f u a d a s e s t a l e l o s e a i s of t h e i r p a s t i i f o e
diffloyltj
A i l the s a ^ e ' t h e
h i n d e r i n g t h i s p r o o s s s i s ' not l a c k of d e e l r s }
for
t h e doairiotlofi t h a t tit Gtmreh s e e d s tô r s v l ^ a i of a s r a o r p o r a t
! 3 w
&ai proplistls l i f t I s rapidly spreading assng the leaders of

sanf
dferistiaa boiins*
t h e r a a l obsiasln l i a s l a t& actual
*ISTlsios3 wiilea s e p a r a t e tfeose bodies t for ta$y &$priv# t a e

filirii.ed Oarisiiasis of the p o s s i b i l i t y of noting i s tkit n&:m of
God with t t u r f u l l a u t h o r i t y of tfaa on 0&tbolls Cixurob, and ibus
of reviving %im proptestis aspect of sfcareb l i f e &nd uaiag
ttsi&nimity as tb@ piar&jite of tfete tmatfeu
thus the Christians of to-day arc -wp^ra^liy eataght In a

visicms eirol f r s s walsa tlier i s a isstsnj for i b e i r reunion
can ooly be aa'aiefsi i f tiwy sgaia beecs t&a i i r i , : p o-v
a ex
the Holy Ghost*, an3 a t the aaas t i a e tbsy anno- ro-^t. cî-; ii-ija
as loan aa thsy p e r s i s t in t b e i r aresest diisi.oB3*
This
d i f f i c u l t y eaa only he soia toy a afeaug in t h e i r a t t i t u d e

towards those d i v i s i o n s .
At present aeris of til Gbure&as i a
pr@p&ra<3 to eaafess wit Is ospltte a i a s e r l t y bar p a r t i c u l a r

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f a r & eoisnos sin of G h r l s t i a s diisions=
only
let
t a i a fraafc r e o o g a i t i o s of fcaeir own g u i l t a&n encourage
t& Christians ,,;;.. riiol&eart@<ly to d # s i r t the s e l p of tia Holy

Ghost for tli. r e s t o r a t i o n of tlaeir unity*
i t i s true* toave soe Istroatsbecl i n t o tmlr
Sos ef t a s Oiairciass,
l i t u r g i c a l practice
s p e c i a l seasons for prayers for uaiby s but tby lay too siuab.
spti&sls m tbe f a u l t s of tteeir separated brothers aad are teo
reafiy to kp alien about t l i e i r oim sfeare of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
tkess prayers t o besots r e a l l y effective*
Galy when cmt body
of Christians firsts tue c o v r " ^ to êc: ;p~
J w-ly i t - c r, Ju-rsr
of blA'ie fc^r h= l o s s of '.it.y ,il~ ti t u ^ i t y rj-.-l_p b^yut J J5

rester-si *
St sf ass - a s era uw. *sf a s . R J S * *w **> w s=* *sw -3W - W& *i>* B&- fl 'Wfc fflsi rt
Tasrs 13 a jcenirinfc risd^' if. *..,

>Vi,TU~Z& a S ttifajLH
.k.w y s t c s
b;ls
rt.Ci,Iit.-"it
-T-^-.A
u-e-J* u a w s s ,
4 L S n022 1 v-J*Ji Jfti a i -'- - *
^lio *.! tuv. -..5^ra

.*.*_ X^--> _ - * ^ t
. n ' i . i
trie", to s ^ a i . in tfaa n&"& of is-- bcl* ûuzS 2

pr^V.'-^
^l^nti
Cf
" *iU tff 0>s tJi-S S, iLC-tji' v l
nor 3-^r. Jl-'.n1 tat; ^&3luSl\^
-4. ^j v", t,
i ~i
v'>^ a s . . - . ! . -t,5C ,/^p j*'3.*tjtc
:Vlofc^bii -;" *.^j ir ^l^r^ rf -.'.^
fhoiigh t h e -reunion f t h e Churches s a a s o t proceed u n t i l
.;
a t l e a s t some arts s f fell sivjoSet eo>% sr i>urlfte5^*ÎF=**t
;'
tliC* p r o e s s s Q&& be C|Uiekea84 by a fri&ndiy c o o p e r a t i o n between

tiiem* sa mim
tin l e a .
t h e y . a r e s t i l l u n a b l e i.; i Lz-z
Here a g a i n t h e p a l lay adopted c,
^z
-.*. ^ - ^ ^ ^ . i
a:,-êr&t
ibt^siox
and t h e Jiagliosa Churehes seesss t o be <.- . ; j . . e ..i a r^-sl

i n s i g h t i n t o t h e Foot of t h e trouble
though i s both. s a s $ s t h e
s e h i "resent of p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s by s e a s s of t h i s
tcivn&lj
a t t i t u d e I s g r e a t l y basêrec! by t h e a s a s of sisundtfrsta&diriga
sncl p r e j u d i c e s whi$& impede t h e Mori, on both sias<*
But b e t t e r
mutual i a o ^ l e d g s m& t h e growing h a b i t of *pproeairig t h e

aeisbers of o t a o r a o a f e a e i o o s on f r i e n d l y
; > --, .
eonfclmreuai^y d i s p e l l i n g t h e o b s s a r l a g s.o^", î
I ; ,1^
out
-"u.siv*
f e a r aaa s u p e r s t i t i o n , S.OJ4 t h e C h r i s t i a n s &re b e g i n n i n g t o

under s t - i i i t h v t t h e ^ e v,aa : - i o . . . r f r : y
: . - , . ; lb
.latioa
Jw, *t * *
*-? * 1 ,
Christian &lvi8ioaa
e lessoss
t h e h l s i a r y of t h e Chureh aafi i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e s t o r y of
the p a s t
. t h e
her 3.ivii_r.5 ^ra oftsrfa %
: l o t u b c l i i ^ olic*. -v ..^.". i r h.;r
sit for t h e
tare.
oieiLbers - * f c r t.aoos ho 5c iiot J v i . . . ^ ,. .,~r. ..oo;-. *uv aey
s a c r t i o o ^ to "W50ô t h e C h r l ^ i * ^ -c----,...
_:,.;
,-- oj o they
^rw y a a i i ^ lo *_xo,ip he a WJLC J.w.o: <- o.* . o ' y - i S.orI^t

v - b i l s t **?* h i : t o r ;
U ~1 c f v - - - . " - i - .
,.-
t-.
,-
,,,
- o
*- -
* -
'
-"-i
'
ca-.y IJ." lii 1- i ufJuiSfed î3 ^ -* ' si'.
1.
^.
. i ~ ' . - t:.- o r i i e i .
*
-^- - c -
i .j.oti L t ^ : I r ^ ^ l ^ , : 1-s t ^ o c b l ^cu o : Vi.. ".v^ ^ ^ ,: i t.

purpes^s of e a r t h l y l l f e t Tbs; s o e t
filffiaalt
--
> *
>r.o 1 in
~*,ti .~rJ
t a s k t o oe l e a r n t
t h e r e was t h a t of s a i n t fining, t h e u n i t y of C h r i s t i a n suniind

and i t i s s s a i l tsoadwr i f I s t h e i r e f f o r t s , t o o.ciiiev i t h&r
"<*ibii - Ojioioo-vv. JU - - . -Vo - > i . _i ~ \ .
**.!-.
v-
-"- v. .
. '. i or.< 3~
eosaeeteci with the C h r i s t i a n s " f a i l u r e to prs-er thcdr unity

Aad yet the very fact t h a t thes r e s u l t s ar so harmful
i s & source of l a s p i r a l ton and f a i t h to th ssisbara of the
0&urela
For i f ttsity was prosieei, to thm* the conditions
w@r*s a l s o l a i d do'sa srhiefe alone could secure It* But th<a seab^rs
of ts Churoh seân t o jue.Twtori & L - . . r . ; -c_* s-i^rss of
t h e s e , m i attw-rtesd to taê short c?-i; '; ..w ^,2->--v.. r. of
t h e i r unity 03- vv~i*>2tn& iov* -r.d * : ^ i . ; s
ecercicn*
flat r e s u l t s of taesw CA.-^.-vi. *
a^jl',
-ni
- r s >--lc. ei-
t h e r e I s nothing *a then fhleh c u - L ^ ^ - ^ c j -,r-io:>.= JJU

trtatfe. pro^l-aimeS by Jesus Christ*
OB the contrary thy a r s ss
e v e r l a s t i n g witaess t h a t th Churah I s ishted His holy body s

m.d t h a t her iseafeers && l i f e i s pe^ aisong thessseivas only
as losg as they obey the r u l e of t h e i r Divine Head*
fh tweaty eot-arles long history of th Church contains
m% iisaerssa -satsiagpi of silstafcea oiasalttid by C h r i s t i a n s whish
shonicl ser as & wmrsiag to ssslng g,a#rstioss* but *t ta#
sane time i t i s %%m s t o r y of G-oa;s issfer f a i l i n g a&roys sad of
His faluirfulr <*>> t c wii. _ror.i- &u.^ n <ij..
-4.\<i
people* i'uS yrafasiit incrlc a^^.tj ^*..; ^s... ...iîy v :

has saafeina f e l t t h e i r ah#u# SQ aeytely..
.<:--J
1?
,-,-v.r ,5*fcr^
hr# t u s Holy Ghost
I s t h e r e l a peas and aonsord ad the Gaurah a-Ieae knows ho to

obtain tbsse g i f t s of t h s S p i r i t *
But they eannot I-& r e a l i s e d
u n l e s s the C h r i s t i a n s a r e prepared t t r u s t In the guidance of

the S p i r i t sad t o f o l i o ? ta*re i t lands*
Only then w i l l t h i d r
oas&oss b@ restored* msd through I t a atw vision of hroth&A-uuuu
f-ft i-"';.f1
he reveaisa to mankind tsday*
fhn ysliy of uaf? y u u i v a i s s i i e
.fr-iw w
whish sha hse rsaald froas her Foatid-sr and hleb aim
SJ'W
destroyed by huisasi e f f o r t s , but i t s lsihl

p r e p t r ase iepeiad sa ta free w i l l cf uer seshsrss =sad the t
i s r i p e for t t o C h r i s t i a n s to aesspt she t r u t h *
fSiS H&.
It-isccg
t ,ar sJ^âts j::y 00 i : j ^ ^ r
^Svf* i.2l T'inor --r,(C i-'ivr c^ i j - . -t- ~\Lr / - , . 1 ^ ; : l i ' . i r c y c i
3-n? brought thvz I c t o -* o i i v s of ^w-igs-".^^! t fae-^ ...^c ~f
3orth Africa; tae sisvry oi t t ;^ 3-is:?4i ,:->ti. JS? ^ 1 ' f_,.y
^he 3^ctr-j3tivj re&ult*> of t i c i l e f c r _ . ^ ^ : valo^. c_ .is, Di^*'
0fES*
am- J^*'
the sending
of the
fte . {Part i, page 49),
SuobarlBt t o
the rftgt&arlty ami iKpeptaace iiiieih are obvleuely
tli embers
of t h e
irtftrfMitec! t t h i s fr&otiee by IreB&sftas xelude the
Qaarto&eolsaii
GetsouBitids*
. p o s s l e i l l t y that he Sad i s s i n d only seas essu.il v i s i t o r s

t o Ecu fsrest 4siatis S&aarelse*
I s t h i s ea@# the
Biiehartst $taX& not fee seoft to then* nor would t h e

mention of farti@n3.sF Bpsisia MffePfti ha^s stgpnifioa&ee.
fhg ass a&tern&tive e^piss&tiois was msn.aily sseepted*
asssifjf that- tts Sisslk&rist wiai a s i i fmm Rest t o e t h e r
for t h i s reason the mmjeritf #f h i s t o r i a n s Stair
s
interpreted this passage me a stjn that the Eucharist
L
was seat from Seas to Asia Xlnerf
far as A* 0 JeJiffert
i r i t ^ s i s i t u s s t fee s a i d t h a i n f a r as i?@ HF@ able t o

esesert&ln only t h e Ghwithiis of 4.sia ofeeerrod the foura
teea&th day * *
ffee a&eenee of a&y ftsitjftsflseliiati mwmiznlt j
i n I t a l y trade It- Sup ssible t h a t the'Etieharist was sent

feist less t o a$e ae&ghfeo'uri&g diurtliesi
moreoirer* as
T l e a r n frcw I n n o c e n t ' s e p i s t l e to t n e bishop of 3ubbio

K
t h e Etioharist, aoesrdin-g to t h e HOES an t r a d i t i o n , could

I* The VQTQ.Jfttfoiki*.
in c&asaleal usage contained
the idea of a coresunlty of people l i v i n g i n a foreign
ootRtry o r e-iiy#
I n Cbriat&aii uaage i t f i r s t des
cribed a looal Church viewed i n r e l a t i o n t^ theHe&Tenly Oity? l ^ t e r h o o v e r e t e r f l o o a l independent
(Sbureh* governed by i t s bishop bejan to he c a l l e d by
t h i a nssaej, without any conscious? f u r t h e r reference*"
Of, Ens* H* IV* CS> f. 1 8 . ( 9 ) . FOP a f u r t h e r
discussion of t h i s t e n s see J . Buieeri Thesaurus
iôolesiastieus XX. p 1*98-99 (AiaeterdasES 1383}
S* KliS* HS*V*
S**16*
S. the Ghurdb History of Busebtus (Osf lew York 1890)

p 845 n # 18
4*
I n n s t e a t I . {40X<41?,}
8*
For the s e i s i n s of i h Rmmi p r a c t i c e of sending

t h e Bustsarist fron the t a b l e îer the? bishop
o f f i c i a t e d , see Oabrol & !*eclereo, U i o t i o n n a i r s ,
d*Arsheologie CSiretienn e t de Liturgle * col*
1371* Also X*a> Piano* The Soissi Ghiarch Harr, Theol*
Se* Jtiiy 1935. p . S17.
only be sent to !
-sh "within the city and it was not
allowed t 'go eye
as more, d i s t a n t cemeteries.
A. 4
We are thus ec.
3nted with t h e following d i f f i c u l t y t
on the one hand t h e Eucharist was r e g u l a r l y sent by S t .

"?iotr*s. prsdeseB.sors- to t h e members ef the Quartodeciman
\]oL(?o{ Kiotl .
,K.the- o t h e r hand, the .Eucharist could not
be sent outside the c i t y of -'Hose,
*In the face of the

W ft
difficulties on both sides*, writes MeSiffert* 8 it must

be admitted tii&t neither ef the interpretations . can
be insisted upon8*
It is possible that the following, explanation can
sol-re this difficulty, i*e* the
Roman bishops sent the
Eucharist to. a. distinct group, of the Quarto&eciman

Christians settled in Some*' But Irehaeus deliberately
called the members of their own/('<fc"-{<>ci< for they formed
a'part of their' mother churches in Asia Minor and in or
ganisation and' in spirit they remained independent of the
rest at the Soman community haying even their own. places
of worship* the more we know about the early Church the
4.
sore possible does such a state of things appear to be
and it Is quite frebable that the Asiatic Churches had
something like daughter fShurehes in Rome. This explana
tion selves the contradiction of Irenaeus* text, and
makes it possible that a bishop should send the Euoh'arist
to the members of an independent congregation and yet
keep it within the Sounds of his city.
'.
1 . Migne. P.L.XX, c o l . S,
8 . The only apparent c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o t h e r u l e t h a t the
Eucharist could neirer be sent outside the p r e c i n c t s of
the c i t y i s Canon IT of the Council of Laodioea (between
S4g and 81), I t s meaning, however, i s so obscure t h a t
Hef-iLeclerot ( H i s t , des Son. I . p p . 1000-7) considers
i t t o siean t h a t t h i s Canon p r o h i b i t e d the sending of the
Eucharist frost one parish to -another $ but An*3interia
(Penfewurdlgkelten, "(Mainz 1828) IVPart 3,p.555 i n t e r
p r e t s i t i n a way which excludes t h i s neaning*
This
Canon, however* i s t h a t of a l o c a l Synod which deals
with customs p e c u l i a r t o the East* and thus eiren i f i t
r e f e r s t o the p r a c t i c e of sending the Euroharist out
s i d e the c i t y i t does not prove the existence of the
samei pp:r a c t i c e i n the West
^ _ or i n Eoiae.
The Church History of Eusebius, p.243. n-18.

* As to these problens see K.Muller, Beitrage zur G-esch.
der Verfassung der Alten Kirche. TAhh
"
" -
3-
jjoff. Mjt (Part 1 * fsg# 0)* .
pep l i s t e n
La Pise*s se&jr "the limae (Sburtih at the end of
and tbo Hoatan
1*
gâtHkodOl&&&s t l eeeotsd eentisry Seals with tit doctrinal aid os**
ganisatloiial # i g s itileti oeo&nred in the Korean &mpefc
a t ttse atsd ^ the second oeatury* gating &$eol&l atten
tion to Viator's personal role*
&#@2itsg t e La ? * Viator's eleeticn m s tue
taming point it* i t s history*
He was the f i r s t
' Latla^speajtbesg pe|j# its introduced t h i s language

Into the l i f e f M s dhurdb* and i t neant ilmfc t*se
native Keens. popt&atlon at l a s t begm to $lay an
H*
ls$6rt*Rt role i n i t *
Ad a resu&t the relation
between t&e Latin sd areefc speakinj se&berd of the
oossR3Edty naturally becanse &ore restrained*
viotor*
supported by tsie L^tln la&Jorfif of b i s oongres&tion*

s t a r t e d an anergetio ottsoslgn for g r a t e r unlfonslty
*
In ig0tplis# and l i t u r g i c a l practice* ~e net with

a strsfsg opposition fro thoee stKb &t the Hffitsn
!*ffi*cfe nfio none aooustoned to Hue aoeording to
their
hose traditions* a4 isetedlately beease invol*s(? In sn

aent# con3,lo& with tl? ftonan ^sartcsiieeisims*
We possess Use following iBfosiaties about this*
Ens#btns s r i t e s t
nourished a t
"others* of tfoooi Florinus vas chief,
fiome*
1% f e l l ima titae presbyter&te of
tbe Cbttren and slastus was involved in the cfetflai* fiS* iftey
1* *?* 2heol 8e* Jfeflty !**$
3*
Jea# P# "ftp* 111* * S3*
S* &* Pisw-* ju SSI*

4* La Pianot i S5i*
f * La Plats* p 2B2
it
sis drew away s s a y &i hh& 3Jmr0fe t fmir
|fisis e -tscn
s t F i T i a a i& iatr04a#fe M a own i2a3.otet.isB in Z%U2%Q%, %Q

tite irut&*
(Sus* II. S ? 1 5 . )
lie cos timings s
A little
far'LM;> .
*Ire&&0U3 f ? s t e s e T ^ r a l l e t t s r e
'Wfti
aâiasst
tiaes irtt er d i s t r i b u t i n g tfte sim4 ardioaaiee ci' &&

01-11*1*311 of Ti&m*
0m e t t a g s was i e S l & s t u i cm a c i u m ,
kftothtyr to ? I o r i s a u k i x u s c r e i v ' " i-iis.~ .
'j:=-i"iiili-ieo i r . s i u a tilt ",enii. uûr-ic.
.V.U'.AJ
*Vvy\,i, i u r U . t r
irif$riti&iieti e f t a s t r a i a ^ 81&sfcu, i s JwriYÂ * I \ . R : .ivW.~

T o r t t i l l i a s wsrk
*tiUtit * l ^ ^ i ; ! * ^ ^ ^ ! ^ ^
^dfe|rstti : ,Sa.ere.tiegs**i I n a m ^ t c ? v i j i t ^
*..icu ..^ a t u ,
^ I i r a M i t i e i i fe n i l t&ese Si*er$ i& l i t o a s i i l a s t u e wio

would l a t e n t l y , z a t r s i l u c s J u d a i s m .
5'er iie **y?s tiie p a s s -
&rT i s s e t ' t s ft <mpt e i J a e r e i s ^ tiiaa acaoxdin^ . to tiia

ISM 0f Se&ea a t h e SmzmmnUi
f tli iL&ontfct".
M l %hm -fast i a d i e a t i o a t auri&ti V i a t o r ' s

ey-i scops t e a i ot*.jyajiT^ *xoci&f <*iv;u*tv Ci'n, .-ac ui
;i<aasn Ciiristiar*3 G eo-atlauet- w QQIZJXZ t.
i n Ki^joljlus"
V v 4-
t t -w4 *-
Txiilose;r.tiaer.*;.
IJ" [ k
r.st.,-r
1^
i> u,,,
, .<jj. ?.,>.V
7<f
d
'/tit,kufftj
,uid S-îrd cesvariefc", au V.. -..-.*" ;ûf,rt *ti *. : w;.*i u.~

%T*5atEk<5 & 0 1 *feu> l a p S s K i Ail -Saw i r ^ d a i , y*
..vi . ' ^ I T u
r e j e c t f - I s a d o c t r i n e s , r*&<fc i*. T,2A, u c u
t^.-- . - . ^ 1 -
^ c t i i o l i c Ghuroiu
Apoilirt&ris of I,s.<.'îc*#c,, isa one o tiis e x t r a c t s
r.it* l e t t e r
i'roe
.robtir^vju L-J useoiic** vUi-ori-'ya if- &*.c :u>i^c-~
ir*j s a / *!*& rttoî;ife.i *\ <*zi<s I . ^ m c s i ^ i e ^ G S r A ^ ut.- t^*^

E
c h u r c h e s or Asia " d n o r s
A?r uiy i'i'i^xuJ, A*, ^ J . _ , - i
oftftQ i n r*any plK^<? U ^ a u j ^ t i t
u>ie a. jojj<>iU^r
v;ds, . . ' . U J
v<nt examined tlio novt-u u t i f c r c a o w vjxa ,<r&*wu;3<s^

vr&;yii&
sx-u ?c-$Kwtai tiic Jj,^r-,,;v
CJU:
i-.a*- v^-u . J.%*>;,^ ^ e r e
,X^5fllC*d i > > J d t i l t , C r i U T t ilJ. t-W ,.;.-?* &C*. ^TO G O ^ - U a i v ; < ,
The cyitdoBE,a.liiQii o r* ^rc-u; aGCtriru. t*v & tyiioi; -,*
LL-,,,.
l o c a l c h o r e a <iu?r<3 thv i..&rc%- .>..&. j.^^ô.^t;^ ^.taf Uiu i i r - t

iseastiif-e i s fe u n d e r t a k e n .
t h e second s t e p isas tiie coixsa.-
ttni'SatisB f t h i s A e s i M s n t o t k e ofciasi? eeimisuiiities i n

t e r s st&d . I n t h e $ajs q a s a t i s n .
aaasimaus sonfirsai-ic-i*
one l o c a l si;tiraa vao tli-', L a r a UL/I i i u i - - , t c ^ ^

p r o c e s s *-S' r
>lf vir.j
i..i
4* Islsc- ai.ct.ti.c
soii2.Iy areas'âocd i n ^ s i a Iiivr, ut wc iirû t*A^t iG

f
,ii<L ii*8b -ti-is tbfciCr(j> -Sfcfe v/i*^- r^"^&'*<= .i'i'ft.*^^^ ^.xx.
t o 220 i..D.
ZuseyiiiS siea'Siana tn$ tiisût.toS I n &oriiiociios
w i t h S s s t s s i ^ i s JjQm
f9 Sefli^riSES
*"K.--*.'-,^t4. j ) sci i n tieia& wid^r
', .:,7-.VI. S0{} }
~'(,t iino-* too oJ
f. Isimilar happenings in northern Africa, where Tertuilian joined

the Montanists, 'but was not followed by the majority of the
Christians,
Exactly the same method, was used in the middle of the
third century during the conflicts connected either with
ibvatianism or with re-baptism.
The local synods ja&de their..
decisions and sent them immediately to the other churches con

eeraed with the same, problem, asMng their approval and con
firmation*
The authority of the Rosas Church or of the Church
of Carthage carried such weight,, but though the provincial

churches were eager to follow their advice and example, they
were free too and every local church had the right to seeis its
own solution,
This fact is well illustrated by a small
Spanish community at LeonAwhich protested against the policy of

the Rosas church and.was supported by the church of Carthage;~
and also 'by. the .animated correspondence between Egypt, Home,
Africa and Asia about-baptism administered by the Schismatics^
It can be said that both Jfontanisia. and Mov&tianisia were
rejected by the whole Church speaking through her numerous local
synods, and neither the Roman bishop nor any particular im
portant council had a decisive place in the process,
This
point of view is supported by St. Cyprian who describes in the

following way the condemnation of Jfevatianisun
"Hovatian has
lately been repulsed and rejected and exeoaaunicated by God*s

priests throughout the. whole world,,* (Ep.68 {9}*
Eusebius
for his part also speafcs of Hovatianisa in exactly the sane way:
*The churches everywhere had rejected the novelty of lovatus
1. St. Cypr. Ep. 67.

2. Bus, H.E. Yll.ch.(2-5)
St. Cypr. Ips. 69-75.
.7
and were at peace among themselves.
H e l e s 3 (Eusebius
confuses ifovatus and Uovatian and the text must undoubtedly

refer to the.latter*}
In all the above-mentioned cases we find such similar
ity of action that we can with confidence state that already
in the third century,1 there was a well-established tradition
for dealing with heresies and schisms.
There was a.similar procedure in the case of Origan*s

condemnation hy Bimetrius of Alexandria,
fhey both
appealed to other churches, and each was supported "by
some and disapproved-by..others, .lus. H*E0 Y1.8,(4);
1.23.(4); VI.36 (4),
/aSScte I?, ffhe Paschal SontrsTeapay J ^ L t ^ A
<
pcy*J$i_
Ctas of the strongest ar^pssents is favour of th@ theory

that the Asistie churches' w#re? iêesisuiiieated is the dis
appearance of th %u&rtodeoimaa practice in syriia and
Iphesus before tiie first Oecumenical Council.x
Polêrstes
8Ji4 &h# Asiatic Ghrie-iiaag. were go cozrriiia&d the holiness

of theirfcra&itiosthat It is feasible to ascertain that only
nuder stress f exco&minleafcioa ssrould th#y &&f% abandoned
their ciisies.
fMe-argssiast,,, ii@wrk is n& decisive ana
is aaaals t prove tfet fact of exsesipaiii0atioa for the followlag reasons.

i. Susebiias did not know vnen the Asiatic churches abandoned
their tradition, and M s silence suês ts that he? did not
iaisk that it happened in the tise of Tietor.
ii. fhs absence ef all iafersatieh as to the GircuaataQces is.
which it occurred r&th&r indicates that this rrm was of
a peaceful character which it could hardly haft been
during the tin. of Tietor*s episcopate under the stress of
his sxessssianic&tloia..
iii.fh# ^tmriodecisan fractie was rejected as indicating a
judai3in.g tendency by the majority of th eharehts,
The
dislike ef 'being accused of such a tendency was s suffisisiatlj. strong reason for- the Asiatic churches later to
s*Tis# their-iincB&f remising folioy voluntarily s since
asti<3"wish feeling was wide spread am&iicS all the
Christians.
iv* the suspicions attitude, and evsn the refusal f ccsamunion
with which the Asiatics litre |>liably c#nfrost#d during
their frsqaest visits to Kee, were also a stream reasiois.
for changing ihsir siistoii.
tu
t*
f i n a l l y til exeojtsuraoaticm sf the A s i a t i c : ehtirehsg lay

the R<swj. smmmiiy
coi&d sly s e a s t h a t tae Bcasan
ehrisii&tis we? already* a t the end of tiife second century,

i n t e r e s t e d i s naiBtsisiiig the uniformity of trie, . a s t r
c e l e b r a t i o n s throit^hout a l l the okvxch&s,
In r e a l i t y
n e i t h e r the second nor the t h i r d century fcaa si- a l l con

cerned i t h the question of t n i s uniformity, which oaiy
Itea a, eonsciotis siB i s t&g Synods of the f o u r t h century
f l r l s ^ l i oasts.* Jntiooh' i s 341 and Sardisa i n 34?*}
? l e t o r * s s t r u g g l e 'was difôtSKt^ a g a i n s t th# t s s a a Q,uaxtodeojjtaas and the general uniformity Is. t h e ' C e l e b r a t i o n of
l a s t t r wets titsids the profine f MS4ist@rsls,
-*fhe
lyr-isnSj,'Siliciang and Sesojtotasaiass'were out of order in

aeigste&ting the f'tast and Jctpt l&ster with the Jews** (Athan.
d 8yaJ
I s these tens doss Atiaanasiiis describe the
conditions i n the ehsuroh in. the fourth century before the

f i r s t O e e m e s t s a l Sasoii s which ifould fee soaresiy possifei
i f t h s churches had s t r i # n for uniformity i n t h i s matter
sine the end of ths second entai*y.
Eef. l e c i e r e ^ , " E i s t o i r e des Gonoiles" Yal.l.p.43&. **su

qustrieme siecle...sjuelqtues e ^ l i s e s a s i a t i ^ u e s consei*ve.ient
Xe c a l c u l JudaiCjjue,**
Also ^ e i t z e l . Die c h r i s t l i c h e Passafeier i n de*n a r e i e r s t ^ n
dTharhunderte. (Pforgheim 1648} p,26*
"
flat Catalogue
fhe d e s c r i p t i o n wa iisfe j u s t given of the go$raof the Bonan
Bishops.
-sect of the Sesau eoasynity differs from, the eTidene
of the ancient catalogue of the Soiaac bishops -which
has always been eosi4r#d &s the main proof of the
e a r l y mono-episcopal system of goYeriKBent in t h i s churchjThe sather of this list was Eegesippus,*" ao oriental
ifriisr who cams to Ease in, the time
of Anicetufi (150-162
JUIJ*) sad possibly remained theris until Bleuthereus

became 'bishop."H171-185 A.D.)
Hegesippus was one of
the first sntignoatic poltiistsf and M s catalogue of

the Romas bishops wa# a strong argument against his
opponents.
He w@s the real originator- of the idea teat
the true teaching is guaranteed by an uninterrupted

episcopal succession, a doctrine which St. Irenaeus
afterwards so successfully dtirelopad and spread abroad.
All the later catalogues of t-ue Roman blenc^r/* are ao
sors than reproductions of Heues-iîi&îi^l-.
tinction between a 3iono-episccpal form of gri:ia@st and

the idea of Apostolic succession; the former appeared in
Rose -tiiich later than the latter.
A full discussion of
the sace question in his book with the same title {Berlin
15^6; S'jjkriften der Sanies. 'Jeiehr. Jiestl.)
2. Ins. H.F. IV.2 (1-3) AJiis question is discussed in
Bardenhenrers rêsch, altic. lit. Yci.lpp.38s~592.
3.
Bus. E.~. *T. 1 1 . (?)
4.
Irenaeus Ad, Ka<r. 1 1 1 . S,.

Hus. H~. . 6 ( I - $ )
Oateioja* Libarianiis ass Stastsjsaieaders v . J . 354.td.MosBast;n
ôn.5..incb, a n t , I X . p . 7 3 .
Ts. Ttrtuli&n l d . S&voionwi. i i b . i i i a , 9 , . . M i g n e . P . L . i i .
COie 107?.
SpipZtenius ? a s , 27. 6 L ? f l
Optatus De -schism, o n a t . i i . o .
Au^. ? 5 p . o 5 . ? . , . ^ i c . ?- * i' S o o l . 196.
hS,
Hegesippua* l i s t .
ttexs tkm qu^Bti&u Wmtkms i>r n e t
tm
Esssn sMif#ii |}'Sa.gf#n4 frn t*im ggiBiiiag a wil e s t a b l i s h e d

B*~fiseup&J g o w r s p e n t itepiiactg on ih aoaurasy as4
i i i t g s i i e s sf legesIpjmit f woris.
t h e r e sfn strisma remsseg sr dsuftiiiig tins aaouraajr
Qf il&êsippus* scooimt.
a) îia !? aooics d ' i i ^ o i r s con*
sisted. of iii,jhi.y coloured, poiigaieai ^ r i i i c ^ s sicui t-ut/ con

tained s a a j 3iigt$3dL&X' #.rr3?ii iiricl âmggsr&tioiis. 0
o) His
estalegiaea e8G@titu.le4 #ae of M e s a i n eEferr.si&l stapoag,

sad. the Raman as wssi drawn up sXjr as a p a r a l l e l to M s
prei-,*as catalogues 01* ih bishops' Q J e y n s a l s s
voristif*.
and
The f i r s t amci priaQifj&i catalogue J'riisaii&
a s B t s i s ^ i iare Xtgfrfits fJasu M s t o x i s a i Tide&se^ sno. th

l^sas'oa'IsiQgu^ Mgas with the #rr#a#ES a t a t e a e n t t h a t
S t . PsnX mms tim f ouster S t h i s Qimsmh^
Siasai.Bg tip, we a^ ss# t i i s t ? *
a3 f& Beisas atsle<pi@ f MiMrg8 i n therefor fist ma
original
i.
CSJJOB
BUSES
dssaaigs.t* sMwiiig-' Mi@ priis&tivs
fcr&aitioa
B t r e e t e r , The Pr iia. Cmire/i. Ap. i). ^ p . oos-f.ta.
Chapmss, La Ghroaolo2ie dt-s p r e s u i i s t e . .'dpi s o . {;:,^âcd,

g.' XEi&r, Susebiaaa, p p . - 3 .
# .MIS*. .*
IJL. S3. <&
5 . 3*swi3? S u s e s i a s s pp.'XfS**!'?^ 92-04*

IswXer and Oultoa 'SumUius (tsii.ISS?) .oi. XI,pp. 167 %.
S$e 3 u s . fi2a XV. ii CX-4)
8* l a s . fi.S. ?.' 6.X.. e'f. .ftosi.Xf". gO-.3S
f tiiis community, aut & polemical argument composed toy a s

oriental Christian who in many respects was Inaccurate and
misleading."*
Its original purpose was. to show the uninterrypted continuity
of" the -Apostolic trsdition,
It was only in a later period
that Hegesippus* list was used to pre the <aariy origin of

2,
the mono-episcopal form of church goTeriaaant in Rome*
Uegesippus for instance erroneously described St, Clement's

epistle as< dealing tlth gnostic errors* which mistake was
repeated hy Irenaeue. (Irtsa, Ad. H. ill. (3}
Ses Carl'Schmidt, Studifen su den Pseudo Cleiaentisen (Text und
Enter) Lfeipsig. 1S30. pp6 335-388. Anhang; Die alteste
roaisoh Bischofliste ??.
Kippoljtus and
church order.
JUaoiag the various soniysemts C e a r l y C h r i s t i a n

literature, a very special place belongs to the socalled ** Apostolic Church Orders.'5
they isers i/er,y
popular i.a tiie fourth sad fifth and gmceeedia^

centuries* after which t&ey gradually fell into
ohliTioti sad were rediscovered for the sosi part
only is tils nineteenth century.
fhe chief manuscripts
of the are mrittes is the Syriac* Softie and Sthiopie

languages* which is an- indication that their influence
was more widespread amon$ eastern heterodox churches
than sse-iig the Catholics*
A% to their purport, they
all represent the first attempts to introduce soiae

fixed rales regulating the life of a Christian commun
ity*
They present very different stages of this
process beginning with a vague general description"1"*'

it s and ending with a well-arranged syntes of canon Ism
Immn
as the S Apostolic Canons.

These documents as a rule contain a, good deal of
romance and apocryphal material and their authorship is

usually ascribed either to Jesus. Christ Himself or to
the twelve apostles.
Jteong other isee of repute# the
aanes f Clement of Eoae and of Hippolytue ha "been

attached t seise of these orders.
Tim definition of
the origine authorship and dates of these' documents

1, the 3idft.sea.Iia* one of the sain documents of tuis
group, is described in the following way h$
n
Itifhop Wordsworths
it is rather & aoaewiai
rashling discourse on mmoh life sad society .than
a ehureh order.#
Ministry and Crrace, second*
edition 19a^p.tS,
M* &
has mm
one of the sosi difficult-tasks for Church
historians^
fhm question has finally "been settled by the
work f Bos K.E. Connolly

clusion;
who arrived at the following con
*he so-called l^ypii&s church order, which has
persistently been thrust 1st a subordinate. position, is not

serely tii earliest of all and the uais sourest f each, but
is also 'an authentic work f Hippelytus.* (Preface fi-ii)
1* A lon^, controversy between JC.Fock sad K Acuelis helpea

considerably to clear tnis ground, althoopn as is oltsr
now neither oi" t'mm, was ri~;ht. X.Punk maintained t.*at
book iriii of the Apostolic constitutions is the source
cf all other documents; K.Aoaelis insistea tn&t the
earliest document is the so-called Canons of hi^pol;-tusr*.
X.Funk Sas Achfce isuch der Apostulisnen Konstitutionen
{Tubing 1853) H.Achelis C&noaes hippolyti {L&ip 1^1}
2. "he so called "^ptiaa Church Order (Texts and ktuait,s}.
Gamer. 1916. 3, Schwarta arrived at the ssse conclusion
in his work* ube? die pseudo-apostolisehea irshenordauBên fstrasdourj 1910).
See also a Russian ork
of Senescaewitch, Collection of the Canons (Petersour^
imtt).
5. Asong the numerous manuscripts of the cnurch orders vhicn
originated fros Hipôlytus* i*ork# the so called -L^^tian
Church Order (3rd. century Hose) the following can oe
mentioned;Apostolic Constitutions, book 111, ch.&-*6 {4th century)
Canons of Kippolytus, 4th century or later.
Sthiopie church order.
Hauler's Yerona Latin fracszaeat,, part 5.
Testament of our lord.
Constitution through -iippolvtus.
Appendix to Arabic Bidsscalia.
S&hidic Ecclesiastical Canons. (64-78)
Syriae Cotateuch, books 1V-V11.
Ethiopic Statutes, Canons b5>-?2 (See Juliaoiean, "Hue
tecieat Church Order s *, Camb. 1S10, p.2.
a)
b}
G)
4}
These all deal more or less Ith the sa&u topics;

namely
election and consecration of bishops, priests ana av, aeons;
the appointment of widows, readers and of other a;wsyx' of
sisor orders.
the administration of baptism, of the ccixaniios service,
the blessing of oil etc
visitation of the sick, fastis.^s, prayers etc
/7- /r
ihurch orders
segan among
sectarians.
The discovery of the. author and of the place of.

origin of all .these church orders is important for us
for two reasons*-
In the first place it shows that
the very idea .of a fixed rule regulating the life of

a Christian eomisanity and "binding its decisions by an
1
external, authority was "born, in a sectarian body.
It
is obvious too that. for. a long time this sort of literature mainly appealed to the various eastern heret
ical and sectarian groups of Christians, for the gross
' .'
apocryphal additions4of the leading Catholic Goimuunities.^

Only gradually did the same idea "begin to influence the
latter,,, and when .in, the..fourth...century the episcopal
councils "began to ...produce, their own canons;,; the belief
was gradually, accepted that the early Church also '
possessed some written rules, handed down from the
Apostles and Jesus Christ0
Oae absence of
fhe.. second reason is connected with the des-
pules reg
elating
cription. of the election of a new bishop found at the
bishop?s el
ection*
very "beginning . of Mippolytus* church order.
It is
A
"brief and. simple* and it merely states tnat a bishop

has to he chosen "by the whole assembly of the faithful gathered together, on the ior.df's .day.
fhe re is
however one detail in this definition which is very

1* fhe Church Order -was-written by Hippolytus after
his separation from the CatholicCommunity;
Br.a 1, Jungklaus, Die G-emeinde Hippolyts, (Test un.&
Unters.) (ieipsig 1828) p. 26*'
2 Testament of our . Lord,. fhe Apocalyptic preface,.1*1-18
3. fheir absence is evident in the light of Cyprian's
correspondence, of the condemnation of Paul of Samosata,
and of the early dealings with the Dpnatists.
4 9 The, difference "between a "bishop and, the preshyters was
still so vague in Hippolytus' time that his church
order gives the.same prayer for the ordination of a
"bishop .and of a presbyter*
See Maclean,op,cit.pps67-78<
tf.lbsigBifidsat.
!ipfIyt.s states that llili ssseaelj- WUBZ &@
composed. f sielssg people.
A?as 4er êsea&t&n a,to#i*
ua&loen gsa@is&t earw&lt woreles Ist. #i

Bits poiat explains the p#alsritj sf iii^gol^tus*
opposition to Calliatus.
Mippol^rtus. I Iks ia rest of
tiie OMi-roh. of M s tis# km,m so other test for wryfyisj

tile la^fulaoss of as. election than the unajsimlty M e h
had decided ite
th%%mm tht y fast of a diileian
is & Xooal congregation refefeed rival candidates of t&oir

elais to legality. Thus Hippolvtus sould at task
G&XXistiss sly en the ground that the latter was elected
&3T a satP?g@,tio into w M e h sinners were &ditted.
This meant that thesis ehoiee could set be considered as
an uaûestion&ole sign of &od*fs will, which slese was
@&X$ to choose a priest and ojr&aia M s to this offloe,
the feist of eoatention etwees lipsslytus* and
Sallistus* claims to the Senas see wet the orueial
question whloh Christian is a sinner and whieh still
preserves pure M s aptisassl g&mest.
1, 1. Aohelis* î AXtegten %ella &es OriestalisGh

Ilrehenrechis'V X.eipaig, 1S91# 0lel.p4.
n
Hot vii.
(tfo*f-ii\*Y~W)
Tb.e r e a l i n d i f f e r e n c e of the -Roman C h r i s t i a n s to t h e

d o c t r i n a l I s s u e s of t h e c o n f l i c t i s e-hown by the f a c t
that
n e i t h e r 5 the A s i a t i c n o r the A f r i c a n churches changed
their
' t r a d i t i o n nor e v e s f a i t i t t o be unlawful t e r e t a i n

practice..
their
fh# A f r i c a n C a t h o l i c s were o o i i g e a to g i v e up
t h e i r r u l e oi* rebaptisffi o n l y a t A r i e s , under the s t r e s s of

tfa& D o a a t i s t schism.
says*.
Roman
ad t h e
r*--t-aB a t -
Canon f i l l ,
of tne Council of A r i e s
"Sins the A f r i c a n s a r e used a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r law
t o p e b s p t i a e s ws d d c r e . . . "
fhe A s i a t i c s p r e s e r v e d
custom u n t i l a l a t a r p e r i o d , a s -#t l e a n s from S t .
their
Basil's
t -te t~
*v&s r e ptisa.
f i r s t C a a o a i e a l B o i s t l e ( Oanoa 1.)
At this point it a.y he as well' to mention the very
controversial question as to'whether either of the dis
puting parties possessed real apostolic authority behind
its custom*
Th grfsst majority of western theologians,
"both Hoaaa Catholics and Anglicans^ are convinced that

Stephen represented the ancient church tradition.
4
Mgr* t s a t i r i o l
e v t n goes so f a r as to a s s e r t t h a t Stephen
defended t h e o r i g i n a l C h r i s t i a n t e a c h i n g which was n o t h i n g

e l s e t h a n the ex oper@ operate, view of b a p t i s i a ?
I t seems
' more p r o b a b l e t h a t t h i s s t a t e m e n t has no r e a l f o u n d a t i o n i n

h i s t o r y , and t h a t S t . Cyprian'" and i ' i n a i l i a a ' were n e a r e r
the t r u t h when t h e y i n s i s t e d t h a t n e i t h e r of t h e p a r t i e s
1 . Ouehestie, ISariy Hist* T o l . l . p 4 3 9 - 5 C .
2 . The Council of T r u l l o l?2) In i t s second canon s a n c t i o n e d
the r u l e of r e b a p t i e s defended by S t . C y p r i a n , b u t only for
the North A f r i c a n provinces,.
3 . Benson, Cyprian } p . 4 ! 4 .
4* Ep*75 ( ! ? } .
Prim. G a t h o l . p . S ? ? .
b. Sp,
? , 3 p . 75 f5-6. :
W {
1%
oould claim a p o s t o l i c authority* since the question under

d i s c u s s i o n was an e n t i r e l y nes? one,
This sts.teaent i s
s e l l supported by the f a c t tha.i Kovstiarij, who also rep

resented ih# Romn,n t r a d i t i o n , sad in i t s most cons8i*ati
a s p a c t s toe, was so d e f i n i t e l y opposed to Stephen's p r a c t i c e ,
file schisms &t Hippolytus and .HoTatiaa are c l e a r proofs of
both tendencies e x i s t i n g i n the Rosmn c o s a u n i t j i'roa a very
e a r l y date-.
Further discussion of t h e i r comparative value
does not cose within tm
scope of t h i s esây.
13
/TW^:
Sot f i l l
S t . Cyprian's words a a # i i h e r does any of as s e t himself
fcfap:
Ihfyfy*'
9^7^
yp
a9
bishop of bishops" are u s u a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d as
rfarming to Stephen's a i i e a p t to cosiasad o t h e r bishops, and

as#d us one of ta# c l e a r e s t and s o s t unquestionable proofs
t h a t th-o papal d a l e s dated from as e a r l y as the Middle of
tee t h i r d century*
t h i s opiaioa was held by Archbishop Sensoa,
Cyprian p.S?0 '"Obvio&sly St* C y p r i a n . . . i s alluding to

S t . Stephen's haughty a t t i t u d e asa to h i s t h r e a t s of excosauni*
eatla w |
P u l l * r , 'r*fh Primitive S a i n t s " , p65; Kidd, "History
of t&8 Church" Oi*l*p,ie- Caspar, w G*aeh.des Papsttuas :i p.9l

fftxsii "Cathedra P e t r l " p . 179*
I t i s very carious t h a t only
some a x t r e a e Ros&a Catholic c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s t s t r i e d to i n t e r p r e t

the s t a t e l i e s t differently*
thfcir reason he l a g t h a t they wished-
to a s i e ta -conflict between S t . Cyprisa and Pop Stephen

appear l e s s acute, eiae i t was ifieoispatlhi i t h the high v@aratla in which the g r e a t Bishop. s i Carthsgs was held by the
Hoaa'a ^ s t a o l i e Church*
fh^se a t i e a p t s were made by Abbe Freppei
S t . Cyprian (Paris 1665) p.*%
sm. by Dr. Potrers-,-
dee HI. Cyprian", i?pp.5?5-l6.'
S!
Die Lehr#
But they nere âhesently
contested by other scholars, i . e . Benaoa,"Cyprian" p . J T , Note.2 .

and P u l l e r ,
P r i s i t i Saints* pp.72-??.
fhere- e r e , 'hmrerer, very strong reasons f o r believing t h a t

the accepted i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r passage i s due
to ial sunders tending, and t h a t S t . Cyprian's so Ms wer& prism r i | r
r e f e r r i n g to himself*
The meaning of tfaea i s as follows.
I f t a r a reference to Bishop Jbsiaaus { l e t t e r ! , St. Oyprlaa asks

the bishops .gathered fTOIL various p a r t s of Africa to frankly
Mw
&$mm $&#Sar -mstimimm #i#trMlg t&e baptisms nf ittreite

He says;
I t remains t h a t upon t h i s w r y matter we
s&mld severally b r i n g forward wliat we think* Judging a#

a , UQT reiwriag aayoae froai tlie r i g h t of coommios,
i f Jas ahemld iMaJe d i f f e r e n t l y frcaa as.'1*
f a r t h e r * lie goes a;
Proceeding
for iieititey cises anyone of us s e t
himself up a s a bishop of bisbopg- - -ft
{see pp,#.%}
I t i s quit obvious t h a i St.Cyprian tr&s afrsîd ih&t

bishops irsuM not be c u l t s fxmik,
fee
aad that runoure had
spread before t h e opening of the Council, to the effect

t h a t the p r e l a t e s gathered t h e r e would, tee t e r r o r i z e d %
ssrasose ishe claimed to "be t h e bishop of bishops-
'the
question then a r i s e s T?ho t h i s person coy&d be,

I t seaas to aw* t h a t the generally accepted
theory that i t WHS St Stephen i s q u i t e untenable for the
following; r e s i s t s s
a..
Stephen "aa obviously unable to pun lab. i n d i v i d u a l l y

tlie bishops gathered a t Carthage.
fhus there could
jset be ay p a r t i c u l a r l y reason for a s i a g l s bishop to

be afraid t o say what be tttoaght*
fc,
If i t waf $ttp&a whtii S t , % f r i a a had i s mini* then

i t become iBeompyeheaeifele t h a t the general d i s c u s s
ion of fee r e l a t i s a feetweea Some and Africa did not
take p l a c e a t t h e Council arid that Cyprian did s o t
mention the lessan "bishop by asse*
1* ifigne ?.XX1. X003*

'Hartfl 2* 43,
OB th co&tar&sy
*3
t&re i s p l s s t y t @vi,#aee ife&i Cyprian
d e l i b e r a t e l y avoided, any discussion: of t h i s side
of t h e controversy -
The Council d e a l t
exclusively with the baptism, of h e r e t i c s , hloh

was a l o c a l Afrieaa problem, and the treatment of
Hit lapsed, c l e r i c s * which &u a point of content
ion between Raise and Africa was a at discussed.
. '
I M s p e l i e y was the n a t u r a l outcome of %ae offence

which Cyprien took a t Stephen's r a ^ e c t i o a of the
broihexlty i n t e r v e n t i o n of the preceding Council,
and the African bishops obviously decided to
ignore the Bomoi bishopf? as long as Stephen
continued to disregard the honour and u n i t y of
the episcopal c o l l e g e .
fhe*6 0011 si derations lead us to the conclusion
t h a t t h i s sentence cen only r e f e r to ">t- Oyprl&n himself.

I t Was he itiid not Stephen ?*ha had been i. eoused of being
the bishop of 'bishops,
and he fesred t h a t h i s
c o l l e ^ u e s would for that reason f e e l the-saalês unable

to voice t h e i r t r u e convictions in M s presence.
l!ksre
i s indeed p l e n t y of evidence to prove t h a t 3t,Cyprian

had r e a l reasons for aiifcao cashing h i s colleagues to speak
wlthsmt tear*
S i t Church of Carthage, under 3t- Cyprian 1 a
gofemaent, m e f u l l of eare f o r other eossnamitiess
1,
In h i g r e f u t a t i o n of t h i s charge Cyprian
poeeibly had in mini the rude conduct of h i s
Bosun colleague aed t h i s exmmle gave a s p e c i a l
power t o h i s ardent defence a g a i n s t the
i n c r i s i t u a t i o n s launched by h i s enemies-
mA :h#lf#i then asipanissoagly i s t i n e s of di0tr@@s.

A breach of ocmasanioa t?ith t h i s r i c h ana i n f l u e n t i a l
C&arefo would saaaa a, g r e a t deal to. other African
congregations? and the hiahop who had provoked i t
might e a s i l y he dismissed by h i s people.
This
expression eoiild also have another msaaiag f o r 3 t .

Cyprian*
He was t i e p r e s i d i n g "bishop and a l l the
o t t e r s were h i e g u e s t s , wlio received t h e i r ca^muniora,

daring the s i t t i n g of the Council* frosa h i s hands,
His words ahout s a o t r e j e c t i n g anyone from the r i g h t
of coBHauttion* had. a very concrete meaning i f applied to
hiau
Maifeoves' * St%?pri@B * s e m s t a n t and a e t i v e
i n t e r v e n t i o n in the live of other Churches, hot-fa i a
Africa and abroad t gave good ground t e h i s opposition
for acomsing h&a of pretensions to teg considered a
a.
bishop of bishops,
Bie opening of the c o n c i l i a r
dehates was, t h e r e f o r e , a most opportune sement f o r h i s
soleiaa d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t
tf
every bishop can no sore he
judged fey another than he himself can Judge smother. 3

I t was the favourite idfcea of S t . Gynrian, t h i s e q u a l i t y
of s i x bishops, sad h i s enemies Jmew w e l l t h a t the
omeXest way of calumniating hi WBB to accuse h i of
the d e s i r e of t e r r o r i z i n g o t h e r s .
A f i n a l proof t h a t i t was to himself t h a t
i t * Cljrpriaii wa# r e f e f r i s f a t fht opening of the seventh
1.
Spu, g ; f i #Si W ; ?*; f t ,
|U
the African e*HimItie# depended in raany r e s p e c t s

on Carthage. f iMs dependence m s not only
s p i r i t u a l , h a t was l a r g e l y due to the m a t e r i a l help
wM$h they received from there and i t gaw g r e a t ,
althoagh iiifornaX power., to the Mshop of Carthage.
Especially i n s t r u c t i v e i s t h e s t o r y of as actorr e l a t e d in p.2* whoa the Carthage eoisrranity
consented to" support m a t e r i a l l y which was beyond
the pwer of M s Church.
Ste l o c a l African opposition to St.Svpri&n w,as

very strongs e Bebapt. ( i : i o ) * "-*' "'"- U - 2 ; .
AP S
Sfe^"
Council* can tm found i s a ssaparisssa of t h i s speech

u i i h t h r e e e t h e r quotations from M s e p i s t l e s , r e l a t e d
to the eaae controver$y i s a l l of "which i3fc>2ypriazi
uses snob, flie ssaie words to r e f u t e the seê charge t h a t
lie had t r i e d to fore other bishops to accept M s
opinion*
I t i s q u i t e iisprlale t n a t o t . Cyprian
woald suddenly apply to h i s opponent Stephen
the
i d e n t i c a l phrase that he had already oa three occasions

used, of himself.
A eotsparisos of tê texts c l e a r l y
reveals thetir complete analogy.
II; e only wanx ^fkich.
# s e t appeasf in t e a ttnrte cpai&iio&s
J?B
the
e p i s t l e s a r s r 'a bishop of Mshope** .but they would

. im,m fetes as ut of place there a s they s e r e s u i t a b l e
a t the ope l a g of the Coipiuil. '
However* t h e i r
absence in sa way d e t r a c t s frs the s i m i l a r i t y of

meaning hettm&a a l l these t e s t s .
jp7 {3} to
Stephen.
la which behalf 'We

n e i t h e r do Tioleace
to nor impose a law
upas anyone, sin of
each p r e l a t e has? in
the administration
of the Church the
free exercise of h i s
w i l l , a s he s h a l l
gitre aa account of
hie co-adust to the
Lord.
* . p r e s c r i b i n g t no
oe so a$ to prevent
any p r e l a t e from
determining what he
ttiinks r i ^ h t * a s he
s h a l l give an account,of h i s asm doing t e
the Iksrd.
Ep*?5(SS5 ta Jubaianus.
Seventh Council
1 h&T b r i e f l y
II resa&i&s t h a t
upo'.a t h i s same
matter,we
should ever&~
l l y bring
forward what
we think*
judging so taaa
riQv r e j e c t i n g
anyone frasa the
r i g h t of
cosfcitmion i f
he should think
di f f e r e n t l y
from u s .
w r i t t e n to yc|E . .
p r e s c r i b i n g to none
and prejudging noaa,
ao as to prevent any
m of the bishops
doing what he thinks
vrell, sjzd having the
f r e e exercise of h i s
judgment-
For n e i t h e r
doss any of us
s e t himself up
as a bishop of
bisaops,aor by
tyrannical
t e r r o r does any
cdfapel h i s
colleagues to
the n e c e s s i t y
of ohedlsiee.
3ut l e t us a l l
tyaii f o r the
Jfudgraeat of
aar Lord Jeeus
Christ.
fd.M
fhe same eamriciloa
urns Q3Cprooe& by 8t Cyprian during the
O-oitfXict provoked by
the mii-swf&I o r d i n a t i o n
of lovatia,^- aee
Up, 58 (21' .
t h i s p a i n t has a g r e a t h&'-ring ess the pi-ohlea of
Chuifch
unity*
Sis l a t e ? h i s t o r i a n s $rm
se êcustoraed to
consider t h a t only t h e Bisiliop of Bosae could po&atbly c l a i a

a u t h o r i t y over other bishsr-s* t h a t they er-g unable to
lta&gie Gircisustsiices ia which the Bi shots :f On.rfcha:-:'? ^
s i g h t a t t a c h , cj.id the Pishcp of Hone defend* ti^s a?irga:t
fresh inte-fpr^t'-.tiftn of 8*, Cyprian'B %?rdn not only helps

us to understand the t r u e sour-sip* of exeats !& tiie h a p t i s a a l
ecH&trovexsy, "out a t '1H5 sane t i s e w a i l i i i a t e s one of the
l a s t legends about the existence (ft t h e -napel claims in
the Church before the fourth century*
<
$7^~
Note.IX. 9**/-//.%f*.W.
It is very instructive to follow the gradual changes
in the application of the C M Testament to the life of
the Church.
Especially important Is the use of the
f ajaous ' story of the sudden death of EG rah, Da than and

Abiram* whose case was held by all Gstholle writers to he
the strongest proof that G-od punishes the leaders of
divisions and. schisms*,
St. Iren&eus for instance writes %
"And the heretics bring strange fir, (Lev.Xfl) I that is

strange doctrines, and shall be consumed by fire as Ifadab
and Abiud were*
They who rebel against the truth and put
others against the Church of God are to be swallowed up

life Pa than and Abi'ram, (Iiia.Xfl.35) while they who cleave
asunder the unity of the Church shall be punished like
Jeroboam." (l Kings X1.10)x
St. Cyprian uses the same example, but lays a diff
erent emphasis upon it.
"For even Koran, Da than and
Abiraa knew the same G-od as did the priest Aaron and Moses
a***.,.*,,* yet because they transgressed the ministry of
their office in opposition t Aaron the priest...... they
immediately suffered punishment ..............tt
by which
example is shown and proved that all will be liable to

guilt as well' as to its punishment who with irreligious
boldness single themselves with, schismatics in opposition
to prelates and priests.
St. Cyprian's ideas are further developed by Optatus
biahop of Melera (4th cent.) one of the main opponents of
the- Donatists.
1, Adv.HlV,262.
2. Ep.69.8
.3. Ep.69 (9)
"God to whom schism is displeasing could

not see this and let it pass,.,
u>^Therefore Clod was wrathful with a nighty wrath en aeeount

of the scbistt whieh had been made* sad what Be had not
dose i n punishaent of the s s e r i l e g i o u s and the f r a t r i c i d e
t h a t He did do l a puniabsent f s o h i s a s i i c s * * fhe opp
o r t u n i t y f o r peasnee was denied then aid withdraw is, f o r
t h i s was s o t the kind ot Bin t h a t should d@&-rw pardon.
fh e a r t h was eesss.n&ed to turnger a f t e r i t s f o o d . . , . With
i n the space of a moment the e a r t h pmd to devour t h e e ,
seised h e r ' v i e time wss shut sees again, and so t h a t they
s i g h t not sppsar to r@ap any b e n e f i t from the suddenness of
t h e i r death* i t was n e t allowed these sea sao were unworthy
t l i v e even to d i e .
Of a sudden they ware shut in, the
prison of h e l l * asd were buried there before they died.

"tod y e t you (the S o n a t i s t a ) t e M t r t h a t something of
s i M l a r s e v e r i t y fees been dome a g a i n s t youf yen who e i t h e r
cause o r approve sehlsm.."
All these t h r e e write re t r y 'to supply the same story
as a proof t h a t h e r e s i e s and schisms are condemned by G-od.
But the s p i r i t i n whlen they do I t i s very d i f f e r e n t *
St* XrenaetM i n s i s t s on the general idea t h a t a l l "whs rebel
a g a i n s t the truth, and put o t h e r s a g a i n s t the Church of God"
w i l l fe punished*
the'Old Testament examples are only
I l l u s t r a t i o n s of the t r u t h f t h i s a s s e r t i o n .
S t . Syprian progresses a. s t e p .
Be s u b s t i t u t e s for
the rise described by S t . Irenaeus *i,s a r e b e l l i o n a g a i n s t

truth* another t r a n s g r e s s i o n which he c a l l s opposition to
p r e l a t e s and p r i e s t s .
t h a t he speaks of
,5
t h a t i s aore i a p o r t a n t , however, i s
the indignation of the Lord ff! sad thus
intreduees the idea t h a t Sod w&n he possessed by our human

1* Optatus CDs Sehlss} 1*31.
5 . p. 69 (6)
m.t]
passions of hatred sad wrath against His seaies*-
Ms
Idea, 00 fjaailiar i a the Old Tstss#nt* had disappeared

in the Vm, h s t i s again. r@ssuseifcat& in the writings of
Cyprian and siueo b i s tiii# fens gradually spread over the
F i n a l l y Optafctas draws a l l tha- l o g i c a l esaslusicras
nhieh follow i'rem S t . Cyprian's sfc&ti&point.
Ha gives a
very elaborate and ispnsssif p i e t u r e f" &ci*s. wrath and

vengeance, and -concludes witli an a s s e r t i o n t h a t the suffer
ings 0f schisffiaties &r@ approved hy God Himself.
fhe gulf M-tw@a tfa s p i r i t f Ireaaaas (end of the
sseeat century) asd t h a t of Optatus (second half of 'the
f e a r t h century) i s eisormeus, but i t &B be bridged when w
plae# between ths S t . Cyprian who combined i a h i s person
thB eI@ssJ3.iii of beth tbese periods of Church l i f e .
fi/ot*.J_ tf^-h/l. ^ I/O.

The Spiscopats
and the Sarly
Councils.
Hgr. Batiffol, la *La Paix Constantienne8*

raises a very important question as to the constitution
of the early Synods.
Be is very emphatic sa the
point of their exclusively episcopal membership.

for iastanee, is describing the "beginning of the
third century, he says that with the first breath of
freedom allowed to the Church hy Alexander Severus
1.'
(222-235) synods of hishops were convoked in all
.2.
3
parts of the Chureh.
A little further on he
describes the following characteristic; of these

early councils.
:H
%e eoncile sfest pas autre chose
que 1'eveque* avec son autorite et son prestige \il

est l*eveque en pluriel, il est an 'eaeerdotua
4*
V
\
sollegims.*"
This definition of the constitution of
the councils does not agree with the evidence of
contemporary documents.
.for instance, the synods
which discussed the paschal question at the end of

the second century had not an exclusively episcopal
1.
KIdd. Mist, of the Ch. ol 1.pp.350-351'
2.
latiffol. La Paix Constantine p. 88.
3-
Satiffal* op. cit. p- 89.
4.
St. Gyp. Bp. 60(6),
"I
St'M
membership.
We have d e f i n i t e knowledge a t h a t
p o i n t , a t lea?% as f a r as: the synod over which

Iresaems' presided i s concerned, for kg was probably
1.
the only bishop then in aml s and he wrote h i s l e t t e r
t Vietes 1 "is* the name -of the brethren in G-aal over
hm he presided. 3 1
'ftis* same I s t r u e a l s o of the
Ecsan synod over which, Yictor p r e s i d e d , and which

was' composed of the Roman congregation.
If we turn to t h e t h i r d century we find the
presbyter Origen discussing and deciding the ease of
Bishop Beryilus a t a synod, for which-purpose he m s
s p e c i a l l y invited to go t o Bostra in Arabia*
0
'
, k
Ana then,--finalXy, we come to the famous
synods of Antioeh assembled on account of t h e heresy

of Paul of Samosata.
t h i s example i s p a r t i c u l a r l y
s t r e s s e d by Mgr. l a t i f f o l who r a i s e s the questica as

- to who could have convoked these Antiechian synods
which were d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e i r own bishop.
In
accordance with h i s OWL theory of the place of the

episcopate 'in the synods, Mgr, . l a t i f f o l decided t h a t
the i n i t i a t i v e in convoking them belonged by r i g h t
to the bishops of the diocese of* Antioch s but t h a t
they, only sumsoned up ecur&ge to a c t a g a i n s t t h e i r
Metropolitan a f t e r h i s \eondaisiatien by the Bishop of
Borne*
J t i s not a t a l l improbable t h a t Bionysius of
1.
, g.
Bus. H.B.Y. 23.S.

Eus. H . I , ? . 2 4 . 1 1 .
$.. l u s . E.S.7. 23. 2.

4,, Bus. H . l . VI. S3. 2-3..
.
Op. c i t , p . 102.
Row published some t r e a t i s e a g a i n s t Paul of j&iio<&,

a s did M s aasssake of Alexandria ,
although we
ttoBs^sg no cle#r evidence of ih sotiatenae of such a

writing.
But whether his wrote anything en the
grahjeut or s o t d-eeis n o t a f f e c t the s i t u a t i o n ,
for
a e i t h e r Is c a r the neighbouring p r e l a t e s had anything

to do with the conYoc&iisn sf the synod.
r ,?
. n hare
p o s i t i v e Sarsosrlsdge tb&fc ihs* i n i t i a t i v e in t*'U@ case

was tail:^;*i 'by the i3G;-:I Cui::.,uiii <;y sf h s t i o e h ,
asd. is.
p a r t i c u l a r by the proebyterss âlshiya cvid Lucius

i?ho êr< t*e cMs*? 'iccasers of i h s i r liehcrn $yid
Vr>se signatures *.ve i;i& under the synodicc!
"thus iier'i erjair. ihare i s clec-.r striileGce of

ihn rrh-r^ct aacrharahip of tho e<urly synods, and ne -say
safely a s s e r t timt there i s not a s i n g l e tjuesticmable
proof of the c*?:if'f.c:'icc of cut exclusively episcopal
syacd dating e a r l i e r thrji th@ fourth century.
The
episcopal synods wsre introduced fey the Samoa

3-hip cigars* and the Church, during nci: independent
e x i s t e n c e , did not Know t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n .
i.
Thla problem i s d e a l t wi,th "by E.Cusp&r

Uesch- des Paps&BistB (tkh 1930}. He gives the
l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to i t . pp.579-580.
Bxs. E.E.YIX.30.S. ^ e s e a t fors muh c a l l e d laasy

of the bishops from a d i s t a n c e .
J2M
M&J&.... f%*J-/''/t-fe'/7j
leadership
of the
Councils.
Th% history
of the Councils of the f i r s t
quarter of the fourth century i s s t i l l l i t t l e Iraonna, "mt

Bosiue 1 leading p o s i t i o n i c tr&eeatle s t n i l 'f.sse
synods.
At l l T i r s . Ills signs, tv.re ss tends sn>a^rA OH the
l i s t 0* bishops' naatoa, clthough lie m s ilxm a

comparatively young p r o l a t e -
His ua-,:usstioaaSl8
iaflu@fi.ee upoa t h i s nyneci eat? bo deduced ^leo frost the

f a c t t h a t he "tfas the ualv M shots of ?i*:ti"ot Lon who
1p a r t i c i p a t e d i s i t s iroxl.
After l l T i r a noiliiag i s knows, of the evasts
of h i s l i f e except t h a i M s lafluenee pn the l i f t of
the Church v-'as apcr.r^ntlj a t i t s v -eiht At the time of
tne eîsccoel tri.t'J.iir.li? a t "crac en5. Arlc:; ;'';lw*l4^
Although i t isa a l t c s t cerT~..x tlipz *.e -_ K'jt personally
pxeacut a t i s l e a ,
yet -title ssyn^d ot?r foully acted under
his- d i r e c t gaiAam.et.
-e har the following proofs of
it;
(a)
the a s a t e imired f t l f f o r Mm hy, B e a a t l s t

l e a d e r s ho considered h i a HB the cause of t h e i r
3,
defeat a t Jloiae ana s t Aries;
(b)
tlis f a c t t h a t the theorist of n i v i r a were

carefully studied by the bishops a t -~rlee who
accepted ten of them;
|e)
aad that Hosius *?&s the person .-soat l i k e l y to

help Cosstantlne in the nomination of the
1*
His r o l e a t t h i s Council i s described by A.Bale,

The Synod of SlTira'M-ondon 1862,pp.S3,57-59, 6".
2* ', i t i s eascisaiiy believed thtit Hosius could not

hare been p r e s e n t a t :-rles s i n c e he &ceorapcaied
Cons tan t i c e on h i s cai?aiî giii:asv lueinue (014), see
D*ose' s a r t i c l e s la "A Dictionary of C h r i s t i a n
Biography" Vol. i l l , p . 167 {Loritt*m 1882). The apposite
opiaioa of Saeclc i s s o t supported by o t h e r s .
I& Seecic, w Me Anfauge des Biatisoais S! lck38,5*505
3* August *Contm E p i s t , Parses hie . 1 . 0 . 5 ClC'" aad 0 , 3 .
(13). Sigae P.I..7S 001,40, aed c o l . 4 8 .
Jf.
Matia>f# t o t h i s s & t b a r i n g , s a d t k p r e p a r a t i o n of
Suregram*
' u&i t i l l s was m
its
m s o g p o r t e i by 0*Se3*8
s u g g e s t i o n f t e t tlie f i v e docmsasnte rel&tir*;- tc .-.rlsoaad p u b l i s h e d by r - a s a b i u s ,
r e r e brou^'.'t t o tV-.s '-F.st by
Hssims who l a t h i s e a s s was a l s o
certainly t ^ s i r author.
4,
At l i e a a a Hosiu* i s a g a i n the le- Svzz fi(ire
I t was c a uite t j a t u r c l t h c t he should L;,V pr:3".'.t' ! d t h

va.iar8 ;,f Arlo& t o iiiQ ^ - a t ^ e r l o r of tLcj ">;H,a:!rc, bisliops-,
Who s a n c t i o n e d feu of &,-o f o r us 3 in h*ir Cr a r c h e s
H o s i s s ' iociissist r o l e a t Sss*tiie% rsests a s s t r e s s i H g f o r
f i f t e e n of i2i twenty
fesons
wert proposod 'by aim.
flie
foil-owing t a b l s of ctssaparisoaa islwsrs t h e p a r e n t a g e of t h e

Canon of t h s e e f'eti;s* syri.f3e,
fiiey wei*e asseffib.l#.a lit
f i i r i o a s oqfitn t r i e s , w i t h p u r p o s e s w h i c h ' h a d ?@ry l i t t l e

i s seemon.* and liiiief widely d i f f e r e n t
y@t t h s i r a f f i n i t y i s s t r i k i n g ,
c i r e t i n s t & n a e s , and
Ttm only l i s l e w a i t i n g
tlnem was tli p t r s o u of Hveiiis,. and t h u s ws M ? e m:3ty

r e a s o n f o r a t t r i b u t i n g t o &ia t h e u t i i s t i a a a b i @ laderhi;
of a l l tlaesa isyasda.
S.
0 . &eek M# Attfasg. Boo&t."
p.5XS,
$.
S & i l o s t . I9
7
Suip.Sev*Hi&t.3&er XI .&&. 'Jiie&e&a
Uynodus &mt}t03?t
i l l s (Hosio) eanfects. b.s.bebaai2*.' :
3 . ' fflbws I m p e r i a l &cres of secondary iitmortvwries mere most

c e r t a i n l y n e v e r eosgtoaea by t h e Emptta&& t k c . . s e l v e s .
>.
"Les s&aons fie &tea . . . sesibieiit p r o l o n g e d e t

completer c a d f Aries. 1 * B s t i f f o l 2*a Paiat C o n s t a n t ittierxa* a t l e C a t h o l i c i s m * ( P a r i s 1914} i 3 ,545.
3?33.
jfifiM, i^msm)
s i ta,n#ss
ABX3S3 (314)
g Caaoas
J&
T "^
8XCABA iS2s;
I f Canons
SABDICA. (34J
Si- Can one
a-ceepteS %- ifisaea cocf Ircted a t Sari

If
I |; I I
**wr^& &
J&fLX'JL.
IT
T
'
J3wl**k4a3~
mi
TX
^ X#i
T1H
M^S^W
n^^S'ViEir
.AJL
34QHT
jjt
XT
xn
* w - i S f ,oS>-
?
XI
XTII
Xflll
*"*<. #' j L JL. JJ*
TfTSt
XXI
IT
TX
XT
11
JLX
XXI2
3X1
X?
I,
JttJms th$ p&s&h&l l e t t e r of S43> H^f .lefeE.Goais.X. 805.
Sf
Wote^.'-.Constfinttne and the Papacy, ib^r^.
r-.. i3a
^w-ffni.
MRP
"L3. i I O i ia
XI
J ^ c ^ \
"is Paix Ocas taxi tisane, H writes J 'f,Li
catholique a l e d r o t t d l u i ( i . e . a Oonatantin) t e n i r yigueur

d'&Yoir trait eeitiae i a e x i s t a n t e l a pristaute d 1* eveque 4
f?aieHl
And a few pages e a r l i e r he had remarked; "Constaatln

*
/ .,2
aeoerde peu de p i s e s s l a Fapaute."

these observations are unite t r u e .
When Cons tan t i n e
appeared on the seen,tbt losaa cossaunlty, which had played

such a prominent r o l e in a l l church a f f a i r s of the third.
century, suddenly abandoned i t s piece to the Emperor*.
this-
s t r i k i n g cliaag caa hardly be put down to Gonstantiue's

d e l i b e r a t e efforts*
Oa the contrary, h i s e c c l e s i a s t i c a l
adviser Hosius was p a r t i c u l a r l y keen oa maintaining the i n

fluence of the Reman bishop.
The reason f o r t h i s evolution
i s probably to be sought i a the complete change which the

.young. Emperor brought .about i n the .relations between the
C h r i s t i a n eairaQitl@g
As we havt seen* the C h r i s t i a n brotherhoods- had s. very
intense s e l f - h e l p o r g a n i s a t i o n and the Homan Church stood a t
the head of i t .
Tarn r i c h mosey g r a n t s which Cons tan t i n e
offered to the churches without doubt affected t h i s side of

church l i f e .
Those who needed help now looked for i t to the
imperial court r a t h e r than the ae-st important communities* and

thus Hose i n e v i t a b l y l o s t f o r the t i n e beiag her a t t r a c t i v e n e s s
and s i g n i f i c a n c e .
I t was not long., however, before the
Roman bishops obtained preeminence again, and to a degree rtiicfa

would have surpassed the imagination of t h e i r predecessors,
But t h i s increase of power i s s due to s ne f a c t o r , the rats id
d e c l i n e of the Roaaa S t a t e i n ih west* which coincided with
the next period of church, h i s t o r y .
$--.
W' s j ^
c i t . p . 360.
J6.sr
.:;iE:ii- ^ * '
Sis &m%mM
of
information,
*$)
ThB documents r e l a t i n g to the Don?11st schiea

ea be diTldei i n t o four groups.
i
Biose p f t s s r v ^ i by BiAsetoius in h i s E c c l e s i a s t i c a l
History, comprised of fif@ Imperial l e t t e r s addressed
t o various persous-
{Sec. H i s t . X., 15-
Yil.)
Sie a t i t h g a t i e i t y of these do a g e n t s i s new mo quest! on

-ed*
Professor Seaelc
put forward as i n t e r e s t
ing gaigpgtiea t&at a l l these f l w 1 s t t a r s w#re

brought I tea"Mm-M%by H^siu irtia was probably t h e i r
anther*
ii.
ixro chapters pios*: X. 44*45} from the ijg|
C o ^ y t ^ i t l n i of k u s e a i a s .
Alilieaga they do s o t osmtaia
any origtefti &Q%nm@nt&i the f a c i a r e l a t e d in tiims, a r e

probably t r u e ,
i l l . flit most Issjjori&sit soiree, i s the ojleeiion sf
o f f i c i a l aoosmtfits ooa&eetgfd itli the frequent l e g a l
suits. mad o#ti"iaal d i s p u t e s between t b t Catholics s&ad
the Uc-natists*
Of t h i s we pâaese a t present sly a
re.1a.2jr.fc, lUiIcii has fcee*i preserved i.ri oue of the ."DC.

4.
.. ee&tury manuscripts of Op t a l u s ' work, the so-oglled
5.
. 'Colbextimis {1JJ 1*1) ax* P a r i a i n u s (1711)
1.
Tkvmm!, 2r BeuJbtsiluag d@s Bon'atismus 1895,p. 15*
2.
Sefc& ^ u e l l s a imd UrJsu&den ober

d i e lafang^ des Penatisstas,
E#itseh fur Kircliett Oesofe 1839, B.X.p.4;p.518.
5.
Seeei: op*c?it, p.56?
4*
Dushesae, I s 2?ossier du Boriatisa, Hfelanges

^ A r c h e o l * ^ d ^ i e t o i r e 1890,XII,, p,93*
5.
fsxt i s gives i s 2iwsa appendix t o Cptatus liilef^
->7>
fft$ l e s t p a r t s of the c o l l e c t i o n Ja&Ye "feee-u
r e s t o r e d "bj fB-siouB h i s t o r i a n s fôxs the quotations and
references found In the c o n t r o v e r s i a l w r i t i n g s of
Opttatus sad Augustine.
teis
c o l l e c t i o n , which i s the p r i n c i p a l aouret
of our information, i s a t *>ia aaie tin tbe most

questionablestate
ITat only does i t l a d e , in i t s present
sam of the raost docisiira documents 2nd contain
only fragments of the o t h e r s , but even those documents

fliisli ar-5 included h*ve poesilsly been i n t e r p o l a t e d by
the one party or the oil'iar*
i t s p r i n c i p a l docuasots
according to Bachesae's r e c o n s t r u c t i o n
had "been the
following &ct ^zd decrees.

AgJtf! ,^l.?g^.SI.rl-I??..Ca^cill^n.i -
i-
Seaophiltxis;
(Q)
|b)
(a)
C-octa apud
Acts of the Ccmncil of C i r t a ;
Synoital l e t t e r of J>oatist 8oua#il a t Oarilia-ge
a g a i n s t C&ecilisn i l o s t ) ;
Consteutine;
(e,
(d) .^juliaus' l e t t e r to
'.."'.tie f<onstist apr-a^l to Constant in <
(f) Congt&ntlne * it l a t t e r to yilt.i-a.des;

r e p o r t to Uonstauiiin u o s t } ;
tribunal,
(lost,;
(i)
(J; Proceo&ings uf Sunomius and vlisipias in

.
iigta .guygatoris . f e l i c M ,
/a to Aeliiis ( l o s t ) ;
Probismis;
iii*
(h3 nets of the Roman
Oonstaniine*J l e t t e r to û&elius
Africa | l a s t ) *
il*
(g) Aaulimis 1
(c)
(b)
(a) L e t t e r of Constant,
oor).stsiin s s l e t t e r to
Acta Purgation!a F e i i c i i s .
S p l s t c l a e Oonstaatini l a p e r a t o r i s .
S.
Up. 5 , Yoelt&r considered t h i s c o l l e c t i o n
altogether* spurious, but he tfsus contested by Professor

1,
Duchess* e Dossier du Uon&tiaa, p.628.
g, Day tfrsprung des Bcwiatissras {Tubingen,1683}*
0. Seeeis
irtio &e:fnd tlit a n t l i e a t i e l t y of the
Aata JrurgationiSj wMle denying that of C o n s t a n t i n o s

<& .
letters.
X-. Daeftesne
went efen f u r t h e r , and, aede
gm &ttn\rt to prove tfeat a l l tbg documents "bear signs

of genuine o r i g l a .
Bat i M s p o i n t ef view I s not
eousaenly accepted * and tre-ifeaent- of these s e t s

therefore* r e q u i r e s g r e a t caution ano reaertre .
Sie c o n t r o v e r s i a l w r i t i n g s t lies selves-
Sliey can
foe divided into p a r t s , (s) w r i t t e n by the Catliolics,

(chiefly by Gptatus and fey *3t. Augusti.ne ?;
(b) or
by ths !Don&ti$ts , (these are preacr~ecl only in fragathsgte -.frltiags nre Tery importert for t55e -a&d&r
standing of trie dogpatiecl p o s i t i o n s &? :?% opposed
p a r t i e s , tot tliey contain very l i t t l e h i s t o r i c a l
m a t e r i a l independent of the f i r s t threes sources.
fists t&ey have' only a sssooclary importance for our
subject and *? s h a l l mite chiefly tliasa documents fsaafi.
in 4i* writings of Sus-mlas- or attached to the iforlc of
OptatttS*
1.
b e l l e s use* tiriamcien uber d i s Anfaisg ties

JDoaat issms, p . 56 ? *
Hef-Leel. H i a t a i r s des Coacilea. (i9;,-?l: "Vol. I .

p27S* note 2. B a t i f f o l &"a T'aix Const-ant-P^ris
1914. pp. 273-3.56.
4*
!Bgrnes IK the- r e c e n t a r t i c l e OR OmstwS,

*3ie Journal of fhe Sheoi.Stud. V.36. 1924.^.44
i n s i s t s on the a t t t h e s t i e i t y of tk \7hole
collection.
S*
2ae review of the polemical l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d

t o the S o a a t i s t schism i s given, In o.Bardsnhtna?er
weseJi a l t - 0 i t s r . i l l .1912 pp.466 498.
M3%
SsteJ
fit n a t i o n a l ohar&ettsa** & the Poa&tist s-oiiisa find**
i t s further csanfira&tioa in trie folôwin^ f a a i s ;
1.
fiie Dos&tists were never able to exceed the êogr a p h i c a l l i m i t s of l a r t h Africa.
I t i s true tnat
i s 318 they ordained a bishop of t h e i r own ir* hoine,

but the party t h a t supported hi was eospoiaecl exelusiYeiy of imtiTea of Husaidia. x
11*
The BoBstists wgre always comp&r&iiYely %f&k i n a l l

those p a r t s of I h r t h Africa vmr& the Latin population
e x i s t e d i n considerable numbersT. and t h e i r stronghold
wag ifiisiciia s .tfh&r th@ h a t i n sleae-at was a l s o s t com
pletely absent.
111. fh l>osa t i n t s alirayii supported th n a t i o n a l renroltts

agai&sfc Rose,
l a the l a t e r period thsy becaa
Identified- ttl-tb the greis&elIiiEiu whose' main ohjj&ci

.'i
#as the crter throw of the Romas power."

In t h e i r f i r s t petition, to Constantine they requested
t h a t they should, he Judged hy the Gaulish hi shops,
asd aot hy the hishoes of I t a l y vim would n a t u r a l l y he
h e t t e r iaforisea &% to en4itie>fls i a Africa.
They
explained t h i s deisaiid an the girsuad t h a t Gaul not

hsia^ .suffered from p&rsgeutioa* her bishops could
s o t be suspected as
fcra-diiers.^
But t h i s arûsusat
was not s t r o n g , for shYiously there were a l s o u s t a i n t

ed -bishops i a I t a l y .
The 5osa.ti#t in r e a l i t y nre
aware that is- I t a l y t h e i r e a t i - h a t i a tendency would

meet with no approval, and t h e i r premonitions were
completely j u s t i f i e d by the heavy blew m i oh they $st0&&tf
. ^ ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ , . ^ ^ , ^ ^
1.
2.
3.
Ho* do you 8Xplain9 Optatua ashs the hoii&tists. that

your party has "not "been able to possess a Roman citizea
as hishop is Rome? Opt.Be schist 11.4*
Spar.Simp. St. Augustine and Mric.Chnreh divisions,p.,2?
Optstus, 1.(28)
33
if
Sot*ji fa^tM- i&fC*>f'
ilYeater
Bie&ea.
Ttm belief that Pepe Silvester had'the ssaie prominent

role st lieaea as the later popes ased to have at other
oaeiaaiea-i eoimcils e,s very soon spread soth in the e a s t

a a i in the isest.
Sufiiius in M s Sc<?Iei&ticsi History
s t a t e s t h a t the f i r s t Go-umsii was oon'voic&d sx sacerdotua

p
s e n t e n t i a l SB& the Sixth Oecmaenical Council p l a i n l y de

c l a r e s t h a t Gosst&nting and S i l v e s t e r aSiBioi*id the bishops
a t Siesiea/'
Nevertheless tea these iaat irgportant w i t
nesses i a favour f t h i s supposition are of l i t t l e value.

Riifisus does s e t hring any do-cuss&atal p r o o ! of t h i s a s s e r t
ion, which isdeed i s not confirmed by say o r i g i n a l document;
and the statement ss,d@ by the father' of the fcfixth Oecumenical
Council i s compromised by t h t f a s t t h a t they s i s o oeiieed.
t h a t 'the ieeusd Oecaaae-sisal Council a Gonvoinsd i s the saae
maaaer fey tm I s p e r e r and the Pop i n Goperation with the
two P a t r i a r c h s of Constantinople, aregury and l e c t a r i u a *
"This is- gush a f l a g r a n t mis-understanding t h a t i t becomes
obvi-ous t h a t the f a t h e r s Q the s i x t h council jaad so ad
equate Knowledge of the h i s t o r y of the previous oecumenical
ls
The o r i g i n a l deîaae-nts 6&no&ri*bj l i c a e s reeal

another p i c t u r e of tin? o r i g i n of t h i s council.
The
naaiaoairiii i t was tshan by the Bianop of

1. See Kef. h e e l . l . v . pp.627-652.
2, Ruf.Kist. B c c l . i . l . o . l . Miê.P.L.t.XXi&oI.4S7. 3 , l a c s i GOB. At&pl. c o l l . I.Xl.c1.661.
J ^ ^ ^ ^ #*-&***.
4, Further discussion i s Kef. L e d . 1*405-407.
8.
Some1 Jisr Wv %m Glim&h in g e n e r a l s 'but aoleiy fay tiie

Staperor hiiaslf.
This fundamental fact i s uiiE,aia,ousI^ eon-
firmed >y tilt witness of a l l tiie early ai&ircli Historians'"

The S i l v e s t e r of h i s t o r y arid the ^llveafeer oi' legend are
two ery d i f f e r eat p e r s o n a l i t i e s .
Tiiey are compared ana
aese-rr&M fey 1 . Caspar* fisia. etea P&psfciuias pp. 125-150 and

he euphssises the importance cf the legendary o i i e s t e r for
the hisfcery of the Church.
Abb f u r s s l T h i s l o i r e au Uoyê ac l r * ^ r . > . ,_,.il->16.

g. Eus.Vits Const.111.6,
So-cr.l.S.
. Sos.1.1?.
fhedd. E.2. 1.6.
H
It
~&-^pL.
let &
The Nicene Coiiaoil is usually described aa the first

truly oecwmsnioal âtiwriivu the hesx manifestation of
brotherly eep@ratia Set** sen toe eastern and fcstrii
'bishops.
A study of' -&h@ list oi' western delegates do$s
not support this view,
At the most is Included ine follow
ing prtlatess 1} Kosius Q Cordova 2} twe priests repre

senting the 3ishop of Reaa&} S) Caeoilian of Carinas,,
4) Xarc of Caiahris, 5} Hearse e* hiJOB, 6) Dossus ol*
Siridon and ?), Yry doubtfully, Sastorcis of Milan.*1,
This iisb is very strihiBgt,
It is obTioualy in
complete as tar a a the real representation vf th western.

episcopate is concerned and at tiie sense time the choice of
nsiaea is tern deliberate to allow as to consider it as merely
indicating th*l presence of soms western questsftiioiâpi/ened
by chanes to be present at an eastern ay nod.
This pus&lin^
setter can be and das bean explained in various ways
xhe
followinp solutions ha baea proposed: a) taat Urn hishop

of
.RQ&SS
in the, person of his locates represented the % astern
Episcopate*
This answer i& o&Tfiouaiy inconsistent with
the ideas oi" the fourth, century, and it is contradicted by

.the presence oi the other westers bishops, b} That'the
western "bishops "ere not interested in the ipaestiona dis
cussed at SiG-aes and therefore did not appear at the Council.
1 . "-.eT.T&ci.^ . o i t . *<'-!.l.p ^.ii._

"Ve.t.,ir. d t ^ i ec f c , *e Gaii trf.ee only seven Bishops PM.
ti.e bet. , c h . .
fc/fi
discussion, G ) That Geastantine did act intend to IASY^ the

"is eg tern bishops there*
Shis last explanation; iits ia ell
with the enthusiastic aeeouGt îen by lusee-iys of the

Council.
For M & aeeeust of ail the OQun&ries rueressented;
at lioêa refers exclusively to the eastern provisoes recently

acquired hy Const an tirts frciat.LiGinius*
The diocesea
mentioned'by BuseMus do sot s*/rcd iarwA; .at,
u than
7hr&ce. Macedonia. Aerials. and Eîrus, *~

But there sure some weighty erûments a-ainst this
hypothesis.
*h chisf is test the decisions made at licaes
were applied by Gens tan tine and by his successors to the

whole Church and the presence of the snail sesters delegation
wv
This last point possibly brings us nearer to the solution
of the question.
Eosius and Constantino, as it seeiag. sow,
preferred that the -astern hpiosopate snouia be store

sym'&oliealiy than really represented at lica&a*
The list
of aaesibers definitely produces tnis tnprossion,,
It was
composed of Tlosius himself,the author of the council of

Cs.eculian who was entirely dppondfcnt on' Gonstastiae'?8 pro
tection^ ox two Rosan priests who -were reduced to silence
'by their siioordinate Mer-areslcal positioa4 and. by three or
four bishops of uaiiaportast sees and rather insignificant
personality.
Thus it appears that the idea of western
participation was pr'8or?#ds "but its practical application

for soae reason or' other was carefully avoided,,
A further analysis of the causes ox this policy would
lead us into too vast a pro's le.
one mm link
But tnis iacicisst is only
is a long chain ox various indioatione that is
the west ths idea ox a new font oi church ôverraaent. cea~

ceifed by Cosst&ntin and Eosius yeas psrnas.smtly confronted
hy a strong opposition, and at the time of Sicaea they doth
"becasi^ &.&r of ths fact.
Tim sisail episcopal attendance
at Aries* sad the 'western ohurcha&f. policy of' iynoriny its

decisions ar< two of these si^/is, of wnioh the cast of Sicaes
is another not less significant.
.Further expressions ox* the
same tendency can toe discovered atfe&rdicaaim at the testers

councils which followed.
There is nothing pnssliiw in the different attitudes of
the eastern and western bishops.
The est had always been
9 ^ ff
acire res erred in its admiration .for the imperial di-sity"*
jh. C-L*-*k ^ T J -
than wa the asst.
lor0#r m had Buffered l e s s in the êL^tO i
persecution and i t ws-s therefore n a t u r a l t h ^ i hr shuuld naTe

been l e s s resdy to accept the order sanctioned by a hc-thfcii
easpersav y
I t was unfortunate that 'the hisene Council v/aa deprived
of th r$a-l asd res>>onsisI p a r t i c i p a t i o n of thy noatarn
iuti Uii
goYerniaeiit ismeh criîruibea in
"GII
s^.st anz, s s s sroupax tiioace s
was accepted by tan foice ox a fe^nod composed. -sxcxuiLavely of

eastern C h r i s t i a n s ,
This f a c t provoked aiary f i t t e r isisumder-
standiaga. in the l a t e r h i s t o r y of the Church.
!r,sr i s a
s t r i h l n g inefiiisistesGy between GoESiaxitin- s s e p i s t l e to the

9
cliurchfes" declaring tae u n i v e r s a l character of tee oiseue

decisions., and the ccunplete ignorance of t h e i r content d i s
played toy the leading ve&tt-rfi. Ghurch&a throiipivoiil uie g r e a t e r
cert cf the h i u ' U . j&XvturyT
W13& $&*?<& i&v%y&&&
Z#H'
W W 3p ES
I*i*rs3
IX
iTC -c*r CJl^.Ti.1 bX\,->-^X t /
ôix ^ x *tr e~*x^ .
o C t '" -I .
- u c -CJ*- X-.2
^r02uv
"^ * J v 3 .
^?xC
+-*~
^r
Hote I f m
(Part III,page 66)

Th# dootrin&l d e f i n i t i o n accepted a t l i e a e a
i s often described as the g r e a t e s t triumph of the true

f a i t h , as though i t alone presered the Church fro t-he
f i n a l victory of Ari&sissi*
The poeitiYe âiê of the
Hi ceoe ereed as a f i n s and unequivocal confession of the

Inearnatioa i s of course imqyeetiooabls fros tha point
of view of Catholic Christianity; byt a p a r t i c u l a r
espbasis 33. the v i c t o r y asbievsd at the licen Oouneil
an eaaily bring about a e e r t a i n izzisimdersianding of the
nature of the Ohttrsti asd of her p a r i i s a l a r s l a t e at the
beginning of the fourth eentiirj*
Spcfe an a t t i t u d e
presupposes eitteer that- the Ghiireh cSid s o t possess before

the Council a sound teaching about the Incarnations OP
t h a t she w&s in serious danger of aiio'Wir-s her orthodoxy
t o be contaminated by Arltis and his p a r t i s a n s .
i53.j. i/UKSi.'
of t h t s a suppositions csorreson(is to tl)

<us r e a l i t y of t'a
situation:.
The Catholic Chursh had so sore i n c l i n a t i o n
to recognise Ari&niss? as her t r u e doctrine i s the fourth

century than fes. in the preceding and succeeding c e n t u r i e s .
Th&t i s c l e a r l y Bhovm by her episcopate sshiohj, as long as
it regained free fros direst coercion by Statw officials^,
nuserous
seêr accepted t h i s erroneous d o c t r i n e a t any of i t s
/
councils during the fourth o e n t u r j . *
fht? O&ibellQ Church
would hair professed the t r u t h of the Incarnation 9 even

i f the idea, of the Council had; never been born in th
g
mine; of Gonstsntin* and there i s a. deep significance in
the fact t h a t the Mieese creed s which was tae cause of such
acute hatred asiong the ss-aibers of the Church* w,3 evsntts&llj
forgotten, and another creed of imhncma origin tool; i t s
plB.se in the l i f e of the Church'
1. At._.".a.xi?<3.irIII. 36
i . Tne IIoY^tisniatc, ?;nc <sre not f02 j-d b,/ , 1
accept \-.rl-u5 . ' c o t ^ l i a i f-r-t.C-'. B r c i - j , : ;
w.ie zain idea of thx Mc*?ne cr&cd P~ \,"x i.r.s'Ii ii;;:-2
i a ^ o a l i ^ cf tn# Ciurcti ."-..ch oat
5. Sarnaek, Histor. of Bogsa* vol.Ipp.97Ogo
-The personal insistence of Constantine
upon the form
of creed finally accepted by the eastern bishops is a.

question of great importance in the further aeYelop&ment of
the conflict. - Kusebius' letter to his church in which he
1
defends, before his- congregation, his signature under the

Micene creed, throws a strong light upon the state of mind of
the eastern bishops after the close of the Council.
writes:
He
"fhen these articles of faith were proposed there
seemed to be no ground of opposition;
nayf our most pious
Emperor himself was the first to admit that they were perfect**
ly correct and that he himself had entertained the sentiments
contained in them;
exhorting all present to give them their
assent and subscribe to these very articles.,*"'
Proceeding
further., Eusebius gives the theological explanation of the

term "homoousion* as proposed by the Emperor, ana ends his
letter with the following sentences
"Such as the philosoph
ical view of the subject taken by our most wise and pious
s
sovereign;
and the bishops on account of the homoousioii drew
up this- formula of faith,"

It is most important to note that the authority on which
Eusebius tries to rely is neither the scriptures (for tne
crucial expression was not biblical) nor the tradition of the
Church (for it was rather againstVsfesrfe) but the will of the
Emperor who, by his wonderful gift of charm and persuasion,
succeeded in convincing the bishops that they ought to accept
this new creed,
1. The letter is preserved by Socr. H.E, 1.8,
VJ
2iote xVi;
Athanaaitie
and the unity
S- tr"
iT
the Church ireaerated ^t. hthanasius ,~
. , ^
ner
of the Church. best teachers who consecrated ids vhoie life to the de
fence of her principal doctrine of the Incarnation.
Both the service he rendered ana his turbulent life are
unique in the history of the Church, and Ct. athanaeius
will, always eeiarsend the gratitude and admiration of
Catholic Christendoa. fie stood for the <yxe&t truth of
Christianity,, he was able to see further than most of the
other Christian leaders of his time, ana he reco^niêd
danger where others failed to detect an/ cause for anxiety.
Considered from the point of ie% of Christian
doctrine Mhenasius was one of the best leaders is

Chris tendon:. Cut the life of the Church is seeny-sided and
if'we study hi in relation to her unity ? the part which
he -played in the fourth century appears in a different
light.
Ke committed two ^reat Ki&tahes.
The first was
that he misunderstood the state of mind of the eastern

"bishops.
^hronehout the vdiole of the first part of his
5
f1
3 trine"!* ^-' mtil his third exile he was convinced that
-they isore all. secret Arianisera whose unique aim was to
introduce this heresy into the life of the Church
But
the InseMans in reality were simply conservatives who
^mm^^mM'-^&m^js^^îJM
^"hioh he.d been used tiy tr:eir fatnrrs*
theological lanauags
Their desperate
struggle e.yeinst the Sioene definition was far More as

attempt to hinder the 'extension of the supremacy of 'the
Alexandrian see. than an expression of their heretical
tendencies.
tf-l
struggle for the general recognition

represented by the lioeae
love which is the life-blood of the Church, tiie very p n n^Crp-Le
of her existence,
la his nettle he Identified uliaeelf wxtii
the faith of Sicaea.f and the opponents ef this creed became

M s personal enemies.
pellinp trosi
In pursuing his unique task of ex-
the Church all those h expressed either opp
osition to* or even doubts* about. the hlcene hexini tlo-n, he

beeane entirely forpetfia. of the main principle of Christian
f ellinmilp , ntaaeiv unanimity.
Atbanasius was a san ViliQ never used slander or court
intrlpae apalnst hia adversaries, hut his tenperarest lad
M r : Zu have r^couê ce coercion, end h was liable to lose
:li brechcM, f .iiri jofe'ax'ds M a doctrinal yônents,
lived rn that, transition perioa ot hwren. Msrcory mmn
He
tins
Roman State offered Its sirord for the defence of Christian

fellowship, End ha was- tha first ^r&at leader of the Church
who readily availed Maigeif of this weapcn.
Only pxaduislly
did he h e M n to realise that even essential Improvements is

the exposition of Christian doctrine cannot be enforced, hut
must Ins îlliuply accepted by the members of the Church,
The first half of his episcopate contains aarsv treble
violations of this principle.
He started the persecutions
of the anti-nic-ene Christians in Egypt.

>i
Defeated M
Tyre.
e tried tu use the personal influence of Constantino apalns
the eastern oishcras,.
After Canetaiatinehg death, hs returned
to Alexandria. with a latter of protection from the western
i. &ocr,i. c-4.
ft?
1,
Stop ere r Constantirjo II and c-nttiiweil tlie ?a;'ie sLggressiTe
policy against h i s f o s t e r a d v e r s a r i e s .
Xvn^llai for the
second tiiie, he succeed *<! to procuring the ^support of it*,

West against t h * Sasst^m bishops, ,-îd ?t?s wcard rste.ro
was an even more "bitter challenge to the P e s t th~s h i s
first,
In h i s trttggl e fee Intoudsd in th l.f* nf the
oth@r Sast-ew dlocoaoe ana, contrary to -11 eustoia

oria.intd bishops i s Syria a f t e r hit
he
second e ? i l e .
I t was Atbanasiiis, anit not the " t ' c . ? b 5 ^ s s who

aired th* f t o a l "blow p.t t h e s c c i e s t Church cyder, mii thus
lie prepared t h t ^ray f o r the isrc rj.rs? systems of Chvreh sinity,
the papal tsonarehy I s the 'fest and the irusgrihS s u p r e ^ c y
in the 1>-Mt.
He *Xs pretTt{ct tins f i r s t E<?riou& b a r r i e r
between the tô parts of Christendom, for th f l r * t formal

schism dividing th< East -?J:5 the Test whirls r e s u l t e d froa
thn Zjvaicil r f "-trdte: "'r ^ pr;*^]-^** h;~ hh;
JH* l-x^txry .:f 'I-c ?htir<f~ :xriiri,il*s *;r.ny l^c t r a c e s
of the fact that those of har l a a d a r s -who were e s p e c i a l l y
gifted in m a>pfmr% af h#r lit
r e s u l t s In o t h e r s .
often caused d i s a s t r o u s
Tfcia paradox i s gsrtsrally s e t s whta
Chursh l e a d e r s asv- too pr-scion^t* in thfh.r s t r u ^ l e f o r

t r u t h irhloh they -~er^ shle *o r? '-ad xm&âre of the slew
.&ad orgeats Afvslopsisat o-f the body of the Ohureb*
St.
ikthaasaias is .m& at the s o n t s t r i d i n g eascaaipl of the gooi

a;:sl the feed t h a t t h i g type of Christian leader i s able to
feisg
1.
i s t 0 -tins l i f t of tfet Gatholie Church.Seer, I I , 3 ,
fer I I . .g4.
5.
Sjs.
22.18,
HOTS X?>
'30&4
/r.%ft>T
final
The Council of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e was t h e f l r e t synod t o T?hieh
-ablish
i t of
t h e Emperor sunsaoned,, n o t a i l t h e b i s h o p s , b n t only those !!of h i s
3 ifetr-o!
LI t a n
own. f a i t h . "
The b a s i s of church u n i t y -was laid, do?m by Taeodosii
3tee
and the bishops were ootcisisslonad sorely to elaborate tae details

of its applications, confining ihesssives to the lisits of in
imperial ordinance
the establishment of the aetropo-titan system*
las Council ot
lieaea in Canons -IV,V,VI,VII and XVI;had already attempted to

introduce greater precision In the relations
between the sees*
But Its decisions remained Ineffeetive9 and the Oonnoils of

Anticch { 550-341) ana of Sardiss (343) re devoted to the
difficult task
of Introducing order Into the chaos of eplaoopal
conflict* As is have seen they failed9
and throughout the period
fron 325*331 It was oornca for ,*_o :cp" f

dioceses to play an oollve -.rt
,-
.;..-,
n to- - .^n:.. ,.
their colleagues with irtioia they disagreed/
- o
-
The Council of
Constantinople took a step forward for it gave,, in the second

Canon* sore precise definitions of the various ISastern dioo8ses9with a strict injunction' that the bishops should control on
another only within the strict limits of thoir own provinces. But
It Is probable that these decisions would have been as ineffective
as those which preceded! then., If Yheodosius had not supported thes
by the promulgation of a special law.; that ths ohorchao should he
placed In the hands of those 'bishops who wore rocognised by thfeir
Metropolitanse la this way 01300,031 equality as finally renounced,
and the holders of the principal BOSS at last obtained an ffsotlvs
! . Socr.V3
u
S e "Die r e c h t l i c h a a V e r h a i t l n s o a I n n o r a a l b d o r E l r e h o warsn i n d e r
Mitt dea 4 J a h r h u n d e r i e Boeh^dyaoea a y s lm F l o s s e nd In d o r f
Blldung h3griffen s % w r i t e s a (^gKiiSi^S-sraan scholar s H,Caiapen f
nansen.Ambrose von Ifailand* Berlin. 1929 P19
"*
*
3 "Then "fee ? a t r l r o h s were c o n s t i t u t e d and t h e p r o v i n c e s d i s t r i
b u t e d , so t h a t no b i s h o p s s i g h t e x e r c i s e any j u r i s d i c t i o n over
o t h e r a h u r o h 2 s . . e f o r t h i s . h a d h@en o f t an i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y dons
before." Socr.V.3.
4 . C.Th.XVI.1.3.
51.
means of ioisinatlsa r the r e s t of the bishops* Tseoclostus 8
proved -&a eoxue sllsaatroua for the u a i t j o.

the f i f t h &a5
Liootediag e e n t u r i e s *
rise l a s t ffiattsr of IK VstO W&UW

O&nes.
SSs.fi
WV.ui.aiiis..
Ai!
t h e A s i a t i c blshopSj, In tlaalr a e s l r e to
taira
i t l i j.Uii**5
of t h e b i s h o p of Al<*xan3r&, * 2el&r<&<3 the ses
t o be seeo-:a a f t e r Rose.
fills thirds Cae&n play
in the h i s t o r y of the System ChareSu
if
I t was t
b i t t e r r i v a l r y between the "bishops of Const "' . ^-i.*.*

'*
who wcyle s o t - ees~t the- <s 1 _-/e, of - u /
hindered the f<zrtic*i of - i r i r - ^ ^ r i ; , . ^ .
*> <t% 6f *r* * " > 4? = i
W? J3, V-
U -+-C*V
os 1 *! ^ j ,
< i( -* va, ~ # >W - s ^ a_-rf"to*' < t f W
- i .
"
-' J
7O^^H
3 v ^ *
?l3Vi1
<C w U i .
S**
v ^ *
'. a
M2MJ2JU
(Part IV.pa&e 6)
flie history of t h i s creed I s a. s t r i k i n g x l i u s t r a t Ion of til organic development of tw llf~

G&urch.
Acoordlng to coasoB t r a d i t i o n ,
of tiis
x,tm aeoond
oecumenical council av,proved and anlargvic! tlie Nio*?ne

Greedy ana tans provided ta Caiiiolio C&uroh a l t h I t s
present d o c t r i n a l formula wlilsfci is^ I t s e l f no* popularly
.called the Mioene Oredt or the lfisene-Go.nstantInopoIit.aa
2
Creed e Modern sclaolars
are agreed t h a t t h i s cr^cd a.j^s
not belong e i t h e r to the- Coun

3onstaa.tInopl^
but t h a t i t i a one of the gas'
baptismal creeds* probably t h a i used .by. tna Gbaroa of

Jtrryaalts.
I t was o s l j in the f i f t h century^ * i t a tu?

as
recogn.ition of the Council of Constantinople
osouna
t h a t t h i s creed began to be called Constantino-olltari,

In the sixth century i t was already rsooepiisad as LO^
baptismal formula of the Eastern Cay robes.
:-".-unicn J i a s a .
Almost at,
Siaco iat titce tfiie ereca 2sss bocr:
regarded as t h e &u&h0?3&ati.vd dxpesitica if tis v a t a i c i c

faith." i t has o o r y l e t e l y replaced t ! original ..iaanr
creed* wfellst aoquipicm i t s imis,
l . i
-JOU.* 3^-J . J l i
t . I I e col3-{ P 4j4
" "iO .i
'
S3
mm mil
fliecHJosi^s4 a c t i v i t y in
eodosiws'-
nesiasti
leg18*
tion aiisS
s effeets
on t h e
9k&r t/< iHs-M

S!!P.n
*jI&'b
6 i ;
every year of h i s reign prcifiaed Church a>icl S t a t s w i t s new

chiefly iirectecl against
ne-fTti?
i S i i
U S S
Aii
i i i o
l i i n i (
<Stl
proiaet Ooristian u n i t y a$ roiiowee two s a l ;

a) he tried
t o paralyse t h e a c t i v i t y of t h s
..xayiiiit*.
ehiefly by resofing t h e i r r i g h t c ., ,:_

&) lie pensiiaefi the Bori^-isasliolic J : ^ f - . ,,
of .tiieir c i v i l privileges
; r!v;-?-ciaDortaat laws include the f^_
y
February S8tH39o,
by ^
is ioiatiGS oi' t i e &iin law ?;

jaas3e e%uiTalent t o saorilej,
-* - .
rights- of Rosas
Qlizmi<.i"
receiv I#gaeig.was ta,^*the saia mm I absent was S i f l f i ^ !
ana rspeatea i n 594?

gP i n t h e srstjr ( t h e 1-.*
^ ^ 1 s^J ' .
to. tills prohibition of Cr.^c; s Ji-J^ ->

expelled fros a l l office.} - t i . ;-t;::1
Especially seere p e n a l i s e
who ulsheS t o r e t u r n t c
?-=> '
.-4 ^ .
- i i a -'-
'was pa.bli3H6 by ftasodosius iû by ;ls

Aisosg t h s l a s s a f f e c t i n g th ^ r ^ v - s i ^ i
was that of 3<3i. forbidiir.*: I. =:
i s the cities^** ana the ;:.rd
H -> X
. - it
(July 25ta and September ?. i

nw o r d i n a t i o n s .
- '
->*>
3, *
a J&auar-j tlst*554
1 I A M 0 4
t-atr
CIe2 4 2.S
t C.7hsod*XVX*2.25.
2"7 . e-"a fa#oaXi.5^?l
7*
snÛ
.^.-5 nnr ; ; , ? 7
iW^tC
01
Sii
n
aar&tiesi bodies wer ordered t o lea'? Constant i s pis,*
wag .reiiafereei i s 3^9*
fs prohibition ox' or-ainatioL:
taea was rspsatesS afresa. Li ':',,"" j?;2

specially oraalaafi t a a t ice ": .... a. - **-r
suffer Seattle
-a- 3
-*
'-,
la a.
Lri ?'-z
At t a e sase ti?ae Ttiesdosius publlsfeec! a s e r i e s c

r e g u l a t i n g ttae l i f e of tfete Catholic Cfaftiraea
sas a
Hs gave e^riaiB
p r i v i l e g e s to issif clergy and es|5sislly to the tioldero of t a t

leading sees*'
He t r i e d a l s o t o zh&Ck tb growing in flu en o^ of
ttae monks* uliom fa forbad to come s e a r to tag e x i l e s s *
Special
r e g u l a t i o n s were Iasu?i aa to the staolo of sêrsons for cr%Iia

atio;"
l a 390 &@ a w a oubllsbea & special decree dealing, is.
p a r t i c u l a r witti tlia sfaoice of iaoos@sae &nd s t r i c t l y

tlaeis t o cut t h e i r ' hair i v *
i-roalbiting
l u s t r o u s l a s s e e r s also auDliaiieii
against ta# Jews ana heathen itia ta object of stringing %mm

wi tills tlii Cat hoi i e &mrh*
fh 9ffsot of aueki l e g i s l a t i o n usas to flood tad C a r i e t i a a
aosmoaitles wltii converts* ' f iiia rapid spread of CSsrlsii&slfy
Brought about a p r e c i p i t a t e lowering of Ohristiaa standards* f a a i r
epy iBaaequate I s w l at t h i s t i a s i s well Illystratd b j tt&e
growing aggrssiss33 of fas Gariatiasa against th aeattissja.
PoPias@s
111 clergy a a i the monks were e s p e c i a l l y active? in t h i s
ctireoiioa*
0, e el --lea* 3i~-â
a,:d&ia.3i,
a : <c , - i ~i - :> ' -
of "iJoiîsri .-.ad *;laaiat,or3"\ ( - I - C J . ^ ; ,t,. ._v_
rsifiecl v i l i a ^ ; ; ~c.c c i t i e s xrs uls I-M-1 C*. -.:.- îj, jt . :^',:z. ,i

ka^t'aen tBipi#e
iâ
OB one ocoasioBs, b$ing unable to f i ^ a t t i a a e l f
IJSCS^S lie &a& gout*
fe atatieasii htissslf a t a d i s i a e e fros
ssese -f c a n f l ^ a oâ-ond the r s a s a of tim arroifS."
tm
H was
di&cver.~ t y -.*& ^.~.a .tn populace acd k i l l e d o j tiaes

ass a
Wwd
*-
v.
* few *>*i ,-t
**^
V-
i1
Wi
" ^
j.
-a-
* C -*
- ,L 3 ! -* ^ J
; . C.Tbeci.AJ-.
**** Uii1^
:--,V;
ii, - O ^ w
w-2- ^ L C ^ ^ *1 t -- J -
o f 'X1I. " I . I f I
-^ t* ^s ' u o i l o V * ( ^
'5T3t
determined upes avenging h i s cleats* -The Council of t h e proviso

however p r o h i b i t e d tb.es from e x e c u t i n g t h i s a&eigis And d e c l a r e d , . .
t h s y should r e t u r a thassfes t o God f o r having accounted h i a worthy
t o d i e i n ciisoh a oaiiae a 5? "
4 psyehologle&l g I f 5 < ; . ^ . - i c I :- S ,. ..,.-.- - zJ
c e n t u r y from t h o s e of t u t I'^t.'1*
^ i L..f - ^
, ...--"
.^, .:.-., ^
; : .<~
f o u r t h &&ntury t h e C c u a s l l of E l v i r a i n i t s dd Oaaeiis co-^desn^

t'a O h r i s t i & s e who sought t a s t r own d e a t h in t h e i r d e s i r e t o
d e s t r o y t h e i d o l s ; a t t h e ead of* t a e c e n t u r y a synod aeoords tlit
F i g h t t o p r a i s e sod honour t o & b i s h o p ~c- ~~.-_ - d~ - l = . i h of
o t h e r s , by u s i n g g l s i i a t o r s a g a i n s t t h e
.^d.*.... ;.>^.V--~G--
Th
h e a t h e n s however s e r e so r a p i c l l j d e c r e a s i n g in noaber ana i n

s t r e n g t h of r e s i s t a n c e t h a t t h e at*w n i l i t a n t s p i r i t of t h e
C h r i s t i a n l e a d e r s had t o look f o r asohhfer o u t l e t =, and I t
found
one t o a* Large e x t e n t i s antAgonis t o ih C h r i s t i a n s of c-th^r

p a r t i e s arid a a t i o n s ^ f a s s t o r y of t h s monks ^ho b u r n t 'the Chyreh
S
of* t h e V&l@nti&as
and t h e c r u e l deeds of Vm Don&tists i a S o r t h
Africa, a r e examples of t h i s raging, a n i m o s i t y *
fhus fheodosiys* e f f o r t s t o s u p p r e s s tu-=- d i v i s i o n s asong
t h e Claris J , . . ^ ^ hy - l e g i s l a t i o n i-wi--jscri t . t , v . t ' ^ s
l i $ and d*~:.ircd t h e ground f~r - - î:di;*.-,; . 1 .--^rÎ
Oatholio Ohitroh which* a l r e a d y i n la f i f t h
S. iasbr.Bpa.XL.XLI.
:ia^
o&r>iurys d e s t r o y e d
t h e u n i t y of i t s l a - s t e m p a r t and mM% i t a h a t t l e f i s l d
n a t i o n a l i s t i c p a s s i o n s arid th eo^P&ti*
;?! . . : . ' ; ; :
for
,^.?
ft
Sot 3QCXXX.
Ambrose of
Milan and the
Imprer
fheodosiua*
(Part _CT, page I I * )
In the l i f e ' o f the Sburcfe during the fourth

century a snifu place belongs to the 2-5 years of
'
1*
the episcopate of Ambrose bishop of Milan* (374-597).
He wag almost the sole prelate of this period who was
able not only to resist, tbe state's ..intervention in
the life of* the Shurch, -but even to exeroise moral
control over the omnipotent masters of the Roman
Empire* this success is generally explained by the
xeptional power of bis will and bis outstanding
gift of statesmanship* . Although Ambrose
indeed
possessed .tbe@e qualities yet. be bad to faae so many

different oirotsagtances anei. t deal with so various
rulers that the personal ability of Ambrose seems
barely .enough .to account .for bis success.
Moreover
there were bishops of tbe same period as strong in

character as Ambrose.was and wbo possessed diplomatic
capacity ipial to his.* but none of them could rival
,
tbe bishop f .Milan in bis defence of Ghurch inde

pendence.
Jaabres*s' writings .and actions reveal tb real
source of bis power itfeieh derives from tbe ancient
ideas of unanimity .and, mutual responsibility, already
nearly abandoned by tbe other bishops of that time.
Ambrose as a true Bttoan was naturally inclined towards
conservatism and bis conception of tb C&urch and of
'! A resent 'study of its importance can be found in
lv fV Saspenbausen.. Amferosius als Eirebenpolitiker,
Berlin* If.Si*
2*
Such as tbe Emperors ration and Taientinian the

H a d , tb Empress Justina.,' tb usurper Maximus
and finally fbreodosius' tbe great.
n
h e r tinity i s n e a r e r t o t h e ideas of the t h i r d century
tlian t o those of M s 01 time*
Thro'ogb ail- Ambrose*s writings- and a c t i o n s there
rE8 ue. dominant i d e a , t h a t of the profound, unity of
t h e members f t h e Ghureh, of t h e i r 'interdependence
and mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , ' ' Bach S h r i g t i a n i s a p a r t
of % r i s t * s "body, and t h u s ' h i s l i f e i s interwoven with

t h e l i v e s f h i s fellow hristiansu
If i s saved by
PI?
0 *
t h e i r prayers* and h i s s i n s a f f e c t t h e i r s a l v a t i o n .
A few f l o t a t i o n s will- amplify t h i s doctrine*
He w r i t e s
f o r instances - *Si pro-oaMiifems r o g e s , osaaes pro t e

rog&Dent*
e t Ah#)
S i "ftiides i t t u i n omnibus esm

Ur agains
(Be Gain
* Christ granted t o His Church t h a t
one should be redeesied by means- of all*
(Be Poen. 1
i l l . 80) *I*@t'the Ghurch our Mother weep for you, wash

away your .guilt with her tears**,. . i t pleases (Christ)
t h a t many should e n t r e a t for one.
ClDe Poen* I I . 10. 92)
If@ (a- r e a l C h r i s t i a n ) would r a t h e r be s l a i n for o t h e r s
than live- for himself # because. Christ died according to

t h e flesh for a l l , t h a t we s i g h t l e a r n not t o l i v e for
ourselves alone**
(Be E s . - F r a t r . J3l
I was never
wholly engrossed i n myself, b|it the g r e a t e r p a r t of each

of as TOS i n t h e -ether*, (Ambrose i s speaking h e r e of
h i s b r o t h e r ) *yet we were-each of us i n Christ in who
i s the ishole s8<- of a l l and t h e p o r t i o n of each sever
ally** (Be Ex* f r a t r . I#6)
1- See ff. f '8spnhausa'p cit* pp. SS4-6S.
S# Ash* If* 4 1 . -{IS) c&rlst walks i n the b r e a s t of

each of.us : Beware then l e s t your conscience be
d e f i l e d , or yon thus -begin'tom s t a i n the feet of
Shrist.% Also Ep* 6.5 C8S) n the 'Gtmrch * * . r i o h
and poor, bond and free are one i n Christ J e s u s " .
S*
D e O f f i o , Misist* XIX*.8 i s .
fS
true organic unity among previously isolated and
hostile individuals is possible* according to St. Ambrose,
only in the Church, for God gives to her faithful members
the gift of a compassionate and merciful heart.
St.
Aisferose considers this grass the simait f the Christian

life and he constantly refers to it in bis writings.
Gosgpa&sion is the living power ifiieh welds the Christians
into ens body* aaad it is therefore the foundation of
Christian unity*
For this reason the possession of
tbig gift is especially essential for the priest, #30

Is the shepherd sad guardian f Christ*s flock,
St,
Ambrose* speaking of Aaron and the Christian priesthood

in general.;, gsya-s
'Thus Se Hisself (clod) hose Aaron
the, Bisjh Priest that human assfeitios sight not sway the
choice* but the grace of ted, II voluntary offering,
no tallng ufn himself* bat a heavenly sail, that h
might' offer gifts for sins* .ino could have compassion
a sinners** lp* 65. (4S)*
fhus the priest is the man
who, putting, aside all his persona! interests and am

bitions* gives himself completely to the service of* his
flock*
St* Jasbros expresses this ideal-ashen he prayss
*rast that so often as the sin of any on ?& has fallen

is made taaoim to e I say suffer with him**
8* 75.
Se Poen, II,
fhe priest is the father of his floors* and he
saist be.vaiTBays ready ô offer his body sad soul as a

ransom for others* snd 'Without fear or hesitation he
1*
Ep. 4 0 . (S>j 51* (12)5 SS(4)| 6 8 , ( 4 8 ) ( 5 9 ) ( 6 1 )

(108) Be Poen, I . 1 . ( 3 ) .
ff
And f i r s t grant t h a t I s a y know how with inmost
a f f e c t i o n . t o mourn with those who s i n , for t h i s
i s a very'great virtue*
P Poen, I I * 8 . ( 7 3 ) .
"Let us**,aourn ifoen we hear t h a t one has perished
for whom C h r i s t died*. Be Poen. I I * 8 , (78); I I .
10* (91)
2,
"A P r i e s t must be open t o cesspassien" Ep* 8 5 , (59),
8.
m Safcyrus, 1 . ( 1 ) ;
65(59).
tobr*Sfc.20*(8S)|
lp.XL.(8):
jri
aust bey the voice of M s Master, proclaiming His

truth to ail alike without regard to dignity or position.
This conception of the Church and of the intense
'unity of her Member was the aource of Ambrose*s power*
In his teaching the limits of individual personality
seem t; disappear completelya but his life shows that
the results' of this- identification of one's omi life
with that of others enable the personality to transcend
'only such limitations as hinder its true development,
and to provide an opportunity for the full expression
of everything itiieh is best in human nature,
'Viewed in this light*feahroaefsepiscopate affords
a striking proof of the power of the ancient conception
of the Shurch 'liaen tasted in the trying circumstances
of. the fourth century'
Ambrose was able t face his opponents and adver
saries only h@oa.nse he had behind him the full power of
the 0hareh,
fie was chosen and approved by/*the people,

o
and thus ailed by Sod Stiaself t o h i s o f f i c e .
He devoted
h i s l i f e e n t i r e l y t o the needs and sorrows of h i s

fellow-Members i n Q h r i s t ^ W jfe had a'genuine sense of
t h e corporate' l i f e of t h e Ohurch.
The s e c r e t of b i s
success w a s ' t h a t ' s p i r i t itiich had made t h e C h r i s t i a n s

v i c t o r i o u s over t h e Heathen Rmism E s p i r e , and i t was
'A
equally irresistible in the struggle against tfefe Christian
rulers ^fvfe&^fipgife1-*
But it was a secret itiich was
soon to' be lost to Christendom for though Ambrose was

admired'and venerated as a pattern of the true Christian
bishop, -yet his -example was disregarded by the contem
porary Church, and her development proceeded along other
A. uuss *
1* JkMbr, Ip* 51(3)?
m{2)-
S. **For being about to offer for the people the priest
ought to be chosen by th@ Lord and approved b the
people sp* 6S{$9),
ID
5ls deaths f flseMnsius | S t ) sad Aasbrese (39?)
nark t h e end f the stcesi? h i s t o r y e t3i fcmrtfe eentarj*
fbes i w g r e a t sets tmm^f
^s-seption-all7
l&Fmi&@S3 plages i n &&$ ,stf3rf f C h r i s t i a n u n i t y ? the

first- aa 'tfe psesate2 s*' i t s isatiwsfbiei&X form 9 the
se$mi as th l a s t F@p&emr&&ttre of tb aeieiefii
p r i n c i p l e 0? tiiaardrdtj?,,
There i s an i r o n i c ^rirv^-z
In t h e i*a*st t h a t i n -all tbe c o n f l i c t s bet?*;or. t?i.n

I t was Asbroee 'who sr&a the v i o t o p , anC yet t*:<3 rj-iv::
nfticls g s ? e ' b i s b i s power wsg Soosed.f. and lie iras the
isfeg-t Msfeeis nbs insderatcie-a i t s uriicp importance ihr
tfes right goffiaest ef* t h e titturtib*

Archives Zernov Doctoral-Thesis 1932

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archives Zernov Doctoral-Thesis 1932

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

X

(& n i t t t f o f the p K M n s o f Cfeordh

o f tfa# fetsrtit oim&sry),

Jmong the various tasks that demand 'the attention, of

a tendency to consider it as one of the key problems, without a

years have been remarkable for particularly intense investigations

This latter fact* however, has not been'^recognised in past

This method,' valuable though

-^sd-:i#':::that^-*as~so-f-oraerly no that there

'fMs- %& must* m&ww Qtesflf

wmli&$&. nsw when t h e r e

I g i gjpevlss. andtaHraianfflUag CKP t h e e e e i s i iBpZioa&ions

*ttiis haa- s M e t h e cSsristiasas aware

odf fite aed ffcr a resb *p$f*M&l* t # the- preblsm of

t h i s period has a d i r e c t bear

i n g !t^B t h e risii0S siOTameat t M a f * for Sirring those

ilsi a t the s-arae

time t h e .groisii. was feeing prepaarei then for those

,fh# pages demoted- t o the lew Testanent

a s e t r i s e -s l&stspet* tssity. a r e not -Intended a s a s p e c i a l

Opera. Pars. I-TI Ed. So&enkl.

Epistles. -A Library of tire Fa there.

AMMXASBS MlieSLLIKJS.f^,^**^^^^ /J<&W./*//

M . B. Xoimg. . London, 1862*

AGIBLIBS (VXGtOS SlXfSS).

Bletorlae Hoaanae Breviarum de

Ed. Schottius. Antwerp, 1579

pera Osmia. ' Ed. S. Haltel. Vlndob,

Ed. SoUartg 12. f. Moiaasen.

Heransg. T . |F. Sbwartz.

Beftttatinis Omnium MaereeiujB.

L i b r i ^uinqu- A&versus Haereses*

Ed. Brandt &

{ateneiliarum Osniuis Sova e t Amplissi^a

fie Sofaissat BonatistoruEJ.

'She t e s t a m e n t of eur Lord*

Die altesfcen due l i e n des O r i e n t a l *

l i e Qhr l a t e n t urn i n dem e r s t en &rei

A~LI? ISAf OS ( I ) Die k i r e n l i c h e Sestetzge"feung des K a i s e r s

Vol. I & 11.

La Paix {Joastantinienn e t 1 Catholicisms

he Eglaem,t ds Premiers Ckraoiles Africains,

{Both, i a the Bulletim. d*aaaoieiine l i t t e r s t y r e a t d*arohol.

journal of Theol. Stud.

Catholicism and Pap&oy*

and SiSSZEl. I*es SiinriYamess dm Suite Imperial

Zvtr, Amferoaius^fheodosius frage. Theol.

ffca Primitive Church and the privacy of

Jesaraal of Yh, St, Oct. 1924.

BAHTLIf {-J*. }.aud A* J. 0AIL1L1. Shristianitj ia Historj.

(Saafe. fsxt arid

Stadi@s Vol. 11. 1905).

fii@ Soolesi&etioal edicts of the Theodosian

Sew 'fork, 19OS.

leetures on .the Si story of the

Vol. I-I (is Russian)

Codsx Caaen* Seolesiae. Prim.

file SosmB See i n t h e E a r l y S h u r c h .

State Control of industry la the IYth

Cfb Pel. So* Quart.

?ol. II. S.}

Issai sur 1 cult rendu aux Ssspereurs

'le Quite Imperial | Son Hlstoire et sots

file Canons f the First Four General

odf fite aed ffcr a resb p$fM&l* t # the- preblsm of

{Both, i a the Bulletim. daaaoieiine l i t t e r s t y r e a t darohol.

BAHTLIf {-J. }.aud A J. 0AIL1L1. Shristianitj ia Historj.

Sisrt* Maae?*13. 19M,

P8ge0V$io]i &s& Tolerance

CI -st} i i (4 a) P a r i s , 191011.

&.&rcfcel. t d H i s t ire # F s s c , IY-V.

Her tea gang d e r pieeJaisGl2Snischen