Click to View

Early Church Fathers
Click to ViewMaster Index
Click to ViewPower Search

 Click to View

19 Cels. iii. 34, cf. Alexander's mesiteuousa fusij monogenhj. But observe that the passage insisted on by Shedd, 294, etepoj kat= ousian kai upokeimenon o uioj tou patroj, does not bear the sense he extracts from it. ousia here is not `essence' but `hypostasis'.

20 The formula ktisma o uioj is ascribed to Origen by the anti-Chalcedonists of the sixth century, but is probably a `consequenz-macherei' from the above; see Caspari Alte v. N. Quellen, p. 60, note. But ktisma was sometimes applied to the Son in a vague sense, on the ground of Prov. viii. 22, a text not used in this way by Origen.

21 Compare the strong Origenist rejection of Chiliasm, the spiritualism of Origen as contrasted with the realism of Asia Minor, the Asiatic origin of Roman Monarchianism, of Montanism.

22 The position of Eusebius of Caesarea is at the `extreme left' of the Origenist body. (`A reflex of the unsolved problems of the Church of that time,' Dorner.) It is as though Dionysius instead of withdrawing and modifying his incriminated statements, had involved them in a haze of explanations and biblical phrases which left them where they were. But this is not so much Arianism as confusion. `All is hollow and empty, precarious and ambiguous. With a vast apparatus of biblical expressions and the use of every possible formula, Monotheism is indeed maintained, but practically a created subordinate God is inserted between God and mankind' (Harnack, p. 648). See also Dorner, Lehre der Pers. Chr. Pt. 1, pp. 793-798. The language quoted by Ath. below, p. 459, was doubtless meant by Eusebius in an Origenist sense.

23 The theological genesis of Paul's system is obscure. The theory of Newman that he was under strong Jewish influences is largely based upon the late and apparently quite erroneous tradition that his patroness Zenobia was a Jewess; see p. 296, note 9a, and Gwatkin, p. 57, and note 3. Harnack regards him as the representative of `archaic' East-Syrian adoptionism such as pervades the `Discussion of Archelaus with Manes;' see Routh, Rell. v. especially pp. 178-184. But Paul would not have spoken of Mary as `Dei Genetrix,' p. 128; I cannot see more in these `Acta' than a naive adoptionism homologous to the `naive modalism' of much early Christian language, but like it not representative of the entire view of those who use it; we must also note that the statements of `Archelaus' are coloured by reaction against the docetism of `Manes;' but Paul may well have taken up this naive adoptionism, and, by srict Aristotelian logic, developed it as the exclusive basis of his system. Whether Paul's use of the idea of the Logos betrays the faintest influence of Origen is to me, at least, extremely uncertain.

24 aposunagwgoj emeinen, Alex. Alexand. in Thdt.; the objections of Gwatkin, p. 18, note, are generously meant rather than convincing: the `creed of Lucian' is not usable without discrimination for Lucian's position: see discussion by Caspari A.u.N.Q. p. 42, note.

25 It was pointed out clearly by Newman, Arians, pp. 8, 403, but with an eagerly drawn inference to the discredit of the later Antiochene School and of the genuine principles of exegesis as recognised at the present day by Protestants and Catholics alike (see Wetzer und Welte-Kaulen, Kirchen-Lexicon, i. 953 sqq., iv. 1116, and Patrizzi as abridged in Cornel. a Lap. in Apoc. ed. Par. 1859, pp. xvi. sqq. The Lucianic origin of Arianism was denied by Gwatkin in his Studies, but the denial is tacitly withdrawn in his Arian Controversy. Harnack, Dogmgesch. i???1. 598, ii2. 183 sqq. must, I think, convince any open mind of the fact. Consult his article on Lucian in Herzog???2. viii. 767 (the best investigation), also Neander H.E. ii. 198, iv. 108; Möller K.G. i. 226, D.C.B. iii. 748; Kölling, vol. 1, pp. 27-31, who makes the mistake of taking the `Lucianic creed' as his point of departure.

26 This is ascribed to Lucian by Epiph. Ancor. 33, and there is no reason whatever to doubt it. The tenet was part of the Arian system from the first, and was attacked already by Eustathius, Fragm. apud Thdt. Dial. iii., but often overlooked, e.g. even by Athanasius in his writings before 362, but see p. 352, note 5. It came to the front in the system of Eunomius, and was much discussed in the last decade of the life of S. Athan. The system of Apollinaris was different. (See pp. 570, note 1, 575, note 1.)

27 This is ascribed to Lucian by Epiph. Ancor. 33, and there is no reason whatever to doubt it. The tenet was part of the Arian system from the first, and was attacked already by Eustathius, Fragm. apud Thdt. Dial. iii., but often overlooked, e.g. even by Athanasius in his writings before 362, but see p. 352, note 5. It came to the front in the system of Eunomius, and was much discussed in the last decade of the life of S. Athan. The system of Apollinaris was different. (See pp. 570, note 1, 575, note 1.)

28 aparallakton eikona, which an Arian would be prepared to admit as the result of the prokoph. (See below, §6, on the Creeds of 341). I cannot regard Asterius as a `'semi-Arian;' the only grounds for it are the above phrase and the statement (Lib. Syn.) that he attended the Council of 341 with the Conservative Dianius. But Asterius was as ready to compromise with conservatism as he had formerly been with heathenism, and his anxiety for a bishopric would carry him to even greater lengths in order to attend a council under influential patronage.

29 The letter of Alexander to his namesake of Byzantium in Thdt. i. 4, cannot be exempted from this generalisation

30 They appear to have comprised the Arian appeal to Scripture of which (considering the Biblical learning of Lucian and what we hear of the training of Aetius, to say nothing of the exegetical chair held by Arius at Alxa.) their use must be pronounced meagre and superficial. In the O.T. they harped upon three texts, Deut. vi. 4 (Monotheism), Ps. xlv. 8 (Adoptionism), and Prov. viii. 22, LXX. (the Word a Creature). In the N.T. they appeal for Monotheism (in their sense) to Luke xviii. 19, John xvii. 3; The Son a Creature, Acts ii. 36, 1 Cor. i. 24, Col. i. 15, Heb. iii. 2; Adoptionism, Matt. xii. 28; prokoph, Luke ii. 52; also Matt. xxvi. 41, Phil. ii. 6, sq., Heb. i. 4; The Son treptoj, &c., Mark xiii. 32, John xiii. 31, John xi. 34; inferior to the Father, John xiv. 48, Matt. xxvii. 46, also Matt. xi. 27 a, Matt. xxvi. 39, Matt. xxviii. 18, John xii. 27, and 1 Cor. xv. 28 (cf. pp. 407, sq.). In this respect Origen is immeasurably superior.

31 They are regarded by Athan., a generation after they were written, as the representative statement of `the case' for Arianism (pp. 459 sq.; 324 sqq., 361, 363, 368, &c., from which passages and Eus. c. Marcell. a fragmentary restoration might be attempted). For what is known of his history (not in D.C.B.) see Gwatkin, p. 72, note; for his doctrinal position see above, p. xxviii.

32 A theology which aims at consistency most borrow a method, a philosophy, from outside the sphere of religion. The most developed system of Catholic theology, that of S. Thomas Aquinas, borrows its method from the same source as did Arius,-Aristotle.

33 This illustrates the famous paradox of Cardinal Newman (Development, ed. 1878, pp. 142-4), that the condemnation of Arian Christology left vacant a throne in heaven which the medieval Church legitimately filled with the Blessed Virgin; that the Nicene condemnation of the Arian theology is the vindication of the medieval; that `the rotaries of Mary do not exceed the true faith, unless the blasphemers of her Son come up to it.' But the qestion here was one of worship, not of theology. The Arians worshipped Christ, whom they regarded as a created being: therefore, the Nicene fathers urge with one consent, they were idolaters. The idea of a created being capable of being worshipped was as Arian legacy to the Church, no doubt. But this very idea, to Athanasius and Hilary, marked them out as idolaters. It was reserved for later times `to find a subject for an Arian predicate' (Mozley). The argument is an astonishing admission.

34 The enormous literature of the subject is partly given by Harnack, ii. p. 182, Schaff, Nicene Christ. §§119, 120. The student will find great help from Bigg, Bampt. Lect. pp. 179, note 163-165, Gwatkin, Studies, p. 42, sqq.; Newman's Arians 4, pp. 185 to 193, and his notes and excursus embodied in this volume, especially that appended to Epist. Euseb. p. 77; Zahn's Marcellus, pp. 11-27 (also p. 87), perhaps the best modern discussion; Harnack ii. pp. 228-230, and note 31; Loofs §§32-34; Shedd i. 362-37a; and the Introduction to the Tomus and ad Afros in this volume pp. 482, 488. The use of ousia in Aristotle is tabulated by Bonitz in the fifth volume (index) to the Berlin edition: its use in Plato is less frequent and less technical, but see the brief account in Liddell and Scott.

35 Gregory Thaumaturgus was the great Origenist influence in northern Asia Minor: the Cappadocian fathers were also influenced in the direction of the omoousion by Apollinarius: see the correspondence between Basil and the latter Bas. Epp. 8, 9, edited by Dräseke in Ztschr. für K.G. viii. 85 sqq. Apollinarius was of course equally opposed to Arianism and to Origen: see also p. 449 sq.

36 They were probably not yet bishops at this time, as they were young bishops at Tyre in 335; evidently they are `the fairest of God's youthful flock' (!) alluded to in Eus. V.C. iv. 43.

37 At the same time Arius himself and all his fellow Lucianists (unlike the obscure Secundus and Theonas, and the later generation of Eunomians) are open to the charge of subserviency at a pinch.

38 Alexander of Thessalonica had been at Nicaea, Dianius of Caes. Capp. had not. The two are typical of the better sort of conservatives.

39 For Asia besides Marcellus we have only Diodorus of Tenedos, not at Nicaea, but expelled soon after 330, p. 271; signs at Sardica, p. 147, banished again p. 276, not in D.C.B.; for Syria the names p. 271, cf. p. 256.

40 Always an important factor in the stability of the Byzantine throne, see, on Justinian, D.C.B. iii. 545a, sub fin. Newman, Arians, Appendix v., brings no conclusive proof of strong Nicene feeling among the masses of the laity in this region. But `the people' in Galatia, according to Basil, remained devoted to Marcellus.

41 At the same time he adopts a certain reserve in speaking of Marcellus, and his name is absent from the roll of the orthodox, p. 227.

42 But he is condemned by name in the alleged Coptic Acts of the Council of 362; moreover Eustathius appears to have written against him, see Cowper, Syr. Misc. 60.

43 Eager opposition, however, was not lacking. The accounts are confused, but the statement of the bishops leaves room for a strong minority of malcontents, who may have elected `Theonas' (was he the exiled Arian bishop of Marmarica? the electors of `Theonas' in Epiph. Haer. 68 are Meletians, but there is no Theonas in the Meletian catalogue of 327; the Arians and Meletians very likely combined; the latter properly had no votes, but they were not likely to regard this; see Gwatkin, p. 66, note, Church Quarterly Review. xvi. p. 393). The protests of the poposition were apparently disregarded and Athanasius consecrated before the other side considered the question as closed, (The statement of Epiph. Haer. 69, that the Arians chose one Achillas, is unsupported.) Athanasius was probably only just thirty years old, and his opponents did not fail to question whether he were not under the canonical age.

44 Soz. ii. 21, 22: the account is not very clear; probably there was a gradual approximation, the first step being the Meletian support of the Arian Theonas against Athanasius in 328, if the view suggested above is correct.

45 Fest. Ind. iii. The Index is of course right in giving 330-331 as the year of his departure for Nicomedia, but makes a slip in assigning his absence as the cause of delay in the despatch of the Letter for that year instead of for the following one. See p. 512 note 1.

46 Who perhaps visited Tyre himself at this time, according to an allusion in Hist. Aceph. xii., see Sievers, Einl. p. 131.

47 The conduct of Constantine will appear fairly consistent if we suppose that after ordering the investigation at Antioch, supr. (332?) he received proofs (333) of the falsehood of the Arsenius story, but that, finding that the complaints were constantly renewed, and that Ath. refused to meet his accusers at Caesarea, he yielded to the suggestion (Eus. Nic. ?) that the assembly of so many bishops at Jerusalem might be a valuable opportunity for finally dealing with so troublesome a matter. He desired peace, and had not lost his faith in councils. Hefele follows Socrates i. 29, in his error as to the date of the discovery of Arsenius (E. Tr. ii. 21).

48 p. 107: Euseb. V.C. iv. 43, calls them `the fairest of God's youthful flock.' The Council of Sardica in 343 describes them as `ungodly and foolish youths,' Hil. Frag. ii., cf. pp. 120, 122.

49 Soz. ii. 25. But Callinicus was a Meletian all along: pp. 132, 137, 517.

50 The Greek Church still commemorates this Festival on Sep. 13; the Chron. Pasch. gives Sep. 17 for the Dedication. But if the Mareotic Commissioners returned to Tyre, as they certainly did (Soz. l.c.), these dates are untrustworthy.

51 The philosopher Sopater had been put to death on a similar charge a few years before, D.C.B. i. 631.

52 The courier Palladius, who was considered a marvel, could carry a message from Nisibis to CP. on horseback in three days, about 250 miles a day, Socr. vii. 19. At 100 miles a day, i.e. eight miles an hour for 12 1/2 hours out of the 24, the 1,300 miles from Nicomedia to Treveri would be easily covered by a horseman in the time specified; see Gibbon quoted p. 115, note 1, and for other examples, Gwatkin, p. 137.

53 This date is certain (Gwatk., 108, note), but the meeting at Sirmium may possibly fall in the following summer.

54 As he had previously referred the Donatist schism to the commission of Rome and the Council of Arles.

55 But they complain, p. 104, §8, of coercion not of Erastianism.

56 The ordinary time for the entry of the Prefect upon his duties seems to have been about the end of the Egyptian Year (end of August). Accordingly the prefectures and years in Fest. Ind. roughly correspond: Philagrius was already Prefect when the Mareotic Commission arrived (Aug. 335). According to the headings to the Festal Letters vi., vii., he had superseded Paternus in 334: either the Index or the headings are mistaken. For the popularity of Philagrius, see Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. 28, who mentions that his reappointment was due to the request of a deputation from Alex. (this must have come from the Arians!) and that the rejoicings which welcomed his return exceeded any that could have greeted the Emperor, and nearly equalled those which had welcomed the return of Athanasius himself. But Gregory is a rhetorician; see p. 138, and Tillem. viii. 664.

57 It is possible, however, that these carried a second letter, after the arrival of Ath. See pp. 110, 273.

Click Your Choice