Thus Theodosius, who, as a Spaniard, was a zealous adherent of the Nicene council, found at his accession to the throne of the west (379,) universal toleration; in the east Arianism prevalent— the Homousiasts persecuted, and besides them the parties of the

P. i. Answers to Apollinaris were written by Diodorus Tarsensis, Theodotus Antiochenus, and the two bishops of Alexandria, Theophilus and Cyril. Still extant are Gregorii Naz. ep. ad Nectarium, or orat. 46, and epp. ii. ad Cledonium, or orat. 51 and 52 (Ullmann's Greg. von Naz. S. 401 ff.): and the far more important Gregorii Nysseni avτιῤῥητικὸς πρὸς τὰ ̓Απολιναρίου (prim. ed. Zacagnius, monim. veter. eccl. Gr. and in Gallandii bibl. PP. vi. 517) Nemesius de natura hominis, c. 1. Τινὲς μὲν, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Πλωτίνος, ἄλλην εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ ἄλλον τὸν νοῦν δογματίσαντες, ἐκ τριῶν τὸν ἄνθρωπον συνεστάναι βούλονται, σώματος, καὶ ψυχῆς, καὶ νοῦ. Οἷς ἠκολούθησε καὶ ̓Απολινάριος, ὁ τῆς Λαοδικείας γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος· τοῦτον γὰρ πηξάμενος τὸν θεμέλιον τῆς ἰδίας δόξης, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ προσῳκοδόμησε κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον δόγμα. Apollinarius, ap. Greg. Nyss. c. 35 : ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ἐστιν ἐκ πνεύματος καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος. —c. 9: τὸ δὴ πνεῦμα, τουτέστι τὸν νοῦν, θεὸν ἔχων ὁ Χριστὸς μετὰ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, εἰκότως ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ λέγεται (1 Cor. xv. 47 ss.)—. 7: θεὸς μέν (έστι) τῷ πνεύματι τῷ σαρκωθέντι, ἄνθρωπος δὲ τῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ προσληφθείσῃ σαρκί—c. 23: οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ ̓ ὡς ἄνθρωπος (Phil. ii. 7), διότι οὐχ ὁμοούσιος τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ κατὰ τὸ κυριώτατον.—c. 39: εἰ ἀνθρώπῳ τελείῳ συνήφθη θεὸς τέλειος, δύο ἂν ἦσαν (c. 42): εἰς μὲν φύσει υἱὸς Θεοῦ, εἰς δὲ θετός.—. 48 ; εἰ ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἴσων ἡμῖν ἐστι τοῖς χοϊκοῖς ὁ ἐπουράνιος ἄνθρωπος (ὥστε καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἴσον ἔχειν τοῖς χοϊκοῖς) οὐκ ἐπουράνιος, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπουρανίου Θεοῦ δοχεῖον.—c. 44: Ἡ σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου προσκυνεῖται, καθὸ ἓν ἐστι πρόσωπον καὶ ἐν ζῶον μετ' αὐτοῦ. Μηδὲν ποίημα προσκυνητὸν μετὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, ὡς ἡ σάρξ αὐτοῦ. From this resulted the principle of one nature in Christ, Apoll. fragm. ap. Majum, vii. i. 16: μιᾷ δὲ συγκράτω τῇ φύσει ἄνθρωπον τὸν κύριον λέγομεν, μιᾷ δὲ συγκράτῳ τῇ φύσει σαρκικῇ τε καὶ θεϊκῇ. In another fragment Apollinaris designates the entire spiritual principle in man as ux, and makes the place of it in Christ be supplied by the Logos. Ap. Majum, vii. i. 203 : ὁ Ἰωάννης—εἰπὼν, ὅτι ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, οὐ προσέθηκε, καὶ ψυχή· ἀδύνατον γὰρ δύο νοερὰ καὶ θελητικὰ ἐν τῷ ἅμα κατοικεῖν, ἵνα μὴ τὸ ἕτερον κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἀντιστρατεύηται διὰ τῆς οἰκείας Θελήσεως καὶ ἐνεργείας. Οὐκοῦν οὐ ψυχῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἐπελάβετο ὁ λόγος, ἀλλὰ μόνου σπέρματος ̓Αβραάμ τὸν γὰρ τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ ναὸν προδιέγραψεν ὁ άψυχος καὶ ἄνους καὶ ἀθελὴς τοῦ Σολομῶντος ναός. Some of his disciples, especially Polemius (Polemiani), taught ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν κατεληλυθέναι τοῦ Κυρίου τὸ σῶμα, ὁμοούσιον τὸ σῶμα τ. Χρ. τῇ θεότητι. Epiph. haer. 77, § 2, 20. Theodoret, haer. fab. iv. 9. Chr. A. Salig de Eutychianismo ante Eutychen, Guelpherb. 1723, 4.-From this time forward the threefold division of man began to be considered heterodox. Keilii opusc. acad. T. ii. p. 641 ss.

31 Συνουσιασταί, because they taught, συνουσίωσιν γεγενῆσθαι καὶ κρᾶσιν τῆς θεότητος καὶ τοῦ σώματος (Theodoret, haer. fab. comp. iv. 9). Hence Theodotus of Antioch, and Diodorus of Tarsus, wrote κατὰ Συνουσιαστῶν. Dimoeritae apud Epiphan. haer. 77.

32

Photinians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists, with innumerable older sects. After conquering the Goths, he began forthwith to declare Homousianism to be the catholic faith, and to persecute other parties. The more effectually to remove existing evils, he summoned a general council at Constantinople (381), by which the schism between the Nicenes was peaceably removed," and the Nicene creed enlarged with additions directed against heretics who had risen up since its origin.35 Valentinian II.

33

32 A law of the year 380, Cod. Theod. xvi, 1, 2. Cunctos populos, quos Clementiae nostrae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat, quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret, et Petrum, Alexandriae episcopum, virum apostolicae sanctitatis: hoc est ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam deitatem sub parili majestate et sub pia trinitate credamus. Hanc legem sequentes Christinorum catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque judicantes, haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere, nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex caelesti arbitrio sumserimus, ultione plectendos. Ullmann's Gregor. v. Naz. S. 220 ff. Stuffken diss. de Theodos. M. in rem Christ. meritis, Lugd. Bat. 1828, 8, p. 135 ss.

ρν.

33 ol pr'. Respecting it see Fuchs Bibl. d. Kirchenverf. ii. 390, Ullmann, S. 238. Stuffken, p. 142.

* To this Synod Meletius, as bishop of Antioch, was summoned, not Paulinus, with whom the westerns communicated, and was even a πρόεδρος of the council (Gregorii Naz. carmen de vita sua, v. 1514). When he died during the council, Flavianus was appointed to succeed him, without reference to Paulinus (Ullmann, S. 245). The schism did not entirely disappear till A.D. 413 (Theodoret, v. 35).

35 Symb. Nicaeno-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 φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ, δὲ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, Τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. Καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τὸ κύριον according to 2 Cor. iii. 17. See Theodoret, ad. h. 1. (τὸ ζωοποιὸν according to Joh. vi. 63), τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον (according to Joh. xv. 26), τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν· εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Ομολογοῦμεν ἕν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· προσδοκῶμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Αμήν. J. C. Suicer Symbolum Nicaeno Constantinopol. expositum et

37

allowed the Arians in the west to enjoy freedom of religion some years longer; but the case was quite altered by Theodosius, and a universal suppression of the sect ensued. The last traces of its existence in the Byzantine empire appear under the emperor Anastasius at Constantinople 491-518.38

cum

The subject of the controversy was merely the point of similarity in essence between the three persons. The unity and equality of the persons, which necessarily resulted from holding similarity of essence, was not fully acknowledged at once even by ex antiquitate ecclesiastica illustratum. Traj. ad Rhen. 1718, 4. Already about 375 a Roman Synod under Damasus had declared Sp. S. Patre et Filio unius potestatis esse atque substantiae (Mansi, iii. 482), and an Illyrian synod, ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὴν τριάδα Πατρὸς, Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύ Maros (Theodoret, iv. 8.): But in Constantinople they did not yet venture to give utterance to any unbiblical formulas respecting the Holy Spirit, in order not to stir up new controversies in the east, where there were still so many opponents of his deity.-Immediately after the close of the council, Theodosius passed the law of the 30th July 381. (Cod. Theodos. xvi. 1, 3.): Episcopis tradi omnes Ecclesias mox jubemus, qui unius majestatis atque virtutis Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum confitentur, ejusdem gloriae, claritatis unius; nihil dissonum profana divisione facientes, sed Trinitatis ordinem, personarum adsertionem, et divinitatis unitatem: quos constabit communione Nectarii Episc. Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae, Timothei necnon intra Aegyptum Alexandrinae urbis Episcopi esse sociatos: quos etiam in Orientis partibus Pelagio Ep. Laodicensi et Diodoro Ep. Tarsensi; in Asia necnon procunsulari atque Asiana Dioecesi Amphilochio Ep. Iconsiensi, et Optimo Ep. Antiocheno (of Antioch in Pisidia); in Pontica dioecesi Helladio Ep. Caesariensi, et Otrejo Meliteno, et Gregorio Ep. Nysseno; Terennio Ep. Scythiae, Marmario Ep. Marcianop. communicare constiterit: hos ad obtinendos catholicas Ecclesias ex communione et consortio probabilium sacerdotum oportebit admitti, etc. In like manner there followed laws against heretics, which were often repeated. See Cod. Theodos. xvi. 5, de Haeriticis L. 6-14, 16, 17, 19, 21-23.

36 At the instance of his Arian mother Justina, Cod. Th. xvi. 1, 4 (A.D. 386), cf. Ambros. epist. 20, 21, 22. Rufini, hist. eccl. ii. 15. In the meantime, however, but a small number of Arians had gathered around the empress at Milan. Cf. epist. ii. Conc. Aquilej. ann. 381, ad Impp. ap. Mansii, iii. p. 623: per occidentales partes duobus in angulis tantum, hoc est in latere Daciae Ripensis ac Moesiae fidei obstrepi videbatur.

37 When driven away by Maximus he found refuge with Theodosius. His law against the heretics, A.D. 388, see Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 15. Cf. Gothofred. ad. h. legem. Soon after even an Arian in the west wrote in defence of his doctrinal creed. See the interesting reliquiae tractatus in Lucae Evang. and fragmenta sermonum, in Ang. Maji scriptorum vete. rum nova collectio, T. iii. P. ii.

38 Theodorus Lector ii. p. 562, fragm. p. 582.

the Nicenians, but continued to be more clearly perceived,40 until at last it was expressed by Augustine for the first time with decided logical consequence."

§ 84.

HISTORY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SCIENCES DURING THE ARIAN

DISPUTES.

Among the theological schools of this period the most distinguished were that of Origen, and the Syrian historico-exegetical, whose origin belongs to the preceding period. Origen enjoyed the highest esteem, and it is to be attributed to the wide-extended influence of his writings that, notwithstanding these furious theological disputes, a freedom of discussion was still preserved. In the great question of the time, both parties conld appeal to him.1 When the Arians referred to the declaration in his own

39 Comp. especially Hilarii de trin. iii. 12: Et quis non Patrem po'tiorem confitebitur, ut ingenitum a genito, ut Patrem a Filio, ut eum qui miserit ab eo qui missus sit, ut volentem ab eo qui obediat? Et ipse nobis erit testis: Pater major me est. iv. 16: Dicit ergo fieri Deus ex quo omnia sunt, et facit Deus per quem omnia (according to 1 Cor. viii. 6). Haec distinctio jubentis Dei, et facientis Dei.

40 Even Athanasius retracted the old proposition that the Son exists by the will of the Father, Orat. adv. Arianos, i. (formerly ii.) 29: rò đè γέννημα οὐ βουλήσει ὑπόκειται, ἀλλὰ τῆς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ἰδιότης.

41 Augustinus de trin. vii. 11. Non major essentia est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus simul, quam solus Pater, aut solus Filius: sed tres simul illae substantiae (voordoes) sive personae, si ita dicendae sunt, aequales sunt singulis: quod animalis homo non percipit. 12. Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus unus Deus. Id. contra sermonem Arianorum, § 4. Unus Deus est ipsa Trinitas, et sic unus Deus, quomodo unus creator: quid est quod dicunt, jubente Patre creasse omnia Filium, tanquam Pater non creaverit, sed a Filio creari jusserit? Formant sibi in phantasmata cordis sui quasi duos aliquos, etsi juxta invicem, in suis tamen locis constitutos, unum jubentem, alterum obtemperantem. Nec intelligunt, ipsam jussionem Patris, et fierent omnia, non esse nisi Verbum Patris, per quod facta sunt omnia. Against the old opinion that the Father is absolutely invisible, and that the Logos alone can appear, see de trin. ii. 15 ss. Cf. § 35: Ipsa natura, vel substantia, vel essentia, vel quolibet alio nomine appellandum est id ipsum quod Deus est, quidquid illud est, corporaliter videri non potest: per subjectam vero creaturam non solum Filium vel Spiritum Sanctum, sed etiam Patrem corporali specie sive similitudine mortalibus sensibus significationem sui dare potuisse credendum est.

1 Hence the contradictory opinions concerning him. Epiphanius

writings, and in those of his disciples Dionysius and Theognostus, that the Son is a creature, Athanasius, on the contrary, drew from the same source arguments for the eternal generation of the Logos.2 Men were the less perplexed by contrary passages in his writings, inasmuch as they knew and already practised many expedients for the purpose of making such expressions of the fathers as were contradictory to the more modern views, powerless and void. Thus Origen had adherents among both parties. Among the Eusebians, he had in particular Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine († 340), a man distinguished alike for his love of peace and his merits as a church historian. Among the Nicenians, were Athanasius, the father haer. 64, c. 4, declares him to be the father of Arianism; and Socrates, vii. 6, wonders how Timotheus could have been at the same time an admirer of Origen and an Arian, since Origen συναΐδιον πανταχοῦ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρί.

2 See Div. 1, § 63, note 18. Comp. Münscher's Dogmengeschichte, Bd. 3, S. 416, 418 ff.

3 See Münscher, 1. c. S. 156 ff. 422 ff.

His biography, composed by his successor Acacius (Socrat. ii. 4), is lost. He is called an Arian by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Hilary, Jerome, &c., defended by Socrat. ii. 21, and Gelasius, hist. Syn. Nic. ii. 1. The first are followed by most historians, as Baronius, Petavius (dogm. theol. de trin. lib. ii. c. 11), Arnold, Jac. Basnage, &c. On the contrary, he is declared to be orthodox by Valesius, Bull, du Pin, Sam. Basnage. There was a controversy on the subject between Jo. Le Clerc, who accuses him of Arianism (bibliothèque univ. T. x. p. 380. Epistolae criticae s. Artis criticae, vol. iii. p. 28 ss.), and W. Cave, who on the other hand, defends him (diss. de Eusebii Arianismo in the append. ii. hist. literar. script. eccl. p. 42, u. epist. apolog. ibid. p. 61 ss.) A more correct opinion is given by Chr. D. A. Martini Eusebii Caes. de divinitate Christi sententia, Rostoch. 1795, 4. J. Ritter, Eusebii Caes. de divinitate Christi placita, Bonnae 1823, 4. Writings: Hist. eccl. libb. x. Chronicon s. πаντodaжǹ loτopía (ex. vers. Armen. ed. J. Bapt. Aucher, Venet. 2 T. 1818, 4. Ang. Majus et J. Zohrab, Mediol. 1818, 4, integrius et emendatius ed. Ang. Majus in Scriptt. vet. nova coll. tom. viii. Romae 1833, 4.) IIрожараσкeun Evayyeλký libb. 15, ed. F. Vigerus, Paris 1628, fol. A. Heinichen, 2 T. Lips. 1842, 8. Εὐαγγελικὴ ἀπόδειξις lib. 20 (of this lib. i.-x. ed. Par. 1628, fol. The beginning of the first and close of the tenth book, which are there wanting, have been supplied by J. A. Fabricius in his delectus argumentorum et syllabus scriptt. qui veritatem relig. christ. adseruerunt, Hamb, 1725, 4. p. 1 ss.) Contra Hieroclem liber, (C. Gu. Haenell de Eusb. Caes. religionis christ. defensore. Gottingae 1843, 8.) Contra Marcellum libb. 2. De ecclesiastica Theologia libb. 3 (all appended to the demonstr. evangel.) Iepì tŵv Totikŵv èv tŷj Bela ypapy (cum vers. Hieronymi, ed. J. Clericus, Amst. 1707, fol.) Oratio de laudibus Constantini. De vita Constantini lib. 4 (annexed

F.