Chapter IV: Doctrinal Controversies and Heresies (1)

§ 49. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE GENERALLY.

When a considerable fulness of Christian doctrine had already in previous periods found subjective and therefore variously diversified development, it had now, besides being required by the altered condition of things, become necessary that the church should sift and confirm what was already developed or was still in the course of development. The endeavour after universal scientific comprehension and accurate definition became stronger every day. The lively intercourse between the churches, which prevented the various doctrinal types from being restricted to particular countries, brought opposite views into contact and conflict with one another. The court, the people, the monks took parts, and so the church became the scene of passionate and distracting struggles, which led to the issuing of a canon of orthodoxy recognised by the whole Catholic church of the West and of the East, and to the branding every deviation therefrom with the mark of heresy.

The =Heresies= of the previous period were mainly of a syncretic
kind (§ 26). Those of the period now under consideration have
an evolutionary or formatory character. They consist in the
construction of the system of doctrine by exclusive attention
and extreme estimation of the one side of the Christian
truth that is being developed, which thus passes over into
errors; while it is the task of orthodoxy to give proportionate
development to both sides and to bring them into harmony. Of
syncratic heresies only sporadic traces from the previous period
are found in this (§ 54). The third possible form of heresies is
the revolutionary or reformatory. Heretics of this class fancy
that they see in the developed and fixed system of the Catholic
church excrescences and degenerations which either do not exist,
so that by their removal the church is injured and hindered in
her essential and normal functions, or do really exist, but for
the most part are not now duly distinguished from the results of
sound and normal development, so that the good would be removed
with the bad. During the period under consideration only isolated
instances of this kind of heresy are met with (§ 62).

§ 50. THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY, A.D. 318-381.[150]

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-Arians=[153] 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.=

I. =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.

II. =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.

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

§ 51. THE ORIGENIST CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 394-438.

Naturally and necessarily the Christological are closely connected with the Trinitarian controversies (§ 52). But between the two comes in another controversy, the Origenistic, which was indeed more of personal than of ecclesiastical interest, but still strengthened the church in the conviction that Origen was an arch-heretic.

§ 51.1. =The Monks of the Scetic and Nitrian Deserts.=--The most
distinguished defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius, the three
Cappadocians, Didymus, Hilary, etc., had all held Origen in high
esteem. But the constant references of the Arians to his authority
brought him into discredit, not only among the more narrow-minded
opposers of Arius, especially in the West, but also among the
monks of the Scetic desert in Egypt, with Pachomius at their
head. These repudiated the speculation of Origen as the source
of all heresy, and in their views of God and divine things
adopted a crude anthropomorphism. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis,
also belonged originally to this party (§ 47, 10). In direct
opposition to them, another Egyptian monkish order in the Nitrian
desert adhered to Origen with enthusiastic reverence and occupied
themselves in a pious contemplative mysticism that tended to a
somewhat extreme spiritualism.

§ 51.2. =The Controversy in Palestine and Italy,
A.D. 394-399.=--In Palestine Origen had a warm supporter in
=bishop of Jerusalem=, and in the two Latins =Jerome= and
=Rufinus= who were staying there (§ 47, 16, 17). But when
in A.D. 394 a couple of Westerns who happened to come there
expressed their surprise, Jerome, anxious for his reputation
for orthodoxy, was at once prepared to condemn the errors of
Origen. Meanwhile the Scetic monks had called the attention
of the old zealot =Epiphanius= to the Palestinian nursery of
heresy. Immediately he made his way thither and took advantage
of John’s friendly invitation to occupy his pulpit by preaching
a violent sermon against Origenism. John then preached against
anthropomorphism. Epiphanius pronounced an anathema against that
tendency but desired John to do the same in regard to Origenism.
When John refused, then Epiphanius, together with Jerome and the
Bethlehemite monks withdrew from communion with John and Rufinus,
and invaded John’s episcopal rights by ordaining a presbyter
over the Bethlehemite monks. Now sprang up a violent controversy,
which Theophilus of Alexandria, by sending the presbyter Isidore,
sought to allay. Jerome and Rufinus were reconciled at the altar
in A.D. 396. The latter soon again returned to the West. He
translated, omitting objectionable passages, Origen’s work Περὶ
ἀρχῶν, and was indiscreet enough to remark in the preface that
even the orthodox Jerome was an admirer of Origen. Stirred up
by his Roman friends, Jerome began with unmeasured violence
a passionate polemic against Origenism and the friend of his
youth. He produced at the same time a literal rendering, no
longer extant, of the Περὶ ἀρχῶν. Rufinus replied with equal
bitterness, and the passion displayed by both led to further
causes of offence. The Roman bishop Siricius took part with
Rufinus, but his successor Anastasius summoned him to answer
for his opinions at Rome. Rufinus did not appear, but sent
an apology which so little satisfied Anastasius that he rather
consented to send letters to John of Jerusalem and other oriental
bishops in condemnation of Origenism, A.D. 399. Rufinus withdrew
to Aquileia and there continued to translate the writings of
Origen and others of the Greeks.

§ 51.3. =The Controversy in Alexandria and Constantinople,
A.D. 399-438.=--=Theophilus=, patriarch of Alexandria, a pompous,
ambitious and strong-handed ecclesiastical prince, had down to
A.D. 399 been on good terms with the Origenist monks and even
in the Easter address of that year expressed himself in strong
terms against the heresy of the anthropomorphists. The monks rose
in rebellion over this, attacked him with clubs and forced him
to pronounce an anathema upon Origen. Soon thereafter he had a
personal dispute with his former friends. The aged and venerable
presbyter Isidore and the four so-called “long brothers,” ἀδελφοὶ
μακροί, two of whom served in his church as _œconomi_, refused to
pay him pupils’ and legates’ money and fled from his passionate
displeasure to their companions in the Nitrian desert. In
A.D. 399, however, at an endemic Synod at Alexandria he condemned
Origen, and in A.D. 401 published a violent manifesto against
the Origenists.[157] The noble but shortsighted Epiphanius
approved it and Jerome hastened to translate it into Latin. With
rude military force the Nitrian monks were scattered and driven
away. Persecuted by the warrants issued by the patriarch, they
sought protection from bishop =John Chrysostom= at Constantinople
(§ 47, 8), whose intercession, however, Theophilus contemptuously
rejected. For peace sake Chrysostom now wished to retire. But the
monks found access to the Empress Eudoxia, and upon her appeal
to the Emperor Arcadius, Theophilus was cited before a Synod at
Constantinople over which Chrysostom presided. Theophilus foamed
with rage. He succeeded by misrepresentation of the facts to win
to his side the zealot Epiphanius. The noble old man hasted full
of zeal and prejudice to Constantinople, but coming to see things
in their true light, he withdrew from them with the words, “I
leave to you the court and hypocrisy.” Theophilus, however, knew
well how to get on with the court and hypocrisy. Chrysostom,
by severe and searching preaching, had aroused the anger of
the Empress. Relying upon this, Theophilus landed with a great
retinue at Constantinople, and organized at the Empress’s estate
of Drus, the Oak, near Chalcedon, a Council, _Synodus ad Quercum_,
A.D. 403, which pronounced Chrysostom guilty of immorality,
offences against the church and high treason. The Emperor
condemned him to exile. Chrysostom soothed the people excited
in his favour, and allowed himself quietly to be sent away. A
violent earthquake, however, next night and the incontrollable
excitement of the populace, led the Emperor to entreat the
exile by special messenger immediately to return. After three
days’ absence he had a triumphal entrance again into the city.
Theophilus fled precipitately to Alexandria. Soon thereafter
Chrysostom very solemnly denounced the noisy inauguration of
a statue of the empress during the celebration of worship, and
when on this account her rage flamed up against him afresh, the
unfortunate words were uttered by him in a sermon on the day of
John the Baptist: Πάλιν Ἡρωδίας μαίνεται, πάλιν πράσσεται, πάλιν
ἐπὶ πίνακι τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ Ἰωάννου ζητεῖ λαβεῖν. Now the game
was again in Theophilus’ favour. His party fanned the flame at
the court. During the Easter vigils, A.D. 404, armed men burst
into the church of Chrysostom and carried him away an exile to
Cucusus in Armenia. With heroic courage he bore all the miseries
of the journey, the climate and the wild lawless neighbourhood.
With his people from the place of his banishment he maintained
regular pastoral intercourse.--Soon after the outbreak of
the conflict, Theophilus as well as Chrysostom had diligently
sought to obtain the support of the West. Both sent letters and
messengers to Rome, Milan and Aquileia, seeking to justify their
cases before the churches. Innocent I. of Rome urged the deciding
of the controversy at an œcumenical Council, but did not carry
his point. After the disgraceful banishment of Chrysostom the
whole West took his side, and Innocent got Honorius to apply to
Arcadius for his recall; but the only result was that in A.D. 407
he was sent to still more severe banishment at Pityus, on the
Black Sea. He succumbed to the fatigues of the journey and
died on the way with words on his lips that had been the motto
of his life: Δόξα τῷ θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν. A great part of his
congregation at Constantinople refused to acknowledge the new
patriarch Arsacius and his successor Atticus, and continued apart,
notwithstanding all persecutions, under the name of Johannites,
until Theodosius II. in A.D. 438 fetched back with honour the
bones of their revered pastor and laid them in the imperial vault.
Amid personal animosities and embittered feelings the Origenist
controversy was long lost to view, but we must return to it again
further on (§ 52, 6).[158]

§ 52. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY.[159]

In the Trinitarian controversy we dealt with the pre- and extra-historical existence of the Son of God, with His divine nature in itself; but now, at the crucial point of Christian speculation and ecclesiastical conflict, we come to treat of His historical existence as that of the incarnate Son of God, of the connection of the divine nature of the Logos with the human nature of the Son of Mary, and of the mutual relations of both to one another. Even during the Arian controversy the conflict was begun, and while the church maintained against Arius the full divinity of Christ, it also affirmed against Apollinaris the completeness of His humanity. In three further phases this conflict was continued. In the Dyoprosopic controversy the church maintained the unity of the Person of Christ against the Antiochean extreme represented by Nestorius, which hold both natures so far apart that the result seemed to be two persons. In the Monophysite controversy the opposite extreme of the new Alexandrian school was combated, which in the unity of the person lost sight of the distinctness of the natures. In the Monothelite controversy a unionistic effort was resisted which indeed allowed the duality of natures to be affirmed nominally, but practically denied it by the acknowledgment of only one will.

§ 52.1. =The Apollinarian Controversy,
A.D. 362-381.=[160]--Previously the older _Modalists_, _e.g._,
Beryllus and Sabellius, had taught that by the incarnation the
Logos had received merely a human body. Marcellus shared this
view; but also his antipodes Arius had adopted it in order
to avoid postulating two creatures in Christ. Athanasius held
by the doctrine of Origen, that the human soul in Christ is
a necessary bond between the Logos and the body, as well as
an organ for giving expression to the Logos through the body.
At the Synod of Alexandria, A.D. 362, therefore, he obtained
ecclesiastical sanction for the recognition of a complete human
nature in Christ. =Apollinaris= of Laodicea (§ 47, 5), who had
helped to arrange for this Council, also disapproved of the
expression σῶμα ἄψυχον, but yet thought that the doctrine of
the completeness of the human nature must be denied. He was led
to this position by his adoption of trichotomic principles. He
maintained that Christ has taken merely a σῶμα with a ψυχὴ ἄλογος,
and that the place of the ψυχὴ λογικὴ (ὁ νοῦς) was represented
in him by the divine Logos. If this were not so then, he thought,
one must assume two persons in Christ or let Christ sink down
to the position of a mere ἄνθρωπος ἔνθεος. Only in this way
too could absolute sinlessness be affirmed of him. On the other
hand, Athanasius and the two Gregories saw that in this way
the substantiality of the incarnation and the completeness of
redemption were lost. The so-called second œcumenical Council of
A.D. 381 rejected the doctrine of Apollinaris, who with his party
was excluded from the Church. The Apollinarians subsequently
joined the Monophysites.

§ 52.2. =Christology of the Opposing Theological Schools.=--In
consequence of the Arian controversy the perfect divinity, and in
consequence of the Apollinarian controversy the perfect humanity,
of Christ were finally established. On the relation between
the two natures conditioned by the union there was definite
result attained unto. Apollinaris had taught a connection of
the divinity with the _incomplete_ manhood so intimate that
he had unwittingly destroyed the duality of the natures, and
by means of an ἀντιμεθίστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων transferred the
attributes of the one nature to the other; so that not only
the body of Christ must have been deified and have been therefore
worthy of worship, but also birth, suffering and death must be
referred to His divinity. In his treatise: Κατὰ μέρος πίστις,
he teaches: οὐ δύο πρόσωπα, οὐδὲ δύο φύσεις, οὐδὲ γὰρ τέσσαρα
προσκυνεῖν λέγομεν, θεὸν καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ πνεῦμα
ἅγιον, and in the tract _De incarnatione Verbi_, wrongly
attributed to Athanasius: Ὁμολογοῦμεν εἶναι αὐτὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
θεοῦ καὶ θεὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου κατὰ σάρκα· οὐ δύο
φύσεις τὸν ἕνα υἱὸν, μίαν προσκυνητὴν καὶ μίαν ἀπροσκύνητον,
ἀλλὰ μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκομένην καὶ προσκυνομένην
μετὰ τῆς σάρκος αὐτοῦ μίᾳ προσκυνήσει. So, too, in the Epistle
ascribed to Julius of Rome. The =Alexandrian Theology=, although
rejecting the mutilation of the human nature favoured by
Apollinaris, sympathized with him in his love for the mystical,
the inconceivable and the transcendental. In opposition to the
Arian heresy it gave special emphasis to the divinity of Christ
and taught a ἕνωσις φυσική of both natures. Only before the
union and _in abstracto_ can we speak of two natures; after
the incarnation and _in concreto_ we can speak only of one
divine-human nature. Mary was therefore spoken of as the mother
of God, θεοτόκος. Athanasius in his treatise against Apollinaris
acknowledged an ἀσύγχυτος φυσικὴ ἕνωσις τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν
αὐτοῦ γενομένην σάρκα, and explained this φυσικὴ ἕνωσις as a
ἕνωσις κατὰ φύσιν. The Cappadocians (§ 47, 4) indeed expressly
admitted two natures, ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλα, but yet taught a commingling
of them, σύγκρασις, κατάμιξις, a συνδραμεῖν of the two natures,
εἰς ἕν, a μεταποιηθῆναι of the σὰρξ πρὸς τὴν θεότητα. Cyril of
Alexandria taught that the ἐνσάρκωσις was a φυσικὴ ἕνωσις, an
incarnation in the proper sense. Christ consists ἐκ δύο φύσεων,
but not ἐκ δύο φύσεσι, _i.e._ only before the incarnation and
_in abstracto_ (κατὰ μόνην τὴν θεωρίαν) can we speak of two
natures. In the God-man two natures would be two subjects, and
so there would be two Christs; the redeemer would then only be
an ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος and not a θεάνθρωπος, and could thus afford
no guarantee of a complete redemption, etc. The =Antiochean
Theology= (§ 47, 8, 9), in opposition to Apollinaris, affirmed
most emphatically the complete and unchangeable reality of the
human nature of Christ at and after its union with the divine.
It would therefore only admit of a συναφεία or a ἕνωσις σχετική,
by which both are brought into the relation (σχέσις) of common
being and common action. Expressions like θεοτόκος, θεὸς
ἐγγέννηθεν, θεὸς ἔπαθεν, seemed to the thinkers of this school
blasphemous, or at least absurd. They acknowledged indeed that
the σάρξ of Christ is worthy of adoration but only in so far as
it is the organ of the redeeming Logos, not because in itself
it shares in the divine attributes. The most developed form of
this doctrine was presented by Theodore of Mopsuestia in strict
connection with his anthropology and soteriology. The historical
development of the God-man is with him the type and pattern of
the historical redemption of mankind. Christ assumed a complete
human nature, with all its sinful affections and tendencies,
but he fought these down and raised His human nature by constant
conflict and victory to that absolute perfection to which by the
same way He leads us through the communication of His Spirit.
He expressly guarded himself against the charge of making Christ
into two persons: Christ is ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, but not ἄλλος καὶ
ἄλλος for the human nature has in the incarnation renounced
personality and independence.--Each of these two schools
represented one side of the truth of the church’s doctrine;
in the union of the two sides the church proclaimed the full
truth. On the other hand the two schools proceeded more and more
one-sidedly to emphasise each its own side of the truth, and so
tended toward positive error. Thus arose two opposite errors, the
separating of the natures and the confusing of the natures, which
the church rejected one after the other, and proclaimed the truth
that lay at the root of both.--During this discussion arose the
=Western Theology= as the regulator of the debate. So long as it
dealt with the one-sided extreme of the Antiocheans it stood side
by side with the Alexandrians. Augustine, _e.g._ used indeed the
expression _mixture_, but in reality he explains the relation
of both natures to one another quite in accordance with the
afterwards settled orthodoxy. But when at last the method of
exclusions reached the error of the Alexandrians, the Westerns
turned quite as decidedly to the other side and maintained the
union of the two sides of the truth (Leo the Great). The conflict
attracted great attention when it broke out at first in the West,
but it was so quickly settled that soon no trace of it remained.
In Southern Gaul a monk Leporius came forward teaching the
Antiochean doctrine of the union of the two natures. In A.D. 426
he went to Africa, entered into conflict with Augustine, but
retracted his errors almost immediately.

§ 52.3. =The Dyoprosopic or Nestorian Controversy,
A.D. 428-444.=[161]--In A.D. 428 a monk of Antioch called
=Nestorius=, a distinguished orator, was appointed patriarch of
Constantinople. He was an eloquent and pious man but hasty and
imprudent, with little knowledge of the world and human nature,
and immoderately severe against heretics. The hatred of an
unsuccessful rival in Constantinople called Proclus and the
rivalry of the patriarch of Alexandria, who hated him not only as
a rival but as an Antiochean, made the position of the unsupported
monk a very hard one, and his protection of the expatriated
Pelagians (§ 53, 4) excited the Roman bishop Cœlestine against
him. Anastasius, a presbyter brought with him by Nestorius,
was annoyed at the frequent use of the expression θεοτόκος and
preached against it. Nestorius took his part against people and
monks, sentenced the monks who had insulted him personally to
endure corporal punishment, and at an endemic Synod in A.D. 439
condemned the doctrine objected to. And now Cyril of Alexandria
(§ 47, 6) entered the lists as champion of the Alexandrian
dogmatics. He won to himself Cœlestine of Rome (§ 46, 6), as
well as bishops Memnon of Ephesus and Juvenalis [Juvenal] of
Jerusalem, and at the court, Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II.
A.D. 408-450); while the empress Eudocia (§ 48, 5) and the Syrian
bishops took the side of Nestorius. All conciliatory attempts
were frustrated by the stiffness of the two patriarchs. Cœlestine
of Rome in A.D. 430 demanded of Nestorius a recantation within
ten days, and Cyril at a Synod of Alexandria in A.D. 430 produced
twelve strong counterpropositions containing anathemas, which
Nestorius answered immediately by twelve counteranathemas. Thus
the controversy and the parties engaged in it became more and
more violent. For its settlement the emperor called the so-called
=Third= (properly =Second=, comp. § 50, 4) =Œcumenical Council
at Ephesus in A.D. 431=. Nestorius enjoyed the decided favour
of the emperor, the imperial plenipotentiary was his personal
friend, and a portion of the emperor’s bodyguard accompanied him
to Ephesus. But Cyril appeared with a great retinue of bishops
and a faithful guard of servants of the church and seamen, who
should in case of need prove the correctness of the Alexandrian
dogmatics with their fists. In addition Memnon of Ephesus had in
readiness a crowd of clergy, monks and people from Asia Minor.
Before the Roman legates and the Syrian bishops had arrived Cyril
opened the Council without them with 200 bishops. Nestorianism
was condemned, Nestorius excommunicated and deposed, and
Cyril’s anathematizing propositions adopted as the standard
of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The Roman legate recognised the
Council, but the imperial commissioner refused his approval;
and the Syrian bishops, under the presidency of John of Antioch
proceeded, on their arrival, to hold an opposition Council, which
excommunicated Cyril and Memnon. Nestorius of his own accord
retired into a monastery. Meanwhile in Constantinople, at the
instigation of Pulcheria, a popular tumult was raised in favour
of Cyril. The emperor set aside all the three leaders, Nestorius,
Cyril and Memnon, and authorised a mediating creed drawn up by
Theodoret (§ 47, 9) in which the θεοτόκος was recognised but an
ἀσύγχυτος ἕνωσις was affirmed. Cyril and Memnon still remained
in their offices. They subscribed Theodoret’s formula and John
subscribed the condemnation of Nestorius, A.D. 433, who was
deposed and given over to the vengeance of his enemies. Driven
from his monastic retreat and in many ways ill-treated, he died
in destitution in A.D. 440. The compromise of the two leaders
called forth opposition on every side. The Syrian church
was in revolt over their patriarch’s betrayal of the person
of Nestorius. John avenged himself by deposing his opponents.
This had well-nigh been the fate of the noble Theodoret;
but the patriarch exempted him from condemning the person
of Nestorius in consideration of his condemnation of the
doctrine.--The Egyptians also charged their patriarch with
the denial of the true doctrine. He was at pains, however, to
give proof of his zeal by the vindictiveness of his persecutions.
Not without an eye to results he wrought to have the anathema
of the church pronounced upon the heads of the Antiochean school,
and one of their partisans, bishop Rabulas of Edessa, pounced
upon the famous theological school at Edessa, at the head of
which then stood the distinguished presbyter Ibas (§ 47, 13).
After the death of Rabulas, however, in A.D. 436, the school
again rose to great eminence. Theodoret and Cyril meanwhile
contended with one another in violent writings. Death closed
the mouth of Cyril in A.D. 444. But Rabulas unweariedly sought
out and burnt the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which
Ibas had translated into Syriac. The latter published a letter
to Maris bishop of Hardashir in Persia, which at a subsequent
period obtained symbolical rank among the Nestorians, and Thomas
Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis, wrought successfully for the spread
of Nestorianism in the Persian church. In A.D. 489 the school of
Edessa was again destroyed by order of the emperor Zeno. Teachers
and scholars migrated to Persia, and founded at Nisibis a school
that long continued famous. At a Synod in Seleucia in A.D. 499,
under the patriarch Babäus of Seleucia, the whole Persian
church finally broke off from the orthodox church of the Roman
empire (§ 64, 2). They called themselves according to their
ecclesiastical language Chaldean Christians. Their patriarch
bore the title Jazelich, καθολικός. The Nestorian church passed
on from Persia into India, where its adherents, appropriating the
old legend that the apostle Thomas had introduced Christianity
into India (§ 16, 4), called themselves Thomas-Christians.

§ 52.4. =The Monophysite Controversy.=