¹ Athauasius, , Historia Arianorum, 33.Google Scholar

² Melville continues: “Chryst Jesus the King, and his kingdome the Kirk, whase subject King James the Saxt is; and of whase kingdome nocht a king, nor a lord, nor a heid, but a member!”

³ Below, n. 9.

⁴ Below, n. 10.

⁵ This it was, of course, for pagans offering sacrifice to their imperial sōtēr, dominus et deus.

⁶ The practice is monographically traced by Biehl, Ludwig, Das liturgische Gebet für Kaiser una Reich: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Verhältnisses von Kirche und Staat, Görres-Gesellschaft, Heft 75 (Paderborn, 1937).Google Scholar

⁷ On this see n. 50.

⁸ Cf. Eusebius, , Vita Constantini, iii, 15.Google Scholar

⁹ For example, Irenaeus, , Adversus haereses, v. 24, 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Origen, Contra Celsum, viii, 75.Google Scholar Origen countered the religio-political argument of Celsus that Christian monotheism was at once a cosmic and a political rebellion by insisting that the Logos is destined to achieve through the rational in man the universal recognition and observance of the divine nomos. Ibid., 72.

Origen also laid the bases for the later monastic and ascetic view of the State according to which he who lives not in the world need not pay tribute to Caesar. Comment, in Rom. 9:25Google Scholar; Migne, , P. G., XIVGoogle Scholar, coll. 1180 ff. The significance of Origen at this point is brought out by Parsons, Wilfred. “The Influence of Romans XIII on Pre-Augustinian Christian Political Thought,” Theological Studies, I (1940), p. 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ “Kaiser Augustus im Urteil des antiken Christentums,” Hochland, XXX (1933), pp. 289 ff.Google Scholar The date is significant. Peterson was wide awake to the spurious character of the Nazi appeal for a “positive Christianity.” He had previously published “Göttliche Monarchie,” Theologische Quartalschrift, CXII (1931), pp. 537 ff.Google Scholar The fact that religion today has been given a political assignment comparable to that which it was expected to acquit itself of in the fourth century, gives a special relevance to the studies of Peterson and similar inquiries. The appeal to positive Christianity in Nazi Germany, to Orthodoxy behind the Iron Curtain, to Shinto in Japan, and to Protestantism in democracy—often in the diffuse hope and confidence that God will even further bless America—are all contemporary ways in which religion has been asked to provide tonus, sanctions, and cohesiveness. It is commonly overlooked now as in the fourth century that Christianity, if it be true to its divine commission, judiciously mingles a prophetic explosive with the social cement it is asked to supply.

¹² Leipzig, 1935. This book is a reworking and rich documentation of the two foregoing articles. Peterson borrows the term “political theology” from Carl Schmitt who first introduced it in the present sense in Politische Theologie (Munich, 1922).Google Scholar The views of Schmitt and Peterson are compared and criticized by Marxen, Andreas, Das Problem der Analogie zwischen der Seinsstrukturen der grossen Gemeinschaften (W¨rzburg, 1937).Google Scholar

¹³ Op. cit., 43. In Apologia ad Constantium, iiGoogle Scholar, he writes: “Search into the matter, as though Truth were the partner of your throne, for she is the defense of emperors and especially of Christian emperors, and she will make your reign secure.”

¹⁴ “Be subject to the Lord and also to your lords as to the image of God, in modesty and fear.” Barnabas, 19, 7.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The most recent study of this and allied concepts is that of Martini, C., Ambrosiaster: de auctore, operibus, theologia, Spicilegium pontifice athenaea Antoniana, IV (Borne, 1944).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Andres, Friedrich, “Die Engel und D¨monenlehre des Klemens von Alexandrien” (Fortsetzung), Kömische Quartalschrift, XXXIV (1926) pp. 131 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Weinreieh, Otto, Antikes Gottmenschentum (1926)Google Scholar; Bieler, L., Theios anēr: Das Bild des göttlichen Menschen im Frühchristentum (Vienna, 1939)Google Scholar; Gross, J., La divinisation du chrétien d'apres des P`res grecs: Contribution historique à la doctrine de la grâce (Paris, 1938)Google Scholar; Taeger, F., “Zur Vergottung des Mensehen im Altertum,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LXI (1942), p. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ed. F. X. Funk, ii, 26. The deacon holds the place of Christ, the deaconess that of the Holy Spirit.

¹⁸ Firmicus was not yet a Christian when he wrote the Mathesis, but he probably felt no need of revising his basic views after his conversion. As Kenneth Setton remarks, he was obsessed with the divinity of the emperor in the Mathesis and in the De errore with his sanctity.

¹⁹ Exodus 22:28 and Psalm 82:6.

²⁰ Les survivances du culte impérial romain: Á propos des rites shintoïstes (Paris, 1921). Mention is made of such terms as adoratio, despotes (replacing kurios), aeternitas, numen, sacer, etc.

²¹ “The Emperor's Divine Comes,” Journal of Roman Studies, XXXVII (1947), pp. 102ff.Google Scholar See also Taylor, Lily Ross, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, American Philological Association Monographs, No. 1 (Middletown, Conn., 1931).Google Scholar She has shown the extent to which Eastern ideas of the royal soul and glory mingled with indigenous Italian concepts to contribute to the belief in the divinity of the Roman Emperor even during the Principate.

²² “Konstantin-Helios,” Hermes, XXXVI (1901), pp. 457 ff.Google Scholar For a more recent discussion see Altheim, Franz, Literatur und Gesellschaft im ausgehenden Altertum, I (Halle Saale, 1948), esp. pp. 138–144Google Scholar construing Constantine as a continuator of Aurelian's solar political theology. Eusebius likens Constantine to the sun, De laude, iii, 4.Google Scholar For the most recent exploration of the Emperor's exchange of the Sol invictus for the Soljustitiae (Christ) as celestial patron and antitype, see Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Dante's ‘Two Suns’,” Semitic and Oriental Studies, University of California Publications in Semitic Philology, XI, (1051), 217.Google Scholar

²³ “Mysterium lunae: Ein Beitrag zur Kirchentheologie der Väterzeit,” Zeitschrift f¨r katholische Theologie, LXIII (1939)Google Scholar, “I: Die sterbende Kirche,” p. 311, p. 428Google Scholar; “II: Die gebärende Kirche,” ibid., LXIV (1940), p. 61; “III: Die strahlende Kirche,” ibid., p. 121. Rahner himself does not mention the possible religio-political implications of the imagery. Eventually, of course, the imagery is papalized, the sun being the Papacy and the Empire the moon.

²⁴ Op. cit., vii, 3Google Scholar; as edited by Meecham, Henry G. (Manchester, 1949), p. 82Google Scholar; discussed by Rahner, H., op. cit., LXIV, p. 126.Google Scholar Firmicus Maternus declared that no astrologer could determine an emperor's fate, for the emperor alone is not subject to the motions of the stars. Mathesis, ii, 30, 5.Google Scholar

²⁵ “Der Gute Hirte in hellenistischer und frühchristlicher Logostheologie,” Heilige ¨berlieferungen … Ildefons Herwegen dargeboten (=Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens: Supplementband), (Münster, 1938).Google Scholar “Das Bild des Guten Hirten in den altchristlichen Baptisterien und in den Taufliturgien des Ostens and Westens: Das Siegel der Gottesherde,” Pisciculi: Studien zur Religion und Kultur des Altertums Franz Dölger … dargeboten (=Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband, I), (Münster, 1939), pp. 220 ff.Google Scholar“Der Gute Hirte in Früchristlicher Totenliturgie und Grabeskunst,” Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati Vol. I. (=Studi e Testi, 121) (Vatican City, 1946), pp. 373 ff.Google Scholar

²⁶ Mention may be made here of Hans Leisegang's clear and fascinating demonstration of the relationship between Augustine and Philo by way of Ambrose. “Der Ursprung der Augustins von der, Lehrecivitas Dei,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, XVI (1926), p. 127.Google Scholar Leisegang indirectly illuminates our field of inquiry in showing the connection between the Logos (=noētē polis) of Philo and the civitas Dei (= Bride of Christ, also Body of Christ) in Augustine. The Logos concept, as a rational, orderly, and soteriologieal principle, being also both personal and corporate in its implications and attendant imagery, not only encouraged speculation on the relationship between religion and politics but also facilitated the assimilation of the body ecclesiastical to the body politic.

²⁷ Gressmann, Hugo, the author of Der Messias (Göttingen, 1927)Google Scholar in which the Shepherd King is given prominence, brings out the messianic significance of the Logos in his critical edition of the Theophania, Eusebius' Werke, III (Leipzig, 1904).Google Scholar

²⁸ “The Re-emergence of the Arian Controversy,” Anglican Theological Seview, X (1927/1928), p. 11.Google Scholar Related to this is Buckler's presidential address before the American Society of Church History, “Barbarian and Greek, and Church History,” Church History, XI (1942), p. 3.Google Scholar

²⁹ For Catholic we could say Orthodox, but we risk confusion with later Greek Orthodoxy. We could say Nicene, but this would be to overlook shifts and accommodations within the Catholic position between Nicaea and Constantinople. We could say Athanasian, but this would be to associate Catholicity too closely with one man, his clerical, regional, and temperamental peculiarities. To be sure, in preferring the designation “Catholic” we risk identification with the Roman West, but since catholicity is most valiantly defended in the fourth century by Rome, certain Western bishops, and Athanasius, supported by Rome, we can afford to err on this side.

³⁰ So, Lucifer of Cagliari, pillorying the obsequious Arian bishops in respect to Constantius, Luciferi Calaritani opuscula, ed. by Hartel, Wilhelm, C.S.E.L., XIV (Vienna, 1886), 311.Google Scholar 25. Hereafter cited by opusculum, page, and line.

The basic study of Lucifer upon which we shall draw in this study is that of Krüger, Gustav, Lucifer, Bishop von Calaris und das Schisma der Luciferianer (Leipzig, 1886)Google Scholar; the most recent pertinent study appears to be that of Marcello, Pietro Maria, La posizione di Lucifero di Cagliari nelle lotte antiariane del IV secolo, (Nuoro, 1940)Google Scholar, wherein it is maintained that Lucifer did not end up a schismatic with those who assumed his name.

³¹ So, Ambrose of Milan. Altogether there were four possible positions worked out by Christians within the framework of the Empire which had recently been their persecutor. At the beginning of the fourth century the Donatist Puritans, whose schism had also a nationalist source, asked angrily (1): What has the Emperor to do with the Church? In response, Optatus of North Africa replied toward the middle of the century (2): The Church is in the Empire. At the end of the century Ambrose wrote of Theodosius (3): The Emperor is in the Church. At the end of the next century (496) Pope Gelasius, writing when large sections of the Western Empire had succumbed to the onslaughts of the Barbarians, addressed himself to the Emperor in Constantinople thus (4): There are two things by which this world is chiefly ruled: the sacred authority and the royal power. Each of these four famous phrases might provide us with a slogan or formula for the major positions assumed by Christians after the conversion of Constantino and before the final destruction of the Empire in the West and its complete transformation as the Byzantine Empire in the East. Interestingly the rigoristic Donatist preserves the common Ante-Nicene reserve toward the state, a feeling which survives also among the monastics. In this paper we are chiefly concerned with (2) and (3).

³² Marcellus accommodated himself to the Nicene formulation at the Roman synod of 340, but he remained the target of numerous attacks from all sides. The most recent analysis of his position is that of Gericke, Wolfgang, Marcell von Ancyra: Der Logos Christologe und Biblizist, sein Verhältnis zur antiochenischen Theologie and zum Neuen Testament Theologische Arbeiten zur Bibel-, Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte, X (Halle, 1940).Google Scholar

³³ First suggested as a key to the ecclesio-political struggle of the fourth century by Opitz, Hans-Georg, “Euseb von Caesarea als Theologe”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, XXXIV (1935), p. 1Google Scholar, especially at the end of the paper.

³⁴ Historiarum adversus paganos libri sep- tem, vii, 29.Google Scholar

³⁵ Hendrik Berkhof states well the relationship between Christology and political behavior in the fourth century, contrasting the East and West:

Im Westen bedeutete Stellungnahme im arianischen Konflikt zugleich: Stellungnahme gegen den Kaiser, also, Bruch mit der byzantinischen Haltung der Kirche gegenüber dem Kaiser. Wer dort anfing, theologisch zu denken, musste notgedrungen anfangen, politisch zu denken. Darum wurden nicht im Osten, sondern, im Westen die neuen theologisch-politischen Begriffe geformt, welche wie Dynamit [italics mine] unter dem von Konstantin geschaffenen Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche wirken sollte.

Kerk en Kaiser (Amsterdam, 1946)Google Scholar; translated by Locher, Gottfried as Kirche und Kaiser: Eine Untersuchung der Entstehung der byzantinischen und der theokratischen Staatsauffassung im vierten Jahrhundert (Zollikon-Zürich, 1947), p. 195Google Scholar. This book, written for the Church and not for the academic community alone, deals with the political implications of the Trinitarian position. Composed after the author had “dived under” during the Nazi occupation of his native land, it concerns the relation of the Church to the would-be monolithic State, Arian, Aryan, or Asiatic. The present writer is much indebted to Berkhof, though the main lines of his own research had been laid down before Berkhof's book could be procured. Less concerned with the theological dimension of the problem, Kenneth Setton states the eeclesio-political theme of the fourth century in a similar fashion:

In Constantius' insistence … upon asserting his authority over the Church de iure, seems to me to lie the chief cause of the change in the attitude of Christian churchmen towards Emperor and imperial State after the sixth decade of the fourth century.—

Christian Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century, Especially as Shown in Addresses to the Emperor, Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, no. 482 (New York, 1941), p. 54.Google Scholar

³⁶ W. Ensslin has recently traced the development of Dei gratia in our period without, however, touching upon our theme. “Das Gottesgnadentum des autokratischen Kaisertums der frühbyzantinischen Zeit,” Studi bizantina e neoellenici, V (1939), 154.Google Scholar

³⁷ The extent of the revision to meet the needs of Constantius' policy against both Nicene Orthodoxy and paganism in the interests of an Arian peace is discussed by Maurice, J. in Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, 1913, esp. pp. 388, 395 f.Google Scholar

³⁸ For this more radical critique of the Vita, see Gr´goire, Henri, “Eusèbe n'est pas l'auteur de la Vita Constantini dans sa forme actuelle et Constantin n'est pas converti en 312,” Byzantion, XIII (1938), 561Google Scholar. According to him Euzoius reworked the papers of Ensebius inherited by him as bishop of Caesarea (p. 583). For a more moderate view taking into consideration the long history of Vita-criticism, we await the forthcoming publication among the Dumbarton Oak Papers of Glanville Downer's exhaustive study based upon fresh MSS and archaeological evidence.

³⁹ “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,” Yale Classical Studies, I (1928), 55Google Scholar. Goodenough himself went on to show the adaption of Hellenistic ideas in The Politics of Philo Judaeus (New Haven, 1940)Google Scholar, ch. iii.

⁴⁰ “Eusebius and the Christian Empire,” Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales (=Mélanges Bidez), II (1934), 13Google Scholar. Baynes once again emphasizes the survival of Hellenistic ideas of kingship in his long critique of Setton, K., op. cit.Google Scholar, in Journal of Boman Studies, XXXIV (1944), 135Google Scholar, and in his Bryee Lecture of 1945, The Hellenistic Civilization and East Rome (Oxford, 1946).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Christomimēsis is the key concept in a forthcoming publication, on Byzantine political theology by my revered teacher Ernst Kantorowiez, now of Princeton, who has valiantly upheld the principle of academic liberty in recently resisting at the University of California the policy of unwitting echthromimēsis!

Something of his general theory is brought out in connection with his study of the sources of Dante's Two Suns, , loc. cit., esp. p. 222 and n. 14.Google Scholar

⁴² Admirably developed by Ladner, Gerhard, “Origin and Significance of the Iconoclastic Controversy,” Medieval Studies, II (1940), 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea(Amsterdam, 1939).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The Anomean creed preserved in the Historia acephala, ixGoogle Scholar, is a good specimen of this strand of thought clearly exposed to view as a result of the unraveling of Arianism after 360.

⁴⁵ Opitz contrasts Athanasius' De incarnatione and Contra Gentes with Eusebius' Syrian Theophania and draws attention also to the opposing interests of the two bishops as represented by the famous biographies from the pen of each: Athanasius' Vita Antoni with its glorification of ascetic withdrawal from the world and Eusebius' Vita Constantini with its sanctification of civil society.

⁴⁶ Eusebius, , Vita, i, 17.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Eusebius, , De laude, xGoogle Scholar: hupophētēs toû pambasileôs theoû. As N. Baynes remarks, pagan emperors had resorted to divination (and he might have added divinization). Now, as a Christian, Constantine might himself be an interpreter by inspiration. “Eusebius and the Empire,” p. 15, Cf. Opitz, , op. cit., p. 113.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Eusebius implies a comparison with Paul (as earlier the victory of Constantine at Saxa Rubra makes him a new Moses leading his people through the Red Sea), but the term isapostolos is later. The commemoration of Constantine and Helen as saints (the parallel to Christ and Mary suggests itself) falls in the Eastern calendar on May 21. Cf. Acta SS Maii, V:2, 17ffGoogle Scholar. The adoration of Constantine must have reached extraordinary proportions, perhaps climatically under Constantius. In any event Photius appears to have been particularly horrified as lie epitomizes Philostorgius, Arian, H. E., ii, 17Google Scholar, describing the vows and supplications offered up, as to God, to an image of Constantine upon a porphyry column amidst many lamps and much incense. Cf. also the Chronicon paschale, anno 330Google Scholar, P. G, XCII, 709fGoogle Scholar. See further the commentary of J. Gothofredus, ed., on the law concerning imperial images in the Code, Theodosian, lib. xvGoogle Scholar, tit. 4, 1, (vol. v, pp. 390 ff.).

⁴⁹ In view of the extensive research on the alleged vision of Constantine, it seems quite probable that we have here the effort of Pseudo-Ensebius to legitimize imperial control over the Church. See Zeiller, Jacques, who strives to retain at least the authenticity of Laetantius' account of a dream, “Quelques remarques sur la ‘vision’ de Constantin,” Byzantion, XIV (1939), 329Google Scholar and Grégoire, H.'s reply, “La vision de Constantin ‘liquidée’,”Google Scholaribid., p. 341. If then large sections of the Vita are to be asscribed to Gregoire's Arian Pseudo-Eu-sebius or to Maurice's Arian Reviser under Constantius, we have merely to read “emperor” or “Constautius” to get the religio-political force of the eulogy.

⁵⁰ The modern controversy as to whether Constantine claimed to be bishop of the external affairs of the Church or merely “bishop” of those outside the Church is reviewed by Seston, William, “Constantine as a ‘Bishop’, Journal of Roman Studies, XXXVII (1947), 131Google Scholar. He fails to cite Berkhof, Hendrik, “Ton ektos episkopos.” Nederlandsch Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, XXXIV (1943), 24.Google Scholar

⁵¹ De laude, vi, 21.Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid, xvi,17.

⁵³ In the Vita (iv, 48)Google Scholar, Eusebius mentions a divine, present at the Arianizing Council of Jerusalem, who in excessive praise of the Emperor declared that Constantine was destined to share the empire of the Son of God in the world to come. Although Constantine rebuked the unnamed ecclesiastic, the latter's words and the scarcely less adulatory phrases of Eusebius' tricennalian oration delivered before an assembly of the very divines who had reconvened after deposing Athanasius at Tyre and now at Jerusalem readmitted Arius to communion, must be regarded as representative of the political thought and atmosphere of the Arianizing camp.

⁵⁴ De laude, ii. 5.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid., ii, 6.

⁵⁶ Ibid., v. 8.

⁵⁷ Ibid., ii. 6.

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ Ibid., vii, 12.

⁶⁰ Vita, i, 24Google Scholar. “[All] others have been raised to this distinction by the election of their fellow men …”

⁶¹ De Laude, iii, 5.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid., xvi, 7.

⁶³ W. Sestou has stated the connection between Arianism and the political convictions of both Constantine and Eusebius: “Je croirais volontiers que, le catholicisme nicéen n'ayant pas réussi sous son r`gne ` ramener ` l'unit´ de la foi les donatistes et les ariens, il [Constantine] lui a très délibérément préféré la théologie d'Arius. Dans le Christ des ariens l'oint du Seigneur, premiêre créature de Dieu et modérateur du monde, son panégyriste des Tricennalia voit une image de l'empereur de Byzance, dont rel`vent tous les hommes et toutes choses”. In “Chroniques des études anciennes,” Révue des études anciennes, XL (1938) pp. 106 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Berkhof, H., Kirche und Kaiser, p. 200.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Socrates, , H. E., ii, 7.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Lichtenstein, Adolf, Eusebius von Nikomedien: Versuch einer Darstellung seiner Persönlichkeit und seines Lebens unter besonderer Berüchsichtigung seiner Führerschaft im arianischen Streit (Halle, 1903), pp. 87–89.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Marcellinus, Ammianus, Rerum gestarum, 22. 9.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ In the most recent study of Lucian, some advances over Lichtenstein are made in respect to Eusebius but there is nothing further on his political theory. Bardy, Gustave, Recherches sur saint Lucien d'Antioche et son école (Paris, 1936)Google Scholar, livre ii. ch. iii–“Ensèbe de Nicomédie.”

⁶⁹ Needless to say, Eusebius had to disguise the extremity of his views and make out that he was more or less faithful to Nicaea in leading the Eastern conservatives.

⁷⁰ Discussed by Setton, K., op. cit., pp. 68–70.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Migne, , P. G., XXXIII, 1165Google Scholar, Scholarship is not certain whether the recounting of this meteoric spectacle is a) an effort to enhance the status of Constantius by linking him by means of a second heavenly portent with his father or b) a proof that up to 351, at least, the vision of Constantino was unknown and a possible spur to the reading of such an episode into the Arian revision of the Vita. Cf. Zeiller, J., op. cit., p. 331.Google Scholar

⁷² Liber apologeticus, Migne, , P. G. XXX, Coll. 835 ffGoogle Scholar. But cf. Albertz, M. concerning Church and State materials assembled in the unpublished portion of his dissertation cited in his Untersuchungen űber die Schriften des Eunomius (Wittenberg, 1908)Google Scholar. These 12, p. 56.Google Scholar

⁷³ See below, p. 63.

⁷⁴ Historia acephala, viiiGoogle Scholar. Jovian is only Catholic by policy. In demanding the worship of “the Most High God and Christ,” Julian betrays no acquaintance with the fundamental issues of the controversy.

⁷⁵ Shown to be Arian by Turner, C. F., Journal of Theological Studies, XIII (1911/1912), pp 506 f.Google Scholar, against Funk, Franz Xavier. Die Apostolischen Konstitutionen: Eine litterar-histiorische Untersuchung (Rotterdam, 1891), pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Edited by Funk, F. X., Didascalia et Constitutioncs Apostolorum, 2 vols. (Paderborn, 1905).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid., I, p. 207 (V, 20). This is an expansion of the “Constitutor” not found in the third century Didascalia.

⁷⁸ II Chron. 26. In ii, 27, iii, 10 and viii, 46 Uzziah is cited as a layman presuming to exercise priestly functions. From the context it is clear that the interest of the “Constitutor” is ultra-ecclesiastical. He is guarding against unauthorized acts of lay people and the lower clergy to perform “liturgies” not proper to them.

⁷⁹ Ibid., iv, 13, vii, 16.

⁸⁰ Ibid., vi. 24.

⁸¹ There is unfortunately no full length study of Constantius, to say nothing of a systematic presentation of his ecelesiopolitical views. Father Francis Dvornik promises a whole chapter devoted to Constantius in his forthcoming comprehensive study of Eastern political theory.

⁸² Marcellinus, Ammianus, Rerum gestarum, xxi, 16, 18.Google Scholar

⁸³ His concern for the reunion of the striferacked churches for the sake of imperial peace and prosperity comes out very strongly in the words ascribed to him by Lucifer of Cagliari in refuting him. While these phrases cannot be direct quotations in all cases, they are surely a good transcript of his general point of view.

⁸⁴ Theodoret, , H. E., iii, 3Google Scholar. Theodoret is willing to accept Constantius as a Catholic at heart despite his opposition to the homoousion, but this evaluation comports ill with what we know of Constautius, even from Theodoret.

⁸⁵ His policy toward paganism is summarized by Piganiol, André, L‘Empire chrétien (Paris, 1947), pp. 96 f.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ The fullest account of this philosopher and orator is by Stegemann, Willy, “Themistius,”Google Scholar in Pauly-Wissowa, , Realencyclopädie, A V:2 (1934), coll. 1642–80Google Scholar. See also von Christ, Wilhelm et al. , Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 6th ed., II; 2 (Munich, 1934)Google Scholar, No. 802 and Straub, Johannes, Vom Herrscherideal in der Spätantike, Forschungen zur Kirchen-und Geistesgeschichte, LXXX (Stuttgart, 1939), pp. 160–175Google Scholar. Glanville Downey has generously allowed me to consult his critical texts and translations.

⁸⁷ The best text of the Orationes is that of Dindorf, Wilhelm (Leipzig, 1832)Google Scholar, soon however, to be replaced by the critical edition of Prof. Downey. The orations are systematically discussed by Valdenberg, Vladimir, “Discours politiques de Themistius dans leur rapport avec 1’ antiquité,”Google Scholar translated from the Russian by Grégoire, H., Byzantion, I (1924), p. 36.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Dindorf, . op. cit., pp. 21–7Google Scholar. A direct reference to Constantius' appreciation of Oratio II and his high estimate of Themistrus therefore are found in Oratio IV, 65, 18 f.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Seeck, Otto, Brief des Libanius (Leipzig, 1906), p. 296Google Scholar. A later Emperor, possibly Julian, erected a second statue in Themistius' honor.

⁹⁰ For example, Constantius, in response to Themistius' entreaty, returned to Constantinople its full quota of grain which had been withdrawn in punishment for the lynching of Hermogenes. Constantius made Themistius proconsul in 358/9 and later urged him to become praefeotus urbis. In 359 he invited Themistius to dine at the imperial table and overwhelmed him with favors up to the very end of his reign. Stegemann, , loc. cit., coll. 1647fGoogle Scholar. The Arian Valens appointed him as tutor of his son Valentinian Galatea and Theodosius made him guardian of Arcadius.

⁹¹ Theodoret, , H. E., ii, 13.Google Scholar

⁹² Athanasius, , Historia Arianorum, 33.Google Scholar

⁹³ K. Setton discusses the views of certain publicists and panegyrists in the fourth century, op. cit., pp. 26–31 and chap. vi. “Philosophy before the Throne [Synesius]”. See also Coster, C. H., “Synesius, a Curialis in the Time of the Emperor Arcadius,” Byzantion, XVI (1940/1941), 10.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Theodoret, , H. E., ii. 13.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Oratio VI.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Oratio I, 3, 12 ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Especially Oratio VIGoogle Scholar, delivered in Constantinople in 364 apropos of Valentinian's taking Valens as co-ruler, but the idea is present in the earlier orations. Cf. Eusebius, above, p. 24, n. 6.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Oratio XVIII, pp. 267, 7fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Eusebius, above, p. 24, n. 9.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Oratio VI, pp. 93 f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Oratio VI, p. 87, 15ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. the speech of Aurelian to his soldiers noted by Ensslin, , op. cit., p. 156Google Scholar, n. 7. Cf. Eusebius above, p. 24, n. 8.

¹⁰¹ Oratio V, 16, 17Google Scholar. Though pagan in origin the phrase is absorbed into a novel of Justinian, , CV, 2, 4Google Scholar. Pointed out by Setton, K., op. cit. p. 26.Google Scholar

¹⁰² See sequel to this article.

¹⁰³ “Assyrians” normally means “Jews.” Pauly-Wissowa, s. v.

¹⁰⁴ Oratio VII 89D, p. 167Google Scholar; XI 147C, p. 175; XIX 229 A, p. 278.

¹⁰⁵ That Themistius directly influenced the Arian Valens is attested by Socrates, , H. E., iv, 32Google Scholar and Sozomen, , H. E. vi, 36Google Scholar. Here, however, it was the liberty of conscience that was defended by Themistius and thus the effect of the oration was to bring relief to the hard pressed Nicenes. It is Glanville Downey's view that Themistius' revival of pagan cosmo-political theories was induced by and to a certain extent modelled on the political theologies of Eusebius and other court bishops in an effort to show that pagan philosophy could provide the resources for a comprehensive, tolerant (especially in Oratio VI, 80ff.) imperial theology.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Op. cit., xvi, 10, 9ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. Themistius, speaking of the good emperor as the statue (ogalma), the same on earth as God in heaven, Oratio I, 10, 3fGoogle Scholar. The significance of Constantius' god-like demeanor outside Borne and within is discussed by Straub, J., op. cit., iv, “Dominus-Princeps.”Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Op. cit., xv, 1, 3Google Scholar; cf. official letter to Lucifer ascribing aeternitas to Constantius, , C. S. E. L., XIV, 321, 22.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Op. cit., xv, 8, 9.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., xxi, 13, 14.

¹¹⁰ The ancient idea of the ruler as sōtēr (and as Shepherd of the people poimēn laōn, e. g., Themistins, , Oratio I)Google Scholar undoubtedly facilitated Constantius' assimilation of his role to that of the Christ-Logos.

¹¹¹ Oratio XVIII, 263, 6fGoogle Scholar: The good emperor is a father to the fatherless; Oratio III, 51, 2Google Scholar, Constantius is a theos on earth like patriarchal Zeus above, the one illuminated by the other; Oratio II, 41, 16 and 25Google Scholar, Constantius is likened to “that great leader in heaven” of the gods (Zeus).

¹¹² Amminaus, , xxi, 14, 2.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Op. cit., p. 102.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Ammianus, (xxi, 16, 18)Google Scholar mentions with impatience the Emperor's great zeal in calling councils and his participation in the discussion, all unworthy of him from the annalist's point of view.

¹¹⁵ One may cite his conduct at Arles, 353, and at Milan, 354, his choice of Euzoïus, at the time bishop of Antioch, to baptize him as he lay in extremis. Euzoïus' recent synod had just promulgated an Anomoean creed frankly calling the Son a creature.

¹¹⁶ This is especially clear from the words imputed to him by Lucifer in De non conveniendo cum haereticis and from the imperial arguments, based on the old Roman principle of do ut des, refuted by Lucifer in De regibus apostaticis.

¹¹⁷ One is reminded of a modern parallel: Opposition in Nazi Germany to the formation of a Reichskirche under the former barracks chaplain, Reichsbisehof Müller, came from the conservatives. In war-time Japan the opposition to the Tojo-enforced United Church was from the ecclesiological and christological conservatives.

¹¹⁸ Athanasius, , Historia Arianorum, 33.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ C. S. E. L., LX, 94Google Scholar: “non enim ullas vires habere poterit definitio, cui nostra dogmatis tuae episcopi episcopum te copiam denegari.”

¹²⁰ Moriendum esse pro Dei filio, 311, 24 ff.Google Scholar: “Quid ad haec respondes, Constanti, cui crebro sunt adclamantes Arianae dogmatis tuae episcopi episcopum te esse episcoporum, morientes propter deum unicum filium credis an non credis regnum possesuros caelorum?”

¹²¹ De non parcendo in Deum deliquentibus, 267, 19–268, 28.Google Scholar

¹²² Ibid., 268, 13; cf. 62, 17; 80, 5; 143, 30; 160, 26; 162, 3; 201, 17; 220, 16; also 265, 16 f.: “libros scriptos dedisti et praedieatores benigni noti tui omni loco constituisti;” 268, 13.Google Scholar

¹²³ It is quite possible that it was Constantius rather than Constantino who considered himself the Thirteenth Apostle, thus combining pagan and Christian motifs in gaining control as pontifex maximus over the episcopate. Especially pertinent here is the paper of Glanville Downey, the substance of which was presented at the Annual Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, given over in 1949 to the problem of the Church of the Apostles. As a consequence of Downey's research based on fresh MSS and archaeological evidence, considerable alteration will be necessary in the theory advanced by Weinreich, Otto, “Konstantin der Grosse als Dreizehnter Apostel und die religionsgeschichtliche Tendenz seiner Grabeskirehe,” Triskaidekadische Studien (Giessen, 1916)Google Scholar. But it will at the same time release what is valid in Weinreich's study for application to Arian Constantius and his attempt to control the episcopate from Constantinople. Significantly the translation of the relics of St. Andrew et al. to Constantinople took place during the reign of Constantius, Philostorgius, H. E. iii, 2Google Scholar. and the ascertained date of the translation has considerable bearing on our problem as the forthcoming publication of Downey's paper will show.

¹²⁴ See sequel to this article.

¹²⁵ Migne, , P. G., XVIII, col. 676D.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Ibid., col. 680B. Noted by Sellars, R. V., Eustathius of Antioch and his Place in the early History of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1928), p. 36Google Scholar. Athanasius says that the Arian episcopoi might rather be called kataskopoi (spies). Historia Arianontm, 48 and 75.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Hagel, Karl Friedrich traces the development of Athanasius' religio-political thought in Kirche und Kaisertum in Lehre und Leben des Athanasius (Leipzig, 1933)Google Scholar. Hagel shows how Athanasius passes from a willing acceptance of the authority of Constantine to ever clearer pronouncements in favor of the independence of the Church. Nor does the accession of the Nicene Jovian cause him to reverse his views matured under the persecution of Constantius. The phases distinguished are (i) to 335; (ii) 335 to Sardica, (iii) from the return from the second to the third exile, (iv) the phase following the third exile. Most of the material in the present study concerning the views of Athanasius will be taken from writings or strata therein distinguished by Hagel as belonging to the final phase.

¹²⁸ Historia Arianorum, 33Google Scholar; Migne, , P. G., XXV, col. 732Google Scholar. Cf. John, 19:15.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Epistola encyclica.

¹³⁰ Historia Arianorum, 55 ff.Google Scholar; in 74 in summarizing the events of 356 he says that the Arians and Gentiles offered sacrifices in the Great Church and uttered blasphemies against Christ.

¹³¹ Julian's attempt to erect a philosophically monotheistic church was only the frankly pagan analogue of Constantius' unsuccessfully Arianized Reichskirche. Themistius in his plea for toleration in Oratio VI delivered before the successor of Julian indicates that there was quite a bit of religious accommodation on the part of Christians (Arians?) during Julian's reign.

¹³² Oratio XVII, 9Google Scholar; Migne, , P. G., XXXV, col. 975Google Scholar. But on the whole it must be admitted that Gregory Nazianzen was, compared to Basil of Caesarea, quite uncritical of the emperor. In his declamations against Julian he was prepared to rehabilitate Constantius as the most divine of emperors and most loving of Christ. Oratio IV, 34Google Scholar; Migne, , P. G., XXV, col. 560Google Scholar D. Gregory's position is discussed by Setton, K., op. cit., pp. 104–106.Google Scholar

¹³³ Ep. xxi, 13; Migne, , P. L. XVIGoogle Scholar. Cf. Berkhof, Hendrik, Kirche und Staat, p. 195Google Scholar. The presupposition of Ambrose is that only orthodox worship is pleasing to God, securing his favor for the Empire. Berkhof criticizes him for his intolerance and notes with regret the survival in the Saint of the essentially pagan principles of do ut des but rejoices in Ambrose's spokesmanship for the freedom of the Church over against even a Catholic emperor.

¹³⁴ Parsons, W., op. cit., 354.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Schlier, Heinrich, “Mächte und Gewalten im Neuen Testament,” Theologische Blätter, 1930, col. 289Google Scholar; “Die Beuteilung des Staates im Neuen Testament,” Zwischen den Zeiten, 1932, p. 312Google Scholar; “Vom Antichrist: Zum 13. Kapitel der Offenbarung Johannis,” Theologische Aufsätze: Festschrift zu Karl Barths 50Google Scholar. Geburtstag. (1936), p. 110Google Scholar; Dehn, Günther, “Engel und Obrigkeit: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Röm. 13,1–7,”Google Scholaribid., p. 90; Barth, Karl, Evangelische Theologie, III (1936), p. 413Google Scholar; Schmidt, Karl Ludwig, with qualifications, “Das Gegenüber von Kirche and Staat in der Gemeinde des Neuen Testaments,”Google Scholar especially Excursus II: “Die Kirche als Beisassenschaft,” Theologische Blätter, XVI (1937), p. 2Google Scholar; enlarged in Die Polis in Kirche und Welt: Eine lexikographische und exegetische Studie (Basel, 1939)Google Scholar. The whole theory is opposed by Kittel, Gerhard, Christus und Imperator: Das Urteil der ersten Christenheit über den Staat (Stuttgart/Berlin, 1939)Google Scholar in “Beilage: Die ‘dämonistische’ Deutung von exousia in Röm. 13, 1ff.”

¹³⁶ Lucifer was particularly savage in his epithets, calling Constantius variously dux et praecursor Antichristi, 113, 210Google Scholar; 138, 10; 168, 15; etc.; Antichristus, 106, 8Google Scholar; 238, 14; 276, 2; adversarias Dei, 9, 13Google Scholar; 75, 18; procurator diaboli, 174, 6.Google Scholar