Images de page
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Antioch, against Paul of Samosata, the Dedication or second Antiochene, and the first Sirmiau. It is not extant; but according to Sozomen, the prohibition of One Substance' was again repeated. It was probably this Creed which S. Hilary so bitterly upbraids Liberius, Bishop of Rome, for having signed. 14. In 359 they published the third Sirmian, which says, We believe... in the One Only-begotten Son of God, Who was before all conceivable time, and all comprehensible sub'stance-begotten impassibly from God. . . and was the Only 'from the Only Father,-God of God,-like the Father Who 'begot Him in all things, Whose Generation none knows but the Father only.' It concludes with forbidding the use of the word substance, ovoía, for the same reasons as those alleged by the second Sirmian for forbidding ὁμοούσιος and ὁμοιούσιος, and adds, We affirm that the Son is like the Father in all things, as the Holy Scriptures also say and teach.'

[ocr errors]

To this Creed the framers were so unhappy as to attach the names of the Consuls, to show to all thinking persons,' says S. Athanasius, that their faith has its commencement not from antiquity, but now from the time of Constantius.'

15. The next Creed is that of Seleucia, A.D. 359, the preamble of which anathematizes ὁμοούσιος, ὁμοιούσιος and ávóμotos, and confesses merely oμotos, from S. Paul, Coloss. i. 15: Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the First-born of every creature.' The Creed itself speaks of Christ as 'Begotten before all time, God the Word, God of God, Light, Life, &c. like the fourth Antiochene.

This, however, not pleasing them, they went from Seleucia to Nice in Thrace, and there drew up another Creed, which the deputies from the Council of Ariminum, who were present, signed, and took back to that Council, which also adopted it. It terms Christ The Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of "God before all ages, and before every apyn, by Whom all things 'were made,... begotten as Only-begotten, Only of the Only 'Father, God of God, like the Father Who begot Him-ac'cording to the Scriptures;' at the conclusion it forbids the use both of ovoia and vπóoтaois. It was this Council, of which S. Jerome says, in his treatise against the followers of Lucifer, Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est.' But this transformation was only in appearance, not in truth. There is in S. Hilary, Hist. Frag. xi., a letter from the Gallican Bishops, who had been deceived into signing the Creed, to the Easterns, in which they say, We have embraced the word oμoovotos, to express the true and proper birth of 'the Only-begotten God, of God the Father...born of a whole and perfect God, Who is incapable of birth, and He is there

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'fore confessed by us to be of one Essence or Substance with God the Father, lest He should rather appear as a creature or adoption or appellation.' And because He is from Him as a Son from the Father, or God from God. . . we not unwillingly admit His likeness to God the Father (for He is the Image of the Invisible God); but we understand that only similitude, worthy to be compared to the Father, which is [the 'similitude] of very God to very God, so that there is to be understood not numerical oneness of Divinity (unio); but the quality of oneness (unitas), because unio is singular (i. e. the 'number one); but unity is the fulness of Him who is born according to the truth of the Nativity, especially since our Lord Jesus Christ declared to His disciples, "I and my Father are One," by which He signifies not only the love which He had to the Father, but also the Godhead, which is God of God, according to the words, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father."'1

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

It is certain, that if these Bishops had been really Arians, they would not only have refused the ouoovotos in any sense, but would also have omitted that confession, by implication, of the Circumincessio, with which our extract concludes, allowing instead of an essential unity of Father and Son, only a moral union, which, as it is, they expressly and in terms repudiate. The Creed of Ariminum was confirmed by the Acacians, in a Council held at Constantinople in the following year, i. e. A.D. 360.

16. Lastly, to crown the whole, a Council of Arians was held at Antioch in the year 361, which came back to the original type of the heresy, and to the very point from which Arius had started in the beginning; teaching that the Son was, in all things, both in substance and in will, unlike the Father; and that He was created é ouк ovтwv.' But they had previously admitted the Son to be God; and when asked, says Socrates, how they reconciled these last assertions with that confession, they replied that He was God of God in the sense in which the Apostle says, (1 Cor. xi. 12,) All things are of God-one of which things the Son is.' Unable to endure the reproaches which this assertion brought on them, they returned to the Creed of Constantinople.

Thus there are three types of Semi-Arian doctrine in these formularies. This phase of Arianism, as opposed to the faith of Nice, taught, in a word, the Son's similarity to, instead of His perfect identity with, the Father in nature, and it is expressed, as has been said in the above Creeds, in a threefold manner: first, in the higher sense of the fourth Antiochene and Philippopolitan Creeds, that the Son is from no other hypostasis, or substantia, 1 Hist. Frag. vi. 2 Sozomen, iv. 29.

[ocr errors]

than the Father; a term which, although it may appear to express more, was probably meant by those who used it to be of equal force with their opolovσios: and this the Church has always rejected as being clearly inadequate to express the pure Godhead of its Subject, inasmuch as it may also be used of angels and the souls of men. Secondly, He is said to be 'like the Father according to the Scriptures;' a form of speech which either results in the same idea as that of opolovσios, in which case it becomes a mere repetition and superfluity; or tends to the lower one expressed by, thirdly, the vague generalism that He is merely like;' a term which is, to say the least, radically deficient, as it may also be used, in a sense, of everything that has life. Besides these, there is the pure Arianism, that He is 'unlike.' A little reflection will show that this last expression, far from being a perversion of the others, is in truth its explanation, its natural and necessary result. If the Son, as the Semi-Arians taught, is only like the Father quoad entem,which is the real and final meaning of their definitions,—He must, like all creatures, be unlike Him quoad Deum, and it is thus that Semi-Arianism is at last found to merge into true Arianism. Then such of the professors of the former as are shocked at this conclusion are compelled to fall back upon the only possible alternative, the true and Catholic doctrine of the One Substance.

Soon after the last-mentioned Council of Antioch, Constantius died; and as with him the era of Arian and Semi-Arian creeds had derived its commencement, so also with him it came to an end.

This event was followed by the accession of Julian. One of the earliest acts of the new emperor was to recal the banished bishops, and grant a universal toleration. This measure gave peace for a time to the Church; and its immediate result, as regards S. Athanasius, was the calling a Council at Alexandria, A.D. 362, to remedy in some measure the disorders of the times. The first thing ordered was the reception of all who were willing to return to the Church, on condition of their condemning the heresies of Arius, and of those Macedonians who asserted the Holy Ghost to be a Creature different in Essence from the Son, and confessing the Creed of Nicæa.

Writing subsequently to Rufinianus, in answer to his question as to what had been done in the Council about these unhappy persons, S. Athanasius says that it seemed good to grant pardon to the leaders if they repented, but not to allow them the rank of clergy; but that those who had not lapsed willingly, but had been forced into heresy, should be pardoned, and allowed to retain their orders, especially,' he continues,-and this is the only

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

passage in the life or writings of this great upholder of God's truth that must excite our disapprobation,-we might in an ordinary case be justified in using a stronger term, especially as they offered a credible excuse, and proved that this was done in a manner œconomically, for they declared that "they had not been drawn into impiety; but, lest certain of the most aban'doned should be appointed in their places, and corrupt the Churches, they preferred rather to yield to compulsion, and bear the burthen, than destroy the people:" and, in saying this, they appeared to us to speak credibly, for they instance, in 'their exculpation, the case of Aaron, the brother of Moses, who, in the desert, united with the transgression of the people, and urged as his excuse, that they would otherwise have returned to Egypt, and remained in their idolatry." We submit that not the widest latitude that can possibly be accorded to the term œconomy, could justify even S. Athanasius in so treating a case which Holy Scripture itself has expressly condemned.

[ocr errors]

The Council then proceeded to inquire into the meanings affixed to the word Hypostasis by parties in the Church who differed on the subject; and finding that they who confessed one Hypostasis did not use the word in a Sabellian sense, but conceived it to be equivalent to Essence, and that they who spoke of three Hypostases did not hold three Principles, or three Gods, but took the word in the sense of Person, and that both alike received the Nicene Creed, it was decided that either sense was allowable. From this time, however, ovo ia has been confined to express the Essence, and Hypostasis to distinguish the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Lastly, against the heresy lately adopted by Apollinaris, denying the reasonable part of the soul of Christ, and supplying its place by the Godhead, the Council declared the true faith of His nature, that He had a reasonable soul and mind, together with human flesh.

The letter of the Council was carried to Antioch, in hopes of composing certain divisions then rife in that city, for an account of which we must be content with referring to Bishop Kaye. Julian was killed in the Persian war, A. D. 362, and was succeeded by Jovian, to whom, at his own request, S. Athanasius, with a synod of bishops to support his authority, sent a letter containing a statement of the Christian faith as defined at Nicæa, in which he dwells chiefly on the novelty of the Arian and Macedonian heresies, and the want of authority of their authors. Jovian consequently refused all countenance to the heretical bodies. The Acacians, however, with Acacius himself at their head, as if to make their time serving and irreligious

Tom. i. part ii. pp. 768, 769.

spirit the more glaring, now held a Council at Antioch, in which they addressed the emperor, professing their acceptance of the Nicene Creed; a movement peculiarly odious in those who had long been among the foremost of the Semi-Arians, and had ruled at Constantinople no longer ago than the year 360, as we have seen, that the terms, consubstantial' and 'like in substance' were to be wholly forbidden.

Jovian, after a brief reign of eight months, died suddenly, and was succeeded in the East by the Arian Valens. S. Athanasius was hereupon once more driven from Alexandria; but the policy, rather than the humanity, of his enemies soon permitted him to return. The remainder of his life was spent in peace. He exerted himself, together with the great S. Basil, to heal the schisms of the distracted Church in Antioch; and he now composed his two unrivalled treatises in assertion of the true doctrine of the humanity of Christ against Apollinaris and his followers, together with his letter to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth, on the same subject. His last public act was, in Bishop Kaye's opinion, the calling of a Synod at Alexandria in the year 369, in which he wrote to exhort the bishops of Africa to adhere to the Creed of Nicæa, and to pay no attention to that of the Semi-Arians at Ariminum. The exact date of his death is matter of doubt; but, as it would appear, in the year 372 or 373 the Church lost in him the ablest defender of her faith, of his own or perhaps of any other age. He lived to perceive the fallacies which the Arian principles contained within themselves begin to operate to the destruction of the heresy, and to foresee clearly that whenever the imperial support should be finally withdrawn from it, the system would speedily fall.

Bishop Kaye has given his character, as drawn by Gibbon and Cudworth. We prefer, however, to seek it in the pages of S. Gregory Nazianzen, who has dedicated an Oration to the subject, and who, as concerned in the controversies of the times, could, better than any modern, especially a cold-hearted infidel like Gibbon, appreciate his actions and sufferings, his temper and disposition. He was,' in the quaint but nervous language of Cave, who has transferred the pith of the Oration to his own

pages,

'He was one that so governed himself, that his life supplied the place of sermons, and his sermons prevented his corrections; much less need had he to cut or lance where he did but once shake his rod. In him all ranks and orders might find something to admire, something particular for their imitation; one might commend his unwearied constancy in fasting and prayer; another his vigorous and incessant persevering in watchings and praise; a third, his admirable care and protection of the poor; a fourth, his resolute opposition of the proud, or his condescension to the humble. The virgins may celebrate him as their bride's-man, the married as their gover

[blocks in formation]
« PrécédentContinuer »