Adolf von Harnack and Arthur Cushman McGiffert

Summary

Adolf von Harnack and Arthur Cushman McGiffert 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 25… (1911)

This indeed is characteristic of his Byzantine Christian point of view; church history becomes metamorphosed into a history of the emperors and of the state, because a special church history is at bottom impossible. But even so one hardly hears anything about state or court except great enterprises and anecdotes. Political insight is wholly wanting to Socrates; all the orthodox emperors blaze forth in a uniform light of dazzling splendour; even the miserable Arcadius is praised, and Theodosius II. figures as a saint whose exemplary piety turned the capital into a church.
Source: Wikisource

Adolf von Harnack and Arthur Cushman McGiffert 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 25… (1911)

If Socrates had lived about the year 325, he certainly would not have ranked himself on the side of Athanasius, but would have joined the party of mediation. But—the ὁμοούσιος has been laid down, and must be recognized as correctly expressing the mystery; only one ought to rest satisfied with that word and with the repudiation of Arianism. Anything more, every new distinction, is mischievous. The controversy in its details is a νυκτομαχία to him, full of misunderstandings.
Source: Wikisource

Adolf von Harnack and Arthur Cushman McGiffert 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 25… (1911)

In point of fact this is the view actually taken by Socrates. His utter want of care and consistency appears most clearly in his vacillation as to the relations between ecclesiastical and political history. At one time he brings in politics, at another he excuses himself from doing so. He has not failed to observe that Church and State act and react upon each other; but he has no notion how the relation ought to be conceived.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature