CHAPTER VIII

THE COUNCIL OF NICÆA AND ITS RESULTS

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

Early Christianity was characterised by a remarkable intellectual

## activity, which was chiefly theological and philosophical. Speculative

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Gnostics[132:3] embraced various factions, mostly pagan converts to Christianity, which flourished in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt chiefly during the second century. Their ideas can be traced back to Philo's Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy, to Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, and to the old Egyptian religion. Knowledge, above all else, was the one thing desired. Believing in the inherent evil of matter, they sought to account for a bad world without compromising God. Jehovah of the Old Testament was rejected as the Supreme Being. They cast aside all the New Testament except the Pauline Epistles and parts of the Gospels. They professed to apprehend the divine mysteries. Some advocated asceticism, and others gave the utmost license to the flesh. All believed in the idea of the evolution of the world, through Christ, to an ideal state. Although denounced as heretics, they left a marked influence on Christianity. Gnosticism was so speculative, however, that it gave rise to many leaders and creeds.

3. The Manichæans[133:1] accepted Gnosticism minus true Christianity and adopted Oriental dualism under Christian names. Manichæism originated with Mani about 238 in Persia and spread westward over the Christian Church. Its leading principle was absolute dualism--a kingdom of light and one of darkness in eternal opposition, yet brought together by a sort of pantheism. Christianity was accepted, but explained in terms of this dualism. The Old Testament was wholly rejected as well as parts of the New. The elevated priesthood celebrated the secret rites of baptism and communion with solemn pomp, lived as ascetics, possessed no property, and abstained from wine and animal food. This system, claiming to be true Christianity, had a marked influence on both the doctrines and organisation of the Church.[134:1]

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

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

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

2. The Novatianists[135:2] withdrew from the Church protesting against the readmission of those who through fear deserted the Church in the Decian persecution (249-251). They were strong in North Africa and Asia Minor, and continued until the sixth century, absorbing most of the Montanists. In doctrine and organisation they did not differ from the regular Church, but only on the question of discipline. They also laid unusual stress on the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Their churches were still found in the fifth century in Rome till closed by Innocent I.

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

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

The controversy broke out in Alexandria in 318.[137:3] Bishop Alexander in a public address insisted on the interpretation of the eternity of the Son. Arius, a presbyter, charged the bishop with Sabellianism, which advocated an undivided Godhead, and held that Christ was a creature of God, hence not coexistent and eternal.[138:1] He and his followers held that God alone was eternal; that He created the Son, or Logos, by His _fiat_, hence the Son is different in essence and finite; that the Son was created before time was and in turn made the universe and rules it; that the Son is Logos in soul, stands between God and man, and is to be worshipped as the most exalted of creatures, the creator and ruler of the world, and the Redeemer of men. It was contended that all these propositions could be proved beyond dispute from the Bible.[138:2]

Alexander, in a personal interview, sought to stop Arius,[138:3] who was an old priest in control of the most influential church in the city,--a proud, learned, ambitious, and fascinating man,[138:4] who, defeated in his candidacy for the arch-episcopacy of Alexandria,[138:5] began to foment social and religious circles by attacking Alexander. Failing to quiet him, Alexander called a synod to discuss the disputed points, but Arius seemed to carry the day and continued his agitation. Then the bishop commanded Arius and his followers to renounce their "impiety."[138:6] Refusing to obey, Arius was called before a local council in 320 and there excommunicated.[138:7] But Arius now spread his views all the more zealously by conversation, by letters, by sermons, and later, while an exile, in a poetic work called _The Banquet_. His doctrines pleased the wide-spread rationalism, and hence became very popular. They were put into popular songs and sung everywhere, and became the chief topic of conversation in all social circles. Arius, however, was forced to flee[139:1] to Palestine and thence to Nicomedia, while Alexander drew up his encyclic to all Christian Bishops (323)[139:2] giving the history of the controversy and defending the Trinitarian position.

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

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

In organising the Council the bishops were seated according to rank.[140:5] Discussions occurred for some time before Constantine arrived. Then the Emperor entered "as a messenger from God, covered with gold and precious stones, a magnificent figure, tall and slender, and full of grace and majesty." He opened the Council with these words: "When I was told of the division amongst you, I was convinced that I ought not to attend to any business before this; and it is from the desire of being useful to you that I have convened you without delay; but I shall not believe my end to be attained until I have united the minds of all, until I see that peace and that union reign amongst you which you are commissioned as the anointed of the Lord to preach to others."[141:1] He took part in the deliberations also and acted as the real head of the Council, though the Spanish Bishop Hosius probably served as the spiritual president.[141:2] Only bishops or their accredited proxies had a vote.

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

Unfortunately the authentic minutes of the transactions are not now extant,[141:3] if indeed they ever existed. The Arians, it appears, came to the Council confident of victory because the Emperor's sister Constantia was an avowed Arian, and he himself was supposed to be a sympathiser, since so many scholars about him upheld the doctrine. But when Arius presented his creed signed by eighteen eminent names, it created an uproar, the creed was seized and torn to pieces, and its doctrines repudiated. All the signers but Arius and two bishops then abandoned the project. Eusebius of Cæsarea came forward at this juncture with an old Palestine creed as a compromise.[142:1] It acknowledged the divine nature of Jesus. The Emperor favoured it, and the Arians were willing to accept it, but Athanasius was suspicious and demanded so many changes that when, after two months of solemn discussion, the amended creed was passed,[142:2] Eusebius, the originator, hesitated to sign it. This was a grand triumph for the orthodox party. The Emperor required all bishops to subscribe to it.[142:3] The Semi-Arians did so under protest. Arius and two Egyptian bishops[142:4] refused and were banished to Illyria.[142:5] Arius was publicly excommunicated and his writings ordered burned. The business of the Council concluded, Constantine dismissed it with a splendid feast which Eusebius likened to the kingdom of Heaven.[142:6]

The results of Nicæa were very significant:

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

2. Church canons were enacted--the West accepts twenty, the East more--which constitute the basis for the canon law of the Middle Ages.[143:1] These canons indicate the burning questions in the Church at that time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. The various heresies and schisms of the time were condemned. This

## action threw into prominent relief throughout the Empire the powerful

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

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

To heal the Arian conflict, which was again active--this time between the East and the West,--the Council of Sardica was called in 343. The Roman party controlled it, reconfirmed the Nicene Creed, and adopted twelve new canons. The Arians refused to take part and held a rump council. The result was a wider separation of the East and the West.[144:1] Under Constantius, however, the Arian party grew stronger, held the three Arian councils of Sirmium (351), Arles (353), and Milan (355), forced their decrees upon the whole Church, exiled Hosius, Hilary, and Lucifer, drove Athanasius, who had meanwhile once more returned to his office (346), out of his see, and even deposed Pope Liberius[145:1] and elected an Arian Pope, Felix II., in his place. Thus the Arian party seemed triumphant East and West.

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

SOURCES

A.--PRIMARY:

I.--CHURCH FATHERS:

1.--Eusebius, _Life of Constantine_. _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers._ 2d ser., i., bk. 2, 3. _Church History._ _Ib._, i.

2.--Athanasius, _Works_. 2d ser., _ib._, iv. _Fath. of the Holy Cath. Ch._, viii., xiii., xix. Bright, W., _Orations_. Oxf., 1873.

3.--Socrates, _Ecclesiastical History_. _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers._ 2d ser., ii., bk. 1, ch. 8 _ff._

4.--Sozomen, _Ecclesiastical History_. 2d ser., _ib._, ii., bk. 1, ch. 17 _ff._

5.--Theodoret, _Ecclesiastical History_. 2d ser., _ib._, iii., bk. 1, ch. 1-13.

6.--Philostorgius, _Epitome of Ecclesiastical History_. Bohn, _Eccl. Lib._, ii., 429-528.

II.--COLLECTIONS:

1.--Percival, H. R., _The Seven Ecumenical Councils_. In _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, 2d ser., xiv. N. Y., 1900.

2.--Pusey, E., _The Councils of the Church_ (to 381).

3.--Fulton, J., _Index Canonum_. N. Y., 1892.

4.--Lambert, W., _Canons of the First Four General Councils_. Lond., 1868.

5.--Hammond, W. A., _The Six Œcumenical Councils_. Oxf., 1843.

6.--Bright, W., _Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils_. N. Y., 1892.

7.--Mitchell, E. K., _Canons of the First Four General Councils_. Univ. of Pa., _Transl. and Repr._, iv.

8.--Chrystal, J., _Authoritative Christianity_. Jersey City, 1891. Vol. i.

9.--Schaff, P., _The Creeds of the Greek and Latin Churches_. Lond., 1877, ii., 28, 29, 57-62, 66.

10.--Lumby, J. R., _The History of the Creeds_. Lond., 1880. Vol. ii.

11.--Howard, G. B., _Canons of the Primitive Church_. Lond., 1896.

B.--SECONDARY:

I.--SPECIAL:

1.--Boyle, I., _Historical View of the Council of Nicæa_. N. Y., 1856.

2.--Bright, W., _Waymarks of Church History_. Lond., 1894, 56 _ff._

3.--Bull, G., _Defence of the Nicene Faith_. 1685. Transl. in _Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol._ Lond., 1851.

4.--Dorner, I. A., _History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ_. Edinb., 1861-3. 5 vols.

5.--DuBose, W. P., _The Ecumenical Councils_. N. Y., 1897.

6.--Dudley, T. W., _History of the First Council of Nicæa_. Bost., 1880.

7.--Gwatkin, H. M., _Studies in Arianism_. Camb., 1882. _The Arian Controversy._ N. Y., 1889. Ch. 1, 2.

8.--Hefele, C. J., _History of the Church Councils_. Edinb., 1882-3. Bk. ii., ch. 1, 2.

9.--Kaye, J., _Some Account of the Council of Nicæa_. Lond., 1883.

10.--Neal, J. M., _History of the Holy Eastern Church_. Lond., 1850-73.

11.--Newman, J. H., _The Arians of the Fourth Century_. N. Y., 1888.

12.--Stanley, A. P., _History of the Eastern Church_. N. Y., 1875.

13.--Swainson, C. A., _The Nicene and Apostolic Creeds_. Lond., 1875.

Note.--See Chap. VII. for additional works.

II.--GENERAL:

Adeney, ch. 1. Allies, v., ch. 37-39. Alzog, i., § 110-112. Backhouse, pt. 11, ch. 11, 12. Bartlet, ch. 9. Baur, ii., 112-120. Bouzique, ii., ch. 1. Butler, ch. 24. Cheetham, pt. 2, ch. 10, 11. Coxe, ch. 2, sec. 15; ch. 3, sec. 10-14. Crooks, ch. 21-23. Darras, i., pd. 2, ch. 1. Döllinger, i., ch. 2; ii., ch. 3, 4; iii., ch. 2, sec. 2, 3. Duff, ch. 33, 34, 35. Fisher, 104, 119, 130. Fleury, bk. 21. Foulkes, ch. 4. Gibbon, ch. 21. Gieseler, i., sec. 81-84. Gilmartin, i., 16. Guericke, sec. 81-93. Harnack, _Dogma_, iv., ch. 1. Hase, sec. 102-104. Hore, ch. 4. Hurst, i., 431 _ff._ Jackson, ch. 11-16. Jennings, i., ch. 4. Kurtz, i., § 49. Mahan, bk. iv., ch. 1-6. Milman, i., bk. 1, ch. 2. Milner, i., cent. 4, ch. 3, 4. Moeller, i., 331-337. Neander, ii., 403 _ff._ Newman, i., pd. 3, ch. 2, p. 323. Robertson, bk. 2, ch. 1. Schaff, iii., 616-689. Stoughton, pt. 2, ch. 1.

FOOTNOTES:

[131:1] Epiphanius, ch. 29, 30, 53.

[131:2] Notably Celsus, who declared that the Christians "were divided and split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party."

[132:1] Irenæus, i., ch. 26; Hippolytus, ix., ch. 13-17; Epiphanius, ch. 29, 30, 53; Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iii., ch. 27; Schaff, ii., 420; Neander, i., 341; Moeller, i., 97; various histories of dogma and encyclopedias.

[132:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iii., ch. 27.

[132:3] Irenæus, _Against Heresies_; Hippolytus, _Refutation of all Heresies_; Tertullian; Origen; Epiphanius; Gieseler, i., 129; ii., 442; Moeller, i., 129; King, _The Gnostics and their Remains_; Neander, i., 566; Mansel, _The Gnostic Heresies_; Baur, i., 185; Bright, _Gnosticism and Irenæus_.

[133:1] Archelaus in _Ante-Nic. Lib._; Epiphanius, 66; Augustine in _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, 1st ser., iv.; Pressensé, _Her. and Chr. Doctrine_; Gieseler, i., 203; Schaff, ii., 498; Moeller, i., 289; Neander, i., 478; Mozley, _Manichæans_; histories of dogma and encyclopedias.

[134:1] Augustine, the greatest Latin Father, was a Manichæan for many years, as some maintain.

[134:2] See _History of Doctrine_ by Fisher, Shedd, Sheldon, Hagenbach, Baur, Loofs, and Harnack; Dorner, _The Person of Christ_; Conybeare, _The Key of Truth_; encyclopedias.

[135:1] Tertullian; Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, v., ch. 14-18; Epiphanius, _Heresy_, 48, 49; Sozomen, ii., 32; Pressensé, _Heresy and Chr. Doctr._, 101; Mossman, _Hist. of Early Chr. Ch._, 401; Neander, i., 508; Schaff, ii., 405; Moeller, i., 156; De Sayres, _Montanism_; Uhlhorn, _Conflict of Christ'y with Heathenism_; Baur, i., 245; ii., 45; Ramsay, 434; encyclopedias.

[135:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vi., ch. 43, 45; vii., ch. 8; Cyprian, _Ep._, 41-52; Socrates, iv., 28; Neander, i., 237; Gieseler, i., 254; Moeller, i., 263; encyclopedias.

[136:1] Augustine in _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, iv.; Hefele, i.-ii.; Neander, ii., 214; Schaff, iii., 360; various works on history of doctrine; encyclopedias.

[137:1] Milman, _Hist. of Christ._, i., 65.

[137:2] The Bishop of Rome held a synod in which these ideas were denounced and the orthodox view upheld.

[137:3] For the controversy see the histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Philostorgius; Epiphanius, _Heresy_, 69; Athanasius; Hilary; Basil; Ambrose; Augustine; the two Gregories and Rufinus; Newman, _Arians in the Fourth Cent._; Gwatkin, _Studies of Arianism_.

[138:1] Socrates, i., ch. 5.

[138:2] Harnack, _Hist. of Dogma_, pt. ii., ch. 7.

[138:3] Socrates, i., 6. See Neander, ii. 403; Schaff, ii., 616; Gibbon, ch. 21; Stanley, _Lect._, 2-3; Moeller, i., 382; Kurtz, i., 317.

[138:4] Socrates, i., 5; ii., 35.

[138:5] Theodoret, i., 4; _cf._ Philostorgius, i., 3.

[138:6] See two letters in Socrates, i., 6.

[138:7] _Ibid._

[139:1] Theodoret, i., 5.

[139:2] _Ibid._

[139:3] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., ch. 4.

[139:4] Euseb., _Life of Const._, ii., ch. 64-72; Socrates, i., 7.

[139:5] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., 6.

[140:1] Historians disagree about the number; Eusebius gives 250; Theodoret, 300; Milman, 323; Döllinger, 318; Gwatkin, 223; etc.

[140:2] Gwatkin, 21.

[140:3] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., 7; Socrates, i., 14; Sozomen, i., 17; Milman, i., 99.

[140:4] Socrates, i., 8; Sozomen, i., 17, 18.

[140:5] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., ch. 10.

[141:1] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., 12; Theodoret, i., 7; Hefele, _Hist. of the Ch. Councils_, 280, 281.

[141:2] Hefele, i., 281; Moeller, i., 336, suggests Eustathius of Antioch and Alexander of Alexandria.

[141:3] No minutes in the modern sense were kept. After measures were agreed upon they were signed and thus promulgated. See Hefele, i., 262.

[142:1] Theodoret, i., 12; _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, 2d ser., xiv., 1.

[142:2] The Nicene Creed of the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican churches is not this one but "the baptismal creed of the Church of Jerusalem" enlarged in 362-373.

[142:3] The Latin list of names numbers 228, though the original Greek lists certainly had more. Hefele, i., 296.

[142:4] Sozomen, i., 9, 21; Theodoret, i., 7, 8.

[142:5] Sozomen, i., 21; Socrates, i., 9.

[142:6] Euseb., _Life of Const._, iii., 15.

[142:7] Univ. of Pa., _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 2; Schaff, iii., 631; Fulton, _Index Canonum_.

[143:1] Univ. of Pa., _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 2. Cf. Hefele, i., 355 ff.

[143:2] Excellent discussion of the whole question in Hefele, i., sec. 37.

[143:3] About 350 the canons were interpolated so as to give the Bishop of Rome a primacy.

[143:4] Socrates, i., ch. 11; Sozomen, i., 23; Schaff, ii., 411; Hefele, i., 435.

[144:1] Hefele, ii.

[145:1] Pope Liberius was reinstated, after the death of Felix II., on subscribing to the Arian articles.

[145:2] Univ. of Pa., _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 2, p. 11; _Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers_, 2d ser., xiv., 163.

[145:3] See Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_.

##