Читать книгу Church History (Vol.1-3) - J. H. Kurtz - Страница 64

The series of doctrinal contendings opened with the Trinitarian or Arian controversy. It first of all dealt with the nature and being of the Logos become man in Christ and the relation of this Logos to the Father. From the time of the controversy of the two Dionysiuses (§ 33, 7) the idea of the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father had found supporters even in Alexandria and a new school was formed with it as the fundamental doctrine (§ 47, 1). But the fear excited by Sabellius and the Samosatians (§ 33, 8), that the acknowledgment of the Homoousia might lead to Monarchianism, caused a strong reaction and doomed many excellent fathers to the bonds of subordinationism. It was pre-eminently the school of the Antiochean Lucian (§ 31, 9) that furnished able contenders against the Homoousia. In Origen the two contraries, subordination and the eternal generation from the substance of the Father, had been still maintained together (§ 33, 6). Now they are brought forward apart from one another. On the one side, Athanasius and his party repudiate subordination but hold firmly by the eternal generation, and perfected their theory by the adoption of the Homoousia; but on the other side, Arius and his party gave up the eternal generation, and held fast to the subordination, and went to the extreme of proclaiming the Heteroousia. A third intermediate party, the semi-Arians, mostly Origenists, wished to bind the separated contraries together with the newly discovered cement of the ὁμοιουσία. In the further course of the controversies that now broke out and raged throughout the whole church for almost a century, the question of the trinitarian position of the Holy Spirit was of necessity dragged into the discussion. After various experiences of victory and discomfiture, the Homoousia of the Son and of the Spirit was at last affirmed and became the watchword of inviolable orthodoxy.

§ 50.1. Preliminary Victory of the Homoousia, A.D. 318–325—Arius, a disciple of Lucian, from A.D. 313 presbyter at Alexandria, a man of clear intellect and subtle critical spirit, was in A.D. 318 charged with the denial of the divinity of Christ, because he publicly taught that while the Son was indeed before all time yet He was not from eternity (ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), that by the will of the Father (θελήματι θεοῦ) He was created out of nothing (κτίσμα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων), and that by His mediating activity the world was called into being; as the most perfect created image of the Father and as executor of the Divine plan of creation, He might indeed in an inexact way be called θεός and λόγος. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria at that time, who maintained the doctrine of the eternal generation and consubstantiality, convened a synod at Alexandria in A.D. 321, which condemned the doctrine of Arius and deposed him. But the people, who revered him as a strict ascetic, and many bishops, who shared his views, took part with him. He also applied for protection to famous bishops in other places, especially to his former fellow student (Συλλουκιανίστης) Eusebius of Nicomedia, and to the very influential Eusebius of Cæsarea (§ 47, 2). The former unreservedly declared himself in favour of the Arian doctrine; the latter regarded it as at least not dangerous. Arius spread his views among the people by means of popular songs for men of various crafts and callings, for millers, sailors, travellers, etc. In this way a serious schism spread through almost all the East. In Alexandria the controversy was carried on so passionately that the pagans made it the subject of reproach in the theatre. When Constantine the Great received news of this general commotion he was greatly displeased. He commanded, fruitlessly, as might be expected, that all needless quarrels (ἐλάχισται ζητήσεις) should be avoided. Hosius, bishop of Cordŏva, who carried the imperial injunction to Alexandria, learnt the state of matters there and the serious nature of the conflict, and brought the emperor to see the matter in another light. Constantine now summoned in A.D. 325 an Œcumenical Council at Nicæa, where he himself and 318 bishops met. The majority, with Eusebius of Cæsarea at their head, were Origenists and sought, as did also the Eusebians, the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to mediate between the opposing views, the latter, however, being much more favourable to the Arians. The maintainers of the Homoousia were in a decided minority, but the vigorous eloquence of the young deacon Athanasius, whom Alexander brought with him, and the favour of the emperor, secured complete ascendancy to their doctrine. Upon the basis of the baptismal formula proposed by Eusebius of Cæsarea to his own congregation, a new confession of faith was sketched out, which was henceforth used to mark the limits of this trinitarian discussion. In this creed several expressions were avoided which, though biblical, had been understood by the Arians in a sense of their own, such as πρωτότοκος πάσης τῆς κτίσεως πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνιων, and in their place strictly Homoousian formulæ were substituted, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, γεννηθεὶς οὐ ποιηθεὶς, ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί; while with added anathemas those entertaining opposite views were condemned. This was the Symbolum Nicænum. Arius was excommunicated and his writings condemned to be burnt. Dread of deposition and love of peace induced many to subscribe who were not convinced. Only Arius himself and two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, refused and went into exile to Illyria. Also Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicæa, who subscribed the Symbol but refused to sign the anathematizing formula, were three months afterwards banished to Gaul.151

§ 50.2. Victory of Eusebianism, A.D. 328–356.—This unity under the Nicene Symbol was merely artificial and could not therefore be enduring. The emperor’s dying sister Constantia and the persuasion of distinguished bishops induced Constantine to return to his earlier view of the controversy. Arius agreed to a Confession drawn up in general terms and was, along with the other banished ones, restored in A.D. 328. Soon thereafter, in A.D. 330, the emperor commanded that Arius should be restored to office. But meanwhile, in A.D. 328, Athanasius himself had become bishop and replied with unfaltering determination that he would not comply. The emperor threatened him with deposition, but by a personal conference Athanasius made such an impression upon him that he gave way. The enemies of Athanasius, however, especially the Meletians driven on by Eusebius of Nicomedia (§ 41, 4), ceased not to excite suspicion about him as a disturber of the peace, and got the emperor to reopen the question at a Synod at Tyre, in A.D. 335. consisting of pure Arians. Athanasius appealed against its verdict of deposition. A new Synod was convened at Constantinople in A.D. 335 and the emperor banished him to Treves in A.D. 336. It was now enjoined that, notwithstanding the opposition of the bishop of Constantinople, Arius should be there received back again into church fellowship, but on the evening before the day appointed he died suddenly, being over eighty years old. Constantine the Great soon followed him, A.D. 337, and Constantine II. restored Athanasius to his church which received him with enthusiasm. Constantius, however, was decidedly favourable to the Eusebians, and this gave tone to the court and to the capital where in all the streets and markets, in all the shops and houses, the questions referred to were considered and discussed. The Eastern bishops for the most part vacillated between the two extremes and let themselves be led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. He and his party managed for a time to set aside the Homoousian formula and yet to preserve an appearance of orthodoxy. Eusebius, who from A.D. 338 was bishop in the capital, died in A.D. 341, but his party continued to intrigue in his spirit. The whole West, on the other hand, was strictly Nicæan. The Eusebians in A.D. 340 opened a Council at Antioch, which anew deposed Athanasius, and put in his place a rude Cappadocian, Gregorius [Gregory]. Athanasius fled to Rome, where a Council under bishop Julius in A.D. 341 solemnly acknowledged his orthodoxy and innocence. A new Council convened at Antioch in A.D. 340 for the consecration of a church, sketched four creeds one after another, approaching indeed, in order to conciliate the West, as closely as possible that of Nicæa, but carefully avoiding the term ὁμοούσιος. In the interests of unity Constantius and Constans jointly convened an Œcumenical Council at Sardica in Illyria in A.D. 344. But when the Westerns under the presidency of Hosius, disregarding the Antiochean anathema, allowed a seat and vote to Athanasius, the Easterns withdrew and formed an opposition Council at Philippopolis in Thrace. At Sardica where important privileges were granted to the Roman bishop Julius (§ 46, 3), the Nicene creed was renewed and Athanasius was restored. Constantius, after Gregorius [Gregory] had died, who meanwhile had become doubly hated because of his violent deeds, confirmed Athanasius’ restoration, and the Alexandrian church received again their old pastor with shouts of joy. But after the death of Constans in A.D. 350, Constantius was again won over to the side of the Arians. They assembled at the Council of Sirmium in Pannonia in A.D. 351, where, however, they did not strike directly at Athanasius but at first only at a friend of his who presented to them a weak spot. The bishop Marcellus of Ancyra in Galatia by his zealous defence of the Nicene Homoousia had been betrayed into the use of Sabellian expressions and views. At a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 336 he was on this account suspended, and then contended with by Eusebius of Cæsarea in the course of this Council; but in the West and at the Council of Sardica he had been defended. Afterwards, however, one of his own scholars Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, had drifted into unmistakable, and indeed into dynamic Monarchianism (§ 33, 1). His doctrine had been already rejected as heretical at a Council at Antioch in A.D. 344 and also in the West at a distinctly Nicæan Council at Milan in A.D. 345. The Council of Sirmium now formally deposed him and with his condemned also Marcellus’ doctrine.152 The Eusebians, however, were not satisfied with this. So soon as Constantius by the conquest of the usurper Magnentius got an absolutely free hand, he arranged at their instigation for two Eusebian Synods, one at Arles in Gaul, A.D. 353, the other at Milan, A.D. 355, where Athanasius was again condemned. The emperor now commanded that all Western bishops should subscribe his condemnation. Those who refused were deposed and banished. Among them were, the Roman bishop Liberius, Hosius of Cordova, Hilary of Poitiers, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Lucifer of Calăris [Calaris]. And now a second Gregorius [Gregory], a Cappadocian, not less rude and passionate than the first, was forcibly installed bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius performed the service in a quiet and dignified manner, and then withdrew to the monks in the Egyptian desert in A.D. 356. Thus it seemed that Arianism in the modified or rather concealed form of Eusebianism had secured a final victory throughout the whole range of the Roman Empire.

§ 50.3. Victory of Homoiousianism, A.D. 357–361.—The Eusebians now, however, fell out among themselves. The more extreme party, with the Antiochean deacon Aëtius and bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus at their head, carried their heresy so far as to declare that the Son is unlike to the Father (ἀνόμοιος). They were hence called Anomœans, also Exucontians (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων). But also the distinctly moderate party, called semi-Arians153 or Homoiousians, from their adoption of the formula ὁμοιούσιος, made preparations for a decisive conflict. At their head stood Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Constantius too was favourable to them. But the intriguing court bishops, Ursacius and Valens, strictly Arian at heart, knew how to gain their ends by secret paths. With the emperor’s consent they held a second Council at Sirmium in A.D. 357, where it was resolved to avoid wholly the non-biblical phrase οὐσία, which caused all the contention, to abandon all definitions of the nature of God which to man is incomprehensible, and to unite upon the simple formula, that the Son is like the Father (ὅμοιος hence the name Homoians). Hosius of Cordova, facile through age and sufferings, bought his reprieve by subscription. He died, after a bitter repentance, in A.D. 361, when almost a hundred years old. The rest of the Westerns, however, at the Synod of Agenum renewed their Nicene Confession; the semi-Arians under Basil at Ancyra their Antiochean Confession. The latter, too, found access to the emperor, who let their Confession be confirmed at a third Synod at Sirmium in A.D. 358, and obliged the court bishops to sign it. The latter then came to a compromise with the semi-Arians in the formula: τὸν Υἱὸν ὅμοιον τῷ Πατρὶ εἶναι κατὰ πάντα ὡς αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ λέγουσιν. Liberius of Rome, too, worn out with three years’ exile, agreed to sign this symbol and ventured to return to Rome (§ 46, 4). The formula pleased the emperor so well that he decided to have it confirmed by an œcumenical Council. But in order to prevent the dreaded combination of the Homoousians and Homoiousians in the West, Ursacius and Valens contrived to have two Councils instead of one, an Eastern Council at Seleucia and a Western Council at Rimini, A.D. 359. Both rejected the formula of Sirmium; the Easterns holding by that of Antioch, the Westerns by that of Nicæa. But Ursacius knew how by cunning intrigues to weary them out. When the bishops had spent two years at Seleucia and Rimini, which seemed to them no better than banishment, and their messengers after a half year’s journey had not succeeded in obtaining an audience of the emperor, they at last subscribed the Homoian symbol. Those who refused, Aëtius and Eunomius, were persecuted as disturbers of the church’s peace. Thus the Homoian creed prevailed through the whole Roman empire. Constantius’ death, however, in A.D. 361, soon broke up this artificial bond.

§ 50.4. Final Victory of the Nicene Creed, A.D. 361–381.—Julian gave equal rights to all parties and recalled all the banished bishops, so that many churches had two or three bishops. Athanasius also returned. For the restoration of church order he called a Synod at Alexandria in A.D. 362, and here in the exercise of a gentle and wise temper he received back into church fellowship the penitent Arian bishops, in spite of the protest of the strict zealot Lucifer of Calaris. The happy results of Athanasius’ procedure led the emperor again to banish him, on the pretext that he was a disturber of the peace. Julian’s successor, Jovian, was favourable to the Nicene doctrine and immediately restored Athanasius, A.D. 364, meanwhile extending toleration to the Arians. But Valens, to whom his brother Valentinian I. surrendered the East, A.D. 364–378, proved a zealous Arian. He raged with equal violence against the Athanasians and against the semi-Arians, and thus drove the two into close relations with one another. Athanasius was obliged to flee, but ventured after four months to return, and lived in peace to the end of his days. He died in A.D. 373. Valens was meanwhile restricted in his persecutions on two sides, by the pressing representations of his brother Valentinian, and by the manly resistance of eminent bishops, especially the three Cappadocians (§ 47, 4). The machinations of the Western empress Justinia, during the minority of her son Valentinian II., were successfully checkmated by Ambrose of Milan. He passively but victoriously opposed the soldiers who were to take possession of his church for the Arians by a congregation praying and singing psalms. Theodosius the Great gave its deathblow to Arianism. He called Gregory Nazianzen to the patriarchal chair at Constantinople. To Gregory also at a subsequent time he assigned the presidency of the so-called Second Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 381.154—When, however, his patriarchate was attacked, because he had changed his bishopric (§ 45), he resigned his office. No new Symbol was here drawn up, but only the Nicene Symbol was confirmed as irrefragable. On the so-called Nicæan-Constantinopolitan Symbol, comp. § 59, 2. After this the Arians ventured only to hold services outside of the cities. Subsequently all churches in the empire were taken from them.—The Constantinopolitan Council of A.D. 381 did not fairly represent parties. Being called by the then merely Eastern emperor, and so consisting only of Eastern bishops, it was not properly an œcumenical synod, and for a long time even in the East itself was not regarded as such. Still it was of importance to the bishop of Constantinople that it should have this rank, and his endeavours were favoured by the circumstance that it had been called by Theodosius who was honoured both in East and West as Sole Potentate and “second Constantine.” After the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 (§ 46, 1) the whole East was unanimous in recognising it. The West, however, at least Rome, still rejected it, until finally under Justinian I., in consequence of the Roman chair becoming dependent upon the Byzantine court (§ 46, 9), the dispute was here no longer agitated.

§ 50.5. The Pneumatomachians, A.D. 362–381.—Arius and the Arians had described the Holy Spirit as the first creature produced by the Son. But even zealous defenders of the Homoousia of the Son vacillated. The Nicene Symbol was satisfied with a bare καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον; and even Hilary of Poitiers, avoiding all exact definition, contented himself with recording the phrases of Scripture. But Athanasius, at the Synod of Alexandria in A.D. 362, Didymus the Blind, and the three Cappadocians, consistently applied their idea of the Homoousia to the Spirit and won the adhesion of the Nicene theologians. It was hardest for the semi-Arians who had accepted the Nicene platform, at whose head stood Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the Homoians in A.D. 360, to acquiesce in this conclusion (Macedonians, Pneumatomachians). The so-called second œcumenical Council of A.D. 381 sanctioned in a now lost doctrinal “Tome” the full Homoousia of the Holy Spirit. The West had already in A.D. 380 at a Roman Synod under the presidency of Bishop Damasus condemned in 24 anathemas, along with all other trinitarian errors, every sort of opposition to the perfect Homoousia of the Spirit.155

§ 50.6. The Literature of the Controversy.—Arius himself developed his doctrine in a half poetical writing, the Θάλεια, fragments of which are given by Athanasius. Arianism found a zealous apologist in the Sophist Asterius, whose treatise is lost. The church historian, Philostorgius (§ 5, 1), sought to vindicate it historically. On the semi-Arian side Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote against Marcellus—Κατὰ Μαρκέλλου and Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας. The Ἀπολογητικός of Eunomius is lost. Among the opponents of Arianism, Athanasius occupies by a long way the first place (IV. Orations against the Arians, Ep. concerning Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum, Hist. of Arians to the Monks, Apology against the Arians, etc., all included in Hist. Tracts of Athanasius, “Lib. of Fath.,” 2 vols., Oxf., 1843 f.). On the works of Apollinaris belonging to this controversy see § 47, 5. Basil the Great wrote 4 bks. against Eunomius; Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεῦματος, Ad Amphilochium, against the Pneumatomachians. Gregory Nazianzen wrote five Λόγοι θεολογικοί. Gregory of Nyssa 12 Λόγοι ἀντιῤῥητικοὶ κατὰ Εὐνομίου. Didymus the Blind, 3 bks. De Trinitate. Epiphanius, the Ἀγκυρώτος. Cyril of Alexandria a θησαυρὸς περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμοούσιας Τριάδος. Chrysostom delivered twelve addresses against the Anomoians. Theodoret wrote Dialogi VII. d. s. Trinitate. Ephraëm [Ephraim] Syrus, too, combated the Arians frequently in his sermons. Among the Latins the most celebrated polemists are: Lucifer of Calaris (Ad Constantium p. Lb. II. pro Athen.); Hilary of Poitiers (De Trinitate Lb. I., de Synodus s. de fide Orientalium, contra Constantium Aug.; C. Auxentium); Phœbadius, bishop of Agenum about A.D. 359 (C. Arianos); Ambrose (De fide ad Gratianum Aug. Lb. V.); Augustine (C. Sermonem Arianorum; Collatio cum Maximo Arianorum episc.; C. Maximinum); Fulgentius of Ruspe (C. Arianos, and 3 bks. against the Arian Vandal king Thrasimund).

§ 50.7. Post-Nicene Development of the Dogma.—Even the Nicene Symbol did not completely surmount every trace of subordinationism. It is at least capable of a subordinationist interpretation when the Father alone is called εἷς θεός and so identified with the Monas. Augustine completely surmounted this defect (De Trinitate Lb. XV.). The personality of the Spirit, too, as well as His relation to the Father and the Son, had not yet been determined. A step was taken towards the formulating of the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality by the acknowledgment in the now lost Tome of the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381 of the full Homoousia of the Spirit with the Father and the Son.156 But the doctrine of the Spirit’s relations to Father and Son still continued undetermined and even by the addition (to the εἰς τὸ πν. ἅγ.) of: τὸ κυρίον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ συνπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον in the so-called Symbolum Nic.-Constant. (§ 59, 2), a definition so incomplete was obtained, that even five hundred years afterwards the great schism that rent the church into an Eastern and a Western division found in this its doctrinal basis (§ 67, 1). Augustine, too, had meanwhile come forward with a further development of this doctrine, and taught in his speculation upon the Spirit that He proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father (John xv. 26). Fulgentius of Ruspe was the next most famous representative of the further development of the dogma (De s. Trinitate). The so-called Athanasian Creed (§ 59, 2) simply adopted this advanced development in the proposition: qui procedit a Patre et Filio. Similarly the Filioque is found also in the so-called Nic.-Constant. Creed laid before the Synod of Toledo in A.D. 589 (§ 76, 2).—Continuation § 67, 1; § 91, 2.

§ 50.8. Schisms in consequence of the Arian Controversy.

1 The Meletian Schism at Antioch. The Arians at Antioch had already in A.D. 330 driven away Eustathius, the bishop of the see, who favoured the Nicene doctrine. A portion of his people, however, remained attached to him and Homoousianism under the leadership of the Presbyter Paulinus, and were called Eustathians. When in A.D. 360 Eudoxius, the Arian bishop, left Antioch, in order to take possession of the episcopal chair of the capital, his former congregation chose Meletius, bishop of Sebaste, formerly a Eusebian, but for some time friendly to the Nicene party, as his successor. His first sermon, however, served to undeceive those who had chosen him, so that after a few weeks they drove him away and put Euzoius, a decided Arian, in his place. Yet he had already won a following in the congregation which, when Julian’s succession made it possible for him to return, took him back as bishop. Athanasius and the Alexandrian Synod of A.D. 362 had meanwhile made every effort to reconcile these Meletians and the Eustathians and to unite them under the banner of Nicæanism. But Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, sent to Antioch for this purpose, confirmed the schism instead of healing it by ordaining Paulinus bishop on the death of Eustathius in A.D. 360. The whole church now took sides, the East that of Meletius, the West along with Egypt, that of Paulinus. The Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 gave to Meletius the presidency as the oldest bishop present. When, after two days, he died, Gregory Nazianzen, his successor in the presidency, recommended that the next election should be postponed till the death of the aged Paulinus and that then both parties should join the election. It was, however, all in vain. Flavian was appointed successor to Meletius, and when Paulinus died in A.D. 388, the Presbyter Evagrius was chosen opposition bishop in his stead. Theodosius I., from A.D. 392 sole ruler, insisted upon the West recognising Flavian. But in Antioch itself the schism lasted down to the death of Evagrius. Finally, in A.D. 415, the able successor of Flavian, bishop Alexander, effected a reconciliation, by taking part on a feast day along with his congregation in the public worship of the Eustathians, joining with them in singing and prayer, and in this way won them over to join him in the principal church.

2 The Schism of the Luciferians. After Lucifer by his irrational zeal had caused so much discord in Antioch, he returned in A.D. 362 to Alexandria, and there protested against Athanasius for receiving back penitent Arians and semi-Arians. He and his fanatical adherents formed the sect of Luciferians, which renewed the Novatianist demands for Church purity, and continued to exist down to the fifth century.

3 On the Schism of Damasus and Ursacius at Rome, see § 46, 4.