Introduction to de Synodis.
————————————
(Written 359, Added to After 361.)
The de Synodis is the last of the great
and important group of writings of the third exile. With the exception
of §§30, 31, which were inserted at a later recension after
the death of Constantius (cf. Hist. Ar. 32 end), the work was
all written in 359, the year of the ‘dated’ creed (§4
ἀπὸ
τῆς νῦν
ὑπατείας) and of the
fateful assemblies of Rimini and Seleucia. It was written moreover
after the latter council had broken up (Oct. 1), but before the news
had reached Athanasius of the Emperor’s chilling reception of the
Ariminian deputies, and of the protest of the bishops against their
long detention at that place. The documents connected with the last
named episode reached him only in time for his postscript (§55).
Still less had he heard of the melancholy surrender of the deputies of
Ariminum at Niké on Oct. 10, or of the final catastrophe (cf. the
allusion in the inserted §30, also Prolegg. ch. ii. §8
(2) fin.).
The first part only (see Table infra) of
the letter is devoted to the history3446
| 3446 He
undertakes to tell ἅπερ ἑ& 240·ρακα
καὶ ἔγνων
ἀκριβῶς,
words which have given rise to the romantic but ill-founded tradition
that, ubiquitious and untiring in his exile, he was a secret spectator
of the proceedings of his enemies at these distant gatherings. (So
Gibbon and, as far as Seleucia is concerned, Tillemont. Montfaucon, as
usual, takes the more sober and likely view.) |
of the twin
councils. Athanasius is probably mistaken in ascribing the movement for
a great council to the Acacian or Homœan anxiety to eclipse and
finally set aside the Council of Nicæa. The Semi-Arians, who were
ill at ease and anxious to dissociate themselves from the growing
danger of Anomœanism, and who at this time had the ear of
Constantius, were the persons who desired a doctrinal settlement. It
was the last effort of Eastern ‘Conservatism’ (yet see
Gwatkin, Studies, p. 163) to formulate a position which without
admitting the obnoxious ὁμοούσιον
should yet condemn Arianism, conciliate the West, and restore peace to
the Christian world. The failure of the attempt, gloomy and ignominious
as it was, was yet the beginning of the end, the necessary precursor of
the downfall of Arianism as a power within the Church. The cause of
this failure is to be found in the intrigues of the Homœans,
Valens in the West, Eudoxius and Acacius in the East. Nicæa was
chosen by Constantius for the venue of the great Synod. But
Basil, then in high favour, suggested Nicomedia, and thither the
bishops were summoned. Before they could meet, the city was destroyed
by an earthquake, and the venue was changed to Nicæa again.
Now the Homœans saw their opportunity. Their one chance of
escaping disaster was in the principle ‘divide et impera.’
The Council was divided into two: the Westerns were to meet at
Ariminum, the Easterns at Seleucia in Cilicia, a place with nothing to
recommend it excepting the presence of a strong military force. Hence
also the conference of Homœan and Semi-Arian bishops at Sirmium,
who drew up in the presence of Constantius, on Whitsun-Eve, the famous
‘dated’ or ‘third Sirmian’ Creed. Its wording
(ὅμοιου κατὰ
πάντα) shows the predominant influence
of the Semi-Arians, in spite of the efforts of Valens to get rid of the
test words, upon which the Emperor insisted. Basil moreover issued a
separate memorandum to explain the sense in which he signed the creed,
emphasising the absolute likeness of the Son to the Father (Bright,
Introd., lxxxiii., Gwatkin, pp. 168 sq.), and accepting
the Nicene doctrine in everything but the name. But for all Basil might
say, the Dated Creed by the use of the word ὅμοιον had opened the door to any
evasion that an Arian could desire: for ὅμοιον is a relative term admitting
of degrees: what is only ‘like’ is ipso facto to
some extent unlike (see below, §53). The party of Basil,
then, entered upon the decisive contest already outmanœuvred, and
doomed to failure. The events which followed are described by
Athanasius (§§8–12). At Ariminum the Nicene, at
Seleucia the Semi-Arian cause carried all before it. The Dated Creed,
rejected with scorn at Ariminum, was unsuccessfully propounded in an
altered form by Acacius at Seleucia. The rupture between Homœans
and Semi-Arians was complete. So far only does Athanasius carry his
account of the Synods: at this point he steps in with a fresh blow at
the link which united Eastern Conservatism with the mixed multitude of
original Arians like Euzoius and Valens, ultra Arians like Aetius and
Eunomius, and Arianising
opportunists like Acacius, Eudoxius, and their tribe. In the latter he
recognises deadly foes who are to be confuted and exposed without any
thought of compromise; in the former, brethren who misunderstand their
own position, and whom explanation will surely bring round to their
natural allies. In this twofold aim the de Synodis stands in the
lines of the great anti-Arian discourses (supra, p. 304). But
with the eye of a general Athanasius suits his attack to the new
position. With the Arians, he has done with theological argument; he
points indignantly to their intrigues and their brow-beating, to their
lack of consistent principle, their endless synods and formularies
(§§21–32); concisely he exposes the hollowness of their
objection to the Nicene formula, the real logical basis upon which
their position rests (§33–40, see Bright, xc.–xcii.).
But to the Semi-Arians he turns with a serious and carefully stated
vindication of the ὁμοούσιον. The time
has come to press it earnestly upon them as the only adequate
expression of what they really mean, as the only rampart which can
withstand the Arian invasion. This, the last portion
(§§41–54) of the letter, is the raison
d’être of the whole: the account of the Synods is merely
a means to this end, not his main purpose; the exposure of Arian
principles and of Arian variations subserves the ultimate aim of
detaching from them those of whom Athanasius was now hoping better
things. It may be said that he over-rated the hopefulness of affairs as
far as the immediate future was concerned. The weak acceptance by the
Seleucian majority (or rather by their delegates) of the Arian creed of
Niké, the triumph of Acacius, Eudoxius and their party as
Constantius drifted in the last two years of his life nearer and nearer
to ultra-Arianism (de Syn. 30, 31, his rupture with Basil,
Theodt. ii. 27), the ascendancy of Arianism under Valens, and
the eventual consolidation of a Semi-Arian sect under the name of
Macedonius, all this at the first glance is a sad commentary upon the
hopefulness of the de Synodis. But (1) even if this were all the
truth, Athanasius was right: he was acting a noble part. In the de
Synodis ‘even Athanasius rises above himself.’ Driven
to bay by the pertinacity of his enemies, exasperated as we see him in
the de Fuga and Arian History, ‘yet no sooner is he
cheered with the news of hope than the importunate jealousies of forty
years are hushed (contrast Ep. Æg. 7) in a moment, as
though the Lord had spoken peace to the tumult of the grey old
exile’s troubled soul’ (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 176,
Arian Controv., p. 98). The charity that hopeth all things is
always justified of her works. (2) Athanasius, however, was right in
his estimate of the position. Not only did many of the Semi-Arians
(e.g. the fifty-nine in 365) accept the ὁμοούσιον,
but it was from the ranks of the Semi-Arians that the men arose who led
the cause of Nicæa to its ultimate victory in the East. There
accompanied Basil of Ancyra from the Seleucian Synod to Constantinople
a young deacon and ascetic, who read and welcomed the appeal of
Athanasius. Writing a few months later, this young theologian, Basil of
Cæsarea, adopts the words of the de Synodis: ‘one God
we confess, one in nature not in number, for number belongs to the
category of quantity,…neither Like nor Unlike, for these terms
belong to the category of quality (cf. below, §53)…He that
is essentially God is Coessential with Him that is essentially
God.…If I am to state my own opinion, I accept “Like in
essence” with the addition of “exactly” as identical
in sense with “Coessential”…but “exactly
like” [without “essence”] I
suspect.…Accordingly since “Coessential” is the term
less open to abuse, on this ground I too adopt it’ (Epp.
8, 9, the Greek in Gwatkin, Studies, p. 242)3447
| 3447 Observe also that the Semi-Arian document of reconciliation in 363
(Socr. iii. 25) adopts the point pressed in de Syn.
41. |
. Basil the Great is, not indeed the only,
but the conspicuous and abundant justification of the insight of
Athanasius in the de Synodis.
Turning to subordinate parts of the Letter, we
may note the somewhat unfair use made of the unlucky blunder of the
Dated Creed, as though its compilers thereby admitted that their faith
had no earlier origin. The dating of the creed was doubtless ‘an
offence against good taste as well as ecclesiastical propriety’
(as sad a blunder in its way as Macaulay’s celebrated letter to
his constituents from ‘Windsor Castle’), and it was only in
human nature to make the most of it. More serious is the objection
taken to the revolting title Αὐγούστου
τοῦ αἰωνίου
(which set a bad precedent for later times, Bright, lxxxiv, note 4) in
contrast to the denial of the eternity of the Son. At any rate, lending
itself as it did to such obvious criticisms, we are not surprised to
read (§29) that the copies of the creed were hastily called in and
a fresh recension substituted for it.
Lastly it must be remembered that Athanasius does
not aim at giving a complete catalogue of Arian or Arianising creeds,
any more than at giving a full history of the double council.
Accordingly we miss (1) the confession of Arius and Euzoius, presented
to Constantine in 330; (2) The confession ‘colourless in wording,
but heterodox in aim,’ drawn up at Sirmium3448
| 3448 This
is, strictly speaking, the ‘first’ Sirmian creed, but in
the Table below that of 351 is counted as such. |
against Photinus in 347 (Hil. Fragm.
2. 21 sq. Hefele, vol. i. p. 192); (3) The formulary propounded by the
Emperor at Milan in 355 (Hil. Syn. 78); (4) The confession of
the council of Ancyra3449
| 3449 The
‘Semi-Arian digest of three confessions,’ number 5 in
Newman’s list of Sirmian creeds, is left out of the reckoning
here, as the confused statement of Soz. iv. 15, is the sole
evidence for its existence. It cannot be the confession referred to in
Hil. Fragm. vi. 6, 7. But see Newman, Arians, Appendix
iii. note 5; Gwatkin, Studies, pp. 162, 189, sub fin. |
, 358, alluded to
§41, see n. 9); (5) The Anomœan Ecthesis of Eudoxius and
Aetius, Constantinople 359 (Thdt. H. E. ii. 27).
In the de
Synodis we have a worthy conclusion of the anti-Arian writings
which are the legacy and the record of the most stirring and eventful
period of the noble life of our great bishop.
The translation of this tract by Newman has been
more closely revised than those of the ‘de Decretis’ and
the first three ‘Discourses,’ as it appeared somewhat less
exact in places. In §§10, 11, the Athanasian version has been
followed, as, inaccurate as the version certainly is in places, this
seemed more suitable to an edition of Athanasius; moreover, it appears
to preserve some more original readings than the Hilarian text. The
notes have been curtailed to some extent, especially those containing
purely historical matter.
Table of Contents.
Part I. History of the Double
Council.
§1. The reason of any new council having
been called.
§2. The superfluity of such assemblies.
§§3, 4. Monstrosity of a dated
creed.
§5. Necessity of the Nicene Council.
§6. Its decisions make any fresh council
unnecessary.
§7. The true motives of the promoters of the
new councils.
§§8–11. Proceedings of the 400
at Ariminum.
§8. The ‘Dated’ Creed
propounded.
§9. Rejection of the Dated Creed and
deposition of Valens, &c.
§10. The Council’s Letter to the
Emperor.
§11. Decree of the Council.
§12. Proceedings of the 160 at Seleucia
Trachea.
Deposition of Acacius, &c., and report to
the Emperor.
§13, 14. Reflections on the two councils,
especially as to the divergence of the Arians from the Fathers and from
each other.
Part II. History of Arian
Creeds.
§15. The belief of Arius as expressed in his
Thalia.
§16. Letter of Arius to Alexander.
§17. Statements of early partizans of
Arius.
§§18, 19. Extracts from Asterius the
sophist.
§20. The true character of this
doctrine.
Arian Councils and their formularies.
§21. Jerusalem (335). Letter
announcing reception of Arius to Communion.
§22. Antioch
(‘Dedication’ 341). First creed.
§23. Second (Lucianic) Creed.
§24. Third creed (of Theophronius).
§25. Fourth creed (342; revision of the
Nicene).
§26. (344) Fifth creed: the
‘Macrostich’ (the fourth with additions and
explanations).
§27. Sirmium (against Photinus, 351,
fourth of Antioch with 27 anathemas), the ‘First’
Sirmian.
§28. ‘Second Sirmian’ (357, the
‘blasphemy’).
§29. Creed propounded by the Acacians at
Seleucia (359, the ‘Dated’ Creed revised in the Homœan
sense).
[§30. Creed of Niké and Constantinople
(359, 360, a new recension of the ‘Dated’ Creed, rejecting
‘Hypostasis’ as well as ‘Essence.’)
§31. A further Anomœan creed published
under the patronage of Constantius at Antioch (361)].
§32. Reflections on the significance of
these many changes.
Part III. Appeal to the
Semi-Arians.
a. §§33–40. Homœans
confuted.
§33. The terms objected to give offence
only because misunderstood.
§34. The true Divinity of Christ implies
‘Coessential.’
§35. To reject the term implies that Christ
is a creature.
§36. The objection to
‘unscriptural’ language condemns the Arians.
§37, 38. If the Son is truly
‘Like’ the Father, he is ‘Coessential.’
§39. The sense, not the occurrence of the
terms in Scripture, must be attended to.
§40. Alleged obscurity of the Nicene
formula.
b. §§41–54. Semi-Arians
conciliated.
§41. The party of Basil of Ancyra are with
us on the main question.
§42. ‘Coessential’ conveys a
meaning which they would adopt.
§43, 44. Alleged rejection of the term by
the 70 bishops at Antioch, subsequent to its recognition by Dionysius
of Alexandria.
§45. We must not hastily assume
contradictions between the Fathers.
§46, 47. Parallel of the word
‘Unoriginate.’
§48. ‘Coessential’ guards the
acknowledged attributes of the Son.
§49. The Son is all that the Father is,
except Father.
§50. If the Son is not Coessential, the
Unity of the Godhead is lost.
§51. The Son cannot impart to man what is
not His own; The oneness of Essence does not imply a common or prior
essence.
§52. The Son not an independent God.
§53. ‘Coessential’ why
preferable to ‘Like in Essence.’
§54. Appeal for union among those who are
really agreed.
Postscript
(supplementing Part I.)
§55. Reply of Constantius to the Council of
Ariminum, and remonstrance of the bishops upon receipt of it.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
