Sidor som bilder

bishop of that city (2). This contest, which was at first merely a private dispute, gave rise to a controversy which exerted greater influence upon the History of Doctrines than all former controversies, and was the signal for an almost endless succession of subsequent conflicts.

(1) SOURCES: Arii Epist. ad Euseb. Nicomed. in Epiph. Hær. 69, § 6. Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. i. 4. Epist. ad Alex. in Athan. De Synodis Arim. et Seleuc. c. 16, and Ep. Hær. 69, § 7. Of the work of Arius, entitled Θαλεία, only some fragments are preserved by Athanasius. According to the Epist. ad Euseb, his opinion was: "Οτι ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἐστιν ἀγέννητος, οὐδὲ μέρος ἀγεννήτου κατ ̓ οὐδένα τρόπον, ἀλλ ̓ οὔτε ἐξ ὑποκειμένου τινὸς, ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι θελήματι καὶ βουλῇ ὑπέστη πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων, πλήρης θεὸς, μονογενής· ἀναλλοίωτος, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῇ ἤτοι κτισθῇ ἤτοι ὁρισθῇ ἢ θεμελιωθῇ, οὐκ ἦν· ἀγέννητος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν. His views are fully settled on the last (negative) point; though he is labouring, in what precedes, to discover a satisfactory mode of statement. "We are perse

cuted," he continues," because we say that the Son hath a beginning, while we teach that God is ἄναρχος. We say ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐστίν, because He is no part of God, nor is He created of anything already in existence" (he rejects accordingly the theory of emanation, or the notion that Christ is created from matter). Comp. the letter to Alexander, 1.c., where he defends his own doctrine against the notion of Valentinus concerning a προβολή; against that of the Manichæans about a μέρος; and lastly, against the opinions of Sabellius; he there uses almost the same phraseology which occurs in the letter to Eusebius. The same views are expressed in still stronger language in the fragments of the aforesaid work Thalia (in Athan. Contra Arian. Orat. i. § 9): Οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ ὕστερον γέγονεν· οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς, οὐ γὰρ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ· οὐκ ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀλλ ̓ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ὑπέστη καὶ αὐτός· οὐκ ἐστιν ἴδιος τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός. Κτίσμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ ποίημα, καὶ οὐκ ἐστιν ἀληθινὸς θεὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, ἀλλὰ μετοχῇ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐθεοποιήθη. Οὐκ οἶδε τὸν πατέρα ἀκριβῶς ὁ υἱὸς, οὔτε ὁρᾷ ὁ λόγος τὸν πατέρα τελείως· καὶ οὔτε συνιεῖ, οὔτε γινώσκει ἀκριβῶς ὁ λόγος τὸν πατέρα· οὐκ ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς καὶ μόνος αὐτὸς τοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, ἀλλ ̓


ὀνόματι μόνον λέγεται λόγος καὶ σοφία, καὶ χάριτι λέγεται υἱὸς καὶ δύναμις· οὔκ ἐστιν ἄτρεπτος ὡς ὁ πατὴρ, ἀλλὰ τρεπτός ἐστι φύσει, ὡς τὰ κτίσματα, καὶ λείπει αὐτῷ εἰς κατάληψιν τοῦ γνῶναι τελείως τὸν πατέρα. Contra Arian. i. § 5 : Εἶτα θελήσας ἡμᾶς (ὁ θεὸς) δημιουργῆσαι, τότε δὲ πεποίηκεν ἕνα τινὰ καὶ ὠνόμασεν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ υἱὸν, ἵνα ἡμᾶς δι' αὐτοῦ δημιουργήσῃ. — He proves this from the figurative expression, Joel ii. 25 (the Septuagint reads, "the great power of God," instead of "locusts"). Comp. Neander, Kg. ii. 2, s. 767 ff.; Dg., s. 299 ff. Dorner, s. 849 ff. Baur, Trinitätl. s. 319 ff., 342 ff. Meier, Trinität. s. 134; the latter says (s. 137): "Arius represents the reaction of common sense against the tendency to recur to the forms of Platonic speculation." But compare Baur, ubi supra, who finds also a speculative element in Arius. [The previous statements had resulted only in bringing out the extreme positions, without reconciling them. Arius laid hold of one of these, that the Father alone is unbegotten, and the Son begotten, and carried it to its logical results. If begotten, then not eternal; if not eternal, then originated in time, etc. Arianism is an abstract separation between the infinite and the finite. Comp. Baur's Dogmengesch. s. 164.]


(2) Concerning the opinion of Alexander, see his letter to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, in Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. i. 4, and the circular letter Ad Catholicos, in Socrat. i. 6. Münscher, von Cölln, p. 203-206. He founds his arguments chiefly on the prologue to the Gospel of John, and shows, μεταξὺ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ οὐδὲν εἶναι διάστημα. All time and all spaces of time are rather created by the Father through the Son. If the Son had had a beginning, the Father would have been aλoyos. The generation of the Son had nothing in common with the sonship of believers. Christ is the Son of God κατὰ φύσιν. Comp. Schleiermacher, Kirchengesch. p. 212.

'Thus Arius, on the doctrine of Origen, contended against its speculative side, in the eternal generation, while he adopted his view of the subordination of the Son to the Father. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 308; and Neander, Dg. s. 300: "The profound idea first expressed by Origen, of the eternal generation of the Son, without any beginning, could not be comprehended by the commonplace understanding of Arius."

§ 90.

The Hypostatical Relation and Homoousia of the Son.

The Nicene Doctrine.

Münscher, Untersuchung, über den Sinn der nicäischen Glaubensformel, in Henke's Neues Magazin, vi. s. 334 ff. Walch, Bibl. Symb. Vet. Lemg. 1770, p. 75 ss. [Fuchs, Bibliothek d. Kirchenversammlungen der 4n. und 5n. Jahr. i. 350. Athanasii Epistolæ de Decret. Synod. Nic. in Oxford Lib. of Fathers, vols. 8, 19. Kaye's Some Account of the Council of Nice, 1853. Petavius, Theol. Dogm. tom. ii. Bp. Bull, Defensio Fid. Nic. De Broglie, L'Eglise et l'Empire Romain, ii. 1-71. Möhler, Athanasius, 2 Thle. Mainz, 2 Ausg. 1844. K. W. T. Hessler, Athanasius, der Vertheidiger d. Homoousia, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1856, transl. in Presb. Qu. Review, 1857. W. W. Harvey, Hist. and Theol. of the Three Creeds, 2 vols. Lond. 1854. Voigt, Die Immanente Trinität, und Athanasius, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1858. Analecta Nicæna, fragments on the Council, from the Syriac, by B. H. Cowper, Lond. 1857; cf. Journal of Sacr. Lit., Lond. Jan. 1860, p. 380. Hefele, Hist. of Councils, vol. i.]

The Emperor Constantine the Great, and the two bishops named Eusebius (of Cæsarea and of Nicomedia), having in vain endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation between the contending parties (1), the First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa was held (A.D. 325), principally through the intervention of Bishop Hosius of Corduba. After several other formulas, apparently favourable to Arianism (2), had been rejected, a confession of faith was adopted, in which it was established as the inviolable doctrine of the Catholic Church, that the Son is of the same essence (óμoovσios) with the Father, but sustaining to Him the relation of that which is begotten to that which begets (3).

(1) Comp. Epist. Constantini ad Alexandrum et Arium, in Eus. Vita Const. ii. 64-72; and on the attempts of the two bishops to bring about a reconciliation, see Neander, 1.c. s. 783 ff.

(2) One of these is the confession of faith which Eusebius. of Cæsarea proposed, Theodor. Hist. Eccles. i. 11, comp. Neander, l.c. s. 797 ff. It contained the expression: Ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ

λόγος, θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ζωὴ ἐκ ζωῆς, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένος. According to Athan. De Decret. Syn. Nic. 20, they at first only wished to decide that the Son of God is εἰκὼν τοῦ πατρὸς, ὅμοιός τε καὶ ἀπαράλλακτος κατὰ πάντα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἄτρεπτος καὶ ἀεὶ, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ εἶναι ἀδιαιρέτως.

(3) Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν, πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ, δι ̓ οὐ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι ̓ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τριτῇ ἡμέρᾳ· ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, καὶ ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστὸν ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία. Athan. Epist. De Decret. Syn. Nic.-Eus. Cæs. Ep. ad Cæsariens.— Socrat. i. 8. Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 11. Münscher (von Cölln), 5.207-209. Βaur, Trinitatl. s. 334 f. Meier, s. 146 f. Dorner, 849. [The Nicene Creed, says Dorner, showed to Christian theology the end at which it was to aim, even if it did not perfectly realize that end. Arianism had pressed back towards Ebionitism; it had lost the idea of the incarnation, putting between God and the creature a fantastic, subordinate God, which separated rather than united the infinite and finite. It made a perfect revelation or manifestation of God impossible. The Nicene Fathers met this by proclaiming the real and proper Godhead of the Son, etc.]

Respecting the definitions of the phrases e ovoías and ὁμοούσιος, comp. Athanasius, l.e. We find that even at that time a distinction was made between sameness and similarity. The Son is like the Father in a different sense from that in which we become like God by rendering obedience to His laws. This resemblance, moreover, is not external, accidental, like that between another metal and gold, tin and silver, etc.

[Baur, Dg. s. 164, gives the following as the substance of the Nicene and Athanasian belief. To the Arian hypothesis it opposes the eternal generation and consubstantiality (Homoousia) of the Son, on the basis of the following arguments: 1. The Father would not be absolute God if He were not in His essence begetting, and so the Father of a Son of the same essence. 2. The idea of the Godhead of the Son is abolished, if He is not Son by nature, but only through God's grace. created, He were neither Son nor God; to be both creature and Creator is a complete contradiction. 3. The unity of the finite with the infinite, of man with God, falls to the ground, if the mediator of this unity is only a creature, and not the absolute God.]

§ 91.

Further Fluctuatious until the Synod of Constantinople.


But the phrase oμoovotos did not meet with universal approval (1). In this unsettled state of affairs the party of the Eusebians (2), who had for some time previously enjoyed the favour of the court, succeeded in gaining its assent to a doctrine in which the use of the term oμoovoios was studiously avoided, though it did not strictly inculcate the principles of Arianism. Thus Athanasius, who firmly adhered to this watchword of the Nicene party, found himself compelled to seek refuge in the West. Several synods were held for the purpose of settling this long protracted question; a number of formula were drawn up and rejected (3), till at last the Nicene and Athanasian doctrine was more firmly established by the decisions of the second Ecumenical Synod of Constantinople (A.D. 381) (4).

(1) Several Asiatic bishops took offence at the terin in question; Socrat. i. 8, 6. Münscher (von Cölln), s. 210. They considered it unscriptural (λégis aypapos), and were afraid that it might give rise to a revival of the theory of emanation. But the expression èx TŶs ovσías was more favourable to that

« FöregåendeFortsätt »