« PoprzedniaDalej »
Son love one another. Augustin contends against those who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son, and from the Son proceeds and passes on to sanctify in the Creation. Yet we find that he admits a modified representation; he considers it allowable to say, that the Spirit proceeds principaliter from the Father. The difference of these views, which had been formed involuntarily, was the subject of open discussion in the Eastern Church. Cyrill of Alexandria, in his anathemas against Nestorius, pronounced condemnation on those who did not derive the Holy Spirit from Christ. Theodoret, in his refutation of these anathemas, rejoined, that if by this it is meant that the Spirit is of the same essence with Christ and proceeds from the Father, we give our assent. But if it be intended that he has his existence through the Son, this is impious. He appeals to 1 Cor. ii. 12, Tò μa TÒ EX TOŨ DEOŨ. After all, Theodoret had no intention to oppose the current doctrine of the Western Church, but contended against the Pneumatomachi, and in the Western Church an opposition was openly expressed, when the West-Gothic Church under King Reccared renounced Arianism for the Catholic confession at the Synod of Toledo in A.D. 589. At that time the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was adopted, with the addition in reference to the Holy Spirit; that he proceeded from the Father and the Son, and those were condemned who denied this. But here again, the opposition was not against the Eastern Church, but the Arians; still, in these declarations, the germs of difference are already discernible.
We must now take a glance at the ideas of the Church doctrine respecting the unity in essence of the Trinity.
*De Trinit. 15, 27.-Satis de Patre et Filio, quantum per hoc speculum atque in hoc ænigmate videre potuimus, locuti sumus Nunc de Spiritu Sancto, quantum Deo donante videre conceditur, disserendum est. Qui Spiritus Sanctus secundum scripturas sacras nec Patris solius est nec Filii solius, sed amborum, et ideo communem, qua invicem se diligunt Pater et Filius, nobis insinuat caritatem
Ibid. 15, 29.-Et tamen non frustra in hac Trinitate non dicitur Verbum Dei nisi Filius, nec donum. Dei nisi Spiritus Sanctus, nec de quo genitum est verbum et de quo procedit principaliter Spiritus Sanctus nisi Deus Pater. Ideo autem addidi, principaliter, quia et de Filio Spiritus Sanctus procedere reperitur. Sed hoc quoque illi Pater dedit, non jam exsistenti et nondum habenti; sed quidquid unigenito verbo dedit, gignendo dedit. Sic ergo eum genuit ut etiam de illo donuin commune procederet et Spiritus Sanctus spiritus esset amborum.
UNITY IN THE TRINITY.
Setting out from Subordinationism in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, and, therefore, with the representation of three independent persons, the transition would not be difficult to regard the unity of the three hypostases as the unity of species belonging to three individuals. Such com parisons actually occur in the Fathers, since they seem to distinguish the Persons only by γνωριστικὰ σημεῖα or ἰδιώματα, as beings belonging to a species, distinguished by specific marks. Yet, as we cannot suppose their views to be so exactly defined, we must not infer too much from these comparisons. It is evident that they did not mean to apply the idea of species literally, and did not consider the categories under which temporal beings are arranged, as exactly cor responding to those of the divine. Basil directly opposes such a view; indeed, we could not suppose them so absurd as to regard the Deity merely as an idea of species. The Unity of the essence of the Triad is something higher than numerical unity; the Monad is only a designation of the simple and incomprehensible essence of God. We recognise the influence of Augustin in giving prominence to the divine Unity, in the form of the so-called Athanasian Creed, which most probably originated in the fifth century in the North African Church, when the renewed conflict with the Arians under the rule of the Vandals called for a more decided state ment of the orthodox doctrine. Probably, Vigilius of Tapsus was the author.
In the Eastern Church, during the sixth and seventh centuries, fresh investigations respecting the Unity in the Triad were entered upon, owing to the excitement produced by an acute monophysite theologian Johannes Philoponus + De Spir. Sancto, 17.
+ De Civit. Dei, 11, 24.-Credimus et tenemus et fideliter prædicamus quod Pater genuerit Verbum, hoc est. Sapientiam, per quam facta sunt omnia, unigenitum Filium unus unum, æternus coæternum, summe bonus equaliter bonum: et quod Spiritus Sanctus simul et Patris et Filii sit Spiritus, et ipse consubstantialis et coeternus ambobus; atque hoc totum et Trinitatis sit propter proprietatem personarum, et unus Deus propter inseparabilem omnipotentiam: ita tamen, ut etiam cum de singulis quæritur, unusquisque eorum et Deus et omnipotens esse respondeatur; cum vero de omnibus simul, non tres dii vel tres omni potentes, sed unus Deus omnipotens; tanta ibi est in tribus inseparabilis unitas, quæ sic se voluit prædicari.
He revived the doctrine of Johannes Arcusnages, and applied the ideas of Aristotle, whose philosophy he had closely studied, to this dogma. At that time the proper idea of puris was much disputed, and the sense in which a divine nature might be spoken of. Philoponus connected with it the Aristotelian definition of sidos, the general idea which is expressed in individual objects. Either the divine nature might be spoken of as the Universal which is contained in individual persons who are distinguished by specific marks; or individual divine natures might be spoken of in the individual hypostases. From this it would appear, that he confounded the common divine essence in the Triad with the idea of species, and fell into Tritheism. side he was open to attack.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTROVERSY.
The consequences of this controversy were first noticeable in the general tendency of the dogmatic spirit. A revolution would have been effected in the entire method of dogmatic thinking by those of whom EUNOMIUS was so extreme a representative, if they had not been kept back by the superior force of their opponents. He was blamed for denying the incomprehensibility of God, which even Arius maintained, who also allowed that the creation of the Son of God could be comprehended by no human mind; but Eunomius in this respect differed widely from him. This could not be considered as the mere forced inferences of opponents, since his devoted pupil, the Church Historian Philostorgius,* mentions it to his credit that in his point he differed from Arius. Besides, Eunomius himself says in a fragment,† that the intellect of those who believe in the Lord rises above all sensible objects, nor even remains stationary at the generation of the Son of God, but rises to God himself. Against this assertion Gregory
*Hist. Eccl. 2, 3, 10, 2.
† Greg. Nyss. Orat. 10. Contr. Eunom. Op. 2, pp. 674, 675.-'0 yàp νοῦς τῶν εἰς τὸν κύριον πεπιστευκότων πᾶσαν αἰσθητὴν καὶ νοητὴν οὐσιαν ὑπερκύψας, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ γεννήσεως ἵστασθαι πέφυκεν. Επέκεινα δὲ ταύτης ἵεται πόθῳ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς ἐντυχεῖν τῷ πρώτῳ γλιχόμενος.
of Nyssa says, If eternal life be not in the Son, he spoke falsely who said, “I am eternal life.” Eunomius* asserted that his opponents who denied the comprehensibility of God, were not worthy the name of Christians; since for what purpose did Christ come if we knew nothing of God, like the heathen. But here his own unfair reasoning is evident, since it does not follow from the denial of perfect knowledge, that there is none at all. As he erroneously placed the seat of Religion in knowledge, Dogma and Dogmatic, logical clearness were the main thing to him, and his adherents persisted in exalting the Dogmatic above the Practical, while his opponents attached greater importance to living according to the ordinances of the Church. He maintained + that piety consisted not in a reverence for names and mystical symbols, but in accuracy of doctrines; to this Gregory of Nyssa replied, that whoever is not born again cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven; he who does not eat the Lord's flesh and drink his blood cannot have eternal life; everything depends on communion with Christ. This controversy would have led, had it been prolonged, to discussions on the relations of faith to knowledge, and on the limits of knowledge and its relation to life. GREGORY of NYSSA says, we must entirely give up the investigation respecting the origin of things; even the most enlightened men have perceived that they must abide on the standpoint of faith. In Heb. xi. 11, it is said that we know by faith that the
Greg. Nyss. Orat. 11. Adv. Eun. p. 704.Μηδὲ πρὸς την τῶν χριστιανῶν προσηγορίαν οἰκείως ἔχειν τοὺς ἄγνωστον ἀποφαινομένους τὴν θείαν φύσιν, ἄγνωστον δὲ καὶ τὸν τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπον.
+ L. c.—οὔτε τῇ σεμνότητι τῶν ὀνομάτων, οὔτε ἐθῶν καὶ μυστικῶν συμβόλων ἰδιότητι κυροῦσθαι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, τῷ δὲ τῶν δογμάτων ἀκρίβείᾳ.
Greg. Nyssa. De Anima et Resurrectione, iii. p. 238, ed. Paris, 1638.—ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν ζήτησιν τὴν περὶ τοῦ πῶς τὰ καθ ̓ ἕκαστον γέγονεν, ἐξαιρετέον πάντη τοῦ λόγου· οὔτε γὰρ περὶ τῶν προχείρων ἡμῖν εἰς κατανόησιν, ὡς τὴν ἀντίληψιν δι' αἰσθήσεως ἔχομεν, δυνατὸν ἄν γένοιτο τῷ διερευνομένῳ λόγῳ, τὸ πῶς ὑπέστη τὸ φαινόμενον κατανυῆσαι, ὡς μήτε τοῖς Θεοφορουμένοις καὶ ἁγίοις ἀνδράσι τὸ τοιοῦτον ληπτὸν νομισθῆναι· πίστει γὰρ νοοῦμέν, φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι Θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὰ ὁρώμενα γεγονέναι· οὐκ ἂν ὡς οἴομαι τοῦτο εἰπὼν, εἴπερ ᾤετο γνωστὸν εἶναι διὰ τῶν λογισμῶν το ζητούμενον· ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι μὲν θελήματι θείῳ κατηρ τίσθαι αὐτός τε ὁ αἰὼν καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἐν αὐτῷ γεγένηται· ὁστις οὖν ἄν εἴη οὗτος ὁ αἰών, ᾧ παραθεωρεῖται πᾶσα ὁρατῇ τε καὶ ἀόρατος κτίσις; τοῦτο πεπιστευκέναι φησὶν ὁ ἀπόστολος· τὸ δὲ πῶς ἀφῆκεν ἀδιερεύνητον
worlds were made. This the writer would not have said if he had thought that we could comprehend it by the understanding.
The Arian controversy had special consequences in reference to particular doctrines. The contrast between that which has its basis in the nature of God, and what is created out of nothing, ab extra, by his will, became more sharply defined, and at the same time the doctrine of Creation was more exactly determined as an act of the divine will, in opposition to the Oriental doctrine of emanation, and to the speculative Cosmogony in general. This was a victory of the Christian. faith over the heathen element, and an assurance of the practical tendency of Christianity. The assertion of Arius that, on the Nicene standpoint an eternal Creation must be admitted, caused Athanasius in opposition to assert more distinctly the production of Creation out of nothing, and to prove that a beginning is implied in the very idea of a created being. Let any one ask, he says,* why God did not create from all eternity, none but a madman would think of attempting to explain it. But in order to give a reason for it, we say that it belongs to the nature of creatures not to be eternal, although it were possible for God always to create. For they were created out of nothing, and were not till brought into being. How, therefore, could they have existed from the beginning with the ever-living God? Augustin endeavoured to disjoin all ideas of Time from the idea of Creation.+ He distinguishes the divine eternity from
*Contr. Arian. Or. i. 29.
De Civit. Dei. xii. c. 15.-Ubi enim nulla creatura est, cujus mutabilibus motibus tempora peraguntur, tempora omnino esse non possunt. Ac per hoc etsi semper fuerunt, creati sunt; nec si semper fuerunt, ideo creatori coæterni sunt. Illi enim semper fuit æternitate immutabili, isti autem facti sunt Sed ideo semper fuisse dicuntur, quia omni tempore fuerunt, sine quibus tempora nullo modo esse potuerunt; tempus autem quoniam mutabilitate transcurrit, æternitati immutabili non potest esse coæternum.
Conf. xi. 11. Quis tenebit cor et figet, ut paululum rapiat splendor em semper stantes æternitates, et comparet eum temporibus numquam stantibus, ut videat esse incomparibilem et videat longum tempus, nisi ex multis prætereuntibus motibus, qui simul extendi non possunt, longum non fieri; non autem præterire quid quam in æterno, sed totum esse præsens; nullum vero tempus esse præsens; et videat omne præteritum propelli ex futuro et omne futurum ex prætento consequi et omne prætentum ac futurum ab eo, quod semper est præsens, creari et ex currere?