 Chapter 11, Part 2 of History of the Christian Church during the first six centuries. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Sean F. Sawyers. History of the Christian Church during the first six centuries by S. Tiedem. Chapter 11, Controversies on the Faith. Chapter 2, The Holy Trinity. 1. The greatest dogmatic conflict which the Church had to endure broke out in the early part of the fourth century. Arius was a person of considerable mark among the presbyters of Alexandria. He is described as a man of impressive appearance and of strictly aesthetic life, yet with kindly and attractive manner and bearing. But he was charged with a certain vanity and lightness of mind. He had been a pupil of the famous Lucian of Antioch, who had been accused of sharing the opinions of Paul of Samusata, and these views he also was thought to hold. The first beginnings of the strife are obscured by discrepancy of testimony, but on the tenets of Arius there is practically no doubt. In his view, the Son is a creation out of nothing by the will of God the Father, a divine being created before the worlds, but still a creature. As a Father must exist before his Son, the Son of God is not co-eternal with the Father. There was a time when he was not. It was through him that God made the worlds, yet he is not in his proper nature incapable of sin, though by the exertion of his own will he was preserved from it. Against this, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, asserted the coexistence of God the Father and God the Son from all eternity. Alexander was there a time when the Father was not the Father, when the Son was not the Son. The doctrines so startling as those of Arius could not pass unquestioned. For some years the Church in Alexandria was disturbed by the disputes which arose about them. Alexander probably hoped to overcome Arius by gentle treatment. When he was disappointed in his hope, Arius was at length excommunicated by a Synod of about one hundred African and Libyan Bishops, and with him certain presbyters and deacons of Alexandria, while the Libyan Bishops Theonis and Secundus were deposed from their offices. Driven from Alexandria, Arius betook himself to Palestine, whence he wrote to his old fellow student under Lucian Eusebius, the influential Bishop of Nicomedia, who at once disturbed himself to gain adherence for him. He was so successful that a Athenian Synod under his influence pronounced in favor of the opinions of Arius, and Eusebius of Caesarea attempted to mediate between Alexander and his Presbyterne. To whatever influence it may have been due, Arius returned to Alexandria and resumed his functions. Several bishops took his part, but Alexander and his friends remained firm, and not only did Bishop contend with Bishop, Mob contended with Mob in many cities of the east. It was at this critical time that Constantine overcame Licinius and became sole ruler of the Roman world. When the strife in the church came to his knowledge, he wrote, or caused to be written, a remarkable letter to Alexander and Arius. The discussion appeared to him a mere play of nimble wits, asking questions which ought not to be asked, and giving answers which ought not to be given. He begs the combatants, therefore, to restore to their emperor his quiet days and tranquil nights by making such mutual concessions as may restore peace to the church. The letter, however, produced no good result, nor could Hossias of Cordova, the emperor's confidential advisor, who brought up to Alexandria, affect a reconciliation between the opposing parties. There was one in Alexandria who, though his works belonged mainly to a later period, had already the influence which his character could not fail to win, and who would certainly not tolerate any compromise with error. This was Athanasius, who was constantly by the side of Alexander, and who maintained now as throughout his eventful life with all his force the great truth that the Son was God from all eternity, that he became very man. It is to be observed that Athanasius connects the divinity of the Son with the redemption of man much more prominently than his contemporaries. How, he asks, could Christ make us partakers of the divine nature if he were himself only a partaker and not the source and origin of it? This lies indeed at the root of the Athanasian theology. In the Son we have the Father, whoso knoweth the Son knoweth the Father. If the Son be a creature we cannot worship him. One who held these views could evidently not concede one jot or one tittle to the Arians. Constantine's well-mint attempt, therefore, came to nothing. As however the emperor attached the utmost importance to the unity of the church, which he hoped to make the chief bond of the unwieldy empire, he determined to make yet another effort to secure it. He resolved, by the advice of Hossaius, to invite the bishops of the whole church to a council at Nicaea in Bethenia, not far from the southern shore of the Black Sea. The emperor himself issued the summonses, placed the public posting houses at the disposal of the bishops, who journeyed to Bethenia, and provided for their maintenance. From all parts of the empire they came, and even from beyond its limits arrived a Persian and a Scythian. They came, we may well believe, full of hope at the new prospects which were open into the church, and with some curiosity to see the great ruler of the Roman world. The bishop of Rome, who was precluded by his advanced age from undertaking the journey to Nicaea, was represented by two presbyters. His name does not appear in any of the documents connected with the council, and it is quite uncertain whether he was one of those who has advised the emperor privately sought. Eusebius reckons the number of bishops who took part in the council at more than 250, and these were accompanied by a very large number of presbyters, deacons, and other attendants. Among the deacons was Athanasius. Athanasius makes the whole number 318, a number which Ambrose observed with delight was that of Abraham's trained servants, and which has ever since remained the traditional number of attendants at the council, so that it is frequently referred to as the 318. The Greeks attended in large numbers, of the Latins who were much less numerous, the most distinguished representatives were the well-known Hossias and Sicilian of Carthage. Many of those who were present were highly respected for their piety and for the sufferings which they had endured in the still recent persecution. Some were distinguished theologians, some were probably simple men to whom the very watchwords of the contest were new and strange. There were present also at some of the preliminary discussions many laymen, skilled rhetoricians ready to advocate the views of one side or the other. It was the fluent talk of these gentlemen which roused one of the confessors, himself a layman, to declare that Christ and the apostles handed down to us no dialectic art or vain craft, but simple maxims guarded by faith and good works. It is not improbable that, as Ruffines implies, even heathen philosophers took part in these informal debates. The great assembly met in the largest room of the palace at Nicaea, in which there was placed at one end a gilded chair for the emperor, while the seats of the bishops were arranged on each side. When the members of the council were placed, the emperor in splendid robes entered the hall, without military guard, and passed with stately tread to the seat placed for him, in which however he did not place himself until some of the bishops motioned him to do so. When he was seated, one of the bishops, either Eusebius of Caesarea, or Eustathias of Antioch, rose and addressed him. When this address was ended, Constantine rose, and with a pleasant countenance and a gentle voice made his reply, thanking God for having permitted him to see the representatives of the church brought together into one assembly, and earnestly entreating his hearers to maintain the peace and harmony which became the ministers of God. On concluding his speech, which was in Latin, and was at once rendered into Greek by an interpreter, he handed over the conduct of the meeting to the presidents and left the hall. Who the president's pro-adroit were is uncertain. It is natural to suppose that Hossias of Cordova, who was the emperor's confidant, and whose name stands first among the signatures to the decrees, was at any rate one of them. Others were probably the prelates of the two great seas of Alexandria and Antioch, Alexander and Eustathias, perhaps also Eusebius of Caesarea. There were three groups in the assembly, the small party of Arians under the guidance of Eusebius of Nicomedia, the party of Alexander to which the western bishops generally belonged, and the moderate men who looked upon Eusebius of Caesarea as their leader. It was acknowledged on all hands that the council was bound to produce such an authoritative statement of the true faith as might serve to guide the minds of believers in their present perplexity. The party who were soon called Eusebians, from their leader the bishop of Nicomedia, first proposed a form of creed which was little less than undisguised Arianism. When this had been rejected with indignation, Eusebius of Caesarea put forward for adoption the creed which he had himself received as a catechumen and taught as a presbyter and a bishop. This was drawn up in terms either actually scriptural or already familiar to the church. The emperor approved it, the council at first said nothing against it, but it did not in set terms repudiate Arian doctrine. Alexander and his friends consequently insisted on the insertion of more exact definitions and this was supported by the earnest eloquence and keen dialectics of Athanasius. After several proposals and long debates, a formula was at length arrived at to which all but a very small minority were content to subscribe. This differs in several particulars from the creed with which we are familiar under the name Nicene. The beginning of the second clause ran thus, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father only born, that is from the essence of the Father, God from God, light from light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, of one and the same essence with the Father, through whom all things were made. And the creed, which ends with the words and in the Holy Ghost, was followed by an anathema on those who say that there was a time when the Son was not, that before he was begotten he was not, and that he came into being out of things that were not, and on those who allege that he is of a different substance or essence from God the Father and is capable of being created or changed or altered. In a word, all the characteristic opinions of the Aryans were condemned. To this creed, nearly all the bishops who were present ascended, some as Eusebius of Caesarea, with great reluctance. Only two refused at the time to accept it, but two others, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognus of Nicaea, continued to hold communion with Aries. The latter was condemned and banished by a decree of the Emperor, who endeavored to fix upon him and his adherents the nickname Porphyrian, from Porphyry, the well-known pagan enemy of the faith of Christ. It might have been expected that the almost unanimous decision of such an assembly as that of Nicaea would have put an end to the strife. This was, however, very far from being the case. It was rather the beginning than the end. The West, indeed, generally accepted the Nicene faith, but in the East there arose opponents of it in almost every city. It was not that all these sympathized with the views of Aries, but that a large party in the church was reluctant to receive a document which described the mysteries of the faith in other than scriptural terms, and which even adopted a word, homouseas, which had been condemned by a provincial council as favoring the views of Paul of Samosanta, who denied the divinity of the sun altogether. This party was commonly called semi-Aryan. Eusebius of Caesarea, however, its leader, was himself Orthodox. He expressly repudiates the two main theses of Aries, that the word was a creature, and that there was a time when he was not. The opposition to the Nicene decision was, moreover, strengthened by the fact that the views of the emperor himself changed, probably under the influence of his sister Constantia, a disciple of Eusebius of Nicomedia. This prelate kept up a vigorous agitation against Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria, and several respected bishops took the side of Aries, who had meantime diffused his views in a popular work called Thalia. Aries was allowed to submit to the emperor a statement of his belief, which avoided the particular terms which had given most offense. Constantine was still bent upon promoting unity, and he seems to have been led to believe that it would conduce to this end if both Athanasius and his active supporter Eustephius were removed from the positions which they occupied. Eustephius was deposed and banished in the year 330, and Eusebius of Nicomedia then proceeded to attack Athanasius by stirring up against him all the discontented in his own diocese, especially the Militans who thought that they were aggrieved. Athanasius however was able to defend himself successfully before the emperor against these attacks, but his enemies gave him no rest, and in the year 335 he had to appear before a synod convened by the emperor at Tyre, at which 60 bishops, mainly Eusebians, were present. This synod deposed Athanasius from his sea, and the bishops who composed it, proceeded to Jerusalem for the consecration of the Church of the Anastasis which the emperor had built, declared themselves favorable to the recall of Arius. Athanasius meantime had presented himself before the emperor at Constantinople, and his visit had at first the effect which his remarkable personal influence seldom failed to produce, but when his opponents appeared and alleged against him that he had boasted that he was able to prevent the usual fleet of corn ships from leaving the harbor of Alexandria, the emperor changed his mind and sentenced him to be banished to treives. Preparations were made for the solemn restitution of Arius to his office in Alexandria, which were however stopped by his sudden death. After the death of Constantin, Athanasius returned to his sea, but the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had been raised by Constantius, the new ruler of the east, to the throne of Constantinople, rendered his position untenable. He was compelled to give place to an intruding bishop, Gregory, who was thrust upon the exasperated Alexandrians by actual armed force. He was kindly received in his exile by Julius, bishop of Rome. At Rome too, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, who had been at Nicaea one of the most ardent defenders of the Homo Houssion Creed, was hospitably entertained. In his horror of Arianism, this prelate seems to have fallen into a doctrine too nearly resembling civilianism. He represented the word in such a way that he did not appear as the second person in the Godhead, the son from all eternity. The name son is properly given to him in this view, only so far as he was incarnate, not in his proper nature. That was the word proceeded forth from God, and in his humanity was a distinct person. But he is destined when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, the Father, again to be absorbed into the divine unity. The Synod at Constantinople in 336 condemned his doctrine and deposed him from his office. Like Athanasius, he returned to his sea on the death of Constantine, and like him, he was compelled to flee for refuge, which he found at Rome. Here he presented to the bishop his confession of faith in terms practically identical with the Creed of Rome and was admitted to communion. When it became known in the East that men deprived of office by Eastern Synods have been admitted to communion at Rome, great dissatisfaction arose. An important Synod was held at Antioch, known as the Dedication Synod, from the circumstance that the bishops composing it attended the dedication of a church in that city, the cannons of which were afterwards adopted into the universal code. At this assembly, no less than four confessions of faith were produced, the second of which, known as Lucians, without using the word homoousios, repudiated in the strongest terms the characteristic doctrine of the Arians with regard to the person of the Son, while the third condemned the opinions of Marcellus, who was classed with Sebelius and Paul of Samuassata. This Synod confirmed the sentence passed attire upon Athanasius and condemned generally any bishop who being deposed by a Synod should appeal to another Synod of the same kind or to the emperor. In the winter of the same year, Pope Julius held the Council, of which he had some months before given notice to the Eastern prelates in Rome. Athanasius, after a full examination of the charges against him, was pronounced innocent and his right to communicate with the Roman Church fully recognized. Marcellus was declared orthodox. There was thus a clear divergence of the West from the East. With a view of putting an end to this dissension, the two emperors, Constans and Constantius, agreed to call the Council at Sardisa, Sophia in Bulgaria, on the frontiers of the two empires, but in the dominion of the Western. This, however, was far from promoting unity. No sooner did the Eastern clergy who were present learn that their Western brethren intended to treat Athanasius and Marcellus as lawful bishops than they left the Council and assembled separately at Philippopolis. Those who remained at Sardisa again acquitted Athanasius of the charges against him, and passed sentence of deposition against some of the most prominent bishops of the opposing party. Those who assembled at Philippopolis, on the other hand, sent out to the bishops of their party and to the clergy in general, a letter explaining their position and condemning the conduct of Athanasius and Marcellus. To this was appended a confession of their faith. Founded on the fourth of those which had been produced at Antioch, they condemned the opinions of Arius and those of Marcellus alike. The bishops of the East assembled at Antioch, feeling that they were regarded with suspicion in the Western Church as inclining to Arianism, again endeavored to clear themselves from the charge. In an exposition of their faith, which from its length came to be known as the Prolox Exposition, they expressed their belief in, the only born Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, through whom all things were made, and they anathematized those who affirmed that the Son was made from nothing, ex-uk-auton, or from a different substance, ex-heterov-upostaseus, or that there was a time when he was not. The ninth chapter of the Prolox Exposition might indeed be considered as a paraphrase of the word Omoousias, but they also condemned those who said that it was not by wishing or willing that the Father begot the Son. In this they condemned the Athanasians, who held that the eternal generation of the Son is of the essence of the Father, as inseparable from him as his holiness or his wisdom. To say that the Son was produced by the wish or will of the Father seemed to them to approach perilously near to saying that he was a creature. Though against this conclusion the bishops at Antioch had expressly regarded themselves, the Eastern bishops seemed to have been genuinely anxious to find terms of agreement with their Western brethren, and they were certainly very far from holding those opinions of Arius which had been condemned, but no reconciliation was affected. A Western council in Milan rejected their overture. They also found themselves under the necessity of condemning a new heresy, that of Photinus. He was a fellow countryman and disciple of Marcellus, and the Antiochian sentence of condemnation seems to attribute to him little or nothing beyond the views of his master. As however the Western council in Milan also condemned Photinus while it protected Marcellus, it seems probable that he maintained not merely that the Son had no personal existence for eternity, but that Christ was simply a man, destined by God to a unique work, and so wrought upon by his inworking as to attain divine excellence. The Emperor Constantius had hitherto been unfriendly to Athanasius and his party. At last, hard pressed by the Persians and anxious at all costs to restore peace in his dominions, he permitted the great bishop to return to Alexandria, where meanwhile the intruder Gregory had died. He was received with a total of joy by his faithful people. The Orientals were dissatisfied at the restoration of Athanasius without the decree of a council, but otherwise the difference between the opposing parties seems at this time to have been reduced to two points, the refusal of the Western bishops to condemn Marcellus and the continued rejection by the Easterners of the word Homo Uzias. Those opinions of areas which had been condemned at Nicaea were almost everywhere rejected, but the death of Constance brought about a great change in the politics of the time. Constantius had paid a certain deference to his brother, who favored Athanasius. Now he asserted his independence and perhaps wished to repay the humiliation which he thought he had suffered at the hands of the Western bishops. A synod which first met at Sermium in 351 put forth a confession of faith identical with the Fourth of Antioch and deposed Photinus, who had up to this time remained in possession of the sea of Sermium. To the confession was appended a long series of anathemas in the 18th of which the son is expressly declared to be subordinate to the father, who poked at Togmanos. This was not generally accepted in the West, though so high an authority as Hilary of Poctea thought it compatible with orthodoxy. When, shortly afterwards, Constantius became, by his victory over the usurper Magnentius, the sole ruler of the empire, he acted with more vigor and decision in the affairs of the church. From synods assembled at Arlais and Milan, he succeeded in extorting the condemnation of Athanasius as a rebel, leaving the theological question for the present out of sight. The orthodox were not compelled to accept any new formula of belief, but the more sharpsided among them could not fail to be aware that in the condemnation of Athanasius learned more about a personal question. The few bishops who refused to concur, Paulinus of Treves, Eusebius of Resele, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Dionysus of Milan, were driven into exile, and to these were soon added Liberius of Rome, Hilary of Poctea, and the agent Hoseius of Cordova. Early in the year 356, his sentence of deposition was formally communicated to Athanasius, who at once withdrew to the wilderness and was lost to sight. He was beyond the emperor's power, for no one would earn the price put upon his head by betraying him to his enemies. George of Cappadocia was brought into Alexandria by force of arms as his successor. The unity of the church seemed to be restored. The emperor seemed to be supreme over it. The party opposed to Athanasius seemed to be completely victorious. But in fact, the political victory of the eastern bishops brought about their ruin. No sooner was the pressure of adversity removed than the anti-Nicene party flew asunder. They had only been united by their hostility to Athanasius and the Homo Ocean. The real Arianism, the Arianism which had been condemned at Nicaea, started once more into full view. Aetius and Unamius, keen and ruthless dialecticians, carried it to its logical issue and declined all compromise with orthodoxy. These Anomians declared that the son was different in essence from the father, unlike Anomoios in essence and in all respects. However superior the son might be to the other parts of creation he was still created. The great majority of the Oriental theologians did not share these views. They maintained that the son was like Homoios, the father in essence and in all respects, and that his eternal generation was by no means an act of creation. But they declined, alarmed perhaps by the theories of Marcellus, to admit that the father and the son are of one and the same essence. The leaders of this Homoiusian party were George of Laodicea, Eustephias of Sebastus, Eusebius of Amisa, and Basil of Ancyra, and their views made some impression even upon eager advocates of the Nicene doctrines, like Hilary of Poctea, who were in exile among them. The emperor was still eager for unity at any price, and the court party among the bishops, especially the client or Psycheus of Singedunum and Valens of Merce, with Acacius of Caesarea and Eudoxius of Antioch, were anxious to devise a formula which should unite Homoians and Anomoians. By a third Serbian council, at which the emperor was present, the words Homousias and Homoiusias were absolutely forbidden, as not contained in scripture, and is attempting to define matters above the reach of man's understanding. The subordination of the son was again affirmed. This formula was mainly the work of western bishops, hitherto the great champions of orthodoxy, but it was highly displeasing in the east. Constantius seems in some way to have been won over to the views of the more moderate party, and a fourth Serbian council put forth as their faith, that which had been set forth at the dedication council of Antioch in the year 341, together with the condemnation of Paul of Salusata and Phlekinus, which had been agreed upon at Sermium 10 years later. In the year 358, the exiled Liberius bought his return to Rome by subscribing, to use his own words, the true Catholic faith received at Sermium by many brethren and fellow bishops, and by repudiating Athanasius. What was the formula which he subscribed, whether the first or the second of Sermium, has been matter of fame and dispute? It is however hardly possible to suppose that the indignation which Hilary expresses against the weakness of the Roman bishop can have been called forth by his having accepted a formula which he himself thought compatible with orthodoxy. He must therefore have subscribed the second. Josiah was also allowed to return home on accepting this formula, which he did under Durant's, but without repudiating Athanasius. The emperor however was still dissatisfied. He designed that a great synod under his own influence should devise a formula in which the various parties might agree. What actually came to pass however was not one synod, but two. In May 359, 400 western bishops assembled at Remini, who were required by the emperor to debate only matters of doctrine and forbidden to separate until they should have arrived at a conclusion. Ursacias and Valens however, who acted as the emperor's ministers in ecclesiastical affairs were at first altogether unable to carry out his wish that the formula lately settled at Sermium should be accepted. The great majority of the assembly held firmly to the faith of Nicaea condemned Arianism and opposed its friends, including Ursacias and Valens, from their seas. But the delegates who carried the decrees of the synod to the emperor without being admitted to an audience were carried by Ursacias and his friends to Nice in Thrace, or a small council was held, which was compelled or persuaded to accept the formula. Known as that of Nice, in all its main points identical with that to which the western bishops had assented at Sermium two years before. This declared the son like the father who begat him according to the scriptures, whose beginning no man knows but the father who begat him. Bearing this confession and still carrying with him the delegates, Ursacias and Valens, returned to Remini, whereby mingled threats and persuasions they caused the weary and terrified bishops to accept it. Meantime, an Oriental Synod had assembled at Silucia. The Homo Iusians, with whom some of the Nicene party had made common cause, were in the majority, among them being the much respected Hilary of Poctierre, then in exile in the east. But the minority of decided Arians, under the leadership of Acacias and Eudoxias, was still considerable. Passion ran high in the council and the majority ended by passing sentence of deposition on their chief opponents. But the emperor had still to be reckoned with, and he determined, while showing his repugnance to the extreme Arians by banishing Aetius to force the formula of Nice upon the east as well as the west. He gained his end, and in a council at Constantinople in the following year this confession was again put forth, with the addition that the word Ussia, which was not commonly intelligible and which had given great offense, should no longer be used, and that the word Houpostasis should not be applied to the persons of the Holy Trinity. The emperor seemed from the moment to have brought to pass the unity for which he was so anxious, but a scarcely disguised Arianism was in fact established in the church, and even Unamius obtained a bishopric. In Gaul, where Julian, who was indifferent to Christian dogma, had already been proclaimed Augustus, the Orthodox bishops made their voices heard. In November, 361, Constantius died on his march against his cousin. The emperor Julian was an implacable enemy of Christianity, yet his short reign was in fact a blessing in disguise. For nearly two years the church, however injured in its property and its privileges, was entirely free from imperial interference in matters of doctrine. The gain in this far outweighed the loss for during this period the leaders in the church, no longer harassed by imperial politics, came to understand each other better, and even to discern points of agreement, were all had once seemed hostile. For some time past the Homo Housians seemed to have been coming to the conviction that, in spite of their impugnance to the Homo Housian, their views were in fact much nearer to those of the Nicene party, than to those of such Arians as Aetius and Unamius. Athanasius, again returned from banishment, earnestly sought to unite all the parties which were not absolutely Aryan. He did not indeed waver in his allegiance to the Nicene faith, but he induced a synod which met at Alexandria to pardon the fall of those who had been unawares seduced into Aryanism, and to facilitate their admission to communion with the Orthodox Church, and what was even more important, the opposing parties, when they were face to face, came to understand the ambiguity which lurks in such words as essence and substance. The Nicene party admitted that their opponents, when they spoke of three substances, by no means intended to deny the unity of the Godhead. Their opponents allowed that those who maintained the one essence did not intend to deny the trinity of persons. It would seem that the synod deprecated the use of the ambiguous terms altogether. The settlement of the dispute was however rendered difficult by two circumstances. In the first place, the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit, which had attracted little attention during the first 30 years of the Aryan divisions, now came into prominence. At Nicaea, the simplest expression of belief in the Holy Ghost had been held sufficient. The Lucianist confession of 341 added to this the words, which is given for the comforting and sanctifying and perfecting of them that believe. The Synod of Sermium of 351 indicates that diversity of opinion on this subject had already begun when it anathematizes those who spoke of the Holy Spirit as unbegotten. When the question was once mooted, Athanasius, as might have been expected, made a firm stand against error. It was clear to him that it was of vital importance to recognize the Holy Ghost as God. Either the Holy Ghost is God or he is a creature, and a creature he cannot be. He cannot be, as was held by some, merely one of the ministering spirits sent forth to do service for them that shall inherit salvation. As such views as these were in the air, Athanasius required the members of the Alexandrian Council not only to accept the creed of Nicaea, but to repudiate the doctrine that the Holy Spirit was a creature. This was however vehemently opposed by a party to whom Epiphanius gives the name Numitomachai, but who were more commonly known as Macedonians from their following the leadership of Macedonians. This Macedonians had more than once appeared as the Aryan candidate for the Episcopal throne of Constantinople, and was in fact chosen by his party and placed in possession of his church by the authority of Constantius amid scenes of violence and blood. It was by the favor of Constantius that he was supported, and when this was withdrawn he fell. In his retirement he is said to have put forth the view with which his name is connected that the Spirit is not very God and is therefore a creature and minister of God. Many of those who shrank from the Aryan deprecation of the Son of God were not yet disposed to admit that the Holy Spirit also is of one essence with the Father. From this arose divided councils. In the end those who held the lower view of the Holy Spirit came to be so completely identified with the Semi-Aryans that this term was used as a synonym with the Numitomachai. The union of all the enemies of Aryanism was also much hindered by the state of affairs in the important metropolis Antioch. Its bishop used to fias an active and much respected member of the Nicene Party had been deposed in the year 330. He had been followed by men of the Middle Party which prevailed in the East until in 347 a decided Aryan, Eudoxius, in an irregular manner became Bishop. On his translation to Constantinople, Melitius, previously Bishop of Sabast in Armenia was chosen by the dominant party to succeed him. He though at the time of his election thought to incline to Aryanism taught as Bishop a doctrine too nearly allied to the Nicene faith to be pleasing to the Aryans. He was consequently dispossessed by the Emperor and the Aryan Euzoius set up in his place. But a considerable portion of the Antiochian Church continued to regard Melitius as their lawful Bishop. There were thus in Antioch at the time of the Alexandrian Council three separate Communions the Eustafians whose leader and guide was then a presbyter called Paulinus the Melitians and the Euzoians. The policy of Athanasius and other leaders of the council was to permit so far as possible those in actual possession of ecclesiastical offices to retain them provided that they received the faith of Nicaea. With regard to Antioch the council naturally felt itself bound to support the Eustathians who in troublesome times had adhered to the Orthodox belief. As however the Eustathians differed in fact but little from the Melitians and had no Bishop of their own in Antioch there was good ground for hope that they would accept Melitius on his return as their Bishop and that in this way the Eustathians and Melitians would unite. But the hot-headed Lucifer of Cagliari with more zeal than discretion hurried to Antioch where he arrived before the delegates from the council and consecrated Paulinus as Bishop of that city. There was thus introduced a discord which extended far beyond the walls of Antioch since the Orientals generally did not recognize Paulinus but Melitius as lawful Bishop of Antioch while Athanasius and the Western bishops could not repudiate Paulinus as being the representative of the most steadfast confessors of the Nicene faith. Lucifer an eager and honest fanatic was altogether opposed to the gentler methods which were in favor at Alexandria from which it would occasionally result that men who had suffered and been banished for their steadfast adherents to the Orthodox faith might on their return home find their places occupied by those whose greater pliancy had permitted them to adopt the views of the dominant power for the time being. He contended that no one who had committed himself by adhesion to an erroneous creed under the iron rule of Constantius should be admitted to the communion of the Church without loss of the office which he held and that all who had been banished for conscience's sake should re-enter on all their old privileges. As Lucifer's principle would have deposed, for instance, all the bishops who had subscribed to the conclusions of remaining it could of course not be accepted. And he, as many other good men have done who cannot admit compromise gradually drifted away from the Catholic Church in which he thought that a base worldliness prevailed over right injustice. The party of the Luciferians was however neither numerous nor of long continuance. In the following year an important synod was held at Antioch at which the Nicene Faith was accepted and a document sent to the emperor Julian's successor Jovian in which it was explained that essence in the Nicene Faith was not used in the philosophic sense but was intended to repudiate the error of those who maintained that the Son was created out of nothing. The hostility of Valens Jovian's successor who was a decided Aryan tended to consolidate the union of parties and the time was now at hand when men of philosophic training belonging to a generation which had not known the acrimony of the early struggles made their influence felt. The most important of these were the great Cappadocians Basil and the two Gregorys of Nyssa and of Naziansus. On the death of Jovian Valentian was chosen emperor by the troops and at once adopted as colleague his brother Valens to whom he gave the charge of the east. Valentian favored the Nicene views which were dominant in the west. Here there was little Aryanism though a few Aryan bishops appointed by Constantius as auxentius at Milan still held their seas. A Roman senate under Damasus declared its adhesion to the Nicene Faith deposed auxentius and excommunicated him and his followers and an Illyrian council a few years later applied the word Homo Ussias to each of the persons of the Holy Trinity. The successor of auxentius at Milan was the great Ambrus who was not only himself a bulwark of orthodoxy but was able to control in ecclesiastical matters the young emperor Gratian. In the east however Valens who had been baptized by the Aryan bishop Eudoxius of Constantinople and was still under his influence wished to walk in the steppes of Constantius. Athanasius was too powerful a person in Alexandria to be removed from his seat but on his death his orthodox successor Peter was thrust out by main force and an Aryan named Lucius enthroned in his place. The Egyptian monks who had been devoted to Athanasius suffered persecution but further east where Valens generally resided with the view of watching the Persian frontier suffered most from his ill tempered violence. The most horrible act attributed to him was the death of a large number of delegates of the orthodox party who had come to lay before him the wrong and injustice which they had to endure. They were put on board a ship which took fire when out of sea set on fire it was believed in accordance with instructions from high quarters and all the delegates' pairs the crew alone making their escape. Throughout this disastrous period however the reconciliation of the Homo Iocion with the Nicene party continued to make progress. The former did indeed in a council held at Lapsicus maintain the views expressed in the dedication council at Antioch more than 20 years before but as they condemned the Eudoxians they had to suffer at the hands of the emperor the same persecution as the Nicene party. In their distress they turned to the western emperor and the Roman bishop sending three bishops as deputation to Valentian and Liberius with instructions to accept the Homo Iocion and to seek communion with Rome. Valentian being in Gaul Liberius alone received them on their arrival in Rome to him the deputies explained that when they spoke of the son as like the father and all things they meant precisely what was intended to be expressed by Homo Iocion and they handed him a document as the confession of their faith in which after anathematizing areas and several other heretics they declared their heartiest scent to the Nicene creed. Liberius now admitted them to communion and dismissed them with letters to the bishops who had sent them. Difficulties however were not at an end for one of the delegates Eustathias of Sabast fell back into Arianism and drew others after him but it was now evident that the real convictions of the great majority of church teachers inclined to the doctrines of which Athanasius had been the great exponent and defender. The negotiations with Rome for the restoration of peace to the church though supported by Basil and so long as he lived by Athanasius proceeded for some time but slowly in consequence of the distrust which the western leaders felt towards the theologians of the east. On the death of Valens however in the year 378 a great change came over the political circumstances of the empire. Gratian the surviving emperor who had always been favorable to Athanasian teaching permitted the bishops who had been banished by Valens to return to their seas. In the autumn of the same year an important council of 146 eastern bishops was held in Antioch at which the letter of Damascus and the Roman senate of the year 369 in favor of the Nicene faith was approved and accepted. In the following year Gratian chose as his colleague in the empire the noble Spaniard Theodosius who immediately after his baptism issued an edict in favor of the orthodox faith in the holy trinity and strongly condemnatory of heresy. In the year 381 met the council of Constantinople which the only attended by 150 bishops and those entirely from the eastern empire came to be regarded from its epoch making character as ecumenical. This famous assembly confirmed the creed agreed upon at Nicaea and anathematized those who rejected or impugned it. It has frequently been stated that at this council the creed of Nicaea was brought by certain alterations omissions and additions into the form in which it is now recited in our churches. This is however an error. The creed which we know as Nicene is found in a tract of Epiphanias which can scarcely be dated later than the year 374 and does not appear there as anything new. It is in fact the creed of Jerusalem with certain Nicene additions. No early historian mentions any creed having been put forth by this council as its own but all mention its adhesion to the Nicene. While the fathers of Constantinople themselves assert most emphatically that whatever persecutions or afflictions they had endured they had borne for the sake of the evangelical faith ratified at Nicaea in Bethenia by the 318 fathers. No words could more plainly express the fact that they supposed themselves to have ratified the very creed adopted at Nicaea and not any subsequent modification of it. If they put forth the Constantinopolitan creed they can only have done so in the belief that it was the Nicene. And it is hardly credible that 150 bishops from all parts of the East in an age when dogmatic formulas were keenly scrutinized could have been so mistaken. What is certain is that the creed in question was produced at the council of Calcedon in 451 and was ultimately received by the whole church. But Theodosius was still anxious about the unity of the church which had even now been but imperfectly attained. In the year 383 he caused a conference to be held at Constantinople to which representatives of the various parties were summoned and presented written statements of their faith. Even Eunomius gave in his creed the emperor after reading the various professions accepted that which declared the several persons of the Holy Trinity Homo Hussian. Those who refused it he declared heretical for bait to teach, to ordain bishops, or even to meet together for worship. In the West the Empress Justina who ruled in the name of her young son Valentinian II was a passionate supporter of the Arians. Under her influence complete freedom of worship was granted to those who accepted the formula of Romani and all who opposed the carrying out of this measure were threatened with severe punishment. From all parts of the empire the disconfident Arians sought refuge at Milan where she held her court. She would feign have given them possession of a church but here she found herself powerless against the great Ambrose whose influence in the city was greater than hers. Justina however died in the year 388 and her son could scarcely refuse to Theodosius who had given him the victory over the usurper Maximus the support which he desired for the Orthodox party. From this time Arianism declined throughout the empire and gradually died away. From the end of the fourth century it is only found as a living force among the nations which pressed in from the frontiers. The Arian controversy beginning with the great question of the nature of the divine sun his eternal sonship had in its course involved the question of the personality and co-equality of the Holy Spirit and led to a more exact definition of the Trinity in unity. It came to be recognized that while the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God yet they are not three Gods but one God. In Greek theology mainly under the influence of Basil the Great at his school the expression of the Great Mystery which obtained general currency was one essence in three substances or personalities. The special characteristic of the Father is that he is unbegotten of the Son that he is begotten of the Holy Ghost that he proceeds from the Father or to use the form now for many centuries current in the West from the Father and the Son. That were however some who taking the word substance to be equivalent to essence preferred to express the distinction of being by the word person rather than substance. In the West the language of theology on this point was elaborated mainly by Saint Augustine. He holding that in Latin there was no distinction between Ascencia and Substancia expressed the threefold distinction in the one Substancia by the words Tres Personae. The so-called Athanasian Creed probably does not fall within the period treated in this book. It is however little more than a full and methodical expression of the views of Saint Augustine. With regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit the orientals anxious to avoid any appearance of recognizing more than one source or origin of being always clung to the expression of the constant Apolleton Creed which represents the Spirit as proceeding from the Father. In the West the great influence of Hilary of Poitiers Ambrose and Augustine gave way to the preposition that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and this received the authority of the First Council at Toledo. In the year 589 the Third Council at the same place set forth the constant and Apolleton Creed itself with the clause relating to the Holy Spirit in the form Ex Patre et Filio Procadentum and in this form it has for many centuries been recited in the Western Church. F. Sawyers History of the Christian Church during the first six centuries by S. Cheatham Chapter 11 Part 3 The Incarnate Son The Aryan controversy was critical and indeed vital for the Church in as much as it concerned the very essence of Christianity. The whole scheme of redemption failed if the Son was not indeed from all eternity very God from very God. But it was equally true to look at the matter from the other side that Christ could not be the true representative of humanity unless he were perfect man of the substance of his mother born in the world of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting so that God and man is one in Christ. The controversies then on the nature of the Incarnation which followed that on the consubstantiality of the Eternal Son were scarcely less important. So the opinions of Apollonaris who denied to the Incarnate Son a reasonable soul of Nestorius who regarded the body of the Lord simply as an instrument moved by the indwelling deity of the Monophysites who either considered the human nature to be absorbed by the divine or the two natures to be so mingled and confused as to form but one. All these had to be met and overcome in order to preserve the faith of the Church. 1. Apollonaris of Laodicea a keen opponent of Arianism was led in the course of his dialectic to consider the union of God and man in one person. A complete man he held to consist of three parts a material body an irrational soul or vital principle animating the body and a spirit intellect or rational soul which includes not only intelligence but will. Now the third and highest of these could not he believed coexist in the same individual with the divinity. He taught therefore that in the incarnation instead of the spirit intellect or rational soul the divine Lagos or word entered into a man. In short the incarnation was simply the entering of the word into the living body of a man which without it would have been simply animal. What in an ordinary man is the human reason and will was in the Savior the divine Lagos. This doctrine soon attracted great attention. It opened a new line of thought and suggested new difficulties to those who wished to define exactly to themselves the great mystery of the union of the human and the divine in one person. Apollonarus' literary talent soon brought him many adherents. There can be little doubt that it was with reference to him though his name is not mentioned that the Alexandrian Council of the year 362 insisted that the body of the Savior was not an irrational one. The importance attached to the doctrine of Apollonarus is evident from the numerous refutations bestowed upon it by some of the greatest teachers of the time which form now are principal authorities for the history of the Apollonarian heresy. Athanasius, Gregory of Naziansus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Theodore of Mobsuacia wrote against it. These theologians pointed out how perilous were the opinions of Apollonarus to the Christian faith and controverted the expositions of Scripture by which he sought to defend them. Athanasius in particular insists upon the folly and impiety of attempting to define so ineffable a mystery as the union of God and man in one person. Even in an ordinary man the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not a thing explicable in the forms of human understanding. Theodore as able in dogma as in exegesis asserted vigorously the presence in Christ of a true rational soul. Without a soul capable of human suffering, how could he feel the agony in Gethsemane? Unless he had a human mind how could he grow in wisdom? Growth of mind and mental agony imply the presence of human qualities not merely of an animal body. There must therefore have been two complete natures the divine and human in the Lord. In the West also opposition spring up to the new conception of the indwelling of the deity in Christ. Hilary of Poctier opposed Apollonarus in the spirit of Athanasius. Augustine also contended for the presence of a true human soul not merely a vital principle in the Lord. There were two natures in his one person. But while Apollonarus' sharp definitions were generally rejected there were probably many Orthodox believers who unconsciously read Apollonarian treatises under the venerable names of Justin Martyr, Gregory Thalmaturgus, Julius of Rome and even Athanasius himself. Some of the adherents of the new sect were apparently not very scrupulous as to the means whereby they gave currency to their opinions. In the year 375 Apollonarus left the church and became the leader of a sect which was one of those anathematized by the first council of Constantinople. He died 15 years later but his followers maintained themselves under various appellations such as Demorites from their recognizing in Christ only two of the three component parts of human nature in spite of persecution by the state until they were either reconciled to the Catholic church or absorbed into the monophysites. 2. The movement begun by Apollonarus soon caused further agitation. When speculation once seized on the great mystery of the union of God and man in one person it was difficult for the fallible human intellect to avoid error even when sincerely aiming at truth. The theologians of the Antiochian school took occasion from the controversy with Apollonarus to insist more emphatically on the reality and perfection both of the divine and the human nature in Christ. The most distinguished teachers among them Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuatia insisted on the perfect manhood of Christ in their writings which were held in the highest esteem in the Eastern churches. Thus Theodore taught that our Lord God the Word took upon him perfect man of the seed of Abraham and of David of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Which man like us in nature fashioned by the power of the Holy Spirit in the virgin's womb born of a woman born under the law he in an inethical manner connected with himself. After the ascension he receives the adoration of all creation in as much as the connection which he has with the divine nature is an indissoluble one. These words connected with himself connection which were thought insufficient to express the union of the two natures were destined to bear a prominent part in controversy. The Alexandrians on the other hand inclined to exalt the Godhead in our Lord even at the risk of diminishing the perfection of his manhood. They were accustomed in fact to speak of Christ as in all respects God even during his humiliation his emptying of himself on earth. Hence it is not very surprising that a Gallican monk in Africa Leporeus who had taught not that very God was born man but that perfect man was born together with God was admonished to confess that the eternal Son of God born before the ages from the Father in these last days was of the Holy Spirit and Mary ever virgin made man born God. This was in fact to say that the blessed virgin was the mother of God and that epithet seems for about this time to have been commonly applied to her by those who favored the Alexandrian theology as a protest against those who spoke of the divinity of Christ as merely connected with his humanity. Nestorius who had been long a monk and afterwards a presbyter in Antioch was in the year 428 raised to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople. He was if not an actual pupil of Theodore of Mobsuatia at any rate thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the Antiochian school. He was a pious and zealous man but in the government of his diocese he showed as might perhaps have been expected from his previous training great stiffness and want of tact in dealing with men together with too great readiness to persecute components. Give me he exclaimed to the emperor in his inaugural discourse a land purged of heretics and I will give you heaven in return. Help me to vanquish the heretics and I will help you to vanquish the Persians. With these views it is not surprising that he set himself to put down all heresies without discrimination to doubt the constabstantiality of the sun and to celebrate Easter on the wrong day were in his eyes equally criminal. It was not long before he broached that opinion on the incarnation which caused his fall. Anastasius a presbyter whom Nestorus had brought with him from Antioch declared from the pulpit let no man call Mary the mother of God for she is a human being and it is impossible for God to be born of a human being. It was not perhaps altogether unnatural while men were vehemently asserting the Son of God to have been begotten of the Father before all ages that Anastasius and others like-minded should have been startled to hear it affirmed at Christ as God was born of his human mother. But Anastasius's protest seems to have been misunderstood. It was taken as if the preacher had represented Jesus to have been a mere man. The excitement increased when a bishop Dorotheus who chanced to be in the capital at the time explained in a sermon cursed be the man who calls Mary the mother of God and Nestorius neither restrained nor censured him. The question within the title mother of God could properly be applied to the Virgin Mary was from this time vehemently discussed by both clergy and laity. At last Nestorius himself intervened. In his teaching he rejected the disputed expression as giving rise to false conceptions. But he carefully guarded himself against the supposition that he denied the divinity of the Lord and proposed to give to the Virgin the title mother of Christ. While he was preaching a sermon in which this view was expounded he was interrupted by a layman exclaiming the eternal word himself submitted to a second birth. Thereupon arose a violent disturbance as some of the audience took the part of Nestorius while others sighed with the layman who had interrupted him. Nestorius resumed his discourse praised the zeal of those who had taken his part and spoke contemptuously of the interrupter. In this excited state of public feeling the proclus of Caesacus on the invitation of Nestorius himself preached in Constantinople on a festival of the Virgin. In the presence of the Patriarch he delivered a florid panagiric of the Virgin as mother of the Incarnate Word and declared that those who refused her that title denied by implication the divinity of Christ. When he ceased Nestorius himself spoke and begged the assembly not to be dazzled by the brilliant oration which they had heard. He afterwards preached several sermons on the same subject in which he explained in what sense he could accept the expression mother of God. And even went so far as to say that Mary was to be honored because she had received God within her. According to Cyril Nestorius taught as follows As the woman produces the body of her child but God breathes into it a soul and hence the woman cannot be called the mother of the soul but only of the animal portion of the human being So Mary bore the human being who was interpenetrated by the word of God and is consequently not the mother of God. This was not satisfactory. The excitement grew stronger. A paper was displayed publicly in Constantinople in which Nestorius was compared to Paul of Samosata. A monk went so far as to attempt to hinder him from ascending the pulpit thinking him a heretic and unworthy to teach the Christian people. And the fire which smoldered in the city was soon stirred by an impulse from without. Cyril of Alexandria was the most prominent representative of the Alexandrian school. Even before Nestorius was raised to the sea of Constantinople Cyril had expressed in a treatise on the incarnation views not easily to be reconciled with his. When he controversial Nestorius there is no doubt that he did so from sincere conviction. Yet it would seem that in the heat of controversy he attributed to his opponent a pinnage which he did not hold. He perhaps disliked him for his efforts to restore the fair fame of Chrysostom. And the conflict was embittered by the rivalry between the ancient sea of Alexandria and the new throne of Constantinople. When he heard of the proceedings in the capital he proceeded at first gently and cautiously for Nestorius was in favor at the imperial court. Without naming him he defended the use of the title Mother of God in one of his usual Easter pastorals and also in an admonitory letter to the monks of Egypt among whom were found adherents of the Nestorian opinion. By this second letter which was widely circulated Nestorius felt himself aggrieved. Cyril sought to justify what he had said in a letter to Nestorius and the latter replied after this Cyril used his utmost efforts to strengthen his party in Constantinople and to weaken the influence of Nestorius at court. Moreover he brought the western church into the conflict by a letter to Pope Solistanus in which he charged Nestorius with denying the divinity of Christ and asserting that it was but a man who died for us. In vain Nestorius explained that he was ready to style the virgin the mother of God if that title was understood to refer to the union of God and man in one Christ. He was declared a heretic by a Roman senate. Solistanus charged Cyril to execute the decree of this senate and if Nestorius refused to recant to remove him from his sea an unheard of claim on the part of the bishop and a provincial senate of Rome. The support of Rome did however no doubt give confidence to Cyril who went on his way undauntedly. He wrote to Nestorius a letter in the name of an Alexandrian senate calling upon him to recant his errors and subjoining a schedule of 12 propositions which were condemned. The most important point in these was that the natural union of the two natures in Christ was insisted upon and the notion of a mere binding together in one person condemned. Nestorius responded by a list of 12 condemned propositions of an opposite character. These were received with favor in the churches of Syria and Asia Minor where Cyril's opinions were distrusted as involving a mingling or coalescing of the two natures in Christ. Theodorette the church historian at the suggestion of John Bishop of Antioch wrote a special treatise to refute them. To remedy the confusion and division which arose Theodosius II called a general council at Ephesus to which both Cyril and Nestorius were summoned. Cyril with his adherents arrived first at the place appointed and in spite of the solemn warning of Isidore of Policium refusing to wake the arrival of the Asiatic bishops who had been detained on the way and were still a few days journey from the city opened the proceedings. Nestorius himself a member of the senate was summoned as to a tribunal which was to judge him and on his refusal to appear was condemned in a sentence of deposition pronounced against him. A few days after this the Asiatic bishops arrived and found to their surprise that their great question was already decided. They met under the presidency of John of Antioch and passed sentence of deposition on Cyril and his principal ally Memnon Bishop of Ephesus. Theodosius offended by the arrogant behavior of Cyril at first confirmed all three sentences. In the end however Cyril and Memnon were allowed to remain in possession of their seas while Nestorius was compelled to withdraw to the monastery in the neighborhood of Antioch whence he had come. The emperor however thinking there was no essential difference between the parties was anxious for reconciliation for which John of Antioch and Theodorette also exerted themselves. Cyril did not formally withdraw his list of condemned propositions but he agreed to accept a confession of faith probably drawn up by Theodorette at the request of John. In this the Lord is confessed as of a reasonable soul and a body subsisting. Begotten of the Father before the ages as touching his Godhead and incarnate in these last days for us and for our salvation of Mary the Virgin as touching his manhood. For there came to pass a union of two natures. According to this conception of union without confusion we confess the Holy Virgin to be Mother of God. Because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his conception united with himself the shrine i.e. the human body received from her. This formula was by no means generally acceptable to Cyril's partisans. Cyril himself and the emperor seemed to have been as anxious for peace as John and Theodorette but a considerable number of the Eastern bishops who favored Nestorius remained in opposition. Nestorius himself was about four years after his return to Antioch driven from his monastery and sentenced to pass the rest of his days at Petra. It is probable, however, that this sentence was not carried out as we find that he actually went to an Oasis in Upper Egypt. There he was carried off by a wandering tribe and, after being set at liberty, was dragged hither and thither by imperial officials until he died an unknown death. We have seen that the difference between Nestorius and his opponents was not so fundamental but that men like Cyril on one side and John of Antioch on the other could discover terms of accommodation. But important matters did in fact underlie the controversy. It was not only the true humanity of the Son which was in question but also the estimation in which the virgin was to be held. When Nestorius asked if God has a mother why should we blame the heathen who speak of mothers of Gods? He was an unskillful controversialist and gave needless offense. Still it was from this time that the process began which in the end transferred to the virgin Mary the old pagan title of Queen of Heaven. And in the Christological controversy there is a real and important difference between the thoroughgoing members of each party. The Nestorian extreme is the recognition of two natures in Christ so distinct as to be incapable of forming a unity. The Cyrillic extreme is the conception of God clothed in flesh abiding among men God taking man's physical frame upon him rather than man's nature. For a human reason and will are essential to the completeness of man's nature. Nestorius by no means intended to make two persons in Christ. Cyrill by no means intended to deny that he was very man but in this case as in many others consequences were drawn from propositions which their authors would certainly have disowned. Nestorianism did not come to an end on the condemnation of its founder. Though Cyrill and his party gained more and more the upper hand and won over both the emperor and John of Antioch. Nestorius was succeeded in the Sea of Constantinople by Proclus so that within a short time after the Council of Ephesus the three great patriarchal seas of Alexandria Constantinople and Rome were in the hands of opponents of Nestorianism. Great efforts were made to crush it but some of the eastern bishops refused to be put down. Rabulus, Bishop of Edessa though himself a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuacia joined Cyrill in condemning the writings of Diodorus and Theodore and expelled from the school of Edessa those teachers who were suspected of Nestorian leanings but John of Antioch was opposed to blackening the memory of these distinguished Antiochians and the emperor forbade the postmortem condemnation of men who had departed in communion with the church. On the death of Rabulus in 435 Ibas one of the teachers expelled from Edessa and an avowed disciple of Theodore became his successor. Some other of the banished teachers betook themselves to Persia where especially in Nisibis the opinions of Theodore were held in high respect. These Persian historians maintained an active intercourse with Edessa so long as Ibas ruled there. At a later date under the Emperor Zeno the school of Edessa the last stronghold of the historians within the empire was destroyed. Its teachers for the most part took refuge under the more tolerant sway of Persia and founded there a church which was not in communion with the church of the empire. This body produced several men of learning and is not extinct even at this day. End of Chapter 11, Part 3 Recording by Sean F. Sawyers of Fallon, Missouri Chapter 11, Part 4 of History of the Christian Church during the first six centuries This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Recording by Sean F. Sawyers History of the Christian Church during the first six centuries by S. Cheetah Chapter 11, Part 4 3 The compromise entered into between Cyril and John of Antioch did not permanently settle the serious question which was mooted in the Nestorian dispute. It broke out afresh when Diascorus, a hot-headed and violent man, succeeded Cyril as patriarch of Alexandria and at once began to attack those whom he suspected of Nestorianism. Actual division, however, did not arise until Utikis, the aged Archimandrite of a monastery in Constantinople and an old adherent of Cyrils proclaimed his views. Into the person of Christ, he said, there enter no doubt two distinct natures, but after their union only one is to be recognized. The humanity in him is so completely absorbed by the divinity that even the body of Christ is not to be regarded as of the same species with arms. This was startling even to those who might be considered members of the same party. Eusebius, Bishop of Dorileum, once an eager partisan of Cyril and a vigorous opponent of Nestorius, laid the case before Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople and his domestic council. Flavian, a moderate follower of the Antiochian school, took action reluctantly foreseeing the troubles which might follow and Utikis at first refused to appear. After three summonses, however, he presented himself and declared that as to one of the charges, that of having said that Christ brought his body with him from heaven, he was guiltless. As to the rest, he said that he had never allowed himself to inquire curiously into the nature of the Lord's body and had not been accustomed to say that it was of the same essence as ours. But if it was his duty to say that he took flesh of the Virgin and was of the same essence with us, he would say it. But he persisted that though the Lord was produced from two natures before the union, after the union, there was but one. In the end, Utikis was deprived of his orders, excommunicated, and deposed from his office of Archimandrite. He had, however, powerful supporters. He was favored by the Imperial Court and also by Diascorus, who readily seized this opportunity to join in the fray. By favor of the Empress, Utikis obtained a re-hearing of his case before ascended at Constantinople in the following year. Which, however, did not reverse the previous sentence. Diascorus then, in spite of the opposition of Flavian and Pope Leo, induced the Emperor to summon to Ephesus an ecumenical council, at which, to use the expression of the Emperor's letter to the Synod, all that devilish root might be extirpated and the Nestorians cast out of the churches. Diascorus himself presided in the council, which soon became a scene of the utmost violence and confusion. Utikis was restored to his rank and office, while his accuser, Eusebius of Doraleo, was not even granted a hearing, but was deposed, together with Flavian, by the intimidated bishops. When some of them gave signs of protesting, Diascorus called in a band of soldiers and monks, who with loud shouts and threats put down all opposition. Cut in two those who talk of two natures was the cry. Flavian was so roughly handled that he died on his way to the place of banishment, to which he had been sentenced. Hilary, the legate of the Roman bishop, saved himself by flight, as did also Eusebius of Doraleum. In subsequent settings, the most distinguished members of the Antiochian party, Ibus of Edessa, Irenaeus of Tyre, Dominus and Theodoret, had sentence of deposition passed upon them, while the Emperor forbade the circulation of Theodoret's writings and condemned them to be burnt. This band of brigands, as Leo of Rome called it, marks the culmination of the power of the Alexandrian Patriarch and his party. But the reaction soon set in. On the death of Theodotius II, the imperial government came into the hands of his sister Polcharia and her husband Markian, a man of real ability. The Bishop of Rome had already in a letter to Flavian, endeavored to set forth the right doctrine which was endangered by the errors of Nestorius and Utikis. But at the Ephesene meeting, his legates had not been heard. All those who had been injured by the band of brigands now turned for help to Leo, who was very willing to decide the matter in a western council under his own influence. The course however preferred by the rulers of the state was to summon an ecumenical council in some spot not too far removed from Constantinople to be under the influence of the court. Such a council, accordingly, met at Calcedon in the year 451, annulled the decisions of the band of brigands and deposed Diascorus on account of his violent injustice. It recognized Cyril as Orthodox. But when it was proposed to vindicate the Orthodoxy of Theodoret also, there arose a vehement opposition and the resolution respecting him was not passed until he had agreed to condemn Nestorius. On the basis of the compromise of 433 and Leo's letter to Flavian, a formula was drawn up to the following effect. Our one Lord Jesus Christ is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man of a reasonable soul and a body, of one essence with the Father as touching his Godhead, of one essence with us as touching his manhood. In all respects like to us, sin only accepted, begotten of the Father before the ages as touching his Godhead. But in these last days for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin, the Mother of God, as touching his manhood, one and the same recognized as Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten in two natures without confusion, without change, without distinction, without separation. And the difference of natures is in no way abolished by the union. Rather, the properties of each nature are preserved and run together in one person in one substance. The one Son only begotten, Godward, Lord Jesus Christ is not parted or divided into two persons. The intention of this was to reject both Utikki's practical denial of two natures in the incarnate Son and the division of the Godhead and the manhood, which was attributed to Nestorius. But, with all the care with which it was drawn, it still seemed to favor Nestorius rather than Utikki's, and was to those who followed the teaching of Cyril, a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence. It was from the Council of Chalcedon that they were sprang the great monophysite controversy which raised from the middle of the fifth century to the end of the sixth, and shook to their foundations, both the Church and the Empire. 4. The first signs of the coming trouble appeared in Palestine, a monk named Theodosius on his return from Chalcedon, caused by his fanatical preaching against the Council and alarming disturbance. With the help of liberated convicts, Jerusalem was sacked and burned, its bishop juvenile compelled to take flight, and Theodosius ruled for more than a year in his stead. In vain the Emperor Marcian strove to overcome the prejudices of the monks. They held on their way, supported by the widow of the Emperor Theodosius II, Eudokia, once Athanas, who was then living in Palestine. When the insurrection was at last put down, Theodosius took refuge among the monks on Sinai, where the Emperor was powerless to reach him. In Egypt, a powerful party refused to acknowledge the deposition of Diascorus by the Council, and the election of Protarius as his successor in the Sea of Alexandria led to a riot in which a party of soldiers was burned alive by the mob in the Serpentium to which they had retreated. Protarius was only safe under a military guard. After the death of the Emperor Marcian and the accession of Leo, the adherents of Diascorus took courage to elect as Patriarch Timothyus Allurus, who had followed Diascorus into banishment. In the disturbances which followed, Protarius was murdered by the partisans of Timothyus in a baptistry to which he had fled for refuge. After a majority of the bishops had expressed themselves in favor of the maintenance of the definition of Chalcedon, the Emperor Leo I restored so far as external power could, the authority of the Orthodox Church. Timothyus Allurus was banished and another Timothyus known as Salophacalis or Basilicus was chosen in his place. Even in Antioch, the very place where in general Alexandrian theology was most unfavorably received monophysitism now cropped up at the instigation of a monk known as Peter the Fuller who was supported by the Emperor's Son-in-law Xeno. Peter had sufficient influence to cause to be inserted in the Trisagion, the words, who was crucified for us in such a way as to make it appear that the Son of God in his deity suffered for us. After the death of Leo I and his grandson, the monophysite Xeno himself succeeded only to be overthrown by Basilicus. This usurper depended on the support of those who were opposed to the definition of Chalcedon which in a circular letter or encyclic he expressly rejected. The encyclic was accepted by many bishops and those who had been banished by Leo, Timothyus Aelurus and Peter the Fuller among them returned to their seas. Basilicus was however in his turn overthrown by Xeno and the adherents of the Chalcedonian formula came again into power. Peter Mongus who on the death of Timothyus Aelurus which had occurred in the meanwhile had succeeded him on the throne of Alexandria was compelled to vacate it and Salaf Akalis who was popular with all parties was restored. Peter the Fuller was compelled to leave Antioch Xeno who had as we have seen once favored the monophysites but who had probably no very strong conviction on the matter saw the importance of putting an end to the theological few. He put forth with the advice of Akakius Patriarch of Constantinople who had greatly aided him to recover power a confession of faith intended to promote union commonly called the Hinatican. It attempted to avoid at any rate the terms which had given most offense. After describing the Lord as co-essential with the Father and also with man in the terms adopted at Chalcedon and giving the epithet Theotokos to the Virgin. It proceeded to insist that it was one and the same person who wrought wonders and endured suffering thus virtually accepting the God crucified of the monophysites and it anathematized those who held other views whether in the Council of Chalcedon or in any other. This was submitted to the bishops for subscription. The Hinatican had not the effect which the Emperor had hoped from it but it had others which he had not contemplated. Peter Mungus accepted it and was therefore confirmed by imperial power in the patriarchal throne of Alexandria to which he had been elected as a monophysite. Peter the Fuller was made patriarch of Antioch. But the strict monophysites were just as little contented with it as the adherents of the Chalcedonian definition and the latter sought and found support in Rome. The then Pope Felix III finding that his threats remained unnoticed and that his legates were overawed and cajoled by Achaqueus at last condemned the Hinatican and excommunicated Achaqueus. Thus intercommunion ceased between the Latin Church and so much of the Greek Church as remained in communion with Achaqueus though the adherents of Chalcedon throughout the Empire maintained communion with Rome. The Hinatican in fact was very far from being a bond of union. In Constantinople the decrees of Chalcedon were highly esteemed and Alexandria they were rejected. In the East opinions were divided. The Hinatican might serve to promote formal unity but there could not fail to arise friction between the parties and sometimes open division. Anastasius when he ascended the Imperial throne set himself simply to maintain peace and good order in the Empire. He held that it was unworthy of an emperor to persecute the worshipers of Christ and the citizens of Rome and faithfully observed the promise which he had made to the patriarch on his accession to make no change in the Hinatican. Nevertheless the Monophysite Party tended to gain strength. Zenogius called by the Greeks Philoxonus who had been made Bishop of Heropolis in the days of Peter the Fuller contended strongly for the Monophysite view and was certainly not discouraged by the emperor. He was aided by Severus a monk who had gained considerable power at the Imperial court. When however under his influence an attempt was made to introduce and Constantinople also the Monophysite interpolation who was crucified for us into the Tresagion so fierce a revolt took place that Anastasius brave soldier as he was grew timid and ranged himself more decidedly with the adherence of the Calcedonian decrees. Moreover he entered into negotiations with Rome for the renewal of intercommunion but the discussion as to the terms of peace were prolonged and no definite conclusion had been reached at the end of his reign. When he died he shared the fate of all who in times of heated controversy have not been partisans. His memory was loaded with appropriate epithets as Arian and Manichean. When Justin succeeded the guidance of ecclesiastical affairs came practically into the hands of his nephew Justinian. There was at once a change. The patriarch John of Constantinople found himself compelled to anathematize the Monophysites and solemnly to accept the decrees of Calcedon. The orthodox throughout the east everywhere rose against their late oppressors and the emperor made overtures to Hormistus for the restoration of peace and intercommunion with Rome which actually came to pass in 519. Severus who had become patriarch of Antioch and other leading Monophysites were driven from their seas and fled to Egypt where their party was so strong that the imperial government did not think it prudent to interfere. Alexandria seemed to be infected with a morbid passion for theological distinctions. No sooner did the Monophysite leaders find themselves together in that city than they became divided among themselves. Severus maintained that the body of the Lord was not so changed by the indwelling of the divinity but that it remained liable to corruption whence his adherents received from their opponents the nickname of Vathar Toletrae worshippers of the corruptible while Julius bishop of Hala Carnassus asserted that the human nature of Christ was so absorbed in the divine that he was not subject to the accidents of humanity or to corruption. What he suffered he had suffered from no natural necessity but of his own free will for the redemption of man. Hence the followers of Julian were styled Athar Todokite as holding the opinion of the incorruptibility of Christ's body. Again, Themistius and Alexandrian Deacon propounded the question whether Christ during his life on earth was omniscient and at a later date as if there were not already divisions enough the great Aristotelian Johannes Philipponus asserted that if there are two natures in Christ there must needs be two substances for nature and substance are the same thing. He also represented the resurrection as a wholly new creation and was thought to have fallen into tritheism in his view of the Holy Trinity while Damian Patriarch of Alexandria on the other hand was held to have fallen into Sibelianism. At the same time the Alexandrian Sophist Stephen Niobis put forth the opinion condemned by other monophysites but after the incarnation there was in Christ no distinction of natures whatever. Justinian when he became emperor was probably much more anxious to restore unity to the church than to give the victory to any particular phase of doctrine while his wife Theodora a woman of great force of character and very influential in the government was believed to favor the monophysites. It was part of the emperor's great task of restoring the reign of law and order in the empire to put an end to the distracted condition of the church. He caused conferences to be held between Catholic and monophysite bishops without much result. The monophysite formula God was crucified for us which had already occasioned so much disturbance and which was rejected by many Catholics was declared by Justinian in a formal enactment to be Orthodox. He anathematized those who refused to confess that one of the persons of the holy and consubstantial trinity was crucified for us. This was accepted by the pope but did not conciliate the monophysites. They were still in Egypt the dominant party though under the emperor's influence a Catholic Paulus had become patriarch of Alexandria. For a short time they had a supporter in the sea of Constantinople and Thymus whose election had been furthered by Theodora. In the year 536 however the Roman bishop Agapetus who had come to Constantinople to plead for the Gothic king Theodohad then harpressed by Belliserius had sufficient influence to bring about the disgrace of Anthymus and Minas was raised to the vacant throne. The latter in the year of his election held a council at Constantinople at which Anthymus and other leading monophysites were excommunicated and Justinian forbade Anthymus and Severus to enter the capital. Meantime Agapetus had died at Constantinople and the deacon Vigilius who was in his company is said to have made a compact with Theodora that if he were chosen pope he would disregard the council of Calcedon and re-enter into communion with those who refused to accept its definition. In his absence Silverius had been chosen pope in Rome but Belliserius then all-powerful in Italy at Theodora's bidding easily procured the banishment of Silverius on a charge of treason and the election of the time-serving Vigilius who managed to hold his own against the rightful pope. But in the midst of the Orthodox West he found it impossible to keep the promise which he had made to the heterodox Theodora. His duplicity is indeed very evident. For while to the monophysite bishops he professed entire agreement with their principles to Justinian and to the Orthodox patriarch he declared his perfect orthodoxy. Meantime Theodora's Ascadas Bishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea had presented himself at the imperial court and gained the confidence of the emperor. This prelate persuaded Justinian that he might gratify the monophysites without actually rejecting the decrees of Calcedon if he were to condemn not only Theodore of Mobsuacia whom even the Orthodox held in suspicion but also the treatises in which Theodora had opposed Cyril and the letter of Ibas Tumeris although at Calcedon the two latter had been expressly declared Orthodox. In the year 544 he accordingly issued an edict in which all these writings were condemned commonly known as the edict of the three chapters or articles which was generally welcomed in the east but steadily resisted in the west. Justinian nothing daunted summoned Vigilius to Constantinople where he succeeded in persuading or compelling him to issue a formal decision to the same effect as the edict but in yielding to the emperor he gave the gravest offense to the clergy of his own prophets. A senate in Illyria sent to the emperor a set defense of the writings which he had impugned. In Africa the condemned writings were defended by one of the ablest men of the time Facundus of Hermione who wrote in a fearless and candid spirit without regard to temporary popularity. He saw clearly the evils which sprang from the constant hair splitting of the Greeks from the tendency of ignorant persons to pronounce arrogant judgments and from the interference of the civil government which after all cannot coerce men's thoughts. Guided by him the African bishops not only controverted the emperor's views but also formally excommunicated Vigilius. Under this pressure the unlucky pope summoned courage to refuse to accept a dogmatic statement embodying the condemnation of the three articles which the emperor put forth in the year 551. Justinian much perplexed summoned a council at Constantinople known as the Fifth Ecumenical which Vigilius refused to attend. He even defended the condemned writings in a formal ordinance. The council thereupon under the emperor's influence approved all the edicts on matters of dogma which he had put forth and directed the name of Vigilius to be removed from the list of those commemorated in the Eucharist. While these things were done at Constantinople Narcisse had restored the imperial authority in Italy and the pope saw with dismay that even in Rome he would not be out of the reach of the emperor's arm. It was perhaps this consideration which induced him to accept the decrees of the council which he did in 554. In the following year he left Constantinople to return to Rome but died on his journey at Syracuse. Pelagius who was chosen as his successor by those who favored the emperor's proceedings ignoring his own previous declarations at once accepted the decrees of the fifth council. Justinian was even still not wary of interfering in theological controversies and shortly before his death in his eagerness at all costs to bring the monophysites back to the church he declared the views of the apharotodochite to be orthodox. Uticius Patriarch of Constantinople was banished for refusing to accept this and Anastasius Sinaita Patriarch of Antioch only escaped a similar fate by the death of the emperor. His successor Justin II did not attempt to carry out his policy. Justinian's attempt to regulate the dogma of the church while it alienated the western church did not win the monophysites. On the contrary it was in his reign that they drew together and formed separate communities. Few of the Egyptians accepted the patriarch of Alexandria who had been appointed under the influence of Justinian. The great majority chose a patriarch of their own and so formed a schismatical church which was never reconciled and the Ethiopic church cast in its lot with the Alexandria. In Armenia also the monophysite party favored by the Persian rulers of the country gained the upper hand towards the end of the 5th century. Early in the 6th the Senate of Theoria declared itself in favor of monophysite views and about the year 600 the Armenian church ceased to be in communion with the Iberian which adhered to the decrees of Calcedon. In Syria and Mesopotamia the monophysites persecuted and forsaken seemed on the point of disappearing altogether when they were revived by the extraordinary energy of Jacob Baradai and in consequence came to be called Jacobites. In the West too there arose a long enduring schism in consequence of the acceptance by the Roman Pontiff of the decrees of Constantinople. The churches which acknowledged Aquila as their metropolis renounced communion with the Roman church as did also the western portion of northern Italy under the authority of Milan. Never perhaps was the dignity of the city of Rome in so great peril as in the days when the weakest of the popes was brought into collision with the strongest of the emperors. The papacy lost for the time the prestige of independence which was its proudest prerogative. The strong hand of Gregory the Great brought back Milan and the greater part of northern Italy to the Roman obedience but it was at the cost of ignoring the fifth Ecumenical Council. End.