IV. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES AND HERESIES.

§ 49. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE GENERALLY.

When a considerable fulness of Christian doctrine had already in

previous periods found subjective and therefore variously diversified

development, it had now, besides being required by the altered condition

of things, become necessary that the church should sift and confirm

what was already developed or was still in the course of development.

The endeavour after universal scientific comprehension and accurate

definition became stronger every day. The lively intercourse between

the churches, which prevented the various doctrinal types from being

restricted to particular countries, brought opposite views into contact

and conflict with one another. The court, the people, the monks took

parts, and so the church became the scene of passionate and distracting

struggles, which led to the issuing of a canon of orthodoxy recognised

by the whole Catholic church of the West and of the East, and to the

branding every deviation therefrom with the mark of heresy.

The =Heresies= of the previous period were mainly of a syncretic

kind (§ 26). Those of the period now under consideration have

an evolutionary or formatory character. They consist in the

construction of the system of doctrine by exclusive attention

and extreme estimation of the one side of the Christian

truth that is being developed, which thus passes over into

errors; while it is the task of orthodoxy to give proportionate

development to both sides and to bring them into harmony. Of

syncratic heresies only sporadic traces from the previous period

are found in this (§ 54). The third possible form of heresies is

the revolutionary or reformatory. Heretics of this class fancy

that they see in the developed and fixed system of the Catholic

church excrescences and degenerations which either do not exist,

so that by their removal the church is injured and hindered in

her essential and normal functions, or do really exist, but for

the most part are not now duly distinguished from the results of

sound and normal development, so that the good would be removed

with the bad. During the period under consideration only isolated

instances of this kind of heresy are met with (§ 62).

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

The series of doctrinal contendings opened with the Trinitarian or

Arian controversy. It first of all dealt with the nature and being

of the Logos become man in Christ and the relation of this Logos to

the Father. From the time of the controversy of the two Dionysiuses

(§ 33, 7) the idea of the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father

had found supporters even in Alexandria and a new school was formed

with it as the fundamental doctrine (§ 47, 1). But the fear excited

by Sabellius and the Samosatians (§ 33, 8), that the acknowledgment

of the Homoousia might lead to Monarchianism, caused a strong reaction

and doomed many excellent fathers to the bonds of subordinationism.

It was pre-eminently the school of the Antiochean Lucian (§ 31, 9)

that furnished able contenders against the Homoousia. In Origen the

two contraries, subordination and the eternal generation from the

substance of the Father, had been still maintained together (§ 33, 6).

Now they are brought forward apart from one another. On the one side,

Athanasius and his party repudiate subordination but hold firmly by

the eternal generation, and perfected their theory by the adoption

of the Homoousia; but on the other side, Arius and his party gave up

the eternal generation, and held fast to the subordination, and went

to the extreme of proclaiming the Heteroousia. A third intermediate

party, the semi-Arians, mostly Origenists, wished to bind the separated

contraries together with the newly discovered cement of the ὁμοιουσία.

In the further course of the controversies that now broke out and raged

throughout the whole church for almost a century, the question of the

trinitarian position of the Holy Spirit was of necessity dragged into

the discussion. After various experiences of victory and discomfiture,

the Homoousia of the Son and of the Spirit was at last affirmed and

became the watchword of inviolable orthodoxy.

§ 50.1. =Preliminary Victory of the Homoousia,

A.D. 318-325=--=Arius=, a disciple of Lucian, from A.D. 313

presbyter at Alexandria, a man of clear intellect and subtle

critical spirit, was in A.D. 318 charged with the denial of the

divinity of Christ, because he publicly taught that while the

Son was indeed before all time yet He was not from eternity (ἦν

ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), that by the will of the Father (θελήματι θεοῦ) He

was created out of nothing (κτίσμα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων), and that by

His mediating activity the world was called into being; as the

most perfect created image of the Father and as executor of the

Divine plan of creation, He might indeed in an inexact way be

called θεός and λόγος. =Alexander=, bishop of Alexandria at that

time, who maintained the doctrine of the eternal generation and

consubstantiality, convened a synod at Alexandria in A.D. 321,

which condemned the doctrine of Arius and deposed him. But the

people, who revered him as a strict ascetic, and many bishops,

who shared his views, took part with him. He also applied for

protection to famous bishops in other places, especially to his

former fellow student (Συλλουκιανίστης) Eusebius of Nicomedia,

and to the very influential Eusebius of Cæsarea (§ 47, 2).

The former unreservedly declared himself in favour of the

Arian doctrine; the latter regarded it as at least not dangerous.

Arius spread his views among the people by means of popular songs

for men of various crafts and callings, for millers, sailors,

travellers, etc. In this way a serious schism spread through

almost all the East. In Alexandria the controversy was carried

on so passionately that the pagans made it the subject of reproach

in the theatre. When Constantine the Great received news of

this general commotion he was greatly displeased. He commanded,

fruitlessly, as might be expected, that all needless quarrels

(ἐλάχισται ζητήσεις) should be avoided. Hosius, bishop of Cordŏva,

who carried the imperial injunction to Alexandria, learnt the

state of matters there and the serious nature of the conflict,

and brought the emperor to see the matter in another light.

Constantine now summoned in A.D. 325 an =Œcumenical Council at

Nicæa=, where he himself and 318 bishops met. The majority, with

Eusebius of Cæsarea at their head, were Origenists and sought,

as did also the =Eusebians=, the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia,

to mediate between the opposing views, the latter, however,

being much more favourable to the Arians. The maintainers of the

Homoousia were in a decided minority, but the vigorous eloquence

of the young deacon =Athanasius=, whom Alexander brought with

him, and the favour of the emperor, secured complete ascendancy

to their doctrine. Upon the basis of the baptismal formula

proposed by Eusebius of Cæsarea to his own congregation, a new

confession of faith was sketched out, which was henceforth used

to mark the limits of this trinitarian discussion. In this creed

several expressions were avoided which, though biblical, had

been understood by the Arians in a sense of their own, such as

πρωτότοκος πάσης τῆς κτίσεως πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνιων, and in their

place strictly Homoousian formulæ were substituted, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας

τοῦ πατρός, γεννηθεὶς οὐ ποιηθεὶς, ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί; while with

added anathemas those entertaining opposite views were condemned.

This was the =Symbolum Nicænum=. Arius was excommunicated and

his writings condemned to be burnt. Dread of deposition and love

of peace induced many to subscribe who were not convinced. Only

Arius himself and two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus,

refused and went into exile to Illyria. Also Eusebius of Nicomedia

and Theognis of Nicæa, who subscribed the Symbol but refused to

sign the anathematizing formula, were three months afterwards

banished to Gaul.[151]

§ 50.2. =Victory of Eusebianism, A.D. 328-356.=--This unity

under the Nicene Symbol was merely artificial and could not

therefore be enduring. The emperor’s dying sister Constantia and

the persuasion of distinguished bishops induced Constantine to

return to his earlier view of the controversy. Arius agreed to

a Confession drawn up in general terms and was, along with the

other banished ones, restored in A.D. 328. Soon thereafter, in

A.D. 330, the emperor commanded that Arius should be restored to

office. But meanwhile, in A.D. 328, Athanasius himself had become

bishop and replied with unfaltering determination that he would

not comply. The emperor threatened him with deposition, but by

a personal conference Athanasius made such an impression upon him

that he gave way. The enemies of Athanasius, however, especially

the Meletians driven on by Eusebius of Nicomedia (§ 41, 4),

ceased not to excite suspicion about him as a disturber of the

peace, and got the emperor to reopen the question at a Synod at

Tyre, in A.D. 335. consisting of pure Arians. Athanasius appealed

against its verdict of deposition. A new Synod was convened

at Constantinople in A.D. 335 and the emperor banished him to

Treves in A.D. 336. It was now enjoined that, notwithstanding

the opposition of the bishop of Constantinople, Arius should

be there received back again into church fellowship, but on

the evening before the day appointed he died suddenly, being

over eighty years old. Constantine the Great soon followed him,

A.D. 337, and Constantine II. restored Athanasius to his church

which received him with enthusiasm. Constantius, however, was

decidedly favourable to the Eusebians, and this gave tone to the

court and to the capital where in all the streets and markets,

in all the shops and houses, the questions referred to were

considered and discussed. The Eastern bishops for the most part

vacillated between the two extremes and let themselves be led by

Eusebius of Nicomedia. He and his party managed for a time to set

aside the Homoousian formula and yet to preserve an appearance of

orthodoxy. Eusebius, who from A.D. 338 was bishop in the capital,

died in A.D. 341, but his party continued to intrigue in his

spirit. The whole West, on the other hand, was strictly Nicæan.

The Eusebians in A.D. 340 opened a Council at Antioch, which

anew deposed Athanasius, and put in his place a rude Cappadocian,

Gregorius [Gregory]. Athanasius fled to Rome, where a Council

under bishop Julius in A.D. 341 solemnly acknowledged his

orthodoxy and innocence. A new Council convened at Antioch in

A.D. 340 for the consecration of a church, sketched four creeds

one after another, approaching indeed, in order to conciliate

the West, as closely as possible that of Nicæa, but carefully

avoiding the term ὁμοούσιος. In the interests of unity Constantius

and Constans jointly convened an Œcumenical Council at Sardica in

Illyria in A.D. 344. But when the Westerns under the presidency

of Hosius, disregarding the Antiochean anathema, allowed a seat

and vote to Athanasius, the Easterns withdrew and formed an

opposition Council at Philippopolis in Thrace. At Sardica where

important privileges were granted to the Roman bishop Julius

(§ 46, 3), the Nicene creed was renewed and Athanasius was

restored. Constantius, after Gregorius [Gregory] had died, who

meanwhile had become doubly hated because of his violent deeds,

confirmed Athanasius’ restoration, and the Alexandrian church

received again their old pastor with shouts of joy. But after the

death of Constans in A.D. 350, Constantius was again won over to

the side of the Arians. They assembled at the Council of Sirmium

in Pannonia in A.D. 351, where, however, they did not strike

directly at Athanasius but at first only at a friend of his who

presented to them a weak spot. The bishop =Marcellus of Ancyra=

in Galatia by his zealous defence of the Nicene _Homoousia_ had

been betrayed into the use of Sabellian expressions and views.

At a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 336 he was on this account

suspended, and then contended with by Eusebius of Cæsarea in the

course of this Council; but in the West and at the Council of

Sardica he had been defended. Afterwards, however, one of his

own scholars =Photinus=, bishop of Sirmium, had drifted into

unmistakable, and indeed into dynamic Monarchianism (§ 33, 1).

His doctrine had been already rejected as heretical at a Council

at Antioch in A.D. 344 and also in the West at a distinctly

Nicæan Council at Milan in A.D. 345. The Council of Sirmium

now formally deposed him and with his condemned also Marcellus’

doctrine.[152] The Eusebians, however, were not satisfied with

this. So soon as Constantius by the conquest of the usurper

Magnentius got an absolutely free hand, he arranged at their

instigation for two Eusebian Synods, one at Arles in Gaul,

A.D. 353, the other at Milan, A.D. 355, where Athanasius was

again condemned. The emperor now commanded that all Western

bishops should subscribe his condemnation. Those who refused were

deposed and banished. Among them were, the Roman bishop Liberius,

Hosius of Cordova, Hilary of Poitiers, Eusebius of Vercelli,

and Lucifer of Calăris [Calaris]. And now a second Gregorius

[Gregory], a Cappadocian, not less rude and passionate than the

first, was forcibly installed bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius

performed the service in a quiet and dignified manner, and then

withdrew to the monks in the Egyptian desert in A.D. 356. Thus

it seemed that Arianism in the modified or rather concealed form

of Eusebianism had secured a final victory throughout the whole

range of the Roman Empire.

§ 50.3. =Victory of Homoiousianism, A.D. 357-361.=--The Eusebians

now, however, fell out among themselves. The more extreme party,

with the Antiochean deacon Aëtius and bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus

at their head, carried their heresy so far as to declare that

the Son is unlike to the Father (ἀνόμοιος). They were hence

called =Anomœans=, also _Exucontians_ (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων). But also

the distinctly moderate party, called =semi-Arians=[153] or

_Homoiousians_, from their adoption of the formula ὁμοιούσιος,

made preparations for a decisive conflict. At their head stood

Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Constantius too was favourable

to them. But the intriguing court bishops, Ursacius and Valens,

strictly Arian at heart, knew how to gain their ends by secret

paths. With the emperor’s consent they held a second Council at

Sirmium in A.D. 357, where it was resolved to avoid wholly the

non-biblical phrase οὐσία, which caused all the contention, to

abandon all definitions of the nature of God which to man is

incomprehensible, and to unite upon the simple formula, that

the Son is _like_ the Father (ὅμοιος hence the name =Homoians=).

Hosius of Cordova, facile through age and sufferings, bought his

reprieve by subscription. He died, after a bitter repentance,

in A.D. 361, when almost a hundred years old. The rest of

the Westerns, however, at the Synod of Agenum renewed their

Nicene Confession; the semi-Arians under Basil at Ancyra their

Antiochean Confession. The latter, too, found access to the

emperor, who let their Confession be confirmed at a third Synod

at Sirmium in A.D. 358, and obliged the court bishops to sign it.

The latter then came to a compromise with the semi-Arians in the

formula: τὸν Υἱὸν ὅμοιον τῷ Πατρὶ εἶναι κατὰ πάντα ὡς αἱ ἅγιαι

γραφαὶ λέγουσιν. Liberius of Rome, too, worn out with three

years’ exile, agreed to sign this symbol and ventured to return

to Rome (§ 46, 4). The formula pleased the emperor so well that

he decided to have it confirmed by an œcumenical Council. But in

order to prevent the dreaded combination of the Homoousians and

Homoiousians in the West, Ursacius and Valens contrived to have

two Councils instead of one, an Eastern Council at Seleucia and

a Western Council at Rimini, A.D. 359. Both rejected the formula

of Sirmium; the Easterns holding by that of Antioch, the Westerns

by that of Nicæa. But Ursacius knew how by cunning intrigues to

weary them out. When the bishops had spent two years at Seleucia

and Rimini, which seemed to them no better than banishment, and

their messengers after a half year’s journey had not succeeded

in obtaining an audience of the emperor, they at last subscribed

the _Homoian_ symbol. Those who refused, Aëtius and Eunomius,

were persecuted as disturbers of the church’s peace. Thus

the Homoian creed prevailed through the whole Roman empire.

Constantius’ death, however, in A.D. 361, soon broke up this

artificial bond.

§ 50.4. =Final Victory of the Nicene Creed, A.D. 361-381.=--Julian

gave equal rights to all parties and recalled all the banished

bishops, so that many churches had two or three bishops.

Athanasius also returned. For the restoration of church order

he called a Synod at Alexandria in A.D. 362, and here in the

exercise of a gentle and wise temper he received back into church

fellowship the penitent Arian bishops, in spite of the protest

of the strict zealot Lucifer of Calaris. The happy results of

Athanasius’ procedure led the emperor again to banish him, on the

pretext that he was a disturber of the peace. Julian’s successor,

Jovian, was favourable to the Nicene doctrine and immediately

restored Athanasius, A.D. 364, meanwhile extending toleration

to the Arians. But Valens, to whom his brother Valentinian I.

surrendered the East, A.D. 364-378, proved a zealous Arian. He

raged with equal violence against the Athanasians and against

the semi-Arians, and thus drove the two into close relations

with one another. Athanasius was obliged to flee, but ventured

after four months to return, and lived in peace to the end of

his days. He died in A.D. 373. Valens was meanwhile restricted

in his persecutions on two sides, by the pressing representations

of his brother Valentinian, and by the manly resistance of

eminent bishops, especially the three Cappadocians (§ 47, 4).

The machinations of the Western empress Justinia, during

the minority of her son Valentinian II., were successfully

checkmated by Ambrose of Milan. He passively but victoriously

opposed the soldiers who were to take possession of his church

for the Arians by a congregation praying and singing psalms.

Theodosius the Great gave its deathblow to Arianism. He called

Gregory Nazianzen to the patriarchal chair at Constantinople.

To Gregory also at a subsequent time he assigned the presidency

of the so-called =Second Œcumenical Council at Constantinople

in A.D. 381=.[154]--When, however, his patriarchate was attacked,

because he had changed his bishopric (§ 45), he resigned

his office. No new Symbol was here drawn up, but only the

Nicene Symbol was confirmed as irrefragable. On the so-called

Nicæan-Constantinopolitan Symbol, comp. § 59, 2. After this

the Arians ventured only to hold services outside of the cities.

Subsequently all churches in the empire were taken from them.--The

Constantinopolitan Council of A.D. 381 did not fairly represent

parties. Being called by the then merely Eastern emperor, and

so consisting only of Eastern bishops, it was not properly an

œcumenical synod, and for a long time even in the East itself was

not regarded as such. Still it was of importance to the bishop of

Constantinople that it should have this rank, and his endeavours

were favoured by the circumstance that it had been called

by Theodosius who was honoured both in East and West as Sole

Potentate and “second Constantine.” After the Council of

Chalcedon in A.D. 451 (§ 46, 1) the whole East was unanimous

in recognising it. The West, however, at least Rome, still

rejected it, until finally under Justinian I., in consequence

of the Roman chair becoming dependent upon the Byzantine court

(§ 46, 9), the dispute was here no longer agitated.

§ 50.5. =The Pneumatomachians, A.D. 362-381.=--Arius and the

Arians had described the Holy Spirit as the first creature

produced by the Son. But even zealous defenders of the Homoousia

of the Son vacillated. The Nicene Symbol was satisfied with

a bare καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον; and even Hilary of Poitiers,

avoiding all exact definition, contented himself with recording

the phrases of Scripture. But Athanasius, at the Synod of

Alexandria in A.D. 362, Didymus the Blind, and the three

Cappadocians, consistently applied their idea of the Homoousia

to the Spirit and won the adhesion of the Nicene theologians.

It was hardest for the semi-Arians who had accepted the

Nicene platform, at whose head stood Macedonius, bishop

of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the Homoians

in A.D. 360, to acquiesce in this conclusion (Macedonians,

Pneumatomachians). The so-called second œcumenical Council

of A.D. 381 sanctioned in a now lost doctrinal “Tome” the full

Homoousia of the Holy Spirit. The West had already in A.D. 380

at a Roman Synod under the presidency of Bishop Damasus condemned

in 24 anathemas, along with all other trinitarian errors, every

sort of opposition to the perfect Homoousia of the Spirit.[155]

§ 50.6. =The Literature of the Controversy.=--Arius himself

developed his doctrine in a half poetical writing, the Θάλεια,

fragments of which are given by Athanasius. Arianism found a

zealous apologist in the Sophist Asterius, whose treatise is lost.

The church historian, Philostorgius (§ 5, 1), sought to vindicate

it historically. On the semi-Arian side Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote

against Marcellus--Κατὰ Μαρκέλλου and Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς

θεολογίας. The Ἀπολογητικός of Eunomius is lost. Among the

opponents of Arianism, Athanasius occupies by a long way the

first place (IV. Orations against the Arians, Ep. concerning

Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum, Hist. of Arians to the Monks,

Apology against the Arians, etc., all included in Hist. Tracts

of Athanasius, “Lib. of Fath.,” 2 vols., Oxf., 1843 f.). On the

works of Apollinaris belonging to this controversy see § 47, 5.

Basil the Great wrote 4 bks. against Eunomius; Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου

Πνεῦματος, Ad Amphilochium, against the Pneumatomachians.

Gregory Nazianzen wrote five Λόγοι θεολογικοί. Gregory of Nyssa

12 Λόγοι ἀντιῤῥητικοὶ κατὰ Εὐνομίου. Didymus the Blind, 3 bks.

_De Trinitate_. Epiphanius, the Ἀγκυρώτος. Cyril of Alexandria

a θησαυρὸς περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμοούσιας Τριάδος. Chrysostom

delivered twelve addresses against the Anomoians. Theodoret

wrote _Dialogi VII. d. s. Trinitate_. Ephraëm [Ephraim] Syrus,

too, combated the Arians frequently in his sermons. Among the

Latins the most celebrated polemists are: Lucifer of Calaris

(_Ad Constantium p. Lb. II. pro Athen._); Hilary of Poitiers

(_De Trinitate Lb. I., de Synodus s. de fide Orientalium, contra

Constantium Aug._; _C. Auxentium_); Phœbadius, bishop of Agenum

about A.D. 359 (_C. Arianos_); Ambrose (_De fide ad Gratianum

Aug. Lb. V._); Augustine (_C. Sermonem Arianorum_; _Collatio

cum Maximo Arianorum episc._; _C. Maximinum_); Fulgentius of

Ruspe (_C. Arianos_, and 3 bks. against the Arian Vandal king

Thrasimund).

§ 50.7. =Post-Nicene Development of the Dogma.=--Even the

Nicene Symbol did not completely surmount every trace of

subordinationism. It is at least capable of a subordinationist

interpretation when the Father alone is called εἷς θεός and so

identified with the Monas. Augustine completely surmounted this

defect (_De Trinitate Lb. XV._). The personality of the Spirit,

too, as well as His relation to the Father and the Son, had not

yet been determined. A step was taken towards the formulating of

the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality by the acknowledgment

in the now lost Tome of the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381

of the full Homoousia of the Spirit with the Father and the

Son.[156] But the doctrine of the Spirit’s relations to Father

and Son still continued undetermined and even by the addition

(to the εἰς τὸ πν. ἅγ.) of: τὸ κυρίον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ πατρὸς

ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ συνπροσκυνούμενον

καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον in the so-called _Symbolum Nic.-Constant._

(§ 59, 2), a definition so incomplete was obtained, that even

five hundred years afterwards the great schism that rent the

church into an Eastern and a Western division found in this

its doctrinal basis (§ 67, 1). Augustine, too, had meanwhile

come forward with a further development of this doctrine,

and taught in his speculation upon the Spirit that He proceeded

from the Son as well as from the Father (John xv. 26).

Fulgentius of Ruspe was the next most famous representative

of the further development of the dogma (_De s. Trinitate_).

The so-called Athanasian Creed (§ 59, 2) simply adopted this

advanced development in the proposition: _qui procedit a

Patre et Filio_. Similarly the _Filioque_ is found also in the

so-called Nic.-Constant. Creed laid before the Synod of Toledo

in A.D. 589 (§ 76, 2).--Continuation § 67, 1; § 91, 2.

§ 50.8. =Schisms in consequence of the Arian Controversy.=

I. =The Meletian Schism at Antioch.= The Arians at Antioch

had already in A.D. 330 driven away Eustathius, the bishop

of the see, who favoured the Nicene doctrine. A portion

of his people, however, remained attached to him and

Homoousianism under the leadership of the Presbyter

Paulinus, and were called Eustathians. When in A.D. 360

Eudoxius, the Arian bishop, left Antioch, in order to

take possession of the episcopal chair of the capital,

his former congregation chose Meletius, bishop of Sebaste,

formerly a Eusebian, but for some time friendly to the

Nicene party, as his successor. His first sermon, however,

served to undeceive those who had chosen him, so that after

a few weeks they drove him away and put Euzoius, a decided

Arian, in his place. Yet he had already won a following

in the congregation which, when Julian’s succession made

it possible for him to return, took him back as bishop.

Athanasius and the Alexandrian Synod of A.D. 362 had

meanwhile made every effort to reconcile these Meletians

and the Eustathians and to unite them under the banner of

Nicæanism. But Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, sent to Antioch

for this purpose, confirmed the schism instead of healing

it by ordaining Paulinus bishop on the death of Eustathius

in A.D. 360. The whole church now took sides, the East that

of Meletius, the West along with Egypt, that of Paulinus.

The Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 gave to Meletius

the presidency as the oldest bishop present. When, after

two days, he died, Gregory Nazianzen, his successor in the

presidency, recommended that the next election should be

postponed till the death of the aged Paulinus and that then

both parties should join the election. It was, however, all

in vain. Flavian was appointed successor to Meletius, and

when Paulinus died in A.D. 388, the Presbyter Evagrius was

chosen opposition bishop in his stead. Theodosius I., from

A.D. 392 sole ruler, insisted upon the West recognising

Flavian. But in Antioch itself the schism lasted down

to the death of Evagrius. Finally, in A.D. 415, the

able successor of Flavian, bishop Alexander, effected

a reconciliation, by taking part on a feast day along with

his congregation in the public worship of the Eustathians,

joining with them in singing and prayer, and in this way

won them over to join him in the principal church.

II. =The Schism of the Luciferians.= After Lucifer by his

irrational zeal had caused so much discord in Antioch,

he returned in A.D. 362 to Alexandria, and there protested

against Athanasius for receiving back penitent Arians and

semi-Arians. He and his fanatical adherents formed the

sect of Luciferians, which renewed the Novatianist demands

for Church purity, and continued to exist down to the fifth

century.

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

§ 46, 4.

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

Naturally and necessarily the Christological are closely connected

with the Trinitarian controversies (§ 52). But between the two comes in

another controversy, the Origenistic, which was indeed more of personal

than of ecclesiastical interest, but still strengthened the church in

the conviction that Origen was an arch-heretic.

§ 51.1. =The Monks of the Scetic and Nitrian Deserts.=--The most

distinguished defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius, the three

Cappadocians, Didymus, Hilary, etc., had all held Origen in high

esteem. But the constant references of the Arians to his authority

brought him into discredit, not only among the more narrow-minded

opposers of Arius, especially in the West, but also among the

monks of the Scetic desert in Egypt, with Pachomius at their

head. These repudiated the speculation of Origen as the source

of all heresy, and in their views of God and divine things

adopted a crude anthropomorphism. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis,

also belonged originally to this party (§ 47, 10). In direct

opposition to them, another Egyptian monkish order in the Nitrian

desert adhered to Origen with enthusiastic reverence and occupied

themselves in a pious contemplative mysticism that tended to a

somewhat extreme spiritualism.

§ 51.2. =The Controversy in Palestine and Italy,

A.D. 394-399.=--In Palestine Origen had a warm supporter in

=bishop of Jerusalem=, and in the two Latins =Jerome= and

=Rufinus= who were staying there (§ 47, 16, 17). But when

in A.D. 394 a couple of Westerns who happened to come there

expressed their surprise, Jerome, anxious for his reputation

for orthodoxy, was at once prepared to condemn the errors of

Origen. Meanwhile the Scetic monks had called the attention

of the old zealot =Epiphanius= to the Palestinian nursery of

heresy. Immediately he made his way thither and took advantage

of John’s friendly invitation to occupy his pulpit by preaching

a violent sermon against Origenism. John then preached against

anthropomorphism. Epiphanius pronounced an anathema against that

tendency but desired John to do the same in regard to Origenism.

When John refused, then Epiphanius, together with Jerome and the

Bethlehemite monks withdrew from communion with John and Rufinus,

and invaded John’s episcopal rights by ordaining a presbyter

over the Bethlehemite monks. Now sprang up a violent controversy,

which Theophilus of Alexandria, by sending the presbyter Isidore,

sought to allay. Jerome and Rufinus were reconciled at the altar

in A.D. 396. The latter soon again returned to the West. He

translated, omitting objectionable passages, Origen’s work Περὶ

ἀρχῶν, and was indiscreet enough to remark in the preface that

even the orthodox Jerome was an admirer of Origen. Stirred up

by his Roman friends, Jerome began with unmeasured violence

a passionate polemic against Origenism and the friend of his

youth. He produced at the same time a literal rendering, no

longer extant, of the Περὶ ἀρχῶν. Rufinus replied with equal

bitterness, and the passion displayed by both led to further

causes of offence. The Roman bishop Siricius took part with

Rufinus, but his successor Anastasius summoned him to answer

for his opinions at Rome. Rufinus did not appear, but sent

an apology which so little satisfied Anastasius that he rather

consented to send letters to John of Jerusalem and other oriental

bishops in condemnation of Origenism, A.D. 399. Rufinus withdrew

to Aquileia and there continued to translate the writings of

Origen and others of the Greeks.

§ 51.3. =The Controversy in Alexandria and Constantinople,

A.D. 399-438.=--=Theophilus=, patriarch of Alexandria, a pompous,

ambitious and strong-handed ecclesiastical prince, had down to

A.D. 399 been on good terms with the Origenist monks and even

in the Easter address of that year expressed himself in strong

terms against the heresy of the anthropomorphists. The monks rose

in rebellion over this, attacked him with clubs and forced him

to pronounce an anathema upon Origen. Soon thereafter he had a

personal dispute with his former friends. The aged and venerable

presbyter Isidore and the four so-called “long brothers,” ἀδελφοὶ

μακροί, two of whom served in his church as _œconomi_, refused to

pay him pupils’ and legates’ money and fled from his passionate

displeasure to their companions in the Nitrian desert. In

A.D. 399, however, at an endemic Synod at Alexandria he condemned

Origen, and in A.D. 401 published a violent manifesto against

the Origenists.[157] The noble but shortsighted Epiphanius

approved it and Jerome hastened to translate it into Latin. With

rude military force the Nitrian monks were scattered and driven

away. Persecuted by the warrants issued by the patriarch, they

sought protection from bishop =John Chrysostom= at Constantinople

(§ 47, 8), whose intercession, however, Theophilus contemptuously

rejected. For peace sake Chrysostom now wished to retire. But the

monks found access to the Empress Eudoxia, and upon her appeal

to the Emperor Arcadius, Theophilus was cited before a Synod at

Constantinople over which Chrysostom presided. Theophilus foamed

with rage. He succeeded by misrepresentation of the facts to win

to his side the zealot Epiphanius. The noble old man hasted full

of zeal and prejudice to Constantinople, but coming to see things

in their true light, he withdrew from them with the words, “I

leave to you the court and hypocrisy.” Theophilus, however, knew

well how to get on with the court and hypocrisy. Chrysostom,

by severe and searching preaching, had aroused the anger of

the Empress. Relying upon this, Theophilus landed with a great

retinue at Constantinople, and organized at the Empress’s estate

of Drus, the Oak, near Chalcedon, a Council, _Synodus ad Quercum_,

A.D. 403, which pronounced Chrysostom guilty of immorality,

offences against the church and high treason. The Emperor

condemned him to exile. Chrysostom soothed the people excited

in his favour, and allowed himself quietly to be sent away. A

violent earthquake, however, next night and the incontrollable

excitement of the populace, led the Emperor to entreat the

exile by special messenger immediately to return. After three

days’ absence he had a triumphal entrance again into the city.

Theophilus fled precipitately to Alexandria. Soon thereafter

Chrysostom very solemnly denounced the noisy inauguration of

a statue of the empress during the celebration of worship, and

when on this account her rage flamed up against him afresh, the

unfortunate words were uttered by him in a sermon on the day of

John the Baptist: Πάλιν Ἡρωδίας μαίνεται, πάλιν πράσσεται, πάλιν

ἐπὶ πίνακι τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ Ἰωάννου ζητεῖ λαβεῖν. Now the game

was again in Theophilus’ favour. His party fanned the flame at

the court. During the Easter vigils, A.D. 404, armed men burst

into the church of Chrysostom and carried him away an exile to

Cucusus in Armenia. With heroic courage he bore all the miseries

of the journey, the climate and the wild lawless neighbourhood.

With his people from the place of his banishment he maintained

regular pastoral intercourse.--Soon after the outbreak of

the conflict, Theophilus as well as Chrysostom had diligently

sought to obtain the support of the West. Both sent letters and

messengers to Rome, Milan and Aquileia, seeking to justify their

cases before the churches. Innocent I. of Rome urged the deciding

of the controversy at an œcumenical Council, but did not carry

his point. After the disgraceful banishment of Chrysostom the

whole West took his side, and Innocent got Honorius to apply to

Arcadius for his recall; but the only result was that in A.D. 407

he was sent to still more severe banishment at Pityus, on the

Black Sea. He succumbed to the fatigues of the journey and

died on the way with words on his lips that had been the motto

of his life: Δόξα τῷ θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν. A great part of his

congregation at Constantinople refused to acknowledge the new

patriarch Arsacius and his successor Atticus, and continued apart,

notwithstanding all persecutions, under the name of Johannites,

until Theodosius II. in A.D. 438 fetched back with honour the

bones of their revered pastor and laid them in the imperial vault.

Amid personal animosities and embittered feelings the Origenist

controversy was long lost to view, but we must return to it again

further on (§ 52, 6).[158]

§ 52. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY.[159]

In the Trinitarian controversy we dealt with the pre- and

extra-historical existence of the Son of God, with His divine nature

in itself; but now, at the crucial point of Christian speculation and

ecclesiastical conflict, we come to treat of His historical existence

as that of the incarnate Son of God, of the connection of the divine

nature of the Logos with the human nature of the Son of Mary, and of

the mutual relations of both to one another. Even during the Arian

controversy the conflict was begun, and while the church maintained

against Arius the full divinity of Christ, it also affirmed against

Apollinaris the completeness of His humanity. In three further phases

this conflict was continued. In the Dyoprosopic controversy the church

maintained the unity of the Person of Christ against the Antiochean

extreme represented by Nestorius, which hold both natures so far

apart that the result seemed to be two persons. In the Monophysite

controversy the opposite extreme of the new Alexandrian school

was combated, which in the unity of the person lost sight of the

distinctness of the natures. In the Monothelite controversy a unionistic

effort was resisted which indeed allowed the duality of natures to be

affirmed nominally, but practically denied it by the acknowledgment of

only one will.

§ 52.1. =The Apollinarian Controversy,

A.D. 362-381.=[160]--Previously the older _Modalists_, _e.g._,

Beryllus and Sabellius, had taught that by the incarnation the

Logos had received merely a human body. Marcellus shared this

view; but also his antipodes Arius had adopted it in order

to avoid postulating two creatures in Christ. Athanasius held

by the doctrine of Origen, that the human soul in Christ is

a necessary bond between the Logos and the body, as well as

an organ for giving expression to the Logos through the body.

At the Synod of Alexandria, A.D. 362, therefore, he obtained

ecclesiastical sanction for the recognition of a complete human

nature in Christ. =Apollinaris= of Laodicea (§ 47, 5), who had

helped to arrange for this Council, also disapproved of the

expression σῶμα ἄψυχον, but yet thought that the doctrine of

the completeness of the human nature must be denied. He was led

to this position by his adoption of trichotomic principles. He

maintained that Christ has taken merely a σῶμα with a ψυχὴ ἄλογος,

and that the place of the ψυχὴ λογικὴ (ὁ νοῦς) was represented

in him by the divine Logos. If this were not so then, he thought,

one must assume two persons in Christ or let Christ sink down

to the position of a mere ἄνθρωπος ἔνθεος. Only in this way

too could absolute sinlessness be affirmed of him. On the other

hand, Athanasius and the two Gregories saw that in this way

the substantiality of the incarnation and the completeness of

redemption were lost. The so-called second œcumenical Council of

A.D. 381 rejected the doctrine of Apollinaris, who with his party

was excluded from the Church. The Apollinarians subsequently

joined the Monophysites.

§ 52.2. =Christology of the Opposing Theological Schools.=--In

consequence of the Arian controversy the perfect divinity, and in

consequence of the Apollinarian controversy the perfect humanity,

of Christ were finally established. On the relation between

the two natures conditioned by the union there was definite

result attained unto. Apollinaris had taught a connection of

the divinity with the _incomplete_ manhood so intimate that

he had unwittingly destroyed the duality of the natures, and

by means of an ἀντιμεθίστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων transferred the

attributes of the one nature to the other; so that not only

the body of Christ must have been deified and have been therefore

worthy of worship, but also birth, suffering and death must be

referred to His divinity. In his treatise: Κατὰ μέρος πίστις,

he teaches: οὐ δύο πρόσωπα, οὐδὲ δύο φύσεις, οὐδὲ γὰρ τέσσαρα

προσκυνεῖν λέγομεν, θεὸν καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ πνεῦμα

ἅγιον, and in the tract _De incarnatione Verbi_, wrongly

attributed to Athanasius: Ὁμολογοῦμεν εἶναι αὐτὸν υἱὸν τοῦ

θεοῦ καὶ θεὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου κατὰ σάρκα· οὐ δύο

φύσεις τὸν ἕνα υἱὸν, μίαν προσκυνητὴν καὶ μίαν ἀπροσκύνητον,

ἀλλὰ μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκομένην καὶ προσκυνομένην

μετὰ τῆς σάρκος αὐτοῦ μίᾳ προσκυνήσει. So, too, in the Epistle

ascribed to Julius of Rome. The =Alexandrian Theology=, although

rejecting the mutilation of the human nature favoured by

Apollinaris, sympathized with him in his love for the mystical,

the inconceivable and the transcendental. In opposition to the

Arian heresy it gave special emphasis to the divinity of Christ

and taught a ἕνωσις φυσική of both natures. Only before the

union and _in abstracto_ can we speak of two natures; after

the incarnation and _in concreto_ we can speak only of one

divine-human nature. Mary was therefore spoken of as the mother

of God, θεοτόκος. Athanasius in his treatise against Apollinaris

acknowledged an ἀσύγχυτος φυσικὴ ἕνωσις τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν

αὐτοῦ γενομένην σάρκα, and explained this φυσικὴ ἕνωσις as a

ἕνωσις κατὰ φύσιν. The Cappadocians (§ 47, 4) indeed expressly

admitted two natures, ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλα, but yet taught a commingling

of them, σύγκρασις, κατάμιξις, a συνδραμεῖν of the two natures,

εἰς ἕν, a μεταποιηθῆναι of the σὰρξ πρὸς τὴν θεότητα. Cyril of

Alexandria taught that the ἐνσάρκωσις was a φυσικὴ ἕνωσις, an

incarnation in the proper sense. Christ consists ἐκ δύο φύσεων,

but not ἐκ δύο φύσεσι, _i.e._ only before the incarnation and

_in abstracto_ (κατὰ μόνην τὴν θεωρίαν) can we speak of two

natures. In the God-man two natures would be two subjects, and

so there would be two Christs; the redeemer would then only be

an ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος and not a θεάνθρωπος, and could thus afford

no guarantee of a complete redemption, etc. The =Antiochean

Theology= (§ 47, 8, 9), in opposition to Apollinaris, affirmed

most emphatically the complete and unchangeable reality of the

human nature of Christ at and after its union with the divine.

It would therefore only admit of a συναφεία or a ἕνωσις σχετική,

by which both are brought into the relation (σχέσις) of common

being and common action. Expressions like θεοτόκος, θεὸς

ἐγγέννηθεν, θεὸς ἔπαθεν, seemed to the thinkers of this school

blasphemous, or at least absurd. They acknowledged indeed that

the σάρξ of Christ is worthy of adoration but only in so far as

it is the organ of the redeeming Logos, not because in itself

it shares in the divine attributes. The most developed form of

this doctrine was presented by Theodore of Mopsuestia in strict

connection with his anthropology and soteriology. The historical

development of the God-man is with him the type and pattern of

the historical redemption of mankind. Christ assumed a complete

human nature, with all its sinful affections and tendencies,

but he fought these down and raised His human nature by constant

conflict and victory to that absolute perfection to which by the

same way He leads us through the communication of His Spirit.

He expressly guarded himself against the charge of making Christ

into two persons: Christ is ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, but not ἄλλος καὶ

ἄλλος for the human nature has in the incarnation renounced

personality and independence.--Each of these two schools

represented one side of the truth of the church’s doctrine;

in the union of the two sides the church proclaimed the full

truth. On the other hand the two schools proceeded more and more

one-sidedly to emphasise each its own side of the truth, and so

tended toward positive error. Thus arose two opposite errors, the

separating of the natures and the confusing of the natures, which

the church rejected one after the other, and proclaimed the truth

that lay at the root of both.--During this discussion arose the

=Western Theology= as the regulator of the debate. So long as it

dealt with the one-sided extreme of the Antiocheans it stood side

by side with the Alexandrians. Augustine, _e.g._ used indeed the

expression _mixture_, but in reality he explains the relation

of both natures to one another quite in accordance with the

afterwards settled orthodoxy. But when at last the method of

exclusions reached the error of the Alexandrians, the Westerns

turned quite as decidedly to the other side and maintained the

union of the two sides of the truth (Leo the Great). The conflict

attracted great attention when it broke out at first in the West,

but it was so quickly settled that soon no trace of it remained.

In Southern Gaul a monk Leporius came forward teaching the

Antiochean doctrine of the union of the two natures. In A.D. 426

he went to Africa, entered into conflict with Augustine, but

retracted his errors almost immediately.

§ 52.3. =The Dyoprosopic or Nestorian Controversy,

A.D. 428-444.=[161]--In A.D. 428 a monk of Antioch called

=Nestorius=, a distinguished orator, was appointed patriarch of

Constantinople. He was an eloquent and pious man but hasty and

imprudent, with little knowledge of the world and human nature,

and immoderately severe against heretics. The hatred of an

unsuccessful rival in Constantinople called Proclus and the

rivalry of the patriarch of Alexandria, who hated him not only as

a rival but as an Antiochean, made the position of the unsupported

monk a very hard one, and his protection of the expatriated

Pelagians (§ 53, 4) excited the Roman bishop Cœlestine against

him. Anastasius, a presbyter brought with him by Nestorius,

was annoyed at the frequent use of the expression θεοτόκος and

preached against it. Nestorius took his part against people and

monks, sentenced the monks who had insulted him personally to

endure corporal punishment, and at an endemic Synod in A.D. 439

condemned the doctrine objected to. And now Cyril of Alexandria

(§ 47, 6) entered the lists as champion of the Alexandrian

dogmatics. He won to himself Cœlestine of Rome (§ 46, 6), as

well as bishops Memnon of Ephesus and Juvenalis [Juvenal] of

Jerusalem, and at the court, Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II.

A.D. 408-450); while the empress Eudocia (§ 48, 5) and the Syrian

bishops took the side of Nestorius. All conciliatory attempts

were frustrated by the stiffness of the two patriarchs. Cœlestine

of Rome in A.D. 430 demanded of Nestorius a recantation within

ten days, and Cyril at a Synod of Alexandria in A.D. 430 produced

twelve strong counterpropositions containing anathemas, which

Nestorius answered immediately by twelve counteranathemas. Thus

the controversy and the parties engaged in it became more and

more violent. For its settlement the emperor called the so-called

=Third= (properly =Second=, comp. § 50, 4) =Œcumenical Council

at Ephesus in A.D. 431=. Nestorius enjoyed the decided favour

of the emperor, the imperial plenipotentiary was his personal

friend, and a portion of the emperor’s bodyguard accompanied him

to Ephesus. But Cyril appeared with a great retinue of bishops

and a faithful guard of servants of the church and seamen, who

should in case of need prove the correctness of the Alexandrian

dogmatics with their fists. In addition Memnon of Ephesus had in

readiness a crowd of clergy, monks and people from Asia Minor.

Before the Roman legates and the Syrian bishops had arrived Cyril

opened the Council without them with 200 bishops. Nestorianism

was condemned, Nestorius excommunicated and deposed, and

Cyril’s anathematizing propositions adopted as the standard

of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The Roman legate recognised the

Council, but the imperial commissioner refused his approval;

and the Syrian bishops, under the presidency of John of Antioch

proceeded, on their arrival, to hold an opposition Council, which

excommunicated Cyril and Memnon. Nestorius of his own accord

retired into a monastery. Meanwhile in Constantinople, at the

instigation of Pulcheria, a popular tumult was raised in favour

of Cyril. The emperor set aside all the three leaders, Nestorius,

Cyril and Memnon, and authorised a mediating creed drawn up by

Theodoret (§ 47, 9) in which the θεοτόκος was recognised but an

ἀσύγχυτος ἕνωσις was affirmed. Cyril and Memnon still remained

in their offices. They subscribed Theodoret’s formula and John

subscribed the condemnation of Nestorius, A.D. 433, who was

deposed and given over to the vengeance of his enemies. Driven

from his monastic retreat and in many ways ill-treated, he died

in destitution in A.D. 440. The compromise of the two leaders

called forth opposition on every side. The Syrian church

was in revolt over their patriarch’s betrayal of the person

of Nestorius. John avenged himself by deposing his opponents.

This had well-nigh been the fate of the noble Theodoret;

but the patriarch exempted him from condemning the person

of Nestorius in consideration of his condemnation of the

doctrine.--The Egyptians also charged their patriarch with

the denial of the true doctrine. He was at pains, however, to

give proof of his zeal by the vindictiveness of his persecutions.

Not without an eye to results he wrought to have the anathema

of the church pronounced upon the heads of the Antiochean school,

and one of their partisans, bishop Rabulas of Edessa, pounced

upon the famous theological school at Edessa, at the head of

which then stood the distinguished presbyter Ibas (§ 47, 13).

After the death of Rabulas, however, in A.D. 436, the school

again rose to great eminence. Theodoret and Cyril meanwhile

contended with one another in violent writings. Death closed

the mouth of Cyril in A.D. 444. But Rabulas unweariedly sought

out and burnt the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which

Ibas had translated into Syriac. The latter published a letter

to Maris bishop of Hardashir in Persia, which at a subsequent

period obtained symbolical rank among the Nestorians, and Thomas

Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis, wrought successfully for the spread

of Nestorianism in the Persian church. In A.D. 489 the school of

Edessa was again destroyed by order of the emperor Zeno. Teachers

and scholars migrated to Persia, and founded at Nisibis a school

that long continued famous. At a Synod in Seleucia in A.D. 499,

under the patriarch Babäus of Seleucia, the whole Persian

church finally broke off from the orthodox church of the Roman

empire (§ 64, 2). They called themselves according to their

ecclesiastical language Chaldean Christians. Their patriarch

bore the title Jazelich, καθολικός. The Nestorian church passed

on from Persia into India, where its adherents, appropriating the

old legend that the apostle Thomas had introduced Christianity

into India (§ 16, 4), called themselves Thomas-Christians.

§ 52.4. =The Monophysite Controversy.=

I. =Eutychianism, A.D. 444-451.=--Cyril’s successor was

=Dioscurus=, who was inferior to his predecessor in

acuteness, but in passionateness and tyrannical cruelty

left him far behind. An old archimandrite in Constantinople

called =Eutyches= taught not only that after His incarnation

Christ had only one nature, but also that the body of

Christ as the body of God is not of like substance with

our own. The patriarch Domnus of Antioch accused him without

success to Theodosius II., and Theodoret wrote against him

a controversial treatise under the title Ἐρανιστὴς ἤτοι

Πολύμορφος, in which he opposed the doctrine of Eutyches

as a conglomeration of many heresies. Dioscurus now joined

in the fray, and wrought upon the emperor, whose minister

the eunuch Chrysaphius and whose consort Eudocia he had

won over to his side, to pass severe measures against the

Syrians, and especially Theodoret, whom the emperor forbade

to pass beyond the range of his diocese. Eusebius, bishop

of Doryläum, in Phrygia, however, accused Eutyches before

an endemic Synod at Constantinople, in A.D. 448, presided

over by the patriarch Flavian. Eutyches, though under

imperial protection, was nevertheless, upon his refusal

to retract, excommunicated and deposed. He appealed to

an œcumenical Synod and betook himself to =Leo the Great=

(§ 46, 7) at Rome. Flavian also appeared before the Roman

bishop. Leo took the side of Flavian, and in a letter to

that patriarch developed with great acuteness and clearness

the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. The emperor,

however, convoked an œcumenical Council at Ephesus, A.D. 449,

at which Dioscurus presided, while Flavian and his party had

no vote and Theodoret was not even present, but at which for

the first time there was a representative of the monastic

order in the person of the zealous monophysite, the Abbot

Barsumas. The Council was conducted in an extremely arbitrary

and violent manner. The doctrine of two natures was rejected,

and when Eusebius stepped forward to defend it, the Egyptians

shouted: Away with him! Burn him! Tear him in two pieces, as

he has torn the Christ! Flavian as well as Eusebius appealed

to the bishop of Rome; but the Synod pronounced on both the

sentence of excommunication. When now some bishops sprang

forward, and embracing Dioscurus’ knees entreated him to

desist from such injustice, he called in the soldiers to

his help who with chains and unsheathed swords rushed into

the church, after them a crowd of fanatical monks, stout

parabolani and a raging rabble. Flavian was sorely injured

by blows and kicks, and died soon afterwards in banishment.

The Roman legates and Eusebius escaped similar maltreatment

only by speedy flight. During the later sittings Eutyches

was restored, but the chiefs of the opposite party, Ibas,

Theodoret, Domnus, etc., were deposed and excommunicated.

Leo the Great addressed to the emperor a vigorous protest

against the decisions of this =Robber Synod=, _Latrocinium

Ephesinum_, σύνοδος ληστρική. The result was that Theodosius

quarrelled with Eudocia, was reconciled to Pulcheria, and

dismissed his minister. Flavian’s body was now taken in

state to Constantinople, and honourably buried. Theodosius’

death in A.D. 450 prevented any further steps being taken.

His sister Pulcheria, with her husband Marcian, ascended

the throne. A new =Œcumenical Council= (the so-called

=fourth=) =at Chalcedon in A.D. 451=, deposed Dioscurus,

who was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, but spared the

other party leaders of the Monophysites, and condemned

Nestorianism as well as Eutychianism. Cyril’s synodal

rescripts against Nestorius and Leo’s Epistle were

made the basis of the formal statement of the orthodox

doctrine: “that Christ is true God and true man, according

to His Godhead begotten from eternity and like the Father

in everything, according to his humanity born of Mary

the Virgin and God bearer in time and like to us men in

everything, only without sin; and that after His incarnation

the unity of the person consists in two natures which

are conjoined without confusion (ἀσυγχύτως) and without

change (ἀτρέπτως), but also without rending (ἀδιαιρέτως)

and without separation (ἀχωρίστως).” In this Synod too

there were frequently scenes which in unruly violence were

little behind those of the Robber Synod. When, for example,

Theodoret entered amid the loud cheers of the orientals,

the Egyptians saluted him with wild shouts (δι’ εὐσέβειαν

κράζομεν, said they): “Away with the Jew, the blasphemer

of God!” A scene of wild confusion and tumult followed

which only with the greatest difficulty was quelled by

the imperial commissioners. Then at the eighth session,

when the Egyptians demanded not only the express and special

condemnation of the doctrine but also that of the person

of Nestorius, and Theodoret sought to justify him, the storm

broke out afresh, and this time the Egyptians gained their

point, but they were again defeated after violent debate,

in their attempt to secure the condemnation of the person

and writings of Ibas.[162]

§ 52.5.

II. =Imperial Attempts at Union, A.D. 451-519.=--The supporters

of the Alexandrian dogmatics left the Council full of

resentment at the defeat which they had sustained. They

were henceforth called Monophysites. The whole church was

now in a state of feverish excitement. In Palestine the

monk Theodosius, secretly co-operating with the dowager

empress Eudocia living there in exile, roused the mob into

rebellion. In Egypt the uproar was still more violent.

Timotheus Aëlurus assumed the position of an opposition

patriarch and drove out the orthodox patriarch Proterius.

The same thing was done in Antioch by the monk Petrus

[Peter] Fullo (ὁ γραφεύς). In order to give a Monophysite

colour to the liturgy he added to the Trishagion (Is. vi. 3),

which had been liturgically used in the oldest churches, the

formula θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς. Party violence meanwhile

went the length of insurrections and blood-shedding on both

sides. The new emperor Leo I. the Thracian, A.D. 457-474,

a powerful and prudent ruler, interposed to bring about

a pacification. In accordance with the advice of the most

distinguished bishops of the empire the two mutinous leaders

of the Monophysites were banished, and the patriarchal

sees thus vacated filled by moderate Dyophysites. But after

Leo’s death and the dethronement of his son-in-law Zeno in

A.D. 475, the usurper Basiliscus issued an edict in A.D. 476,

under the name of an =Encyclion=, by which the Chalcedonian

Symbol, along with Leo’s Epistle, was condemned, and

Monophysitism was proclaimed to be the universal national

religion. Fullo and Aëlurus were also reinstated. The

patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, on the other hand,

organized a Dyophysite counter-revolution, Basiliscus was

overthrown, and the emperor Zeno again placed upon the

throne in A.D. 477. About this time Aëlurus died, and his

party chose Petrus [Peter] Mongus (μογγός, stammering) as

his successor; but the court appointed a Dyophysite Johannes

Talaja. Acacius, when Talaja took up a hostile position

towards him, joined with his opponent Mongus. Both agreed

upon a treaty of union, which also found favour with the

emperor Zeno, and by an edict, the so-called =Henoticon=

of A.D. 482 obtained the force of a law. Nestorianism

and Eutychianism were condemned, Cyril’s anathematisms

were renewed, the Chalcedonian decisions abrogated,

and the Nicene faith alone declared valid, while all

controverted points were to be carefully avoided in teaching

and preaching. Naturally protests were made from both sides.

The strict Monophysites of Egypt threw off Mongus, and were

now called Ἀκέφαλοι. Felix III. of Rome, at the head of the

Dyophysites, refused to have church fellowship with Acacius.

Thus arose a 35 years’ schism, A.D. 484-519, between East

and West. Only the Acoimetæ monks in Constantinople (§ 44, 3)

continued to hold communion with Rome. Church fellowship

between the parties was not restored until Justin I.,

who thought that the schism would hinder his projected

reconquest of Italy, in conjunction with the Roman bishop

Hormisdas in A.D. 519, cancelled the Henoticon, and deposed

those who adhered to it.

§ 52.6.

III. =Justinian’s Decrees, A.D. 527-553.=--During the violent

conflict of parties Justinian I. entered upon his long

and politically considered glorious reign, A.D. 527-565.

He regarded it as his life task permanently to establish

orthodoxy, and to win back heretics to the church, above

all the numerous Monophysites. But the well-disposed emperor,

who moreover had no deep insight into the thorny questions

of theological controversy, was in various ways misled by

the intrigues of court theologians, and the machinations

of his crafty consort Theodora, who was herself secretly

a Monophysite. The =Theopaschite Controversy= first called

forth from him a decree. The addition made to the Trishagion

by Petrus [Peter] Fullo, θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς,

had been smuggled into the Constantinopolitan liturgy

about A.D. 512. The Acoimetæ pronounced it heretical, and

Hormisdas of Rome admitted that it was at least capable of

being misunderstood and useless. But Justinian sanctioned

it in A.D. 533. Encouraged by this first success, Theodora

used her influence to raise the Monophysite Anthimus to

the episcopal chair of the capital. But the Roman bishop

Agapetus, who stayed in Constantinople as ambassador

of the Goths, unmasked him, and obtained his deposition.

Mennas, a friend of Agapetus, was appointed his successor

in A.D. 536. All Monophysite writings were ordered to be

burnt, their transcribers were punished by the loss of their

hand. Two Palestinian abbots, Domitian and Theodore Ascidas,

secret Monophysites and zealous friends of Origen, lived at

court in high favour. To compass their overthrow, Mennas at

an endemic Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 543 renewed the

condemnation of the arch-heretic and his writings. The court

theologians, however, subscribed without objection, and in

concert with Theodora plotted their revenge. Justinian had

long regarded Egypt with peculiar interest as the granary

of the empire. He felt that something must be done to pacify

the Monophysites who abounded in that country. Theodora

persuaded him that the Monophysites would be satisfied

if it were resolved, along with the writings of Theodore,

the father of the Nestorian heresy, to condemn also the

controversial writings of Theodoret against the venerated

Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris. The supposed errors

of these were collected before him in the _Three Chapters_.

The emperor did this by an edict in A.D. 544, and demanded

the consenting subscription of all the bishops. The

orientals obeyed; but in the West opposition was shown

on all sides, and thus broke out the violent =Controversy

of the Three Chapters=. Vigilius of Rome, a creature of

Theodora (§ 46, 9), had secretly promised his co-operation,

but, not feeling able to face the storm in the West, he

broke his word. Justinian had him brought to Constantinople

in A.D. 547 and forced from him a written declaration,

the so-called _Judicatum_, in which he agreed to the

condemnation of the _Three Chapters_. The Africans,

under Reparatus of Carthage excommunicated the successor

of Peter, and fought manfully for the rights and honour of

the calumniated fathers. Fulgentius Farrandus [Ferrandus]

wrote _Pro tribus capitt._, Facundus of Hermiane, _Defensío

III. capitt._, and the deacon Liberatus of Carthage,

a _Breviarium causæ Nestorian. et Eutychianorum_, an

important source of information for the history of the

Christological Controversies. Justinian finally convened

the =Fifth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 553=,

which confirmed all the imperial edicts. Vigilius issued

a _Constitum ad Imp._, in which he indeed rejected the

doctrines of the Three Chapters but refused to condemn

the persons. Under imprisonment and exile he became pliable,

and subscribed in A.D. 554. He died in A.D. 555 on his

return to his bishopric. His successor Pelagius formally

acknowledged the Constantinopolitan decrees, and North

Africa, North Italy and Illyria renounced the dishonoured

chair of Peter. At last Gregory the Great, with much

difficulty, gradually brought this schism to an end.

§ 52.7.

IV. =The Monophysite Churches.=--Justinian, however, did not

thereby reach the end he had in view. The Monophysites

continued their separation because the hated Chalcedonian

Symbol was still acknowledged. But more injurious to them

than the persecutions of the orthodox national church

were the endless quarrels and divisions among themselves.

First of all the two leaders in Alexandria, Julianus and

Severus, became heads of rival parties. The =Severians= or

φθαρτολάτραι taught that the body of Christ in itself had

been subject to corruption (the φθορά); the =Julianists=

denied it. This first split was followed by many others.

By transferring the Monophysite confusion of οὐσία

and ὑπόστασις to the doctrine of the Trinity arose the

Monophysite sect of the =Tritheists=, who taught that

in Christ there is one nature, and that in the Trinity

a separate nature is to be ascribed to each of the three

persons. Among them was the celebrated philosopher, Johannes

Philoponus (§ 47, 11), who supported this doctrine by the

Aristotelian categories. He also vindicated the notion that

the present world as to form and matter would perish at the

last day, and an entirely new world with new bodies would

be created. In opposition to this Conon, bishop of Tarsus,

affirmed that the overthrow of the world would be in form

only, and that the risen saints would again possess the

same bodies though in a glorified form. His followers the

so-called =Cononites= separated from the main stem of the

Tritheists and formed an independent sect.--The Monophysites

were most numerous in Egypt. Out of hatred to the Greek

Catholics they forbade the use of the Greek language in

their churches, and chose a Coptic patriarch for themselves.

They aided the Saracens in their conquest of Egypt in

A.D. 640, who out of gratitude for this drove away the

Catholic patriarch. From Egypt Monophysitism spread into

Abyssinia (§ 64, 1). Already in A.D. 536 Byzantine Armenia

had been conquered by the Persians, who showed favour to

the previously oppressed Monophysites (§ 64, 3). In Syria

and Mesopotamia, during Justinian’s persecutions, the

unwearied activity of a monk, Jacob Zanzalus, commonly

called el Baradai, because he went about clad as a beggar,

ordained by the Monophysites as bishop of Edessa and the

whole East, saved the Monophysite church from extinction.

He died in A.D. 538. After him the Monophysites were

called =Jacobites=. They called the Catholics Melchites,

_Royalists_. Their patriarch resided at Guba in Mesopotamia.

Subordinate to him was a suffragan bishop at Tagrit with the

title of _Maphrian_, _i.e._ the Fruit-bearer. At the head of

the Armenian Monophysites stood the patriarch of Aschtarag

with the title _Catholicus_. The Abyssinian church had a

metropolitan with the title _Abbuna_[163]--_Continuation_

§ 72, 2.

§ 52.8. =The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680.=--The

increasing political embarrassments of the emperor made a

union with the Monophysites all the more desirable. The emperor

Heraclius, A.D. 611-641, was advised to attempt a union of

parties under the formula: that Christ accomplished His work

of redemption by the exercise of one divine human will (μιᾷ

θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ). Several Catholic bishops found nothing

objectionable in this formula which had already been used by

the Pseudo-Dionysius (§ 47, 11). In A.D. 633 the patriarchs

Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria on the basis

of this concluded a treaty, in consequence of which most of

the Severians attached themselves again to the national church.

Honorius of Rome also was won over. But the monk Sophronius, who

soon thereafter in A.D. 634 became patriarch of Jerusalem, came

forward as the decided opponent Of this union, which led back

to Monophysitism. The conquest of Jerusalem, however, soon

after this, A.D. 637, by the Saracens put him outside of the

scene of conflict. In A.D. 638 the emperor issued an edict,

the =Ecthesis=, by which it was sought to make an end of the

strife by substituting for the offensive expression ἐνέργεια the

less objectionable term θέλημα, and confirming the Monothelite

doctrine as alone admissible. Now the monk Maximus (§ 47, 12)

entered the lists as the champion of orthodoxy. He betook

himself to Africa, where since Justinian’s time zeal for the

maintenance of the Chalcedonian faith was strongest, and here

secured political support in Gregorius [Gregory] the imperial

governor who sought to make himself independent of Byzantium.

This statesman arranged for a public disputation at Carthage

in A.D. 645 between Maximus and the ex-patriarch Pyrrhus of

Constantinople, the successor of Sergius, who, implicated in

a palace intrigue, deposed from his office and driven from

Constantinople, sought refuge in Africa. Pyrrhus willingly

submitted and abjured his error. An African General Synod in

A.D. 646 unanimously condemned Monothelitism, renounced church

fellowship with Paulus, the new patriarch of Constantinople, and

demanded of Pope Theodorus, A.D. 642-649, a fulmination against

the heresy. In order to give this demand greater emphasis,

Maximus and Pyrrhus travelled together to Rome. The latter was

recognised by the pope as legitimate patriarch of Constantinople,

but, being induced by the exarch of Ravenna to recant his

recantation, he was excommunicated by the pope, with a pen

dipped in the sacramental wine, returned to Constantinople and

was, after the death of Paulus, reinstated in his former office.

Maximus remained in Rome and there won the highest reputation

as the shield of orthodoxy.--The proper end of the union, namely

the saving of Syria and Egypt, was meanwhile frustrated by

the Mohammedan conquest of Syria in A.D. 638, and of Egypt

in A.D. 640. The court, however, for its own honour still

persevered in it. Africa and Italy occupied a position of

open revolt. Then emperor Constans II., A.D. 642-668, resolved

to annul the Ecthesis. In its place he put another enactment

about the faith, the =Typus=, A.D. 648, which sought to get back

to the state of matters before the Monothelite movement; that

neither one nor two wills should be taught. But Martin I. of

Rome at the first Lateran Synod at Rome in A.D. 649 condemned

in the strongest terms the Typus as well as the Ecthesis along

with its original maintainers, and sent the Acts to the emperor.

The exarch of Ravenna, Olympius, was now ordered to take the

bold prelate prisoner, but did not obey. His successor sent the

pope in chains to Constantinople. In A.D. 653 he was banished

for high treason to the Chersonese, where he literally suffered

hunger, and died in A.D. 655 six months after his arrival.

Still more dreadful was the fate of the abbot Maximus. At

the same time with Martin or soon after he too was brought

to Constantinople a prisoner from Rome. Here for a whole year

every effort imaginable was made, entreaties, promises, threats,

imprisonment, hunger, etc., in order to induce him to acknowledge

the Typus, but all in vain. The emperor then lost all patience.

In a towering rage at the unparalleled obstinacy of the monk’s

resistance he doomed him, A.D. 662, to dreadful scourging, to

have his tongue wrenched out and his hand hewn off, and to be

sent into the wildest parts of Thrace, where he died a few weeks

after his arrival at the age of 82 years. Such barbaric severity

was effectual for a long time. But under the next emperor

Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668-685, the two parties prepared

for a new conflict. The emperor resolved to make an end of it

by a General Council. Pope Agatho held a brilliant Synod at Rome

in A.D. 679, where it was laid down that not one iota should

be abated from the decisions of the Lateran Synod. With these

decisions and a missive from the pope himself, the papal legates

appeared at the =Sixth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in

A.D. 680=, called also _Concil. Trullanum I._, because it was

held in the mussel-shaped vaulted hall Trullus in the imperial

castle, under the presidency of the emperor. As at Chalcedon

the Epistle of Leo I., so also here that of Agatho lay at the

basis of the Council’s doctrinal decrees: δύο φυσικὰ θελήματα

ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως, οὐχ ὑπεναντία, ἀλλὰ

ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον καὶ ὑποτασσόμενον τῷ θείῳ. The Synod even

condescended to grant the pope a report of the proceedings and

to request his confirmation of its decisions. But the Greeks,

finding a malicious pleasure in the confusion of their rivals,

contrived to mix in the sweet drink a strong infusion of bitter

wormwood, for the Council among the other representatives of

Monothelite error ostentatiously and expressly condemned pope

Honorius as an accursed heretic. Pope Leo II. in a letter

to the emperor confirmed the decisions of the Council,

expressly homologating the condemnation of Honorius, “_qui

profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus

est_.”--Henceforth Dyothelitism prevailed universally. Only

in one little corner of Asia, to which the arm of the state

did not reach, a vestige of Monothelitism continued to exist.

Its scattered adherents gathered in the monastery of St. Maro

in Lebanon, and acknowledged the abbot of this cloister as

their ecclesiastical head. They called themselves Maronites, and

with sword in hand maintained their ecclesiastical as well as

political independence against Byzantines and Saracens (§ 72, 3).

§ 52.9. =The Case of Honorius.=--The two Roman Synods, A.D. 649

and 679, had simply ignored the notorious fact of the complicity

of Honorius in the furtherance of Monothelite error, and Agatho

might hope by the casual statement in his letter, that the Roman

chair never had taken the side of heretical novelties, to beguile

the approaching œcumenical Synod into the same obliviousness. But

the Greeks paid no heed to the hint. His successor Leo II. could

not do otherwise than homologate the Eastern leaders’ condemnation

of heresy, even that of Honorius, hard though this must have

been to him. On the other hand, the biographies of the popes from

Honorius to Agatho in the Roman _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6)

help themselves out of this dilemma again by preserving a dead

silence about any active or passive interference of Honorius

in the Monothelite controversy. In the biography of Leo II. for

the first time is Honorius’ name mentioned among those of the

condemned Monothelites, but without any particular remark about

him as an individual. So too in the formulary of a profession of

faith in the _Liber diurnus_ of the Roman church made by every

new pope and in use down to the 11th century (§ 46, 11). From

the biography of Leo in the Pontifical book was copied the simple

name into the readings of the Roman Breviary for the day of

this saint, and so it remained down to the 17th century. It had

then been quite forgotten in the West that by this name a pope

was designated. Oftentimes it had been affirmed that even Roman

popes might fall and actually had fallen into error; but only

such cases as those of Liberius (§ 46, 4), Anastasius (§ 46, 8),

Vigilius (§ 52, 6), John XXII. (§ 110, 3; 112, 2) were adduced;

that of Honorius occurred to nobody. It was only in the 15th

century, through more careful examination of Acts of Synods that

the true state of matters was discovered, and in the 16th century

when the question of the infallibility of the pope had become

a burning one (§ 149, 4), the case of Honorius became the real

Sisyphus rock of Roman Catholic theology. The most laborious

attempts have been made by most venturesome means to get it out

of the way. The condemnation of Honorius by the sixth œcumenical

Council has been described as merely a spiteful invention of

later Greeks, who falsified everything relating to him in the

Acts of the Council; so, _e.g._ Baronius, Bellarmine, etc.--The

condemnation actually took place but not at the œcumenical first,

but at the schismatical second, Trullan Council of A.D. 692

(§ 63, 2), and the record of procedure has been by the malice

of later Greeks transferred from the record of the second to

that of the first.--Forged epistles of Honorius were laid before

the sixth œcumenical Council, by means of which it was misled

into passing sentence upon him.--The condemnation of the pope

did not turn upon his doctrine but upon his unseasonable love

of peace.--The pope meant well, but expressed himself so as

to be misunderstood; so _e.g._ the Jesuit Garnier in his ed.

of the _Liber diurnus_, the Vatican Council, and Hefele in

the 2nd ed. of his Hist. of the Councils.--In the epistles

referred to he spoke as a private individual and not officially,

_ex cathedra_.--It is, however, fatal to all such explanations

that the infallible pope Leo II. solemnly denounced _ex cathedra_

his infallible predecessor Honorius as a heretic. Besides the

only other possible escape by distinguishing the _question du

fait_ and the _question du droit_ has been formally condemned

_ex cathedra_ in connection with another case (§ 156, 5).[164]

§ 53. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 412-529.[165]

While the Trinitarian and Christological controversies had their

origin in the East and there gave rise to the most violent conflicts,

the West taking indeed a lively interest in the discussion and by the

decisive voice of Rome giving the victory to orthodoxy at almost every

stage of the struggle, it was in the West that a controversy broke

out, which for a full century proceeded alongside of the Christological

controversy, without awakening in the East more than a passing and even

then only a secondary interest. It dealt with the fundamental questions

of sin and grace. In opposition to the Pelagian _Monergism_ of human

freedom, as well as the semi-Pelagian _Synergism_ of divine grace and

human freedom, the Augustinian _Monergism_ of divine grace finally

obtained the victory.

§ 53.1. =Preliminary History.=--From the earliest times the

actual universality of sin and the need of divine grace in

Christ for redemption from sin received universal acknowledgment

throughout the whole church. But as to whether and how far the

moral freedom of men was weakened or lost by sin, and in what

relation human conduct stood to divine grace, great uncertainty

prevailed. Opposition to Gnosticism and Manichæism led the older

fathers to emphasise as strongly as possible the moral freedom

of men, and induced them to deny inborn sinfulness as well

as the doctrine that sin was imprinted in men in creation,

and to account for man’s present condition by bad training,

evil example, the agency of evil spirits, etc. This tendency

was most vigorously expressed by the Alexandrians. The new

Alexandrian school showed an unmistakable inclination to connect

the universality of sin with Adam’s sin, without going the length

of affirming the doctrine of inherited sinfulness. In Soteriology

it remained faithful to its traditional synergism (comp., however,

§ 47, 7k, l.) The Antiochean school sought to give due place to

the co-operation of the human will alongside of the necessity of

divine grace, and reduced the idea of inherited sin to that of

inherited evil. So especially Chrysostom, who was indeed able to

conceive that Adam by his actual sin become mortal could beget

only mortal children, but not that the sinner could beget only

sinners. The first man brought death into the world, we confirm

and renew the doom by our own sin. Man by his moral will does

his part, the divine grace does its part. The whole East is

unanimous in most distinctly repudiating all predestinational

wilfulness in God. In the West, on the other hand, by Traducianism

or Generationism introduced by Tertullian, which regards

the soul as begotten with the body, the way was prepared

for recognising the doctrine of inherited sin (_Tradux animæ,

tradux peccati_) and consequently also of monergism. Tertullian,

himself, proceeding from the experience, that in every man

from birth there is present an unconquerable tendency to sin,

spoke with great decidedness of a _Vitium originis_. In this

he was followed by Cyprian, Ambrose and Hilary. Yet even these

teachers of the church had not altogether been emancipated

from synergism, and alongside of expressions which breathe the

hardest predestinationism, are found others which seem to give

equal weight to the opposite doctrine of human co-operation in

conversion. Augustine was the first to state with the utmost

consistency the doctrine of the divine monergism; while Pelagius

carried out the synergism of the earlier fathers until it became

scarcely less than human monergism.--Meanwhile Traducianism did

not succeed in obtaining universal recognition even in the West.

Augustine vacillates; Jerome and Leo the Great prefer Creationism,

which represents God as creating a new soul for each human being

begotten. Most of the later church fathers, too, are creationists,

without, however, prejudicing the doctrine of inherited sin.

Those of them who supported the trichotomic theory (§ 52, 1)

held that it was the cobegotten ψυχὴ ἄλογος, _anima sensitiva_

as opposed to the _anima intellectualis_, while those who

supported the dichotomic theory, which posits merely body and

soul, held that it was the soul created good by God, which was

infected on its passing into the body begotten by human parents

with its inherited sin. The theory of Pre existence, which

Origen had brought forward (§ 31, 5) had, even in the East,

only occasional representatives (§ 47, 7m, n, o.).[166]

§ 53.2. =The Doctrine of Augustine.=--During the first period

of his Christian life, when the conflict with Manichæism still

stood in the forefront of his thinking and controversial activity,

Augustine, looking at faith as a self-determining of the human

will, had thought a certain measure of free co-operation on the

part of man in his conversion to be necessary and had therefore

refused to maintain his absolute want of merit. But by his whole

life’s experience he was irresistibly led to acknowledge man’s

natural inability for any positive co-operation and to make faith

together with conversion depend solely upon the grace of God. The

perfect and full development of this doctrine was brought about

by means of his controversy with the Pelagians. Augustine’s

doctrinal system in its most characteristic features is as

follows: Man was created free and in the image of God, destined

to and capable of attaining immortality, holiness and blessedness,

but also with the possibility of sinning and dying. By the

exercise of his freedom he must determine his own career. Had

he determined himself for God, the being able not to sin and not

to die, would have become an impossibility of sinning and dying,

the _Posse non peccare et mori_ would have become a _Non posse

peccare et mori_. But tempted by Satan he fell, and thus it

became for him impossible that he should not sin and die, _non

posse non peccare et non mori_. All prerogatives of the Divine

image were lost; he retained only the capacity for outward civil

righteousness, _Justitia civilis_, and a capacity for redemption.

In Adam, moreover, all mankind sinned, for he was all mankind. By

generation Adam’s nature as it was after sin, with sin and guilt,

death and condemnation, but also the capacity for redemption,

passed over to all his posterity. Divine grace, which alone can

redeem and save man, attached itself to the remnant of the divine

image which expressed itself in the need of redemption and the

capacity for redemption. Grace is therefore absolutely necessary,

in the beginning, middle and end of the Christian life. It is

granted man, not because he believes, but that he may believe;

for faith too is the work of God’s grace. First of all grace

awakens through the law the consciousness of sin and the desire

for redemption, and leads by the gospel to faith in the Redeemer

(_gratia præveniens_). By means of faith it thus secures the

forgiveness of sin as _primum beneficium_ through appropriating

the merits of Christ and in part the powers of the divine

life through the implanting of living fellowship with Christ

(in baptism). Thus is free will restored to the good (_Gratia

operans_) and evidences itself in a holy life in love. But

even in the regenerate the old man with his sinful lusts is

still present. In the struggle of the new with the old he is

continually supported by Divine grace (_Gratia co-operans_)

unto his justification (_Justificatio_) which is completed in

the making righteous of his whole life and being through the

Divine impartation (_Infusio_) of new powers of will. The final

act of grace, which, however, according to the educative wisdom

of God is not attained in this life, is the absolute removal

of evil desire (_Concupiscentia_) and transfiguration into the

perfect likeness of Christ through resurrection and eternal

life (_Non posse peccare et mori_). Apart from the inconsistent

theory of justification proposed, this view of nature and grace

is thoroughly Pauline. Augustine, however, connects with it the

doctrine of an absolute predestination. Experience shows that not

all men attain to conversion and redemption. Since man himself

can contribute nothing to his conversion, the ground of this must

be sought not in the conduct of the man but only in an eternal

unconditional decree of God, _Decretum absolutum_, according

to which He has determined out of the whole fallen race of man,

_Massa perditionis_, to save some to the glory of His grace and

to leave others to their deserved doom to the glory of His penal

righteousness. The ground of this election is only the wise and

mysterious good pleasure of the divine will without reference to

man’s faith, which is indeed only a gift of God. If it is said:

“God wills that all men should be saved,” that can only mean,

“all who are predestinated.” As the outcasts (_Reprobati_)

can in no way appropriate grace unto themselves, the elect

(_Electi_) cannot in any way resist it (_Gratia irresistibilis_).

The one sure sign that one is elected is, therefore, undisturbed

perseverance in the possession of grace (_Donum perseverantiæ_).

To the heathens, even the noblest of them, he refused salvation,

but made a distinction in the degrees of their penal tortures.

So too unbaptized children were all regarded as lost. Although

over against this he also set down the proposition: _Contemtus,

non defectus sacramenti damnat_, the resolution of this

contradiction lay in the special divine election of grace, which

secures to the elect the dispensation of the sacrament.[167]

§ 53.3. =Pelagius and his Doctrine.=--Pelagius (§ 47, 21),

a British monk of respectable learning and decided moral

earnestness, living far away from the storms and strife of life,

without any strong inward temptations, without any inclination

to manifest sins and without deep experience of the Christian

life, knowing and striving after no higher ideal than that of

monkish asceticism, had developed a theory quite antagonistic

to that of Augustine. He was strengthened in his opposition to

Augustine’s doctrine of the corruption of human nature and its

unfitness for all co-operation in conversion and sanctification,

by observing that this doctrine was often misused by careless men

as an excuse for carnal confidence and moral selfishness. He was

thus made more resolute in maintaining that it is more wholesome

to preach to men an imperative moral law whose demands they, as

he thought, could satisfy by determined will and moral endeavour.

Man at first was created mortal by God, and not temporal but

spiritual death is the consequence and punishment of sin. Adam’s

fall has changed nothing in human nature and has had no influence

upon his descendants. Every man now is born just as God created

the first man, _i.e._ without sin and without virtue. By his

wholly unweakened freedom he decides for himself on the one

side or the other. The universality of sin results from the

power of seduction, of mere example and habit. Still there may

be completely sinless men; and there have been such. God’s grace

facilitates man’s accomplishment of his purpose. It is, therefore,

not absolutely, but by the actual universality of sin, relatively

necessary. Grace consists in enlightenment by revelation, in

forgiveness of sin as the expression of divine forbearance, and

in the strengthening of our moral powers by the incentive of

the law and the promise of eternal life. God’s grace is destined

for all men, but man must make himself worthy of it by honest

striving after virtue. Christ became man, in order by His perfect

teaching and by the perfect pattern of His life to give us the

most powerful incentive to reformation and the redeeming of

ourselves thereby. As in sin we are Adam’s offspring, so in

virtue shall we be Christ’s offspring. He regarded baptism as

necessary (infant baptism _in remissionem futurorum peccatorum_).

Children dying unbaptized he placed in a lower stage of

blessedness. The same inconsistent submission to the fathers

of ecclesiastical tradition shows itself in the acceptance of

ecclesiastical views of revelation, miracles, prophecy, the

Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, whereas a more consistent

and systematic thinker would have felt compelled from his

anthropological principles to set aside or at least modify these

supernaturalistic elements.

§ 53.4. =The Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431.=--From A.D. 409

Pelagius resided in Rome. Here he gained over to his views

Cœlestius, a man of greater acuteness and scientific attainments

than himself. Both won high respect in Rome for their zeal for

morality and asceticism and promulgated their doctrine without

opposition. In A.D. 411 both went to Carthage, whence Pelagius

went and settled in Palestine. Cœlestius remained behind

and obtained the office of presbyter. Now for the first time

his errors were opposed. Paulinus deacon of Milan (§ 47, 20)

happening to be there formally complained against him, and a

provincial Synod at Carthage A.D. 412 excommunicated him, on

his refusal to retract. In the same year too Augustine published

his first controversial treatise: _De peccatorum meritis et

remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, Lb. III._ In =Palestine=

Pelagius had attached himself to the Origenists. Jerome, besides

passing a depreciatory judgment upon his literary productions,

contested his doctrine as an expounder of the Origenist heresy

(_Ep. ad Ctesiphontem_ and _Dialog. c. Pelagium, Lb. III._),

and a young Spanish presbyter Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20)

complained of him to the Synod of Jerusalem A.D. 415, under the

presidency of bishop John of that city. The synergistic orientals,

however, could not be convinced of the dangerous character of

his carefully guarded doctrine. Such too was the result of the

Synod of Diospolis or Lydda in A.D. 415 under bishop Eulogius of

Cæsarea, where two Gallic bishops appeared as accusers. Augustine

proved to the Palestinians in _De gestis Pelagii_ that they had

allowed themselves to be kept in the dark by Pelagius. Orosius

too published a controversial tract, _Apologeticus c. Pelag._,

in reply to which, or more probably to Jerome, Theodore of

Mopsuestia wrote the book now lost, Περὶ τοὺς λέγοντας, φύσει

καὶ οὐ γνώμη πταίειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Then the Africans again

took up the controversy. Two Synods at Mileve and Carthage, in

A.D. 416, reiterated their condemnation and sent their decree

to Innocent I. at Rome. The Pope acquiesced in the proceedings

of the Africans. Pelagius sent a veiled confession of faith and

Cœlestius appeared personally in Rome. Innocent died, however,

in A.D. 417, before his arrival. His successor Zozimus [Zosimus],

perhaps a Greek and certainly weak as a dogmatist, allowed

himself to be won over by Cœlestius and brought severe charges

against the Africans, against which again these entered a

vigorous protest. In A.D. 418 the emperor Honorius issued his

_Sacrum rescriptum_ against the Pelagians and a general Synod

at Carthage in the same year emphatically condemned them. Now

Zozimus [Zosimus] was prevailed on also to condemn them in his

_Epistola tractatoria_. Eighteen Italian bishops, among them

Julian of Eclanum in Apulia, the most acute and able apologist

of Pelagianism, refused to subscribe and were banished. They

sought and obtained protection from the Constantinopolitan bishop

Nestorius. But this connection did harm to both. The Roman bishop

Cœlestine took part with those who opposed the Christological

views of Nestorius (§ 52, 3), and at the =Œcumenical Council

of Ephesus in A.D. 431=, the orientals condemned along with

Nestorius also Pelagius and Cœlestius, without, however,

determining anything positive in regard to the doctrine under

discussion. To this end with unwearied zeal laboured Marius

Mercator, a learned layman of Constantinople, who published

two _Commonitoria_ against Pelagius and Cœlestius, and a

controversial treatise against Julian of Eclanum. Meanwhile

too Augustine rested not from his energetic polemic. In A.D. 413

he wrote _De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum_; in A.D. 415

against Pelagius, _De natura et gratia_; against Cœlestius,

_De perfectione justitiæ hominis_. In A.D. 416, _De gestis

Pelagii_. In A.D. 418, _De gratia Dei et de peccato originali

Lb. II. c. Pelag. et Cœl._ In A.D. 419, _De nuptiis et

concupiscentia Lb. II._, against the charge that his doctrine

was a reviling of God-appointed marriage. In A.D. 420, _C. duas

epistolas Pelagianorum et Bonifatium I._, against the vindicatory

writings of Julian and his friends. In A.D. 421, _Lb. VI.

c. Julianum_. And later still, _Opus imperfectum c. secundam

Juliani responsionem_. Engl. Transl.; Ante-Nicene Lib.:

Anti-Pelag. Wr., 3 vols., Edin., 1867 ff.

§ 53.5. =The Semi-Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 427-529.=--Bald

Pelagianism was overthrown, but the excessive crudeness of the

predestination theory, as set forth by Augustine, called forth

new forms of opposition. The monks of the monastery of Adrumetum

in North Africa, by severely carrying out the predestination

theory to its last consequences, had fallen, some into

sore distress of soul and despair, others into security and

carelessness, while others again thought that to avoid such

consequences, one must ascribe to human activity in the work

of salvation a certain degree of meritoriousness. The abbot of

the monastery in this dilemma applied to Augustine, who in two

treatises, written in A.D. 427, _De gratia et libero arbitrio_

and _De correptione et gratia_, sought to overcome the scruples

and misconceptions of the monks. But about this time in Southern

Gaul there was a whole theological school which rejected the

doctrine of predestination, and maintained the necessity of

according to human freedom a certain measure of co-operation

with divine grace, in consequence of which sometimes the one,

sometimes the other, is fundamental in conversion. At the head

of this school was Johannes Cassianus († A.D. 432), a disciple

and friend of Chrysostom, founder and president of the monastery

at Massilia. His followers are thence called Massilians or

Semi-Pelagians. He had himself contested Augustine’s doctrine,

without naming it, in the 13th of his _Collationes Patrum_

(§ 47, 21). Of his disciples the most famous was Vincentius

[Vincent] Lerinensis (of the monastery of Lerinum), who in his

_Commonitorium pro Catholicæ fidei antiquitate et universitate_

(Engl. Transl., Oxford, 1836) laid down the principle that the

catholic faith is, _quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum

est_. Judged by this standard Augustine’s doctrine was by no

means catholic. The second book of this work, now lost, probably

contested Augustinianism expressly and was, therefore, suppressed.

But Augustine had talented supporters even in Gaul, such as

the two laymen Hilarius and Prosper Aquitanicus (§ 47, 20). What

took place around them they reported to Augustine, who wrote

against the Massilians _De predestinatione Sanctorum_ and

_De dono perseverantiæ_. He was prevented by his death, which

took place in A.D. 430, from taking part longer in the contest.

Hilarius and Prosper, however, continued it. Since the Roman

bishop Cœlestine, before whom in A.D. 431 they personally made

complaint, answered with a Yes and No theology, Prosper himself

took up the battle in an able work _De gratia Dei et libero

arbitrio contra Collatorem_, but in doing so unwittingly smoothed

off the sharpest points of the Augustinian system. This happened

yet more decidedly in the ingenious treatise _De Vocatione

gentium_, whose author was perhaps Leo the Great, afterwards

pope but then only a deacon. On the other side, opponents

(Arnobius the younger?) used the artifice of presenting, in

the notable work entitled _Prædestinatus_, pretending to be

written by a follower of Augustine, a caricature of the doctrine

of predestination carried to the utmost extreme of absurdity,

and these sought to justify their own position. The first book

contains a description of ninety heresies, the last of which is

predestinationism; the second gives as supplement to the first

the pretended treatise of such a predestinarian; and the third

confutes it. A certain presbyter Lucidus, a zealous adherent of

the doctrine of predestination, was by a semi-Pelagian synod at

Aries in A.D. 475 forced to recant. Faustus, bishop of Rhegium

(§ 47, 21), sent after him by order of the Council a controversial

treatise _De gratia Dei et humanæ mentis libero arbitrio_, and

also in the same year A.D. 475, a Synod at Lyons sanctioned

semi-Pelagianism. The treatise of Faustus, although moderate

and conciliatory, caused violent agitation among a community

of Scythian monks in Constantinople, A.D. 520. They complained

through bishop Possessor of Carthage to pope Hormisdas, but

he too answered with a Yes and No theology. Then the Africans

banished by the Vandals to Sardinia took up the matter. They

held a Council in A.D. 523, by whose order Fulgentius of Ruspe

(§ 47, 20), a zealous apologist of Augustinianism composed his

_De veritate prædest. et gratia Dei Lb. III._, which made an

impression even in Gaul. And now two able Gallic bishops, Avitus

of Vienne and Cæsarius of Arles (§ 47, 20) entered the lists in

behalf of a moderate Augustinianism, and won for it at the Synod

of Oranges in A.D. 529 a decided victory over semi-Pelagianism.

Augustine’s doctrine of original sin in its strictest form,

and his assertions about the utter want of merit in every human

act and the unconditional necessity of grace were acknowledged,

faith was extolled as exclusively the effect of grace, but

predestination in regard to the _Reprobati_ was reduced to

mere foreknowledge, and predestination to evil was rejected as

blasphemy against God. A synod held in the same year, A.D. 529,

at Valence confirmed the decrees of Oranges. Boniface II. of Rome

did the same in A.D. 530.[168]--Continuation § 91, 5.

§ 54. REAPPEARANCE AND REMODELLING OF EARLIER HERETICAL SECTS.

Manichæism (§ 29) had still numerous adherents not merely in the far

off eastern provinces but also in Italy and North Africa; and isolated

Marcionite churches (§ 27, 11) were still to be found in almost all the

countries within the empire and also beyond its bounds. An independent

reawakening of Gnostic-Manichæan tendencies arose in Spain under the

name of Priscillianism.

§ 54.1. =Manichæism.=--The universal toleration of religion,

which Constantine introduced, was also extended to the Manichæans

of his empire (§ 29, 3). But from the time of Valentinian I.

the emperors issued repeatedly severe penal laws against them.

The favour which they obtained in Syria and Palestine led bishop

Titus of Bostra in Arabia Petræa, about A.D. 370, to write

his 4 Bks. against the Manichæans. The Manichæan church stood

in particularly high repute in North Africa, even to the 4th

and 5th centuries. Its most important representative there,

Faustus of Mileve, published a controversial treatise against

the Catholic church, which Augustine, who had earlier been

himself an adherent of the Manichæans, expressly answered in

33 Bks. (Engl. Transl.: “Ante-Nicene Lib.” Treatises against

Faustus the Manichæan, Edin., 1868). When the Manichæan Felix,

in order to advance the cause of his church, came to Hippo,

Augustine challenged him to a public disputation, and after two

days’ debate drove him into such straits that he at last admitted

himself defeated, and was obliged to pronounce anathema on Mani

and his doctrine. With still greater zeal than by the imperial

government were the African Manichæans persecuted by the Vandals,

whose king Hunerich (§ 76, 3) burnt many, and transported whole

ships’ loads to the continent of Europe. In the time of Leo

the Great († A.D. 461) they were very numerous in Rome. His

investigations tend to show that they entertained antinomian

views, and in their mysteries indulged in lustful practices.

Also in the time of Gregory the Great († A.D. 604) the church

of Italy was still threatened by their increase. Since then,

however, nothing more is heard of Manichæan tendencies in

the West down to the 11th century, when suddenly they again

burst forth with fearfully threatening and contagious power

(§ 108, 1). In the eastern parts of the empire, too, numerous

Gnostic-Manichæan remnants continued to exist in secret, and

from the 9th to the 12th century reappeared in a new form (§ 71).

Still more widely about this time did such views spread among the

Mussulman rulers of the Eastern borderlands, as far as China and

India, as the Arabian historians of this period testify (§ 29, 1).

§ 54.2. =Priscillianism, A.D. 383-563.=--The first seeds of the

Gnostic-Manichæan creed were brought to Spain in the 4th century

by an Egyptian Marcus. A rich and cultured layman Priscillian

let himself be drawn away in this direction, and developed

it independently into a dualistic and emanationistic system.

Marriage and carnal pleasures were forbidden, yet under an

outward show of strict asceticism were concealed antinomian

tendencies with impure orgies. At the same time the sect

encouraged and required lies and perjury, hypocrisy and

dissimulation for the spread and preservation of their community.

“_Jura, perjura, secretum perdere noli._” Soon Priscillianists

spread over all Spain; even some bishops joined them. Bishop

Idacius of Emerida by his passionate zeal against them fanned

the flickering fire into a bright flame. A synod at Saragossa

in A.D. 380 excommunicated them, and committed the execution of

its decrees to Bishop Ithacius of Sossuba, a violent and besides

an immoral man. Along with Idacius he had obtained from the

emperor Gratian an edict which pronounced on all Priscillianists

the sentence of banishment. Priscillian’s bribes, however, not

only rendered this edict inoperative, but also an order for the

arrest of Ithacius, which he avoided only by flight into Gaul.

Here he won over the usurper Maximus, the murderer of Gratian,

who, greedy for their property, used the torture against the

sect, and had Priscillian as well as some of his followers

beheaded at Treves in A.D. 385. This was the first instance

of capital punishment used against heretics. The noble bishop,

Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14), to whom the emperor had previously

promised that he would act mildly, hastened to Treves and

renounced church fellowship with Ithacius and all bishops

who had assented to the death sentence. Ambrose too and other

bishops expressed their decided disapproval. This led Maximus

to stop the military inquisition against them. But the glory of

martyrdom had fired the enthusiasm of the sect, and among the

barbarians who made their way into Spain from A.D. 409 they

won a rich harvest. Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20) wrote his

_Commonitorium de errore Priscillianist._ in A.D. 415, looking

for help to Augustine, whom, however, concern and contests

in other directions allowed to take but little part in this

controversy. Of more consequence was the later interference

of Leo the Great, occasioned by a call for help from bishop

Turribius of Astorga. Following his instructions, a _Concilium

Hispanicum_ in A.D. 447 and still more distinctly a Council

at Braga in A.D. 563 passed vigorous rules for the suppression

of heresy. Since then the name of the Priscillianists has

disappeared, but their doctrine was maintained in secret for

some centuries longer.[169]