Part 7: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-evolution-of-early-christian_01643517408.html
In the last post, we looked at the disputes between the Western and Eastern Church which arose after the Council of Nicaea, and the creeds which were produced as a result of this conflict. These creeds show that trinitarianism was by no means the majority opinion, even decades after the Council of Nicaea (which was never intended to advocate trinitarianism anyway). By the year 361, this conflict still showed no signs of being resolved, and subordinationism was still the majority position in both the East and the West. How, then, was this conflict resolved in favor of trinitarianism only twenty years later? That is the question that we will try to answer in this final post on the history of early Christian theology.
The Cappadocian theologians
During the 360s and 370s, several new and influential trinitarian theologians began to crop up in the West and the East, in the tradition of Athanasius of Alexandria. In the West, one such theologian was Ambrose the bishop of Milan, who argued that the Son was equal to the Father (De fide 4.78-96) and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together comprised one God (De fide 1.6-10). In the East, one such theologian was Epiphanius the bishop of Salamis, who argued the same (Panarion 51.21.30; 62.3.8; 76.18.7-9, 54.4-6). However, arguably the most influential trinitarians in the East during this period were the three ‘Cappadocian Fathers’: Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus.
The Cappadocian theologians were strong advocates of trinitarianism who argued at length for the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and their single Godhood. The first, Basil of Caesarea, was particularly influential. Basil was initially a Homoiousian, and attended the 360 Council of Constantinople in the entourage of leading ‘semi-Arian’ Basil of Ancyra. [1] However, he became a pro-Nicene trinitarian by the influence of his mentor Dianius, the bishop of Caesarea, who died in 362. [2] Finally, in 370/1, he became bishop of Caesarea, and spent the rest of his life fighting for the reconciliation of East and West and the acceptance of trinitarianism.
Basil of Caesarea was a firm believer in the equality of the Son with the Father, unlike the subordinationists who (at the time) were the majority party in the East. This can be seen in the second chapter of his book On Faith (De fide), which articulates the relationship between the Father and the Son:
The Father is the principle of all, the cause of being for whatever exists, the root of the living. From him proceeded the source of life; the Wisdom, the Power, and the indistinguishable Image of the invisible God; the Son who was begotten from the Father; the living Logos; He who is both God and with God; He who exists essentially; He who exists before the ages, not a late addition; He who is Son, not something possessed; He who is Maker, not something made; He who is Creator, not a creature; who is everything that the Father is...
Therefore, the very designation “Son” teaches us that He shares in the nature [of the Father], not created by a command but having shone forth from the Father’s substance and been conjoined to Him instantaneously beyond all time, His equal in goodness, His equal in power, sharing in His glory. And indeed what is He but the seal and image that reveals within Himself the whole Father?
Basil also argued that the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son in his book On the Holy Spirit (10.24; 17.41-43). With regard to the relationship between the three Persons, Basil says that they comprise one ousia and three hypostases, and that the relationship of ousia to hypostasis is like the relationship of “living being” to a “particular human” (Ep. 236.6). In other words, the three share the essential characteristic of being God, but are three separate existences.
Basil also argued at length that his belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate and co-equal was not polytheism. Consider the following passages from his On the Holy Spirit and Against Sabellius:
For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to multitude, and saying one, two, and three; nor first, second, and third. For “I, God, am the first, and I am the last.” [Isaiah 44:6] And we have never, even at the present time, heard of a second God... We do not fritter away the theology in a divided plurality, because one Form, so to say, united in the invariableness of the Godhood, is beheld in God the Father, and in God the Only-begotten.
For the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; since such as is the latter, such is the former, and such as is the former, such is the latter; and here is the Unity. So that according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the community of the Nature, one. How, then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. (On the Holy Spirit 18.45)
For even if they are two in number, they are not disjoined in nature. Nor does anyone who says “two” introduce estrangement [between them]. There is one God because there is one Father. But the Son is also God, and there are not two Gods because the Son has identity with the Father. For I do not behold one Godhood in the Father and another in the Son; nor is one nature this and the other that. So then, in order to make clear for you the distinctness of the Persons, count the Father by Himself and the Son by Himself, but in order to avoid secession into polytheism, confess one essence in both. In this way both Sabellius [modalism] falls and the Anhomoian shatters. (Against Sabellius 3)
In Basil’s view, like that of the subordinationists and earlier Logos theorists, the Father is most properly called “God.” However, the Son is also essentially God by virtue of being the Son and Image of the Father. Thus, there is only one God (the Father) but the Son and the Holy Spirit are also God because they share the entire essence of His Godhood. In this way, Basil believes that he has preserved monotheism while also affirming the separateness and co-equality of the three Persons — although it’s questionable whether this actually removes the charge of polytheism.
The second Cappadocian theologian was Gregory of Nyssa, the brother of Basil of Caesarea. Gregory was mentored and taught by his older brother Basil, and was ordained bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia by him in the year 372. He was convicted of maladministration by a council of Homoian ‘Arians’ in 375, deposed by a synod at Nyssa in 376, and exiled by the anti-Nicene Eastern emperor Valens; however, he was allowed to return to his episcopate upon the death of Valens in 378. [3] Gregory was a prolific writer and wrote many treatises on the Trinity (over against subordinationism), most notably his book Against Eunomius.
Gregory of Nyssa’s theology is identical to that of Basil. He states that the Son and Holy Spirit are not lesser than the Father, and says, “we know of no differences by way of superiority or inferiority of attributes in the Divine nature” (On the Holy Trinity). In On the Holy Spirit and On the Faith, he argues that the Holy Spirit is fully divine and in no way inferior to the Father and the Son. With regard to the relationships between the Persons, he says that the one ousia is like the general descriptor “human” and the three hypostases are analogous to specific humans, such as “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy” (Ep. 38.1-3). [4] In other words, like his brother Basil, Gregory believed that the three share the essence of being God, but are three separate existences.
This reasonably opens Gregory’s theology up to the charge of tritheism. After all, if the one ousia is like the characteristic of being human, and the three hypostases are like three human persons, but three human persons are considered to be three humans, then doesn’t this mean that the three Persons are three Gods? Gregory responds to this accusation in his short treatise On “Not Three Gods.” In this writing, he argues that multiple human persons (for example, Luke and Stephen) should actually be considered one human, because of the shared ousia of humanity! It is merely an “abuse of language,” he says, to refer to more than one person as more than one ‘human.’ Therefore, the three Persons are properly considered one God. This is a very strange argument, and as with Basil, it is questionable whether it actually removes the charge of polytheism from Gregory of Nyssa’s theology.
The third Cappadocian theologian was Gregory of Nazianzus, who was a close friend of Basil of Caesarea. Gregory was ordained as bishop of Sasima by Basil in 372, but disliked his episcopate and fled to a mountain retreat. He returned to Nazianzus in 373 to help his ailing father, where he took over the episcopal duties; but when the people tried to declare him bishop in 374, he fled again to a monastery where he remained until 378. [5] He returned again in 379 when he heard that Basil was dying, and read the eulogy at his funeral. That same year, a council at Antioch asked him to go to Constantinople to convert the people to trinitarianism, to which he reluctantly agreed. Finally, he was declared archbishop of Constantinople (i.e., de facto religious leader of the East) by the pro-Nicene emperor Theodosius I in 380.
Gregory of Nazianzen’s theology was somewhat different than that of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa. He agreed that all members of the Trinity were co-eternal and co-equal — “in the Trinity there is nothing created, nor in servitude, nor accidental... for in the one-in-essence Persons there is nothing greater or less with regard to essence” (Oration 40.42). However, rather than trying to articulate the relationships between the Persons, he instead argued that the Divine essence is unknowable, and so it is futile to try to know how He, paradoxically, comprises three hypostases (Orations 28.6ff; 29.3; 38.7-8; 40.41). When describing God as the Trinity, he says the following:
One Godhood and Power, found in the Three in unity, and comprising the Three separately, not unequal in essences or natures, neither increased nor diminished by superiorities or inferiorities; in every respect equal, in every respect the same; just as the beauty and greatness of the heavens is one; the infinite conjunction of Three infinite Ones, each God when considered by Himself; just as the Father, so also the Son, and just as the Son so also the Holy Spirit; the Three, One God when considered together; each God because one-in-essence; One God because of the Monarchy.
No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illuminated by the splendor of the Three; no sooner to I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three, I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and most of what I am thinking escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of that One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the Rest. When I contemplate the Three together, I see only one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light. (Oration 40.41)
As you can clearly see from this passage, Gregory of Nazianzus does not even make an attempt to explicate a logically coherent doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, he simply accepts it as a beautiful, paradoxical, incomprehensible ‘mystery.’
In summary, the three Cappadocian theologians all had a clearly trinitarian theology, and their influence was integral to the acceptance of trinitarianism in the East. Basil of Caesarea had a theology very similar to modern-day ‘social trinitarianism,’ that is, the belief that the three Persons of the Trinity are three different divine selves who comprise one God by virtue of their shared essential characteristic of being God. Gregory of Nyssa had the same theology, using the analogy of three human persons with a shared ‘human nature’ to describe the three Persons. When defending against the charge of polytheism, he argued, strangely, that multiple human persons should actually be considered one human. The third Cappadocian, Gregory of Nazianzus, does not even try to articulate a doctrine of the Trinity, but accepts it as paradoxical and incomprehensible.
Further attempts at reconciliation (362 - 379)
Now that we have examined the theology of the ‘Cappadocian Fathers,’ we can return to looking at the history of the post-Nicene conflict between East and West. As we saw in the last post, there was a sincere attempt at reconciliation from 357 to 360, culminating in the 360 Council of Constantinople when the subordinationist Creed of Nike-Thrace was accepted as an ecumenical creed. However, this attempt at peace suffered a severe setback upon the death of the anti-Nicene emperor Constantius II, when violent conflict erupted in the streets of Alexandria (where the ‘Arian controversy’ first began).
Following his third exile, Athanasius was re-established as bishop of Alexandria by a council in 362, only a few months after the ‘Arian’ bishop George was put to death by a mob of Athanasius’ supporters. Athanasius was exiled again by the pagan emperor Julian in October of the same year, but was allowed to return by Julian’s successor Jovian in 363. Jovian, who was firmly pro-Nicene, called another council of 20 bishops to Antioch where the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed. However, Jovian died in February 364 and was succeeded by Valens, an anti-Nicene.
The doctrinal conflict between East and West continued after the accession of Valens. In 365, a council was convened at Lampsacus, composed of Eastern supporters of the late Basil of Ancyra. This council denounced the creed of the 360 Council of Constantinople and instead supported the Dedication Creed of Antioch (see previous post), advocating the use of the word homoiousios (“like in essence”). Another council in Antioch in 367 also supported the Dedication Creed, denouncing the Nicene Creed. In the West, the pro-Nicene party continued to be the majority, as evidenced by the 369 Council of Rome and the 370 Council of Alexandria which both advocated the Nicene Creed over against the Dedication Creed.
In the early 370s, several failed attempts at reconciliation were made by the Cappadocian theologian Basil of Caesarea. He sent several letters to Athanasius of Alexandria, [6] but despite their agreement on trinitarian theology, his letters were ignored. Basil then sent two letters (Epp. 90; 92) to the bishops of the West, but the bishop of Rome, Damasus, refused to accept them and sent back a letter requiring Basil to sign a statement of faith. Feeling somewhat insulted, Basil refused to sign the statement, but he continued expressing his desire for peace (Ep. 156).
Despite Damasus’ rejection, in 374, spurred on by Valens’ persecution of pro-Nicenes like himself, Basil sent another letter to the Western bishops asking them to petition the Western emperor Valentinian I for help (Ep. 243). Unfortunately, this too was ignored by Damasus, who again sent back a letter (titled Ea gratia) with a trinitarian statement of faith for Basil to sign. [7] Finally, in 377, Basil sent a defiant letter asking the Western bishops to write to all those in the East with whom they disagreed, in a final attempt at reconciliation (Ep. 263). Unfortunately, any response to this letter — if there was one — has not survived.
In spite of the failure of Basil’s attempts at reconciliation, a consensus was slowly beginning to grow between the West and the East in favor of the Nicene Creed and trinitarianism. This was largely as a result of the evangelism of the Cappadocian theologians. In 376, a council at Iconium in Asia Minor concluded in favor of the Nicene Creed and condemned those who denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. Another council at Antioch in 379, which was attended by about 150 participants including Gregory of Nyssa, drafted a (lost) pro-Nicene creed that included anti-‘Arian’ statements. However, there still remained a large (perhaps majority) Homoiousian party in the East, as evidenced by the 378 Council of Carian Antioch which condemned homoousios in favor of homoiousios.
The conclusion of the conflict (380/1)
By the end of the 370s, the conflict between the Western and Eastern Church was beginning to decrease, but only gradually. However, political factors would soon forcefully bring this controversy to an end. On August 9, 378, the anti-Nicene Eastern emperor Valens was killed in battle, which diminished the political power of the Homoiousians and made it possible for exiled pro-Nicenes, like Gregory of Nyssa, to return to their episcopates. This was compounded by the fact that the pro-Nicene trinitarian Theodosius I became emperor of the East in early 379 (after a short interregnum).
Unlike earlier emperors, who were mostly only indirectly involved in the religious controversies of the fourth century, Theodosius I was willing to forcibly promote his favored doctrine of pro-Nicene trinitarianism. On February 27, 380, Theodosius — along with the emperor of the West, Gratian, and his coregent Valentinian II — issued the following edict, known as the Edict of Thessalonica:
Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius Augustuses. Edict to the people of Constantinople.
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our mercy and moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pope Damasus and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.
According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the singular Deity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in equal Majesty and in a Holy Trinity. We order the followers of this law to embrace the name of Catholic Christians. But as for the others, since, in our judgment they are demented and insane, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of Heretics, and shall not presume to give to their assemblies the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment of our authority which, in accordance with the will of Heaven, we shall decide to inflict.
This edict established trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Orthodoxy was to be defined by the doctrine of Pope Damasus and Peter of Alexandria (the successor to Athanasius) — that is, the single Deity and co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those who agreed with this doctrine were to be called “Catholic Christians,” while all others were officially branded “Heretics” and considered criminals by the state.
Although this was technically not yet imperial law, since there was no way to enforce it within the churches, the writing was on the wall. In November of 380, Theodosius entered Constantinople and deposed the ‘Arian’ bishop Demophilus, who chose to be exiled rather than affirm the Nicene Creed. In his place, Theophilus established the Catholic Gregory of Nazianzus as archbishop of Constantinople, making him the de facto religious leader of the East. Soon afterward, on January 10, 381, he passed another edict known as Nullis haereticis which forbade the "heretics" (that is, any non-trinitarian) from meeting publicly within any town. [8]
Having declared that all non-trinitarians were non-Christians, forbidden from meeting in any town, Theodosius called an ecumenical council to Constantinople to formalize this decree within the Church. The council was attended by about 150 pro-Nicenes. Thirty-six ‘semi-Arians’ tried to attend, but were denied admission when they refused to affirm the Nicene Creed and the homoousios — which just shows how the conclusion of the council was already decided at the outset. [9] In the end, the Nicene Creed was officially re-affirmed, and a slightly modified creed was drafted:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
And [we believe] in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one-in-essence with the Father; through Him all things were made;
for us humans, and for our salvation, He came down from heaven, was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became fully human; for our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered death and was buried. He rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father; He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.
And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who in unity with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets; and [we believe] in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Conclusion
As a result of the intervention of the Roman emperor Theodosius I, the conflict which began over sixty years prior was concluded in favor of trinitarian theology; but at what cost? If the same thing happened today, it would be considered an outrage that the government was involved in what should have been a purely religious theological debate. Trinitarianism was not even the original teaching of the church, rather, it was the newest theology, barely a century old at that time! Had Theodosius not become involved, it’s hard to say what the outcome of the ‘Arian controversy’ would have been. Due to the influence of the Cappadocians, trinitarianism would likely still have won, but not as forcefully.
In light of the fact that ‘orthodox trinitarian doctrine’ is largely ‘orthodox’ only because of political influence, and it wasn’t advocated by any known Christian writer until the third or fourth century, should we really accept it unquestioningly? Or should we return to the actual texts of the New Testament to see what the earliest Christians really believed about the nature of God and Jesus? If you are a Protestant, the answer should be obvious; if you are Catholic or Orthodox, the question is still a legitimate one. Since trinitarianism simply did not exist until the late third century, it cannot have been revealed by God in the first century, nor taught by Jesus and his disciples.
______________________________
[1] Anthony Meredith, The Cappadocians (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1995), 22.
[2] R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1988), 680.
[3] R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 715-716.
[4] With regard to Basil’s Epistle 38 being attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, see J. Zachhuber, “Again: The 38th Letter of Basil of Caesarea as the work of Gregory of Nyssa,” ZAC 7, no. 1 (2003), 73-90; Giulio Maspero et al., “Who Wrote Basil’s Epistula 38? A Possible Answer through Quantitative Analysis,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Contra Eunomium III, eds. Johan Leemans and Matthieu Cassin (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 579-594.
[5] R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 702-703.
[6] Epp. 61; 66; 67; 69; 80; 82.
[7] R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 758.
[8] See a translation of Nullis haereticis here.
[9] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 5.8.5-10; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 7.7.2-5.
[10] R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 812-815.
Awesome end to an awesome series, Andrew! Can't wait to see what you do next.
ReplyDelete