« Prev 3. To the Councils of Constantinope 381. 383. Next »


The three possible standpoints—the Athanasian, the Lucianist-Arian, and the Origenist, which in opposition to the Arian had gradually narrowed itself down to the Homoiousian—had been set aside by Constantius in the interest of the unity of the Church. But the Homœan formula, which had no firm theological conviction behind it, meant the domination of a party which gravitated towards Arianism, i.e., which resolved faith in Jesus Christ into a dialectical discussion about unbegotten and begotten and into the conviction of the moral unity of Father and Son. It was for twenty years, with the exception of a brief interval, the dominant creed in the East. This fact finds its explanation only in the change, or narrowing, which came over what was at an earlier date the middle party. The Arianising Homœans were now conservative and in their way even conciliatory. They disposed of the ancient tradition of the East as 81the Eusebians had done before them; for their formula “of like nature according to Holy Scripture” contained that latitude which corresponded to the old traditional doctrine. With this we may compare the standpoint of Eusebius of Cæsarea. The old middle party had, however, in the ὁμοιούσιος made for themselves a fixed doctrinal formula.185185The dogmatic dissertation of the Homoiousians in Epiphan. 73, 12-22, is of the highest importance; for it shews in more than one respect a dogmatic advance: (1) the differentiation of the conceptions οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον begins here. The first of these is used in order to express the idea of the essence or substance which imprints itself in the form of a definite quality; accordingly the action of the Fathers who in protesting against Paul of Samosata attributed a special οὐσία to the Son, is by an explanation excused. They did this in order to do away with the idea that the Logos is a mere ῥῆμα, a λεκτικὴ ἐνέργεια. The proper expression, however, is ὑπόστασις. It is because the Logos is an ὑπόστασις, i.e., because he does not, like the other words of God, lack being, that the Fathers called τὴν ὑπόστασιν οὐσίαν (c. 12). The ἀκρίβεια τῆς τῶν προσώπων ἐπιγνώσεως must be strictly maintained as against Sabellius (c. 14); but no one is to be led astray by the word ὑποστάσεις (Pl.); it does not mean that there are two or three Gods: διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ὑποστάσεις οἱ ἀνατολικοὶ λέγουσιν, ἵνα τὰς ἰδιότητας τῶν προσώπων ὑφεστώσας καὶ ὑπαρχούσας γνωρίσωσιν. The word “Hypostasis” is thus merely meant to give the word πρόσωπον a definite meaning, implying that it is to be taken as signifying independently existing manifestations (c. 16), while οὐσία is in the tractate interchangeable with φύσις or πνεῦμα, and is thus still used only in the singular; (2) quite as much attention is already given to the Holy Ghost as to the Son, and the τρόποι ὑπάρξεως are developed, i.e., an actual doctrine of the Trinity independent of any ideas about the world, is constructed (c. 16): Εἰ γὰρ πνεῦμα ὁ πατήρ, πνεῦμα καὶ ὁ υἱός, πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, οὐ νοεῖται πατὴρ ὁ υἱός· ὑφέστηκε δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα, ὅ οὐ νοεῖται υἱός, ὅ καὶ οὐκ ἔστι . . . Τὰς ἰδιότητας προσώπων ὑφεστώτων ὑποστάσεις ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ ἀνατολικοί, οὐχὶ τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις τρεῖς ἀρχὰς ἢ τρεῖς θεοὺς λέγοντες . . . Ὁμολογοῦσι γὰρ μίαν εἶναι θεότητα . . . ὅμως τὰ πρόσωπα ἐν ταῖς ἰδιότησι τῶν ὑποστάσεων εὐσεβῶς γνωρίζουσι, τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῇ πατρικῇ αὐθεντίᾳ ὑφεστῶτα νοοῦντες, καὶ τὸν υἱὸὐ μέρος ὄντα τοῦ πατρός, ἀλλὰ καθαρῶς ἐκ πατρὸς τέλειον ἐκ τελείου γεγεννημένον καὶ ὑφεστῶτα ὁμολογοῦντες, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὅ ἡ θεία γραφὴ παράκλητον ὀνομάζει, ἐκ πατρὸς δι᾽ υἱοῦ ὑφεστῶτα γνωρίζοντες . . . Οὐκοῦν ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ υἱὸν ἀξίως νοοῦμεν, ἐν υἱῷ δὲ μονογενεῖ πατέρα εὐσεβῶς καὶ ἀξίως δοξάζομεν, (3) the Christological problem based on Philipp. II. 6 and Rom. VIII. 3 (ὁμοίωμα) is already introduced for the elucidation of the Trinitarian: ἀπὸ τοῦ σωματικοῦ εὐσεβῶς καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦ ὁμοίου ἔννοιαν ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀσωμάτου πατρός τε καὶ υἱοῦ διδαχθῆναι (c. 17, 18). As Christ’s flesh is identical with human flesh, but is, on the other hand, on account of its wonderful origin only ὅμοιος, κατὰ τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον καὶ ὁ υἱὸς πνεῦμα ὢν καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τατρὸς πνεῦμα γεννηθείς, κατὰ μὲν τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκ πνεύματος εἶναι τὸ αὐτό ἐστιν, κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἄνευ ἀπορροίας καὶ πάθους καὶ μερισμοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθῆναι ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ πατρί. Accordingly we have now the decisive statement: Οὐκοῦν διὰ τῆς πρὸς φιλιππησίους ἐπιστολῆς ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς πῶς ἡ ὑπόστασις τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁμοία ἐστὶ τῇ ὑποστάσει τοῦ πατρός· πνεῦμα γὰρ ἐκ πατρός. Καὶ κατὰ μὲν τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔννοιαν (and therefore thought of in essence as a generic conception) ταὐτόν, ὡς κατὰ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς ἔννοιαν ταὐτὸν. Οὐ ταὐτὸν δὲ ἀλλὰ ὅμοιον, διότι τὸ πνεῦμα, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ υἱός, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ἡ σάρξ, ἣν ὁ λόγος ἀνέβαλεν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ σπέρματος καὶ ἡδονῆς, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ὡς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξεν . . . ὁ πατὴρ πνεῦμα ὤν αὐθεντικῶς ποιεῖ, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς πνεῦμα ὢν οὐκ αὐθεντικῶς ποιεῖ ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως. Οὐκοῦν καθὰ μὲν σὰρξ καὶ σὰρξ ταὐτὸν, ὥσπερ καθὸ πνεῦμα καὶ πνεῦμα ταὐτόν. καθὸ δὲ ἄνευ σπορᾶς οὐ ταὐτὸν ἀλλ᾽ ὅμοιον, ὥσπερ καθὸ ἄνευ ἀπορροίας καὶ πάθους ὁ υἱὸς οὐ ταὐτὸν ἀλλ᾽ ὅμοιον. Thus these Homoiousians already admit the ταὐτόν if they also reject the ταὐτοούσιος (= ὁμοούσιος, i.e., Father and Son are ταὐτόν as regards substance, in so far as they are both πνεῦμα, but in so far as they are different Hypostases they are not identical, but of like nature. (4) These Homoiousians have expressly rejected the designations ἀγέννητος for God and γεννητός for the Son, and indeed not only because they are unbiblical, but because “Father” includes much more than “Unbegotten”, and because “γεννητός” includes much less than “Son”, and further because the conjunction “unbegotten—begotten” does not express the relation of reciprocity between Father and Son (the γνησίως γεγεννημένῳ), which is emphasised as being the most important (c. 14, 19): διὸ κἂν πατέρα μόνον ὀνομάζωμεν, ἔχομεν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρὸς συνυπακουομένην τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ υἱοῦ, πατὴρ γὰρ υἱοῦ πατὴρ λέγεται· κἂν υἱὸν μόνον ὀνομάσωμεν, ἔχομεν τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ πατρός, ὅτι υἱὸς πατρὸς λέγεται. Whoever names the one names the other at the same time, and yet does not posit him merely in accordance with his name, but with his name καὶ τῆς φύσεως οἰκειότητα; on the other hand, ἀγέννητον οὐ λέγεται γεννητοῦ ἀγέννητον, οὐδὲ γεννητὸν ἀγεννήτου γεννητόν. Athanasius could scarcely wish more than this, or rather: we have already here the main outlines of the theology of the three Cappadocians, and it is not accidental that Basil of Ancyra is himself a Cappadocian. This was a change of the 82most decisive kind. We may still further say it was not theHomousioswhich finally triumphed, but on the contrary the Homoiousian doctrine, which fixed on the terms of agreement with tale Homousios.” The doctrine which Hosius, Athanasius, Eustathius, and Marcellus had championed at Nicæa, was over-thrown. The new Origenism which was based on the “Homousios” succeeded in establishing itself. A form of doctrine triumphed which did not exclude scientific theology, a subject in which Athanasius and the Westerns of the older days never shewed any interest. But Athanasius himself contributed to the revolution thus accomplished,186186The work of Athanasius, de synodis, written in the year 359, is of the highest importance for the history of the Arian controversy. It is distinguished as much by the firmness with which his position is maintained—for Athanasius did not yield in any point—as by its moderation and wisdom. The great bishop succeeded in combining these qualities in his book, because he was not concerned with the formula itself, but solely with the thought which in his view the formula attacked best expressed. We must, he said, speak like brethren to brethren to the Ηomoiousians who hold almost the same view as the Nicæans and are merely suspicious about a word. Whoever grants that the Son is in nature of like quality with the Father and springs from the substance of the Father is not far from the ὁμοούσιος; for this is a combination of ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and ὁμοιούσιος (c. 41 ff.). While expressly making an apology to Basil of Ancyra, he endeavours to remove the stumbling-blocks presented by ὁμοούσιος, but seeks at the same time to shew that ὁμοιούσιος either involves an absurdity or is dogmatically incorrect (c. 53 f.). though it is very doubtful if he ever came to see the full extent of it.


Julian granted liberty to all the bishops to return, and in so doing did away with the artificial state of things created by Constantius. The Nicæans were once more a power, and Athanasius who returned to Alexandria in February 362, at once re-assumed the leadership of the party. A Synod was held at Alexandria in summer, and this prepared the way for the triumph of orthodoxy in the year 381.187187The most important source of information for the Synod of Alexandria is the Tomus of Athanas. ad Antioch., and in addition Rufin. X. 27-29, Socr. III. 7, Athan. ep. ad Rufinian. I need not here (after the work published by Revillout) enter upon any discussion of the σύνταγμα διδασκαλίας of the Synod, which is identical with Opp. Athanas. ed. Migne XXVIII., p. 836 sq.; cf. Eichhorn, Athan., de vita ascet. testim., 1886, p. 15 sq. On the Synod cf. also Gregor. Naz. Orat. 21, 35. It was here resolved that the Nicene Creed was to be accepted sans phrase. i.e., that those were to be recognised as Christian brethren who now acknowledge the ὁμοούσιος, and condemn the Arian heresy together with its chief supporters, irrespective of any former departure on their part from the faith. But still further, the question as to whether it was necessary to believe in one hypostasis or in three was left an open one. (At Alexandria the Holy Spirit had already been the subject of discussion as well as the Son.) Both statements were disapproved of since the ὁμοούσιος was considered to be sufficient, but it was explained that both might be understood in a pious sense.188188Tom. ad Antioch. 5. 6. This was probably the largest concession which Athanasius ever made. When Socrates affirms that at the Synod the employment of “Ousia” and “Hypostasis” in reference to the Godhead was forbidden, his statement is not entirely incorrect; for it is evident from the Tomus that the Synod did actually disapprove of the use of the terms in this way. These resolutions were not passed without strong opposition.189189This is sufficiently shewn in the Tomus; the Lucifer schism has its root here; see Krüger, op. cit., pp. 43-54. Lucifer was, moreover, not a man of sufficient education to appreciate the real question at issue. He did not wish to have the venia ex pœnitentia accorded to the Semi-Arians who were passing over to orthodoxy. It was thus a Novatian-Donatist element which determined his position. Not only did some bishops demand that 84those who had subscribed the Fourth Sirmian Formula should be denied the communion of the Church, but, what was of much greater importance, there was a party which insisted on the interpretation of the Nicene Creed which had been settled by some of the Western bishops at Sardica, and which as a matter of fact was the original one.190190See above, p. 68, and the Tom. c. 5. init. These bishops thus demanded the acknowledgment of the μία ὑπύστασις. The West never at bottom abandoned this demand, but in the Meletian-Antiochian schism it, however, finally got the worst of it and had to acquiesce in the Eastern doctrinal innovation. That at the Synod of Alexandria, however, the Homoiousians also attempted to get their catchword, or, their interpretation of the ὁμοούσιος, adopted, is evident from the letter of Apollinaris to Basil; see Dräseke Ztschr. f. K.G., VIII., p. 118 f. But they did not press their views, and they seem to have acquiesced in the decision of the Synod. This marked a complete change.191191Just as it is to Zahn that, speaking generally, we primarily owe the understanding of the original meaning of Ὁμοουσιος, so it is he too who, so far as I know, first plainly noticed this complete change. (Marcell, p. 87 f., also Gwatkin, p. 242 sq.) If up till now orthodox faith had meant the recognition of a mysterious plurality in the substantial unity of the Godhead, it was now made permissible to turn the unity into a mystery, i.e., to reduce it to equality and to make the threefoldness the starting-point; but this simply means that that Homoiousianism was recognised which resolved to accept the word ὁμοούσιος. And to this theology, which changed the substantial unity of substance expressed in the ὁμοούσιος into a mere likeness or equality of substance, so that there was no longer a threefold unity, but a trinity, the future belonged, in the East, though not to the same extent in the West. The theologians who had studied Origen regarded it with favour. The Cappadocians started from the ὁμοούσιος,192192This is specially evident from the letter of Basil to Apollinaris (in Dräseke, op. cit. 96 ff.) of the year 361. Basil communicates to the great teacher (of whom later) his doubts as to whether it is justifiable to use the word ὁμοούσιος. For biblical and philosophical dogmatic reasons he is inclined to prefer the formula ἀπαραλλάκτως ὅμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν. Apollinaris accordingly explains to him (p. 112 ff.) that the ὁμοούσιος is more correct, but his own explanation of the word is no longer identical with that of Athanasius. He finds both expressed in it, the ταυτότης as well as the ἑτερότης, and according to his idea the Son is related to the Father as men are to Adam. Just as it may be said of all men, they are Adam, they were in Adam, and just as there is only one Adam, so too is it with the Godhead. Basil at any rate started from Homoiousianism, and it is because this has not been taken into consideration that the letter in question has been pronounced not genuine. For the rest, the efforts of the Benedictines in the third volume of their edition of the Opp. Basil. (Præf.) to vindicate Basil’s orthodoxy shew that, leaving this letter out of account, his perfect soundness in the faith is not—in all his utterances—beyond doubt. Later on Basil understood the ὁμοούσιος exactly in the sense given to it by him in the letter to Apollinaris and which at that time made him hesitate to use it; see Krüger, p. 42 f. See further the characteristic statements made at an earlier date in ep. 8. 9: ὁ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν Θεὸς τῷ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν Θεῷ ὁμοούσιος! 85though this is certainly true of Gregory of Nyssa only indirectly. They acknowledged the ὁμοούσιος and accordingly set up a system of doctrine which neither disavowed the theology of Origen, that is, science in general, nor yet remained in the terminologically helpless condition of Athanasius. But they succeeded in attaining terminological clearness—they could not improve on the matter of the doctrine—only because they modified the original thought of Athanasius and developed the theology which Basil of Ancyra had first propounded in his tractate. Οὐσία now got a meaning which was half way between the abstract “substance” and the concrete “individual substance”, still it inclined very strongly in the direction of the former.193193Basil has frequently so expressed himself as to suggest that he regarded the idea of the generic unity of Father and Son as sufficient (see, e.g., ep. 38, 2). Zahn (p. 87): “the οὐσία with Basil designates the κοινόν, the ὑπόστασις the ἴδιον (ep. 114, 4). He is never tired of holding forth on the difference between the two expressions, and goes so far as to assert that the Nicene Fathers were well aware of this difference, since they would surely not have put the two words side by side without some purpose (ep. 125).” It is interesting to note that already at the Council of Antioch in 363 it had been explained that οὐ κατά τινα χρῆσιν Ἑλληνικὴν λαμβάνεται τοῖς πατράσι τὸ ὄνομα τῆς οὐσίας. Assuredly not! It was a terminology which was expressly invented. Ὑπόστασις got a meaning half way between “Person” and “Attribute”, (Accident, Modality), still the conception of Person entered more largely into it.194194And yet in Gregory of Nyssa the persons appear also as συμβεβηκότα (accidents). Πρόσωπον was avoided because it had a Sabellian sound, but it was not rejected. The unity of the Godhead, as the Cappadocians conceived of it, was not the same as the unity which Athanasius had in his mind. Basil the Great was never tired of emphasising the new distinction implied in οὐσία, and ὑπόστασις. For the central doctrine of the incarnation of God they required a conception of God of boundless fulness. Μία οὐσία (μία θεότης) ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσιν, (one 86divine substance (one divine nature) in three subjects,) was the formula. In order to give clear expression to the actual distinction of the Persons within the Godhead, Gregory of Nyssa attached to them τρόποι ὑπάρξεως, (modes of existence,) ἰδιότητες χαρακτηρίζουσαι, ἐξαίρετα ἰδιώματα, (characteristic peculiarities, special characters). To the Father he attributed ἀγεννησία, the quality of being unbegotten, and in consequence of this the word which had formerly been forbidden by the Niceans was once more restored to a place of honour, no longer, however, as referring to substance, but as expressing a mode of being (σχέσις) of God the Father. To the Son he attributed γεννησία, the quality of being begotten, and even the older Homoiousians shewed more reserve on this point than Gregory did. To the Spirit he attributed ἐκπόρευσις—procession.195195See the treatises of Gregor. Nyss. περὶ διαφορᾶς οὐσίας καὶ ὑποστάσεως—περὶ τοῦ οἴεσθαι λέγειν Θεούς—πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν. “Prosopon” is no longer for Gregory a technical term in the strict sense of the word, but on the other hand he also avoids the expression “three ἄτομα”. The word φύσις maintained itself alongside of οὐσία, and in the same way ἰδιότης was used along with ὑπόστασις. The God who was common to the Three was supposed to be a real substance, not, however, a fourth alongside of the Three, but on the contrary the unity itself! On the characteristics of the Hypostases, see Gregor. Naz. Orat. 25. 16: Κοινὸν τὸ μὴ γεγονέναι καὶ ἡ θεότης. Ἴδιον δὲ πατρὸς μὲν ἡ ἀγεννησία, υἱοῦ δὲ ἡ γέννησις, πνεύματος δὲ ἡ ἔκπεμψις. The two others expressed their views in almost similar terms in their works against Eunomius, unless that Gregory of Nyssa alone put the doctrine of the Holy Ghost in a logically developed form (see below), while as regards it, Basil (see de spir. s. ad Amphiloch.) advanced least of them all. The pronounced attitude taken up by them all, especially by Basil, against Marcellus, is characteristic. The theological orations of Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. 27-31) may, more than anything else, have spread the doctrinal system far and wide. (It is important to note that in opposition to it Athanasius in his letter ad Afros. [c. 369] expressly said that ὑπόστασις and οὐσία were to be used as identical in meaning.) It follows from Orat. 31 (33) that Gregory did not wish to apply the number one to the Godhead; a unity was for him only the κίνησις and φύσις (μίαν φύσιν ἐν τρισὶν ἰδιότησι, νοεραῖς τελείαις, καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰς ὑφεστώσαις, ἀριθμῷ διαιρεταῖς καὶ οὐ διαιρεταῖς θεότητι). So too he was doubtful about, the suitability of the old image, “source, stream”, for the Trinity, not only because it represents the Godhead as something changeable, something flowing, but also because it gave the appearance of a numerical unity to the Godhead. He is equally unwilling, and in fact for the same reasons, to sanction the use of the old comparison of sun, beam, and brightness. He is always in a fighting attitude towards “Sabellianism”. The doctrine of the one God is to him Jewish—that is the new discovery. “We do not acknowledge a Jewish, narrow, jealous, weak Godhead” (Orat. 25. 16). Gregory had, moreover, already begun those odd speculations about the immanent substance of God which, though they are mere bubble-blowing, are still highly thought of. The divine loftiness, according to him, shews itself in this, that in His immanent life also God is a fruitful principle; the life of the creature has its vital manifestation in the tension of dualities, but it is in this opposition that its imperfection also consists; the Trinity is the “sublation”, or abrogation of the duality, living movement and at the same time rest, and not in any way a sublimation into multiplicity. The Orat. 23 in particular is full of thoughts of this sort, see c. 8: τριάδα τελείαν ἐκ τελειῶν τριῶν, μονάδος μὲν κινηθείσης διὰ τὸ πλούσιον, δυάδος δὲ ὑπερβαθείσης, ὑπὲρ γὰρ τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὸ εἶδος, ἐξ ὧν τὰ σώματα, τριάδος δὲ ὁρισθείσης διὰ τὸ τέλειον, πρώτη γὰρ ὑπερβαίνει δυάδος σύνθεσιν, ἵνα μήτε στενὴ μένῇ ἡ θεότης μήτε εἰς ἄπειρον χέηται· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀφιλότιμον, τὸ δὲ ἄτακτον, καὶ τὸ μὲν Ἰουδαϊκὸν παντελῶς, τὸ δὲ Ἑλληνικὸν καὶ πολύθεον. But what is more, 87the entire Origenistic speculation regarding the Trinity, with which Athanasius would have nothing to do, that is, of which he knew nothing, was rehabilitated. The moment or element of finitude within the Trinitarian evolution was no doubt struck out, still the Absolute has nevertheless not only modi in itself, but also in some degree, stages. The (eternal) generation or begetting, in the sense of a Godhead extending itself to the limits of the creaturely, was again put in the foreground. In this way the subordination-conception, which was an irreducible remainder in Athanasius’ whole way of looking at the question, again acquired a peculiar significance. The idea that the Father in Himself is to be identified with the entire Godhead again became one of the ground-principles of speculation. He is the starting-point of the Trinity, just as He is the Creator of the world. The idea that He is source, beginning, cause of the Godhead (πηγή, αρχή, αἰτία τῆς θεότητος), the cause (τὸ αἴτιον) and consequently God in the proper sense (κυρίως Θεός), while the other Hypostases again are effects (αἰτιατά),196196Gregor. Nyss., ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν T. II. p. 85; ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ προσωπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐξ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς γεννᾶται καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται, διὸ καὶ κυρίως τὸν ἕνα αἴτιον ὄντα τῶν αὐτοῦ αἰτιατῶν ἕνα Θεόν φαμεν.. meant something different to the Cappadocians from what it did to Athanasius. For the Logos-conception, which Athanasius had discarded as theistic-cosmical, again came to the front, and in their view Logos and Cosmos are more closely related than in that of Athanasius. The unity of the Godhead does not rest here on the Homousia, but in the last resort, as with Arius, on the “monarchy” of God the Father; and the Spiritual on earth is, in fine, not a mere creature of God, but—at any rate 88with Gregory of Nyssa—as in the view of Origen, is a being with a nature akin to His.197197It is here that we have the root of the difference between Athanasius and Gregory. “Science” concluded an alliance with the Nicene Creed; that was a condition of the triumph of orthodoxy. If at the beginning of the controversy the scientific thinkers—including those amongst the heathen—had sympathised with Arianism, men were now to be found as the defenders of the Nicene Creed to whom even a Libanius yielded the palm. These men took their stand on the general theory of the universe which was accepted by the science of the time; they were Platonists, and they once more naïvely appealed to Plato in support even of their doctrine of the Trinity.198198From this time this once more became the fashion amongst the scientific orthodox. The confession of Socrates (VII. 6) is very characteristic. He cannot understand how the two Arian Presbyters, Timotheus and Georgius can remain Arians and yet study Plato and Origen so industriously and esteem them so highly οὐδὲ γὰρ Πλάτων τὸ δεύτερον καὶ τὸ τρίτον αἴτιον, ὡς αὐτὸς ὀνομάζειν εἴωθεν, ἀρχὴν ὑπάρξεως εἰλιφέναι φησί, καὶ Ὠριγένης συναΐδιον πανταχοῦ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρί. It is instructive further to note how Philostorgius too (in Suidas) asserts that in the matter of the vindication of the ὁμοούσιος Athanasius was deemed a boy in comparison with the Cappadocians and Apollinaris. Those who were on the side of Plato, Origen,199199See the Philocalia. and Libanius—Basil indeed had recommended the latter to his pupils as one who could help them in advanced culture,—those who were on a footing of equality with the scholars, the statesmen, and highest officials, could not fail to get sympathy. The literary triumphs of the Cappadocians who knew how to unite devotion to the Faith and to the practical ideals of the Church with their scientific interests, the victories over Eunomius and his following were at the same time the triumphs of Neo-platonism over an Aristotelianism which had become thoroughly arid and formal.200200This is one of the strongest impressions we carry away from a reading of the works against Eunomius. Orthodoxy in alliance with science had a spring which lasted from two to three decades, a short spring which was not followed by any summer, but by destructive storms. Spite of all the persecutions, the years between 370 and 394 were 89very happy ones for the orthodox Church of the East. It was engaged on a great task, and this was to restore the true faith to the Churches of the East, and to introduce into them the asceticism which was closely allied with science.201201This aspect of the activity of the Cappadocians cannot be too highly valued. But in this respect too, though in quite a new fashion, they took up the work of Athanasius. The dominant party on the contrary were supported by an Emperor (Valens) who no doubt for good reasons persecuted monarchism. (See the law in the Cod. Theodos. XII. 1, 63 of the year 365.) The aversion of the Homœans to monasticism is evident from the App. Const. Basil’s journey to Egypt was epoch-making. The relation in which he stood to Eustathius of Sebaste, the ascetic and Semi-Arian, is also of great importance. It was in the midst of a struggle which was more honourable than the struggles of the last decades had been. Men dreamt the dream of an eternal league between Faith and Science. Athanasius did not share this dream, but neither did he disturb it. He did not go in for the new theology, and there is much to shew that it did not quite satisfy him.202202For the sake of peace and in order to secure the main thing, Athanasius at the Synod of Alexandria, which may be called a continuation of the Synod of Ancyra, himself concluded the alliance with the new Oriental orthodoxy and acknowledged Meletius. But his procedure later on in the Antiochian schism (see Basil., ep. 89, 2), the close relation in which he stood throughout to Rome as contrasted with the East, the signal reserve he exhibited towards Basil (Basil. ep. 66, 69), and finally the view he took of the Marcellian Controversy which was still going on—Basil saw in Marcellus a declared Sabellian heretic, while the judgment passed on him and his following by Athanasius was essentially different—prove that he never came to have a satisfying confidence in the neo-orthodox Niceans who were associated with Meletius; see on this Zahn, pp. 83 ff., 88 ff., Rade; Damasus, p. 81 ff. But he saw the aim of his life, the recognition of the complete Godhead of Christ, brought nearer accomplishment, and he continued to be the patriarch and the recognised head of orthodoxy, as the letters of Basil in particular shew. When, however, orthodoxy had attained its victory, there arose after a few years within its own camp an opponent more dangerous to its scientific representatives than Eunomius and Valens—the traditionalism which condemned all science.

Nothing more than an outline can here be given of the development of events in particular instances. The Synod of Alexandria was not able by means of its resolution to unite the parties which had separated at Antioch: the party of the 90orthodox who clung to the old faith and that of the Homoiousians who under the leadership of Meletius acknowledged the Homousios. This Antiochian split remained an open wound, and the history of the attempts to get it healed makes it abundantly evident that different doctrines were really in question, that Alexandria and the East had not lost their feeling of distrust of Meletius, and that the Cappadocians who were at the head of the new orthodoxy in the East were not able to suppress the suspicion of Sabellianism in the light of the old orthodoxy.203203See the art. “Meletius” in Herzog’s R.-Encykl. IX., p. 530 f. and the discussion by Rade, op. cit., p. 74 ff. The Westerns had the same kind of feeling in reference to the opponent of Meletius in Antioch, Paulinus, as they formerly had in reference to Athanasius; he alone was for them orthodox; but they did not succeed in getting their view adopted. Heron. ep. 15. 16 shews what scruples the formula, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, gave rise to in the minds of the Westerns.

Jovian, who was inclined to orthodoxy, once more recalled Athanasius who had been banished for the last time by Julian.204204Julian, spite of his aversion to all Christians, seems nevertheless to have been somewhat more favourably disposed towards Arianism than towards orthodoxy, i.e., than to Athanasius, who, moreover, incurred his suspicions on political grounds. Athanasius somewhat prematurely announced the triumph of the true faith in the East.205205See his letter to Jovian in the Opp. and in Theodoret. IV. 3. Here the matter is so represented as to suggest that there were now only a few Arian Churches in the East. The attack on those who do indeed accept the ὁμοούσιος, but give it a false interpretation, is worthy of note. Under the new ruler, Acacius, at a Synod held in Antioch in 363, found himself obliged to agree with Meletius and to join with him in declaring his adherence to the ὁμοούσιος, explaining at the same time that it expressed as much as the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας (of the substance) and the ὁμοιούσιος together206206See the Synodical epistle in Socrat. III. 25, Mansi III., p. 369. (see Athan., de Synod.) But the accession of Valens in the following year changed everything. An attempt on the part of the semi-Arians at the Synod at Lampsacus in 364 to get the upper hand, miscarried.207207Socrat. IV. 2 sq. 12, Sozom. VI, 7 sq. In the following decade the view of Eudoxius of Constantinople was the authoritative one. Eudoxius of Constantinople and the adroit Acacius who again made a change of front, became masters of the situation, and Valens resolved 91to adopt once more the policy of Constantius, to maintain the Arian Homœism in its old position, and to make all bishops who thought differently208208The Altercatio Heracliani et Germinii is instructive see Caspari, Kirchenhist. Anecdota, 1883. suffer. Orthodox and Homoiousians had again to go into banishment. From this time onwards many Homoiousians turned to the West, having made up their minds to accept the ὁμοούσιος in order to get support. The West after the brief episode of the period of oppression (353-360) was once more Nicene. There were but few Arians, although they were influential. After various Councils had met, the Homoiousians sent deputies from Pontus, Cappadocia, and Asia209209Cappadocia was the native land of the new orthodoxy; see the Cappadocian self-consciousness of Gregor. Naz.; up till this time, however, it had been the principal seat of Arianism. to Liberius to get the doctrinal union brought about. Liberius, whose sentiments were the same as those of Hilary, did not refuse their request. The announcement of this happy event was made at Tyana in 367;210210Socrat. IV. 12. but at a Carian Council a Homoiousian minority persisted in rejecting the ὁμοούσιος.211211Sozom. VI. 12. From this time Basil, who became bishop in 370,212212He was at the same time the patriarch of the diocese of Pontus. took an active part in affairs and he was soon after followed by the other Cappadocians, and they threw not only the weight of science, but also that of asceticism, into the scale in favour of orthodoxy. The new bishop of Rome, Damasus, took a decided stand against Arianism at the Roman Synods held in 369 (370) and 377, then against the Pneumatomachians (see below) and the Apollinarian heresy, while Marcellus and Photinus were also condemned. The rigid standpoint of the bishops Julius and Athanasius again became the dominant one in the West, and it was only after some hesitation that the Western bishops resolved to offer the hand of friendship to the new-fashioned orthodoxy of the East. The representatives of the latter did not indeed settle the Antiochian schism at the well-attended Council at Antioch in September 379, but they subscribed the 92Roman pronouncements of the last years, and thus placed themselves at the standpoint of Damasus.213213It was Athanasius who roused Damasus to take up an attitude of energetic opposition to the Arian Bishop Auxentius of Milan, and thus, speaking generally, led him to follow in the track of Bishop Julius; see Athan. ep. ad Afros. It was at the Roman Council of 369 that the Western episcopate first formally and solemnly renounced the resolution of Rimini. On the text of the epistle of this Council, see Rade, p. 52 ff. Auxentius of Milan was condemned; but this sentence was a futile one since the Court protected him. No mention was yet made at this Council of the difficulties of the East. The years from 371 to 380 are the epochs during which the new-fashioned orthodoxy of the East, under the leadership of Basil and Meletius, attempted to induce the West to bring its influence to bear on Valens and the Homœan-Arian party, by means of an imposing manifesto, and thus to strengthen orthodoxy in the East, but at the same time to pronounce in favour of the Homoiousian-Homoousian doctrine and to put the orthodox Niceans in the wrong. These attempts were not successful; for Damasus in close league, first with Athanasius, then after his death (373), with his successor Peter, was extremely reserved, and in the first instance either did not interfere at all or interfered in favour of the old Niceans, of Paulinus that is, at Antioch. (This Peter, like Athanasius before him, had fled to Rome, and the alliance of Rome with Alexandria was part of the traditional policy of the Roman bishop from the clays of Fabian to the middle of the fifth century.) The numerous letters and embassies which came from the East of which Basil was throughout the soul, shew what trouble was taken about the matter there. But the letters of Basil did not please the “ἀκριβέστεροι” in Rome; at first, indeed, intercourse with the East was carried on only through the medium of Alexandria, and on one occasion Basil had his letter simply returned to him. He complained that at Rome they were friendly with everybody who brought an orthodox confession and did not mind anything else. He referred to the friendship shewn towards those who were inclined to the views of Marcellus, further to the friendly intercourse of the Roman bishop with Paulinus, who was always suspected of Sabellianism by Basil, and to the occasional recognition of an Apollinarian. In letter 214 Basil brought the charge of Sabellianism against the entire Homoousian doctrine in its older form. It was in the year 376 that the West first promised help to the East. (The decretals of Damasus = 1 Fragment of the letter of Damasus designated by Constant as ep. 4.) Basil now (ep. 263) pleads for active interference—where possible an imposing Council—against the heretics who are heretics under cover of the Nicene Creed, and he designates as such the Macedonian Eustathius of Sebaste, Apollinaris and Paulinus, i.e., the man who taught pretty much the same doctrine as Athanasius; according to Basil, however, he is a Marcellian. The accusations against Paulinus were naturally received with anything but favour in the West. Peter of Alexandria who was still in Rome at the time, called Meletius, Basil’s honoured friend, simply an Arian. A Synod was nevertheless held in Rome at which Apollinarianism was for the first time rejected (377); to it we owe the pieces 2 and 3 in the ep. Damasi, 4 ed. Constant. Basil died in January 379. He did not attain the aim of all his work, which was to unite the orthodoxy of the East and the West on the basis of the Homoiousian interpretation of the Homousios. But soon after his death, in September 379, Meletius held a synod in Antioch, and this synod subscribed all the manifestoes of the Romans, i.e., of the West, issued during the previous years 369, 376, 377, and thus simply submitted to the will of the West in dogmaticis, and despatched to Rome the Acts which contained the concessions. The triumph of the old-orthodox interpretation of the Nicene Creed thus seemed perfect. The West, under the guidance of Ambrose, from this time forth recognised the Meletians also as orthodox. It was from there (see the Synod of Aquileia 380, under Ambrosius) that the proposal emanated that if one of the two anti-bishops in Antioch should die, no successor should be chosen, and thus the schism would be healed. The fact that the Meletians thus came round to the orthodox standpoint is explicable only when we consider the complete changes which had taken place in the political situation since the death of Valens. On the involved state of things in the years from 369 to 378 see the letters of Basil, 70, 89-92, 129, 138, 214, 215, 239, 242, 243, 253-256, 263, 265, 266. It was the investigation of the matter by Rade, op. cit. pp. 70-121, which first threw light on this. On Damasus and Peter of Alex. see Socrat. IV. 37, Sozom. VI. 39, Theod. IV. 22. All were agreed in holding Athanasius in high respect. It was this that kept the combatants together. Gregory begins his panegyric (Orat. 21) with the words: Ἀθανάσιον ἐπαινῶν ἀρετὴν ἐπαινέσομαι, and in saying this he said what everybody thought.

But meanwhile very great changes had taken place in the State. In November 375 Valentinian died. He had not taken any part in Church politics, and had in fact protected the Arian 93bishops as he did the orthodox bishops, and had never had any difference with his brother regarding their religious policy. His successor, the youthful Gratian,214214See on Gratian’s religious policy my art. in Herzog’s R.-Encykl. s. h. v. yielded himself wholly to the guidance of the masterful Ambrose. He firmly established the State Church as against the heterodox parties, by passing some severe laws, and in doing this he followed Ambrose “whom the Lord had taken from amongst the judges of the earth and placed in the Apostolic chair.” (Basil ep. 197, 1.) In August 378 Valens fell at the battle of Adrianople, fighting with the Goths; and on the 19th of January, 379, the Western Theodosius was made Emperor of the East by Gratian. The death of Valens was quite as much a determining cause of the final triumph of orthodoxy as its alliance with science; for the inner force of a religious idea can never secure for it the dominion of the world. Theodosius was a convinced Western Christian who took up the policy of Gratian, but carried it out in a perfectly independent fashion.215215Valentinian was the last representative of the principle of freedom in religion, in the sense in which Constantine had sought to carry it out in the first and larger half of his reign, and also Julian. He was determined to rule 94the Church as Constantius had done, but to rule it in the spirit of rigid orthodoxy. He had himself been baptised216216During a severe illness, by the orthodox bishop of Thessalonica. in the year 380, and immediately after appeared the famous edict which enjoined the orthodox faith on all nations. It is, however, in the highest degree characteristic of his whole policy that this faith is more definitely described as the Roman and Alexandrian faith, i.e., the new doctrinal orthodoxy of Cappadocia and Asia is passed over in silence.217217Impp. Gratianus Valentinianus et Theodosius AAA. ad populuin urbis Constantinop.: “Cunctos populos, quos clementiæ nostræ regit temperamentum in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriæ episcopum virum apostolicæ sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub pari majestate et sub pia trinitate credamus (this is the Western-Alexandrian way of formulating the problem). Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti, reliquos vere dementes vesanosque judicantes hæretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex cælesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos” (Cod. Theod. XVI. s, 2; Cod. Justin I. 1. After his entry into Constantinople Theodosius took all their churches from the Arians and handed them over to the orthodox.218218With the exception of Egypt most of the Churches in the East were at this time in the hands of the Arians. In the year 381 he issued a regulation in which he prohibited all heretics from holding divine service in the towns. In the same year, however, the Emperor summoned a large Eastern Council to meet at Constantinople, and its resolutions were afterwards regarded as ecumenical and strictly binding, though not till the middle of the fifth century, and in the West not till a still later date. This Council denotes a complete change in the policy of Theodosius. His stay in the East had taught him that it was necessary for him to recognise as orthodox all who acknowledged the Nicene Creed however they might interpret it, and at the same time to make an attempt to gain over the Macedonians. He had come to see that in the East he must rely upon the Eastern form of orthodoxy, the new orthodoxy, that he would have to suppress the aspirations of the Alexandrian bishops, and that he must do nothing which would have the appearance of anything like tutelage of the East by the West. 95This reversal of his policy is shewn most strikingly by the fact that Meletius of Antioch was called upon to preside at the Council, the very man who was specially suspected by the orthodox of the West.219219The relations which existed in the years 378-381 between the East and the West (Alexander was closely allied with the latter) are complicated and obscure. Their nature was still in all essential respects determined by the continuance of the schism in Antioch. The following is certain (1) Theodosius, as soon as he came to perceive the true state of things in the East, had ranged himself on the side of the orthodox there; he wished to suppress Arianism not by the aid of the West and of the Alexandrian bishop Peter who was closely allied with Rome and who had already acted as if he were the supreme Patriarch of the Greek Church, but by the orthodox powers of the East itself. The proof of this is (1) that he transferred in a body to Meletius the Arian Churches in Antioch Paulinus was shelved; (2) that in the Edict (Cod. Theodos. XVI. 1, 3) he does not mention Damasus, but on the contrary enumerates the orthodox of the East as authorities (July 30th, 381) and this Gwatkin, p. 262, rightly terms an “amended definition of orthodoxy”; (3) that he refused to accede to the repeated and urgent demands of the Westerns who wished him to settle impartially the dispute at Antioch with due respect to the superior claims of Paulinus, and also refused their request for the summoning of an Ecumenical Council at Alexandria; (4) that he summoned an Eastern Council to meet at Constantinople without troubling himself in the slightest about the West, Rome and Alexandria, made Meletius president of it, heaped honours upon him, and sanctioned the choice of a successor after his death, and this in spite of the advice of the Westerns that the whole Antiochian Church should now be handed over to Paulinus, an advice which had the support of Gregory of Nazianzus himself. Nor can there be any doubt in view of the manner in which the Council was summoned to meet, that its original intention was to draw up a formula of agreement with the Macedonians. It is certain (II.) that the orthodox Fathers who assembled at Constantinople gladly recognised and availed themselves of the opportunity thus presented of freeing themselves from the tutelage of Alexandria and the West, and of recalling by a distinct act the concessions which they had made under compulsion two years previously at Antioch. “It is in the East that the sun first rises, it was starting from the East that the God who came in the flesh flashed upon the world.” By their united attitude, their choice of Flavian as the successor of Meletius, who had died during the Council, by passing the third Canon—on the importance of the chair of Constantinople—and by their rejection of Maximus who was proposed for the chair of Constantinople by Alexandria and patronised by Rome and the West, they inflicted the severest possible defeat on Alexandria and the West, and specially on the policy of Peter and Damasus. It is certain (III.) finally, that shortly before the Council of Constantinople, during the Council, and immediately after it rose, the relations between the Egyptians and Westerns and the East were of the most strained character, and that a breach was imminent. (See the letter in Mansi III., p. 631.) He died shortly after the Council met, and first Gregory of Nazianzus,220220The choice of him as president (on this and on the general procedure of the Council see his Carmen de vita sua) was not any more than that of Meletius approved of by Alexandria and Rome. His support of Paulinus may find its explanation in the fact that he aimed at getting into the good graces of Rome after he had himself attained the Patriarchate. Gregory had a Tasso-like nature. Quite incapable of effecting anything in the sphere of Church government or politics, he did not really desire office; but he wished to have the honour and distinction which are connected with office. So long as he did not have office he was ambitious, when he had it he threw it away. and then Nectarius of Constantinople 96presided over its deliberations. The opposition at the Council between the old orthodox party, orthodox in the Alexandrian and Western sense, who were few in numbers, and the new orthodox party composed of Antiochians, Cappadocians and Asiatics, was of the most pronounced character, though we are only partially acquainted with it.221221The Egyptians even went the length of separating themselves from the majority at the Council; they did not approve of the decisions come to by the neo-orthodox; see Theodoret V. 8. The confusion was so great that Gregory of Nazianzus resigned and left the Council with the most bitter feelings.222222The Egyptian bishops felt it to be intolerable that the Cappadocian and not their man, Maximus, should get the position of Patriarch in Constantinople The resignation of Gregory of Nazianzus was the price demanded by the Egyptians for yielding; see Gregory’s farewell address to the Council, Orat. 42. The Canons 1-4 of the Council—for these only are in all probability genuine, while those which follow belong to the Council of 382—are strongly anti-Alexandrian and are intended to bring down the claims of the Alexandrian which were already pitched high Canon 3 is directed not so much against Rome as against Alexandria (Τὸν μέντοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς τιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμην). Canon 2 is intended to put a stop to the attempt of the Bishop of Alexandria to rule other Eastern Churches. But this very Canon plainly proves (cf. the sixth Canon of Nice) that as a matter of fact the Bishop of Alexandria had a position in the East which was wholly different from that of the other bishops. He only is mentioned in the singular number—τὸν μὲν Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπον . . . τοὺς δὲ τὴς Ἀνατολῆς ἐπισκόπους . . , φυλαττομένων τῶν πρεσβείων τῇ Ἀντιοχέων ἐκκλησίᾳ . . , τοὺς τῆς Ἀσιανῆς διοικήσεως ἐπισκόπους . . . τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς . . . τοὺς τῆς Θρᾳκικῆς. The peculiar position of the Alexandrian bishop which the latter wished to develop into a position of primacy, was chiefly due to three causes. (It is quite clear that Athanasius and Peter wished so to develop it, and perhaps even Dionysius the Great; the intention of the Alexandrian scheme to place Maximus on the episcopal seat of Constantinople, was to secure a preponderating influence upon the capital and the imperial Church by the aid of this creature of Alexandria.) These three causes were as follows; (1) Alexandria was the second city of the Empire and was recognised as such in the Church also at least as early as the middle of the third century; see, e.g., the conciliar epistle of the great Council of Antioch of the year 268, addressed “to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria and to all Catholic churches.” (Alexandria ranks as the second, Antioch as the third city of the Empire in Josephus, de Bello Jud. 4, 11, 5, cf. the chronograph of the year 354, Stryzygowski, Jahrb. d. k. deutschen archäol. Instituts. Supplementary vol., 1888, I., die Kalenderbilder des Chronographen v. j. 354, p. 24 f. The chronograph gives the series thus, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Trèves. Lumbroso, L’Egitto dei Greci e dei Romani, 1882, p. 86, proves that all the authors of the first to the third centuries agree in giving the first place after Rome to Alexandria, see, e.g., Dio Chrysostomus, Orat. 32, I, p. 412: ἡ γὰρ πόλις ὑμῶν τῷ μεγέθει καὶ τῷ τόπῳ πλεῖστον ὅσον διαφέρει καὶ περιφανῶς ἀποδέδεικται δευτέρα τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον. In the “ordo urbium nobilium” of Ausonius we have for the first time the cities given in the following order: Rome, Constantinople, Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria, Trèves. So long as Alexandria was the second city in the Empire, it was the first city in the East. (2) Alexandria had this in common with Rome, that it had no cities in its diocese which were of importance in any way. The bishop of Alexandria was always the bishop of Egypt (Libya and Pentapolis), as the bishop of Rome was always the bishop of Italy. The case was quite otherwise with Antioch and Ephesus; they always had important episcopates alongside of them. (3) The lead in the great Arian controversy had fallen to the Bishop of Alexandria; he had shewn himself equal to this task and in this way had come to be the most powerful ecclesiastic in the East. The hints which I have given as to the policy of the Alexandrian Patriarch here and in Chap. III. 2, have been further developed in an instructive fashion by Rohrbach (die Patriarchen von Alexandrien) in the Preuss. Jahrb. Vol. 69, Parts I and 2. Still union was finally 97secured, although the attempt to win over the Macedonians failed. The “150 bishops” unitedly avowed their adherence to the Nicene faith, and, as we are told, accepted in addition to this a special explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity in which the complete Homousia of the Spirit also was expressed. In the first canon containing the decisions, after the ratification of the Nicene Creed, Eunomians (Anomeans) Arians (Eudoxians) Semi-Arians (Pneumatomachians) Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians and Apollinarians were expressly anathematised. The Nicene Creed thus gained an unqualified victory so far as its actual terms were concerned, but understood according to the interpretation of Meletius, the Cappadocians, and Cyril of Jerusalem. The community of substance in the sense of equality or likeness of substance, not in that of unity of substance, was from this time the orthodox doctrine in the East. But the Creed which since the middle of the fifth century in the East, and since about 530 in the West, has passed for the ecumenical-Constantinopolitan Creed, is neither ecumenical nor Constantinopolitan; for the Council was not an ecumenical one, but an Eastern one, and it did not in fact set up any new 98Creed. This Creed, on the contrary, is the Baptismal Creed of the Jerusalem Church which was issued in a revised form soon after 362 and furnished with some Nicene formulæ and with a regula fidei in reference to the Holy Spirit, and which was perhaps brought forward at the Council of 381 and approved of, but which cannot pass for its creed. How it subsequently came to rank as a decision of the Council is a matter regarding which we are completely in the dark. This much, however, is clear, that if this Creed had any connection at all with the Council of 381, the neo-orthodox character of the latter is thereby brought out in a specially striking way; for the so-called Creed of Constantinople can in fact be taken simply as a formula of union between orthodox, Semi-Arians, and Pneumatomachians. The most contested phrase of the Nicene Creed “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός” is wanting in it, and it presents the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in a form which could not have appeared wholly unacceptable even to the Pneumatomachians.223223On the Creed of Constantinople see my article in Herzog’s R.-Encyklop. VIII., pp. 212-230, which summarises the works of Caspari and particularly of Hort, and carries the argument further. The following facts are certain. (1) The Council of 381 did not set up any new creed, but simply avowed anew its adherence to the Nicene Creed (Socrat. V. 8, Sozom. VII. 7, 9, Theodoret V. 8, Greg. Naz. ep. 102 [Orat. 52] the testimony of the Latin and Constantinople Councils of 382). (2) If we take the years from 381 to 450, we do not find in any Synodal Act, Church Father, or heterodox theologians during that period any certain trace whatsoever of the existence of the Creed of Constantinople, much less any proof that it was used then as the Creed of Constantinople or as the official Baptismal Creed; it is simultaneously with the recognition of the Council of 381 as an ecumenical Council—about 451 in the East, in the West fifty years later—that the Creed in question, which now emerges, is first described as the Creed of Constantinople. (3) It did not, however, then first come into existence, but is on the contrary much older; it is found already in the Ancoratus of Epiphanius which belongs to the year 374, and there is no reason for holding that it is an interpolation here; on the contrary (4) the internal evidence goes to shew that it is a Nicene redaction of the Baptismal Creed of Jerusalem composed soon after 362. The Creed is thus not any extension of the Nicene Creed, but rather belongs to that great series of Creeds which sprang up after the Council of Alexandria (362) in the second creed-making epoch of the Eastern Churches. At that time the opponents of Arianism in the East, now grown stronger, resolved to give expression to the Nicene doctrine in connection with the solemn rite of baptism. It was possible to do this in three different ways, that is to say either by embodying the Nicene catchwords in the old provincial church creeds, by enlarging the Nicene Creed for the special purpose of using it as a baptismal Creed, or, finally, by adopting it itself, without alteration, for church use as a baptismal Creed, in spite of its incompleteness and its polemical character. These three plans were actually followed. In the first half of the fifth century the third was the one most widely adopted, but previously to this the two first were the favourites. To this series belong the revised Antiochian Confession, the later Nestorian Creed, the Philadelphian, the Creed in the pseudo-Athanasian ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὸ σύμβολον, the second, longer, Creed in the Ancoratus of Epiphanius, the Cappadocian-Armenian, the exposition of the Nicene Creed ascribed to Basil, a Creed which was read at Chalcedon and which is described as “Nicene.” To this class our Creed also belongs. If it be compared with the Nicene Creed it will be easily seen that it cannot be based on the latter; if, on the other hand, it be compared with the old Creed of Jerusalem (in Cyril of Jerusalem) it becomes plain that it is nothing but a Nicene redaction of this Creed. But this is as much as to say that it was probably composed by Cyril of Jerusalem. Moreover, its general character also perfectly corresponds with what we know of Cyril’s theology and of his gradual approximation to orthodoxy. (Socrat. V. 8, Sozom. VII. 7) “Cyril’s personal history presents in various respects a parallel to the transition of the Jerusalem Creed into the form of the so-called Creed of Constantinople.” That is to say, in the Creed which afterwards became ecumenical the words of the Nicene Creed “τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός” and the Nicene anathemas are omitted. The christological section accordingly runs thus: “καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, 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 πατρί, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.” From the writings of the Ηomoiousians and the Cappadocians we can accordingly easily gather that the “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός” presented a far greater difficulty to the half-friends of the Nicene Creed than the ὁμοούσιος; for ὁμοούσιος not without some show of fairness might be interpreted as ὅμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, while on the contrary the “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας”, both in what it said and in what it excluded—the will, namely—seemed to leave the door open to Sabellianism. It follows also from Athan. de Synodis that he considered the “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας” as of supreme importance; for in a way that is very characteristic of him he observes that ὁμοούσιος is equal to ὁμοιούσιος ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, that is, whoever intentionally avows his belief in the ὁμοούσιος without the “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας” avows his belief in it as a Homoiousian. The Christological formula in the Creed of Jerusalem, i.e., what was later on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, is thus almost homoiousian, even although it retains the ὁμοούσιος. It corresponds exactly to the standpoint which Cyril must have taken up soon after 362. The same holds good of what the Creed says regarding the Holy Spirit. The words: “καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συνπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν” are in entire harmony with the form which the doctrine of the Holy Spirit had in the sixties. A Pneumatomachian could have subscribed this formula at a pinch; and just because of this it is certain that the Council of 381 did not accept this Creed. We can only conjecture how it came to be the Creed of Constantinople (see Hort., pp. 97-106 f. and my article pp. 225 f., 228 f.). It was probably entered in the Acts of the Council as the Confession by which Cyril had proved to the Council that his faith was orthodox and which the highly esteemed Epiphanius had also avowed as his. The Bishop of Constantinople took it from among the Acts shortly before the year 451 and put it into circulation. The desire to foist into the churches a Constantinopolitan Creed was stronger in his case than his perception of the defects of this very Creed. It was about 530 that the Creed of Constantinople first became a Baptismal Creed in the East and displaced the Nicene Creed. It was about the same time that it first came into notice in the West, but it, however, very quickly shoved the old Apostolic Baptismal Creeds into the background, being used in opposition to Germanic Arianism which was very widely spread there. On the “filioque” see below. We may merely mention the extreme and wholly unworkable hypothesis of the Catholic Vincenzi (De process. Spiritus S., Romæ, 1878) that the Creed of Constantinople is a Greek made-up composition belonging to the beginning of the seventh century, a fabrication the sole aim of which was to carry back the date of the rise of the heresy of the procession of the Holy Spirit ex patre solo into the Fourth Century.


For this very reason it is certainly out of the question to regard the Creed as the Creed of the Council of 381. It did indeed assert the complete Homousia of the divine Persons. But the legendary process in the Church which attached this Creed to that Council performed a remarkable act of justice; 100for in tracing back to this Council “an enlarged Nicene Creed” without the “ἐκ τής οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός”, “of the substance of the Father”, without the Nicene anathemas, and without the avowal of the Homousia of the Spirit, and in attesting it as orthodox, it, without wishing to do so, preserved the recollection of the fact that the Eastern orthodoxy of 381 had really been a neo-orthodoxy, which in its use of the word Ὁμοούσιος did not represent the dogmatic conviction of Athanasius. In the quid pro quo involved in this substitution of one Creed for another, we have a judicial sentence which could not conceivably have been more discriminating; but it involves still more than that—namely, the most cruel satire. From the fact that in the Church the Creed of Constantinople gradually came to be accepted as a perfect expression of orthodoxy, and was spoken of as the Nicene Creed while the latter was forgotten, it follows that the great difference which existed between the old Faith and the Cappadocian neo-orthodoxy was no longer understood, and that under cover of the Ὁμοούσιος a sort of Homoiousianism had in general been reached, the view which has really been the orthodox one in all Churches until this day. The father of the official doctrine of the Trinity in the form in which the Churches have held to it, was not Athanasius, nor Basil of Cæsarea, but Basil of Ancyra.

All the same, the thought of the great Athanasius, though in 101a considerably altered form, had triumphed. Science and the revolution which took place in the political world had paved the way for its victory; suppressed, it certainly never could have been.

The Westerns were anything but pleased in the first instance with the course things had taken in the East. At Councils held at the same time in Rome and Milan, in the latter place under the presidency of Ambrose, they had made representations to Theodosius and had even threatened him with a withdrawal of Church privileges.224224See the letter “Sanctum” in Mansi III., p. 631. But Theodosius answered them in a very ungracious manner, whereupon they sought to justify their attitude.225225See the letter “Fidei” in Mansi III., p. 630. The Emperor was prudent enough not to fall in with the proposal of the Westerns that an ecumenical Council should be summoned to meet at Rome. He followed the policy of Constantius also in keeping the Churches of the two halves of the Empire separate, as his choice of Rimini and Seleucia proves. And by his masterly conduct of affairs he actually succeeded in introducing a modus vivendi in the year 382, spite of the attempts made to thwart him by his colleague Gratian who was led by Ambrose. Gratian summoned a General Council to meet at Rome, to which the Eastern bishops were also invited. But Theodosius had already got them together in Constantinople. They accordingly replied in a letter in which they declined the invitation, and its tone which was as praise-worthy as it was prudent, helped in all probability to lessen the tension between the East and the West. They appealed, besides, not only to the decisions of the Council of 381, but also to their resolution of 378 in which they had made advances to the West,226226The important letter is in Theodoret V. 9. It contains a description of the persecutions which had been endured, of the struggles which still continued, thanks that they ὡς οἰκεῖα μέλη should have received an invitation to the Council so that they may rule along with the West and that it may not rule alone, regret that they are prevented from appearing at it; then follows the exposition of the Faith, after the despatch of the three envoys had been announced: “What we have suffered we suffered for the Evangelical Faith which was settled at Nicæa, ταύτην τὴν πίστιν καὶ ὑμῖν καὶ ἡμῖν καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς μὴ διαστρέθπυσι τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθοῦς πίστεως συναρέσκειν δεῖ· ἥν μόλις ποτὲ [sic] πρεσβυτάτην τε οὖσαν καὶ ἀκόλουθον τῷ βαπτίσματι καὶ διδάσκουσαν ἡμᾶς πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, δηλαδὴ θεότητός τε καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ οὐσίας μιᾶς τοῦ πατρός καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγιου πνεύματος πιστευομένης, ὁμοτίμον τε τῆς ἀξίας καὶ συναϊδίου τῆς βασιλείας, ἐν τρισὶ τελείαις ὑποστάσεσιν ἤγουν τρισὶ τελείαις ὑποστάσεσιν ἤγουν τρισὶ τελείοις προσώποις, ὡς μήτε τὴν Σαβελλίου νόσον χώραν λαβεῖν συγχεομένων τῶν ὑποστάσεων, εἴγουν τῶν ἰδιοτήτων ἀναιρουμένων, μή τε μὴν τὴν τῶν Εὐνομιανῶν καὶ Ἀρειανῶν καὶ Πνευματομάχων βλάσφημίαν ἰσχύειν, τῆς οὐσίας ἢ τῆς φύσεως ἢ τῆς θεότητος τεμνομένης καὶ τῇ ἀκτίστῳ καὶ ὁμοουσίῳ καὶ συναϊδίῳ τριάδι μεταγενεστέρας τινὸς ἢ κτιστῆς ἢ ἑτεροουσίου φύσεως ἐπαγομένης. The Easterns did not yield anything here and yet they expressed their belief in as conciliatory a form as possible since they were silent about Marcellus, called Sabellianism a “disease”, but Arianism a “blasphemy”. Next follows the reference to the acts of the Councils of 379 and 381, then an explanation regarding the new appointment to the “as it were newly founded Church of Constantinople” and to the bishopric of Antioch where—this is directed against Rome and Alexandria—the name Christian first arose. So too the recognition of Cyril of Jerusalem, who had suffered so much for the Faith, is justified. Jerusalem is called in this connection “the mother of all Churches.” The Easterns at the close beseech the Westerns to give their consent to all this, τῆς πνευματικῆς μεσιτευούσης ἀγάπης καὶ τοῦ κυριακοῦ φόβου, πᾶσαν μὲν καταστέλλοντος ἀνθρωπίνην προαπάθειαν, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν οἰκοδομὴν προτιμοτέραν ποιοῦντος τῆς πρὸς τὸν καθ᾽ ἕνα συμπαθείας ἢ χάριτος. Then will we no longer say, what is condemned by the Apostles: “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas”, but we shall all appear as belonging to Christ, who is not divided in us, and will with the help of God preserve the body of the Church from division. and they explained finally that they had adopted 102a recent detailed dogmatic declaration of the Western bishops, of Damasus that is, and were ready to recognise the Paulinists in Antioch as orthodox, which meant that they no longer suspected them of Marcellianism.227227The so-called fifth Canon of the Council of 381 (see Rade, pp. 107, 116 f., 133) belongs to the Synod of 382, as also the sixth; the seventh is later. It runs: περὶ τοῦ τόμου τῶν Δυτικῶν καὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ἀπεδεξάμεθα τοὺς μίαν ὁμολογοῦντας πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος θεότητα. It can only he the Paulinists in Antioch who are here referred to. But as regards the Western Tomos we must with Rade, op. cit., apparently take it to be the twenty-four Anathemas of Damasus (in Theodoret V. II.). This noteworthy document, which perhaps originated in the year 381, presents in a full and definite way the standpoint of the Westerns in regard to the different dogmatic questions. It is specially worthy of notice that the doctrine of Marcellus is condemned without any mention being made of its author. The ninth anathema is further of importance and also the eleventh: “If anyone does not confess that the Son is from the Father, i.e., is born of His Divine substance, let him be accursed.” Compare with this the so-called Creed of Constantinople in which the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας is wanting. The fulness with which the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit are already treated, is significant. The despatch of three envoys to Rome where, besides Jerome, the distinguished Epiphanius happened to be just at this time, could not but help towards 103the conclusion of a treaty of peace. The opposition to Nectarius of Constantinople and Cyril of Jerusalem was now allowed to drop in Rome; but the Western bishops could not yet bring themselves to acknowledge Flavian in Antioch, and, moreover, Paulinus, his opponent, was himself present at the Council in Rome. There was once more a strong reaction against Apollinarianism.228228To this period, according to Rade’s pertinent conjecture, the work of Damasus given in Theodoret V. to against Apollinarianism, also belongs. It probably came from the pen of Jerome, soon after 382, and gives expression to the supreme self-consciousness of the occupant of the chair of Peter. Jerome always flattered Damasus.

If Arianism, or Homceism, from the time when it ceased to enjoy the imperial favour tended rapidly to disappear in the Empire, if too it had no fanatic as Donatism had, it was nevertheless still a power in the East in 383; large provinces had still Arian tendencies, the common people229229The Church historians, Philostorgius in particular, give us some information about this, but they do not enter much into particulars. Eunomius kept his ground firmly and courageously and declined all compromises. He did not even so much as recognise the baptism and ordination of the other Church parties (Philostorg. X. 4). The Conciliar epistle of the Easterns of the year 382 (see above) further shews what difficulties the attempt to carry through the Homoousios gave rise to. in them above all; while in the West it had supporters230230See the struggles of Ambrose against Arianism in Upper Italy, which went on still the year 388. After the death of his mother, Valentinus II. declared for orthodoxy; see Cod. Theodos. XVI. 5, 15. The knowledge that Maximus the usurper had owed his large following to the fact of his being strictly orthodox helped to bring about this decision. The assertion of Libanius that Maximus entered into an alliance even with the unruly and rebellious Alexandrians is one which is calculated to make us reflect. The fact that in the days of Theodosius Ambrose was at the head of the Church in the West, probably contributed largely to bring about an adjustment of the differences between the Western-Alexandrian and the Cappadocian-neo-orthodox doctrines of the Son. This bishop had learned from Philo, Origen, and Basil, and he had friendly intercourse with the last mentioned; but he never sheaved any interest in or appreciation of the difference between the form of doctrine in East and West, and he did not go into the speculations of the theologians of the East. It was thus merely in a superficial fashion that he accepted the theological science of the East. But this very fact was of advantage to him so far as his position was concerned; for it meant that he did not separate himself from the common sense of the West, while, on the other hand, he had a great respect for the Cappadocian theology and consequently was admirably suited for being a peace-maker. Ex professo he did not handle the Trinitarian problem; his formulæ bear what is essentially the Western stamp, without, however, being pointed against the “Meletians”, and in fact, he himself accepted the statement: “nulla est discrepantia divinitatis et operis; non igitur in utroque una persona, sed una substantia est”; but on the other hand: “non duo domini, sed unus dominus, quia et pater deus et filius deus, sed unus deus, quia pater in filio et filius in patre—nevertheless—unus deus, quia una deitas” (see Förster, Ambrosius, p. 130). Ambrose did not engage in any independent speculations regarding the Trinity, as Hilary did (see Reinkens, op. cit., and Schwane, D G. d. patrist. Zeit., p. 150 ff.). The fact, however, that in the fourth century the greatest theologian of the West—namely, Jerome, and the most powerful ecclesiastical prince of the West, Ambrose, had learned their theology from the Greeks, was the most important cause of the final union of East and West in the matter of the doctrine of the Trinity. Hosius, Julius of Rome, Lucifer and Damasus of Rome would not have been able to accomplish the dogmatic unity of the two halves of the Empire. As a matter of fact the dogmatic unity did not spring from the alliance of Athanasius, Julius, Peter, and Damasus, Alexandria and Rome that is, but from the alliance of Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Jerome, and Ambrose. in the Empress Justinia 104and her son. Theodosius was more concerned to win over the Arians than to drive them out of the Church. In the first years of his reign while shewing a firm determination to establish orthodoxy, he had at the same time followed a sort of conciliatory policy which, however, to the honour of the Arians be it said, did not succeed. lust as in 381 he invited the Macedonians to the Council, so in the year 383 he made a further attempt to unite all the opposing parties at a Constantinopolitan Council and if possible to bring about concord. The attempt was sincere—even Eunomius was present—but it failed; but it is very memorable for two reasons: (1) the orthodox bishop of Constantinople made common cause on this occasion with the Novatian bishop, a proof of how insecure the position of orthodoxy in the capital itself still was;231231On the Novatians in the East in the Fourth Century and their relations to the orthodox, particularly in the city of Constantinople, see my articles s. v. “Novatian”, “Socrates”, in Herzog’s R: Encykl. The Novatians, strange to say, always had been and continued to be Nicene. The explanation of this may be found in the fact that they originated in the West, or in the fact of their connection with the West. (2) an attempt was made at the Council to transfer the whole question in dispute between orthodox and Arians into the region of tradition. The Holy Scriptures were to be dispensed with, and the proof of the truth of orthodoxy was to be furnished solely by the testimony of the ante-Nicene Fathers to whose authority the opposite party must as good Catholics bow. This undertaking was a prophecy of the ominous future which was before the Church, and proved at the same time that the actual 105interest in the controversy in the East had already once more taken a secondary place compared with the conservative interest. Nothing grows faster than tradition, and nothing is more convenient when the truth of a proposition has to be defended than to fall back on the contention that it has always been so.232232Socr. V. to (Sozom. VII. 12) has given us some information regarding the proceedings at the Council of Constantinople in 383. Theodosius wished to have an actual conference between the opposing parties. Sisinius, the reader to the Novatian bishop Agelius, is then said to have advised that instead of having a disputation the matter should be settled simply on the basis of passages from the Fathers; the patristic proof alone was to be authoritative. Socrates tells us that with the consent of the Emperor this was actually the course followed, and that on the part of the orthodox only those Fathers were appealed to who had lived before the Arian controversy. The raising of the question, however, as to whether the various parties actually recognised these Fathers as authoritative, produced a Babylonian confusion amongst them, and indeed even amongst the members of one and the same party, so that the Emperor abandoned this plan of settling the dispute. He next collected together Confessions composed by the different parties (the bold one composed by Eunomius is still preserved, see Mansi III., p. 646 sq.), but rejected them all with the exception of the orthodox one, and ungraciously sent the parties home. The Arians, it is said, consoled themselves for the Emperor’s unkind treatment of them, with the saying that “many are called but few chosen”. This narrative, so far as the particulars are concerned, is too much a made-up one to be implicitly trusted. But the attempt to decide the whole question on the authority of tradition was certainly made. If we consider how at first both parties proceeded almost exclusively on the basis of the Holy Scriptures we can perceive in the attempt an extremely significant advance in the work of laying waste the Eastern Churches.

After this Council Theodosius discontinued his efforts in favour of union and from this time sought to suppress Arianism. Ambrose seconded his plans in Upper Italy. The orthodox State-Church, which was, however, on the other hand, a Church-State, was established. Severe laws were now passed against all heretics with the exception of the Novatians.233233See Cod. Theodos. XVI. 1, 4 of the year 386 and the other laws of Theodosius and his sons. Things became particularly bad from about 410 onwards. The State had at last secured that unity of the Church which Constantine had already striven after. But it was a two-edged sword. It injured the State and dealt it a most dangerous wound. Amongst the Greeks Arianism died out more quickly than Hellenism. Violent schisms amongst the Arians themselves seem to have accelerated its downfall,234234See Sozom. in Books VII. and VIII., especially in VIII. 1. but the different stages are unknown 106to us. The history of its fortunes amongst the German peoples until the seventh century does not fall within the scope of this work. The educated laity, however, in the East regarded the orthodox formula rather as a necessary evil and as an unexplainable mystery than as an expression of their Faith. The victory of the Nicene Creed was a victory of the priests over the faith of the Christian people. The Logos-doctrine had already become unintelligible to those who were not theologians. The setting up of the Nicene-Cappadocian formula as the fundamental Confession of the Church made it perfectly impossible for the Catholic laity to get an inner comprehension of the Christian Faith taking as their guide the form in which it was presented in the doctrine of the Church. The thought that Christianity is the revelation of something incomprehensible became more and more a familiar one to men’s minds. This thought has for its obverse side the adoration of the mystery,235235Athanasius had already described the whole substance of the Christian religion as a “doctrine of the mysteries”—see, e.g., his Festival-letters, p. 68 (ed. Larsow). and for its reverse side indifference and subjection to mystagogues.236236We have here, above all, to remember the attitude taken up by Socrates, which is typical of that of the ecclesiastically pious laity of the East. His stand-point is—we ought silently to adore the mystery. Whatever the generation the last but one before his own has fixed, is for him already holy; but he will have nothing to do with dogmatic disputes in his own time, and one may even find in what he says traces of a vague feeling on his part that the laity as regards their Faith had in fine been duped by the bishops and their controversies. His agreement with what was said by Euagrius in reference to the Trinity (III. 7) is characteristic of his position in the matter: πᾶσα πρότασις ἢ γένος ἔχει κατηγορούμενον ἢ εἶδος ἢ διαφορὰν ἢ συμβεβηκὸς ἢ τὸ ἐκ τούτων συγκείμενον· οὐδὲν δὲ ἐπὶ ἁγίας τριάδος τῶν εἰρημένων ἐστὶ λαβεῖν. σιωπῇ προσκυνείσθω τὸ ἄρρητον. He will have nothing to do with οὐσία and ὑπόστασις. The case too of Procopius of Cæsarea illustrates the attitude of reserve taken up by the laity in the sixth century to the whole dogmatic system of the Church. The priests and theologians could certainly not give the people more than they possessed themselves; but it is alarming to note in the ecclesiastical literature of the Fourth Century and the period following how little attention is given to the Christian people. The theologians had always the clergy. the officials, good society in their minds. The people must simply believe the Faith; they accordingly did not live in this Faith, but in that Christianity of the second rank which is 107represented in the legends of the saints, in apocalypses, in image-worship, in the veneration of angels and martyrs, in crosses and amulets, in the Mass regarded as magical worship, and in sacramental observances of all sorts. Christ as the ὁμοούσιος became a dogmatic form of words; and in place of this the bones of the martyrs became living saints, and the shades of the old dethroned gods together with their worship, revived once more.

« Prev 3. To the Councils of Constantinope 381. 383. Next »
VIEWNAME is workSection