Part 36 (2/2)

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.)

<script>