I. PERIOD OF THE ARIAN DISPUTES.

Walch's Historie der Ketzereien, ii. 385, ff. J. A. Möhler's Athanasius d. Grosse u.ɗ Kirche seiner Zeit, bes. im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus. 2 Th. Mainz. 1827.8. Baur's Lehre von d. Dreieinigkeit u. Menschwerdung Gottes in ihrer geschichtl. Entwickelung, i. 320. G. A. Meier's Lehre von der Trinität in ihrer histor. Entwickelung, i. 134. Ritter's Gesch. d. christl. Philosophie, ii. 18.

§ 81.

BEGINNING OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY TO THE SYNOD OF"

NICE (325).

Storia critica della vita di Arrio, scritta da Gaetano Maria Travasa, Cler. Reg. Teatino. Venezia. 1746. 8. Der Arianismus in s. ursprungl. Bedeutung u. Richtung von L. Lange, in Illgen's Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol. iv. ii. 75.

While endeavors were made in vain to reunite the Donatists and Meletians with the church, the progressive development of the doctrine of the Logos gave rise to a new controversy, which soon became more general and violent than any that had preceded it. The common doctrine of the Logos, after the expulsion of the Monarchians, was, that he is the mediator of all Divine agency in the finite, by the will of the Father, and less than he. Regarding his origin, the emanistic idea had been by far the most general. In opposition to it, the school of Origen represented him as an eternal ray of the Divine glory. This bringing forth of the Logos outside of the Divine essence by the will of the Father was still, however, a creation; and that this creating could not be eternal, was already perceived, when Dionysius of Alexandria, in opposition to Sabellius, gave greater prominence to the fact that the Son was created.1 But the emanists also took offense at this conclusion; for with them the Logos was eternal, though not as a person, yet still in the essence of God from whom he had proceeded. Dionysius at that time prevented a controversy by yielding; but now Arius, a

See Divis. I. § 64, notes 7, 8, § 66, note 16. The Romish Dionysius merely infers from the expressions of the Alexandrian the non-eternity of the Logos; the latter denies this, a proof that he did not express it as his opinion. If, however, the Logos was a creature, he was not eternal. Hence the Arians referred even to Dionysius in favor of this doctrine. See § 14, note 7. Athanasius de sententia Dionysii endeavors to excuse him; but Basi the Great, Ep..ix. 2, finds in him. the germ of Arianism.

presbyter in Alexandria, who, in the school of Lucian, by a historico-exegetical training had received the love of intelligible clearness, wished to remove the latent contradiction in Origen's doctrine, by teaching that the Logos is a created, and consequently not an eternal being.2 When he fell into a dispute

2 Writings of Arius: Epist. ad Eusebium Nicomediensem ap. Epiphan. Haer. 69, § 6, and Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. 1, 4, Epist. Alexandrum ap. Athanasius de synodis Arim. et Seleuc. c. 16, and Epiphanius Haer. 69, § 7, Θαλεία (ἐμφερὴς τῇ χαυνότητι τοῖς Σωτάδου ᾄσμασιν, Sozom. i. 21), not extant, except fragments in Athanasius. According to Atha nasius c. Arian. Or. ii. 24, Arius, Eusebius, and Asterius, in their works, inculcated these sentiments respecting the creation of the world ὡς ἄρα θέλων ὁ θεὸς τὴν γενητὴν κτίσαι φύσιν, ἐπειδὴ ἑώρα μὴ δυναμένην αὐτὴν μετασχεῖν τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἀκράτου (χειρός), και της παρ' αὑτοῦ δημιουργίας, ποιεῖ καὶ κτίζει πρώτως μόνος μόνον ἕνα καὶ καλεῖ τοῦτον υἱὸν καὶ λόγον, ἵνα τούτου μέσου γενομένου οὕτως λοιπὸν καὶ τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ γενέσ θαι δυνηθῇ. Arius's own explanations, Epist. ad Euseb. : Ότι ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγέννητος, οὐδὲ μέρος ἀγεννήτου κατ ̓ οὐδένα τρόπον, οὐδὲ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου τινός· ἀλλ' ὅτι θελήματι καὶ βουλῇ ὑπέστη πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων πλήρης θεὸς, μονογενῆς, ἀναλλοίωτος, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῇ, ἤτοι κτισθῇ, ἢ ὁρισθῇ, ἢ θεμελιωθῇ, οὐκ ἦν· ἀγέννητος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν. διωκόμεθα, ὅτι εἴπαμεν, ἀρχὴν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς, ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἄναρχός ἐστι. διὰ τοῦτο διωκόμεθα. καὶ ὅτι εἴπαμεν, ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐστὶν. οὕτω δὲ εἴπαμεν, καθότι οὐδὲ μέρος θεοῦ, οὐδὲ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου τινός. Epist. ad Alex. : Οἴδαμεν ἕνα θεὸν, μόνον ἀγέννητον, τοῦτον θεὸν γεννήσαντα υἱὸν μονογενῆ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, δι' οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ πεποίηκε· γεννήσαντα δὲ οὐ δοκήσει, ἀλλ' ἀληθείᾳ, ὑποστήσαντα δὲ ἰδίῳ θελήκατι, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, κτίσμα τοῦ θεοῦ τέλειον, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμά των, γέννημα, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς ἓν τῶν γεννημάτων, οὐδ ̓ ὡς Οὐαλεντῖνος προβολὴν τὸ γέννημα τοῦ πατρὸς ἐδογμάτισεν, οὐδ ̓ ὡς ὁ Μανιχαῖος μέρος ὁμοούσιον τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ γέννημα εἰσηγήσατο, οὐδ ̓ ὡς Σαβέλλιος τὴν μονάδα διαιρῶν, υἱοπάτορα εἶπεν, οὐδ ̓ ὡς Ιεράκας λύχνον ἀπὸ λύχνου, ἢ ὡς λαμπάδα εἰς δύο, οὐδὲ τὸν ὄντα πρότερον, ὕστερον γεννηθέντα, ἢ ἐπικτισθέντα εἰς υἱόν —ἀλλ' ὡς φαμὲν, θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων κτισθέντα, καὶ τὸ ζῆν καὶ τὸ εἶναι παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς εἰληφότα, καὶ τὰς δόξας συνυποστήσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ πατρὸς. οὐ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ, δοὺς αὐτῷ πάντων τὴν κληρονο μίαν, ἐστέρησεν ἑαυτὸν, ὧν ἀγεννήτως ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ. πηγὴ γάρ ἐστι πάντων. Ὥστε τρεῖς εἰσιν ὑποστάσεις, καὶ ὁ μὲν θεὸς αἴτιος τῶν πάντων τυγχάνων, ἔστιν ἄναρχος μονώτατος. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἀχρόνως γεννηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων κτισθεὶς καὶ θεμελιωθεὶς, οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι· οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἀΐδιος, ἢ συναΐδιος, ἢ συναγέν νητος τῷ πατρί.εἰ δὲ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸ ἐκ γαστρὸς, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω, ὡς μέρος αὐτοῦ ὁμοούσιον, καὶ ὡς προβολὴ ὑπό τινων νοεῖται, σύνθετος ἔσται ὁ πατὴρ καὶ διαίρετος, καὶ τρεπτὸς, καὶ σῶμα κατ' αὐτοὺς, καὶ τὸ ὅσον ἐπ' αὐτοῖς τὰ ἀκόλουθα σώματι πάσχων, ὁ ἀσώματος θεός. From the Thaleia (ap. Athanas. contra Arianos, Orat. ii. c. 9): Οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ ὕστερον γέγονεν. οὐκ ἱεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς, οὐ γάρ ἦν, πριν γεννηθῇ. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀλλ' ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ὑπέστη καὶ αὐτός. οὐκ ἔστιν ἴδιος τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας, κτίσμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ ποίημα. καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς θεὸς ὁ Χριστός, ἀλλὰ μετοχῇ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐθεοποιήθη· οὐκ οἶδε τὸν πατέρα ἀκριβῶς ὁ υἱὸς, οὔτε ὁρᾷ ὁ λόγος τὸν πατέρα τελείως, καὶ οὔτε συνιεῖ, οὔτε γινώσκει ἀκριβῶς ὁ λόγος τὸν πατέρα· οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς καὶ μόνος αὐτὸς τοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, ἀλλ ̓ ὀνόματι μόνον λέγεται λόγος καὶ σοφία, καὶ χάριτι λέγεται υἱὸς καὶ δύναμις· οὐκ ἔστιν ἄτρεπτος, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ, ἀλλὰ τρεπτός ἐστι φύσει, ὡς τὰ κτίσματα, καὶ λείπει αὐτῷ εἰς κατάληψιν τοῦ γνῶναι τελείως τὸν πατέρα. When the Son is sometimes called τρεπτός, sometimes ἄτρεπτος, that is explained by a preceding fragment (Orat. ii. c. 5): Τῇ μὲν φύσει, ὥσπερ πάντες, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος ἐστι τρεπτὸς, τῷ δὲ ἰδίῳ αὐτεξουσίῳ, ἕως βούλεται, μένει καλός. ὅτε μέντοι θέλει, δύναται τρέπεσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς, τρεπτῆς ὢν φύσεως. Διὰ τοῦτο γάρ, φησι, καὶ προγινώσκων ὁ θεὸς ἔσεσθαι

3

with his bishop Alexander on the point (318), who excluded him and his followers from church-fellowship, many bishops in Syria and Asia Minor declared themselves in favor of Arius ; some, especially Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia (Σvλλovkiaviotá, Arius ad Euseb. ap. Theodoret. i. 4, see above, § 65, note 5), because they adopted his views; others, as Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, because they held that the faith of the church was at least not violated by the doctrine of Arius. The most important writer who endeavored to defend the Arian principles was the sophist Asterius of Cappadocia, also a disciple of Lucian (about 330). Thus the controversy communicated itself to the whole east. After Constantine had in vain endeavored to induce the contending parties to give up the dispute, by rational representations," he called the first oecumenical council at Nice (325). As the number of Arian bishops was much smaller than that of their opponents, the party of Alexander prevailed, their cause being pleaded by Athanasius, deacon in Alexandria, and Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra. The Arian doctrine was rejected; but the ancient emanistic notion was confirmed, and was merely developed farther by the decision

4

καλὸν αὐτὸν, προλαβὼν ταύτην αὐτῷ τὴν δόξαν δέδωκεν, ἣν ἂν καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔσχε

μετὰ ταῦτα.

3 Comp. the fragment of his letter to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in the Acts of the Conc. Nicaeni ii. ann. 787. Actio vi. ap. Mansi, xiii. p. 316.

4 Fragments of his σúvrayua in Athanasius.

5 Epist. Constantini ad Alexandrum et Arium in Eusebii vit. Const. ii. 64–72. Among other things we find, c. 69 : Οὔτε ἐρωτᾷν ὑπὲρ τῶν τοιούτων ἐξ ἀρχῆς προσῆκον ἦν, οὔτε ἐρωτώμενον ἀποκρίνεσθαι. τὰς γὰρ τοιαύτας ζητήσεις, ὁπόσας μὴ νόμου τινὸς ἀνάγκη προστάττει, ἀλλ' ἀνωφελοῦς ἀργίας ἐρεσχελία προστίθησιν, εἰ καὶ φυσικῆς τινὸς γυμνασίας ἕνεκα γίγνοιτο, ὅμως ὀφείλομεν εἴσω τῆς διανοίας ἐγκλείειν, καὶ μὴ προχείρως εἰς δημοσίας συνόδους ἐκφέρειν, μηδὲ ταῖς τῶν δήμων ἀκοαῖς ἀπρονόητως πιστεύειν.-C. 70 : Διόπερ καὶ ἐρώτησις ἀπροφύλακτος, καὶ ἀπόκρισις ἀπρονόητος ἴσην ἀλλήλαις ἀντιδότωσαν ἐφ' ἑκατέρῳ συγγνώμην.-C. 7ι: Καὶ λέγω ταῦτα, οὐχ ὡς ἀναγκάζων ὑμᾶς ἐξάπαν τος τῇ λίαν εὐήθει, καὶ οἵα δή ποτέ ἐστιν ἐκείνη ἤ ζήτησις, συντίθεσθαι. δύναται γὰρ καὶ τὸ τῆς συνόδου τίμιον ὑμῖν ἀκεραίως σώζεσθαι, καὶ μία καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ κατὰ πάντων κοινωνία τηρεῖσθαι, κἂν τὰ μάλιστά τις ἐν μέρει πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὑμῖν ὑπὲρ ἐλαχίστου διαφωνία γένηται.

ม

6 According to Eusebius de vita Constantini, this council numbered more than 250 bishops. In later times 318 were usually reckoned to it, and it was called the council oi Tin'. The first persons who have the latter number expressly refer to the 318 servants of Abraham, in whom Barnabas, so early as his day, had found a prediction relating to Christ, c. 9, Hilary de Synodis, c. 86: Et mihi quidem ipse ille numerus hic sanctus est, in quo Abraham victor regum impiorum ab eo, qui aeterni sacerdotii est forma, benedicitur. Liberius ap. Socrat. iv. 2. Ambrosius de Fide, lib. i. prolog. § 5. Doubtless this sacred number was arbitrarily assumed for the purpose of conferring honor on the council of the Nicenes. Gelasius, however, Hist. Conc. Nic. and an anonymous author in the Spicilegium Romanum, t. vi. (Romae. 1841. 8.) p. 608, give the number 300.

8

9

that the Son is of the same essence with the Father (uoovolos τῷ πατρί). T патρí). This expression, which had been till now regarded as Sabellian, was very suspicious in the eyes of the oriental bishops. The most of them, however, yielded to the imperial authority, and subscribed the new creed. None but the two Egyptian bishops Theonas and Secundus refused, who were therefore banished with Arius to Illyria. The Nicene decrees were universally proclaimed as imperial law; and when the bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice, departed from them, they were sent into exile to Gaul (325).

7 The history of the Nicene Synod, written by Maruthas, bishop of Tagrit in Mesopotamia, at the end of the fourth century (see Assemani Bibl. Orient. t. i. p. 195), is no longer extant. Gelasii Cyziceni (bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, about 476) oúvtayμa twv κατὰ τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ ἁγίαν σύνοδον πραχθέντων, libb. 3 (the third lost), prim. ed. Rob. Balforeus Scotus. Paris. 1600. 8, also in the collection of the decrees of Councils ap. Mansi, ii. p. 759, (translated in Fuchs, i. 416).--Th. Ittigii Historia Concilii Nicaeni (ed. Christianus Ludovici). Lips. 1712. 4. Fuchs Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen des vierten u. fünften Jahrh. i. 350.-Symbolum Nicaenum (cf. Chr. G. F. Walchii Bibliotheca symbolica vetus. Lemgov. 1770. 8, p. 75, ss.) : Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν, πατέρα παν τοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν. Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χρισ τὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί. δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ. τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, καὶ ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι. οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτισ τὸν, τρεπτὸν, ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱόν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. Concerning the composition of this creed: Athanasius Epist. de decretis synodi Nicaenae, and Eusebii Caesar. Epist. ad Caesarienses, most complete as appended to Athanasii Epist. cit. and in Theodoreti H. E. i. 11. The siç Oɛòç is here the Father alone, consequently the sameness of essence between Him and the Son is not a numerical unity of essence, See Münscher über den Sinn der Nic. Glaubensformel, in Henke's neuem Magazin, vi. 334. Even here the sentiment, that the Son exists by the will of the Father, and is less than he, is not spoken against.

8 See Divis. I. § 60, note 13.

9 How actively Constantine employed his influence in accomplishing it may be seen in Eusebius vita Const. iii. 13. Since his view had previously been different (see note 5), and his great object was simply the restoration of peace, Gfrörer's (K. G. ii. i. 210) con jecture is not improbable that he had been gained over by Hosius, and the latter during his abode at Alexandria; consequently the epithet óμoovσios was of Alexandrian origin, where it had been already set forth in opposition to Dionysius (Div. I. § 64, note 8), and had been again rejected expressly by Arius. (See above, note 2.)

§ 82.

OPPOSITION OF THE EUSEBIANS TO THE NICENE COUNCIL TILL THE SECOND SYNOD AT SIRMIUM (357).

H. J. Wetzer, Restitutio verae chronologiae rerum ex controversiis Arianis inde ab anno 325 usque ad annum 350 exortarum. Francof. ad M. 1827. 8.

The opponents of Arianism declared it to be polytheism. On the contrary, the Arians charged the ouoovotos with Sabellianism,1 and succeeded in spreading this view in the east so generally that Constantine thought he could effect a general union on the disputed dogma only by giving up the expression. Accordingly, the banished were recalled, not only Eusebius and Theognis, but Arius too (328-29) his orthodoxy being acknowledged by the emperor, as expressed in general terms, in a confession of faith which he gave in. Eusebius of Nicomedia obtained a decided influence over Constantine. Several bishops who obstinately adhered to the Nicene decrees, and refused to hold church communion with the recalled, were banished, particularly Eustathius, bishop of Antioch (330).2 Athanasius himself, now bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by a council held at Tyre (335), and banished into Gaul by Constantine; and Arius, immediately after, was solemnly received again into church communion at Jerusalem. He died not long after at Constantinople (336). Thus the east was separated from the western church; the latter adopting the ouoovotos, and espousing the cause of Athanasius, which the former rejected. This division. continued after the death of Constantine († 337), when Con

3

1 Socrates, i. 24 : Οἱ μὲν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου τὴν λέξιν ἐκκλίνοντες τὴν Σαβελλίου καὶ Μοντανοῦ δόξαν εἰσηγεῖσθαι αὐτὴν τοὺς προσδεχομένους ἐνόμιζον, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο βλασ φήμους ἐκάλουν, ὡς ἀναιροῦντας τὴν ὕπαρξιν τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. οἱ δὲ πάλιν τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ προσκείμενοι, πολυθείαν εἰσάγειν τοὺς ἑτέρους νομίζοντες, ὡς Ἑλληνισμὸν εἰσάγον Tаç žεтрÉTоνTO. Augustin. Opus imperf. v. 25: Ariani Catholicos Sabellianos vocant. On the other hand, Athanasius Expos. fidei (ed. Ben. i. 100): Oűre yàp vioñáropa opovοῦμεν, ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι, λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναι ροῦντες τὸ εἶναι υιόν. So far as the Nicenes also explained ὁμοούσιος by ταυτοούσιος, as Theodoret. Dial. v. in fine (cf. conc. Ancyr. below, § 83, note 5), they strengthened the suspicion of Sabellianism.

2 Socrates, i. 24. Sozom. ii. 19. Theodoret. i. 21. Athanasius Hist. Arian. § 4, of Eusebius de vita Const. iii. 59, ss.

3 On the death of Arius see Walch's Ketzerhist, Th. 2. S. 500–511.