Hence it is known as the creed of Lucian.
We believe in accordance with evangelic and apostolic tradition in one G.o.d the Father Almighty, the creator, the maker and provider of all things.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, G.o.d, through whom are all things, who was begotten of His Father before all ages, G.o.d of G.o.d, whole of whole, only one of only one, perfect of perfect, king of king, lord of lord, the living word, living wisdom, true light, way, truth, resurrection, shepherd, door, unchangeable, unalterable, and immutable, the unchangeable likeness of the G.o.dhead, both of the substance, and will and power and glory of the Father, the first-born of all creation, who was in the beginning with G.o.d, G.o.d Logos, according to what is said in the Gospel: and the word was G.o.d, through whom all things were made, and in whom all things consist, who in the last days came down from above, and was born of a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and became man, the mediator between G.o.d and man, and the apostle of our faith, and the prince of life; as He says, I have come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me; who suffered for us, and rose the third day and ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and comes again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit given for consolation and sanctification and perfection to those who believe; as also our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying, Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, clearly of the Father who is really a Father, and of the Son who is really a Son, and of the Holy Spirit who is really a Holy Spirit; these names being a.s.signed not vaguely nor idly, but indicating accurately the special subsistence [hypostasis], order, glory of those named, so that in subsistence they are three, but in harmony one.
Having then this faith from the beginning and holding it to the end, before G.o.d and Christ we anathematize all heretical false doctrines. And if any one contrary to the right faith of the Holy Scriptures, teaches and says that there has been a time, a season, or age, or being or becoming, before the Son of G.o.d was begotten, let him be accursed. And if any one says that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or generated as one of the things generated, or made as one of the things made, and not as the divine Scriptures have handed down each of the forenamed statements; or if a man teaches or preaches anything else contrary to what we have received, let him be accursed. For we truly and clearly both believe and follow all things from the Holy Scriptures that have been transmitted to us by the prophets and Apostles.
(_d_) _Fourth Creed of Antioch_, Socrates, _Hist._ Ec., II, 18. (MSG, 67:221.) _Cf._ Hahn, 156.
This creed is an approximation to the Nicene creed but without the use of the word of especial importance, h.o.m.oousios. Valuable critical notes on the text of this and the preceding creed are to be found in Hahn; as these creeds are to be found both in the work of Athanasius on the councils of synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, in the ecclesiastical history of Socrates and elsewhere, there is a variety of readings, but of minor significance so far as the essential features are concerned.
We believe in one G.o.d, Father Almighty, the creator and maker of all things, of whom the whole family in heaven and upon earth is named; and in his only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all ages; G.o.d of G.o.d, light of light, through whom all things in the heavens and upon earth, both visible and invisible were made: who is the word, and wisdom, and power, and life, and true light: who in the last days for our sake was made [became] man, and was born of the holy Virgin; was crucified, and died; was buried, arose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation of the age to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works: whose kingdom, being perpetual, shall continue to infinite ages (for He shall sit at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come). And in the Holy Spirit; that is, in the comforter, whom the Lord, according to His promise, sent to His Apostles after His ascension into the heavens, to teach and bring all things to their remembrance: by whom, also, the souls of those who have sincerely believed in Him shall be sanctified; and those who a.s.sert that the Son was made of things which are not, or of another subsistence [hypostasis], and not of G.o.d, or that there was a time or age when He did not exist the holy Catholic Church accounts as aliens.
66. Collapse of the Anti-Nicene Middle Party; the Renewal of Arianism; the Rise of the h.o.m.oousian Party
When Constantius became sole Emperor, on the death of his brother Constans in 350, there was no further need of considering the interests of the Nicene party. Only the necessity of establishing his authority in the West against usurpers engaged his attention until 356, when a series of councils began, designed to put an end to the Nicene faith. Of the numerous confessions of faith put forth, the second creed of Sirmium of 357 is important as attempting to abolish in connection with the discussion the use of the term _ousia_ and likewise _h.o.m.oousios_ and _h.o.m.oiousios_ (_a_). At Nice in Thrace a still greater departure from Nica was attempted in 359, and a creed was put forth (_b_), which is of special significance as containing the first reference in a creed to the _descensus ad inferos_ and to the fact that it was subscribed by the deputies of the West including Bishop Liberius of Rome. For the discussion of this act of Liberius, see J. Barmby, art. Liberius in DCB; see also _Catholic Encyclopdia_, art. Liberius. It was also received in the synod of Seleucia in the East. On these councils see Athanasius, _De Synodis_ (PNF). It was in reference to this acceptance of the creed of Nice that Jerome wrote The whole world groaned and was astonished that it was Arian. See Jerome, _Contra Luciferianos_, 18 _ff._ (PNF. ser. II, vol. VI).
Inasmuch as the anti-Nicene opposition party was a coalition of all parties opposed to the wording of the Nicene creed, as soon as that creed was abolished the bond that held them together was broken. At once there arose an extreme Arianism which had remained in the background. On the other hand, those who were opposed to Arianism sought to draw nearer the Nicene party. These were the h.o.m.oiousians, who objected to the term h.o.m.oousios as savoring of Sabellianism, and yet admitted the essential point implied by it. That this was so was pointed out by Hilary of Poitiers (_c_) who contended that what the West meant by h.o.m.oousios the East meant by h.o.m.oiousios. The h.o.m.oiousian party of the East split on the question of the deity of the Holy Spirit. Those of them who denied the deity of the Spirit remained Semi-Arians.
(_a_) _Second Creed of Sirmium_, in Hilary of Poitiers, _De Synodis_, ch.
11. (MSL, 10:487.) _Cf._ Hahn, 161.
The Council of Sirmium in 357 was the second in that city. It was attended entirely by bishops from the West. But among them were Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, leaders of the opposition to the Nicene creed. Hosius under compulsion signed the following; see Hilary, _loc cit._ The Latin original is given by Hilary.
It is evident that there is one G.o.d, the Father Almighty, according as it is believed throughout the whole world; and His only Son Jesus Christ our Saviour, begotten of Him before the ages. But we cannot and ought not to say there are two G.o.ds.
But since some or many persons were disturbed by questions as to substance, called in Greek _ousia_, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to _h.o.m.oousios_ or what is called _h.o.m.oiousios_, there ought to be no mention of these at all, nor ought any one to state them; for the reason and consideration that they are not contained in the divine Scriptures, and that they are above mans understanding, nor can any man declare the birth of the Son, of whom it is written: Who shall declare His generation? For it is plain that only the Father knows how He begat the Son, and the Son how He was begotten of the Father. There is no question that the Father is greater. No one can doubt that the Father is greater than the Son, in honor, dignity, splendor, majesty and in the very name Father, the Son himself testifying, He that sent Me is greater than I. And no one is ignorant that it is Catholic doctrine that there are two persons of Father and Son; and that the Father is greater, and that the Son is subordinated to the Father, together with all things which the Father hath subordinated to Him; and that the Father has no beginning and is invisible, immortal, and impa.s.sible, but that the Son has been begotten of the Father, G.o.d of G.o.d, light of light, and of this Son the generation, as is aforesaid, no one knows but His Father. And that the Son of G.o.d himself, our Lord and G.o.d, as we read, took flesh or a body, that is, man of the womb of the Virgin Mary, as the angel announced. And as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the doctor of the Gentiles himself. He took of Mary the Virgin, man, through whom He suffered. And the whole faith is summed up and secured in this, that the Trinity must always be preserved, as we read in the Gospel: Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Complete and perfect is the number of the Trinity. Now the Paraclete, or the Spirit, is through the Son: who was sent and came according to His promise in order to instruct, teach, and sanctify the Apostles and all believers.
(_b_) _Creed of Nice_ A. D. 359, Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, II, 16. (MSG, 82:1049.) _Cf._ Hahn, 164.
The deputies from the Council of Ariminum were sent to Nice, a small town in Thrace, where they met the heads of the Arian party.
A creed, strongly Arian in tendency, was given them and they were sent back to Ariminum to have it accepted. See Theodoret, _loc.
cit._, and Athanasius, _De Synodis_.
We believe in one and only true G.o.d, Father Almighty, of whom are all things. And in the only begotten Son of G.o.d, who before all ages and before every beginning was begotten of G.o.d, through whom all things were made, both visible and invisible; begotten, only begotten, alone of the Father alone, G.o.d of G.o.d, like the Father that begat Him, according to the Scriptures, whose generation no one knoweth except only the Father that begat Him. This only begotten Son of G.o.d, sent by His Father, we know to have come down from heaven, as it is written, for the destruction of sin and death; begotten of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, as it is written, according to the flesh. Who companied with His disciples, and when the whole dispensation was fulfilled, according to the Fathers will, was crucified, dead and buried, and descended to the world below, at whom h.e.l.l itself trembled; on the third day He rose from the dead and companied with His disciples, and when forty days were completed He was taken up into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of His Father, and is coming at the last day of the resurrection, in His Fathers glory, to render to every one according to his works. And in the Holy Ghost, which the only begotten Son of G.o.d, Jesus Christ, both G.o.d and Lord, promised to send to the race of men, the comforter, as it is written, the spirit of truth, and this Spirit He himself sent after He had ascended into the heavens and sat at the right hand of the Father, from thence He is coming to judge both the quick and the dead.
But the word substance, which was simply inserted by the Fathers and not being understood was a cause of scandal to the people because it was not found in the Scriptures, it hath seemed good to us to remove, and that for the future no mention whatever be permitted of substance, because the sacred Scriptures nowhere make any mention of the substance of the Father and the Son. Nor must one subsistence [hypostasis] be named in relation to the person [prosopon] of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call Him and teach.
But all heresies, both those already condemned, and any, if such there be, which have arisen against the doc.u.ment thus put forth, let them be anathema.
(_c_) Hilary of Poitiers. _De Synodis_, 88, 89, 91. (MSL, 10:540.)
That the h.o.m.oiousian party meant substantially the same by their term h.o.m.oiousios as did the h.o.m.oousians or the Nicene party, by their term h.o.m.oousios.
Hilary was of great importance in the Arian controversy in bringing the h.o.m.oiousian party of the East and the Nicene party of the West to an agreement. The Eastern theologians, who hesitated to accept the Nicene term, were eventually induced to accept, understanding by the term h.o.m.oousios the same as h.o.m.oiousios. See below, 70.
88. Holy brethren, I understand by h.o.m.oousios G.o.d of G.o.d, not of an unlike essence, not divided, but born; and that the Son has a birth that is unique, of the substance of the unknown G.o.d, that He is begotten yet co-eternal and wholly like the Father. The word h.o.m.oousios greatly helped me already believing this. Why do you condemn my faith in the h.o.m.oousios, which you cannot disapprove by the confession of the h.o.m.oiousios? For you condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal equivalent. Does somebody else misunderstand it? Let us together condemn the misunderstanding, but not take away the security of your faith. Do you think that one must subscribe to the Samosetene Council, so that no one may make use of h.o.m.oousios in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us subscribe to the Council of Nica, so that the Arians may not impugn the word h.o.m.oousios. Have we to fear that h.o.m.oiousios does not imply the same belief as h.o.m.oousios? Let us decree that there is no difference between being of one and being of a similar substance. But may not the word h.o.m.oousios be understood in a wrong sense? Let it be proved that it can be understood in a good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I beseech you that the one and the same truth which we hold, we should regard as sacred among us. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked you to do. You are not Arians; why, then, by denying the h.o.m.oousios, should you be thought to be Arians?
89. True likeness belongs to a true natural connection. But when the true natural connection exists, the h.o.m.oousios is implied. It is likeness according to essence when one piece of metal is like another and not plated. Nothing can be like gold but gold, or like milk that does not belong to that species.
91. I do not know the word h.o.m.oousios or understand it unless it confesses a similarity of essence. I call G.o.d of heaven and earth to witness, that when I heard neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted h.o.m.oiousios by h.o.m.oousios. That is I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same nature.
67. The Policy of the Sons of Constantine Toward Heathenism and Donatism
Under the sons of Constantine a harsher policy toward heathenism was adopted. Laws were pa.s.sed forbidding heathen sacrifices (_a__, __b_), and although these were not carried out vigorously in the West, where there were many heathen members of the leading families, they were more generally enforced in the East, and heathenism was thereby much reduced, at least in outward manifestations. As to heresy, the action of the emperors and especially Constantius in his constant endeavor to set aside the Nicene faith involved harsh measures against all who differed from the approved theology of the court. Donatism called for special treatment. A policy of conciliation was attempted, but on account of the failure to win over the Donatists and their alliance with fierce revolutionary fanatics, the Circ.u.mcellions, violent measures were taken against them which nearly extirpated the sect.
(_a_) _Codex Theodosia.n.u.s_, XVI, 10, 2; A. D. 341.
This edict of Constantius is of importance here as it seems to imply that Constantine did more toward repressing heathen sacrifices than to forbid those celebrated in private. It is, however, the only evidence of his prohibiting sacrifice, and it might have been due to misunderstanding that his example is here cited.
Let superst.i.tion cease; let the madness of sacrifices be abolished. For whoever, against the law of the divine prince, our parent [Constantine]
and this command of our clemency, shall celebrate sacrifices, let a punishment appropriate to him and this present decision be issued.
(_b_) _Codex Theodosia.n.u.s_, XVI, 10, 3; A. D. 342.
In the West Constans did not enforce the law against sacrifices with great severity, but tolerated the existence and even use of certain temples without the walls.
Although all superst.i.tion is to be entirely destroyed, yet we will that the temple buildings, which are situated without the walls, remain intact and uninjured. For since from some have arisen various sports, races, and contests, it is not proper that they should be destroyed, from which the solemnity of ancient enjoyments are furnished to the Roman people.
(_c_) _Codex Theodosia.n.u.s_, XVI, 10, 4; A. D. 346.
It is our pleasure that in all places and in all cities the temples be henceforth closed, and access having been forbidden to all, freedom to sin be denied the wicked. We will that all abstain from sacrifices; that if any one should commit any such act, let him fall before the vengeance of the sword. Their goods, we decree, shall be taken away entirely and recovered to the fisc, and likewise rectors of provinces are to be punished if they neglect to punish for these crimes.
(_d_) Optatus, _De schismate Donatistarum_, III, 3, 4. (MSL, 11:999.)