[324] See Gibbon, c. xviii. vol. ii. p. 370.
[325] Dict. Chr. Biogr. "Athanasius," p. 190, note; Hefele, Councils, §§ 58, 66, 67.
[326] Cat. vi. § 27.
[327] Rell. Sac. v. p. 12.
[328] Hist. Eccles. vii. c. 19.
[329] Ep. 61 (al. 38). Cf. Ben. Ed. Praeloq. ad Cat. iv. pp. 49, 50.
[330] Dict. Chr. Antiq. "Lectionary," p. 958 b.
Chapter X.--The Creed of Jerusalem: Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
§ 1. The Creed. The ancient Creed which was used by the Church of Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth Century, and which Cyril expounded in his Catechetical Lectures, was recited by him to the Catechumens at the end of the fifth Lecture, to be committed to memory, but not to be written out on paper (§ 12). Accordingly it is not found in any of the MSS., but instead of it the Nicene Creed with the Anathema is there inserted in Codd. Roe, Casaub. This could only have been added after Cyril's time, when the motives for secrecy had ceased.
The Creed which Cyril really taught and expounded may be gathered from various passages in the Lectures themselves, and especially from the Titles prefixed to them.
With the Creed of Jerusalem thus ascertained, it will be instructive to compare the Nicene formula, and for this purpose we print them in parallel columns.
CREED OF S. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.
CREED OF NICÆA.
From S. Athanasius, De Decretis Fidei Nicænæ.
Pisteuomen eis hena Theon [331] ,
Patera [332] Pantokratora [333] ,
Poieten ouranou kai ges
Oraton te panton kai aoraton [334] .
Kai eis hena Kurion 'Iesoun Christon [335] ,
ton Pshion tou Theou
ton Monogene,
ton ek tou Patros gennethenta,
Theon alethinon
pro panton ton aionon,
di' hou ta panta egeneto [336] ,
ton sarkothenta kai enanthropesanta [337] ,
staurothenta kai taphenta [338] ,
kai anastanta ek nekron te trite hemera,
kai anelthonta eis tous ouranous,
kai kathisanta ek dexion tou Patros [339] ,
kai palin erchomenon en doxe
krinai zontas kai nekrous,
hou tes basileias ouk estai telos [340] .
Kai eis hen hagion Pneuma
ton Parakleton,
to lalesan en tois prophetais [341] .
kai eis hen baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartion [342] ,
kai eis mian hagian katholiken ekklesian,
kai eis sarkos anastasin,
kai eis zoen aionion [343] .
Pisteuomen eis hena Theon,
Patera pantokratora,
panton horaton te
kai aoraton poieten,
kai eis hena Kurion 'Iesoun Christon,
ton Pshion tou Theou,
gennethenta ek tou Patros monogene,
toutestin ek tes ousias tou Patros,
Theon ek Theou, phos ek photos. Theon alethinon ek Theou alethinou,
gennethenta ou toiethenta, homoousion to Patri,
di' hou ta panta egeneto,
ta te en to ourano kai ta epi tes ges,
ton di' hemas tous anthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soterian [344]
katelthonta kai sarkothenta, enanthropesanta, pathonta,
kai anastanta te trite hemera,
anelthonta eis ouranous,
kai erchomenon
krinai zontas kai nekrous,
kai eis to hagion Pneuma.
Tous de legontas; en pote hote ouk en, kai trin gennethenai ouk en, kai hoti ex ouk onton egeneto, e ex heteras hupostaseos e ousias phaskontas einai e ktiston e trepton e alloioton ton Pshion tou Theou. anathematizei he katholike ekklesia.
§ 2. Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. "The doctrinal position of S. Cyril is admirably described, and his orthodoxy vindicated by Cardinal Newman in the following passage of his Preface to the Lectures in the Library of the Fathers. "There is something very remarkable and even startling to the reader of S. Cyril, to find in a divine of his school such a perfect agreement, for instance as regards the doctrine of the Trinity, with those Fathers who in his age were more famous as champions of it. Here is a writer, separated by whatsoever cause from what, speaking historically, may be called the Athanasian School, suspicious of its adherents, and suspected by them; yet he, when he comes to explain himself, expresses precisely the same doctrine as that of Athanasius or Gregory, while he merely abstains from the particular theological term in which the latter Fathers agreeably to the Nicene Council conveyed it. Can we have a clearer proof that the difference of opinion between them was not one of ecclesiastical and traditionary doctrine, but of practical judgment? that the Fathers at Nicæa wisely considered that, under the circumstances, the word in question was the only symbol which would secure the Church against the insidious heresy which was assailing it, while S. Cyril, with Eusebius of Cæsarea, Meletius and others shrank from it, at least for a while, as if an addition to the Creed, or a word already taken into the service of an opposite heresy, and likely to introduce into the Church heretical notions? Their judgment, which was erroneous, was their own; their faith was not theirs only, but shared with them by the whole Christian world [345] ."
In regard to the doctrine of the Trinity in general the two great heresies which distracted the Church in S. Cyril's day were Sabellianism and Arianism, the one "confounding the Persons," the other "dividing the substance" of the indivisible Unity of the Godhead. Both these opposite errors Cyril condemns with equal energy: "Do thou neither separate the Son from the Father, nor by making a confusion believe in a Son-Fatherhood [346] ." Again he says: "Our hope is in Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost. We preach not three Gods: let the Marcionites be silenced; but with the Holy Ghost through One Son we preach One God. The Faith is indivisible; the worship inseparable. We neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some (that is the Arians); nor do we, as Sabellius, work confusion [347] ." "He says not, I am the Father, but the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father. And again He said not, I and the Father am one, but, I and the Father are One, that we should neither separate them, nor make a confusion of Son-Father [348] ."
In the sequel of this last passage Cyril proceeds to argue that this unity of the Father and the Son lies in their Nature, "since God begat God," in their Kingdom [349] , in their Will [350] , and in their joint Creation [351] , thus at each step rejecting some prominent heretical tenet.
The question, however, of Cyril's orthodoxy depends especially upon his supposed opposition to the Creed of Nicæa, of which no evidence is alleged except his attendance at the Council of Seleucia, and the absence from his Lectures of the word homoousion.
The purpose of Cyril's attendance at Seleucia was to appeal against his deposition by Acacius, and there is apparently no evidence of his having taken part in the doctrinal discussions, or signed the Creed of Antioch [352] . What is certain is that Cyril's bitterest enemies who refused to sit with him in the Council were Acacius and his Arian allies, who expressly rejected both homoousios and homoiousios and "altogether denied the Nicene formula and censured the Council, while the others, who were the majority, accepted the whole proceedings of the Council, except that they complained of the word Co-essential,' as obscure, and so open to suspicion [353] ." It thus appears that Cyril's friends at Seleucia were partly those who approved the word " Co-essential," and partly those of whom Athanasius speaks as "brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word [354] ." It needed in fact the profound insight of an Athanasius to foresee that in the end that word must triumph over all opposition, and be accepted by the Universal Church as the one true safeguard of the Christian Faith. Meanwhile it was the standard round which debate, and strife, and hatred, and persecution, were to rage for fifty years with unexampled fury.
Was Cyril to be blamed, ought he not rather to be commended, for not introducing such a war-cry into the exposition of an ancient Creed, in which it had no place, the Creed of his own Church, the Mother of all the Churches, whose Faith he as a youthful Presbyter was commissioned to teach to the young Candidates for Baptism?
But if we compare his doctrine with that of the Nicene formula, we shall find that, as Dr. Newman says, "His own writings are most exactly orthodox, though he does not in the Catechetical Lectures use the word homoousion [355] ."
The first point to be noticed in the comparison is the use of the title "Son of God." For this Eusebius in his Creed had substituted "Word of God." Athanasius explains the significance of the change: "Uniting the two titles, Scripture speaks of Son' in order to herald the natural and true offspring of His essence (ousias); and on the other hand that none may think of the offspring as human, in again indicating His essence it calls Him Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance, for from this we infer that the generation was impassible (apathes), and eternal, and becoming to God [356] ."
Cyril is here in full accord with Athanasius: in his Creed he found "Son of God," and in his exposition he states that the Father is "by nature and in truth Father of One only, the Only-begotten Son [357] :" "One they are because of the dignity pertaining to the Godhead, since God begat God [358] :" "The Son then is Very God, having the Father in Himself, not changed into the Father [359] ." When he says that the Son is in all things like (homoios en pasin) to Him who begat Him; begotten Life of Life, and Light of Light, Power of Power, God of God, and the characteristics of the Godhead are unchangeable (aparallaktoi ) in the Son [360] ," he is using in all good faith the very words of the orthodox Bishops at Nicæa, "homoion te kai aparallakton auton kata panta to Patri [361] ."
The further significance which Athanasius ascribes to the title "Logos," is also expressed fully and repeatedly by Cyril: "Whenever thou hearest of God begetting, sink not down in thought to bodily things, nor think of a corruptible generation, lest thou be guilty of impiety [362] ."
The "passionless generation," to which so much importance was attached at Nicæa and by Athanasius, is also asserted by Cyril when he says that God "became a Father not by passion (ou pathei Pater genomenos) [363] ." The eternal generation is most emphatically declared again and again: the Son, he says, "began not His existence in time, but was before all ages eternally and incomprehensibly begotten of the Father; the Wisdom, and the Power of God, and His Righteousness personally subsisting [364] :" "Throughout His being (ex houper en), a being by eternal generation, He holds His royal dignity, and shares His Father's seat [365] ." Believe that of One God there is One Only-begotten Son, who is before all ages God the Word; not the uttered word diffused into the air, nor to be likened to impersonal words; but the Word, the Son, Maker of all who partake of reason, the Word who heareth the father, and Himself speaketh [366] ."
The importance of such language is better understood when we remember that Marcellus, "another head of the dragon lately sprung up in Galatia [367] ," entirely rejected the word "Begotten," as implying a beginning, and "contradicting the eternity of the Logos, so distinctly proclaimed by S. John." An eternal generation, as stated by Athanasius and others, was to him unimaginable. The Logos in His pre-existence was unbegotten, and could not be called Son, but only the Logos invested with human nature was Son of God and begotten [368] ." These heretical opinions of Marcellus had been condemned in several Councils within a few years preceding Cyril's Lectures.
The next supposed proof of Cyril's opposition to the Nicene doctrine is that he has not adopted in his Lectures the phrases "of the essence (ousias) of the Father," and "of one essence (homoousion) with the Father." This omission is the chief ground of the reproaches cast upon the memory of Cyril by the writers of Ecclesiastical History; for this he was described by Jerome as an Arian, and by Rufinus as a waverer, while his formal acceptance of the terms used at Nicæa is called by Socrates and Sozomen an act of repentance. By others he was denounced as 'Areianophron because he had addressed his letter to Constantius as "the most religious king," and never used the word homoousion in his Lectures.
We shall be better able to estimate the justice of these reproaches, if we consider first the history of these words ousia and homoousios, and the reasons which Cyril may have had for not employing them in the instruction of youthful Candidates for Baptism.
It is strange to find that seven hundred years before the great controversy at Nicæa on the introduction of the word Ousia into the Creed, it had been the war-cry of almost as fierce a conflict between rival schools of philosophy.
"There appears," says Plato in the person of the Eleatic stranger, "to be a sort of war of the giants going on between them because of the dispute concerning ousia. Some of them are dragging all things down from heaven and from the invisible to earth, grasping rocks and oaks in their hands; for of all such things they lay hold, in obstinately maintaining that what can be touched and handled alone has being (einai), because they define being' and body' as one; and if any one else says that what is not a body has being, they altogether despise him, and will hear of nothing but body....Therefore their opponents cautiously defend themselves from above out of some invisible world, mightily contending that certain intelligible and incorporeal ideas are the true essence (ousian) [369] ."