§ 91.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Further Fluctuations until the Synod of Constantinople.

But the phrase osios did not meet with general approbation.(1) In this unsettled state of affairs the party of the Eusebians, (2) who had for some time previous enjoyed the favour of the court, succeeded in gaining its assent to a doctrine in which the use of the term was studiously avoided, though it did not strictly inculcate the principles of Arianism. Thus Athanasius, who firmly adhered to this watchword of the Nicene party, found himself compelled to seek refuge in the West. Several synods were summoned for the purpose of settling this long protracted question, a number of formulæ were drawn up and rejected, (3) till at last the Nicene doctrine, which was equally that of Athanasius, was solemnly confirmed by the decisions of the second œcumenical synod of Constantinople (A. D. 381.)(4)

(1) Several Asiatic bishops took offence at the term in question, Socrat. i. 8, 6. Münscher von Cölln, p. 210. They considered it unscriptural (égis ygapos), and were afraid lest it might give rise to a revival of the theory of emanation. But the expressions ix rs oùoias was more favourable to that theory than the term uocúrios, comp. Meier, 1. c. p. 147. Respecting the further particulars of the external events, see the works on ecclesiastical history. LEADING HISTORICAL FACTS: I. The banishment of Arius and the bishops Theonas and Secundus. The fate of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice. II. Arius is recalled A. D. 330, after having signed the following confession of faith: εἰς Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων γεγεννημένον, θεὸν λόγον, δι ̓ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο 2. T. λ. (Socr. i. 26.) Synods of Tyre and Jerusalem, (A. D.) 335.) III. Banishment of Athanasius into Gaul. The sudden death of Arius at Constantinople (A. D. 336,) prior to his solemn

readmission into the church. Different opinions concerning this event. IV. Death of the Emperor Constantine the Great at Nicomedia (A. D. 337.) (Socr. i. 27-40.) A remarkable change had taken place in the views of Constantine towards the close of his life. The Arians were greatly supported by his son Constantius, who ascended the throne A. D. 337.

(2) Concerning this name, see Gieseler, i. § 82. Athanasius himself frequently calls them οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον ; by other writers they are classed together with the Arians, whom they joined in their opposition against Athanasius.

(3) I. The four confessions of faith drawn up by the Eusebians, and presented at the council of Antioch (A. D. 341), in Athan. de syn. c. 22-25. Walch, p. 109, (see Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 211, ss. Gieseler, i. § 82, note 4); in all of these the word ooos is wanting, but in all other points they were not favourable to Arianism. II. Formula uaxgiorixos issued by the Eusebians at the second council of Antioch (A. D. 443), in which Arianism was condemned, Tritheism rejected, the doctrine of Athanasius found fault with, and, in opposition to it, the subordination of the Son to the Father was maintained. III. The synod of Sardica, (A. D. 347, or, according to others, a. D. 344)a Socrat. ii. 20; but the western church alone remained at Sardica, the eastern held its assemblies in the neighbouring town of Philippopolis. The Formula Philippopolitana, preserved by Hilary (de Synodis contra Arianos, § 34,) is partly a repetition of the formula uangiorixos. IV. The confession of faith adopted at the first council of Sirmium (A. D. 351, in Athanas. § 27, in Hilary, § 37, and in Socrat. ii. 29, 30.) was directed against Photinus; see below, § 92. V. The formula of the second council of Sirmium (A. D. 357,-in Hilary, § 11, Athanas. § 28, Socrat. ii. 30.) was directed both against the use of the term oooos, and against speculative tendencies in general: Scire autem manifestum est solum Patrem quomodo genuerit filium suum, et filium quomodo genitus sit a patre, (comp. above Irenæus, § 42, note 9); but it also asserts the subordination of the Son to the Father in the strict Arian manner: Nulla ambiguitas est, ma

Respecting the chronology see Wetzer, H. J., restitutio veræ Chronologiæ rerum ex controversiis Arianis inde ab anno 325 usque ad annum 350 exortarum contra chronologiam hodie receptam exhibita. Francof. 1827.

jorem esse Patrem. Nulli potest dubium esse, Patrem honore, dignitate, claritate, majestate et ipso nomine Patris majorem esse filio, ipso testante : qui me misit major me est (John xiv. 28.) Et hoc catholicum esse nemo ignorat, duas Personas esse Patris et Filii, majorem Patrem, Filium subjectum cum omnibus his, quæ ipsi Pater subjecit. VI. These strict Arian views were rejected by the Semiarians at the synod of Ancyra in Galatia (A. D. 358,) under Basil, bishop of Ancyra; the decrees of this synod are given in Epiph. hær. 73, § 2-11. (Münscher von Cölln and Gieseler, i. § 83.) VII. The confession of faith adopted at the third synod of Sirmium (A. D. 358,) in which that agreed upon at the second synod (the Arian) is condemned, and the Semiarian confession of the synod of Ancyra is confirmed. Comp. Athan. § 8. Socrat. ii. 37. VIII. Council of the western church at Ariminum (Rimini), and of the eastern at Seleucia (a. D. 359.)

(*) SYMBOLUM NICENO-CONSTANTINOPOLITANUM: Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν, πατέρα παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων· καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο. Τὸν δι ̓ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα σταυ ρωθέντα δὲ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα και ταφέντα καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς· καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐξανούς· καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· οὗ τῆς βασι λείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. Καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, etc. (Concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit, see below, § 93, note 7.)

Münscher edit. by von Cölln compares this symbol with the Nicene Creed, p. 240. Comp. J. C. Suicer, Symbolum NicænoConstantinopolitan. expositum et ex antiquitate ecclesiastica illustratum, Traj. ad Rhen. 1718, 4.

§ 92.

AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF THE CAUSES WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE AFORESAID FLUCTUATIONS.

Arianism and Semiarianism on the one hand, and return to Sabellianism on the other (Marcellus and Photinus.)

Klose, C. R. W., Geschichte und Lehre des Eunomius, Kiel, 1833. By the same: Geschichte und Lehre des Marcellus und Photinus, Hamburg, 1837.

From the very nature of the controversy in question it followed, that the difficult task of steering clear both of Sabellianism and Arianism, devolved on those who were anxious to preserve orthodoxy in all its purity. In maintaining the sameness of essence they had to hold fast the distinction of persons; in asserting the latter they had to avoid the doctrine of subordination.(1) The Semiarians,(2) and together with them Cyrill of Jerusalem, (3) and Eusebius of Cæsarea,(4) endeavoured to abstain from the use of the term ooúdos, lest they should fall into the Sabellian error; nevertheless the former asserted, in opposition to the strict Arians (the followers of Aëtius, and the Eunomians),(5) that the Son was of similar essence with the Father (oooo5.) But Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, and still more his disciple Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, carried their opposition to Arianism so far as to adopt in substance the principles of Sabellianism. They modified it, however, to some extent, by drawing a distinct line between the terms Logos and Son of God, and thus guarded it against the very semblance of Patripassianism.(6)

(1) Chrysostom represents the necessity, as well as the difficulty of avoiding both these dangers, de sacerdotio, iv. 4, sub finem : ̓Αν τε γὰρ μίαν τις ἔιπῃ θεότητα, πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παράνοιαν εὐθέως εἵλκυσε τὴν φωνὴν ὁ Σαβέλλιος· ἄν τε διέλῃ πάλιν, ἕτερον μὲν τὸν Πατέρα, ἕτερον δὲ τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα δὲ τὸ ἅγιον ἕτερον εἶναι λέγων, ἐφέστηκεν"Αρειος, εἰς

παραλλαγὴν οὐσίας ἕλκων τὴν ἐν τοῖς προσώποις διαφοράν. Δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὴν ἀσεβῆ σύγχυσιν ἐκείνου, καὶ τὴν μανιώδη τούτου διαίρεσιν ἀποστρέφεσθαι καὶ φεύγειν, τὴν μὲν θεότητα Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος μίαν ὁμολογοῦντας, προστιθέντας δὲ τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις· οὕτω γὰρ ἀποτειχίσαι δυνησόμεθα τὰς ἀμφότερων ἐφόδους.

(2) The leaders of the Semiarians (ὁμοιουσιασταί, ἡμιάξειοι) were Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Georgius, bishop of Laodicea. Comp. the confession of faith adopted by the synod of Ancyra, (A. D. 358), in Athanas. de Syn. § 41. Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 222.

( Cyrill, Cat. xvi. 24. He rejects, generally speaking, speculations that are carried too far, and thinks it sufficient to believe : Εἷς θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ· εἷς κύριος, ὁ μονογενῆς αὐτοῦ υἱός· ἓν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὁ παράκλητος. We ought not to go beyond Scripture, nor turn either to the right or to the left, but keep in the via regia, μήτε διὰ τὸ νομίζειν τιμᾶν τὸν υἱὸν, πατέρα αὐτὸν ἀναγορεύσωμεν, μήτε διὰ τὸ τιμᾶν τὸν πατέρα νομίζειν, ἓν τι δημιουργημάτων τὸν υἱὸν ὑποπτεύσωμεν, xi. 17. Instead of ὁμοούσιος he would prefer ὅμοιος κατὰ πάντα, iv. 7, but comp. the various readings in the work of Toutée, p. 53, and Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 224-226. Socrat. iv. 25. He also maintains, that it is necessary to hold the right medium between Sabellianism and Arianism, iv. 8 : Καὶ μήτε ἀπαλλοτριώσης τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν, μήτε συναλοιφὴν ἐργασάμενος υἱοπατορίαν πιστεύσῃς κ. τ. λ. Comp. xvi. 4, and Meier, die Lehre von der Trinität. i. p. 170.

(4) Eus. h. e. 1, 2, calls the Son τὸν τῆς μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελον, τὸν τῆς ἀρξήτου γνώμης τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπουργὸν, τὸν δεύτερον μετὰ τὸν πατέρα αίτιον, &c. In Panegyricus, x. i. he also calls him τῶν ἀγαθῶν δευτερον αἴτιον, an expression which greatly offended the orthodox writers; and at another place he gives him the name auroEOS x. 4. On the formation of compound words by means of the pronoun avrò, of which Eusebius makes frequent use, comp. the demonstr. evang. iv. 2, 13, and Heinichen, 1. c. p. 223. In the same work, v. 1. p. 215, the subordination of the Son to the Father is mentioned, though he calls him, iv. 3, p. 149, υἱὸν γεννητὸν πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ὄντα καὶ προόντα καὶ τῷ πατρὶ ὡς υἱὸν διαπαντὸς συνόντα; on the other hand, he speaks of him as ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἀνεκφράστου καὶ ἀπερινοήτου βουλῆς τε καὶ δυνάμεως οὐσιούμενον. For fur

• Comp. the note of the scholiast in the Cod. Med. (in the work of Vales. and Heinichen ii. p. 219): Κακῶς κἀνταῦθα θεολογεῖς, Εὐτέβις, περὶ τοῦ συνανάρχου καὶ συναϊδίου καὶ συμποιητοῦ τῶν ὅλων υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, δεύτερον αὐτὸν ἀποκαλῶν αἴτιον τ ῶ ἀγαθῶν, συναίτιον ὄντα καὶ συνδημιουργὸν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων, καὶ ὁμοούσιον, and the more recent note in the Cod. Mazarin. ibidem.

T