chistory_trinity2
THE PROBLEM OF THE TRINITY
AND THE SON
INTRODUCTION
The end of the third century marked the close of the first great phase of trinitarian doctrinal development. The second phase begins with the flaring up of Arianism and culminates in the formulation of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity at The Council of Nicaea. At the beginning of Arianism, the problem of the Trinity seems not be directly involved. The theological issue involved with the rise of Arianism was, or seem to be, a more narrow one, that is, what is the status of the Word and what is His relationship to the Godhead? Was He fully divine, in the precise sense of the term, and therefore was He really akin to the Father? Or was He after all a creature, superior no doubt to the rest of creation, even by courtesy designated divine, but all the same separated by an unbridgable chasm from the Godhead? But once these questions had been raised, in the course of the controversy, the further question of what Christians meant by the divine Triad could not be evaded.
It all began in A.D. 318 when Arius, a presbyter over the church district of Baucalis in Alexandria, began to publish his understanding of the Person of Christ. Our chief sources of information about his ideas are some letters of his own and such fragments of his Thalia, or “Banquet”, a popular medley of prose and verse, that Athanasius has preserved in his own polemical writings. Arius was a bright scholar who had been trained at the theological school of Antioch, which was then one of the greatest centers of Aristotelian philosophy, as well as being the home of an ancient church. Arius was well read in the Scriptures and deeply traditional in his thinking. The fundamental premise of his system is the affirmation of the absolute uniqueness and transcendence of God, the unoriginate source (ayennetos arche) of all reality. According to the authoritative, though diplomatically worded, profession of faith which he sent to Bishop Alexander, Arius states,
“We acknowledge one God, Who is alone ingenerate (agenneton, i.e., self-existent), alone eternal, alone without beginning (anarchon), alone true, alone possessing immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, alone judge of all, etc.” [1]
Since it is unique, transcendent and indivisible, the being or essence (ousia) of the Godhead cannot be shared or communicated. For God to impart His substance to some other being, however exalted, would imply that He is divisible (diairetos) and subject to change (treptos), which is inconceivable. Moreover, if any other being were to participate in the divine nature in any valid sense, there would result a duality of divine beings, whereas the Godhead is by definition unique. Therefore, whatever exists must have come into existence, not by any communication of God’s being, but by an act of creation on His part, that is, must have been called into existence out of nothing. From this uncompromising premise, four propositions follow logically. [2]
1. First, the Word must be creature, a ktisma or poiema, Whom the Father has formed out of nothing by His mere fiat. The term “begat” (gennan) applied to the generation of the Word must therefore bear the purely figurative sense of “make” (poiein). To suggest that the Son is an emanation from (probole), or a consubstantial portion (meros homoousion) of the Father, is to reduce the Godhead to physical categories.
2. Second, as a creature, the Word must have had a beginning. Arius protests in one of his letters, “We are persecuted, because we say the Son has a beginning whereas God is without beginning.” In the same letter, Arius writes: “He came into existence before the times and the ages” –inevitably so, because He is the creator of time itself, no less than of everything else belonging to the world of contingency. Nevertheless, although “born outside time (achronos gennetheis) … prior to His generation, He did not exist”. Hence, the familiar, monotonously repeated Arian slogan, “There was when He was not” (en pote hote ouk en). The orthodox suggestion that the Word was in the strict sense eternal, that is, co-eternal with the Father, seemed to Arius to entail presupposing “two self-existent principles” (duo agennatous archas), which spelt the destruction of monotheism. [3]
3. Third, the Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct knowledge of, His Father. Although He is God’s Word and Wisdom, He is distinct from that Word and that Wisdom which belong to God’s own very essence; He is a creature pure and simple, and only bears these titles because He participated in the essential Word and Wisdom. In Himself He is, like all other creatures, “alien from and utterly dissimilar to the Father’s essence and individual being” (allotrios kai anamoios kata panta tes tou patrpos ousias kai idiotetos). [3] Being finite, therefore, and of a different order of existence, He cannot comprehend the infinite God. Arius remarks,
“The Father remains ineffable to the Son, and the Word can neither see nor know the Father perfectly and accurately … but what He knows and sees, He knows and sees proportionately to His capacity, just as our knowledge is adapted to our powers”. [4]
4. Fourth, the Son must be liable to change and even sin (treptos; alloiotos). At a conference, one of the Arians, surprised by a sudden question, admitted that He might have fallen as the Devil fell, and this was what they in their heart of hearts believed. Their official teaching, however, was a tactful modification of this teaching to the effect that, while the Son’s nature was in principle peccable and sinful, God in His providence foresaw that He would remain virtuous by His own steadfast resolution, and therefore bestowed this grace on Him in advance. [4]
The Arians might be asked in what sense could the Word be called God, or indeed the Son of God. Their answer was that these were courtesy titles. Arius wrote,
“Even if he is called God, He is not God truly, but by participation in grace (metoche charistos) … He too is called God in name only.” [5]
Similarly, it is by grace that He is designated Son. Arius could speak of the holy Triad, in deceptively Origenistic language, as consisting of three Persons (treis hupostaseis). But the Three that he envisaged are three entirely different beings, not sharing in any way the same nature or essence. This was the conclusion Arius deduced from his analysis of the concept of agennetos, which literally meant “ingenerate” (being generate, the Word was admittedly not agennetos in this sense), but which in current philosophical parlance had come to mean the same as agenetos, that is, “unoriginated”, or “self-existent”, the attribute of transcendent deity. [5]
Arius knew that before Origen’s time some of the theologians of the Church had believed that the Trinity had come into being when God the Father brought forth His Word and His Spirit. This event had supposedly taken place at the beginning of creation, when God the Father set out to make the universe with the aid of His two “hands”. Arius also knew that Origen had taught that Jesus the Son of God was subordinate to His Father in heaven as well as on earth. To believe otherwise would have seemed like a denial of the truth of revelation. The earthly Jesus would have had a relationship to the Father different from that of the Son of God in heaven, and therefore Jesus would not have been an accurate representation of the Son. From Aristotle, Arius learned that a difference of name implied a difference of substance. An apple was not a tree, neither was the Father the Son. If the distinction between an apple and a tree was an illusion, they could both be given the same name. On the other hand, if Father and Son had to be distinguished from each other by name, it was obvious that they were not the same thing. To Arius this meant that if the Father was God, the Son could not also be God in the same sense. He could be divine, but His divinity could be only partial and derivative. He could not occupy the same place that monotheism dictated was reserved for the one God. [6]
To support his position, Arius amassed a formidable array of Scriptural texts. The key verse was Proverbs 8:22, which Arius held was a statement about the generation of the Son, (LXX, “The Lord created me a beginning of his ways, for his works.”). To this Arius added the well-known statement of the Apostle Paul that Jesus was “the first-born of all creation” (Col. 1:15), as well as Rom. 8:29, “the first-born among many”, Acts 2:36, “God has made Him Lord and Christ”, Heb. 3:2, “Who was faithful to Him Who made Him”, and many other passages which he took to imply that the Son was a creature inferior to the Father. [7] Among these were texts that seem to represent the Father as the God alone, the classic being John 17:3,
“this life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent”.
Another group were texts that seem to imply that Christ was inferior to the Father, chief among them was John 14:28, “the Father is greater than I”. Lastly, there was a group of passages which attributed ignorance, weakness, suffering or development to the Son of God. [8] The net result of this teaching was to reduce the Word to a demigod; even if He infinitely transcended all other creatures, He Himself was no more than a creature in relationship to the Father. The result of all this teaching was Arianism, the belief that Jesus was a divine creature who had entered the human race. Its attractiveness lay in having a savior who was like us (as a creature) yet more powerful (because he was divine being). It avoided the crude adoptionism of Paul of Samosata (the Bishop of Antioch from A.D. 260-272, who had taught that Jesus was a mere man), without identifying Jesus with God to make it impossible for him to experience human suffering and death. Arianism was a subtle heresy which had an answer for everything, and it had a wide popular appeal. It was not stamped out in the Greek-speaking world until after the death of one of its champions, the emperor Valens, in A.D. 378. [9]
Arius did not claim originality for his views; he and Eusebius of Nicomedia (d.341/342 A.D.), Arius implied, were “fellow-Lucianists”, and Eusebius, who studied with Arius under Lucian of Antioch, is elsewhere described as a disciple of Lucian. Lucian was founder of the catechetical school at Antioch and was martyred in A.D. 312. Lucian’s special influence on the Arians may be discerned in the rationalism of their approach and in their methodical, literalistic interpretation of Scripture. Lucian apart, the Arians regarded themselves as doing no more than carrying on the patristic tradition as exemplified, in particular, by bishop Dionysius of Alexandria. In general, the mold of the Arian teaching was undoubtedly Origenistic, and there are many striking points of resemblance between their subordinationism and that of Origen and, still more of Dionysius. But it is difficult to find parallels in these teachers of the two characteristic features of Arianism, that is, its exaggerated emphasis on agennesia (“ingenerate”) as the indispensable characteristic of Deity, and its rejection of the idea that the Godhead can communicate Its essence. Yet both of these features were anticipated, with a hesitancy which shrank from drawing the logical conclusion, by Eusebius of Caesarea. [10]
The fact is that, with their Aristotelian bias, their Origenism had been weakened by being severed from its Platonic roots. The Arians had retained the idea of a transcendent immaterial Godhead and of three hierarchically graded hypostases; but having lost the Neo-Platonic vision of the same reality existing at different levels, they were logically compelled to deny divinity to the Word. [11]
Teaching like this, going beyond Dionysius of Alexandria‘s most unguarded statements and verging, as Athanasius was quick to note, on polytheism, stood little chance of proving acceptable in the East, much less in the West. Nevertheless, Arius was able to hold his own for a few years. His bishop, Alexander, as we should expect, came out strongly against him at once, suspending him from office after a public inquiry. But Arius had powerful friends, and he was a master of propaganda. Arius even won over Eusebius of Caesarea, who was not really an Arian at heart, probably by representing Alexander’s teaching in the worst possible light and his own in the best. [12]
Eusebius of Caesarea was born of humble parentage in Palestine about A.D. 265. In about A.D. 314, he became Bishop of Caesarea, probably his birthplace, and died there in A.D. 339 or 340. In his early youth, he was associated with Pamphilus, founder of the theological school of Caesarea, assisting him preparing an apology for Origen’s teachings. After Pamphilus’ martyrdom (A.D. 310), he withdrew to Tyre, naming himself “Eusebius Pamphili” in honor of his master. Later, he went to Egypt, where he was imprisoned for a short time. He was subsequently accused by Potammon at the Synod of Tyre with having escaped martyrdom by sacrificing, but this seems unlikely. [13]
Eusebius was unanimously elected bishop of Caesarea about A.D. 314, and in A.D. 331 declined the patriarchate of Antioch. At the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, he led the moderate party, submitting the first draft of the creed which was eventually accepted after important modifications (notably the homoousios clause). He seemed to have discovered during the council that Arius’s subordinationism was more radical than he had supposed, and he veered toward the Alexandrian postion, though he never accepted the extreme views of Athanasian party which, he believed, tended toward Sabellianism.
Eusebius presided over the Council of Caesarea in A.D. 334 which endeavored to draw Athanasius into negotiation, and took part in Athanasius’s condemnation at Tyre (A.D. 335). On the occasion of Constantine’s thirtieth anniversary (A.D. 335), he delivered at Constantinople an encomium setting forth the political theory which came to be embodied in the Byzantine Empire. He was the chief prosecutor of Marcellus of Ancyra at the synod in Constantinople (A.D. 336). He was the ecclesiastical and spiritual voice of the Constantine era, and the heir and master of the Origen tradition in that age. [14]
Eusebius is known as “The Father of Church History.” He was a diverse author, but he was best known for his histories. He wrote Chronicon, a history of the world until A.D. 303 (later to A.D. 328). He was best known for his Historia Ecclesiastica. This is most important church history of ancient times, invaluable for its wealth of material, much of it preseved here only. Because of this work, he has been called “the Father of Church History”. [15]
But Eusebius is also of importance for his Christian apologetic, and under this heading comes his attitude toward Greek philosophy, since, in general, he regarded Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, as a preparation of the heathen world for Christianity, though he was fully alive to the errors of Greek philosophy and to the contradictions between the many philosophical schools. Yet, though he speaks sharply on occasion, his general attitude is sympathetic and appreciative, an attitude which comes out must clearly in his Praeparatio evangelica in fifteen books. He also wrote an answer to Porphyry’s attack on Christianity in twenty-five books. This reply to the eminent Neo-Platonist and pupil of Plotinus has been lost. But the Praeparatio evangelica is sufficient to show, not only that Eusebius shared the general outlook of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, but also that he had read widely in the literature of the Greeks. He was in fact an extremely learned man, and his work is one of the sources for our knowledge of the philosophy of those thinkers whose works have perished.
Given the attitude of predecessors, it is not surprising to find that Eusebius was especially appreciative of Plato: in fact he devotes to Platonism three books (11-13) of the Praeparatio evangelica. Eusebius thought that Plato had borrowed the truths he exposes from the Old Testament, but at the same time he was willing to admit the possibility of Plato having discovered the truth for himself or of his having been enlightened by God. In any case, not only does Plato agree with the sacred writings of the Hebrews in his idea of God, but he also suggests, in his Letters, with the idea of the Trinity. On this point, Eusebius is, of course, interpreting Plato in a Neo-Platonic sense and is referring to the three principles of the One or Good, the Nous or Mind, and the World-Soul. The Ideas are the ideas of God, of the Logos, the exemplar patterns of creation, and the picture of creation in the Timaeus is similar to that contained in Genesis. Again, Plato agrees with the Scriptures in his doctrine of immortality, while the moral teaching of the Phaedrus reminds Eusebius of the Apostle Paul. Even Plato’s political ideal state found its realization in the Jewish theocracy. Of course, Plato did not affirm these truths without an admixture of error. His doctrine of God and creation is contaminated by his doctrine of emanation and by his acceptance of the eternity of matter, his doctrine of the soul and of immortality by his theory of pre-existence and of reincarnation, and so on. Thus Plato, even if he was a “prophet”, he was no more than a prophet; he did not himself enter into the promised land of truth, though he approached near to it: it is Christianity alone which is the true philosophy. [16]
Eusebius reflects Origen in his most subordinationist mood, and his overriding interest is cosmological rather than soteriological. The key-stone of Eusebius’ system, which was already fixed before the emergence of Arianism, is the thought of the unique, transcendent Father, the indivisible Monad Who is “above and beyond reality” (ho epekeina ton holon), Who is the cause of all things, and Who is alone self-existent and without beginning (anrchos kai agennetos). The Word, a distinct hypostasis begotten from Him before all ages, is His intermediary for creating and governing the universe, for the contingent order could not bear direct contact with absolute being. He is “perfect and only-begotten Son … the reflection of everlasting light”; being the Father’s offspring, He differs from all creatures, and because He carries in Himself the image of the ineffable Godhead, He is entitled to be called God. [17] Now at this point, we come across features which reveal Eusebius’ radical bias. [18]
1. First, while he occasionally accords a half-hearted recognition to the idea of eternal generation, Eusebius consistently refuses to concede that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. He is emphatic that, since the Father is alone agennetos (not generated), “everyone must admit that the Father is prior to and pre-exists the Son”. So he corrects the time-honored analogy of the light and its brightness, pointing out that the brightness exists simultaneously with the light, whereas the Father precedes the Son.
2. Second, in his earlier phase at any rate (after signing the Nicene creed he became more discreet), he teaches that the Son’s existence depends on a specific act of the Father’s will. It should further be mentioned that, not content with appropriating Origen’s subordinationism in all its detail (for example, the idea that the Son, though God, is not “true God”; He is only God as the image of the one true God), Eusebius quietly drops his master’s assumption that Father and Son share the same essence or substance. Such a doctrine, he is convinced, must involve a division of the indivisible Monad, and in any case would lead to the absurdity of postulating two unoriginate beings. The unity of the Son with the Father, on his exegesis of John 10:30, consists simply in His sharing an identical glory; and he is not afraid to add that the saints also can enjoy precisely the same kind of fellowship with the Father.
Alexander (d. 328 A.D.) was Bishop of Alexandria from A.D. 312 to A.D. 328. Both in a local clerical debate and at a council of about 100 bishops from Egypt and Libya, he accused (perhaps mistakenly) Arius of following the Paul of Samosata and opposed his views that “the Son had a beginning” and that the Son “was formed from nothing”. Rejecting the pleas of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others on the behalf of Arius, Alexander in council anathematized Arius and his adherents about the year A.D. 321, prior to the embargo on synods by Licinius. Alexander consistently opposed the Arians until his death. Alexander held that the Son is eternally the Son of Father. And he believed that the Father and the Son are exactly alike except that the Father is unbegotten. This exception made Arius to stress “being begotten” as a temporal moment and as a sign of no distinct identity between Father and Son.
An outline of Alexander’s position can be found from certain letters which he wrote in criticism of Arius. Arius had accused Alexander of Sabellianism because he insisted on the unity of the Triad (en triadi monada einai). Alexander conceived of the Word as a “substance” (hupostasis) or “nature” (phusis: we notice his use of this word in a sense virtually identical with that of hupostasis, that is, individual being”) distinguishable from the Father. In true Origenistic fashion he describes Him as the unique nature which mediates (mesiteuousa phusis monogenes) between God and creation; but He is not Himself a creature, being derived from the Father’s being. The Father alone is “ingenerate” (agennetos), that is, unoriginate or self-existent; on this point he is firm, although charged by his opponents with teaching that the Son is unoriginate too. What he actually teaches is that the Son, as Son, is co-eternal with the Father, since God can never have been without His Word, His Power, His Image, and the Father must always have been Father. Further, the Sonship of the Word is a real, metaphysical one, natural as opposed to adoptive; this implies, although Alexander does not explicitly say so, that the Son shares the Father’s nature. To explain His co-eternity, Alexander makes full use of Origen’s conception of eternal generation, speaking of the Son’s anarchos gennesis, eternal generation from the Father. The Two are, indeed, as John 1:18 indicates, “two realities inseparable from one another” (allelon achorista pragmata duo), the Son being the Father’s express image and likeness. But we must not, he warn us, interpret John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one.”) as implying that the Son is identical with the Father, or that these “natures which are two in hypostasis are in fact one”. All that the text should be taken to convey is that there is a perfect likeness (kata panta hooiotes) between Them. [19]
Alexander of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea represent two types of Origenism that was the dominant theological influence in the East. So far as the doctrine of the Word was concerned, Alexander was an exponent of a cautious and conservative type of Origenism, whereas Eusebius of Caesarea was an exponent of a more radical type of Origenism. Alexander held that the Word was eternally the Son of the Father, whereas Eusebius of Caesarea consistently refuses to concede that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. Eusebius was emphatic that, since the Father is alone “ingenerate” (agennetos), “everyone must admit that the Father is prior to and pre-exists the Son”. Alexander’s position was upheld by the Synod of Antioch. This group of bishops met in January A.D. 325 under the chairmanship of bishop Ossius (Hosius) of Cordoba to elect a new bishop of Antioch, but they took the opportunity to draft an anti-Arian confession. It was very long, but not always clear. They severely condemned Arianism, announcing that certain bishops, including Eusebius of Caesarea, had not signed their credal statement and were being placed under provisional excommunication at the same time.
THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA
As it turned out, this meeting of the Synod of Antioch was a trial run for the Council of Nicaea which met on 19 June 325 A.D. under the joint presidency of Emperor Constantine and his ecclesiastical adviser, bishop Ossius (Hosius) of Cordoba. The Emperor Constantine, who had finally crushed his rivals for the throne in A.D. 324, turned his attention to the controversy that was threatening to split the Church that he had done so much to help by issuing the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313, which granted toleration to Christians. After a fruitless mission by Ossius, his adviser since about A.D. 312, he summoned a general council in A.D. 325. The bishops assembled at Nicaea, a city of Bithynia close to Constantine’s capital. According to tradition, the emperor opened the proceedings on 20 May. The council was hardly representative of the Western Church. Of some 300 bishops present, almost all were from the Eastern half of the empire. The Latin West seems to have been represented by four bishops, and two priests delegated by the bishop of Rome. Constantine wanted a compromise solution which would uphold orthodoxy without offending any more Arians than was absolutely necessary. The bishops debated how best to achieve this aim. After examination of the charges against Arius, the council sought a formula to express orthodoxy. A submission by Eusebius of Nicomedia was rejected because of its blatant Arian teaching. Then Eusebius of Caesarea, a moderate churchman, produced the creed of his church. This creed may be the basis of the Nicene Creed, but it is more likely that the final creed was a conflation from many sources, especially the baptismal creeds of Antioch and Jerusalem. Eventually they drafted a creed that all the bishops present were required to sign. The creed was received and signed by the majority of the bishops although not a few signed with hesitation. The following is a translation of that creed.
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible. “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down and became incarnate, he become man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. “And in the Holy Spirit. “But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic Church anathematizes.” [21]
The main emphasis of the Nicene creed are the following:
1. the “sonship” of Christ is preferred to the Logos concept;
2. the phrase is inserted that Christ is of the being (ousia) of the Father;
3. to the phrase “begotten” was added “not made” to deny the Arian contention that the Logos was “made” or “created”;
4. the Son is “one substance” (homoousios) with the Father, the momentous anti-Arian phrase;
5. to the words “became flesh” was added “and was made man”;
6. anti-Arian anathemas were appended to end of the creed.
There can be no doubt about what was their theological attitude toward Arianism. Arianism was placed under a decisive ban. The Son, the creed states emphatically, is “begotten, not made” (gennethenta, ou poiethenta). The phrase “only-begotten” is displaced from its usual position before “Son of God” and given an independent place, both to confound Arius, who could have agreed that Jesus was God’s only Son, and to explain the term more fully. [22] All that follows is designed to shore up the deity of the Son and to deny that he is a creature. This is why it is said that all things, both in heaven and on earth, were created through the Son. But the key phrase is “of one substance with the Father”. The first three words are rendered in the Greek by the single term homoousios, of which the official Latin translation is consubstantialis. It was on the meaning of this word that the next theological controversy was to turn. [23]
Anyone who affirms that the Father pre-existed the Son, or that the Son is a creature produced out of nothing, or is subject to moral change or development, is formally declared heretical. We have little or no first-hand evidence of the reasons motivating the bishops at Nicaea in their repudiation of Arianism, but we may suspect that they shared Alexander’s conviction that Scripture and tradition alike attested the divinity and immutability of the Word. Arius and his friends were anathematized along with two bishops who refused to accept the creed. Then, with a dangerous precedent, Constantine banished those anathematized to Illyricum.
Thus Arius was defeated and deposed at Nicaea, but his ideas were not. In fact, the Arians had hardly been stopped in any serious way. The orthodox had the imperial army, but the Arians had the proof-texts from Scripture and the weight of tradition, so it seemed to them. But the orthodox advantage was precarious and short-lived. Constantine tried to patch things up with Arius in A.D. 332, and swung away from those of the orthodox party who refused to compromise. This position remained the official imperial policy until A.D. 361, when the Emperor Julian the Apostate renounced Christianity altogether. Julian died in battle in A.D. 363 and his successor Jovian reverted to orthodoxy for a while, but in A.D. 364 his successor Valens leaned once more toward Arianism. It can therefore be said correctly that Arian sympathizers ruled the state for forty-three of the fifty-six years which separated the council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 from the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, compared with only eleven years in which the orthodox were in ascendancy. [24]
THE NICENE PARTY
Eusebius of Caesarea seems to have discovered during the council that Arius’ subordinationism was more radical than he had supposed, and he veered toward the Alexandrian position, though he never accepted the views of the Athanasian party, which, he believed, tended toward Sabellianism. The Nicene cause suffered, at least in the minds of conservatives, from its extreme representative, Marcellus, the bishop of Ancyra, for whom the Son was but a temporary manifestation of the Father. As an enthusiastic supporter with Athanasius of the homoousian position of the Council of Nicaea, Marcellus wrote a treatise (c.335 A.D.) in its defense, giving it what some considered a Sabellian interpretation. As a result of this, he was deposed of his see at the synod in Constantinople in A.D. 336. He was all the more anti-Arian because of his passionate, one-sided devotion to the principle of divine “monarchy” which had led him to veer into the diametrically opposite error. His enemies charged that he held to either an acknowledged or implicit modalism, called Sabellianism.
Marcellus tried to ground his theology on the Scriptures and the apostolic tradition, and would have nothing to do with merely human opinion, or even with the authority of the fathers. From the Scripture he concluded that God is spirit, “an indivisible Monad”, “a single prosopon“. Before all ages, the Logos was in God as His immanent reason, identical with Him (hen kai tauton … to theo) as a man’s reason is with himself. So he condemns the Origenist conception that the Logos is a distinct hupostasis or ousia as threatening to disrupt this unity and lead to polytheism. All that can be said about the pre-existent Logos is that He was Logos; there can be no talk of His generation, and Marcellus restricted the title “Son” to the Incarnate. But if the Logos was thus immanent in God as “potency” (dunamei), He was also externalized as God’s “active energy” (enegeia drastike) for creation and revelation, since everything that the Father says or does is accomplished through His Word. In fact, it is precisely His function as God’s self-activation and self-revelation which, Marcellus claims, distinguishes the Logos from His possessor, and it is the recognition of this, Marcellus holds, that differentiates his own position from Sabellianism. This externalization of the Logos does not result in His becoming a second hypostasis; His coming forth or procession is described as an extension or expansion (platunestyhai) of the Monad, which at creation and the incarnation becomes, without undergoing any division, a dyad, and with the outpouring of the Spirit a triad. Marcellus held that eventually in the future, after the judgment, the process will be reversed; the Logos will be absorbed in the Monad, and the reign, or kingdom, of Christ – not of the Logos as such – will come to an end. [25]
It is clear that Marcellus was not strictly a Sebellian. Several of his ideas are reminiscent of Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Tertullian and of the ” economic Trinitarianism ” associated with them. His conception of the expansion of the Monad recalls Tertullian’s description of the Son’s generation as extending the divine substance without dividing it, as well as Dionysius of Rome‘s statement, “We expand (platunomen) the indivisible Monad into the Triad”. But Marcellus’ position, while it might meet with the approval of Westerners, made no concessions to the developments which Eastern theology had made under Origen’s influence, and we need not be surprised that it scandalized the followers of Eusebius of Caesarea.
One of Marcellus’ pupils, Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, taught a more provocative form of the same doctrine, possibly combined it with an adoptionist Christology, and was even more suspect in their eyes. The Nicene party at first espoused his cause, and a Roman council held in A.D. 341 under Pope Julius I cleared him of the charge of heresy; namely, “the falsehood of Sabellius, the malice of Paul of Samosata, and the blasphemies of Montanus”. When they realized the embarrassment he was causing them, their attitude became cooler, and although Photinus was never formally condemned, they gradually dissociated themselves from him and his standpoint. [26] While Marcellus was temporarily restored to his see (A.D. 344), the emperor Constantius again removed him upon dissent of the Eastern bishops (A.D. 347). He died in exile (c.374 A.D.), and his position was condemned as heretical at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.
Marcellus was an extremist; the attitude of the average adherent of the Nicene theology is better represented by the so-called creed of Serdica, which was drafted by the Western members of the Nicene council held there in A.D. 343 after the Easterners had withdrawn.
Negatively, it repudiates the “Arian” theory that there are “different, quite separate hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. On the contrary, the Catholic and apostolic tradition, it affirms, is that the Three have one identical hypostasis or substance, that is, the hypostasis of the Father (hupostasis and ousia are here treated as synonyms, as in the anathemas to the Nicene creed). It is clear
(a) that hypostasis here means substance or essence, and
(b) that actual identity of essence is insisted upon.
On the other hand, as against Marcellus, the creed admits that the Word was generated for the purpose of creation, and it adds that it is false to suppose the He ever had a beginning (the Arian thesis) or will have an end (against Marcellus). Further, the substantial identity of the Father and Son, it states, does not entail that the Son actually is the Father; on the contrary, the Father is Father, and the Son is Son of the Father, His Word, Wisdom and Power. He is a true, not adoptive, Son because His substance (hupostasis) is identical with the Father’s. The Godhead of both is one and the same (mian patros kai hiou theoteta), and if the Father is greater than the Son, that is “because the very nature of father is greater than that of son”. Thus Their unity is based, not on mutual harmony and concord (sumphonia; homonoia), as the Origenists claimed, but on “oneness of hypostasis” (he tes hupostaseos henotes). The Son’s reign will never end. The term homoousios nowhere occurs in the creed, and its favorite formula is “identity of hypostasis”. [27]
Athanasius (c.296-373 A.D.) was the champion of orthodoxy against Arianism. He was born to wealthy Egyptian parents, but his education was Greek. At the excellent catechetical school of Alexandria, he was deeply moved by the martyrdoms of Christians during the last persecutions and was profoundly influenced by Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, by whom he was ordained a deacon. He was small of stature but had a keen mind. Athanasius took no official part in the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, but as secretary to Alexander, his notes, circulars, and encyclicals written on the behalf of his bishop had an important effect on the outcome of the council. He was a clear-minded and skilled theologian, a prolific writer with a journalist’s instinct for the power of the pen, and a devout Christian, which endeared him to the large Christian public of Alexandria and the vast majority of the clergy and monks of Egypt. When Alexander died in A.D. 328, Athanasius was enthroned as bishop by public demand at the age of thirty-three. The victory at Nicaea remained in political jeopardy for almost two generations, and Athanasius became the focal point of the Arian attack. Athanasius appeared to be the only defender of the orthodox position. But he was more than equal to the task, and the defense of the Nicene Council’s decision was largely his work. The history of the Church in the fourth century parallels the events of Athanasius’ life and his public ministry. He was hounded through five exiles covering seventeen years of flight and hiding, not only among the monks in the desert, but often in Alexandria where he was shielded by the people. During one exile, at Rome in A.D. 339, he established firm links with the Western Church which supported his cause. [28]
In Rome, Athanasius met Western theologians and their ideas, which were remarkably like his own. The West had played little part in the Council of Nicaea and after, until A.D. 339 when it became Athanasian to a man. By then, Athanasius had gone far beyond a merely political solution to his difficulties. He had begun the counterattack against Arius in his famous book On the Incarnation of the Word of God, which he originally wrote as a young man. This treatise is really the second part of a longer work which deals with the fall of man and his need of a savior. Arius is nowhere mentioned, and the whole book is cast as an evangelistic tract designed to win over pagans. But although he does not say so explicitly, it is clear that Athanasius was trying to present orthodox Christianity in a way that would make it a convincing alternative to the subtle Arian heresy which was threatening the Church.
The book is distinguished by a clear and forceful use of Scripture, in a way which goes against the allegorizing tendencies usually characterized the Alexandrian school. Athanasius’ technique was as brilliant as it was simple. Instead of arguing against the proof texts of Arius in this book, he sought to demonstrate that the logic of the Scriptures as a whole made the incarnation of the Word necessary and inevitable. God did not become man because some philosopher thought it would be good idea, but because he has created man in his own image. It was because man was uniquely related to God that when man lost that relationship through Adam’s sin, only God could undo Adam’s disobedience and restore the human race to fellowship with Himself. [29] Because mankind is dead because of Adam’s sin, only God could make him alive.
Some have accused Athanasius of treating mankind as a Platonic Idea or an universal, but this should not be misunderstood. Athanasius saw the whole human race, every individual man, as under death, as separated from God, as the consequence of Adam’s sin. He is only echoing the Apostle Paul who said “in Adam all died” (I Cor. 15:22). Only by the death of the Son of God, could this condition of mankind be changed.
“For since from man it was that death prevailed over men, for this cause conversely, by the Word of God being made man has come about the destruction of death and the resurrection of life; as the man which bore Christ says: ‘For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all died, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.'”
(De incar. 10; quoting I Cor. 15:21-22) [30]
Of course, not all will receive this gift of life in Christ and be made alive; some souls will remain invincible to the end, and so they will perish in eternal separation from God, the second death (Rev. 20:14-15). Athanasius’ presentation of the whole history of salvation demonstrated that the incarnation was a logical necessity within the created order and the plan of God.
Later in other works, Athanasius tackled the Arians on their own ground. His four Discourses against them took their favorite texts to pieces, showing that within the framework of the whole of the Scriptures these texts could not be interpreted in an Arian sense. Athanasius was hampered by a faulty Greek translation of the Old Testament and his lack of knowledge of Hebrew; he was also inclined (as a modern exegete is not) to accept a verse like Proverbs 8:22 as Christological, which did not favor his argument. Yet in spite of these disadvantages, he was able to show that Arius was wrong. How could the Son be a creature when the text says that he was brought forth “for his works”? Surely this was the creation, in which the Son was co-worker with the Father. The text further states that the Son was “created a beginning of his ways”, but God’s ways do not have beginning as men understand that term. Therefore the Son was not created in the human sense, but begotten in an eternal and mysterious way and not made. Such dexterity in the use of Scripture established Athanasius as the leading theologian of his time, and his name became the hallmark of orthodoxy. Even centuries later, when men sought to discover who had written the greatest Western creed, it was to him that they naturally turned, and so for a thousand years he was hailed as the author of the “Athanasian” Creed. [31]
But Athanasius was not merely a gifted exegete; he was also skilled in logic and the use of words, which he controlled with unusual power. He was not disturbed by the many meanings of the term hupostasis, and was content to concentrate on the real point at issue, rather than get hung up on formula. He did not mind how the unity of Father and Son in the Godhead was expressed, as long as the principle of unity was guarded. He was a man so conscious of his relationship to God that he could never be sidetracked by a hair-splitting theology. But at the same time he was quick to spot error and denounce it. When Eusebius of Caesarea proposed that the word homoousios be modified to homoiousios (of a like, or similar, substance) he was quick to spot the danger. If the two words were used of mankind, they would indeed be interchangeable. I share the same substance as my father; it is also a similar substance, by which I mean that my humanity is an extension of my father’s substance, which shares the same properties. But when the terms are applied to God, a numerical difficulty occurs. I share humanity with my father, but we are two human beings; Jesus shares divinity with His Father, but they are not two Gods. It is therefore wrong to say that the Son is of a similar substance to His Father. He must be of the same substance, because numerically speaking there is only one God. It is subtle point, but it was of great importance in the struggle against a semi-Arian theology which would eventually have cut the link between Jesus and His Father, and destroyed the principle and purpose of the incarnation. [32]
Athanasius’ theology represents the classic exposition of the Nicene faith. As a Christian thinker, he stood in complete contrast to Arius and Eusebius of Caesarea. Rationalists at heart, they started from a priori ideas of divine transcendence and creation. The Word, they held, could not be divine because His being originated from the Father; since the divine nature was incommunicable, He must be a creature, and any special status He enjoyed must be due to His role as the Father’s agent in creation. In Athanasius’ approach, philosophical and cosmological considerations played a secondary and minor part, and his guiding thought was redemption. Admittedly the Father used the Word as His organ of creation, but to suppose that He needed an intermediary was absurd. On the other hand, man by his fellowship with Christ has been made divine and has become the child of God. Athanasius wrote, “The Word of God became man that we might become God” (Or “divine”; De incar. 54; literally, “He was humanized that we might be deified.”). Hence the Word Himself must be intrinsically divine, since otherwise He could never have imparted the divine life to men. As he put the matter, “the Word could never have divinized us if He were merely divine by participation and were not Himself the essential Godhead, the Father’s veritable image”. [33]
To continue, click here.
ENDNOTES
[1] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 2nd Edition,
Harper & Row, Publishers (New York, Evanston and London, 1958, 1960).,
p. 227.
[6] Gerald Bray, Creeds, Councils & Christ.
Inter-Varsity Press (Downer Grove, Illinois, USA, 1984).,
p. 106.
[13] Norman, J.G.G., Eusebius of Caesarea in
The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised Edition.,
Zondervan Publishing House (Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 1981),
pp. 356-357.
[16] Kelly., pp. 10-11.
See also the article EUSEBIUS by Robert M. Grant in
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volumes 3 and 4,
pp. 135-136.
[28] Mikolaski, Samuel J., Athanasius in
The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised Edition.,
Zondervan Publishing House (Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 1981),
pp. 81-82.
[30] Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word in
Christology of the Later Fathers, volume III of
The Library of Christian Classics,
The Westminster Press (Philadelphia, USA, 1954).,
pp. 64-65.