A Critical Examination of the Church’s Reception of Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan of AD 313

Since its enactment in AD 313, the Edict of Milan (sometimes referred to as ‘the Edict of Toleration’), an edict that freed Christianity from empire-wide persecution, Constantine’s declaration has received a significant amount of attention within Christendom. Most of the discussion has centered on Constantine’s conversion, the precursor to the actual edict (whether the conversion was real or insincere, as some have suggested), with many suggesting that Constantine was acting more as a politician than a Christian. While this line of inquiry is legitimate, perhaps a better approach to the question may be more helpful to present-day Christians. That is, while it is logical to deduce that every prudent politician will ignore the largest religious movement in his/her time at his/her own peril, Christians of every age will be better served if they critically evaluate their reception of each and every major policy that is clearly aimed at their benefit. With this background, this paper will attempt to critically examine the reception of Constantine’s edict by the Church in the years immediately following its enactment. Two early exhibits will be brought to bear here: the Donatist controversy and the Arian controversy. In so doing, the thesis that while Christians had every reason to celebrate the enactment of the edict, down the road, an uncritical adoption of the emperor’s policies and favors towards the church opened a door for an unhealthy marriage between earthly powers and the church that proved detrimental in the ensuing years, will be defended. As such, the Church’s reception of the Edict of Milan continues to be a lesson to Christians of every age in their relationship with the political leadership of their time.

Wisdom in Patristic Interpretation

This essay explores the way in which wisdom language is used in the patristic period to articulate two corresponding unities: scriptural and cosmic. It does so through a focus on Athanasius’s treatment of Prov 8:22 in the context of the “Arian” controversy, showing how his christological identification of Wisdom (quite alien to the modern exegete) arises naturally from the intertextual reading practice he shares with most other authors from the period. It makes sense of this practice (which is equally alien to the modern exegete) in terms of a wisdom hermeneutic according to which the unity of Scripture is akin less to a plot than to an interconnected set of proverbs. It shows how Athanasius’s hermeneutic, for which Scripture is a unity, corresponds to an understanding of the unity of the cosmos in Christ as the Wisdom through which it was both created and renewed.

Trinitarian Doctrine in Fortunatian of Aquileia’s Commentarii in evangelia

The purpose of this paper is to examine the Fortunatian’s Christology and Trinitarian theology that can be deduced from his recently found work Commentarii in evangelia and, by doing so, to present a general re-evaluation of his role in the political-doctrinal clashes at the middle of the 4th century. By investigating Fortunatian’s (Trinitarian) theology in relation to the prior early Latin Trinitarian doctrine and to different heterodox traditions, and ascertaining his doctrinal standpoint in the Arian controversy of the middle of the 4th century, his doctrine reveals itself to be far more Catholic and “pro-Nicene” – though remaining deeply rooted in the Latin theological tradition – that it was regarded before.

HOLY TRINITY AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY

Although early Christian theologians speculated in many ways on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one clearly and fully asserted the doctrine of the Trinity until around the end of the so-called Arian Controversy during the 4th century. Arius taught that God the Father and the Son of God did not always exist together eternally. In this context this research article attempts to review the evolution of the concept of Holy Trinity and the Arian Controversy, understand the main differences between Homoousian and Homoiousian arguments with an aim to help the reader understand the divinity of God the Jesus Christ and his co-eternal and co-equal position along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Marius Victorinus. Treatise «Against Arius» (fragments)Translation from Latin, introduction and notes

Статья содержит комментированный перевод глав с 20 по 23 и с 28 по 32 трактата Мария Викторина «Против Ария», в которых он ведёт полемику с омиусианами, последовательно опровергая их тезисы, содержащиеся в послании лидера омиусиан Василия, еп. Анкирского,«О подобосущии». Викторин видит в них не только измену Никейскому учению о единосущии Отца и Сына, но и противоречие аристотелевской логике, согласно которой подобие может быть только по качеству, но не по сущности. Во вступительной статье приводятся общие сведения об омиусианах и их позиции в истории арианских споров, а также обсуждается неоднозначная реакция западных никейцев на учение о «подобосущии». The article contains a commented translation of chapters 20 to 23 and 28 to 32 of Marius Victorinus’ treatise «Against Arius», where he makes a discussion with Homoeusians and refutes their theses, exposed in a letter of Basil, bishop of Ankyra, the leader of Homoeusians«On the similarity in substance». According to Victorinus, their doctrine is not only a betrayal of the Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, but also contains contradiction to the Aristotelian logic, according to which there can be a similarity only in quality, but not in substance. The introductory article provides a brief overview of the Homoeusians and their position in the history of the Arian controversy, and also discusses the controversial reaction of the Western Niceneans to the doctrine of «the similarity in substance».