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