Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Account Given, by Gregory the Theologian, of Apolinarius and Eunomius, in a Letter to Nectarius. Their Heresy was distinguished by the Philosophy of the Monks who were then Living, for the Heresy of these two held Nearly the Entire East.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXVII.—Account
Given, by Gregory the Theologian, of Apolinarius and Eunomius, in a
Letter to Nectarius. Their Heresy was distinguished by the Philosophy
of the Monks who were then Living, for the Heresy of these two held
Nearly the Entire East.
It is obvious that Eunomius and
Aëtius held the same opinions. In several passages of his
writings, Eunomius boasts and frequently testifies that Aëtius was
his instructor. Gregory, bishop of Nazianzen, speaks in the following
terms of Apolinarius in a letter addressed to Nectarius, the leader of
the church in Constantinople:1484
| 1484Greg. Naz. Ep. ccii., quoted in part.
|
“Eunomius, who is a constant source of trouble among us, is not
content with being a burden to us himself, but would consider himself
to blame if he did not strive to drag every one with him to the
destruction whither he is hastening. Such conduct, however, may be
tolerated in some degree. The most grievous calamity against which the
Church has now to struggle arises from the audacity of the
Apolinarians. I know not how your Holiness could have agreed that they
should be as free to hold meetings as we ourselves. You have been fully
instructed by the grace of God, in the Divine mysteries, and not only
understand the defense of the Word of God, but also whatever
innovations have been made by heretics against the sound faith; yet it
may not be amiss for your revered Excellency to hear from our
narrowness, that a book written by Apolinarius has fallen into my
hands, in which the proposition surpasses all forms of heretical
pravity. He affirms that the flesh assumed for the transformation of
our nature, under the dispensation of the only begotten Son of God was
not acquired for this end; but that this carnal nature existed in the
Son from the beginning. He substantiates this evil hypothesis by a
misapplication of the following words of Scripture: ‘No man hath
ascended up into heaven.’1485
He alleges from this text, that Christ was the Son of man before He
descended from heaven, and that when He did descend, He brought with
Him His own flesh which He had already possessed in heaven which was
before the ages and essentially united. He also states another
apostolic saying: ‘The second man is from heaven.’1486
He, moreover, maintains that the man who came down from heaven was
destitute of intellect (νοῦς), but that the Deity of the only
begotten Son fulfilled the nature of intellect, and constituted the
third part of the human compound. The body and soul (ψυχὴ) formed two parts, as in other
men, but there was no intellect, but the Word of God filled the place
of intellect. Nor does this end the awful spectacle; for the most
grievous point of the heresy is, that he asserts that the only-begotten
God, the Judge of all men, the Giver of life, and the Destroyer of
death, is Himself subject to death; that He suffered in His own
Godhead, and that in the resurrection of the body in the third day, the
Godhead also was raised from the dead with the body; and that it was
raised again from the dead by the Father. It would take too long to
recount all the other extravagant doctrines propounded by these
heretics.” What I have said may, I think, suffice to show the
nature of the sentiments maintained by Apolinarius and Eunomius. If any
one desire more detailed information, I can only refer him to the works
on the subject written either by them or by others concerning these
men. I do not profess easily to understand or to expound these matters,
as it seems to me the fact that these dogmas did not prevail and make
further advance is to be attributed, in addition to the causes
mentioned, especially to the monks of that period; for all those
philosophers in Syria, Cappadocia, and the neighboring provinces, were
sincerely attached to the Nicene faith. The eastern regions, however,
from Cilicia to Phœnicia, were endangered by the heresy of
Apolinarius. The heresy of Eunomius was spread from Cilicia and the
mountains of Taurus as far as the Hellespont and Constantinople. These
two heretics found it easy to attract to their respective parties the
persons among whom they dwelt, and those of the neighborhood. But the
same fate awaited them that had been experienced by the Arians; for the
people admired the monks who manifested their virtue by works and
believed that they held right opinions, while they turned away from those who
held other opinions, as impious and as holding spurious doctrines. In
the same way the Egyptians were led by the monks to oppose the
Arians.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
