Отдел третий. История богословской мысли I. Споры о Св. Троице (завершение «богословской» стадии споров о Богочеловеке 1 )

The origin of Arianism and the history of the Arian dispute before the first ecumenical council The history of the ecumenical councils is included in the history of theological thought, and the history of theological thought of the first centuries of Christianity is a commentary on the word “God-man” and is composed of two periods: triadological (θεολογία) and christological (οἰκονομία). The first heresy that had to be dealt with at the ecumenical councils was Arianism. An important question about the elements included in this heresy boils down in practical terms to where Arius borrowed his teaching from - from the Alexandrian school or from the Antiochian one. This question is important because since the 5th century there has been an opinion that considers Arianism to be a direct product of Origenism, or the Alexandrian school. But this opinion should be taken negatively. Arianism, in our opinion, reflects mainly Antiochene influence. Arius himself considered himself a follower of the Antiochian school, in which in the 3rd century. there were two remarkable personalities, two high representatives of this school - Dorotheus and Lucian. When Arius turned to the eastern bishops for moral support, he called Eusebius of Nicomedia a “Solucianist” 3. Thus, he considered himself a follower of Lucian. There are 11 remarkable figures of Arianism (Eusebius of Nicomedia, Marius of Chalcedon, etc.) who were in contact with Lucian (Lucianists). But very little is known about Lucian. Alexander of Alexandria, from whose epistle information about Lucian is taken, reports a detail that casts a shadow on him. He counts Lucian among the followers of Paul of Samosata. But it is not yet known with precision in what sense he calls Lucian a Paulianist. Perhaps Lucian was a Pauline scholar because he appreciated Paul's great learning and administrative abilities. By the way, Alexander of Alexandria reports that Lucian, out of affection for Paul of Samosata, was not in contact with the Antiochian church. But, in any case, the antagonism between Lucian and the Antiochian church was not strong. The Antioch Church confessed him as a martyr. Lucian died a martyr during the persecution of Maximin in 312 on January 7, 4. St. John Chrysostom pronounced a word of praise in honor of Lucian, the beginning of which is: “Yesterday the Master was baptized, and today the slave is baptized in blood.” Thus, to be a Lucianist in the language of the Alexandrian fathers of the 4th century. meant to be a person of dubious character, and in the language of the Eastern Church - to be a person of good education. It is difficult to understand Lucian’s dogmatic views 5 . In any case, there is nothing favorable to Arian ideas in the symbol attributed to him. He is also known for his review (corrected edition) of the sacred books, accepted by the Antiochian church, but not accepted by the Alexandrian church, because they adhered to the Hesychian review. If it is impossible to strictly establish the dependence of Arianism on the teachings of Lucian, then isn’t the genetic connection of the former with the Antiochene school in general clearer? The question arises about the features that characterize the Antiochian direction. Sometimes Arianism, Nestorianism and rationalism are directly stated as characteristic features of this school. But it is impossible to prove in fact even that Arianism was rationalistic in principle; In general, the existence of rationalism is difficult to tolerate in the ancient church; Arius and his associates did not at all demand the subordination of faith to reason. Arius wrote (in Θάλεια): “according to the faith of the elect of God, the intelligent of God, the children of the saints, I also act Orthodoxy.” “And I,” that is, he directly declared not his personal authority in the matter of faith, but his adherence to all his Orthodox predecessors. And if the Arians did not want to admit what seemed illogical to them in the teachings of the Orthodox, then this is a point of fact, not of principle (the second premise, not the first); after all, the Orthodox did not think that their faith contradicted reason and, on the contrary, found that Arianism was an absurdity. Both Antiochian and Alexandrian exegetes interpret obscure passages by comparing clearer parallel passages; to understand the text, they sometimes cite so many parallel passages that one must be surprised at the strength of their memory; Others also use this selection of places differently. The Alexandrian exegetes, starting with the synthesis, with the unification of all places, try not to omit any shade of meaning, a turn of thought, in order to find the maximum meaning in a given place; but at the same time they often cannot indicate one main idea of ​​​​the text being explained, the nature of the given place and details are often lost. With such an exegetical task - to combine everything in order to find the deepest content, the Alexandrians were more dogmatists than exegetes in the proper sense of the word. The point of view of the New Testament man is undoubtedly higher, more extensive and more perfect than the Old Testament, and the Alexandrians, bearing in mind that the same St. The Spirit speaks in the New Testament, who also spoke in the Old, considered it their right and duty to expose their New Testament views to the Old Testament people; the views and words of the Old Testament persons, thus, were the reason for the Alexandrians to clarify their dogmatic views. Therefore, the divine element came to the fore here. The Antiochians did not present a mechanical set of ideas, but a series of concepts that were truly interconnected. Among the Alexandrians one can more often find a number of brilliant aphorisms; but in order to understand them, in order to distinguish them from the mass of ideas due to the whim of the theologian, you need to be yourself - so to speak - a brilliant theologian. Here there was no confidence in the correctness of the interpretation. The Antiochian school became the founder of scientific interpretation. The exegesis of Alexandria was art; in Antioch they told him the nature of science. The Alexandrian interpretation can only be good under the pen of talent; the Antioch school offered such simple and stable techniques that even a person of low talent could work with them, not without benefit. The Alexandrian school could be in danger of composing its own Holy Scripture, the Antiochian school could be in danger of stopping very close to the letter, forgetting that ἱστορία should be followed by θεωρία. If we see in the “word,” every time it appears in the Old Testament, the hypostatic Word, then we would have to assume that the “hand of the Lord” that was on Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:3) has a hypostatic character. And then there will be a lot of hypostases. Many church hymns are written in the tone of Alexandrian exegesis, for example, on the entry of the Lord into Jerusalem. Those who came out to meet Jesus Christ, some saw Him as a great prophet, others wanted to see the Messiah; We sing: “The robe was spread upon Him, knowing that He is our God.” But which theologian would agree to subscribe to the fact that those who came out to meet Christ knew that Christ is God? But we would be making a mistake if we assumed that the minimum meaning of the Antiochian exegetes excluded them from correctly understanding the prophetic passages of the Old Testament. The Antiochian exegete started from the minimum sense, but reached the same results that the Alexandrian achieved, but he achieved them methodically, by the method of interpretation κατὰ παρέκβασιν - according to excess. Theodore of Mopsuestia took the view that a prophet could hold, like an Old Testament person. And Zechariah (Zechariah 9:9) wanted to see in the Messiah an ideal king who would enter Jerusalem as an ideal king and prophet and establish an ideal kingdom - nothing more. When discussing theological issues, philosophy is an inevitable assumption, although often theologians do not notice that they are philosophizing, and this is partly the reason for the complications of theological disputes. Philosophy here appears as a general point of view on theological subjects, and therefore it is not easy to discern the difference in it by the very breadth of this difference. The Alexandrians adhered to the philosophy of Plato; in Antioch, apparently, they gravitated more towards the philosophy of Aristotle. The Alexandrian scientists, followers of Origen, despite their subordinationism, remained on Orthodox grounds, because the existence of the Son with the existence of the Father was a logical necessity for them. With such a philosophical assumption, the Alexandrian theologians and as exegetes found for themselves every right in every place of Scripture where there was talk about “Λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ” to see an indication of the second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. The correctness of such an understanding for them stood beyond dispute, as an axiom, already because any other interpretation (Λόγος in the sense of quality) would be absurd. It is easy, therefore, to imagine the abyss of misunderstanding that, unnoticed by both, lay between Alexander and Arius, when the first in the “good word” (Ps. 45:1) saw self-evident evidence of the existence of the Son, while Arius saw in such a reference by Alexander only his interpretation, incorrect from the point of view of the Antiochene exegetical method and arbitrary from the philosophical point of view. The dogmatic system of Arius emerged in polemical opposition to the teachings of Alexander of Alexandria. This latter was a faithful representative of Alexandrian theology in its bright sides. We know about his teaching from his epistles (especially ad Alex. ar. Theodor. 1:4) and from the report of Arius about him, which is essentially correct. “We believe, as the Apostolic Church teaches, in one unbegotten Father, who has no author of His being, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten not from something that is not, but from an existing Father, not in the likeness of a material process, not through separation or flow, but inexpressibly, since His essence (ὑπόστασις) incomprehensible to created beings." The expressions “was” (ἦν), “always” (ἀεί), “before centuries” (πρὸ αἰώνων) are by no means identical with the concept “unborn” (πρὸς ὑπόνοιαν ἀγεννήτου). “So, one must attribute to the unborn Father only his inherent dignity (οἰκεῖον ἀξίωμα), recognizing that He does not have in anyone the author of His existence; but we must give due honor to the Son, attributing to Him a beginningless birth from the Father, and not deny His deity (τὴν μέντοι αὐτοῦ μὴ παραιτούμενοι), but recognize in Him an exact correspondence to the image of the Father in everything (ἀλλὰ τῇ εἰκόνι καὶ τῷ χαρακτῆρι τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀπηκριβωμένην ἐμφέρειαν κατὰ πάντα ἀνατιθέντες); and the sign of unbornness can only be attributed to the Father, which is why the Savior Himself says: “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Thus, at the very turn of the era opened by the Council of Nicaea, the main opponent of Arianism expresses Orthodox teaching, using only the means of the old theological school: we still do not meet here either ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας or ὁμοούσιος. The Father and the Son are also thought of as two natures in hypostasis, and not one (ἀλλήλων ἀχώριστα πράγματα δύο), and Their closest unity is expressed by the term ἡ κατὰ πάντα ὁμοιάτης, similarity in everything, which was later used by the moderate Arians. But to say that there was no radiance of glory means to deny at the same time the existence of the original light to which this radiance belongs ?? τῷ μὴ εἶναι τὸν τῆς ὐποστάσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ χαρακτῆρα, " In a word, for Alexander there was no doubt that to say that there once was no Son means the same as admitting that God was once ἄλογος and ἄσοφος. With particular force, Alexander revealed the doctrine of the co-eternity of the Son to the Father, and this point in his dogma served as the starting point for Arius in revealing his system. Arius sets out Alexander's teaching as follows: “Always (ἀεί) the Father, always and the Son, together (ἅμα, simul, suddenly) the Father, together and the Son. The Son coexists with God unbegotten (ἀγεννήτως, - incorrect addition); He is always born (ἀειγεννής ἐστιν); Not even for a single imaginable moment does the Father precede the Son: always God, always the Son. Son from God Himself." In this view, two thoughts seemed suspicious to Arius: 1) the Son coexists with the Father from eternity or - what is the same - without beginning, and 2) the Son is from God Himself, i.e., as Arius completely correctly understood, the Son is born from the being of the Father. In the first respect, Arius relied on the fact that all the scientists and church luminaries of the East claim that the Father precedes the Son without beginning. Arius believed that it is impossible to attribute to the Son beginninglessness in the temporal sense (eternity) without attributing beginninglessness in the causal sense (unbornness). One of two things happened: either Alexander recognizes two unborn - and then he rejects the monarchy, or he does not attach real significance to the fact of the birth of the Son and identifies Him with the unborn Father - and then Alexander is a monarchian, a hidden Sabellian. Arius found a way out of this dilemma only in the fact that he mentally recognized the temporary interval between the existence of the Father and the Son, believing that there was such a pre-temporal moment when there was no Son (ἦν ποτε ὄτε οὐκ ἦν), that He is therefore not eternal and not without beginning. Arius was equally suspicious of the idea of ​​being born from a creature. Isn’t there hidden here the idea of ​​a material process, of the fragmentation of matter, of the separation of a new being from a previously given existence? In any case, if the Son is from the essence of the Father, then He did not only exist in foreknowledge, but actually existed before His birth; and this does not agree with the established first position: οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ. Alexander, however, resolutely assured that he did not represent birth from a being emanatically, but Arius probably thought that if birth was not understood in this sense, then nothing would remain of this dogmatic idea, no definite idea. Probably, the attitude of two opponents to this issue can be explained with the following example: one put the number five (5) as his theme, but gave it in such a formula that as a result it was necessary to subtract 3 from 5; wouldn’t it be simpler, it seemed to another, to put 0 and add 2 to it (Alexander: 5 – 3 = 2; Arius: 0 + 2 = 2). Arius believed that it was better to replace the idea of ​​birth from a being with the concept of creation by will, which satisfactorily expresses the dispassionate character of bringing the Son into being. At the same time, the peculiarity, in the arithmetic sense, indifferent, is forgotten, that in a dogmatic construction, not only the result is important, but also the method by which we reached it, that the conclusion is clarified in connection with the preceding premises (since the limited mind of a person can only approximately express the truth, and cannot extract from the premises all the elements it needs and fit them into its conclusion); it was forgotten that for a theologian it is not indifferent whether we start from five or from zero? from God or the world? In the first case (“from God”) one obtains the concept of the begotten Son, born to the Father, and in the second only of the adopted Son. Arius expounded his teaching this way. The Father alone is God, the unbegotten; The Son has his existence from the Father; This is the main meaning of his formula: ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. Believing that the Son is a creation, Arius wanted to reject the Gnostic views of birth from the being of the Father. From the combination of these two provisions follows the central idea of ​​his doctrine: the Son came from non-existents, ἐξ ουκ οντων. For Arius, before the birth of the Son, there was only God and that absolute nothingness from which the world was created. And if the Son did not originate either from eternal matter (it did not exist) or from the essence of the Father, then He received being from non-existence. There was a time when the Son did not exist, and thus it is clear that God made Him not to exist. “Did God create the Son who exists or who does not exist?” the Arians asked even small children. If it exists, then there was no reason to create It; It is clear that He made Him not existing, and if so, is it possible for the Son to be from the essence of the Father, not existing from the existing God? The idea that the Son is not from the being of the Father had its precedents in the previous period; and then some believed that the Son was born according to the will of the Father. On the other hand, the ancient apologists connected the birth of the Son with the creation of the world, and Tertullian even said: “there was a time (tempus) when there was no Son, when God was not the Father” (while Arius expressed himself more subtly: ἦν ποτε, but not χρόνος). Dionysius of Alexandria also admitted that the Son did not exist until He was born. And, however, the dogmatic views of all of them were Orthodox, and the doctrine of Arius was heretical. The difference between them is that the Son, according to the views of ancient writers, originated ’εξ ὄντων, and according to Arius - ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. According to those, in the very essence of the Father the necessity of the existence of the Son is given; in the existence of the rational and wise personal God, the existence of the Word is implicitly given; For those, the concept of God without the Son is unthinkable. For Arius, on the contrary, this is quite conceivable, since he taught that God has his own wisdom, non-hypostatic. He thus cut the threads for establishing the relationship between the Father and the Son. If for the theology of Arius one needs to look for a prototype in the systems of others, then it turns out that the God of Arius is determined by the same traits as the God of Paul of Samosata. At this point one can find the influence of Antiochian views on him. The peculiarity of the Arian system here comes into contact with Antiochene exegesis; Arius's techniques are Antiochian. For Alexander, a representative of the Alexandrian school, there could be no doubt that if Scripture speaks of wisdom and the word, then, without a doubt, it speaks of the hypostatic Word and hypostatic Wisdom; if His origin and birth are mentioned, then, undoubtedly, from the being of the Father; he saw in the words of Scripture: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee” (Ps. 2:7), he saw a completely clear indication of the eternal birth of the Son from the Father. Arius, meanwhile, tried to reject all these passages as not proving anything. Against the idea that where it speaks of the birth of the Son, it speaks of birth from the being of the Father, he cited passages of Scripture, in the form of the expression: “they begot and raised up sons” (Is. 1:2), in which there is no talk of the pre-eternal birth of a being consubstantial with the Father. He also opposed this teaching to his Orthodox opponents. Such argumentation cast a very gloomy color on the doctrine of Arius in the eyes of his opponents, since they understood these deviations as postulates of the Arian system. Scripture: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word came to God” (John 1:1); “My heart will vomit out the good word” (Ps. 44:2), how can one not recognize everything by which the Father is defined and the Son is characterized. He could not understand the special point of view from which Arius argued that these and all other passages of Holy Scripture about Wisdom and the Word do not prove anything for him. But there is no doubt that the Arian teaching included more than just Antiochene elements. There is a fairly definite difference between the view of Arius and the teaching of Paul of Samosata. Paul rejected the doctrine of the second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity; He has a God and a man Jesus. Arius also accepted the hypostatic Son, therefore, he combined the teaching of Paul of Samosata about God with the church teaching about Λόγος. But since the ties between the Father and the Son were severed, Arius, instead of the hypostatic Son, akin to God, had a creation, only a mediator less than God. Consequently, Arius attached only cosmological significance to Λόγος. He believed that God, gifted with wisdom and words and, therefore, most perfect even when He did not have a Son, when He was μονώτατος, felt the need for him only at the creation of the world, for the world could not withstand the direct touch of the hand of God. Therefore, He creates one single, whom He calls Wisdom and Word; through Him He creates the world of lower beings, in relation to which He Himself, the created one, stands as the Creator. On the question of how to think about this second God, he hesitates. This God is “the most excellent ποίημα,” a creation distinguished from all others (“a creation, but not as one of the creatures”). As a direct creation of God Himself and pre-temporal, standing above other creatures created in time, it is considered by Arius as the most chosen of creations. But once he admitted their generic identity, Arius undermined the basis for this separation of the Son from the ranks of creations and ended with the recognition that the Son is “a creation, as one of the creations.” The external initial history of Arianism is not rich in facts. A Libyan by birth, Arius was a student of Lucian in Antioch. Before 311, he appeared in Alexandria and was accepted into the clergy. While still a deacon, Arius became actively involved in the Melitian schism. As someone who took part in the Melitian agitation, he sharply spoke out against the excommunication of the Melitian bishop. Peter. For this he himself was excommunicated, but then he was reconciled with Peter’s successors, became a presbyter and was considered a candidate for the episcopal see. When Alexander was elected bishop, Arius allegedly (according to Philostorgius) refused in favor of Alexander the votes cast for him. The Arians explained this by the nobility of his soul. But the Orthodox, on the contrary, considered his deviation from Orthodoxy to be the result of his personal irritation for not being elected bishop of Alexandria. From this information we can only conclude that the name Arius was pronounced when choosing a bishop. Alexander treated Arius with respect and entrusted him with the interpretation of Holy Scripture. Arius was a presbyter of one church in Alexandria, but which one is unknown 6 . It should be noted that Alexandria was ahead of other churches in the development of its church life. In Rome, the presbyters represented the cathedral clergy under the bishop, and their position was, therefore, temporary. Alexandria was divided into quarters or laurels (the streets were straight and intersected at right angles). Each monastery had a church and a presbyter. Under such circumstances, parish life developed in Alexandria. The priest got along with the masses and was in a stronger position and independent of the bishop. The Alexandrian presbyters were free to pursue their exegetical and dogmatic views and find followers. Therefore, schools could arise in Alexandria. One of them was the school of Arius, who had many admirers in Alexandria. He stood out; As an ascetic, with his insinuating, delicate and soft treatment of parishioners, he attracted everyone’s attention and generally enjoyed the love of everyone who came close to him. With the independence enjoyed by the Alexandrian presbyters, the abbots of the Lavra, Arius freely expounded his teaching. His delusions were discovered by chance 7. Ep. Alexander had the custom of gathering the Alexandrian presbyters around him and consulting with them, and sometimes offered them dogmatic questions for clarification. At one of these meetings, Alexander used the following expression: “God is Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity.” Arius saw Sabellianism here. An argument began. The Alexandrian archpresbyter Colluf acted as a special opponent of Arius. Alexander at this time occupied a neutral position. To finally clarify the matter, a public debate (ἅμιλλα) was appointed and Arius’s errors were revealed with their own eyes. Then Alexander excommunicated Arius. But Arianism does not die with this. On the contrary, the propaganda of the teachings of Arius, who is now surrounded by an aura of the offended, is growing extremely quickly. – 700 virgins, 12 (6) deacons and 6 elders followed Arius. From documents dating back to this era, one can get a fairly accurate idea of ​​the number of Alexandrian clergy, and therefore, determine the percentage of people who followed Arius. When Alexander invited the Alexandrian and Mareotian clergy to sign the excommunication of Arius, there were 16 Alexandrian presbyters. Assuming that the places of those who had fallen away were replaced, we get here (at 16) the full number, so that means that Arius carried away 1/3 of the total number of Alexandrian presbyters. Some bishops took the side of Arius, for example. Secundus of Ptolemais and Theona of Marmaric, both Libyans. Alexander's position was difficult. He wanted to arrange his relations with the Arians as gently as possible. But the Archpriest of Alexandria, Kolluf, remained dissatisfied with Alexander’s behavior and accused him of pandering to heretics. Kolluf abandoned Alexander, declared himself a bishop and, without being consecrated himself, began to ordain presbyters without permission. Alexander began to act more decisively and assembled a council (in 320 or 321) of the bishops under his command. This council also excommunicated Arius. Arius turned to the east for support, but even in Alexandria there was strong propaganda for his teachings. The agitation on this issue assumed strong proportions. Arius turned to Eusebius of Nicomedia, as a Solukianist, for assistance in reconciling him with Alexander. Eusebius and other bishops sided with Arius. Eusebius did not dare to justify Arius by the council, but offered to be a mediator between him and Alexander. Arius wrote a respectful letter to Alexander (“μακαρίῳ πάπᾳ καὶ ἐπισκόπῳ ἠμῶν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ”). Eusebius too. But if whose intercession was least desirable for Alexander, it was Eusebius. Here's the thing. Alexander was the leading bishop in the east (in our sense of the word). But since the transfer of the imperial residence to Nicomedia, this city began to rise. Naturally, the bishop of such a city acquired great influence. In addition, Eusebius was a relative of Licinius. Initially the bishop of Virite, Eusebius, however, preferred Nicomedia. Thus, Arius’s choice of Eusebius’ petition received the meaning that Eusebius intercedes as an influential person, a person in power. Alexander felt affected. Here the strain of rivalry over the primacy of departments was felt. In Eusebius’s tone there was some awareness of his right to interfere in Egyptian affairs, and Alexander felt that this seemed to call into question the historical right of the primacy of the Alexandrian see in the east. For his part, Alexander, having become convinced that the Arian turmoil had spread far beyond the borders of Egypt and had taken on the character of a general church issue, began to send his messages to the bishops of various churches. To counter the agitation of the “Lucianists”, who misrepresented his teaching, he outlined it - already in a tone of self-defense - in one of these messages in great detail. This message (preserved in the church history of Theodoret I, 4) is very mysterious in its title, as if it were addressed to Alexander of Constantinople. It is exculpatory in nature. Here is the justification for why the Council of Alexandria condemned the Arians. It is mysterious why Alexander of Alexandria turns to Alexander of Constantinople. They are thinking of replacing the word “Constantinople” with the word “Byzantine”. But why does Alexander of Alexandria pay attention to Byzantium, which was then a provincial city and whose bishop was subordinate to the bishop of Heraklion? It was not possible for Alexander of Alexandria to address messages to every bishop, because this would require a lot of expense and a lot of time, due to the difficulty of the routes. The messages were sent only to metropolitans. Consequently, there could be no message to Alexander of Byzantium. This bewilderment has a simple explanation. The title "of Constantinople" was added in the title after, by Theodoret or someone else; and the message was simply entitled: “Alexander to Alexandru.” Then it was indecent to designate a pulpit (in an address in a letter); this designation was unnecessary, just as now, for example, it is unnecessary for us to add a surname to a given name and patronymic in a letter. Without indicating the title, the bishop pretended that he knew which Alexander the letter was being written to. Theodoret or someone else made an erroneous insertion. Here it is better to understand Alexander, bishop of Thessalonica, which had all the chances that later belonged to Constantinople. Constantine wanted to make a capital there, establish a port and maintain a fleet. Thessalonica occupied a higher position than other metropolises. Addressing the letter to the bishop of Thessalonica, Alexander contrasted it with Eusebius of Nicomedia. Alexander of Alexandria addresses the bishop of Thessalonica as being close to Emperor Constantine, who at that time was already sovereign 8. By exchanging messages, it was determined in advance who Alexander's supporters were. This was the situation until the emperor intervened. Until the end of his life, Eusebius of Caesarea remained of the opinion that Arius’s dispute had no serious significance in itself; in his opinion, this dispute was nothing more than a child’s idea, which, of course, should not be paid attention to. The emperor considered it necessary to offer his means to the disputants. He addressed a joint letter to Arius and Alexander, in which he said that both the bishop and the presbyter were equally guilty: one should not have asked, the other should not have answered. In his opinion, talking about things so dark that it is dangerous to slip can only be done through mental gymnastics, but such disputes should not be made public. One should forgive a careless question, and another a thoughtless answer. The emperor recommended taking the example of pagan philosophers, who, although they argue among themselves, still get along peacefully. It is proper for the mob to argue, not for rational men. And besides, both Alexander and Arius stand on solid common ground: both recognize divine providence and Jesus Christ. Give me back, the emperor said, clear days and calm nights, let me enjoy the joy of life, give me the opportunity to travel to the east, to you in Alexandria. Fortunately, the emperor chose as the bearer of this letter, perhaps under the influence of Alexander of Thessalonica, not Eusebius or any other adherent of Arius, but Hosea of ​​Corduba 9, a man of strictly Orthodox convictions. The emperor instructed him not only to hand over the letter, but also to deal with some other issues, for example. question about different Easter celebrations. Upon arrival in Alexandria, Hosius became convinced that this was not a matter of trifles, but threatened to shake the foundations of the Christian faith. He returned in 324 to the emperor and explained to him the seriousness of the issue. It is true that there were large cathedrals before, for example. in the case of the deposition of Pavel Samosatsky; but now it became possible to formally call the council ecumenical, since bishops came from the entire empire, which embraced the entire then “οἰκουμένην”, or “totam orbem terrarum” 10 . The Ecumenical Council was scheduled for 325, the year in which the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the reign of Emperor Constantine fell. The site of the cathedral is Nicaea, a city convenient in its location, accessible from land and sea, 30 miles from the imperial residence. The emperor generously rewarded the bishops for their travel expenses and took upon himself their maintenance in Nicaea. Each bishop was probably given the right to have with him two presbyters and three ministers. During the era of the Council of Nicea, good postal roads were built in the Roman Empire, so that many bishops could appear at the council without difficulty. But long-distance travel was still difficult. Eg. It took a month and a half to travel from Bordeaux to Constantinople. Therefore, it is not surprising that at the council most of the bishops were Greek. There were seven Western bishops. Spain (Hosius of Corduba), Gaul (Nicasius of Dijon) and Africa (Caecilian of Carthaginia) each had only one representative. The elderly Roman Bishop Sylvester sent two presbyter legates: Vincent and Viton. But it is doubtful whether Alexander of Byzantium was at the council; It is even doubtful whether Alexander was a bishop at that time. Among the fathers of the council there was one Persian - John and one Gothic bishop - Theophilus; Simeon, Bishop of Seleucia Ctisiphon, sent several presbyters to the council (including Shah-dust (Sadof), later a martyr). The total number of bishops fluctuated around 300 (250–270). But even the participants of the cathedral themselves did not know the exact number of those present and were not interested in it. In historical sources it is not indicated in the same way. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, there were about 250 bishops at the council (according to Eustathius of Antioch, about 270, according to Constantine V., 300 or more than 300), Athanasius V. in several places (also) speaks of 300, and in the letter ad Afros (369) about 318 bishops. Traditional 318 (first, apparently, found in Hilary of Pictavia in 359–360 and then in Basil V., in 362). This number is given a mystical interpretation, namely: 1) the number 318 resembles the number of Abraham’s faithful servants who defeated the allied kings (Gen. 14:14), 2) the most digital mark in the Greek language (ΤΙΗ) resembles the cross (Τ) and the initial letters of the Savior’s name (ΙΗσοῦς). The opinion that 318 fathers were present at the first ecumenical council became so established in subsequent times that the first ecumenical council began to be called otherwise the council of 318 fathers. This became, as it were, another name for the council 11. The decision of the council was not unexpected in a historical sense, because the formulas of the council's decisions and the mood of the churches were tested in advance. Arius, excommunicated in Alexandria, appealed to the sympathy of the entire East, and a lively correspondence began between the bishops; These messages were filed with the case and, thus, Alexander knew in advance his like-minded people and enemies. The arriving element of the western and eastern outskirts (Theophilus the Gothic and John the Persian) could not make a change in the general mood of minds. We have one piece of news from a very tendentious historian, the strict Arian Philostorgius, that even before the council, Hosius and Alexander, having gathered together, decided to introduce the word “ὁμοούσιος” into the symbol. There is no reason to be distrustful of this news, and it is also impossible to assume an intentional agreement. For Hosea, the word "ὁμοούσιος" was not completely new; as a bishop of the west and a disciple of Tertullian, who often used the word "substantia", he could translate ὁμοούσιος with the equivalent Latin "consubstantialis". For a true understanding of the actions of the first ecumenical council, we do not have completely satisfactory documents. Acts in the sense of the πράξεις of the first ecumenical council are not only not at our disposal, but at the beginning of the 5th century they did not know about the existence of documents other than those that we have. A possible question is: were the acts of the council compiled? Every meeting of bishops, as well as any other meetings, can be conducted in two ways. The first method is when meetings, allowing for a banal comparison, are accompanied by the drawing up of minutes. From such minutes of the meeting we learn only the final decisions on issues that may be of great concern to us. Here you can find out only part of the motives on which these decisions are based, but you cannot find out who occupied what position, or who influenced this or that decision on the issue. It’s a different matter when we take the conduct of trials, where stenographers are usually invited to accurately reproduce every word spoken in court. The latter way of doing business will result in πεπραγμένα, as this word was understood in ancient times. In this case, it is indicated in detail: who was present at the meeting, what issues were proposed, what documents were presented, how the voting took place and what was decided. From the first ecumenical council only conclusions remained, in the form of 20 canonical rules and a creed, and incomplete lists of the fathers, so in 417 there was nothing else in the Constantinople archive. It is not superfluous to add that nothing has been preserved regarding the definition of the first ecumenical council about the time of Easter celebration. And when calendar writers reveal to the whole world what decisions were made by the first ecumenical council regarding the celebration of Easter, they thereby reveal their deep ignorance of church history. Of the documents about the first ecumenical council written after the council, the following have been preserved: 1) Constantine himself wrote letters to the churches; 2) the council itself wrote for the Alexandrian church; 3) Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a letter to his flock. Then 4) excerpts from the work of Eustathius of Antioch against the Arians, transmitted by Theodoret (I, 8); 5) Athanasius V. reports information about the council in the work De decretis Nicaenae synodi (written between 350–354) and in Epistola ad Afros episcopos (about 369). All these documents (and writings), written (in part) at a relatively late time, of course, do not reproduce with photographic accuracy the actions of the council. The composition of the cathedral was very diverse. For the first time in history, representatives of the most distant provinces of the Christian world had the consolation of seeing each other. It seemed that Pentecost was opening for the second time - as under the apostles. The difference in social status and mental talents between individual fathers reached the point of contrast. Along with the influential Eusebius of Nicomedia, close to Constantius, the sister of Constantine, due to his relationship with her husband Licinius, along with a brilliant court bishop, like Eusebius of Caesarea, one also meets here the representative of the apostolic simplicity of relations, Spyridon of Trimythous, who did not cease to shepherd his flock even when he became the shepherd of the verbal sheep of Christ. There were highly educated people here, like Eusebius of Caesarea, many disciples of Lucian, Alexander of Alexandria, and, perhaps, who surpassed everyone in his talents, Deacon Athanasius of Alexandria, secretary of his bishop. With such a variety of spiritual talents and scientific training of the fathers of the council, its dogmatic task was very difficult. It was necessary to pronounce judgment on Arianism and establish Orthodox teaching. But for this it was necessary to testify to the faith of the church in such a way that its complete opposition to Arianism was clear, to express Christian teaching in such a form that each of the most educated of bishops and the simplest would recognize in it a statement of his own convictions, the tradition of his church. All these persons of different degrees of theological training and different directions could approach the issues under consideration from different points of view. When you have to raise the question of the inspiration of an entire council, you become decidedly at a loss. It is still easy to understand the inspiration of one person, for example. prophet, but it is psychologically difficult to understand the inspired state of the multi-component cathedral. Here the psychology of the crowd, the masses, or soldiers, excited at a certain moment, would bring that significant benefit that it would somewhat clarify the psychology of the fathers of the Ecumenical Council, the spiritual uplift when a person rises above his usual state. It may very well be that some of the bishops, at the end of the council meetings, on the way to their cathedra, ceased to understand what they said during inspiration. Thus, the solidarity of the decision is given by inspiration, but it appears only at the decisive moment. Among the undisputed Arians are considered Eusebius of Nicomedia, who gave his name to the heresy (Eusebians), Paulinus of Tire, Theon of Marmaric, Secundus of Ptolemais, and - like a riddle posed by history to the well-known formula: quod ubique, quod semper - Minofant of Ephesus, Theognius of Nicaea and Marius of Chalcedon, i.e. the bishops of those cities that are glorified by ecumenical councils. Recognizing, therefore, that the Aryan party consisted of about 20 people, we can add that this small group did not have a strong unity of convictions among themselves. Thus, Eusebius of Nicomedia considered the Son of God to be immutable and, like Theon and Secundus, did not share the view that the Son does not know the Father perfectly, as Arius thought. Theognius of Nicea thought that even before the birth of the Son, God was the Father, for he had the opportunity to give birth to Him (τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ γεννῆσαι) - a view akin (or identical) to that which the emperor expressed at the council itself. Peacock of Tyre took his position in relation to Arius with such hesitation that even Eusebius of Caesarea was left behind. The question is, how large was the number of defenders of Orthodoxy? It is natural to assume that the remaining 300 bishops were the defenders of Orthodoxy. But different groups must be allowed among the defenders of Orthodoxy. And among the Orthodox there was no unity in dogmatic views, not on the merits of the matter, but on the issue of methods for defending Orthodoxy. At the Council of Nicaea, one can assume three dogmatic parties that joined the defenders of Orthodox teaching. Firstly, a small party of famous, truly educated defenders of Orthodoxy, led by Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and especially distinguished by Deacon Athanasius, later a luminary of the Orthodox Church. Then two more significant factions came out against the Arians. These were, on the one hand, simple bishops, without theological education. These opposed the Arians rather out of religious feeling than out of a clear awareness of the inconsistency of Arianism. For them it was enough that from the teachings of Arius it emerged that the Son of God is a creation, and not the true God, and that His divine dignity is based on moral merit. Hence, it was clear to simple Christian instinct that this teaching did not correspond to church tradition inherited from previous times. The second group consisted of bishops who received theological education, but from the old school. They were influenced by the writings of Origen and his students. By the very nature of their education, they could not agree with the teachings of Arius, they were against it: but they also found the means with which Alexander and others fought too radical. They were afraid whether the Orthodox were taking too bold a step towards Sabellianism by opposing Arius with words like ὁμοούσιος and ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. Many rebelled against the word οὐσία for the reason that it is not in Holy Scripture, especially since the exact meaning of the words - οὐσία and ὑπόστασις - was not established. The true educated leaders of the council needed, firstly, to explain to ordinary bishops the main tendencies of the teachings of Arius and its consequences; secondly, to indicate to the followers of the old school that in the fight against heresy those radical means that they themselves propose are necessary. Thus, at the Council of Nicaea there were representatives of four dogmatic factions: 1) the Arians - a small party and disagreeing with each other; 2) strict opponents of the Arians, who knew how to challenge the very starting points of the Arian teaching; 3) a party of theologically educated bishops, but adhering to the old views of subordinationism, who were displeased with the views of the Arians for their conclusions, but liked their premises; and, finally, 4) a large party of ordinary bishops. This party, convinced that Arianism is untenable simply because its views reached terrible conclusions, without hesitation sided with the defenders of Orthodoxy. From the news of Athanasius of Alexandria, it is clear how the fathers of the council, through polemics, came to realize the complete necessity of such terms as ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and ὁμοούσιος. Eustathius of Antioch conveys the course of the council from the open speech of the Arians with the symbol until the moment when their supporters (Eusebius of Caesarea?), under the pretext of concern for the world, silenced those who always spoke in the best way. Eusebius describes the course of the meeting in the presence of Constantine from the moment Eusebius brought the Caesarian symbol to the attention of the fathers until the Nicene symbol was established. Finally, Sozomen (I, 17) tells how the fathers of the council established a general program of activity: some advised not to introduce anything new; others insisted that one cannot follow the ancient expressions (ταῖς παλαιοτέραις δόξαις) without any investigation. There is no reason to assume that these latter were only Arians; and the Orthodox, the most insightful and quite consistent, found that controversial issues were not provided for in the ancient symbols, therefore it was possible for everyone to understand the teaching of faith in the ancient symbols in their own way, that the task of the council was not as simple as many bishops who did not have theological education assumed. Investigations were conducted at the preliminary meetings of the council. Probably, Arius himself and his non-bishop supporters were invited here more than once and asked meekly and lovingly about their teaching. In this way, those dialectical techniques and data were developed that were used in the presence of the emperor, who himself took part in the disputes. At the solemn meeting in the presence of Constantine, what could be said was only a general battle between the disputing parties. All dates relative to the time of the cathedral range between 22 (?) May and 25 August 13. These figures probably express various aspects of the council's activities. Open sessions began after June 3rd, maybe 14th; the creed was signed on June 19, and by August 25 the bishops had left. The cathedral was solemnly opened around June 14 by Constantine himself. The fathers gathered in the vast middle hall of the imperial premises, took the places prepared for them and waited with understandable intense attention for the appearance of the Christian emperor. Finally his retinue entered, and he himself - with oriental splendor, in clothes sparkling with gold and stones, and walked throughout the hall among the bishops who had risen from their seats, stopped between the seats of the leading bishops and modestly, at their sign, sank onto the golden seat prepared for him. Then the fathers of the cathedral also took their places. After a greeting to the emperor, said by one of the bishops, the meeting was opened by a speech by the emperor, spoken in Latin, to which he added a few words in Greek. Then the emperor gave the floor to the representatives of the Council - τοῖς τῆς συνόδου προέδροις 14. Dogmatic reasoning apparently began with a consideration of the symbol presented by Eusebius of Nicomedia. The learned representative of the East did not consider the case of Arius to be in disagreement with church teaching, he expressed the grounds of his view of the Face of the Son of God and the consequences to which it leads, and the word κτίσμα stood openly in him. Since the majority of polemical theologians were against such an expression, this symbol was rejected and even, they say, torn apart. Thus, the condemnation of the extremes of the Arian teaching was already a foregone conclusion. The matter began with those expressions that were sanctified by antiquity, contained in symbols and were taken directly from Holy Scripture. This polemic against the Arians was very strong, but it also provoked the Eusebians to fight back. The question was posed in such a way that the Arian symbol was directly accused of disagreeing with the words of Holy Scripture. But it was possible to put things this way only with a not entirely clear understanding of the very essence of Arianism. The Arians did not reject either books or passages of Holy Scripture, only their exegesis was different, and this is because the philosophy was different. As a result of this, it was impossible to arrive at any firm result in this way. For example, in response to the proposal to add the expression “ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ” to the symbol, the Eusebians stated that they also agreed with this; but everything is from God, they added, for “there is one God, from Him are all things” (1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 5:18). Thus, the simple expression “ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ” could not resolve the dispute between the Orthodox and the extreme expression of the Arian party. It was necessary to find an inconvenient term for the Eusebians. This expression was “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας”. Then a number of biblical expressions were proposed: the radiance of glory, the image of the hypostasis, the image of the invisible God, the power of the Lord, wisdom, etc. But the Eusebians, either publicly or only among themselves, contrasted these expressions with others that weakened the power of the first expressions. For example, in contrast to the conclusions that the Orthodox made from 1 Cor. 1:24: “Christ, the power of God,” the Eusebians pointed to the Exodus (Ex. 12:41), where the Jews are called the power of the Lord, and to the book of Joel (Joel 2:25), in which the locusts are called the great power of God. Consequently, the word δύναμις does not yet express the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. And with the words of the message to Col. 1:15: the Son of God “is the image of the invisible God,” they proposed to compare 1 Cor. 1:7, where the husband is called the image of God, and on this basis rejected the conclusion to the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. They interpreted the eternity of the Son in relation to the future, and not in the sense of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father from time immemorial. They tried to limit the meaning of the words of John 14:10 “ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ” with such parallels as Acts 17:28: “In Him we live and move and we are” (ἐν αὐτῷ). Probably at this moment a person who knew how to “silence those who spoke best” came forward with a proposal for mediation. There is reason to believe that this person was Eusebius of Caesarea. His views were all the more dangerous because they coincided with the views of Constantine, who at that time was not even a catechumen. Eusebius held the view that if a person cannot comprehend the mystery of the union of his soul with his own body, then even less can he claim to comprehend the mystery of the relationship of the Son of God to the Father. This is impossible and useless. The Son of God said: “Believe in Me to have eternal life” (John 6:47), and did not say: “Whoever knows Me will be saved.” It is natural, therefore, that Eusebius tried to present the entire dispute as unimportant and proposed to replace all controversial expressions with those that are acceptable to everyone, that is, to reduce all reasoning to nothing. He came up with a symbol that was taught in the Caesarea church. This symbol was destined to form the basis of the symbol of the Council of Nicaea. Here the doctrine of the Trinity God in Persons is stated as follows: The emperor himself was very pleased with this symbol, but said that the word ὁμοούσιος should be added to it. Eusebius talks about this in a letter to his flock 15. Of course, it was not Constantine’s deep theological education that could have suggested the importance of the proposed term “ὁμοούσιος.” During the wrangling of the fathers of the council, he often heard it, and perhaps Hosius of Corduba disposed him even earlier to accept this word. The fact that this term was proposed by the emperor could have some significance only in the sense that people who were averse to this term had to be careful in their polemics against it. The introduction of this term into the symbol changed its vague “mediating” phrase into a precise dogmatic one - contrary to Eusebius’s original intentions. The Caesarea symbol formed only the basis of the Nicene symbol, and was not accepted textually. 1) Thus, in the first term, only one, but characteristic, replacement was made. The word “all” is rendered instead of ἁπάντων by simple πάντων. The word ἅπας is more energetic than πᾶς: ἅπας means “decisively everything”, “all without exception”, “all in total”. Thus, the word ἅπας could represent for the Arians one of the loopholes in which they could take refuge with their dialectics. “If God is the Creator of absolutely everything (ἁπάντων), then He is the Creator of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.” – 2) Then in the Nicene Symbol the expression “The Word of God – Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ” was omitted in the second member. In the question of why this was done, one has to remain in the realm of mere assumptions. According to some, this was done because the fathers did not want to introduce abstract theological terms. But it is difficult to agree with this, since the Nicene symbol is not called a symbol itself, but a “statement of faith” (μάθημα - a scientific presentation, approaching mathematically accurate), and did not immediately become a symbol for those being baptized; thus, it was intended for strictly theological and polemical use. It is more likely that the word "Λόγος" was omitted for historical reasons. The word "Λόγος" was used in a special sense by many heretics. For example, Paul of Samosata recognized the pre-eternal existence of Λόγος’a, as a power hypostatically inseparable from the Father, but not as the Son in the church sense of the word. In any case, the fathers of the council should have taken care not to introduce such expressions that would give the Arians a reason to repeat their statement that Arius’s opponents were monarchians. Therefore, in place of the term Λόγος we put directly Υἱός. a) What is the relationship of the fathers of the Council of Nicea to previous dogmatic experiences and to subsequent ones? This question boils down to another: did the fathers of the Council of Nicea distinguish between the expressions “οὐσία” and “ὑπόστασις”, as we now distinguish them, or did they not yet make this distinction, which is characteristic of the ante-Nicene era? At the Council of Alexandria in 362, which was chaired by Athanasius V., the question of the meaning of these words was raised clearly and directly. There were two parties arguing. Some argued that “there are three Hypostases in God,” and they were reproached for Arianism; others - that “there is one hypostasis in God”, because, in their opinion, ὑπόστασις and οὐσία are one and the same - and they were suspected of Sabellianism. Athanasius V. forced them to explain themselves, and from the explanation it turned out that they disagreed only in words, being in agreement in their understanding of the dogma itself. But the fathers of the council, in any case, treated the persons who recognized the three Hypostases as those who raised a question that was not resolved by the Council of Nicaea; and the conciliar decision took place in the sense that the personal Orthodoxy of both sides was recognized, but both were recommended to be content with the expressions of the Nicene faith, “as better and more accurate.” Probably in connection with this mixed use of the words οὐσία and ὑπόστασις is the history of the expression “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας”. Each of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity is the whole of God and the being belongs entirely to each. In this sense, the expression is understandable: “The Son is born from the being of the Father.” But the fathers of the second ecumenical council, having retained the word ὁμοούσιος in their version of the symbol, omitted the words: τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός. They probably had in mind the verbal difficulty of this expression from the point of view of strict terminology: the being of the Father is the one and identical being of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If the Son is begotten from the being of the Father, then we cannot eliminate the question: was the Son not begotten from His own being? Therefore, in 381 the word οὐσία was thrown out as inconvenient. In general, in theology there is a wave-like movement in the field of theological terminology, and after the increase, terminological backwardness is also noticed. The debates presented were accompanied by advances in terminology about the Trinity; in relation to Christology, things stopped at the point of development of the era of the first ecumenical council. There would have been no subsequent heresies if precise theological terminology had already been established at the first ecumenical council. Likewise, in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, we disagree with the Latins precisely in terminology. Eastern theologians took a step forward in terminology and took the point of view of Vasily V. They considered both the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit as hypostatic properties. But the Latin theologians retained the old term ex substantia and for them the procession of the Holy Spirit was represented as actus substantiae. Therefore, it was natural for them to demand that the Son be thought of as bringing forth the Holy Spirit, for the essence of the Father and the Son is one and the same (ex utroque, ex Patre Filioque). There was even an assumption that the Holy Spirit does not emanate from Himself, but this conclusion was too radical. The word ὁμοούσιος contains the synthesis of the entire teaching about the Son of God. The central point of this concept is explained by Athanasius V. (de synodis, 54, written in 359) as follows: “by using the word ὁμοούσιος without polemical cavils, we mean that He is the true (natural, own) Son, having being from the Father” (λεγοντες δὲ μὴ εριστικῶς τον ὁμοούσιον Υἱὸν σημαίνομεν γνήσιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς πεφυκότα). The high dignity of this term is clear from the fact that it cannot be replaced by any other (not in the polemical sense indicated above, as the word is unacceptable for Arians, but in terms of its internal dogmatic-philosophical content). The closest to ὁμοούσιον is “ὅμοιος κατὰ πάντα” and a further explanation of this latter is “ὁμοιούσιος”. And, however, both of these last terms (ὁμοιούσιος in particular) do not stand up to the test, and this is not even because they represent half-measures, inconsistency, but because ὁμοιούσιος is contrary to both the spirit of the Greek language and established philosophical terminology. To judge this, you need to find out the exact meaning of the word “ὅμοιος”, which can only be very inaccurately conveyed by the Russian “similar”. Aristotle establishes the place of the concept “ὅμοιον” in a series of analogous expressions in this position (Metaphys. V, 15): ταὐτà μὲν γὰρ ὧν μία ἡ οὐσία, ὅμοια δ’ ὧν ἡ ποιότης μία, ἴσα δὲ ὧν τὸ ποσὸν ἕν. “Those objects that have the same essence are identical, those that have the same quality are similar, those that have the same quantity are equal.” There are satisfactory analogies to clarify the meaning of the particle “ὁμο-”. Ὁμόδοξοι – those who hold the same dogmatic beliefs; ὁμογενεῖς – those that are connected to each other by the unity of the genus. Ὁμοούσιον expresses, according to the teachings of Athanasius V., ταὐτὸν τῇ ὁμοιώσει ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, τὴν ταυτότητα, i.e. not only unity - identity - equality of essence, i.e. qualitative definitions of the Father and Son (this would only be ὅμοιον), but also identity - unity of essence. And since, according to the very concept of God, only a concrete, numerical unity (unitas numerica) of a being is conceivable, and not a collective, specific (species) unity (unitas specifica) of a being actually distributed among many subjects, the identity of which is verified only logically by the identity of its definitions: then, therefore, the same being that is in the Father is also in the Son; i.e. ὁ ὁμοούσιος Υἱὸς is not only equally existing with the Father, but also one in existence. The Nicene symbol was so precise that it could not be reinterpreted, but only could be accepted or rejected. The Arians did not agree to sign this teaching, although not all of them did. Arius himself did not sign it, and of his followers only four remained on his side: Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognius of Nicea, Theona of Marmaric and Secundus of Ptolemais. All of them were sent into exile: Arius to Illyria, and others to Galatia (or Gaul?). Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognius of Nicea decided to sign the symbol, but refused to sign the anathematization of Arius, citing the fact that they did not believe that Arius really stated what was attributed to him there. Philostorgius, the Arian historian, finds for himself only the consolation that Eusebius and Theognius did not actually sign the Nicene symbol, since in the symbol they signed in the word ὁμοούσιον they inserted an extra “ι”, it turned out “ὁμοιούσιον”. Secundus of Ptolemais said, they say, to Eusebius: “You signed, Eusebius, so as not to be exiled. baptism and even having spent several years as a bishop, I, however, heard the Nicene faith (= text of the symbol) only when I was sent into exile (fidem nicaenam nunquam, nisi exsulaturus, audivi).” Thus, the dogmatic victory over Arianism, won at the Council of Nicaea, preceded the historical victory. It was necessary to firmly strengthen the heritage of the Nicene faith in the theological consciousness and clear away all those sediments that were similar to Arianism. Therefore, more than half a century passed before this historical triumph over Arianism was celebrated at the Council of Constantinople. And those persons who were not free from prejudices against the Nicene formulas represent those elements in the Catholic Church whose ferment constitutes the history of the struggle against Arianism after the Council of Nicaea. But in this case, the triumph achieved had the danger that the emperor acted with state funds. The emperor, convinced of the truth of the first council, sent the Arian bishops into exile, but things could have been different ahead. Future emperors could be misled and accept lies as truth. To understand the nature of the relationship between the fighting parties in the first stage of the struggle, you need to keep in mind the following. a) The Nicene symbol was approved by the emperor; therefore, a direct dogmatic struggle against the symbol was impossible, and the Arianists could only set themselves a less daring goal: to force people to forget about the Nicene symbol and imperceptibly replace it in church-dogmatic use with some other symbolic monument. b) The highly important importance of the dogmatic leaders of Orthodoxy was revealed, on whose authority the incompetent masses of believers relied. It was necessary, therefore, to fight not only against the Nicene dogma, but also against the individuals who were its staunch defenders. At first, the dogmatic struggle against the Nicene faith was limited only by the fact that from the positions of the defenders of the symbol they tried to draw Sabellian conclusions, and even - in the form of a trial balloon - the dialectician Asterius, a student of Lucian, a Cappadocian rhetorician (who renounced Christianity during the persecution of Diocletian, then again turned to the church) in cities where there were “Solucianist” bishops, triumphantly read his "συνταγμάτιον", in which he, often boldly, sometimes aptly, attacked the exegetical techniques (not free from the one-sidedness of the Alexandrian school) of the defenders of the Nicene faith 17. After the great power in the east was broken, the Arians decided to remove Athanasius from Alexandria. To exert their influence in Egypt was, of course, especially important for the Arianists. The Council of Nicaea allowed the Melitian bishops to be accepted into communion in their rank, with the hope of becoming the only bishops in the cities after the death of their Catholic co-conspirators. However, the Melitians were not entirely satisfied even with this indulgence. Their union with the church proceeded slowly and took place only in November-December 327. On April 17, 328, Alexander of Alexandria died. On June 8, 328, his successor Athanasius V. 18 was ordained bishop. Athanasius was still so young (possibly born in 295-296) that his enemies in 332 could bring an accusation against him before the emperor that he became a bishop before reaching the canonical ((35) 30-year-old age). Youth, indestructible energy of will and a strong organism, a brilliant mind and high education, united in the new archbishop, who had already become famous in Nicaea as a leading fighter for Orthodoxy. The first accusation against Athanasius came in 331. The Melitian bishops raised in Nicomedia the case of “περὶ στιχαρίων λινῶν”, about “linen surplices”, some kind of tax allegedly established by Athanasius. The Alexandrian presbyters Macarius and Apis refuted this slander. Then another accusation was brought: Macarius and Athanasius were accused of the same thing, namely: that during the visit of the nome, which did not have a bishop, but was ruled by presbyters, Athanasius and Macarius invaded the church where Ischira, a Melitian presbyter, was officiating, broke the cup and spilled St. blood. In addition, Athanasius was accused of treason, allegedly sending a box of gold to the usurper Philumen. The result of these accusations was that Athanasius was summoned in 332 ad comitatum (to the court) 19, acquitted himself before Constantine and was released with honor: the emperor called him in his letter “a man of God.” In 334, Athanasius received a summons to a council in Caesarea in Palestine, but refused to appear because the council consisted of his enemies. When the Melitians were thus beaten, they said that Arsenius had been hiding for so many years that it was natural to assume that he had died, and from this it also followed that Athanasius had killed him. More complicated was the case of the alleged Mareot presbyter Ischira: allegedly Macarius, presbyter of Alexandria, on the orders of Athanasius, overturned the throne and broke the chalice while Ischira was performing divine services. The trial of this case in Tire was not entirely convenient: it was necessary to conduct an investigation on the spot. The meetings were generally stormy. The Alexandrian confessors showered Eusebius of Caesarea with reproaches and raised suspicions against him of renouncing his faith in the persecution of Diocletian. The indictment against Athanasius stated that his numerous Egyptian bishops advised the fathers of the council and caused unrest. The church-minded bishops of Egypt were already dissatisfied with the very general course of the council. “What kind of council is this, which is presided over by a committee, to which those present are introduced not by a deacon, but by a commentator”? It turned out from the testimony that Ishira at the moment of controversy either served the liturgy or lay sick; that at this supposed liturgy - for which there was not even a church (an inconvenience that they took care to correct by building it after the fact) - even Jews and pagans were present; that Macarius either burned the sacred books or did not burn them. And, however, the investigators came to the conclusion that both Macarius and Afanasy were guilty. Confident that councils such as Tire did not make fair decisions, Athanasius the Great was forced to leave Tire in a rather strange way even before the end of the trial. Syrian sources, telling about this journey of Athanasius, indicate the method of this journey in one technical expression, which is quite difficult to explain. It is unlikely that Athanasius did not use for this purpose a ship that was used for transporting timber, like our barge or raft, for there is no doubt that Tire conducted timber trade with Constantinople. 1 ½ months after leaving Tire, Athanasius arrived in Constantinople on October 30, achieved an audience (November 7) and explained to the emperor all the injustices of the fathers of the council. His protest seemed very natural, because only the emperor forced him to be at the council. The result of the audience was a message from Constantine, with which he summoned the fathers of the Council of Tire in full force to the court for a confrontation with Athanasius. When the sessions of the Jerusalem Council were over, and many of the fathers had left, those who remained received an order from the emperor to appear at court and give an account of their actions on the complaint of Athanasius. The experienced Arian leaders, together with several bishops of Egypt, appeared as a group of 6 in Constantinople, probably already at the beginning of 336, and very cleverly deflected the wrath of the indignant emperor. Instead of justifying the Council of Tire, they presented a counter-accusation against Athanasius. They accused Athanasius before the emperor of threatening to stop the supply of grain from Alexandria to Constantinople. The accusation was very serious. If the supply of Egyptian grain were stopped, Constantinople would have to die of hunger. Constantine was very irritated by this accusation, which Athanasius could have learned about from the bishops. It is difficult to admit that Konstantin believed this accusation. But Konstantin was already old and weak. If, according to historians, in the first years of his reign he was an optimus ruler, then in the middle years he was only good, and in the last years he was barely mediocre. He was not a genius who breaks new ground. His strength is his political experience: he was an ordinary politician. If the civil commander of a province conducts business in such a way that uprisings occur against him, he rarely remains in place. He is considered an incompetent administrator and is subjected to administrative exile. This is precisely how Constantine looked at the case of Athanasius and, without entering into its proceedings, exiled Athanasius to Trier (Augusta Trevirorum) in Gaul, probably on February 5, 336, without, however, appointing a successor to him in the Alexandrian department. This is one important victory for the Arians, although not complete. The accusation was subsequently brought against Athanasius that, having been condemned to exile by the spiritual authorities, he returned by order of the secular authorities. Athanasius’ logic was different: he appeared at the council at the request of the sovereign, and the council itself was illegal, since its decisions were not approved by the emperor. This last circumstance is evident from the fact that the department remained unoccupied even after Athanasius’s exile. While in exile, Athanasius gained the favor of the son of Emperor Constantine, Constantine II, who gained respect for the exile. Maximin, Bishop of Trier, also treated Athanasius very favorably. Along the way, the Arians managed to win another victory over a particularly important person; the victim of this victory was Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra. Marcellus was one of the outstanding minds of his era. This was not an original nature, but very strong in its perceived views. He received a theological education that was not the same as the theologians of his time: Lucianism did not touch him. He was brought up on the old patristic systems. And so this peculiar mind decided to come out to fight Arianism for the good of the church. Marcellus wanted to fight with his own means: he wrote a huge work denouncing the Arians, presented it to Constantine and asked him to read it personally. Marcellus was deeply indignant at the role that the Arians were now playing; and they knew how to play roles. Now they presented their views as “church” theology. In a sense, the Eusebians were right, of course. If we understand the church as a union of believers with a bishop, then the general voice would be in favor of Arian views, because all the most important departments were occupied by heretics. Marcellus, in his letter to Constantine, tried to explain to him what kind of church theology this was, and asked him to think about it more seriously. But where could the old and sick Constantine discuss theological subjects? Constantine submitted the work to the council for consideration, but since the metropolitan in relation to Constantinople was the Bishop of Herakleia, Theodore, an obvious Lucianist, who presided over the council, the council, having examined the work of Marcellus, recognized it as non-Orthodox, and the author was deposed and sent into exile. “Let Julius not pretend to be an arbitrator,” they wrote, but let him choose between communication with all the eastern bishops, on the one hand, and Athanasius and Marcellus, on the other.” The ambassadors were detained until 341, when the famous Council of Antioch was convened to consecrate the magnificent golden basilica and consisted of 97 fathers. The Council of Antioch in 341 constitutes an epoch in the history of Arianism. Here this party embarks on the path of dogmatic struggle against the Nicene faith, trying to replace it with special dogmatic formulas, which, gradually multiplying, grow into a whole “labyrinth of beliefs” (τόν λαβύρινθον των έκθέσεον, Socr. II, 41). Their genetic relationship is represented by the following diagram (the line means a genetic connection (repetition); the dots mean only a chronological sequence): The Council of Antioch in 341 (between May 22, or January 6 - September 1) was convened for the consecration (therefore ή ὲν τοίς έγκαινίοις) of the magnificent “golden” basilica and consisted of 97 fathers. The present reason for drawing up formulas was quite peculiar. In the west, the eastern ones, due to their hostile relationship with Athanasius V., were suspected of Arianism; I needed to clear myself of this suspicion. The Council put forward three formulas. In their encyclical, the Fathers consider suspicion of Arianism to be a great insult to themselves. “We did not even think of being followers of Arius. How can we, bishops, follow the presbyter? We tested and explored the faith of Arius and accepted him into our fellowship, rather than joining him ourselves. We do not hold to any other faith than that which has been faithful from the beginning.” Its positive content is conveyed as follows: “And in one only-begotten Son of God, existing (υπάρχοντα) before all ages and co-existing (συνάντα) with the Father who begat Him.” The words directed against Marcellus were: “He will remain king and God forever.” The formula, so poor in content, did not satisfy even the fathers themselves, and then the second formula was put forward. The matter began when Bishop Theophronius of Tian, ​​suspected of non-Orthodoxy, presented a symbol to justify his faith. The fathers recognized this symbol as insufficient and turned to the symbol of Lucian of Antioch. In his expressions about the Son, he comes close to the Nicene symbol. “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son (God the Father), the only begotten God, through whom all things came into being, begotten before all ages from the Father, God from God, whole from whole, one from one, perfect from perfect, king from king, Lord from Lord, living Word, living wisdom, true light, way, truth, resurrection, shepherd, door, immutable and unchangeable, undifferentiated image the deity of the Father, both being and His power, will and glory (...). So the Father is truly the Father, the Son is truly the Son and the Holy Spirit is truly the Holy Spirit. These are not just names used idlely, but they precisely signify their own hypostasis, as well as the glory and rank of each of those named, so that they are three in hypostasis and one in agreement.” The Fathers end with anathema to those who say that there was a time when there was no Son, and that He is a creation - as one of the creations. In the doctrine of the deity of the Son the following expressions are important: This symbol is the very color of the dogmatic activity of the 97 fathers. The first formula was forgotten. This second one, as the only fruit of the council, is quoted by Hilary of Pictavia. The best forces of the East looked at this symbol in the same way: only they considered it a symbol of the Council of Antioch, and in their eyes it was surrounded by the same glorious halo as the Nicene symbol in the eyes of the defenders of Orthodoxy. This second formula is the true pendant to the Nicene symbol, set forth by the bishops of the east. Councils: Seleucia of 359, numerous eastern councils of the time of Julian and even the Council of Caria of 365 reverently turn their gaze to this faith of the Antiochian fathers. The Macedonians subsequently stubbornly clung to this formula. It therefore deserves some detailed analysis. First of all, the verbosity of the content is striking. “The whole from the whole, – the Lord from the Lord –.” These are apparently fruitless variations of the same idea. But, in addition to the fact that here we find such a definition as “perfect from perfect,” it is important that the Father and the Son are defined by identical names. Both the Father and the Son are called both “king” and “Lord”. This sounds completely different than if, for example, it were written: “from the unborn is born,” “from the Creator is the first-born of all creation.” The Father and the Son in these definitions are brought together, not separated. The disadvantages of the symbol lie in the subordination in the relationship of Father, Son and Spirit. They differ not only in hypostases, but also in glory and rank, from which we can conclude that the Son and the Spirit have less glory and rank than the Father. The expression: “they are three in hypostasis and one in agreement” is taken entirely from Origen, but it is not satisfactory. The second weak side of the symbol is the attempt to return the irrevocable past, i.e., an appeal to Lucian. The Antiochian fathers want to establish another faith after the Nicene one - this is the strongest, but formal, objection that the convinced defenders of the Council of Nicaea, like Athanasius V., could make against this dogmatic product. In fact, this was an attempt to return back the passage of time, an attempt to set the starting point of the dogmatic process before the Council of Nicaea. By giving premises, they wanted to delay the inevitable conclusion from them - and cast doubt on the Council of Nicaea that this conclusion was drawn incorrectly here. Thus, the fathers of the Council of Antioch not only did not fulfill their word to the legates, but announced that they did not intend to fulfill it. They detained Julius' ambassadors until the council itself, and Julius had to familiarize himself with the state of affairs at the council. It was also necessary to reassure Emperor Constant. For this purpose, ambassadors were sent to him - all compromised Arians - Narcissus of Neronia, Mari of Chalcedon and Theodore of Herakleia. These ambassadors, either of their own accord or on the advice of most of the members of the council, compiled the IV Antiochian formula of confession. All the first formulas were unsuccessful in the sense that they clearly showed a deviation from the Nicene symbol, so that if the emperor had compared even slightly, he would have noticed the difference now. In the new formula, the Son of God is not even called “perfect God,” as in Theophronius, but is simply called “God from God.” But the IV Antiochian formula could mislead any non-theologian, because the difference between this symbol and the universal one was not noticeable. It had the goal of uniting all persons sympathetic to Arianism. The calculation was that the emperor would not notice the difference and would treat the symbol favorably. The new symbol was dogmatically completely colorless and, due to its indifference, was a convenient union document for Arianists of all shades, and therefore became the founder of a whole series of formulas and was repeated without changes 4 more times (until 358). The characteristics of the new symbol are as follows: α) In design, it is closest to the Nicene symbol. β) In the first member the characteristic words are read: “Father - from Him every patronymic (πατριά) in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph. 3:15). γ) In the seventh clause: “to judge the living and the dead and to render to each one according to his deeds, δ) Whose kingdom, as endless (άκατάπαυστος), endures for endless ages; for he sits at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in the age to come.” It's against Markell. ε) The term about the Holy Spirit is especially rounded. “We also believe in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Comforter, whom He, having promised to the apostles, upon His ascension into heaven, sent to teach them everything and to remember everything to them, ζ) By which the souls of those who believe in Him are sincerely sanctified.” But even before the ambassadors arrived in Gaul, a rumor spread in the west that in the east they were changing their faith by drawing up a new presentation of it. Then Constans demanded from Constantius, at the instigation of his clergy, that an ecumenical council be convened in the western part of the empire. The Council was convened in Serdika (present-day Sofia) in 343 (not 347, as Socr. h. e. II, 20 states) 22. 94 or 96 western bishops and 76 eastern - this was the composition of the council. The Eastern Fathers argued that revision is impermissible because, firstly, no council can revise the decrees of another council, which they began to do in contradiction with their previous statement that a larger council can annul the decrees of a smaller council; secondly, the revision, in their opinion, was also impossible because many of the witnesses had already died. The preliminary negotiations of the council fathers ended with the fact that in one night the Eastern fathers fled from Serdica, with the exception of three bishops of minor sees: Asterius of Peter, Arius of Palestine and Olympius of Enos, declaring that they had received news of Constantius’ victory over the Persians and were rushing to their flocks to thank God for this mercy. Nevertheless, they stopped in Philippopolis and formed their own council here, 23 but in the documents they called it the Cathedral of Serdica. The Philippopolis fathers declared 9 bishops of the opposing side deposed (damnavimus), starting with Athanasius and Marcellus and ending with Hosius and Julius of Rome. They deposed this latter “as the original and leader of this evil, who was the first, contrary to church rules, to open the door of communication to the condemned and criminal and had the audacity to support Athanasius.” Then they again issued the Antiochian IV formula, supplementing it with one anathematism (against the alleged Sabellian errors of Athanasius and Marcellus). The Western Fathers, in turn, opened meetings in Serdica. Fascinated by the idea of ​​polemics with the East on dogmatic grounds, they decided to compose their own statement of faith. It was already prepared, but Athanasius and his like-minded people managed to explain that any attempts to compose a new creed and make further explanations should have damaged the Nicene symbol. Therefore, the determination did not take place. The fathers confirmed only the Nicene symbol, confirmed the innocence of Athanasius and Marcellus, Gregory of Alexandria and Basil of Ancyra were not recognized as bishops and deposed Stephen of Antioch, Acacius of Caesarea and other leaders of Arianism (11 in total). Thus, the ecumenical council, convened to unify the church, was divided into two private ones and only cemented the existing church division between East and West. The Serdica fathers also sent envoys to the east with conciliar resolutions. When the conciliar delegates (Euphrates of Colonia (Köln) and Vincent of Capua) arrived (before Easter, which was April 15) in 344 in Antioch, Stephen of Antioch decided to destroy them morally, entangling their names in one scandal; but the base fraud was discovered, and shame fell on the head of its real culprit. Emperor Constantius immediately convened a council in Antioch, which without any hesitation deprived Stephen of his dignity and elected Leontius in his place, and to cleanse the East from suspicion of Arianism, he issued the Vth Antiochene formula, the so-called “multi-line exposition” (ἡ μακρόστιχος ἔκθεσις), in pitch approaching the symbol of Lucian (there are traces of old subordinationism, a direct polemic against Marcellus and favorite Arian expressions; the Nicene ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας is contrasted with the condemnation of those who recognize the Son as born against will, οὐ θελήσει; pictorial expression of the so-called περιχώρησις divine Hypostases). The Fathers are expressed here in this way: we believe that They are constantly in contact with each other and exist inseparably with each other, and the Son is in direct contact with the Father, so that the whole Father contains the Son in His chest and the whole Son depends, that is, is part of the Father by His being and alone incessantly abides in the bosom of the Father; We determine that He is truly born of one Father, that He is God perfect by nature and true God and like the Father in everything (IX, III, IV, VI). A special delegation was appointed to take this presentation to the west. Therefore, he took care to make this matter as public as possible and appeared only after the third written invitation from the emperor, and on October 23, 346, he entered Alexandria, met by his flock a hundred miles (138 ½ century) from the city. The natural consequence of this return of Athanasius was the return of Paul of Constantinople. Marcellus of Ancyra was also returned, but could not occupy the chair due to popular indignation. Thus, once again, apparently, all the results of the struggle of the Arian party - against individuals and dogma - were reduced to zero. However, the position of those returned was very precarious. The defenders of the Nicene faith owed this triumph not to church movements in the east, but to purely external energetic pressure on the secular power of the East from the secular power of the West. And Constantius, forced to return Athanasius, saw in him a symbol, a living monument to his political humiliation. Therefore, as soon as Constant was gone, the ground under Athanasius’ feet was shaken. In January 350, the usurper Magnentius raised the banner of rebellion in the west and in the same month Constans was killed. Magnentius was followed by other generals (Vetranio, Nepotianus); even the Jews were indignant (in 352); but Constantius triumphed over all his enemies and on August 13, 353, became the sovereign sovereign of the east and west. The Arian party had long been able to appreciate the great importance of the west, against whose passive resistance all its successes in the east were broken, and now, under the auspices of Constantia, it transferred its operations to the Latin half of the empire. In October 353, a council was held in Arelate in the presence of the emperor. The emperor demanded the condemnation of Athanasius, the fathers stood for the fact that the question of faith should first be resolved, and then about persons, and Athanasius' opponents should clear themselves of suspicion of Arianism. But under pressure from the emperor, the council and the ambassadors of Liberius of Rome (successor of Julius + April 12, 352) agreed to condemn Athanasius, without achieving a decisive condemnation of Arianism. Peacock of Trier remained adamant and was exiled to Phrygia. Even earlier (in 350), Paul of Constantinople was exiled. In 353 (in May) an attempt was made to eliminate Athanasius; but the people became agitated, and the Silentiary Montanus ἄπρακτος ἀνέστρεφε. The experience was repeated in 355: the notary Diogenes “besieged the church” from September 4 to December 23, but also returned with nothing. Constantius acted more successfully in the west at this time: in the winter of 355, at the Council of Milan, the fathers signed some dubious formula and condemnation of Athanasius. Dionysius of Milan, Lucifer of Calaris and Eusebius of Vercelles remained adamant and for this they were sent into exile to the east. Hosius of Corduba demanded a free council and was detained in Sirmium. Liberius also wanted a council in Alexandria, and for refusing to enter into communication with the Arians and condemn Athanasius, he was sent into exile (to Veria in Thrace). It was the turn of Athanasius V. On January 6, 356, by order of Constantius Dux Sirianus, he gathered all the legions from Egypt and Libya to Alexandria, and on the night of February 8-9, Friday, when Athanasius performed an all-night vigil in the church of Theona, the church was cordoned off by soldiers. During “Praise the name of the Lord,” by order of Athanasius, the people began to disperse from the church, singing along: “For His mercy endures forever,” and together with the people, after the others, Athanasius himself came out unnoticed. From this they conclude that the figure of Athanasius was not a large one, and Julian, calling him ἀνθρωπίσκος, expresses not only contempt for him as a Galilean, but also hints at his figure. It happened that the disappearance of Athanasius was accepted by him as a miracle and was amazing, and all the believers did not know what had become of the bishop. The soldiers searched the entire church and for a long time traces of a violent invasion remained in it in the form of arrows pierced into the walls. Thus, it seemed that the ground for the worldwide triumph of Arianism was sufficiently strengthened, and in the summer (in August) 357, the Second Sirmian Formula was published in Sirmium, not ad instar symboli, but in the form of a treatise - a manifesto of the Arian party, signed by Hosius of Corduba and Potamius of Olysippon (Lisbon). The essential features of its content are as follows. - No one, on the other hand, doubts (οὐδενὶ δὲ ἀμφίβολόν ἐστι) that the Father is greater than the Son. After all, everyone will agree without hesitation that the Father in honor, dignity, divinity (Ath.: θεότητι Hil.: claritate, majestate) and by the very name of the Father is greater than the Son, as the Son Himself testifies: “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Equally, as everyone knows, there is a Catholic teaching that there are two Persons (πρόσωπα), the Father and the Son, and the Father is greater, and the Son is subordinate to the Father with everything that (μετὰ πάντων ὧν) the Father has subjected to Him; and the Father has no beginning, is invisible, immortal and passionless; and the Son is born from (ἐκ) the Father, God from God, light from light. This formula, compiled “after consideration of the issue” παρουσίᾳ Οὐάλεντος καὶ Οὐρσακίου καὶ Γερμινίου καὶ λοιπῶν), was first stated in Latin and then translated into Greek. Hilary calls it “the blasphemy of Hosea and Potamius.” The second Sirmian formula undoubtedly represents the beginning of the end of Arianism both in the west and in the east. There is an opinion (Gwatkin) that it was this formula that was signed not only by Hosius, but also by Pope Liberius, tired of his exile in Thrace, and for this he received permission to return to Rome. Catholic scholars (Hefele) stand for the fact that Liberius signed the III formula; but even in this case, the triumph of Arianism was quite complete. Stage Two: Fight against Arianism after the Council of Nicaea (325–381) Collapse of the Arian Party (357–381) Having decided to so openly unfurl the banner of Arianism, Ursacius and Valens relied too much on the weakness of the Western episcopate. Soon a council in Agenna in Gaul condemned this formula as blasphemous. Thus, Arianism was soon dealt a blow in the West. But this bold step of the Arians entailed the disintegration of their party in the east. There is no doubt that the majority of the east was not Athanasian at this time. But Athanasius was actually condemned not for his dogmatic beliefs, but for his alleged ecclesiastical crimes. This is what the fathers of the Council of Philippopolis wrote: “Athanasius with his own hands broke the cup and overturned the altar, destroyed the church, and put the presbyter into custody.” They also accused Athanasius of insults, violence against bishops, and even the murder of one bishop. The fathers of the Council of Tire did not immediately believe the accusations brought against Athanasius, but elected “glorious and praiseworthy” bishops and sent them to Egypt to check the accusation on the spot, and they confirmed the truth of the accusations in their own words. Naturally, Athanasius, accused of such serious crimes, could not gain the sympathy of people who did not know him personally. The Arians' intrigue was carried out skillfully, and the deceptive appearance spoke against the Alexandrian saint. The church life of the East was not limited to dogma alone. Many bishops suspected each other of non-Orthodoxy, but did not actually break off direct or mediocre church relations with each other, and gathered together for councils. The strictly Orthodox had common churches and common worship with the Arians, and were only excluded from receiving communion from persons suspected of heresy. Apparently, both Orthodox and Arians looked at each other as two dogmatic movements, and not as two church organisms. As a rule, things did not come to an obvious break, and the Antiochian Eustathians were an exception. The majority of the East was against ὁμοούσιον, but not because this majority was Arian, but because it was only conservative and inherited the subordinationism of old theological works. But this subordinationism was not Arian. Even where the presence of Arianism was apparently undeniable, pure Orthodox currents actually made their way. Dianius, bishop Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, in 338 he stood at the head of the Council of Antioch, which deposed Athanasius V., in 343 in Philippopolis he signed the act of this Arian council and before his death in 360 he signed the Constantinople formula. Apparently - undoubtedly Arian character. He even patronized the notorious sophist Asterius. However, Vasily V. had a completely opposite opinion about Diania. When Vasily’s ill-wishers spread the rumor that he had once anathematized Diania, Vasily V. was deeply upset by this “shameless slander.” “From a very young age, I grew up loving him. As a child, I admired his venerable appearance, how majestic and full of saintly dignity he was; and having developed to the ability of judgment, I also appreciated his high spiritual qualities: his noble simplicity and openness, kindness, meekness, spiritual clarity and this combination of fatherly gentleness with importance. It was always a pleasure for me to be with him and I rank him among the most respectable and virtuous persons.” Distressed by the weakness of Diania, who signed the Constantinople formula, Vasily stopped visiting him temporarily - that’s all. The extreme left of Arianism consisted of anomie, which taught the dissimilarity of the Son to the Father. As a special party, they stood out only later, although their luminaries took part in the movement even at the present time. In their final development, the anomies were defined as “irreconcilable” Arians, who stood for their beliefs with a firmness worthy of Athanasius V. They did not enter into any transactions with other parties and did not listen to the dictates issued by the court party. For the Anomians, Arius himself was not Orthodox enough: they could not forgive him for the colorless symbol that he presented to Constantine. Aetius (ὁἄθεος, atheist), the leader of the party, refused to accept initiation from Secundus of Ptolemais on the grounds that he had put a stain on the purity of his beliefs by communicating with the Homousians. Eunomius accepted ordination from Eudoxius, having previously subjected the latter's dogmatics to a thorough examination. Eunomius rebaptized not only the Homoousians who came to him, but also Arians of other persuasions. Philostorgius writes a panegyric to Aetius and outlines his personality with the following features. Aetius came from Kili-Syria, was distinguished by dialectical talents and firmness of conviction. Financial insecurity forced him to take up the craft of a goldsmith and the profession of a doctor. But scientific pursuits were his first need. He toured many cities for scientific purposes, acquired patrons in some places, and then quarreled with them over scientific clashes. Learned Lucianists (Paulin of Tire, Leontius of Antioch, Athanasius of Anazarus, Anthony of Tarsus) were his teachers in theology and especially in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. A remarkably restless nature, Aetius was ready to fly to where Arianism was in greatest danger. If there was a lack of means of subsistence, he worked fine things for jewelers, and on this salary he lived himself and provided medical care to those in need. The vicissitudes of fortune either elevated him to friendship with the sovereigns (house of Julian), or relegated him to exile. The dogmatic system of Aetius was entirely built on the dialectical opposition between the born and the unborn. Considering these concepts to be an adequate expression of the very essence of the Father and the Son, he stood for their complete “otherness” (ἑτεροούσιον), and with an audacity unparalleled since the days of Gnosticism, he ascribed to himself such an adequate knowledge of the essence of God as God himself has. The right center can be called those who were content with recognizing the similarity of the Son to the Father, ὅμοιον, either without an exact designation of the point of similarity, or with the denial of similarity in essence (omiya). The first figures of this party were Acacius of Caesarea and Uranius of Tyre. Eusebius's successor to the Caesarea department, Akakios was distinguished by his high education and oratorical talent, but his moral qualities did not correspond to his talents and education. According to the fair expression of one historian (Gwatkin), if Athanasius was the Demosthenes of the Nicene era, then Acacius was its Aeschines. In his dogmatic beliefs, Akaki took on different colors with the resourcefulness of a chameleon and was capable of conducting intrigues remarkably. The views he sincerely expressed were, however, quite high compared to other Arians. He stood for the position that the Son is the “indifferent image of the Father,” that is, that the goodness, power and energy of the Father are fully and accurately reflected in the Son. The extreme right Arians stood for the fact that the Son is completely similar to the Father and in its very essence, ὁμοιούσιον - omiusians. Its representatives were Dianius of Caesarea and the noble, educated Basil of Ancyra, after whom the party was called the Basilians. Thus, the east represented 4 Arian factions: 1) extreme left – Aetians and Eunomians, 2) left center – Eusebians, and then Eudoxians, 3) right center – Akakians. 4) the far right - Basilians. But all the adjacent factions could easily merge with one another. And since there were many people who were very shaky in their views, they ran across the entire line of the Arian coalition from end to end. In this period we do not yet see a Macedonian party; it was formed later from the remnants of the extreme right and center right. The disintegration of the Eastern Arian coalition was indeed preceded by the “melting of snow” on the bishop’s head. Leontius of Antioch. In 357 or later he died. At that time, at the court of the Emperor. Constantia was bishop. the Germanic Eudoxius (head of the left center), an extremely unattractive man, in his sermons he reached the point of vulgarity and farce, changing his beliefs like no other. Eudoxius, having learned about the death of Leontius, immediately begged the emperor for leave to his flock, but went to Antioch and there made it clear to the bishops that Constantius wanted to see him as bishop of Antioch. In addition, Antioch at that time (the war with the Persians) was actually the capital of the east and many nobles lived there at that time, whom Eudoxius also tried to attract to his side. Thus, he soon achieved his goal. Elevated to the see of Antioch, Eudoxius energetically began to cleanse his clergy from the Basilians, even made an attempt to restore Aetius to the rank of deacon and began to appoint persons of completely Arian convictions to the hierarchical ranks. Soon he convened a council in Antioch, at which Acacius of Caesarea and Uranius of Tyre were present and condemned both ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον. Having examined the second Sirmian formula, the council admitted itself to be completely satisfied with it and thanked its authors: Valens, Ursacius and Herminius. Ep. Laodicean George addressed a district message to the rest of the bishops of the east, notified them of this decision of the Council of Antioch and asked them to save Antioch, otherwise it would soon completely perish for the cause of Orthodoxy. Vasily of Ankyra was the first to respond to this message. In 358, before Easter (= April 12), he convened a council in Ancyra, where he read the message of George and burst out with an encyclical to the bishops of Phenicia and other dioceses of the East. “After our fathers won such important victories over the heretics (Marcellus and Photinus), wrote the Ancyra fathers, it seemed possible to hope that times of peace and tranquility had come, but the devil found new vessels for himself: again we hear about innovations, about nasty new words against the true (born) sonship of the Only Begotten.” This was followed by a detailed statement of the faith of the council, which ended with 18 anathematisms alternately against Marcellus and the Anomians (the 18th, however, was directed against ὁμοούσιον). The Fathers argued that the Son is similar to the Father not only in energy, but also in essence, and that God gave birth to the Son not only κατ’ ἐξουσίαν, but also κατ’ οὐσίαν. The Council sent deputies to Constantius to counteract Eudoxius and protect Orthodoxy. The deputies acted so successfully that Constantius took back his affirmative letter and declared to the Antiochians that they had been deceived, and that he did not mean to appoint Eudoxius bishop. Antiochian Result of the embassy: Eudoxius and other 70 bishops were sent into exile and the Third Sirmian Formula was drawn up. “We believe εἰς ἕνα τὸν μόνον καì a̓ληθινòν Θεòν, the Father Almighty - And in the one only begotten Son of God, before all ages and before every beginning, before every conceivable time and every a conceivable being (ὀυσίας in Athanas., ἐπίνοίας concept in Abbr.) born dispassionately from (ἐκ) God - the begotten of the Only Begotten, one from one Father, God from God, similar to the Father who begot Him according to the scriptures, whose birth no one knows, except the Father alone who gave birth to Him. We know that this His only begotten Son, according to the desire of the Father (Const: sent by the Father), came from heaven - and fulfilled the entire economy according to the will of the Father. -And in the Holy Spirit. – And since the word “οὐσία” in simplicity (διὰ τὸ ἁπλούστερον) was introduced by the fathers, but unknown to the people (ἀγνοούμενον δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν λαῶν), produces temptation, because it is not found in Holy Scripture: then it is good to remove this word from use (ἤρεσε τοῦτο περιαιρεθῆναι) and not to make any further mention of οὐσία in application to God, since St. This formula was signed by all bishops and presented by Bishop. Mark of Arethus in the presence of the emperor on May 22. It is known as a “dated faith” because it precisely indicates the time of its composition. The Omiusians tied their hands with it, agreeing to erase the word “οὐσία” from their symbolic vocabulary. The Arians immediately showed how they intended to use this formula for the future. It was already dawn on the day of Pentecost when this creed was signed. Valens omitted the word “κατὰ πάντα” in his signature. But the emperor himself noticed this trick and forced him to insert this word. In view of this fact, Basil of Ancyra signed himself as follows: “I believe and agree with what is written above that the Son is like the Father in everything. And I understand the word “in everything” in the sense that He is like the Father not only in will, but also in hypostasis and being καὶ κατὰ τὸ εἶναι), as God is from God, as wisdom and the Son are from the wisdom of God and the Father, that - in a word - the Son is in everything like the Father, as the son is to the father. And whoever says that He is similar only in some respect (κατὰ τι) is alien to the Catholic Church.” Vasily presented this signature to Valens himself. It seems that here he was also given a memorandum compiled by the Basilians, in which it was proved that the word οὐσία is not in Holy Scripture only in letter, but it is everywhere contained in it in meaning. Valens, Ursacius and others went with this formula to the west. There, in Arimina, up to 200 fathers had already gathered. The fathers wanted to show independence from the imperial court and refused to accept government money for travel. When Valens and Ursacius read the new formula, the fathers said that they did not want to hear about the new faith. “We have gathered to confirm the Nicene faith,” they said. When they were told that there was nothing new here, the fathers exclaimed: “anathematize the Arians!” After this, on July 2, Valens and Ursacius were deposed as heretics, and the Nicene symbol was confirmed. The Orthodox elected 10 ambassadors, the same number as the Arians, and sent them to the emperor; The fathers of the cathedral asked in their message to release them quickly to the flocks. What happened in the east? Here on September 27th the council met in Seleucia. The Arians chose this city because both the civil authorities (comite Leon, the emperor's representative) and the military were sympathetic to them here. Up to 150–160 fathers appeared at the council; up to 110 there were Basilians, up to 40–50 bishops of other shades (from Omian to Anomian). On September 27, the cathedral was opened, but the main representatives of the party had not yet appeared. The day passed in wrangling: where to start? from a question about persons or about dogma? By evening the Acacians left in protest, but the majority remained, and Lucian's symbol was read, and the next day the symbol was signed behind closed doors. When all the expected bishops arrived, on September 29 a document was read, drawn up by the Acacians and which they declared to be equivalent to the Sirmian IV formula. When the Basilians began to ask in what sense the Son was similar to the Father, Akakios said that he was similar in will, in desire, but not in essence. This led to bickering, which ended the meeting. The Basilians and the Acacians never came together again. The Basilians deposed 9 main Acacians (starting with Acacius and Eudoxius) and excommunicated 9, and in place of Eudoxius they elected presbyter Anianus as Bishop of Antioch. The Acacians handed over this chosen one to the committee of Leone, who, despite the protests of the majority of the council, sent Anian into exile. It ended with each party sending 10 delegates to the emperor. Thus, from one came two ecumenical councils, and from them two more, and a total of 4. The leaders of the Arian party, meanwhile, managed to take advantage of the results of the division of one ecumenical council into 4. The Ariminian deputies went to Emperor Constantius with a request to approve the resolution of the council and to dissolve it. But when they arrived in Adrianople, they were told that the emperor could not accept them and asked them to wait. Then they were asked to move to the small town of Nika, which recently began to be called Nikoyu, and was previously considered the station of Ustadizo. This fact makes very plausible the goal that Orthodox historians suspected of the intention of the court party - to convene a council in Nicaea. Nike is similar to Nicaea, and the formula signed in Nike could be passed off to unenlightened people as the Nicene faith. Exhausted by the fruitless wait for an audience, besieged by requests from Arimin to urgently petition for the dissolution of the council, the deputies signed the “dated faith” on October 10. Then they were released to Arimin. Exhausted by inaction, the fathers made peace with the accomplished fact. Only a few (Thebadius of Aghennes) persisted in protest. Valens appeared in Arimin to prove to the fathers that there was nothing Arian in the Nika faith, and expressed his readiness to anathematize any Arian errors. Phoebadius dictated a series of anathemas. Valens repeated them even with enhanced additions, which later turned out to be loopholes. And the Ariminian fathers departed in the conviction that they had not betrayed the Nicene faith. Finally, in Constantinople, a debate took place in front of the emperor between the Basilians and the Acacians, who arrived from Seleucia. Akaki was here in the familiar sphere of intrigue and was able to act through suspicion of political crimes (against Cyril of Jerusalem). But Vasily of Ankyra also represented an authoritative force. The results of the dispute were as follows: Eudoxius was forced to sacrifice the personality of Aetius (the latter recognized himself as the author of an essay in which he argued that the Son is not like the Father, and was exiled to Phrygia for this), pronounce an anathema on the Anomian doctrine and on a number of Arian favorite expressions. But the Basilians refused to pronounce anathema on ὁμοιούσιον (according to Theodoret. h.e. II, 23: on ὁμοούσιον). As a result, the favor of the emperor passed from the Basilians to the Acacians. On the night of January 1, 360, the Seleucian deputies signed the dated faith, sealed in Nika. The Basilians handed the Ariminian delegates a message with which they informed the Westerners about the emergence of anomie. Paris Cathedral 360 condemned the Arians and responded with an Eastern sympathetic message. From 360, hegemony passed from the Basilians (Omiusians) to the Acacians (Omias); Eudoxius even managed to move to Constantinople. The triumphant party was not slow to settle scores with the Basilians. The Church of St. was rebuilt in Constantinople. Sofia. It was supposed to be consecrated on February 15, 360. On this occasion, a council was convened, to which 72 bishops appeared. At the council they took up dogmatic issues and once again revised the IV Sirmian formula and the dangerous word “κατὰ πάντα” was excluded. Then the Omiyas became convinced that the opposing party, having sacrificed the word οὐσία, began to use the word ὑπόστασις instead, therefore a prohibition was added - to use the word ὑπόστασις in application to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Finally, an anathema was imposed on all heresies, both past and future, contrary to the Constantinople faith. Since in the end the Nika formula was signed by the majority of the Omiusians, it was impossible for the triumphant party to accuse them of unorthodoxy. Therefore, various canonical accusations were brought forward, under the pretext of which Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra and 9 other prominent Homiusians were deposed. But this victory was costly for the Omiys themselves. At the head of the coalition was Acacius of Caesarea in alliance with Eudoxius. But in order to maintain his position, Eudoxius sacrificed the personality and teachings of Aetius and thereby deeply offended the strict Arians, who did not want to come to terms with such an “economy.” In vain they were convinced at the council to come to terms with the sad necessity: they had to give them six months to think, and all in vain. The bishops were sent the Constantinople formula to sign, and those who refused were exiled. But of course, everyone deposed, everyone exiled joined the ranks of the Omies dissatisfied with the regime and began to agitate against them. Thus, the following situation was created: the Homies, having united with part of the Eudoxians (united parties of the center), having defeated the Homiusians (extreme right), separated from the anomies and the remnants of the Eudoxians (with the left), i.e., the winners with their victory extremely isolated themselves and had to fear a reaction from the large party of the vanquished. Akaki's policy was designed to weaken this reaction by creating new allies for himself. Feeling that their position was precarious, the Omi began to rely on the remnants of the defeated Basilian party. Therefore, of the sees that were cleared as a result of the Constantinople pogrom, only one of Cyzicus went to Eunomius (left), and then under the condition that he masked his convictions, but he did not wear this mask for long. The Ancyra See was given to Bishop. Athanasius, Orthodox by his convictions and friend of Basil V. Laodicea was given to Pelagius, a strict ascetic and one of those fathers of the second ecumenical council, communication with whom was considered a guarantee for Orthodoxy. The eloquent Meletius moved to Antioch; his character was so pure that even his enemies did not try to spread any slander about him. His bishopric was short-lived. He began to touch only on moral issues in his sermons, but imp. Constantius insistently demanded from him the expression of his dogmatic convictions. He was given a topic for a sermon: “The Lord has made me the beginning of his ways” (Proverbs 8:22), and Meletius, without using ὁμοούσιον, spoke entirely in the sense of the Nicene faith. The people were delighted with the sermon and applauded him. But the extreme elements of the ruling party saw that the choice of Meletius was, from their point of view, a pure mistake - Meletius was exiled. He was replaced by Arius's old associate Euzoius. But this was a new mistake. The Orthodox elements of the Antiochian population, very numerous, have not yet closed themselves off into a separate society and have not broken off church communion with either Leontius or Eudoxius. But after Meletius they did not want to know Euzoius, did not enter into church communion with him, and thus formally separated from the official Antiochian church. On the other hand, the anomie began to appoint its own special bishops. Thus, the Arian League effectively collapsed. Now the Doukhobors appear on the scene, which, strictly speaking, were all the extreme Arians; according to the strict consistency of their system, they could not allow the Holy Spirit to be equal to the Father. The Basilians approached Orthodoxy only in the doctrine of the Son of God, but they turned out to be unprepared to answer the question about the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, and therefore they repeated the old thesis about the subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son. Doukhoborism joined the name Macedonia quite by accident. On February 9, 362, a decree was promulgated in Alexandria, and on February 21, the great exile Athanasius triumphantly entered the church. His predecessor, George the Cappadocian, ended very pitifully. Driven out of Alexandria by the people in 358, he wandered in the east and finally returned to Alexandria again in 361, and completely inappropriately. On November 26, George arrived, and on November 30, news was received here about Julian’s accession to the throne. George managed to arm not only the Orthodox, but also the pagans against himself. On November 30, he was captured and taken into custody by an enraged mob, and on December 4, he was killed and his corpse was carried around the city on a camel, desecrated, and then burned. But Athanasius was destined to remain in his department for a short time. On October 24 he was supposed to flee. Julian gave an edict of his expulsion, since he was dissatisfied with the fact that Athanasius had already turned his activities to the pagans (baptized several noble pagans), but even in this short period (8 months) he managed to do one of the greatest historical deeds. In August, a council was held in Alexandria, at which there were more than 20 bishops. The history of this division was as follows. When Eustathius of Antioch was exiled in 330, one part of his faithful flock (according to Chrysostom, contrary to the covenant of Eustathius himself) broke off church communion with the subsequent (Arianizing) bishops of Antioch and formed a special community governed by presbyters. In 362, the Eustathians were led by presbyter Paulinus. When Meletius of Antioch was expelled in 360, the entire mass of the Orthodox population of Antioch broke off communication with Euzoius and began to gather in the so-called “old church” (i.e., located in the “old city”, ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ). Unity between these two Orthodox parikias did not take place: the Eustathians did not want to recognize Meletius, as having stained himself by communication with the Arians, as the legitimate successor of Eustathius and their bishop, and in general they treated the Meletians dryly, with the pride of persons who had never had communication with the Arians. There was also a dogmatic pretext for this division. The Eustathians spoke of one ὑπόστασις in God and thereby incurred suspicion of Sabellianism. The Meletians recognized three ὑποστάσεις in God, and the Eustathians, who did not distinguish ὑπόστασις from οὐσία, saw in this a remnant of the Arian leaven in the followers of Meletius. The Council of Alexandria, therefore, dealt with a) dogmatic terminology and b) practical measures for the unification of both parties. a) We already know that during cross-examination it became clear at the council that both of them, who differed in words, agreed with each other in the sense of dogma. Unfortunately, when Eusebius of Vercellus arrived in Antioch, he found everything was already over and could not fix anything. Lucifer, an ardent zealot, bold in actions and not a bright head, saw in the τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις the Meletians, who for him were, of course, tres substantiae, a trace of Arianism, he decisively took the side of the Eustathians and ordained Paulinus as a bishop. This cut off any hope of connecting the two wigs, since they did not want to change Meletia. Lucifer himself remained extremely dissatisfied with the leniency of the council in relation to the Arians and formed a special schismatic society of the Luciferians. Eusebius could only offer the tomos of Paulinus to the bishop for signature. Peacock, of course, willingly signed it. In the east, meanwhile, two currents are observed. One part of the bishops is directed to the Nicene faith. In the fall of 363, under the chairmanship of Meletius of Antioch, a council of 27 bishops was held in Antioch, who declared that they adhered to the faith of the Council of Nicaea, but, however, ὁμοούσιον was interpreted in the sense that the Son was born from the essence of the Father and is similar to the Father in essence, ὅμοιος κατ’ οὐσίαν τῷ Πατρί. In any case, the fathers included the very text of the “Nicene faith” into the conciliar act, signed it and sent it to the emperor. Iovianu. Acacius of Caesarea also signed the act (6th). At this time, the activities of Vasily V. declined. Those bishops headed by him, based on his own words, should be called Meletians. In modern Western literature one sometimes finds the name “die jüngern Nicäner” for them, the younger Nicene, in contrast to the older Nicene, “die ältern Nicäner”, headed by Athanasius V. There was a difference between the two: a) in dogmatic terminology, b) in the political point of view and c) in the historical past. a) In the dogmatic works of Athanasius V. there is no our strictly consistent and complete terminology. Usually, like the theologians of the most ancient period, he expresses both the closest unity and the real difference between the Father and the Son by the fact that he primarily calls the Father οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, and the Son - ἐνούσιος, οὐσιώδης, ὑφεστώς, ὑπόστατος; The Father is σοφὸς and λογικός, and the Son is His hypostatic σοφία. And from Her alone - by nature, truly the Son, the Word, Wisdom, Her own Power, inseparable from Her. And the Word, which is from Her alone, is the essential Word. Just as the Beginning is one being, so His Wisdom and Word are one essential and existing (εἷς οὐσιώδης καὶ ὑφεστώς). As from God is God, and from the Wise is Wisdom, and from the Reasonable is the Word, and from the Father is the Son, so from hypostasis is hypostatic, and from being is essential, and from being is existent.” These are the words in which Athanasius expresses the thought that we are accustomed to mean by the words: “and the Father is a hypostasis, and the Son is a hypostasis.” The words οὐσία and ὑπόστασις are applied to the Father and are not used when applied to the Son. The question: can it be said that the Son is a hypostasis (“Is the Son a hypostasis”), as it were, is left open. On the contrary, the subtle distinction that ancient theology posited between the Father and the Son, calling the first Wise, and the second Wisdom, the first λογικός, the second Λόγος, is carried out here in the sphere of the question that interests us: the Father is ὢν, existing, and the Son is also ὢν, - this is Their divine equality; but at the same time, the Father is οὐσία, and the Son is οὐσιώδης and ἐνούσιος, the Father is a being, and the Son is essential, the Father is ὑπόστασις, the Son is ὑπόστατος and ὑφεστώς. The word “οὐσία” in Athanasius has a more specific meaning than in our usual dogmatic terminology. It also includes elements of our “ὑπόστασις”. “God the Father,” according to our usual terminology, is essentially God, in hypostasis he is the Father. In the language of Athanasius V., the whole concept of “God the Father” means “being.” He does not strictly distinguish between the words: οὐσία and ὑπόστασις. Two places in his works where He speaks of three hypostases (τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις) are considered not indisputable due to the fact that back in 369, for example, he wrote: “a hypostasis is a being (ἡ δὲ ὑπόστασις οὐσία ἐστιν) and means nothing other than the very essence (τὸ ὄν). For hypostasis and being are being (ἡ γάρ ὑπόστασις καὶ ἡ οὐσία ὕπαρξίς ἐστιν).” And when at the Council of Alexandria in 362 After the solemn confirmation of the Nicene symbol, in the form of the reunion of the Arianists, suspicion was aroused on the one hand against those who say “three hypostases”, and on the other against those who assert that there is “one hypostasis.” Athanasius not only did not directly and apodictically decide that the first terminology is correct and the second is not, but subjected to discussion the way of thinking of both. The first were asked: do they not think that the three hypostases are as separate from one another, as, for example, people, or as different creatures (οὐσίας διαφόρους), for example, gold, silver or copper, or, finally, do they not introduce three principles or three gods? The answer was, of course, a resounding no. “But in what sense are you saying this and why do you use these expressions in general?” – asked the fathers of the cathedral. The suspects replied that the Trinity has three hypostases, since it is not only in name, but truly is the Trinity, that the Father is truly the Father, and the Son is truly the Son, and the Holy Spirit is truly the Holy Spirit. Thus, in his dogmatics Athanasius was not formalistic; he, so to speak, did not consider it necessary to bring the questions to the end. There is one God the Father, His actual Son, true God, from the essence of the Father and consubstantial with Him, and the Holy Spirit, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. But what abstract word can be used to designate why They are one, and what is the moment by which They are three - Athanasius does not ask this question. He cared only about the meaning of the teaching; the letter, the formula, as far as it was not prescribed by the Council of Nicaea, was of no particular interest to Athanasius V. At the points we have indicated, the dogmatic language of Vasily V. differs from Afanasiev. The definition of the Son as Word and Wisdom does not have that extensive application in the dogmatics of Vasily V., as noted by Athanasius. In those places where Basil expounds his doctrine of the Trinity with special emphasis on the concept of Λόγος, he does not draw the same conclusions as we find in Athanasius, that without the Word God would be ἄλογος. Vasily V. prefers the name “Son,” in which he sees a direct indication of His relationship to the Father. The Trinity, according to the teachings of Vasily V., of course is a concrete unity, μονάς; but one cannot help but admit that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are defined more specifically in him than in Athanasius V. And most importantly, Vasily V. is the first in history to firmly speak out in the construction of teaching in favor of the scheme that we are accustomed to meeting in our dogmatics; he established the theological ground on which we stand and, so to speak, created our theological language. With rigor reaching the point of formalism, he distinguishes between the concepts of οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, or φύσις and πρόσωπον. In a specially dedicated letter to this issue (38, alias 43) to his brother Gregory of Nyssa, he defines οὐσία as general, τὸ κοινόν, and ὑπόστασις as special, τὸ ἰδιάζον, establishing mutual their relation as genus to differentia specifica, so that man is οὐσία, Paul is ὑποστασις, and in this sense applies them to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity 26. This monument “Ἐπειδὴ πολλοὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς οὐσίας” (from 369 or 370) constitutes the cornerstone of our scientific and dogmatic technology. The formula: one being and three hypostases - with this terminology is an absolute necessity. Vasily was convinced that the word hypostasis should always and everywhere in church literature have this meaning. He firmly believes that the fathers of the Council of Nicaea themselves anathematize: “from another hypostasis or being” distinguish between these terms (Er. 125:1). He is confused when he is told that Gregory the Wonderworker used the expression (ὑποστάσει ἓν about the Father and the Son (cf. 210:5)). He proves - and wittily - that the apostle himself in the words: “Who is the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis, καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως” (Heb. 1:3), uses ὑπόστασις precisely in that specific sense in which ὑπόστασις differs from οὐσία. He stood for the expression: “one being and three hypostases” in the same way as for the Nicene symbol. He recognized that until people who are Orthodox by conviction stop using the expression μία ὑπόστασις, until then the accusation of the Arians that the Nicene teaching is hidden Cabellianism will have a semblance of validity. Vasily V. maintained the terminological meaning of these words consistently and attached particular importance to this formal precision: when the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are explicitly called τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, then both the conscientious fears of the Orthodox and the tendentious assurances of the Arianists lose ground. ὁμοούσιον contains a moment of Sabellianism and weakens the truth of the real difference between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. “Ὑπόστασις”, stronger and more complete than ὑφεστὼς or οὐσιώδης, removes this bewilderment; and this was very important for the environment in which St. acted. Vasily V. b) For Athanasius V., there was, so to speak, only one force hostile to Catholic truth - Arianism. He spoke out against the Sabellians only in passing to clarify his own views. Athanasius V. looked condescendingly at the dogmatic omissions and mistakes of his old associate against the Arians, Marcellus of Ancyra, and only indirectly touched upon his opinions, and the zealous Epiphanius (haer. 74:4) answered the question directly posed to Athanasius: what should we finally think about Marcellus? Only in the slight smile of the Alexandrian saint did he read the silent answer that Marcellus was not far from error, but that he had sufficiently defended himself. But in words, Athanasius neither defended Marcellus nor condemned him, and before his death, in any case, he gave Marcellus τὰ γράμματα κοινωνικά. c) Finally, according to the consciousness of Vasily V. himself, the past of the Meletians should, with very few exceptions, seem to Athanasius V. to be far from pure. They were the successors of those for whom the work of Athanasius V. and the work of Orthodoxy were different things that they thought to replace the “faith of Nicene” with the “faith of the 97 fathers of Antioch.” Only a long and difficult historical experience taught the Meletians - and not all of them yet - to appreciate the exceptional importance of the “Nicene faith” for Orthodoxy. Of the existing Meletians, many had church communion with the Acacians and took part in the Council of Lampsacus and its anti-Nicene decisions. And now the views of many of them were confused, and the final clarification of their relationship to Orthodoxy and Arianism was still only a historical task, and not a present, complete fact. The goal that these “younger Niceneans” strove for was to be recognized by their “elders” as Orthodox, and not as converts from heresy, to be recognized not only in the present, but also in their historical past, as far as it was a bright current, to hold both now and for the future, as a shrine, those memories that these “younger” revered. And this goal was achieved: the “council of 97 Antiochian fathers” is recognized as one of the nine local councils of the Orthodox Church, along with Serdica, although the Antiochian fathers did not stand under the same banner with Athanasius, but were directly hostile to him, and then withdrew from Serdica to Philippopolis. As characters, Afanasy V. and Vasily V. were in many ways opposite to each other. The first had all the qualities of an advanced fighter, a man of struggle; Vasily's talent was mainly organizational. Vasily V. entered the historical field when circumstances had already changed. Afanasy V., a brave fighter, led out his small herd and fought his way through the “alien regiments.” Vasily V., in modern language, was the chief of the main staff: his task was to organize forces, to put together a whole from the wreckage of the army. Vasily's high learning, his excellent general classical education, which puts him above Athanasius himself, very early brought him honorable fame in church circles in the East. His aristocratic origin gave him many connections with high-ranking officials, very useful at that time, and also gave him that experience, that tact in relations with the powerful of the world, with which he was just as impressed with them as with the grace of his tall, thin figure under a simple, exaggeratedly simple robe. This birth of Basil put at his disposal very significant property, which, during the famine of 368, gave him the opportunity to practice widespread charity - he fed almost all the needy children in Caesarea, not excluding the Jews - which tied the hearts of the people to him. And the morbidity that accompanied him from the cradle to the grave, which forced him to say that in an excellent state of health he was much closer to death than another dangerously ill person whose situation was considered desperate - this morbidity laid its heavy hand on Vasily’s mental makeup. She too early conveyed to his being the seriousness that made the crude jokes of the Athenian students already unbearable for him, a young man. Always ill, he did not like the noise of social activity; his enemies portray him to us as a pale, timid man who always keeps the door of his home locked. For him, from the point of view of personal happiness, the golden time passed precisely on the banks of Iris, in desert solitude. As a personality, this pillar of the Eastern Church thus represented the opposite of the great Athanasius on almost every point, from temperament to appearance inclusive. Vasily suffered all his life; Athanasius, this “little man,” was endowed by nature with an apparently indestructible strength of bodily strength. In his turbulent life, out of 45 years of episcopate, he spent a whole 17 ½ years in exile (in flight), walked around the then world from the Rhine to the borders of Nubia, hid for whole years in deserted deserts, in monastic huts, hounded by the detectives of Constantius, and, despite all this, lived to be 75 years old. Vasily, like a plant, attached to a place, and sometimes to a sick bed, without having been in exile, barely lived to be 50 years old. The task that Vasily took upon himself, modest and quiet, like any work of a collector, was very difficult. Even before 370, being a presbyter, Basil actually ruled the church on behalf of Eusebius. He entered his pulpit as the chosen one of his clergy and the best part of his people; but the scum of the Caesarea mob and a significant part of the episcopate, probably knowing that this skinny hand would firmly take the helm of the church and conduct affairs with the firmness of a true prince of the church, were against him. Almost a majority of one vote, to cast which a sick, almost hundred-year-old elder, the father of Gregory the Theologian, Bishop Gregory of Nazianza, came to Caesarea, decided in favor of Basil. The dissatisfied bishops directly broke off relations with their new metropolitan, and it took a lot of time and labor to settle this domestic schism. It was necessary to counter this danger with the solid power of strict, organized unity. It was necessary for Valens to collide not with individual units, but with the whole church. Meanwhile, this church was still sought, and not given, in the east. The Neo-Nicenes represented fractions that were not united into a unity of the whole. These were groups that sympathized with each other, which, however, could change their position. An alliance with Athanasius and the Western Church would have the important meaning for the bishops themselves that they would not so easily break off communication with those who belong to such an authoritative whole. Now, when church life in Asia was fragmented into many small streams, and it was not yet clear which of them belonged to the future, which of these currents follows the channel in which all the streams will merge, each bishop saw in the other a unit of no greater historical significance than himself, and isolated himself from the others for reasons that were far from being of paramount importance. The church life of Cappadocia at that time was something very similar to Western Russian and Catholic fasts. On the day of remembrance of a saint revered in a certain area, the bishop sent out invitations to neighboring bishops and respected persons. Usually a lot of people gathered for the holiday and a provincial council was formed in the most natural way. In Caesarea and its environs, the memory of the martyr Eupsychius was celebrated on September 7th. In 371, many people gathered on this day to listen to the new metropolitan. Several Arians also appeared for the purpose of keeping an eye on him. These latter were inclined to turn a blind eye to ὁμοούσιον - this word was repeated so often that they got used to it - but they would not forgive him for the teaching about the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. This then seemed like news and provided a convenient excuse to raise a storm. Vasily had already defined his church policy and the Arianists returned with nothing, but the Orthodox were indignant. Some guests who were leaving after the holiday stopped on their way to Nazians to visit Father Gregory the Theologian. Vasily was aware of all the importance for his work and all the responsibility of his high position - the bishop of the leading see of the entire Pontic diocese. He was too noticeable for the very enemies of his cause and least of all should have given rise to their attacks. Therefore, he decided to stand in the middle between the orthodoxies and the wavering semi-Arians, even closer than to the former, to join the latter in order to draw them along with him. For this purpose, he sometimes agreed to give statements of faith, composed only of biblical expressions, without the word “ὁμοούσιος.” In general, in his demands, he strictly limited himself to the letter of the decrees of the Council of Alexandria in 362, that is, from those who entered into communication with him he demanded only the Nicene symbol and an additional anathema on those who recognize the Holy Spirit as a creature, and a severance of communication with them. He did not take his demands to the positive side, to the confession of the Holy Spirit by God, and he himself refrained from publicly preaching this teaching, although in private relations he expressed himself categorically. But to the bishops and chorebishops subordinate to him, whom the Arianists considered too unimportant persons to raise a war against them, Vasily gave tacit permission to preach this teaching both privately and openly. Such behavior, which for the zealots was too political and seemed at least cowardly (δειλία, Gr. Naz. ep. 58/26), threatened to alienate from Basil the environment that had hitherto been sympathetic to him, from which the zealots most often come - Cappadocian monasticism, and then to present him in a false light to people who knew him less, representatives of Nicene Orthodoxy. At the council in Rome before Damasus, in the presence of Basil's ambassadors, Athanasius' successor, Peter of Alexandria, did not hesitate to call the persons highly revered by Basil, Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata, Arians, for which he received from one of the ambassadors, Presbyter Dorotheus, a proportionately harsh answer. Of the biographical details in Vasily’s life, his clash with civil authorities is significant for his cause. Valens tried to influence Basil in favor of Arianism, first through the mediation of Bishop Euippius, Domitius Modestus (praetectus praetorio per Orientem, in his way a remarkable son of his time: under Constantius he was Orientis and a Christian, under Julian - praefectus urbis Costantinopolitanae and pagan, under Valens - again pf. urbis Cpt. and pf. praetorio per Orientem and Christian) and his maître d'hôtel (praepositus coquorum) Demosthenes - but without any success. Basil withstood the prefect's threats so firmly that he inspired respect in him, and Modestus directly told Valens that the bishop of Caesarea was not the type of person who could be manipulated by such means: one must either resort directly and unvarnished to brute force, or leave him alone. Valens himself, while in Caesarea on January 6, 372, visited the church of Basil and even brought his offering to the altar. The mass of people present in the church, the majestic harmony of the service and the agonizing moment of uncertainty whether Vasily would accept the gift of the king, with whom he was not in communication, had such an effect on Valens that he almost fainted. Vasily was so generous that he spared the sovereign from this insult. A private conversation with him strengthened this favorable impression, and Valens left Caesarea, leaving, as they say, a royal contribution to the benefit of Basiliada, a huge charitable institution built by Basil. Subsequently, a decree was prepared on the expulsion of Basil, but the illness of the imperial prince, Galata, forced it to be canceled, and then Valens gave Basil honorary assignments - such as the ordination of bishops in Armenia. All this, if not completely guaranteed Vasily against intrigues at court, then made his position at the see stronger than other bishops. Meletius was expelled, Eusebius of Samosata was also expelled, but Vasily was not expelled, he remained in the department all his life and for his like-minded people he was like a lonely beacon in the dark night. Everyone interested in church affairs sent their letters to him, as a natural intermediary. 2) Vasily V. recognized church communion with the West as an external means for strengthening the mutual unity of the Meletians - a path outlined by previous history. The results that Vasily V. expected from this communication were the following: a) The mass of symbols published in the east at different times after the Council of Nicea was not easy for a theologian to understand, much less for a simple believer. Communication with the Arians, the bickering of the councils, undermined the believers' trust in their hierarchy, and, not being able to figure out which of the bishops was Orthodox and which was Arian, the masses demanded an external reliable sign for their guidance in this important decision. Communication with the West seemed to be such a criterion, since the people knew that the Arians had no power in the West. b) Once, according to the instructions of the Westerners, the masses follow famous leaders, the corporate spirit will awaken in the bishops themselves. They will understand which group is the future. Until now, everyone considered himself a center of approximately the same importance as anyone else. Behind the many separate small currents, the main channel along which the life of the church is directed was not visible. Because of this, the bishops, and for unimportant reasons, interrupted communication with their brothers. c) When the Church appears in fact as a solidary unity, it will represent an impressive force for the opponents themselves (until now, the “Omiyas” have often exerted successful pressure on individual isolated bishops), and the government, perhaps, will stop the persecution. In any case, on the side of the persecuted there will be the moral support of the Western Church, which can influence Valentinian I, and through him Valens. To implement this plan, Vasily V. wanted the following from the West: several Western bishops, cautious, moderate and experienced (Lucifer of Calaris proved that good cannot be expected from blind zealots in the East), without publicity that would raise the Omians, will arrive in the East, study the state of affairs on the spot and, without making demands that are not feasible under the given circumstances, will enter into church communion with those Eastern bishops in whose Orthodoxy will be convinced. With the hope of complete success, it was possible to conduct relations with the West only with the assistance of Athanasius V. Vasily V. (in the winter of 371–372) turned to Athanasius with a request - to crown his glorious life with a new great feat: a) to promote the pacification of the east, sending from himself to the west someone from the clergy of his church along with Basil’s ambassador, b) with his personal influence to eliminate the division of the Orthodox in Antioch. He clearly expressed his special point of view on Antiochian affairs: the future belongs to that church, headed not by Peacock, with whom Athanasius has communion, but by Meletius, with whom Athanasius has no communion, but behind whom is the whole east and Basil himself. The Paulinians must merge with the Meletians, like a stream with a great river. Having no communication with Meletius, Athanasius rejected direct participation in relations with Rome, but blessed Basil’s undertaking. The great Alexandrian saint agreed to enter into communion with Meletius, but on the condition that the first step should be taken by Meletius himself (in 363–364, when Athanasius V. was in Antioch, Meletius treated him coldly and did not enter into communication with him). But the difficulties encountered at first and the death of Athanasius V. that followed soon (May 2, 373) prevented the implementation of this program. Relations with Rome were carried out in four stages: in 372, 372, 376 and 377. 1) In the spring of 372, with Deacon Dorotheus, Vasily V. sent a message to the west. Damasus of Rome answered rather dryly, some other Western bishops, for example. Valerian of Aquileia, - cordially. This etiquette in Rome was described at a time when the position of the Meletians in the east was especially difficult: the bishops did not dare to attend a holiday with a neighbor some hundred miles away for fear that in these 3-4 days the Arianists would replace their see with their own person. 3 and 4) The alliance of Damasus with Peacock became clearer more and more. However, Vasily V. did not respond to Rome as he expected in 373. His friends begged him to write to the west two more times. These messages in 376 and 377 were taken to Rome with the presbyters Dorotheos and Sanctiosimus. The last message contained a categorical demand that the Paulinians renounce communication with the Marcellians. This message was considered at the Council of Rome in 377, at which Peter of Alexandria (ousted from Alexandria by the Arian Lucius) was also present. Peter, in the presence of Damasus, did not hesitate to call Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata Arians. Dorotheus responded to this to Peter in proportionately harsh terms. Nevertheless, the response of the council (Illud sane miramur and Non nobis quidquam) was so favorable that in September–October 379 the Council of Antioch, which had up to 150 (146–153) Neo-Nicene bishops under the chairmanship of Meletius, signed these Roman letters, and thus communication with the West became an accomplished fact. But Vasily V. did not live to see this event: like Moses, he brought his people only to the border of the promised land. Vasily V. As soon as a vacant episcopal see opened up, Basil zealously ensured that it was not captured by the Arians and often replaced it with someone from his clergy, which was rightly considered a breeding ground for excellent bishops. He also entered into communication with the Orthodox bishops of Lycia and thus dealt a blow to the united Asian union of Arianism. Sometimes Vasily made mistakes in people. His friendship with Eustathius of Sebaste, who finally separated from him, was the thorn of his life. But here, too, his general point of view was justified. Even the zealots supported the alliance with Eustathius to the last opportunity thanks to the mediation of Vasily. And if he had not decided to be weak for the weak, then one can hardly doubt that the union of the Neo-Niceans, which in 379 represented a venerable force of 150 bishops, would have been fragmented at the very beginning into small parties. Meanwhile, in the east, Orthodoxy was strengthening with such noticeable success. the capital of the eastern empire, Constantinople, was in the hands of the "Omiev" (27 Jan. 360 - † May 370 - Eudoxius, from 370 Dimophilus). Orthodoxy was in extreme decline here. The task of the Orthodox in the east was to establish a firm foot in Constantinople. This feat fell to the lot of St. Gregory the Theologian. Vasily's dear friend, somewhat older than him. Gregory was ordained bishop of Sasima in 372. Sasims lay 32 miles from Tian (44 versts) and, according to the division of Cappadocia into two (civil) provinces in 371, they were classified as Cappadocia II. By ordaining the Bishop of Sasima, Basil V. actually declared his metropolitan right over Cappadocia II, which Anthimus, Bishop of Tian, ​​disputed with him. But life in Sasima turned out to be unbearable for such a contemplative nature as Gregory of Nazianzus. Sashimy was a station where three post roads met, a miserable village with inevitable dust, the sound of carriages and the noise of cabs. These people, who temporarily lived in Sasima, represented the majority of the local population. In addition, Gregory did not attach importance to the dispute between Vasily and Anfim, since there was no dogmatic basis in it. Therefore, Gregory left Sasima without performing any hierarchical action here, and therefore he did not consider himself subsequently associated with this bishopric. Until the death of his father, the elder, Bishop Gregory of Nazianza, he shared his labors in governing the bishopric, and then (in 375) retired to Seleucia of Isauria. Gregory was seriously ill when, in 379, the sad news reached him there about the death of his deeply beloved Vasily. He was deprived of the consolation of being at his funeral and only subsequently honored his friend with a brilliant word of praise. In the same year 379 Arriving there, Gregory began to preach in the house of one of his relatives, which was later converted into a church, under the name “Anastasia” (Ἀναστασία the resurrection of Orthodoxy), and completed his task quickly and brilliantly. Having received the same education as Vasily V., but less antique in taste, he was distinguished by greater eloquence, which required less literary training in listeners. Gregory's spectacular eloquence was more in keeping with the tastes of the century than Vasily's classically strict style. Gregory's dogmatic words earned him the name of Theologian. More and more people gathered to listen to the glorious preacher. The Arians understood the danger from the activities of Gregory the Theologian and tried with all their might to counteract him: assassins were sent, but the attempt failed; they forcibly invaded liturgical meetings, became rowdy, and they themselves complained and accused Gregory of disturbing public peace. But he firmly defended himself and Orthodoxy. But most of all, Gregory the Theologian suffered from Peter of Alexandria, a narrow nature, who could not give up his prejudice that in Constantinople everyone was Arians, while in correspondence with him Peter considered him completely Orthodox and recognized him as the bishop of Constantinople. This is how Grigory understood him. At this time, a peculiar philosopher Maximus (Cynic) appeared in Constantinople, bearing two names: 1) Latin Maximus and 2) Egyptian - Ἥρων. Maxim zealously attended services, and Gregory saw him as an ascetic and even uttered a word in his honor. But what happened? One night, when Gregory was ill, a rumor spread that bishops from Egypt had come to the church and, through the influence of Peter, were ordaining Maximus as bishop of Constantinople. The Orthodox invaded the church, the ordainers and the ordained fled in shame, although the ordination was not yet completed; They finished it in the private house of some flutist. Gregory the Theologian now spoke very harshly about Iron, saying that Maxim did not become anything: neither a bishop, nor a philosopher, nor a shorn dog. Maxim never cut his hair; but since, based on the words of St. Paul: (if a husband grows his hair, then this is a dishonor for him (1 Cor. 11:14)), Christians were ashamed of large hair, then at initiation (even into a small phelonion) the hair was cut off; clergy wore short hair, like the Armenian clergy today; long hair was considered reprehensible for ordinary Christians and even more so for clergy. Having failed in Constantinople, Maxim went to Egypt and demanded from Peter that he give up his see to him or give him another. Then he went to Rome. Damasus did not want to listen to him and even suspected him not of being a bishop, but directly of Christianity: “Is he a Christian?”, calling him comatus (wearing hair) 27 . But Gregory was not content with recognition from the emperor and the desires of the people, but demanded a church solution to the issue of the See of Constantinople. Indeed, it was announced that a council would be convened in Constantinople, although the Western bishops wanted it to be convened in Alexandria. The belief that the second ecumenical council was convened against the Macedonians does not have sufficient grounds. According to the stereotyped belief, it is customary to think that ecumenical councils were convened without fail regarding heresies, and in the absence of any specific heresy in this case, this council is associated with the heresy of Macedonius. The meeting of the second ecumenical council was partly determined by some dogmatic issues (regarding the Arians), and mainly by practical issues, namely: a) the question of replacing the see of Constantinople and b) clarification of the matter of the see of Antioch. To clarify this story, it is important to know the position in which Meletius and Peacock stood in relation to each other in 381. aa) Socrates (Socr. h. e. V, 5, and after him Soz. h. e. VII, 3) claims that an agreement was made between the Meletians and Paulinians in Antioch that after the death of one of the bishops, the survivor would be recognized as the bishop of all Orthodox in Antioch; that from 6 presbyters on both sides, who had a chance of being elected bishop, an oath was taken not to accept the episcopal rank, but to give the see to the survivor; that among those who took this oath was the (Meletian) presbyter Flavian. cc) Theodoret of Cyrrhus (Theodoret. h. e. V, 3) - undoubtedly a Meletian historian; but he had the opportunity to know the affairs of Antioch in the best possible way. He says that when (after February 27, 380) magister militum Sapor arrived in Antioch in order to, by imperial decree, take away churches from the Arians and transfer them to an Orthodox bishop, he encountered a difficulty: in Antioch three bishops, undoubtedly not Arians, considered themselves Orthodox: Meletius, Paulinus and the Apollinarian Vitaly. But Presbyter Flavian, with the questions proposed to Pavlin and Vitaly, made their right to honor - to be considered Orthodox - extremely doubtful in the opinion of Sapor. And Meletius suggested that Paulinus rule the flock together, so that the survivor would become the only bishop later. But Peacock did not agree to this, and Sapor handed over the church to Meletius. d) It must be admitted that Theodoret is right, not Socrates. Gregory the Theologian in his speech at the council says nothing about such an agreement and subsequently does not reproach either the fathers for violating the obligation or Flavian for perjury. No such reproach has been heard from Westerners either. This silence is weighty 28. So, there are no formal obstacles to replacing the department after the death of St. Meletius did not exist as the new bishop. But St. Gregory the Theologian, as an idealist who saw everywhere not real people with their weaknesses and shortcomings, but Christians striving for perfection, made a rather inconvenient proposal: he spoke in the spirit of love and peace, arguing that peace should reign in everything, and proposed recognizing Paulinus as the true bishop of Antioch. The proposal was such that the majority of the fathers of the council were dissatisfied and did not want to hear about it: this would mean yielding to the west, while the light and faith of Christ are from the east; this would mean insulting the memory of St. Meletius, casting a shadow of suspicion on his ecclesiastical position. Gregory the Theologian proceeded from a lofty beginning; but the Eastern fathers also had reason to stand for their point of view. aa) The encroachments of Rome were truly power-hungry. bb) The attitude of Damasus towards Vasily V. was least likely to gain Westerners the heartfelt affection of Easterners. cc) Peacock, apparently, was far from a sympathetic person, and in relation to Meletius he behaved with arrogance, treating him as an Arian. d) In general, Westerners who found themselves in the East had the weakness of holding themselves with proconsular importance in relation to the East. Eg. Jerome, who owes his significance very much to the fact that he was a student of Eastern theologians, allowed himself, however, to talk about a time when in the entire East there were only two Orthodox people: Paulinus and Epiphanius (Cypriot). - So, both points that the Eastern defended: the dignity of the Eastern Church in the face of the Western, and the dignity of the Meletians as Orthodox bishops, had the right to protection and needed it. Seeing that the matter had taken such a turn, Gregory declared to the fathers that if difficulties arose for the church world because of him, then he was ready to be a second Jonah: let them throw him into the sea. He is glad to retire, which his poor health requires (in fact, on May 31 he had already drawn up his spiritual will). This request for dismissal was finally accepted by the emperor and the council, and St. Gregory, having said goodbye to the fathers of the cathedral and his flock in a touching word, left Constantinople with the bright consciousness that he had sacrificed everything for the peace of the church, but also with sadness, because many of his flock sincerely loved him and he himself became attached to it with all his heart. Gregory saw the following as the reasons for his unsettled relationship with the see of Constantinople: a) for some he seemed inconvenient as the bishop of the capital because he did not have a noble tone and aristocratic habits; b) others were dissatisfied with him because they found him too soft: he did not take advantage of the change in external circumstances and the “jealousy of the autocrat” in order to repay the Arians with evil for the evil that the Orthodox in the East suffered from them during the era of their rule; finally, c) to some “double-glorious” bishops (τῶν άμφιδόξων), who wavered between one faith and another, he was unpleasant as an incessant preacher of the truth that the Holy Spirit is God. These were, obviously, the remnants of the supporters of the “golden mean”, who even now would like to muddy the sweet source of the Nicene faith with the salty admixture of their teachings. The successor of St. Meletius was elected presbyter Flavian. Nektarios, a Cilician senator, was ordained to the see of Constantinople. He was still just announced. Sozomen (VII, 8) says that Nectarius was included in the list of candidates at the request of Diodorus of Tarsus, whom he visited before leaving for Tarsus. Nektarios’s respectable appearance made the most favorable impression on Diodorus, who at that moment was busy with the question of candidates. Nectarius was recorded last on the list of candidates, but the emperor, perhaps knowing him as a senator, chose him. The bishops reluctantly agreed to the election of the catechumen. And Nektarios, still in the white robe of the newly baptized, was proclaimed bishop of Constantinople. However, he had long been close to Vasily V., who knew him from the best side, as a Christian. c) All other acts of this council are a secret, since no acts have been preserved, with the exception of the accompanying letter to Emperor Theodosius on the approval of canonical decrees. The dogmatic activity of the council is limited to decrees against existing heresies. The Council of Constantinople decided (pr. 1): not to renounce (μὴ ἀθετεῖσθαι) the faith of the 318 fathers who met in Nicaea in Bithynia - it must remain in full force (μένειν ἐκείνην κυρίαν), - and anathematize all heresy and in particular (α) Eunomians or Anomians, (β) Arians or Eudoxians, (γ) Semi-Arians or Doukhobors, (δ) Sabellian-Marcellians and (ε) Photinians with (ζ) Apollinarians. It is usually imagined that the second ecumenical council had as its special purpose - to condemn the Macedonian Doukhobors: from the council’s own rule it is clear that it meant the Macedonians only along with other heretics. The council's relationship with the Macedonians was expressed as follows. The Doukhobors were invited to the council, and 36 bishops appeared with Eleusius of Cyzicus at their head. He was an old fighter against the Arians, one of the outstanding forces of the Basilians in Seleucia in 359. The fathers of the council, reminding the Semi-Arians of their deputation to Liberius, invited them to accept the Nicene faith; but they flatly declared that they would rather go to pure Arianism than accept ὁμοούσιος and they were released from Constantinople. It was the party of the “golden mean” frozen in its transitional form. A monument to the positive dogmatic activity of the second ecumenical council is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, used in worship both among us and among Roman Catholics. The question of its origin has recently received an almost negative formulation in the West. I. Previous scholars (Neander, Gieseler) argued that our symbol is a new edition of the text of the Nicene symbol, produced at the Council of Constantinople itself (by Gregory of Nyssa on behalf of the council). 1) But, they object (Harnack), “there are 178 words in the Constantinople symbol, and of them only 33 are common to the Nicene one; in the text, compared with the Nicene one, 4 omissions, 5 stylistic changes and 10 additions were made.” Consequently, this is as much a new edition as it is a new text. 2) The text of the Constantinople symbol existed before 381. a) Leaving aside its similarity (significant, but not complete) with the symbol of the Jerusalem church (the text of which is restored with some difficulty, from the inscriptions and text of the catechetical teachings spoken in 348 by the presbyter (with 350 bishop) Cyril of Jerusalem. b) It is impossible not to recognize not the similarity, but the identity of our symbol with the first symbol, which in the fall of 373 St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (Bishop Constantius) recommended (Ancoratus, p. 118) to the presbyters of Suedra in Pamphylia for use at baptism, as the faith handed down by the apostles, (taught) in the church (in) the holy city (ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ἁγιᾳ πόλει having ecclesiastical use in Jerusalem?) (devoted) from all together to St. bishops over 310 in number (= Council of Nicaea). This is the so-called “Cypriot-Asia Minor” (I.V. Cheltsov) or “Syrian” (Caspari) faith, which is of Jerusalem origin according to Epiphanius 29. Since it is against the authenticity of Ancoratus c. 118 there are objections (Franzelin, Vincenzi), but there is still no refutation, then there is no doubt that our symbol is a slight abbreviation of this Jerusalem-Cypriot-Asia Minor faith 30. – Thus, the symbol could not have been created at the Council of Constantinople, since it existed earlier. II. Based on the work of English scientists (Lumby, Swainson, Swete, especially Hort), Harnack suggests the following: a) The Second Ecumenical Council did not issue our symbol, but simply confirmed the Nicene symbol (can. 1). b) Our symbol is the baptismal symbol of the Jerusalem church, after 363 rounded to the form in which Epiphanius gives it in 373. c) Cyril of Jerusalem, in order to prove his Orthodoxy, read this symbol at the Council of Constantinople, which is why this symbol is included in the (not preserved to us) acts of the council. d) Ok. 440, this Jerusalem symbol, taken from the acts of the council, began to be called “the faith of the 150 fathers” and turned to it in polemics against the Monophysites. Notes. ad a) Based on the few monuments of the second ecumenical council that have survived to us, it cannot be proven that it was he who issued our symbol; but that's all. ad b) Possibility turning into some probability (cf. I 2 ab). ad c) Simple opportunity. What is known is that the cathedral recognized St. Kirill as the legitimate bishop. III. There is also a third theory of the origin of our symbol, which is striking in the breadth of its negation. Our symbol first appeared near Damascus in the 7th century. (the first clear indication was from Theodore, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the 8th century); and where it occurs earlier, it is inserted by the hand of a later interpolator. The creator of this theory is Professor Vincenzi, an extreme Roman Catholic. The question may not be about the credibility of this colossal falsification of historical documents, but only about why a Catholic needed this theory. There is no Filioque in our symbol: inde irae. No matter how great the power of the pope, there is still a feeling of awkwardness that in the West they changed the text of the symbol drawn up by the ecumenical council. Vincenzi's theory eliminates this unpleasant feeling. When deciding the issue of the Niceno-Constantinograd symbol, one should generally keep to the middle. The main goal of the second ecumenical council is to establish the Nicene faith, but this does not necessarily imply the text of the Nicene symbol. The Nicene symbol was compiled as a μάθημα against heretics, and it was inconvenient to introduce it into church use at baptism: there was, for example, no teaching about the church and about the future life. But as circumstances dictated, there was a need to enlighten the converted pagans in the truths of Christianity precisely in the spirit of the faith of the Council of Nicaea. In this case, it was necessary either to supplement the Nicene symbol with new dogmas, or to take a symbol that was used before the Council of Nicaea and supplement it with elements of the Nicene symbol. It is very natural that Epiphanius of Cyprus transferred the baptismal symbol to the Jerusalem church; but since the following expressions are inserted in it: “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς” and “ὁμοούσιος”, it became known under the name of the symbol of the Nicene fathers. But it also reflected the influence of the Council of Alexandria in 362. This influence is evident from the fact that here the concept of the Holy Spirit is clarified, directed against heresies that emerged around this time. But this explanation is for guidance only. It was necessary to clarify the dogma about the Holy Spirit gradually, as Basil the Great did, ascending from the less obscure to the more sublime. So, instead of the expression about the Holy Spirit: “who spoke into the prophets,” the symbol conveyed by Epiphanius said: “who spoke into the prophets, who descended into the Jordan, preached through the apostles and manifested himself in the saints.” Obviously, on this issue in Constantinople, things were not without storms. Gregory the Theologian demanded recognition that the Spirit is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. These provisions were not in the Nicene symbol, and Gregory in his poems pointed to this dark side of the council, complaining that (the bishops) with the admixture of their salty wisdom muddied the sweetness of the true teaching, and argued that the Spirit is God. Thus, it was decided to supplement the Nicene symbol with the symbol transmitted by Epiphanius in 373. 31 The council presented a report on its actions to Theodosius on July 9, 381; The emperor approved the conciliar decrees on July 19. The decisions of the council caused great excitement in the West. One Italian council, which met in June–July (September–October, See V. Samuilov, History of Arianism in the Latin West. St. Petersburg 1890, 28–30) 381 under the chairmanship of Ambrose of Mediolan, was (in the letter Sanctum to Emperor Theodosius) an expression of Western dissatisfaction with the canonical decisions of Constantinople cathedral a) The fathers of Constantinople, knowing that in Rome Maximus was recognized as the legitimate bishop of Constantinople, declared his consecration invalid, and ordained Nektarios for Constantinople, with whom, according to rumors that reached the West, even some of those who consecrated him allegedly broke off communication. b) The Fathers of Constantinople, knowing that the Westerners had always had communication with Paulinus preferably before Meletius and expressed the desire that at least with the death of one of them the division of the Antiochian Church would be put to an end, they allowed the appointment of a successor to Meletius. Therefore, the Italian council demanded the convening of an ecumenical council in Rome to consider this Constantinople-Antioch affair. But the emperor responded so firmly to this demand that in the letter Fidei the Italian fathers explained in their defense that their demand did not contain any power-hungry claims offensive to the East. In 382, ​​two councils were held again, one in Constantinople, the other in Rome. The Constantinople fathers did not want to go to Rome and sent only three delegates there to the council with a message in which it was stated that the Council of Constantinople in 382 recognized the consecrations of Nectarius and Flavian as completely canonical. If for the Westerners it was possible to sacrifice Maximus, then in the case of Paulinus the Roman Council could, of course, make only one decision: Paulinus himself personally (together with Epiphanius of Cyprus) was present at the Roman Council, the Western fathers recognized him as the only legitimate bishop of Antioch. It is unknown when Rome decided to sacrifice Maximus; but the dispute over Flavian continued for a long time. In 389, Peacock died, having ordained as his sole successor the presbyter Evagrius, who had once been on friendly terms with Basil V. In 392, both Evagrius died and Flavian reached the point that the Paulinians could not appoint a successor to Evagrius. However, even without their own bishop, the Paulinians continued to persist in schism. On September 29, 394, a council was held in Constantinople, at which, under the chairmanship of Nektarios, Theophilus of Alexandria and Flavian of Antioch were present. This was clear evidence of the church unity of the eastern bishops. (Theophilus, at least, did not shy away from communicating with Flavian). But in the west they continued not to recognize Flavian as a legitimate bishop (in 391 he was summoned to appear at a cathedral court in the west, in Capua); despite this, Flavian acted with the consciousness of his legitimate episcopal right, which was not disputed by the emperor. Only in 398, thanks to the mediation of St. Chrysostom of Constantinople and Theophilus of Alexandria, the Roman bishop decided to enter into communication with Flavian (and the Egyptian bishops finally reconciled with him). But the reunification of the Paulinians in Antioch with the church took place (and was celebrated with magnificent triumph) only in 415 under Bishop Alexander. From what has been said, it is clear that from our Orthodox-Eastern point of view we can only talk about a schism between the Paulinians and not the Meletians. Speeches about the “Meletian schism in Antioch” appeared in our textbooks as a thoughtless borrowing from the (romanizing) stories of Socrates and Sozomen, which Western historians naturally follow. The church from which three ecumenical saints emerged - Basil V., Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, and which composed the second ecumenical council from its bishops, cannot be considered a schismatic church. But this Antiochene division represents a powerful historical memento against all who believe that the breadth of Orthodox life can always and everywhere be reduced to a narrow straight line. The Council of Nicaea rises high above the ordinary level of dogmatic understanding of its era. The doctrine of the pre-eternal birth of the consubstantial Son of God from the being of the Father kills not only Arianism, but also the outdated subordinationism of former church writers, which differs from it in the main points. The ground for the deep assimilation of the Nicene doctrine was not yet fully prepared, and for many Christians brought up on the theory that existed at that time, the process of internal self-purification was an absolute necessity. The penetrating gaze of the leaders of Orthodoxy in 325 comprehended the entire content of the Arian doctrine, dialectically extracting from it the consequences hidden in it, which historically came to light only 30 years later. Such a deep understanding of Arianism - which knew how to behave modestly - was beyond the power of many, and therefore Arianism had a history even after the Council of Nicaea. The Nicene symbol was met with hostility by a few, indifference by many. The former acted, the mass of the latter, with their indifference in the defense of the Nicene teaching, strengthened the actions of the former. At first they left dogmatism alone and took on the dogmatists. A clever intrigue eliminated one after another the fighters for the Nicene faith. This process, suspended by the death of Emperor Constantine, was boldly begun again under Constantius, and was carried out so successfully that in 339 Athanasius V. had to flee for the second time, and the Council of Antioch in 341 could transfer the struggle to the soil of symbols. Here it turned out, however, that the consensus dogmaticus of the bishops of the East was far from complete (the 2nd Antiochian formula represents a very serious deviation away from the historical path of development of Arianism), but the leaders of the minority showed remarkable courage in action. However, the inert West stood across their road, and its intervention, for the Arians and the East, on the basis of councils, ended with the fact that they could escape from Serdica (343) only by flight, on the basis of symbols - a concession to the Nicene faith; which ἡ ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος 344 represents, on the basis of the historical struggle against persons - the solemn entry of Athanasius V. on October 21, 346 into Alexandria. It turned out that the Nicene faith cannot be overcome without first conquering the Latin West, because the Eastern Asian Church is not yet the entire Catholic Church. What was done in the east, in an abbreviated manner, after 350–353, the Arians repeated in the west. The fight against individuals is being carried out with significant success, the fight on the basis of dogma - without glory for the Westerners, who seemed so strong until the enemy was close. Meanwhile, they did not forget the east, and on February 8, 356, Athanasius fled for the third time from the church, surrounded by the soldiers of Constantius. In view of such successes, the leaders of Arianism considered it opportune to trumpet the world in August 357 about their victory. But this Sirmian manifesto turned out to be the first dominant feature in the funeral march for Arianism. In this ringing chord, the doctrine of Arius en face showed its bestial image, and those who until then had indifferently followed the Arians or with the Arians were afraid of him. The Arian coalition split into its poorly glued pieces, and in Ancyra and Seleucia, from under the alluvial ashes, such an undoubted light of Orthodoxy appeared that Athanasius saw it from his Thebaid refuge and welcomed his brothers into the Arian camp. A struggle began, all the more terrible for the Arians because it was internal strife in their camp, and the multiplication of enemies was directly the loss of allies. A masterful intrigue, elevated to the idea of ​​two councils divided into four, fended off a fatal blow for Arianism in 359, but still was only a palliative. The West has completely recoiled from the businessmen Arimin and Nika; in the east they defeated the ranks of their opponents, but in order to maintain ground under them, they had to reinforce themselves with the remnants of the Omiusians. What emerged was a political union sewn together with a living thread. The foggy blur of Arianism was irresistibly solidifying into independent church bodies. The death of Constantius freed the hands of the Orthodox. Valens's policy did not save anything. It was a dose of beaver flow that continued the agony of Arianism, although these embraces of the dying man were still very terrible. And under the leadership of the great Basil, who decided to be weak with the weak, in a relatively short time everything that was formerly Omiusian completed the process of its internal clarification, and from the eastern νυκτομαχία emerged a rather harmonious force of the Orthodox Church in the east. Semi-Arian Macedonianism was its historical refuse, which had also completely hardened by the time the Orthodox Eastern Church of Basil and Meletius declared itself with an ecumenical council in Orthodox Constantinople. The 150 fathers did not have a specific dogmatic opponent before them. The Council of Nicaea condemned Arianism, the Council of Constantinople anathematized all heresy. The Anomians, the Macedonians, the Marcellians, the Photinians, even the Apollinarians, stand before the cathedral on the same level, as if they had lived through something. The Council only ratified the result of the struggle in 381. already finished; Naturally, therefore, if, in the form of their symbol, 150 sanctioned a text that had already been compiled. Of course, Arianism did not immediately disappear from the face of the earth in 381. One accidental circumstance made Arianism the national religion of the Germanic peoples. This supported the importance of the Arians in the very east. The Byzantine emperors wanted to have not soldiers as their natural subjects, but first of all tax payers, and the ranks of their troops were very often replenished with Gothic mercenaries, and the brave Germans more than once occupied the highest military posts. Willy-nilly, the government had to be somewhat compliant in relation to the church in which so many brave, honored Byzantine generals knelt. That is why the Arians, the exokionites (ἐξωκιονΐται, i.e., those who gathered for worship ἔξω κιόνων, “behind the pillars” that marked the city limits of Constantinople) enjoyed tolerance even in times when other heretics were persecuted. 2. Misconceptions that arose during the period of the struggle against Arianism The era of the struggle against Arianism saw the emergence of dogmatic errors: Marcellianism, Photinianism and Apollinarianism. Marcellus's teaching had a significant influence on the Arians' opposition to Orthodoxy. Marcellus of Ancyra was already a bishop 10 years before the Council of Nicea, and at this last one declared himself as a zealous champion of Orthodoxy. He was a man of remarkable talents, but with a peculiar mentality; and if his writings had survived to us, this would not be disadvantageous to his reputation as a theological thinker. The time when Marcellus acted was the time when Aryanizing theology, in the tone of Eusebius of Caesarea, boldly called itself “ecclesiastical theology,” ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ θεολογία. In fact, the most important churches of the East were then in the hands of the Arianists, and therefore the teaching of the existing church was really what the opponents of the “Nicene faith” imagined it to be. They could even boast that church tradition, although not very ancient, was on their side. And since Marcellus did not at all consider such an authority as the great Eusebius (of Nicomedia) or the blessed (= deceased) Paulinus (of Tyre) obligatory for himself, Eusebius of Caesarea complains that the “unthinking Galatian” does not honor the fathers. This remark is important for understanding Markell's techniques. The Bishop of Ancyra was outraged to the depths of his soul, encountering constant references to the writings of Origen, then Paulinus, and the views of Eusebius of Nicomedia in the “συνταγμάτιον’e” of the notorious Asterius, and began to cut down these authorities from the shoulder. “Your blessed Peacock,” he said, will hardly be justified in the next world before Origen for the way, with what shortcuts, he cites his opinions. But if Origen really contained this teaching, then what kind of authority would Origen be? From the very first lines of his “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” it is clear that he has just risen from the works of Plato: he even begins his work with Plato’s phrase.” And Marcellus decided to contrast the dubious “church theology” of his opponents with positive, indisputable biblical theology. The position taken by Marcellus against the Arians is similar to that of Luther against the papacy. The well-known principle: “Only Holy Scripture is the source of doctrine”, initially had only polemical meaning for Luther. In order to prevent the papists from delaying matters, which was inevitable when appealing to the authority of tradition, Luther declared that even without tradition, only on the basis of Holy Scripture, he could prove the incorrectness of the papal claims. So Marcellus decided to resort to Holy Scripture, to develop exclusively biblical teaching; he decided to base his exegesis on a strict method instead of arbitrariness and subjectivism. At the starting point of his dogma, Marcellus made the mistake that he recognized the Nicene position: “The Son is co-eternal with the Father” as hopeless and decided to cede this point to the Arianists. As begotten, the Son is logically after the Father and, therefore, not co-eternal with the Father. But giving up this position without a fight. Marcellus no longer wanted to yield to the Arians in anything. Therefore, he began to consider the names that are applied to the Son of God in Holy Scripture, and came to the conclusion that if one can learn accurate theology from anyone, it is from John the Theologian. In his writings the name I. Christ is found both “way” and “truth” and “life”, but all these names are secondary; when John speaks of the Son of God in His original, eternal existence, he uses the name “Word”, Λόγος, three times. Isn't this significant enough? Doesn't this prove that in His eternal existence He is defined precisely as the Word? So, not in a metaphorical, but in the proper sense, the Son of God is the Word. Recognizing Λόγος as the only and exclusively precise definition of the Son, Marcellus set aside all other terms; all of them, in his opinion, relate to His economy. The Arianists called (as in the Caesarean symbol) the Son “Only Begotten,” “the firstborn of all creation,” and recognized these names as identical; but according to Marcellus, these two names are not only not identical, but mutually exclusive: if He is first-born, then He is not the only begotten. Just as Christ is called the firstborn from the dead not in the sense that He was the first to rise from the dead - there were resurrections before Him both in the Old and New Testaments - but in the fact that He appeared as the head of our resurrection: in the same way He is the firstborn of all creation in His relation not to God the Father, but to the creature: in Him, as the head, the creation becomes in the correct relationship to God. And “Son” is not the original definition of God the Word: not even 400 years have passed since the Word appeared as the Son. But the Arians’ manner of elucidating His existence by reference to Proverbs 8:22 is especially untenable: “The Lord created Me to be the beginning of His ways.” Here the methodical nature of exegesis served Marcellus well in his methodical interpretation of texts. Arians, he said, do not know how to handle the texts of Holy Scripture. There is something mysterious in every parable, and it is often necessary to know the history of the parable in order to correctly understand its meaning; for example, who, without knowing history, will understand the Greek proverb: “either he died or he teaches the alphabet”? 32 Bearing in mind the tributary nature of the passage in question, (Proverbs 8:22) Markell explained it allegorically and related it not to the eternal existence of the Word, but to His incarnation, to His flesh, which was actually created and, having received which, Christ became the way and the truth for people. Having recognized Λόγος as the primary definition of the Son of God, Marcellus tries to understand the meaning of this name by analogy with the human word, stipulating, however, the inaccuracy of such an analogy. He draws attention to two points: a) everything we do and say is mediated by our conscious mind: so God created everything and manifests Himself through the Word. b) No one is able to separate from a person the δυνάμει καὶ ὑποστάσει his λόγος, to understand him as a being independent in strength and in personal existence; λόγος is one and the same with man and differs from him only as ἡ πράξεως ἐνέργεια, as energy in activity. This analogy provides the key to explaining the central point of Marcellus' doctrine of the Trinity. In the expression of John (John 1:1), “ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος” Marcellus sees an indication that Λόγος is in the Father δυνάμει. “Καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν” indicates that He is with God ἐνεργείᾳ, since everything happened through Him. “Καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος” indicates the indivisibility of the Divine; for Λόγος is in Him and He is in the Word. Here we again encounter the ancient theory of Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and Λόγος προφορικός. To create the world (there is nothing outside of God), the Word comes from God as ἐνέργεια δραστικὴ (ἡ ἐνέργεια τῆς πράξεως, active energy). But Λόγος is not only the activity of the Father, as a process or state: the Word is not only ἐνέργεια, but at the same time it is ἐνεργείᾳ, that is, the action logically acts back on Himself and posits Him as an active force. In turn, Λόγος is both δύναμις and δυνάμει, only δύναμις is His secondary definition (He is “wisdom and power” since He is the Word), and δυνάμει is certainly primary. Δυνάμει, ἐνεργείᾳ – these terms are opposite to each other as in potentia (possibility) and in actu (reality). However, this comparison is not entirely accurate: Marcellus dates the most energetic consciousness of the existence of the Word (κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς ὑπάρχων ὁ Λόγος) precisely to the moment δυνάμει; in it it is stated even stronger and more insistently than in the moment ἐνεργείᾳ: In man λόγος is not separable δυνάμει καὶ ὑποστάσει (δυνάμει is balanced directly with ὑποστάσει); However, this separation is to a certain extent conceivable. Thus, the main meaning of δυνάμει and ἐνεργείᾳ is the opposition of being to action, of force at rest to acting force. Even in the moment of ἐνεργείᾳ, being πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, Λόγος is still τῇ δυνάμει ἐν τῷ Πατρί. Λόγος δυνάμει is a word that is conceivable - so to speak, in Its aspect addressed to God; Λόγος ἐνεργείᾳ – in the aspect facing the world; in the first moment we are talking about the inner life of the Divine (Λόγος immanent), in the second - about revelation ad extra. There is nothing more unfair than the assumption (which Eusebius of Caesarea makes) that, according to Marcellus, Λόγος exists, exists, so to speak, sporadically; that only at certain moments (τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ) He exists, and at the moment τῇ δυνάμει His existence ceases: Λόγος always exists. If Marcellus did not call Him hypostasis at the moment of δυνάμει, then he did not call Him with this word at the moment of ἐνεργείᾳ. Marcellus recognized (like the Eustathians) one hypostasis; his polemic against the Arianists predisposed him to this: he was against the division into two hypostases (εἰς δύο ὑποστάσεις) and into two divided persons (Asterian “δύο διαιρούμενα πρόσωπα"), rejected "δύο θεούς ὑποστάσει διῃρημένους". The whole point, all the harm of Arianism, according to Marcellus, lay in the polytheistic feature of this doctrine, which introduces θεούς. Marcellus preaches the doctrine of the unity of the Divinity with perfect clarity, and on this important point he rises above many previous and contemporary theologians. For those, “Monad” and “Father” were equivalent concepts: for Marcellus – no. According to his teaching, Μονὰς or ὁ Θεὸς is ὁ Πατὴρ καὶ ὁ Λόγος. One cannot contrast Them as εἷς Θεὸς and εἷς Κύριος: in the Bible the monad of the Divine itself appears as “Κύριος καὶ Θεός”, or more precisely, as Κύριος ὁ Θεός. These two words mean one God, Father and Word. Their opposition as ὁ Θεὸς and Θεὸς is no more consistent: the Monad, in any case, speaks of Itself: ἐγὼ Θεὸς. The words of Is.41:4: “I am God (ἐγὼ Θεὸς) the first and I am the coming” do not leave any place for the Arian demigod (δεύτερος Θεός). In the well-known passage Ex.3:14: “I am the One,” ἐγώ εἰμι ὀ ὤν, the unity of God’s (self) consciousness is presented very clearly: the singular ἐγὼ and εἰμὶ indicate ἓν πρόσωπον Deities. So, the Monad is not only one being and one hypostasis, but also one person. What is the trinity of the Divinity? From the point of view of the relations κατὰ πνεῦμα (“in spirit” immanent δυνάμει), Marcellus recognizes in God only the indivisible unity (Μονάς): The Trinity (Τριὰς) can only preserve its ἑνότης because It began Monad. As Τριὰς, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God appears from the point of view of κατὰ σάρκα οἰκονομίας (“economy according to the flesh” ἐνεργείᾳ πρᾶξις). So, the Trinity of Marcellus is the Trinity of revelation, although with ontological assumptions, since in being Λόγος and Πνεῦμα are eternal. However, just as the “birth”, γέννησις, does not determine the very existence of the Word (for the Word is, ἦν, from eternity), so the “proceeding”, ἐκπορεύεσθαι, of the Holy Spirit does not characterize Him in His immanent relation to God. “Economy” (οἰκονομία, revelatio ad extra) Marcellus presents under various images: a) “descent”, b) “πλατυσμός”, “extension”, as opposed to “contraction”, συστολή, at the moment of δυνάμει), and, apparently, c) “verbalism,” as opposed to ἡσυχία (silence, peace) before peacemaking. The creation of the world was the “first economy.” The revelation of the Word in the creative act can be called birth, but only in an improper sense. The completion of the first economy was the "second economy", i.e. the incarnation, when Λόγος was actually born and therefore became the Son. I. Christ is the Son of God and the Son of man: the difference between these two definitions is the same as between the side facing God and the side facing the world. The incarnate Λόγος is the firstborn of all creation, is the image of God (Λόγος Himself is not the image of God: what is the image of God is not God; but Λόγος is God Himself) and precisely the invisible God (hence, Λόγος was made in this way when it became visible). Marcellus wrote at a time when Christology was not the main subject to which the attention of theologians was drawn, and therefore in Marcellus this side of the teaching is poorly revealed, although there is no reason to represent Marcellus’ Christology as erroneous: Marcellus recognized in the incarnate Word a complete man with a rational soul. The most original point of Marcellus' system is his doctrine of the kingdom of Christ. The words of our symbol: “There will be no end to his kingdom,” borrowed from other symbols, are directed specifically against Marcellus. The Kingdom of Christ is the kingdom of the Word incarnate (and therefore is not identical with the eternal kingdom of Λόγος᾽ but co-reigning with the Father with the kingdom of God). But the purpose of the incarnation is given not in the very being of the Word, but in the economy: Λόγος became incarnate for the world. Consequently, this is the final goal and, as such, it will one day be completely achieved, and then (having ceased to be a goal, but having become a realized fact) the “second dispensation” and the kingdom of Christ have no basis for existence (raison d’être). So, the kingdom of Christ will one day end and be resolved into the kingdom of God. “It is fitting for Him to reign until He puts all enemies under His feet. - When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will submit all things to Him, that all things may be in God. - when (the Son) gives up the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Cor. 15:25,28,24). This συστολὴ will obviously follow after the world judgment. But closely related to the end of the kingdom of Christ is the question of the human side of Christ. If Christ’s humanity were an independent person or completely impersonal (flesh without a rational soul), then the issue would be easily resolved. But His humanity is not independent, but personally in Λόγος᾽е (= ἐνοπόστατος according to exact dogmatics) this is the difficulty of the task. – For Marcellus, it is certain that at the world judgment the Word will appear as incarnate: then they will see the Son of Man (Matthew 24:30) and they will look at the nan, his birth (John 19:37); but at the moment of συστολῆς what will happen? The Word became flesh for us; this is the ultimate goal, and, therefore, the end will come for His incarnation: this follows according to the logic of Marcellus’s dogmatic system, and he sees no motive to retreat before this conclusion. They object: “but the flesh of Christ is immortal after the resurrection.” But, Marcellus thinks, this does not prove its eternity: not everything that is high from the point of view of man is high for God: and the angels are immortal, but they are not in personal unity with God. The flesh is not needed by Λόγος, for “it benefits nothing”: “there is a spirit that gives life” (John 6:63). Consequently, the relations κατὰ σάρκα must again give way to the relation κατὰ πνεῦμα, the Triad must be reduced into a monad (after “ἐνεργείᾳ” come “δυνάμει”). What will then happen to the flesh of Christ is an extremely difficult question, and Marcellus does not want to dogmatize about something about which he has not learned anything firm from the divine scriptures, and answers the questioners according to the apostle: “For now we see as with a mirror in fortune-telling, but then face to face: now I understand in part, but then I know, even as I was known” (1 Cor. 13:12). Marcellus expounded this doctrine in a voluminous work specifically against Asterius. Apparently, it was an extensive polemical work in defense of the “Nicene faith.” By 335 it was already written. At the Council of Tire, Marcellus opposed the condemnation of Athanasius, in Jerusalem - the acceptance of Arius into communion, and, without waiting for the consecration of the church, he left Jerusalem, then appeared to Constantine, handed him his book and asked him to read it all himself and make sure what kind of people are now conducting in the east. But Constantine handed the book over to the Council of Constantinople (336), which deposed the “foolish Galatian,” “this strange (ξενοῦ) theologian,” for his teaching. Basil of Ancyra was appointed successor to Marcellus; Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a refutation of his composition. After the death of Constantine, Marcellus returned to his see, but was soon deprived of it again under Constantius, went to Rome and, like Athanasius, was accepted into church communion by Julius. At the Council of Philippopolis (343), the Easterners again condemned Marcellus, who had already been condemned by the council, as they claimed, four times. But the Council of Serdica, having examined the passages from the work of Marcellus against which his opponents had armed themselves, again acquitted Marcellus, who was served well by the fact that his enemies were at the same time the enemies of Athanasius and the Nicene faith. But there is news that Athanasius V. himself began to treat Marcellus with some distrust and move away from his communication. The emergence of the doctrine of Photinus, a student of Marcellus, condemned both in the east and in the west, shook the ground under the feet of Marcellus in the west and strengthened the eastern in their antipathy towards him. Therefore, if Marcellus returned to the see in 346, it was not for long. Markell died around 371. Athanasius V. gave him fellowship in his last years and accepted his disciples into fellowship. But Vasily V. saw heresy in his system and supported those who demanded direct anathema against Marcellus. And when in 375 the Egyptian bishops and confessors, exiled to Diocaesarea (in Palestine), accepted the Marcellians into their communion, he treated this step quite strictly - rather arbitrarily, since they did it without any relations with the eastern bishops. Even Epiphanius, full of uncertainty in his judgment, reluctantly gave the Marcellians a place (as haeresis 72) in his Panarius. Finally, the Council of Rome in 380 and the Council of Constantinople in 381 anathematized the Marcellians. Athanasius V. calls Marcellus “ὁ γέρων” “old man,” and this word is characteristic of Marcellus’ system itself. In it he repeated many things that were common in ancient Christian writing. From Origen he returned to the point of view of Hippolytus, Theophilus of Antioch, Justin the Philosopher and, in part, Irenaeus, and this, of course, served him in favor in the eyes of his defenders. A stubborn, unyieldingly peculiar nature, Marcellus was a most zealous fighter for the “Nicene faith,” but he wanted to defend it in his own way, with special means. In 341, Marcellus submitted to Julius in Rome a statement of his faith in defense of his devotion to the Nicene teaching - and, however, not only did not repeat here the text of the Nicene faith, but did not even use either ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός ὁμοούσιον: this technique shows the person! Obviously, when assessing such a doctrine, any criterion taken from there, any demand from it that is established and accepted by everyone, will be unfavorable for it. And Vasily V. rejected it as a fact along with other contemporary facts, with its form and particular provisions; Athanasius V. condescendingly spared her in view of her main tendency and “kissed the intention” of Marcellus. Having spent the entire stock of theological terms - up to πρόσωπον inclusive - on expressing the unity of the Divine, he was left without means when he had to talk about difference, about the being of the Word, and he could only repeat: “ἀΐδιος, ὢν καὶ ὑπάρχων”, in explanation of the mysterious “δυνάμει”, which frightened his opponents. However, at that time many of the Orthodox were still wary of the expression: “τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις.” He refused to defend the doctrine of the co-eternity of the Son with the Father, but this point was obscured by the imprecise use of the words “Son” and “birth” 33 and imperceptibly moved on to talk about the eternity of the Word. When asked about the finitude of the kingdom of Christ, Marcellus said that Λόγος eternally, always co-reigns with God and the Father, and there will be no end to His kingdom. Before asking about the temporality of the incarnation, Marcellus found himself in a hopeless situation; but the Council of Serdica had every reason to see in this point not the “dogma” of Marcellus, but one of those problematic questions (ζητήματα) that he poses in his work. It is not surprising that contemporaries hesitated in making a final judgment about a system so unusual. That is why Marcellus did not leave followers in the exact sense of the word: his disciples in 375 recognized the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, ὁμοούσιον and the pre-eternal birth of the Son-Word, and anathematized those who recognize the Son as “the extension and energy of the Father and do not recognize the Word Son." Why the Marcellians did not finally unite with the Catholic Church after this is not clear. The teaching of Photinus (Φωτεινὸς, in ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος ironically called Σκοτεινός), bishop. Sirmian, was in essence completely opposite to the teachings of Marcellus, but greatly damaged the latter’s cause with its appearance. Photinus was a student of Marcellus and a deacon of Ancyra, and although he developed his teaching when he was already the bishop of Sirmium, Marcellus’ opponents attributed the unseemly aspects of the student’s teaching to the teacher himself. Little is known about the teachings of Photinus (the main source is ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος 344 and Sirmium I formula 351); however, its connection with Marcellianism is undeniable. First of all, he, like Marcellus, denied that the Logos and the Son are equivalent concepts. Before His incarnation, according to him, Christ was only the Logos, and became the Son only from the moment of His incarnation. He, like Marcellus, did not allow the thought of pre-eternal birth in the proper sense and said that it was not as a result of birth from God that Christ is the Son of God. Julian the Apostate spoke of Photinus with praise and wrote to him that he was acting very logically, not admitting that His God could fit in the womb of a woman. Thus, Photinus not only repeated the concession to the Arians that Marcellus made, but also supplemented it with a new one, recognizing with them that the word “birth” does not have the special meaning that is assigned to it in Orthodox dogma, and is not applicable to God, since in the literal sense it means division into parts, which is impossible according to the very concept of God. Therefore, Holy Scripture uses the word “birth” in the sense of adoption: it is said about those who believe in Christ (John 1:13) that they are born of God. In this sense, we can only talk about the birth of the Son from God. But Photinus disagrees with Marcellus on the most essential point: Marcellus vigorously insisted that the Logos in God δυνάμει really exists, and He also exists in God ἐνεργείᾳ. For Photinus, such subtleties seemed unnecessary, and he merged these two moments, recognizing the Logos as power in God in the sense in which we recognize reason in man. Thus, Photinus ascribed to God “power and word” as a quality or state, just as the Arians understood this. The question arises: what did Fotin see in the historical person of I. Christ? For Marcellus there was no doubt that the subject of Christ’s personal earthly life was the Logos: for Photinus, on the contrary, Christ was a man, which is why the Photinians were called in the Roman church: “homuncionitae” (homuncio - little man), “humanists.” Consequently, there could be no question of any pre-existence of this person. There is categorical news that Photinus lowered his Christology to the level of the ancient Ebionites: he even admitted that Christ was not born supernaturally. There is no indication of Mary's ever-virginity in the remaining passages. Christ, therefore, was born a simple man, and His deity is the result of personal merit as a result of His grace. The power of the Father dwelt in him, but it dwelt not from the very moment of birth, but from baptism, for it is the birth of Jesus from the Holy Spirit, as a result of which He became a spirit-bearer, like the ancient prophets, only to the highest degree. From a historical and dogmatic point of view, the teaching of Photinus is important in the sense that it appeared precisely at this moment in history and came out from under the wing of Marcellus. Marcellus’s own disciple did not understand the seriousness of his assurances that although in God there is a single being - a hypostasis - a person, the Λόγος in God is and exists precisely δυνάμει - and made of this δυνάμει a simple non-substantial force, δύναμις. This proves how difficult it is to think without words and how necessary for theological thought is a reliable foundation in the form of a precise term expressing the real difference between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which the Eastern bishops always strived for at this time, and how expediently Vasily V. acted, demanding the formal confession of three hypostases in God even from those whose teaching, despite their “μία ὑπόστασις”, Afanasy V. himself recognized as correct. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Origen’s Teaching on the Holy Trinity. St. Petersburg 1879. A. Spassky, History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils (in connection with the philosophical teachings of that time). T. I. Trinitarian question (History of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity). Sergiev Posad 1906. A. B. Ἁνατολή, Oriens in the exact sense is a diocese, headed by Antioch. Therefore, the prefecture to which this diocese was classified was called “praefectura Orientis”. Theodoret. hist. eccl. I, 5: συλλουκιανιστὰ ἀληθῶς Εὐσέβιε. "Ἀληθῶς" here, of course, refers to "Εὑσέβιε" εὑσεβής. A.B. The news of his death preserved the following curious detail. In prison, before his death, Lucian celebrated the Eucharist on his chest, using it instead of a throne. The antimension in the ancient church was required only to assure that the presbyter was performing the liturgy according to the will of the bishop. But since in this case such assurance was not required, the liturgy could be celebrated without an antimension. On the question of Lucian's dogmatic views, cf. priest D. Lebedev, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Lucian. (On the question of the origin of Arianism). Theologian Bulletin, 1912, April, 722–734, May, 180–189. A.B. The church in which he served is designated by the name “Baccali” (Epiph. haer. 68, 4; 69:1). Deriving this word from βουκόλια, it is believed that this was a church built on the site of the martyrdom of the Evangelist Mark in τὰ βουκόλια. But it is more natural to compare it with βαύκαλις - a vessel with a narrow neck - the name by which Alexander of Alexandria was nicknamed for his senile, bent figure (Philost. I, 4). The time of the appearance of Arianism is not known with certainty. a) After June 13, 312 († Άχιλλᾶς, predecessor of Alexander), in any case, because under Alexander; b) until 321 or 320, when Arius and the Arians were deposed by the Council of Alexandria. c) The figure “318”, which appears in textbooks, taken from Baronius, is not relevant (Baronius already attributed the embassy of Hosius to this year, incorrectly believing that already in this year Constantine won the Chrysopolitan victory over Licinius); but it can be defended on other grounds. Namely: α) Athanasius V. was born in 295–296 (in one Coptic monument there is news that “in the thirty-third year he accepted the throne of the bishopric”; but after research by O. E. f. Lemm, v. Lemm, Koptische Fragmente zur Patriarсhengeschichte Alexandriens, in Mémoires de l’Académie de sciences de St. Pétersbourg, VII série, t. 36, no. 1888. This news must be treated cum grano salis), β) In his first creation: Λόγος κατὰ 'Ελλήνων and its continuation (2nd part): Λόγος περὶ Athanasius does not mention the Arians and does not conduct even indirect polemics against their teaching; this suggests that both of these words were written before the appearance of Arianism. γ) But the high literary merits of these works give reason to assume that their author stands on the border of manhood; track. in 315–316 Arius had not yet declared himself. Wed. V. V. Bolotov, Theodoretiana. Christ. Thurs. 1892, II, 121, 148–154. That the addressee of the message of Alexander of Alexandria was Alexander not of Byzantium, but of Thessalonica, Baluze suggested this in one of the notes to his published work Petri de Marca, De concordia sacerdotii et imperii (1663), l. V, p. III, No. VI-VII. Wed. Christ. Thurs. 1907, I, 261–263, note. A.B. This name is usually misspelled: Hosea. But Hosea Ώσηέ Hosea; and the bishop of Corduba was called Hosius. Ὅσιος. (As S. N. Turner, Ossius (Hosius) of Cordova, shows, in The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. XII, 1911, January, pp. 275-277, the original form of this name in Latin was Ossius.) As is revealed from a document preserved in Syriac and first published by E. Schwartz in 1905, a message from 56 bishops gathered in Antioch to Bishop Alexander, even before the Council of Nicea, in 324 or already in 325, a fairly large council was convened in Antioch, condemning the teaching of Arius and his three stubborn supporters who were at the council - Theodotus of Laodicea, Narcissus of Neronia and Eusebius of Caesarea - subjected to temporary excommunication until the supposed “great” council in Ancyra. The addressee of this message in the collection where it is found is called by Alexander “bishop of New Rome,” that is, of Byzantium, just like the addressee of the message of Alexander of Alexandria in Theodoret I, 4; but here, too, Alexander of Thessalonica must be considered the actual addressee. Harnack objected to the authenticity of the message; but doubts in this case should generally be considered eliminated by the arguments of Schwartz himself, D. A. Lebedev and E. Seeberg. E. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. VI, VII, in Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philol.-hist. Class. 1905, Heft 3, pp. 271–294. 1908, 3, pp. 305–374. A. Harnack, Die angebliche Synode von Antiochia im Jahre 324 5, in Sitzungsberichte der Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1908, XXVI, S. 477–491. 1909, XIV, 401–425. Priest D.A. Lebedev, Antioch Council of 324 and its letter to Alexander, Bishop of Thessalonica, in Christ. Readings, 1911, July-August, 831–858, September, 1008–1023 (and separately). Erich Seeberg, Die Synode von Antiochien im Jahre 324 25. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Konzils von Nicäa. 1913 Berlin. It is possible that Hosius of Corduba visited not only Alexandria, but then also Antioch, and was the honorary chairman at this Antiochian council, that he is hiding under the mysterious “Eusebius”, who was placed in first place in the list of fathers who were at the council, above Eustathius of Antioch. The cathedral in Ancyra was designed, perhaps, by the bishops themselves; but Constantine recognized Nicaea as a more convenient place for the council and convened there, instead of Ancyra, an ecumenical council. Also preserved in Syriac, and known for quite a long time (1857), is the message of the emperor inviting bishops to a council in Nicaea instead of Ancyra, and the reasons for appointing Nicaea as the site of the council indicate greater convenience for Italian and other Western bishops who would come to the council, the favorable climate of Nicaea, and, finally, the desire of the emperor himself to attend the council. Wed. A. Diamonds, On the history of the Arian dispute before the first ecumenical council. Christ. Thurs., 1913, July-August, September. A.B. Later Eastern tradition ascribes grandiose dimensions to this cathedral. One must think that here everyone, without exception, who was present at the cathedral was counted: not only bishops, but also presbyters, deacons, acoluths, so that the number 2000, which is given to the cathedral by Arabic traditions, may be correct. The date “May 20” (τῂ εἰκάδι τοῦ Μαΐου μηνός) in the history of Socrates, I, 13, very often repeated, is actually based on what Socrates read in the manuscript πρό that was in his possession δεκατριῶν καλανδῶν Ἰουνίων, instead of Ἰουλίων on June 19, as was explained by Valois and accepted by Pagi. Wed. also E. Schwartz. Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. III. in Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft, der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. 1904, H. 4, S. 398. A. B. The question of the presidency is especially of interest to Catholic scholars, who are trying to support the authority of the pope here. Back then this question probably wasn’t raised so sharply. All upon which the claims of the Roman Catholic scholars are based rests on this, that in the passage preserved in Socr. I, 13, signatures are in this order: from Spain Hosius of Corduba; from Rome presbyters: Viton and Vincent: from Egypt Alexander. But what probably mattered here was the then advantage of the West over the East, due to which the Western representatives had to precede the others. Hosius of Corduba was hardly a representative of the pope. This message is important for clarifying the ancient attitude of believers towards ecumenical councils. The bishops came to the council not to testify to their own theological views, but to the faith of their church, and only to express it in a certain form that answered the theological question posed in this case. Naturally, then, it was important for every father present at the council that this common faith should be expounded in such a way that its agreement with the previous symbolic monuments was indisputable, since the bishops had to show their flock that the new council had not changed anything in their faith and that they, returning to it, were now teaching the same teaching as before. Thus, Eusebius of Caesarea had to show his flock that the same teaching was adopted at the Council of Nicaea that he had proclaimed to them before. Eusebius therefore presents the additions as unimportant from a dogmatic point of view. This is the tendency of his message. Obviously, the letter of Eusebius and Theognius in Socrates, I, 14, in which they ask influential bishops to facilitate their return from exile, indicating that Arius himself has already been freed from it, is recognized by V.V. Bolotov (cf. Tillemont, Gwatkin) as inauthentic. But cf. eg Loofs in Hauck's Real-Encycl. further protest. Theol. und Kirche, II 3 (1897), S. 16. A. B. With particular effect, Asterius seems to have explained to his listeners the weak side (the supposed lack of biblical basis) of the concept of the Son as the hypostatic power of the Father. From Rom.1:20: “ἥ τε αὐτοῦ (= τοῦ Θεοῦ) δύναμις καὶ θειότης” he concluded that if the Son is the hypostatic power of the Father, then He is also the hypostatic divinity of the Father. However, this conclusion is far from absurd from the point of view of ancient theology, according to which the Son is the hypostatic essence of the Father, the living and personal realization of His divine definitions, so that for us it is in the Son that the divinity of the Father is revealed. Asterius only made the far-fetched (and indeed absurd) conclusion that, from the Orthodox point of view, the Son is the reason for the divinity of the Father, the cause (causa quo) of the fact that the Father is God. Based on scattered information, one can guess that Athanasius was not in Alexandria on April 17. It is not impossible that the Arians at this time elected Achilla as bishop, and the Melitians elected Theona. Gwatkin's guess, based on Epiph. haer. 68, 7; 69, 1 1 [H. M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism. Cambridge 1882, p. 66). This name for the emperor's court came from the following circumstances: when the border was unsettled, the emperors changed their location, and the place where he retired with his companions (comites) was called “comitatus”. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Lectures on the history of the ancient church. III. St. Petersburg 1913, pp. 218–220. A.B. Others translate άπαράλλακτον through unchangeable. But “unchanged” corresponds to άτρεπτος and άναλλοίωτος, which actually mean “not changed.” Ἀπαράλλακτος has a special meaning, since it is derived from άλλος - different, through αλλαγή, and the word άλλαγή indicates a change not in the process, but as a result of the action. This means that άπαράλλακτον εικόνα means that the Son is such an image of the Father who, although he comes from the Father, is no different from the true image: “non-different.” On the origin of the erroneous date “347” cf. V.V. Bolotov, Liberius, Bishop of Rome, and the Councils of Sirmium. Christ. Thurs. 1891, I, no. 5–6, 450–453 (and separately, 28–31), on the form of the name "Serdika", 511–515 (55–59). W. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. I, in Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philol.-hist. Class. 1904, H. 4, S. 341, indicates the autumn of 342 as the time of the Council of Serdica, and gives a different explanation for the origin of the erroneous date of Socrates. A.B. This is how Socrates reports this, II, 20. But there is no reason not to trust the statement of the Easterners themselves that the encyclical was written by them in Serdica. Wed. F. Loofs in Hauck's REII 3 (1897), S. 27 23–31. A. B. We are accustomed to distinguishing different shades of foreign political parties under the name left, right, etc. In the present case we use the same terminology. Words printed in discharge (here in bold) are omitted in the Constantinople edition, those printed in italics are replaced with parallel expressions. Wed. er. 214, 4: ὅν ἔχει λόγον τὸ κοινὸν πρὸς τὸ ἴδιον, τοῦτον ἔχει ἣ οὐσια πρὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν. Based on the meaning of 21 Ave. of the Trullo Cathedral, we can conclude that previously the laity grew their hair, and the clergy cut it - quite the opposite of what is observed now! This is the conclusion drawn by Martin Rade, Damasus, Bischof von Rom. Freiburg im Br. 1882 S. 118–130. The text of this symbol: add only to our symbol: 1) post “before all ages” add. τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, 2) post “they were the same” add. τά τε ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, 3) post “of the future century. Amen" add. τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας – ᾽εκκλησία (anathematism of the Nicene symbol). Possible motives; 1st add. omitted due to its terminological difficulty, 2nd for the same reasons for which the άπάντων of the Caesarean symbol was not accepted (in the words of John 1:3, the Arians wanted to prove that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son, and the strengthened τά ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς could abuse), 3rd, as a polemical addition (not positive). J. Kunze, Marcus Eremita, ein neuer Zeuge für das altehristliche Taufbekenntniss. Lpz. 1895, and Das nicänich-konstantinopolitanische Symbol. Lpz. 1898, suggested that the Niceno-Constantinople symbol was read by Nektarios, who was elected to the see of Constantinople during the second ecumenical council, at his baptism, and then was attributed to the council itself. The authenticity of the symbol, by the way, was defended by W. Schmidt, Zur Echtheitsfrage des Nicäno-Constantinopolitanums, in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1899. A. Harnack also supports his opinion in RE 3 XI ​​(1902), S. 12–28, Artik. "Konstantinopolitanisches Symbol". A. P. Lebedev, On the symbol of our Orthodox Church and the Second Ecumenical Council, in Theologian. Vestnik, 1902, January and February (and separately), recognized the existing text of the symbol in Epiphanius as interpolated: Epiphanius initially presented not any Jerusalem symbol, but a Nicene one, but it was subsequently supplemented in the manuscript of Epiphanius’s works with insertions from the Constantinople symbol. Wed. also A. A. Spassky, History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils. T. I. Trinitarian question. Sergiev Posad 1906, pp. 580–620. A. E. Burn, The Nicene Creed. London 1909, p. 27, does not agree with the opinion of A.P. Lebedev. E. S. Gibson, The Three Creeds, objected to Hort's hypothesis. London 1908, p. 169–174. A.B. During the Sicilian campaign (415–413 BC), the Athenians suffered a terrible defeat. The Sicilians killed some of them, enslaved others and forced them to teach their children to read and write. The Athenians said about the missing: ἀλλ’ ἢ τέθνηκεν ἢ διδάσκει•γράμματα. In the confession of faith: ὁ τούτου (God the Father) μονογενὴς Υἱὸς Λόγος, ὁ ἀεὶ συνυπάρχων τῷ Πατρὶ. And further: οὗτος Υἱὸς, οὗτος δυναμις, οὗτος σοφία, οὗτος ἴδιος καὶ ἀληθὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος ὁ Κύριος ήμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. About this debate and the council cf. V.V. Bolotov, Liberius, Bishop of Rome, and the Councils of Sirmium. “Christ. Thu." 1891, I–II (and separately). The dispute took place not in 355, as Gwatkin believes (II, 63–77 39–53), and not after the council of 351, as Socrates and Sozomen show, but before the council, so that its content can be more or less reproduced on the basis of the anathematisms of this council (I, 77–79 53–55, II, 266–282 93–109). There was no earlier, usually accepted Council of Sirmium, which condemned Photinus, either in 347 or in the following years (I, 308 5, 438–459 16–37). A.B.