This brief Letter of Peace is a specimen of the forms that were being issued by the confessors, and which a party in the Church regarded as mandatory upon the bishops. These Cyprian strenuously and successfully resisted. See also Cyprian, _Ep. 21_, in ANF, V, 299.

All the confessors to Cyprian, pope,(70) greeting. Know that we all have given peace to those concerning whom an account has been rendered you as to what they have done since they committed their sin; and we wish to make this rescript known through you to the other bishops. We desire you to have peace with the holy martyrs. Lucia.n.u.s has written this, there being present of the clergy an exorcist and a lector.

(_e_) Cyprian, _Epistula 43_, 2, 3. (MSL, 4:342.)

The schism of Felicissimus was occasioned by the position taken by Cyprian in regard to the admission of the _lapsi_ in the Decian persecution. But it was at the same time the outcome of an opposition to Cyprian of longer standing, on account of jealousy, as he had only recently become a Christian when he was made bishop of Carthage.

Ch. 2. It has appeared whence came the faction of Felicissimus, on what root and by what strength it stood. These men supplied in a former time encouragements and exhortations to confessors, not to agree with their bishop, not to maintain the ecclesiastical discipline faithfully and quietly, according to the Lords precepts, not to keep the glory of their confession with an uncorrupt and unspotted mode of life. And lest it should have been too little to have corrupted the minds of certain confessors and to have wished to arm a portion of our broken fraternity against G.o.ds priesthood, they have now applied themselves with their envenomed deceitfulness to the ruin of the lapsed, to turn away from the healing of their wound the sick and the wounded, and those who, by the misfortune of their fall, are less fit and less able to take stronger counsels; and having left off prayers and supplications, whereby with long and continued satisfaction the Lord is to be appeased, they invite them by the deceit of a fallacious peace to a fatal rashness.

Ch. 3. But I pray you, brethren, watch against the snares of the devil, and being careful for your own salvation, guard diligently against this deadly deceit. This is another persecution and another temptation. Those five presbyters are none other than the five leaders who were lately a.s.sociated with the magistrates in an edict that they might overthrow our faith, that they might turn away the feeble hearts of the brethren to their deadly nets by the perversion of the truth. Now the same scheme, the same overturning, is again brought about by the five presbyters, linked with Felicissimus, to the destruction of salvation, that G.o.d should not be besought, and that he who has denied Christ should not appeal for mercy to the same Christ whom he has denied; that after the fault of the crime repentance also should be taken away; and that satisfaction should not be made through bishops and priests, but, the Lords priests being forsaken, a new tradition of sacrilegious appointment should arise contrary to the evangelical discipline. And although it was once arranged as well by us as by the confessors and the clergy of the city,(71) likewise by all the bishops located either in our province or beyond the sea [_i.e._, Italy], that there should be no innovations regarding the case of the lapsed unless we all a.s.sembled in one place, and when our counsels had been compared we should then decide upon some moderate sentence, tempered alike with discipline and with mercy; against this, our counsel, they have rebelled and all priestly authority has been destroyed by factious conspiracies.

(_f_) Eusebius, _Hist. Ec_., VI, 43. (MSG, 20:616.)

The schism of Novatian at Rome was occasioned by the question of discipline of the lapsed. While the schism of Felicissimus was in favor of more lenient treatment of those who had fallen, the schism of Novatian was in favor of greater strictness. The sect of Novatians, named after the founder, Novatus or Novatia.n.u.s, lasted for more than two centuries.

Novatus [Novatia.n.u.s], a presbyter at Rome, being lifted up with arrogance against these persons, as if there was no longer for them a hope of salvation, not even if they should do all things pertaining to a pure and genuine conversion, became the leader of the heresy of those who in the pride of their imagination style themselves Cathari.(72) Thereupon a very large synod a.s.sembled at Rome, of bishops in number sixty, and a great many more presbyters and deacons; and likewise the pastors of the remaining provinces deliberated in their places by themselves concerning what ought to be done. A decree, accordingly, was confirmed by all that Novatus and those who joined with him, and those who adopted his brother-hating and inhuman opinion, should be considered by the Church as strangers; but that they should heal such of the brethren as had fallen into misfortune, and should minister to them with the medicines of repentance. There have come down to us epistles of Cornelius, bishop of Rome, to Fabius, of the church at Antioch, which show what was done at the synod at Rome, and what seemed best to all those in Italy and Africa and the regions thereabout. Also other epistles, written in the Latin language, of Cyprian and those with him in Africa, by which it is shown that they agreed as to the necessity of succoring those who had been tempted, and of cutting off from the Catholic Church the leader of the heresy and all that joined him.

Chapter IV. The Period Of Peace For The Church: A. D. 260 To A. D. 303

After the Decian-Valerian persecution (250-260) the Church enjoyed a long peace, rarely interrupted anywhere by hostile measures, until the outbreak of the second great general persecution, under Diocletian (303-313), a s.p.a.ce of over forty years. In this period the Church cast off the chiliasm which had lingered as a part of a primitive Jewish conception of Christianity ( 47), and adapted itself to the actual condition of this present world. Under the influence of scientific theology, especially that of the Alexandrian school, the earlier forms of Monarchianism disappeared from the Church, and the discussion began to narrow down to the position which it eventually a.s.sumed in the Arian controversy ( 48). Corresponding to the development of the theology went that of the cultus of the Church, and already in the West abiding characteristics appeared ( 49). The cultus and the disciplinary work of the bishops advanced in turn the hierarchical organization of the Church and the place of the bishops ( 50), but the theory of local episcopal autonomy and the universalistic tendencies of the see of Rome soon came into sharp conflict ( 51), especially over the validity of baptism administered by heretics ( 52).

In this discussion the North African Church a.s.sumed a position which subsequently became the occasion of the most serious schism of the ancient Church, or Donatism. In this period, also, is to be set the rise of Christian Monasticism as distinguished from ordinary Christian asceticism ( 53). At the same time, a dangerous rival of Christianity appeared in the East, in the form of Manichanism, in which were absorbed nearly all the remnants of earlier Gnosticism ( 54).

47. The Chiliastic Controversy

During the third century the belief in chiliasm as a part of the Churchs faith died out in nearly all parts of the Church. It did not seem called for by the condition of the Church, which was rapidly adjusting itself to the world in which it found itself. The scientific theology, especially that of Alexandria, found no place in its system for such an article as chiliasm. The belief lingered, however, in country places, and with it went no little opposition to the scientific exegesis which by means of allegory explained away the promises of a millennial kingdom. The only account we have of this so-called Chiliastic Controversy is found in connection with the history of the schism of Nepos in Egypt given by Eusebius, But it may be safely a.s.sumed that the condition of things here described was not peculiar to any one part of the Church, though an open schism resulting from the conflict of the old and new ideas is not found elsewhere.

Additional source material: Origen, _De Principiis_, II, 11 (ANF, IV); Lactantius, _Divini Inst.i.tutiones_, VII, 14-26 (ANF, VII); Methodius, _Symposium_, IX, 5 (ANF, VI); _v. infra_, 48.

Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, VII, 24. (MSG, 20:693.)

Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria 248-265, after serving as the head of the Catechetical School, a position which he does not seem to have resigned on being advanced to the episcopate. His work _On the Promises_ has, with the exception of fragments preserved by Eusebius, perished, as has also the work of Nepos, _Against the Allegorists_. The date of the work of Nepos is not known. That of the work of Dionysius is placed conjecturally at 255. The Allegorists, against whom Nepos wrote, were probably Origen and his school, who developed more consistently and scientifically the allegorical method of exegesis; see above, 43, _k_.

Besides all these, the two books _On the Promises_ were prepared by him [Dionysius]. The occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises made to the holy men in the divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth. As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation of John, he wrote a book on this subject, ent.i.tled _Refutation of Allegorists_. Dionysius opposes this in his books _On the Promises_. In the first he gives his own opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of John,(73) and, mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him as follows:

But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of Christ upon earth, I confess that in many other respects I approve and love Nepos for his faith and industry and his diligence in the Scriptures, and for his extensive psalmody with which many of the brethren are still delighted; and I hold the man in the more reverence because he has gone before us to rest. But as some think his work very plausible, and as certain teachers regard the law and the prophets as of no consequence, and do not follow the Gospels, and treat lightly the apostolic epistles, while they make promises as to the teaching of this work as if it were some great hidden mystery, and do not permit our simpler brethren to have any sublime and lofty thoughts concerning the glorious and truly divine appearing of our Lord and our resurrection from the dead, and our being gathered together unto Him, and made like Him, but, on the contrary, lead them to a hope for small things and mortal things in the kingdom of G.o.d, and for things such as exist nowsince this is the case, it is necessary that we should dispute with our brother Nepos as if he were present.

Farther on he says:

When I was in the district of Arsinoe, where, as you know, this doctrine has prevailed for a long time, so that schisms and apostasies of entire churches have resulted, I called together the presbyters and teachers of the brethren in the villagessuch brethren as wished being presentand I exhorted them to make a public examination of this question. Accordingly when they brought me this book, as if it were a weapon and fortress impregnable, sitting with them from morning till evening for three successive days, I endeavored to correct what was written in it. And finally the author and mover of this teaching, who was called Coracion, in the hearing of all the brethren present acknowledged and testified to us that he would no longer hold this opinion, nor discuss it, nor mention it, nor teach it, as he was fully convinced by the arguments against it.

48. Theology of the Second Half of the Third Century under the Influence of Origen

By the second half of the third century theology had become a speculative and highly technical science (_a_), and under the influence of Origen, the Logos theology, as opposed to various forms of Monarchianism (_b_), had become universal. Under this influence, Paul of Samosata, reviving Dynamistic Monarchianism, modified it by combining with it elements of the Logos theology (_c-e_). At the same time there was in various parts of the Church a continuation of the Asia Minor theological tradition, such as had found expression in Irenus. A representative of this theology was Methodius of Olympus (_f_).

Additional source material: Athanasius, _De Sent. Dionysii_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. IV).

(_a_) Gregory Thaumaturgus, _Confession of Faith_. (MSG, 46:912)

Gregory Thaumaturgus, or the Wonder-worker, was born about 213 in Neo-Csarea in Pontus. He studied under Origen at Csarea in Palestine from 233 to 235, and became one of the leading representatives of the Origenistic theology, representing the orthodox development of that school, as distinguished from Paul of Samosata and Lucian.

The following Confession of Faith is found only in the _Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus_, by Gregory of Nyssa. (MSG, 46: 909 _f._) Its genuineness is now generally admitted; see Hahn, _op. cit._, 185. According to a legend, it was communicated to Gregory in a vision by St. John on the request of the Blessed Virgin. It represents the speculative tendency of Origenism and current theology after the rise of the Alexandrian school. It should be noted that it differs markedly from other confessions of faith in not employing biblical language.

There is one G.o.d, the Father of the living Word, His substantive Wisdom, Power, and Eternal Image, the perfect Begetter of the perfect One, the Father of the Only begotten Son.

There is one Lord, only One from only One, G.o.d from G.o.d, the image and likeness of the G.o.dhead, the active Word, The Wisdom which comprehends the const.i.tution of all things, and the Power which produced all creation; the true Son of the true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal, and Everlasting of Everlasting.

And there is one Holy Spirit having His existence from G.o.d, and manifested by the Son [namely, to men],(74) the perfect likeness of the perfect Son, Life and Cause of the living [the sacred Fount], Sanct.i.ty, Leader of sanctification, in whom is revealed G.o.d the Father, who is over all and in all, and G.o.d the Son, who is through all; a perfect Trinity(75) not divided nor differing in glory and eternity and sovereignty.

There is, therefore, nothing created or subservient in the Trinity, nor introduced as if not there before, but coming afterward; for there never was a time when the Son was lacking to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son, but the same Trinity is ever unvarying and unchangeable.

(_b_) Athanasius, _De Sent. Dionysii_, 4, 5, 6, 13-15. (MSG, 25:484 f., 497 f.)

What has been called the Controversy of the two Dionysii was in reality no controversy. Dionysius of Alexandria [_v. supra_, 48]

wrote a letter to the Sabellians near Cyrene, pointing out the distinction of the Father and the Son. In it he used language which was, to say the least, indiscreet. Complaint was made to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, that the bishop of Alexandria did not hold the right view of the relation of the Son to the Father and of the divinity of the Son. Thereupon, Dionysius of Rome wrote to Dionysius of Alexandria. In reply, Dionysius of Alexandria pointed out at length, in a _Refutation and Defence_, his actual opinion on the matter as a whole, rather than as merely opposed to Modalistic Monarchianism or Sabellianism. The course of the discussion is sufficiently clear from the extracts. Athanasius is writing in answer to the Arians, who had appealed to the letter of Dionysius in support of their opinion that the Son was a creature, and that there was when He was not [_v. infra_, 63]. His work, from which the following extracts are taken, was written between 350 and 354.

Ch. 4. They (the Arians) say, then, that in a letter the blessed Dionysius has said: The Son of G.o.d is a creature and made, and not His own by nature, but in essence alien from the Father, just as the husbandman is from the vine, or the shipbuilder is from the boat; for that, being a creature, He was not before He came to be. Yes. He wrote it, and we, too, admit that such was his letter. But as he wrote this, so also he wrote very many other epistles, which ought to be read by them, so that from all and not from one merely the faith of the man might be discovered.

Ch. 5. At that time [_i.e._, when Dionysius wrote against the Sabellians]

certain of the bishops of Pentapolis in Upper Libya were of the opinion of Sabellius. And they were so successful with their opinion that the Son of G.o.d was scarcely preached any longer in the churches. Dionysius heard of this, as he had charge of those churches (_cf._ Canon 6, Nica, 325; see below, 72), and sent men to counsel the guilty ones to cease from their false doctrine. As they did not cease but waxed more shameless in their impiety, he was compelled to meet their shameless conduct by writing the said letter and to define from the Gospels the human nature of the Saviour, in order that, since those men waxed bolder in denying the Son and in ascribing His human actions to the Father, he accordingly, by demonstrating that it was not the Father but the Son that was made man for us, might persuade the ignorant persons that the Father is not the Son, and so by degrees lead them to the true G.o.dhead of the Son and the knowledge of the Father.

Ch. 6. If in his writings he is inconsistent, let them [_i.e._, the Arians] not draw him to their side, for on this a.s.sumption he is not worthy of credit. But if, when he had written his letter to Ammonius, and fallen under suspicion, he made his defence, bettering what he had said previously, defending himself, but not changing, it must be evident that he wrote what fell under suspicion by way of accommodation.

Ch. 13. The following is the occasion of his writing the other letters.