A 1,279,001 Early Christian Literatur Primera op THE GREEK FATHERS REYD GEORGE A JACTES TE 1 Miia: TITORIT Trollimit VI: . primitit! 1114 numrinum11111! Virginiaturning HT1". FROM THE LIBRARY OF ROBERT MARK WENLEY PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1690 1922 GIFT OF HIS CHILDREN TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN مستعملنالنلينهيهيضل HHM Becknall itel at se 1933 BR 1.7 os E 12 Vi 2 enten EARLY CHRISTIAN LIT- ERATURE PRIMERS, edited by Professor GEORGE P. FISHER, D. D., LL. D. THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE PRIMERS. I. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND THE APOLOGISTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY, A. D. 95–180. II. THE FATHERS OF THE THIRD CENTURY, A, D, 180--325. III. THE POST-NICENE GREEK FATHERS, A. D. 325-750. In preparation. IV. THE POST-NICENE LATIN FATHERS, A. D. 325-590. Early Christian Literature Primers. Edited by Professor GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D. THE POST-NICENE GREEK FATHERS. BY REV. GEORGE Aseson JACKSON. NEW YORK: D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 1, 3, AND 5 BOND STREET. 1883 COPYRIGHT BY D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 1883. 1-30-39 6 2.7. 39 d. A. CONTENTS. PAGE 9 II 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. THE ALEXANDRIAN AND THE ANTIOCHIAN SCHOOLS SYMBOLS OF THE FIRST FOUR COUNCILS The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed The Symbol of Chalcedon THE POST-NICENE GREEK FATHERS: Eusebius “The Evangelical Preparation "The Evangelical Demonstration “Ecclesiastical History" List of Works Athanasius Treatise against the Gentiles Discourse on the Incarnation , “ Historical Tracts" Epistle in Defense of the Nicene Definition “Orations against the Arians," I-IV. Extracts from the same Letter upon the Book of Psalms “Life of Anthony”. The Festal Epistle, with Extracts List of Works. Arius Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures “On the Mysteries Extracts from the Lectures 32 32 35 36 37 46 47 52 55 56 57 59 59 бо 62 67 67 6 CONTENTS. PAGE O Marcellus and the Apollinarii Ephraem Syrus 70 “ Ad Clerum." Selections 72 "On comprehending God.” Selections 73 “The Repentance of Nineveh.” Selections 74 On the Death of Children" 77 Prayer in Prospect of Judgment” 78 “ The Pearl”. 79 80 Basil . Works upon Scripture Homilies on the Hexameron; on the Psalms; on Baptism ; on Building Greater ; on Faith, with Basil's Confession of Faith. From Address on reading Profane Authors 94 Controversial Works . 95 “Against Eunomius," and “On the Holy Spirit.” Extracts from "Book on the Holy Spirit” Letters 99 81 85 0 98 To Gregory, Amphilochius, Western Bishops. IIO III Ascetic Works 104 The Ethics, with Rules for those intrusted with the Word ; Monastic Rules in extenso; the same in epitome, with extract on Future Punishment; Canons; Monastic Constitutions. Principal Works Gregory Nazianzen Discourses 113 On Theology ; on the Dignity of the Priesthood; Farewell to Constantinople. Panegyrics and Eulogies—Of Gregory Letters-To Thecla 125 Poems 127 Hymn to God 128 To his Soul and Body 129 Gregory Nyssa 132 The Catechetical Discourses"; Extracts 134 “On the Soul and the Resurrection"; Extracts 137 Against Eunomius" ; Extracts 138 I22 . CONTENTS. 7 PAGE “On the Creation of Man"; Extracts 140 Principal Works 142 Didymus 142 Epiphanius 143 * The Panarion" 145 Extracts: On Prayers for the Dead ; on Repent- ance after Death ; on the Several Orders of the Clergy; on Images in Churches Diodorus of Tarsus 148 Chrysostom 149 Homilies 154 Upon Genesis, the Psalms, Matthew, John, Acts, the Epistles ; upon the Parable of the Talents; upon Doctrinal Subjects; Moral Discourses ; upon Festival Days, and on the Saints. Special Sermons 167 Sermons on the Statues. Extracts from the same. Treatises 179 “On the Priesthood." Extracts from the same. Letters 185 Principal Works 185 Synesius 186 Ode 187 Theodore of Mopsuestia . 188 Theophilus 189 Cyril of Alexandria 190 Commentaries 192 Letters 192 Anathemas against Nestorius 192 Treatises 194 · 195 Nestorius 197 Theodoret 198 Commentaries 201 Historical Writings 204 ' Ecclesiastical History”; " Lives of the Monks." 0 “Of God's Worship in the Spirit” . 8 CONTENTS. PAGE 206 “ Dis- The Church Historians. 210 212 Treatises “Evanistes”; “Of Heretical Fables "; courses of Providence"; "Cure of Heathen Falsehoods." Letters 207 208 Socrates, Sozomen, Philostorgius, Evagrius. Other Writers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries John of Damascus. The Fount of Knowledge 214 I. “ Dialectics.” 2. “Of Heresies.” 3. ““Of the Orthodox Faith." Hymns 216 Canon for Easter-Ode I . 217 Idiomela for All Saints 218 Principal Works . 219 Other Late Writers 219 The Greek Hymnologists Ode of Cosmas 223 Hymn of Stephen. 223 222 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. . A. D. GENERAL COUNCILS, A, D. PRINCIPAL GREEK WRITERS. 325 Nice (Trinity). ob. 340 ob. 373 ob. 336 ft. 336 ob. 379 ob. 386 ob. 373 ob. 389 Eusebius. Athanasius. Arius. Marcellus of Ancyra. The Apollinarii. Basil. Cyril of Jerusalem. Ephrem the Syrian. Gregory Nazianzen. Gregory of Nyssa. Didymus the Blind. Epiphanius. Diodorus of Tarsus. Theophilus of Alexandria. Chrysostom. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Synesiusa Cyril of Alexandria. Nestorius. 381 Constantinople (Trinity). ob. 395 ob. 395 ob. 402 f. 375 ob. 412 ob. 407 ob. 427 f. 412 ob. 444 ob. 440 431 A. D. ROMAN EMPERORS. 306-337 337-350 337-339 337-361 350-353 361-363 363-364 364-375 364-378 375-383 375-392 379-395 Constantine. Constans. Constantine II. Constantius. Magnentius. Julian. Jovian. Valentinian. Valens. Gratian. Valentinian II. Theodosius. Emperors of the East. 395-408 408-450 450-457 457-474 Arcadius. Theodosius II. Marcian. Leo. 451 Ephesus, Chalcedon (Nature of Christ). CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.-(Continued.) A. D. ROMAN EMPERORS. A. D. GENERAL COUNCILS. A. D. PRINCIPAL GREEK WRITERS. 553 474-491 491-518 518-527 527-565 565-578 578-582 582-602 602-610 610-641 Constantinople, Second (Three Chapters), ob. 457 ft. 440 f 450 ob. 544 fi. 550 ob. 565 ft. 550 Theodoret. Socrates. Sozomen. Ephrem of Antioch, Procopius Gaza. Justinian, Facundus. Leontius. Anastasius Sinaitacus. . Evagrius. Maximus, ob. 600 Zeno. Anastasius. Justin. Justinian. Justin II. Tiberius. Maurice. Phocas. Heraclius. Constantine III. Heracleonas. Constans II. Constantine IV. Justinian II. Philippicus. Anastasius II. Theodosius III. Leo the Isaurian, Constantine V. ob. 599 641 ob, 600 ob. 662 680 Constantinople, Third (Will of Christ). 641-668 668-685 685-711 711-713 713-716 716-718 718–741 741-775 ob. 750 John of Damascus. Nice, Second (Image-Worship). 787 THE ALEXANDRIAN AND THE ANTIOCHIAN SCHOOLS. The interaction of these two schools of thought and centers of influence constitutes the history of the Eastern Church during the period before us. There is a technical use of terms which would limit “the Alexandrian School” to the theological institution connected with the Alexandrian Church and “the Antiochian School” to a certain school of scripture interpretation originating in Antioch. We, however, designate by the first the type of thought and the body of thinkers centering in Alexandria from the fourth century onward, and by the second the thought and thinkers peculiar at that period to the Orient. These two types of thought may be traced to a common source in the mind of Origen. This greatest theologian of the early Church was the culminating fruit of an earlier school at Alexandria. Five hundred years before he was born, the Greek conqueror founded, near the mouth of the Nile, within a few hours' sail of either Greece or Syria, the city which bears his name. The population of this earliest cosmopolitan center 12 THE ALEXANDRIAN AND 1 was Greek, Jewish, and Egyptian, in about equal numbers. There, on what may be called neutral soil, were planted side by side the intellectual life of Greece and the moral and religious life of Pal- estine. Through the patronage of the Ptolemies and the influence of the great Alexandrian Library there grew up a school of literary and scientific men who made of Alexandria a second Athens. At the same time there sprang up among the He- brew residents a school of the Rabbis, which was so famous as to be known among the whole nation as the "Light of Israel." The interchange of ideas between these two schools was the first step toward universalizing the peculiar treasures, the knowledge and the religion, the reason and the faith, of these two peoples. But the Ptolemaic and Rabbinic schools gave place to two others : the Neo-Platonic, a school of philosophy colored by the religion taught by the Rabbis; and the Christian, a school of faith enlightened and broadened by its contact with the Greek intellect. The origin of this Chris- tian school was a catechetical class connected with the Alexandrian church. Pantænus, the first teacher to lift it to its high rank, was followed by Clement, the Christian philosopher, and he by Origen, under whom and his immediate successors the Alexandrian school par excellence completed its work. For we must now distinguish the work of the earlier and later Christian schools of Alexandria. The work of the school represented by Clement and Origen was to establish the claims of Christianity upon the intellect of the world. These teachers had not to develop and formulate the interior doctrines of the THE ANTIOCHIAN SCHOOLS. 13 faith; but, comprehending Christianity as a whole, as the revelation and redemptive power of the one Supreme God, to stamp it upon the human mind, in opposition to all polytheistic superstitions and fantastic philosophies. That work it successfully wrought, and thereby, above all other schools of thought, classical, ecclesiastical, or scientific, merited the first place in the estimation of an enlightened Christian world. But a mind which, like Origen's, could so grasp and so impress Christianity, could not fail to reason profoundly upon its interior prob- lems. We, for whom the grander questions in the- ology have so long been solved, forget that their solution was the work of centuries. Thus the pre- vailing conception of God as triune, though founded upon the Scriptures, was not fully formulated until the fourth century. The Christian consciousness of the second century, side by side with its belief in one God, had fixed indefeasibly upon the God- hood of Christ. Then came, in the third century, an age of profound thought. Its chief work, as we have seen, was to reach God, not to define him. Nevertheless, vigorous thinkers who had reached him began to work on the problem which the pre- ceding age had given, but had not itself the mind to ponder, viz., How one God with a divine Christ? One thinker, Sabellius, now answered, The two- ness is only seeming, since the theophany in Christ is only economic and temporal, and will end as it began with the work of manifestation and re- demption. But to Alexandrian minds, imbued with the idea of the Logos, this answer was not adequate. To Origen, who completed the Alexandrian concep- 2 14 THE ALEXANDRIAN AND tion of the Logos by his doctrine of the “ Eternally- Begotten,” the Eternal Son. was as real and distinct as the one Supreme God; and, as the chief expo- nent of a school in which faith was wedded to sci- ence, he sought to understand the relations of these conceptions. That, however, was not his achieve- ment. Faith and science never brought him beyond a conception of the Son as subordinate. But his faith had laid hold upon the two essential elements of the truth, the divineness and the eternal distinc- tion of the Son; and hisreason pronounced them reconcilable. He, therefore, as the head-master of the first Alexandrian school, whose work was now substantially done, handed over to the next age a two-fold task: to keep what faith pronounced; to complete what reason had unsuccessfully begun. This was really a form of the work of which Alex- andria had been the recognized center, since ever Greek and Jew had met in the newly founded city, only that work was now far advanced. Instead of "Are faith and reason reconcilable," the question now was, “How are they reconcilable?” But Alexandria was no longer to monopolize a task which had been hers for four centuries. The last twenty years of Origen's life were spent in Asia, and of the twofold work which he projected into the fourth century, part, the faith-task, was left to the later school of Alexandria; and part, the task of reason, to what we call the school of Antioch. Perhaps no better distinction can be drawn between these two schools than to say that Alexandria repre- sented the believing, the mystical, the intuitive Ori- gen, Antioch the broad-minded, reasoning Origen, THE ANTIOCHIAN SCHOOLS. 5 15 We can not wonder at this division of labor.. Each champion to do best his specific work must approach the task from a peculiar stand-point, and while one profound mind like Origen's might be developed in both the above directions, no body or school of men sufficiently numerous to work out the grand problem presented could possess this complex char- acter. Let us note just what was to be done. The Christian consciousness as against Ebionism had long before acknowledged the Son, the Eternal Word, as divine. The Christian intellect had since affirmed that this needed explanation, and had sought such explanation first in Sabellianism, then in Subordinationism. The first of these did not satisfy the intelligence, the second did not meet the demands of faith. So the Church stood at the beginning of the fourth century, a part resting with all its weight upon a divine Christ, a part in an intel- lectual ferment, believing yet anxious until its intel- lect should follow its faith. Without the anchorage furnished by the former party, the Church might drift upon the rocks of doubt; without the sails of the latter, she would never make a haven of rest. That haven was to be the trinitarian dogma as completed at the Council of Constantinople. With- out tracing the steps by which this dogma was for- mulated, we may briefly note the workers and the characteristic work of Alexandria and of the East. Since the days of Dionysius, who had for a time perpetuated the subordination views of Origen, the Alexandrian leaders had been asserting with more and more of earnestness and obliviousness to its intellectual bearings the truth of the Godhood of 16 THE ALEXANDRIAN AND Christ. To continue this bold assertion in the face of all opposition, and side by side with the asser- tion of a distinct Father and Son, was the part of Alexandria. The one man who almost by his sole efforts performed this work was Athanasius. He is rightly called the great Trinitarian; yet his was not so much a constructive as a conserving work. His own mind was never perplexed with questions as to how there is one God and the consubstantial Son. The Christian consciousness, the devout, the relig- ious element in the Church, had intuitively grasped both these elements as facts; and when, at Nice, the bishop of Alexandria and his young deacon in- sisted upon the Quocúolov, it was simply as conserv- ers of what was held by the fathers as a matter of profound faith. So throughout his long career as champion of the Nicene symbol, Athanasius, not- withstanding his “Orations against the Arians," U was rather the living and inflexible embodiment of a faith in the several elements of the trinitarian doctrine than a philosophical exponent of that doc- i trine. But over against this conserving Triotic was the outreaching yvõols whose home was now in the East. For although Arius first broached his theory of subordination in Alexandria, his doctrines had previously been propounded by Lucian of Antioch, and it was in the churches of the Orient that the opposing theories of subordination and patripas- sionism found congenial minds and their chief sup- port. For fifty years following the Council of Nice almost every prominent mind of the Eastern Church shows signs of unrest under the definitions of that THE ANTIOCHIAN SCHOOLS. 17 body. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Cæsa- rea, Acacius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil of Ancyra, Ætius, and Eunomius, on the one hand, represent various degrees of Arianism. Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus, at the other extreme, hold to a modi- fied Sabellianism. We shall think but narrowly, if we dismiss the controversies and the creed-making of this period as the mere gymnastics of restless or ambitious minds. They were rather the intellectual throes by which birth was given to the rational ac- ceptance of a dictum of faith. Looking back upon the conflict, we see the Alexandrian bishop tossed and buffeted, but holding ever aloft his intuitively formed creed and saying firmly, "I believe." The bishops of the East, analyzing, defining, accepting, denying, receiving, anathematizing through a long generation, at last find out every intellectual ele- ment involved; and then the struggle is brought to an end by the rise of three men. Basil and the two Gregorys, educated amid the battle, have the minds to discern, the hearts to believe, and the wisdom and courage to demonstrate that reason and faith are at one in their approval of the dogma of Nice. When, therefore, the symbol uttered by Al- exandrian faith A. D. 325 is reaffirmed at Constan- tinople A. D. 381, that affirmation is the product of the Antiochian reason. But this formulating of the trinitarian dogma was only one of the two great contests in which Alexandria and Antioch were respectively the repre- sentatives of faith and reason. The fifth century presented a new problem in the person of Christ. Apollinaris having asserted that Christ had no hu- 18 THE ALEXANDRIAN AND man soul, but that instead the Logos was the ani- mating principle of his human body, the Council of Constantinople repudiated this doctrine, and ex- pressly recognized the human soul. But, like the Council of Nice, it simply affirmed a truth, and left it for the future to define and defend. The goal to be reached through long agitation and bitter con- troversy was the definition of Chalcedon. The dis- tinctive task of faith was now, while admitting a certain human personality, to maintain the exclu- sively divine in Christ. The task of reason was to make the human nature a real element in the Chris- tological conception. The faith of the whole Church had been over-ready to use terms which seemed to favor the Godhood of the Son. One expression of that nature which had come into somewhat wide use was “Mother of God,” as applied to the Virgin Mary. Phrases of this sort.were in especial favor in Egypt. When, therefore, Nestorius, who had been called from the church at Antioch to the patriarchate of Constantinople, took grounds against the indiscriminate use of OEOTÓKOS, he at once found an opponent in Cyril of Alexandria. Whether ani- . mated by a holy zeal or moved by an unrighteous envy of his rival, Cyril launched against Nestorius twelve anathemas, enunciating the mystical, incom- prehensible fact of the union of deity and human- ity in the one person of Christ, in such a manner that the predicates of the divine and of the human Christ could be used interchangeably. In the re- sponse made to these anathemas, we see not only the Antiochian spirit, but also the work of the his- toric Antiochian school of interpretation. More THE ANTIOCHIAN SCHOOLS. 19 than fifty years before this, Diodorus of Tarsus, then a priest and a teacher of the Scriptures at an institution in the suburbs of Antioch, had devoted himself to the interpretation of scripture in an his- torical and grammatical sense, breaking away from the old allegorical methods. He had for his pupils Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the latter of whom succeeded him as the representative of this reasonable use of scripture in matters of doc- trine. By such usage Theodore was led to scatter all those misty and unreal conceptions with which the traditional interpretation had enveloped the person of Christ, and to see in him not only the divine Logos, but also the real man depicted in the gospels. Nestorius, if not an actual pupil of The- odore, was trained in the same institution at Anti- och, and shared the opinions of this great father. His repudiation of the term “Mother of God" was in strict accord with the Antiochian spirit, and when denounced by Cyril he at once applied to his friend, John of Antioch, to have a reply made by one of their school. This work was assigned to Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus. The controversy led to the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, at which Nes- torius was deposed, and the Alexandrian dogma of the one nature was affirmed. Nothing, however, was settled by this action, which was grossly par- tisan. For although Nestorius's deposition was con- firmed, the Syrians still contended for the biblical Christ of a divine and a human nature, while the Alexandrians as stoutly contended for their tradi- tional, mystical Christ in whom the human was vir- tually swallowed up in the divine. Cyril and Theo- 20 THE ALEXANDRIAN AND doret continue this controversy, and when Cyril dies, his successor, Dioscorus, takes up the cause. “God was born,” “God suffered,” were Alexan- drian rallying-cries, which were taken up by monks in the Egyptian interest in Palestine and at Con- stantinople. The zeal of a certain Eutyches, one of these monks, led at last to an open rupture, and to the calling of a council, A. D. 449, for a new de- cision of the point at issue. This gathering fell under the control of Dioscorus, who with his monks conducted himself so outrageously that it has always borne the name of the Robber Synod. Changes a court, however, soon made possible the repudiation of this council, and the gathering of the fourth gen- eral council at Chalcedon. Here, although the memory of Nestorius was branded, a creed was adopted which recognized the work of the Antio- chian teachers; and the Egyptian mysticism re- ceived such a blow that it never again became dom- inant in the Church. Theodoret also, who had been deposed at Ephesus, was restored to his see. With this definition culminated the distinctive labors of the schools of Alexandria and Antioch; for the subsequent struggles of the Monophysites and the defenders of Chalcedon were not contests of thought, but only quarrels for place and power. Both schools had sadly degenerated and soon sank into the worst caricatures of their former selves. It was indeed a lofty faith which had enabled Atha- nasius for fifty years, through all perils, to advocate the consubstantial Trinity; but it was only a piti- able superstition which led the fanatic monks of Alexandria to shout for the “Mother of God." So THE ANTIOCHIAN SCHOOLS. 21 it was an enviable rationalism which had enabled the three Cappadocians to justify to men's reason a grand dictum of faith ; but it was only a miserable pedantry with which the later Orientals measured and defined the thousand-and-one points of ortho- doxy. As we saw, in the work of Origen in the third century, a parallel to labors to which the present age is recurring, so had we space we might profit- ably note some modern parallels to these parties of the fourth and fifth centuries. The Church has still her Alexandria, and her leaders to whom a traditional faith is more than all rational systems of belief. She has also her Antiochian body, with its heterogeneous elements. As in that ancient time, so now, a part of this thinking body are so exalting reason that they forget the faith; but the larger portion, let us hope, studying rationally the written word, are proving the Basils and Gregorys, the Dio- doruses and Theodores, the Chrysostoms and Theo- dorets, of our new age of biblical study. SYMBOLS OF THE FIRST FOUR (ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. beat So much of the Church literature of this age has reference to the doctrinal definitions of the first four councils that acquaintance with the sym- bols which they adopted is necessary to an appreci- ation of the writings. The definitions of all four councils were strictly theological, anthropology be- ing mainly left to the more practical West. There is a noticeable distinction, however, between the work of the first two and the two succeeding assemblies. The Councils of Nice, A. D. 325, and Constantino- ple, A. D. 381, formulated in their creeds the con- ception of God in his entirety, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Councils of Ephesus, A. D. 431, and Chalcedon, A. D. 451, advanced to the more specific consideration of the person of the Son. At Ephesus no authoritative symbol was uttered, the delegates being divided into an Alexandrian or one-nature party, and an Antiochian or two- natures party. These afterward compromised by the concurrence of the latter in the excommunica- tion of Nestorius, champion of the two natures, SYMBOLS OF ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. 23 and the consent of the former to a confession allow- ing the two natures. Thus was necessitated the Council of Chalcedon, which propounded a symbol since recognized by the Church Catholic as rightly defining the person of Christ. NICENO-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED. I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only- begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father be- fore all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose king- dom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost,* the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the prophets. And one holy Catholic and Apos- tolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the * The Nicene Creed ended here. Appended to it, how- ever, was the following anathema : “But those who say that 'there was once when He was not,' and 'before He was be. gotten He was not,' and that ‘from the not being He came to be'; or those who say that the Son of God is 'of another sub- stance or essence,' or 'created,' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.' 24 SYMBOLS OF ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. THE SYMBOL OF CHALCEDON. We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father accord- ing to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinc- tion of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only-be- gotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared con- cerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy fathers has handed down to us. THE POST-NICENE GREEK FATHERS. EUSEBIUS. THE Father of Church History. He was born and educated in Palestine, where he was made a presbyter of the church at Cæsarea. Here he became connected with the library and school of theology founded by the presbyter Pamphilus, an enthusiastic admirer of Origen, and collector of ecclesiastical writings. His close friendship for this man gave to Eusebius his surname Pamphilus. In the persecution of Diocletian he constantly vis- ited Pamphilus in prison, and together they com- posed a work in defense of Origen. After the martyrdom of his friend, Eusebius went first to Tyre and then to Egypt, where he was himself im- prisoned, but was released without suffering bodily injury. With this escape he was afterward taunted by a bishop who, as his fellow-prisoner, had lost an eye; but this reproach seems to have been ill founded, for on his return to Cæsarea he was well received, and about A. D. 314 he was chosen bishop of that see. In this position he remained until his death, A. D. 340, having nine years before declined 3 26 POST-NICENE GREEK FATHERS. the patriarchate of Antioch. He did not need this preferment, however, to give him prominence and influence in the Church. Born about the time of Origen's death, and living until near the birth of Jerome, he was a scholar worthy to connect the author of the “Hexapla" with the author of the “Vulgate." Among his earlier works were the elaborate apologetic writings, “Evangelic Prepara- tion" and "Demonstration." These were followed before the Council of Nice by the Chronicon" and his chief work, the Church History. Either from the reputation gained by his earlier labors, or through his native talents as a courtier, he became a favorite of the Emperor Constantine, who admit- ted him to familiar personal intercourse and placed at his command the archives of the state as helps to his historical studies. On the breaking out of the Arian difficulty, Arius appealed to the Eastern bishops for support, claiming that his opinions were like their own. Some of them, under the leader- ship of Eusebius of Nicomedia, wrote to Alexan- der in behalf of Arius. Among these was Euse- bius of Cæsarea, of whose support of Arius Alex- ander complains somewhat bitterly. But, while as- senting to the views which Arius at first pro- pounded, Eusebius did not assume a position an- tagonistic to the Church. When the council con- vened at Nice, he held a mediate position between the parties of Alexander and Arius, and made an address to the emperor in the name of the whole synod. It was he also who submitted the first draft of the symbol adopted by the council, the only important addition to his language being the EUSEBIUS. 27 phrases "very God of very God” and “of one substance with the Father." Though demurring to these expressions, he subscribed the symbol, wrote to his church that the council was substantially in accord with their own confession, and never after- ward repudiated the Nicene faith. He did not, however, sympathize with Athanasius, and in con- sequence was denounced by some of the later fathers as an Arian, particularly by Jerome, who called him the ringleader of those heretics. This charge is palpably untrue, and, had it come from a less learned and more candid man than Jerome, might have arisen from the confusing of the two Eusebii. Eusebius of Nicomedia was an extreme Arian who avowed doctrines far in advance of those first propounded by Arius and approved by the bishop of Cæsarea. The doctrinal position of the latter has been characterized as chameleon- hued," "a mirror of the unsolved problems of the Church of that age.” If he is classified at all, we should place him in the right wing of the Arianizing party, which in time separated from the radicals and was known as semi-Arian. Of this party Athanasius came to speak as “ blessed and truly religious men," " brothers who mean what we mean and dispute only about the word [ouooúolov].” Most of these went over in time into full accord with the Catholic bishops. We may define the general posi- tion of the Catholics and semi-Arians by saying that, until the traditional doctrines of the Church as defined at Nice had been scientifically examined and approved by the reason and faith of the fourth century, the semi-Arians always approached these 28 POST-NICENE GREEK FATHERS. doctrines from the side of reason, the Athanasians from the side of faith. Their ultimate agreement was assured by the substantial truth of the Nicene utterance; but such agreement could not come until the doctrines were thought through. It is noticeable that the above language of Athanasius was used as late as A. D. 356. Had Eusebius lived until the period of Gregory Nyssa, he and Gregory and Athanasius would doubtless have been brothers who not only meant, but also said, the same things. THE EVANGELICAL PREPARATION. The object of this work, which is in fifteen books, is to predispose the thoughtful to receive the Christian religion by dissipating their pagan preju- dices. The first six books are employed in demol- ishing the pagan systems of religion, which the au- thor shatters by his learned elucidations. The pure and reasonable character of the Christian theology and the blessings which the faith has brought to the world are set forth in contrast with the absurd teachings of polytheism. This system Eusebius first traces back to its cradle among the Egyptians, whose alleged antiquity he attacks as chimerical, affirming that their annals are based upon a gross interpolation of Scripture records. He then fol- lows the system as it spread among the Greeks and the other peoples of the world. He confutes the argument of pagans from the predictions of their oracles; and combats the doctrine of a fatality or destiny stronger than the gods themselves, oppos- ing to it the principle of human freedom. Then comes an examination of the Hebrew legislation in comparison with that of the other nations, the legis- lator of the chosen people being shown to be the Sovereign Author and Creator of all things. The EUSEBIUS. 29 remaining books oppose to the extravagance of paganism the Christian faith, which is first viewed in its origin as the religion of the Hebrews. Its wisdom is made to appear by showing the purity and sublimity of its dogmas upon the unity of God, the immortality of the soul, etc.; the character of the Mosaic law, which was confessedly only figura- tive and preparatory; and the holiness of the patri- archs, prophets, and Essenes. The most celebrated men among the Greeks have borne honorable wit- ness to this faith; and philosophers, among others Plato, have borrowed from it some of their dogmas. Three books are occupied in tracing Plato's indebt- edness to Scripture, and the conclusion is reached that this philosopher teaches truthfully only when he copies; left to himself he abounds in errors. The fourteenth and fifteenth books examine the other leading writers of antiquity, showing how they oppose and contradict one another. From ali this the author concludes that Christians are right in abandoning a false theology in favor of that of the Jews. THE EVANGELICAL DEMONSTRATION. Ten only of the twenty books of this work are extant. The exordium declares that the Christian religion is established by the prophecies which fore- told the birth at Bethlehem, the sufferings and death of Christ; and announced the establishment and marvelous propagation of Christianity. In the first book the author proves that the law of the Jews was given for one only nation, while the New Testament is for all people in the world; and that the religion of the patriarchs did not differ from that of Christians, both having the same God and the same Word whom they adore. This is confirmed, says the second book, by prophecies ap- 30 POST-NICENE GREEK FATHERS. plicable only to Jesus Christ. In book three Christ is shown to be the Saviour of the world; and that he was no seducer is proved by his doctrines and his miracles. Book four proves that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; sets forth the reason why he became man; explains the name Christ"; and shows how the prophecies and other scriptures, as well as the events of Jewish history and the cere- monies of the Mosaic ritual, looked forward to him. Then we are shown how, before his advent, the pre- cise time of his appearing was predicted, his ances- tors were designated, the place of his birth was fixed, his forerunner was spoken of, the mission of his apostles was characterized, and the circum- stances of the treason of one of them were noted. Christ, having fulfilled all these prophecies, is proved to be the true Messiah, and there is no ex- cuse for the incredulity of the synagogue. The extant books end with the words of Christ upon the cross, the ten lost books having cited the prophe- cies concerning his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, and concerning the conversion of the Gentiles. Of these two books Du Pin says: “The ‘Evangelical Preparation' and Demonstration' are the largest work that has been made by any of the ancients upon this subject; where a man may find more proofs, testimonies, and argu- ments for the truth of the Christian religion than in any other. They are very proper to instruct and convince all those that sincerely search after truth. In fine, Eusebius has omitted nothing which might serve to undeceive men of a false religion or convince them of the true.” ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. This first of church histories was written before the Council of Nice. The work must not be judged by modern canons of the historic art; nor is its value to be gauged by its literary merit, in which EUSEBIUS. 31 respect it illustrates what has been said of the early ecclesiastical literature as a whole. It is, how- ever, a well-filled store-house of the facts and doc- uments out of which history is made. To appreci- ate its value rightly, we must imagine that the book had perished during the dark ages, and think of the gap which it would have left in our knowledge of the Church from the last days of Paul to the con- version of Constantine. Eusebius himself was not unaware of the importance of his labors. Announc- ing the subject of his book-to recount the suc- cession of the apostles and the important transac- tions of the Church; to notice her distinguished individuals and the characters of the innovators; as well as to set forth the calamities of the Jews and the progress of the Church through hostility and martyrdom-he says that he is the first to enter this broad field, and that he has culled his materi- als from the writers of the past, with the purpose of rescuing them from oblivion. Nor was this Father of Church History inappreciative of the lofty nature of the subject upon which he was entering. For he begins, not on a terrestrial level, nor in cloudy myths, but by treating boldly of the Son of God, existing before the worlds, whose ad- vent and advancing work among men is his noble theme. His history consists of ten short books, or, better, chapters. Though his method may be likened to that of the first rude miner with his pan, and though he has thrown away unknown wealth and preserved some earth, the sands were so rich and the heavier nuggets were so easily gathered that these chapters are invaluable. Among other topics treated are the movements of the more prom- inent apostles in founding the leading churches; the succession of bishops in these churches; various ecclesiastical writings; the persecutions of the Church, and her martyrs; the demolition of the 32 POST-NICENE. GREEK FATHERS. churches under Diocletian; the death of the ene- mies of the Church; and her relief and exaltation under Constantine. The design of our books makes it unnecessary to characterize further the Ecclesiastical History, since happily it is an excep- tion among patristic writings in being accessible to all, and in the possession of most persons who are much interested in the early Church. List of Eusebius's most Important Works now extant. HISTORICAL. The “Chronicon," a summary univer- sal history, giving chronological tables and a sketch of the most important historical events from Abraham to Con- stantine, a work of much value for the study of ancient history. The “Ecclesiastical History." Life of Con- stantine,” a work in four books, of which the “Panegyric may be called a fifth; indeed, the whole is a panegyric rather than a biography. APOLOGETIC AND DOGMATIC. " Preparatio Evangelica.” “Demonstratio Evangelica. Book against Hierarchs," written in refutation of a work against the Christians, published at the outbreak of the Diocletian persecution, and one of the last attempts to brand Christianity by comparing its author to Apollonius of Tyana. Against Marcellus,” and “On the Doctrine of the Church. In opposing Arianism, Marcellus had virtually revived Sabellianism; and in the above works Eusebius opposes him and reasserts the hypostatical dis- tinctions. The “Theophania.” “On the Easter Festival,” a book deemed by Constantine so important that he caused its immediate translation into Latin. EXEGETICAL. Com- mentaries on “The Psalms” (voluminous), “ Isaiah” and “Luke.” The “Onomasticon," an alphabetical descrip- tion of places mentioned in the Scriptures. ATHANASIUS, THE great Trinitarian. For fifty momentous years he was the central figure in the Christian world. His history is that of the Church in the ATHANASIUS. 33 most critical period of its existence, when it united its interests with an empire, and hazarded the truth in gaining outward prosperity. Hazarded, but did not lose ; for, during these years, above soldiers and above emperors, stood forth the grand figure of this champion of the truth. As in the coalition the em- peror was the state, so practically Athanasius was the church, until the relations of church and state had been so far adjusted that the church could not be absorbed or made a mere department of the state. Human annals record no life more abso- lutely devoted to a simple principle. Fifty years of battling and exile, the forces of an empire against him, and all for an