prescience foresaw his sinless life,* gave him this dignity as he gives to every created being what belongs to it. Arius explained Philipp. ii. 8, of the exaltation of Christ, in consequence of his undeviating obedience to his Father's will. Origen referred what he affirmed of conditionality depending on the Will, not to the Logos, but to the human soul connected with it; Arius, on the other hand, conceived of the Incarnation of the Word only as the assumption of a human body, not of a proper, human soul; he did not even distinguish between the divine and the created natures of the Logos, and attributed directly to the Logos, what the Holy Scriptures state as characteristic of subordination.

As Arius disseminated his doctrines in sermons and theological conferences, a controversy arose respecting them among the Clergy, in which Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, who was devoted to the system of the iμoovorov, took part. He accused Arius of not acknowledging Christ in the true sense as a Redeemer, because he regarded his nature as mutable; how then could he redeem natures that were subject to change? Arius, on the other hand, accused Alexander of having fallen into Sabellianism. The distance between them gradually widened, and in A.D. 321, Arius was excommunicated and deposed by Alexander at a synod, composed of a hundred members. After this, he composed a half poetical work, entitled, Thalia, in which, as had been done by others for the spread of their doctrines, he brought forward his own peculiar sentiments in songs for sailors, millers, and travellers. The controversy excited a strong sensation, and men of note appeared as mediators, such as Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, and Eusebius of Cæsarea. The latter, who, by the teaching of Pamphilus, was an adherent of Origen, agreed neither with Arius nor with Alexander, considered it pernicious, in accordance with a maxim of Origen, to dispute openly on such subjects, which could only be rightly treated by men whose hearts were devoted to God. He endeavoured to convince both, that they held the views of their opponents to be worse than they really were, and that they agreed in essentials, in the general belief in the divinity of Christ. Arius would have been inclined to be reconciled to his bishop; for although ne had the intention of making his doctrine predominant at *Neander's Church History, iv. 6. +Ibid. iv. 10.

last, yet he would have been content at the time with its being merely tolerated. But Alexander held the difference to be too important to admit of such a settlement. Constantine also, who after his victory over Licinius, had obtained the sovereignty, had his attention directed to the controversy; the confusion was to him annoying; he wrote to both parties,* and upbraided each for bringing before the public subjects which the multitude could not understand. The controversy appeared to those who drew up the Emperor's letter, as not very important, and this view of the matter suited his Eclecticism; he blamed them for being willing to disturb the Unity of the Church for such things; and held out the example of the schools of Philosophy as a pattern, who would not divide on account of every point of difference. To him it appeared that the acknowledgment of a Providence ought to be enough to unite them. This letter could not attain its end, because both parties took a different view of the point in dispute. Constantine himself could not help being influenced by the theologians who were in his vicinity, and hence did not always maintain his opinion of its unimportance. The opponents of Arius represented that his doctrine was blasphemous, and that the true dignity of Christ called for an assertion of the Unity of Essence. On this account he convoked a General Council of the Bishops at Nice in Bithynia. As far as relates to the dogmatic proceedings of this Council, we have no authentic Acts; we possess only the accounts given by approvers † of it, and their opponents. It is evident from the characters of Athanasius and Eusebius of Cæsarea, that both accounts are partial; for the former was interested in representing the decisions of the Council as the result of free deliberation, and hence showing that the Oriental Churches, if they did not remain faithful to this creed, must have apostatized from their own convictions; on the other hand, Eusebius wrote a letter, in which he gives an account of the Council, to his own Church, in order to excuse himself for accepting the Euseb. Vita Const. ii. 64.

† Athanasii Ep. ad Afros.; ad Episcopos Ægypti et Libyæ; De Decretis Syn. Nicæn.-Eustathius Antiochen. in Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. i. 8. Compare also the Fragments of the Liber Synodicus in the Coptic language, in Spicileg. Solesm. i. 513.

Euseb. Cæs. Vita Constan. iii. 10, Ep. ad Cæsar. in Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. i. 2.

U

creed, though he did not strictly agree with it. But yet he could understand and estimate the sentiments of the majority of the assembly better than Athanasius, because he held a dogmatic standpoint in common with them. The historical connexion also is in favour of his representation in preference to that of Athanasius. If we consider the earlier development, we cannot doubt that the majority of the Oriental Bishops, from whom the settlement of the oμcovσiov, in the Nicene Creed, must have proceeded, were interested against this Dogma. And if we look at the sequel, it would be impossible to explain why the Oriental Church should strive so long against this Creed, if the adoption of it had been the result of an unfettered discussion. But the whole affair is clear if we credit Eusebius, that their decision was not arrived at by free consent but by an influence from without on the Council. The disappointment at the result deeply affected Athanasius; from his standpoint there could only be, by logical consequence, either friends of the ouoovolov or Arians; since many of the persons present declared themselves against Arianism, he inferred that they agreed with the Nicene ouooúorov; while yet the majority were attached to a middle system, which allowed the greatest affinity possible between the Father and the Son, short of the unity of essence. The opponents of Arius brought forward expressions in which the distinction of the Father from the Son was implied, and which, torn from their connexion, did violence to the religious feeling, and they might easily have obtained the condemnation of the Arian statements, if Eusebius of Cæsarea had not come forward as mediator. He attempted to show that the expressions of Arius had a less offensive meaning, when taken in their connexion, and proposed to the Council a Creed respecting the Divinity of Christ, that employed indefinite designations, such as God of God, Light of Light, which even Arius could adopt, and desired that this creed, which contained the doctrine of the Oriental Church, might be received. Arius would willingly have acquiesced, had his opponents shown themselves equally ready; the difference would have been concealed, and the controversy settled for a time; but the difference might afresh be rendered sensible in the opposition against the Western Church, and must also soon break out again in the Oriental. It was impossible to remain fixed on the standpoint of development

х

where they then were. Meanwhile, Eusebius was unsuccessful ; the opponents of Arius refused, and insisted on additions which made it impossible for him to explain the general expressions, according to his own meaning; to θεος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ they required ἀληθινός to be added; and to γεννηθείς, in order to exclude the idea of the Creation of Christ out of nothing, the phrase ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, and the negative οὐ ποιηθείς ; the Arian doctrine of Christ as a κτισμα, would be condemned by the words ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. Constantine, convinced that it was necessary to maintain the Divinity of Christ, proposed that the clause, Christ is ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρὶ, should be added. Eusebius at first opposed it; at last he consented to it for the sake of peace, and satisfied his mind by affixing his own sense to the terms. The majority of the Bishops followed his example, and the Creed was accepted.* But, very soon, a dispute arose on the interpretation of the Creed, between those who had received it voluntarily, and those who had received it by compulsion; and the latter, of course, were desirous of getting rid of it.

In order to gain over the Emperor, who had no settled convictions, it was represented to him, that the doctrine of Arius was, after all, not so very objectionable, and that the controversy had been owing chiefly to the passions of those who had engaged in it. He adopted this view of the matter, and allowed Arius to lay before him a new creed in self justification. He professed his faith in the Logos as θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, and begotten before all time, and represented the dispute as an idle one. The Emperor was satisfied. Arius was permitted to return from exile in 328, and the zeal of his opponents only con

* The Symbolum Nicænum, in a letter of Eusebius. Theodoret. Hist. E. i. 12.-πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητὴν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς, θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, καὶ φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ· δι ̓ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ γῆ, τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα, καὶ σαρκωθέντα, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τριτῆ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, 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, τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

firmed the Emperor in his opinion, that they were self-willed disturbers of the peace. Athanasius, who meanwhile had become bishop of Alexandria, was ordered to receive Arius again into the Church, but strenuously refused. He and the Nicene Creed were now the objects of the attacks that proceeded from the majority of the Oriental Churches, with whom Arius had united himself. They prevailed on the Emperor to banish him, about the year 336, to Gaul. Here in the Western Church, the development of doctrine had received a form resembling that of his own Dogma, and owing to this circumstance he met with a friendly reception. On Constantine's death in 337, Constantine II., who governed the West, recalled him to Alexandria; but Constantine, the Emperor of the East, became the tool of the Anti-Nicene party, who again effected the deposition of Athanasius. Yet the Oriental Bishops were quite ready to be on terms of harmony with the West, and, hence, at Antioch (341-345) put forth five creeds, in which they sought to clear themselves from the suspicion of Arianism, and explained their middle course, which was afterwards distinguished by the names of the ὁμοιούσιον, and SemiArianism. They approximated, as far as possible, to the Western Church in these Creeds; only they were unwilling to adopt the ὁμοούσιον. In the second Creed, drawn up at Antioch, which is said to have been framed on the plan of one of earlier date, by the well-known Presbyter Lucian, Christ was called the unchangeable image of the Deity, of the essence and will, the power and glory of the Father.* In the fourth Creed,

The Creeds are in Walch's Biblioth. Symbolica Vetus, p. 109. Munscher (i. p. 210) has taken them from Athan. De Synodis Arimini et Seleucia Habit. The second § 23.—τὸν υἱὸν—τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα, τὸν γεννηθέντα πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, ὅλον ἐξ ὅλου, μόνον ἐκ μόνου, τέλειον ἐκ τελείου, λόγον ζῶντα, σοφίαν ζῶσαν, - ἄτρεπτον τε καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, τῆς θεότητος, οὐσίας τε καὶ βουλῆς, καὶ δυνάμεως, καὶ δόξης τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα, —τόν ὄντα ἐν ἀρχῆ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν λόγον θεὸν, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ· καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος,—δηλονότι πατρὸς ἀληθῶς πατρὸς ὄντος, υἱοῦ δὲ ἀληθῶς υἱοῦ ὄντος, τοῦ δὲ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἀληθῶς ἁγίου πνεύματος ὄντος, τῶν ὀνομάτων οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ ἀργῶς κειμένων, ἀλλὰ σημαινόντων ἀκριβῶς τὴν οἰκείαν ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνομαζομένων ὑποστασίν τε καὶ τάξιν καὶ δόξαν· ὡς εἶναι τῆ μὲν ὑποστάσει τρία, τῆ δὲ συμφωνία ἕν. Πᾶσαν αἱρετικὴν κακοδοξίαν ἀναθεματίζομεν,—εἴ τις—διδάσκει ἢ χρόνον, ἢ καιρὸν, ἢ αἰῶνα, ἢ εἶναι, ἢ γεγονέναι πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι τὸν υἱὸν—καὶ εἴ τις λέγει τὸν υἱὸν κτίσμα ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων, ἢ γένσημα ὡς ἓν τῶν γεννημάτων, ἢ ποίημα ὡς ἓν τῶν ποιημάτων.

νημα