Saint Hosius the "Last Voice of the Early Church"?

In 2021, David Bercot was interviewed by Austin Suggs on his Gospel Simplicity channel. The interview was called "Anabaptist Perspective on Church History (w/ David Bercot)." In the interview, Mr. Bercot expresses his views about how lifestyle trumps theology, how things went wrong with Emperor Constantine, and how Bishop Hosius of Cordova was the "last voice of the early Church." 

Answering a question about what would be a “more productive way” of solving the Arian controversy, David describes St. Hosius as the “last voice of the early Church.” Mr. Bercot says that St. Hosius’ advice to Emperor St. Constantine about solving the Arian controversy was: “They just need to drop it.” David would have St. Hosius say, “Quit arguing about it. Just drop it.” His narrative continues:

He [Constantine] sent Hosius there to talk to Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. He said that very thing. He told them, ‘You should not have asked the questions you did. You started this thing by asking these questions about God that we don’t know the answer. And Arius, you shouldn’t have ever given the answers you did. You both need to just back off from it, and drop this.’ … Now, they’re not going to drop it, and it was a horrible feud. … What they came up with as the answer is certainly what the early Church taught. (See 44:00-50:00)

St. Hosius (c. 256-358) was a Spanish bishop of Córdova, Spain for more than sixty years during the fourth century, and a survivor of persecution under Maximian (303-305). He was also an adviser to Emperor St. Constantine the Great and one of the chief defenders of Orthodoxy in the West against the early Donatist schism and the Arian heresy. For the reasons below, Mr. Bercot's identification of St. Hosius as the "last voice of the early Church" is exceedingly problematic.

Constantine's Letter to Alexander and Arius

Bercot mentions the post-Nicene histories of Eusebius, Sozemen and Socrates to support his views, so it is those same historical texts I have consulted for this article. After St. Alexander excommunicated Arius and his adherents, Constantine sent Bishop Hosius the Spaniard to deliver a letter. First, I will quote some excerpts from Constantine's letter (preserved in Eusebius and Socrates) which correspond to David's point he makes in the interview:

Victor Constantine Maximum Augustus to Alexander and Arius.

I am informed that your present controversy originated thus. When you, Alexander, inquired of your presbyters what each thought on a certain inexplicable passage of the written Word, rather on a subject improper for discussion; and you, Arius, rashly gave expression to a view of the matter such as ought either never to have been conceived, or when suggested to your mind, it became you to bury it in silence. This dispute having thus been excited among you, communion has been denied; and the most holy people being rent into two factions, have departed from the harmony of the common body. Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant.....

It becomes us therefore on such topics to check loquacity, lest either on account of the weakness of our nature we should be incompetent to explain the subject proposed; or the dull understanding of the audience should make them unable to apprehend clearly what is attempted to be taught: and in the case of one or the other of these failures, the people must be necessarily involved either in blasphemy or schism. Wherefore let an unguarded question, and an inconsiderate answer, on the part of each of you, procure equal forgiveness from one another. No cause of difference has been started by you bearing on any important precept contained in the Law; nor has any new heresy been introduced by you in connection with the worship of God; but ye both hold one and the same judgment on these points, which is the Creed....

Under his providence, allow me, his servant, to bring this effort of mine to a successful issue; that by my exhortation, ministry, and earnest admonition, I may lead you, his people, back to unity of communion. (Socrates, 1.7)

According to Eusebius, the emperor sent St. Hosius to "negotiate peace between the dissentient parties at Alexandria," and "made him the bearer of a most needful and appropriate letter" (Life of Constantine, 2.63). But the only extant record of the negotiation is Constantine's letter itself. While Hosius was sent by Constantine as an arbiter between Alexander and Arius, there exists no record of the dialogue in the histories, only Constantine's letter. So where is David getting Hosius' words?

In the letter, Constantine entreats them to "listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant" but he also identifies himself as the "servant." Obviously it is the content of Constantine's letter which Bercot is attributing to Hosius, the bearer of the letter. But we don't know what Hosius actually said to Alexander and Arius. 

If it is the "last voice of the Early Church" who told Alexander and Arius, "Quit arguing about it. Just drop it,” then Emperor St. Constantine the Great, the archenemy of Kingdom Christianity,  is actually the "last voice of the Early Church." Bercot mistakenly attributed the words of St. Constantine's letter to St. Hosius. 

As we shall see below, St. Hosius does not fit the personality of one whom David Bercot would find agreeable with his ideas about the early Church. In light of David's negative views concerning separation of Church and State, the Council of Nicaea, and the Nicene Creed, specifically the theological term homoousios, St. Hosius emerges an ironic spokesmen for the early Church, that is, David's narrative of the early Church. 

Separation from the World and Power

In the Gospel Simplicity interview, one of Bercot's "four pillars" of the early Church is the separation of Church and State, or separation from the world and power. But St. Hosius was an advisor to the Emperor. From 312 to 326 Hosius acted as adviser at the court of St. Constantine. Hosius had a close relationship with the emperor, both advising him and delivering his mail as an ambassador in the case of the Arian controversy. Hosius had already been for some time a trusted adviser, having acted for Constantine also in the matter of the Donatist schism (whom David Bercot believes were "Kingdom Christians"). 

The Council of Nicaea

Throughout his life and ministry as a bishop, St. Hosius sided with the Orthodox definition of faith held by St. Alexander and later St. Athanasius. In fact, Hosius convoked a synod at Alexandria of Egyptian bishops and another at Antioch of Syrian bishops. Both of which condemned Arius and his followers. 

Mr. Bercot takes issue with the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea for being convened and presided over by the Emperor. But it was St. Hosius who also advised St. Constantine to convene the Council in 325. In the words of the early Church historian Theodoret, Bishop Hosius was “the most highly distinguished of all those who assembled at the Council of Nicaea” (Ecclesiastical History, 2.12). He was also the first to sign the acts of this Council.

After a period of quiet life in his own diocese, Hosius presided in 343 at the Council of Sardica (now Sofia in Bulgaria), convened in 343 by Emperors Constans I, Augustus in the West, and Constantius II, Augustus in the East. Bishop Hosius was commissioned to preside over the council, at which he refused to put out St. Athanasius. 

Because they held communion with St. Athanasius, Bishop Hosius and Julius, bishop of Rome, were deposed by the bishops of the East. The bishops of the party of Julius and Hosius held another session and deposed the bishops of the East “because they separated the Son from the substance of the Father, and had received those who had been formerly deposed on account of their holding the Arian heresy, and had, moreover, promoted them to the highest offices in the service of God” (Sozemen, 3.12). 

Homoousion and the Nicene Creed

Mr. Bercot insists that the early Church never would have been so dogmatic as to insist upon using the theological term Homoousion (literally "same in essence"), a word that's "not in the Bible," he says. But it was St. Hosius who was influential in securing the inclusion of the key word homoousios in the Nicene Creed. It is interesting that Bercot doesn't express the same problem with the word "Trinity" because neither is it in the Bible." Nevertheless the word "Trinity" is found in Ante-Nicene Christian theology and defended by Bercot in the interview.

Additionally, at the Council of Sardica, St. Hosius also expanded the Nicene Creed with more extrabiblical theological terms. The Church historian Sozmen writes:

Hosius and Protogenes, who held the first rank among the Western bishops assembled at Sardica, fearing perhaps lest they should be suspected of making any innovations upon the doctrines of the Nicene council, wrote to Julius, and testified that they were firmly attached to these doctrines, but, pressed by the need of perspicuity, they had to expand the identical thought, in order that the Arians might not take advantage of the brevity of the document, to draw those who were unskilled in dialectics into some absurdity (3.12). 

St. Hosius continued to speak in favor of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who was the principal opponent of Arianism. St. Athanasius returned to the see of Alexandria, and shortly thereafter called the Alexandrian synod of 362. This council was a major turning point in the conflict with the Arian movement over issues regarding the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and God's divinity. By the cooperation of Eusebius of Vercelli and St. Athanasius, the Trinity was declared to be consubstantial. The controversy concerning theological terms also originated with St. Hosius. The Church historian Socrates reported:

Those who assisted at the Alexandrian Council examined also with great minuteness the question concerning ‘Essence’ or ’Substance,’ and ‘Existence’ or ‘Subsistence,’ or ‘Personality.’ For Hosius, bishop of Cordova in Spain, who has been before referred to as having the Emperor Constantine to ally excitement which Arius had caused, originated the controversy about these terms in his earnestness to overthrow the dogma of Sabellius the Libyan. In the council of Nicaea, however, which was held soon after, this dispute was not agitated; but in consequence of the contention about it which subsequently arose, the matter was freely discussed at Alexandria. It was there determined that such expressions as ousia and hypostasis ought not to be used in reference to God: for they argued that the word ousia is nowhere employed in the sacred Scriptures; and that the apostle has misapplied the term hypostasis owing to an inevitable necessity arising from the nature of the doctrine. They nevertheless decided that in refutation of the Sabellian error these terms were admissible, in default of more appropriate language, lest it should be supposed that one thing was indicated by a threefold designation; whereas we ought rather to believe that each of those named in the Trinity is God in his own proper person. Such were the decisions of this Synod” (3.7).

The Arians brought pressure to bear upon Emperor Constantius II (who is often considered an Arian), who had him summoned to Milan where St. Hosius declined to condemn St. Athanasius nor to extend communion to Arians. He so impressed the emperor that he was authorized to return home. In his apology, St. Athanasius says the following about St. Hosius:

It is unnecessary that I should speak of the great Hosius, that aged and faithful confessor of the faith, for every one knows that he also was sent into banishment. Of all the bishops he is the most illustrious. What council can be mentioned in which he did not preside, and convince all present by the power of his reasoning? What Church does not still retain the glorious memorials of his protection? Did any one ever go to him sorrowing, and not leave him rejoicing? Who ever asked his aid, and did not obtain all that he desired? Yet they had the boldness to attack this great man, simply because, from his knowledge of the impiety of their calumnies, he refused to affix his signature to their artful accusations against us. (Quoted in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, 2.12).

Saint Hosius in His Own Words 

More Arian pressure led to Constantius writing a letter demanding whether he alone was going to remain obstinate. In reply, Hosius sent his courageous letter of protest against imperial interference in Church affairs (353), preserved by Athanasius, which led to Hosius' exile and detainment in 355 to Sirmium, in Pannonia (in modern Serbia). After being subjected to threats and physical violence, the old man Hosius, who was near his hundredth year, signed the Arian formula of Sirmium (357), and only then was he permitted to return to his diocese in Córdova, but he retracted his signature before he died. Before his repose, St. Hosius wrote to Constantius the Emperor:

I was a Confessor at the first, when a persecution arose in the time of your grandfather Maximian; and if you shall persecute me, I am ready now, too, to endure anything rather than to shed innocent blood and to betray the truth. But I cannot approve of your conduct in writing after this threatening manner. Cease to write thus; adopt not the cause of Arius, nor listen to those in the East, nor give credit to Ursacius, Valens and their fellows. For whatever they assert, it is not on account of Athanasius, but for the sake of their own heresy. . . . 

God has put into your hands the kingdom; to us He has entrusted the affairs of His Church; and as he who would steal the empire from you would resist the ordinance of God, so likewise fear on your part lest by taking upon yourself the government of the Church, you become guilty of a great offense. It is written, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Neither therefore is it permitted unto us to exercise an earthly rule, nor have you, Sire, any authority to burn incense. These things I write unto you out of a concern for your salvation. With regard to the subject of your letters, this is my determination; I will not unite myself to the Arians; I anathematize their heresy. Neither will I subscribe against Athanasius, whom both we and the Church of the Romans and the whole Council pronounced to be guiltless. And yourself also, when you understood this, sent for the man, and gave him permission to return with honor to his country and his Church. What reason then can there be for so great a change in your conduct? The same persons who were his enemies before, are so now also; and the things they now whisper to his prejudice (for they do not declare them openly in his presence), the same they spoke against him, before you sent for him; the same they spread abroad concerning him when they come to the Council. And when I required them to come forward, as I have before said, they were unable to produce their proofs; had they possessed any, they would not have fled so disgracefully. Who then persuaded you so long after to forget your own letters and declarations?  

Forbear, and be not influenced by evil men, lest while you act for the mutual advantage of yourself and them, you render yourself responsible. For here you comply with their desires, hereafter in the judgment you will have to answer for doing so alone. These men desire by your means to injure their enemy, and wish to make you the minister of their wickedness, in order that through your help they may sow the seeds of their accursed heresy in the Church. Now it is not a prudent thing to cast one’s self into manifest danger for the pleasure of others. Cease then, I beseech you, O Constantius, and be persuaded by me. These things it becomes me to write, and you not to despise.”  (Quoted in St. Athanasius, Arian History, 42). 

Conclusion

Mr. Bercot's identification of St. Hosius as the last voice of the early Church is ironic and contradictory. It was actually Emperor St. Constantine the Great who declared the words David Bercot found to be the "last voice of the early Church" (St. Hosius only delivered the letter). For David, separation of Church and State or power is one of the pillars of early Christianity, yet St. Hosius was an advisor to Emperor St. Constantine and he was commissioned by emperors to preside in Church councils. Bercot objects to the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea as being unprecedented when viewed through his own early Christian lenses, but it was St. Hosius who advised St. Constantine to convene the Council. Bercot objects to the word homoousios as being too narrow and extrabiblical, but St. Hosius was influential in securing the inclusion of this key word in the Nicene Creed and later expanding the Creed with additional extrabiblical words. St. Hosius died as a Confessor, a defender of Nicene orthodox theology. So, according to Bercot's reading of early Church history, how can St. Hosius be the last voice of the early Church?

Sources:

Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 2.63-73 (NPNF-2 1.515-518).

Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, 1.7, 14; 2.20, 3.7 (NPNF-2 2.6, 19, 47, 81).

Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 1.10, 16; 3.12 (NPNF-2 2.246, 290-291).

Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, 2.12 (NPNF-2 3.76-77).

St. Athanasius, Arian History, 42 (NPNF-2 4.285-286).