Arius: Heresy and Tradition

R OWAN

W I L LI AM S

R EVISED

E DITI ON

ARIUS

ARIUS Heresy and Tradition

•

•

RE VISED EDITION

Rowan Williarns

William B. Eenlmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U. K.

ID 1987, 2001

Row~n

Williams

First published in 1987 by DarlOn. Longman and Todd Ltd Second edition rirst published in 2001 by SCM Press This edition published in 2002 in the Uni ted States or America by Wm. 13. Ecrdrnans Publishing Co. 255 Jeffeuon Ave. S.E .. Grand Rapids. Michigan / 1',0. Box 16$, Cambridge CB3 9l'U U.K. All rights reserl'ed Printed in the United Stmes of America 07 06 05 04 03 02

7654$2 1

Library o f Congress Catal ogin g-in-Publication Data

ISBN 0·8028-4969-5

To Christopher Stead in gratitude and affection

Traditions, when vital, embody continuities of conflict. Alasdair Maclntyre, After Virtue (London 19B 1). p. 206

Contents •

Preface

~

Preface to the Second Edition

XIII

\

Inttoduction: Images of a Heresy Part I Arius and the Nicene Crisis

29

A Anus before Arianism \

29

Origins

2 The Troubles of the A1exandrian Church I: 32

The Meiitian Schism

3 The Troubles of the Alexandrian Church IT: 4\

Bishops and Presbyters

B The Nicene Crisis: Documents and Dating \ The Comrovel1lY

2 The

to

48 48

325

62

7halia

67

3 Nicaea and After

82

C Conclusion Part II Anus and Theology

95

A The Theology of Arius B Alexandria and the Legacy of Origen

1\7

Philo

1\7

2 Clement

\24

I

.. vu

3 Origcn .. that lie behind tho: work of Hans-Georg Opiu, who, ;n tho: 19301, published a very ;n8u~ntia.l chronology of the begin· ningl afthe cmls and a .till indl.peruabJ~ (though frequently flawed and euenlric) edition of the primo.ry 'uu, designed :os put of a nuojo:r edition of Ad:w!Nius' works; Ju. aadJy premature death in the Second World War left this project still in a fragmentary .talt, and Atbanaoius b.u y~t 10 find a lyJlemalic editor 01 team of editon. Bul iD th~ actual inltrpre .... tion and ana.lyliJ of the ;"u", iD tho: cootfOYe,*y, Iiltle w:os achieved in the pre-war period . One notable (:I:ception 10 this judgment, however, iJ a brief bUI aignifieant essay by Wa.lter ElIiger, publilhed iD 1931, ' Bemer· kungen zur TheoJogk d.. MUS' ('Observations on the Theology of Anus' ). Without naming hiI .... >'lIets, EU;ger argues thal the COf\ICI\IUS of ea.:rlier .cholarship has radically milund .... too repli"" that the higb .. t form of uniry wbich could 1>0: conceived by us wu the coll..,ti~ uniry of the many and the one ... The Catholic democrat leiud upon the philosophic idea and Jw Q]s Polilisl:lws p,..1mo (19S.')), a work which conlinu.. to 1>0: dion, • ....d by palrologiSls and dogmatidan. in Germany, and which has "'CTci.Jed a considelllble influence 00 the thrology of J Urgen Molunann. But the allog"" 'democratic' implicationt ofNicene onhodoxy have t.r..n sharply chall.ngN by OthCT scholars. Samual Laeuchl; in 1968 altaclr.ed Banh', trinitariap theology for ill loyalty to the Nicme conf...ion, because that conf...ion not only . prings from but aclua.lly artkulat .. and legitimiz.. a totalitarian and monolithic "";,1 schema {I .hall return to this essay later; Ke below, n. 26 to the PostlCript):More ",cendy, the anthropologist Edmund Lnch, in a paper on 'Mdchi"""",",,h and th
I",.,,, of" H"tJy inspires all the elect (pp. 75-7). The c.ondusion is that 'wihle hierarchy among deities goes wilh egalitarian politico among mm; i$olatI iI, though, that this inlight is held at the high pria: of pOllluiating 'two unequal god,' ; only Nicaea can actually do ju.tio: 10 a doctrine that the Nicene FatMn would haw rejected - the self-.aailici"ll vulllerahility of God. A similar poim;' doquendy made in a hrief but scan:bing discussion by A. C. McCill in hil book, SM.fJni1v: A T..I ~f ~rW1 MdltH (I 982) . The God of M .... ",mains, al the end of the day, defined by his own self-lulliciency: the God of Athanuius all""" for the presence of dq>endency, even ' need' in the divine life, and 10 challenges any notion that God is walWIy unilatetal do!ninatic:". (pp. 70--8Z) . PoIarities again; but McCill', account is Dt meant panicul;orly .. an hlslOrical lJIIe. It puu the unavoidabk questioa of ",hat the respective ochemes in the Ionjj: term make pouible fur theology; and the answer 10 that question, from a thwlogially aCUte historian of doctrine lite HanlOn , may indeed lead to the odd """du.ion ilia, tM Nicene &then achieved not only !nO"' than they. blew but a good deal more lban they wanled.

10 We have come a fair ",ay from the hanh polemic of Newman, though the shadow of AtianUm·u-Otber still haunu modern di5t""ICllt di"' .... ion be .... n;D doctrina.l 'con",rvauveo' .nd 'liberals'. We ,.."nDOI, of CO"""" help Idling the ltory of doclrinal CDtlU'OV(rlY, in ruU awurneSll of the way in which the very I"orms of a history seen ao d«triMl history preuing towards the idea of a ROnnative time culminating in Ill) or .... prestnl, has

"oN}".-""

imponan! leuoru fOr .... Wc need to giv~ full W, DiQdelian abdicated in fav"ur "f hi, fanatically anti-ChriJlian ..,cond_in·command, the wesar Galeriw, the , ituati"n in the Eut deteriQrated funher from the Church'. puint Qf view. Galeriu,' prut and Phile.. , wrote from prison to their conrme, the newly· appointed bishQP Qf Lycopoli. (ApoIlQniw' succcollOr)," tOo complain that he had entered their dioceses and performed ordinatiQns, contrary to ntabli.hed law and CUstQm. If he . hould argue in hi. defence that there i. a grave pastQral need IQ be met, thi. is far from the truth' there i. no .hortage of authorized vi.iton (n_......... It. It ~ImW ';';14 .. ) - and, in ~ny case, it is fOT the people of the diocese them..,lves to make representations to their bishops if they think they are being neglectod _The ..,le circumstance in which such behaviQur might be pennined would be if the biohop ofLycopoli. had received a direct cnmmllsiQn from the bishQP Qf Alexandria;" and this would only be possible in the event Qf a dioceun'. dealh and a subsequent interregnum. Melitius Qf Lycopolis has not consul'ed with the imprisoned bishQPs, nor, it appears, has he r.ferred the alleged pmblems of the Qrphaned dioc...,. to Peter of Alexandria: he has Qrdained u",uitable and factious penoru (for

Arius 41ld tIu NiuItt CrisiJ how could a peri pate tic bish op judg e the suit abil ity of can dida tes in an unfa mili ar diocese?), and cau sed grave divisions in the churches. Pete r, we gath er, was abse nt from Ale xan dria , in flight or in hiding; late r legend d has him travelling bey ond the imperial frontier in Mes opo tam ia, and spen ding long peri ods in Syria, Palestine and 'the isla nds ' (Cy prus ?), but the imp lica tion s of the bish ops ' lette r are that he can be reac hed with out too muc h difficulty. At this part icul ar poin t, any way , he is mos t unlikely to have been outs ide Egy pt. Thi s is reinforced by the frag men t of narr ativ e that follows the bish ops ' lette r in the codex (from the Cha pter Lib rary at Ver ona ) which preserves the text : After he had received and read this lette r, he [Melitius) did not reply nor did he visit them in pris on, nor did he go to blessed Pete r: but whe n all these bishops, pres byte rs and d eacons had heen mar tyre d in the prison in Ale xan dria ,·' he immediately ente red Ale xan dria . The re was a man call ed Isidore in the city, a regu lar trou blem ake r, eag er to be it teac her [or: eag er to run his own faction] ;" and also a cert ain Ariu s, who had an outw ard app eara nce of piety, and he too was eag er to be a teacher. Wh en they had discovered wha t Mel itius wan ted and wha t it WaJ that he requ ired , they lost no time in join ing up with him (being envious of the auth orit y of blessed Pete r); and - with the result that Mel itius ' aims bec ame publicly known - they poin ted out to him whe re the pres byte rs to whom blessed Pete r had dele gate d the powt:r to visit the dist ricts of Ale xan dria were in hiding. Mel itius notified them [sc. the pres byte rs) of a charge against them ,U exc omm unic ated them,46 and him self orda ined two pe{SOns, one to work in prison, the othe r to work in the mi.nes. 47

It seems as -thou gh the com plai nt is that the episcopal dep utie s are not doin g thei r job: Isid ore and Arius are able to tell Melitius that the 'visitors ' .themselves havt: gone into hidi ng, givi ng Melitius an oa:4Sio for susp end ing them . The ordi nati ons can not have followed immediately: Egy ptia n Chr istia ns were first tran spo rted to the Palesti nian mines in 307 or 308 , so at leas t ont: of Melitius ' new pres byte rs is unlikely to hav e received his orde rs in 306. Thi s pres upp oses that Mel itiu s stay ed in Ale xan dria for several years as we sho uld ded uce from the letter of Pete r to his flock which imm edia tely follows this narr ativ e frag men t in our collection. Pete r 34

Arius before Ariallism writ~s

as if M~litius is still in the city, baving ordained a number of 'prison chaplains' and brok~n communion with P~ter' s own del~gates.411 If this reading is right, Melitius saw a pastoral need not only in th~ dioceses of th~ Nil~ Delta in gen~ral, but among ~e prisoners in particular, and was concerned that there. should be those among th~ presbyters whos~ main job it was to minister ' to th~m - which would fit with the remark in the passage quoted about his activities following OD a general slaughter of th~ cl~rgy who happen~d to b~ a1r~ady in custody.49 It may be alsl? that b~ regarded som~ of th~ clergy l~ft in the prisons as, for some reason; disqualified from administering the sacraments. This raises the question of whether there is any truth in Epiphanius' version of th~ schism (probably derived from Me1itian ·sources) ,Xl in which the real issue between Peter and Melitius (who is described as it. kind of archbishop. second in rank to Peter) is the ~atment of those who lapsed under pers«:ution. Meliuus . . is represented as objecting to P~ter's canons on this matter, during a period when both bishops were in prison tog~ther. Since the canons we possess 51 date from Easter 306, when Melitius was almost certainly at liberty and P~ter was probably in hiding or abroad, Epiphanius' circumstantial tale cannot be true as it stands. Lat~r Melitians, who c~rtain1y described themselves as 'the church of the martyrs' , )l may have thought it in their interest to depict the schism as a dispute of the familiar kind about penitential rigorum in the Church. P~ter's canons are fairly lenient, though hardly scandalously so, and their publication may have offended Melitius, and removed any remaining scruples he may have had about usurping the bishop's office in Alexandria: it would not be surprising if.he were a rigorist, especially in the light of his predecessor's apostasy at Lycopolis." However, we can be confident that this was not the main cause of the schism, since it is perfectly clear that Melitius was active before the spring of 306. A dispute over the canons sounds like an ex post facto justification for his behaviour. Nor is it even dear that Melitius himself w'!s ever in prison in Egypt.!>4 If we largely discount Epiphanius, and translate the nGtoriously difficult ill eareere et in mttallQ of the Verona text as I have suggested, and not as implying that Melitius is himself in custody, we are left with a straightforward picture of Me~irius as an episcopus vagans taking full advantage of the disorder of the Church in the Delta between 306 and 31t to establish a finnly-rooted rival jurisdiction,

35

An... IlsuII1I. Nk_ Crisis

unhamper"" by the aUontio"" of Ihe penccUI,,". P.,.r'. con«m, ... shown;n his lm ... '0 Alexandria, i. ra. more int.Uigible if Meliliu. is .uppc.ed 10 be at large in the iklll. for a sUMIaQ,;al period than if he is coruIuCling on:!inatio"" from hi. own cell (let alone in Ihe di.laQt Phaeno min .. ). And Athan ...;u.' rather ab.un:! accusation" thu Melitius had been depoM and it is possible that Ihis enmuraged a pl .. rality in Cbristian leadership from an early da'e. However, thc nam .. wc pos.... of the varioUI Alexandrian church« do not euily fil into th~ geography of the .. parate .e the pro-Arius faction in the presbyteral college was impres,ively weighty. How""",, EpipbaniuI plainly implies tbat there wen: .harp rivalries betWtt1l the presbyten themselves, and that rheir rollower1 already constituted distinct ~rties: if this i, true, it would be wrong 10 _ Arius as the figurehead of a l"'"tU presbyleral revolt against Alexander', '~paliJm'. And rhe 'UhsCriptiOl15 '0 Alexander's culminatiog pronoun~en' :o.gairut Arius '" testify that rhe ovn-whe!ming majnrity in the pres· byterate - induding, preJumably, at leut IOme or the parish pricsu, as well as the presbyten attached 10 the bishop', offjceo or worlUng ouuide 'he city boundaries - continued 10 IUpport rhe bi.hop. The m... ' con.picuous odd man out is the celcbnl1ed Colluthus. Alexander '" Itat .. that Colluthus usa! the crisu. provuked by Arius as an ne,,,,, for initiating Or maint-aining SOme lUnd of ochismatic activitY' the most "-,ilfactory intcrp-ret-ation 0( this not very clear «"" is that ColJuthu. "'as already presiding over independen' cong..gation. in the city (and Eplphaniw'. claims that hil lupponen described them .. \vcs .... 'CoBulhians' at the period prior
"0""

CODlpoled the n..J04 very IIOOn after w. acommllRic.otion and e.;pulsion from Alexandria; in whlcb CQe, the verses would have been circulating freely by 324, and it ;. 'urprising that hi;JriUuthiun tn cas, around fOr hdp. No douht E"",bius' resporue from Nioomedia was encouraging;" and (if Athanuiut is 10 be believed )" he urged Alterius the Capp.adocian oopbiat, who had, like himself, been a pupil of Lucia. .. of Aotioch," to tour Asia and Syria spcuing in support of Arius.

HOWf':Yer, sinu Mw sh· ... rep~nlS Euoebius u having rttently returned to the fray after an internl ofhuclivity, we must .uppose that he had other preslure!l to contend with for a lime - moot probably the difficulties ........ ·;ooed by I ;dnius' polic;Q in 323-4.. Thi •• uggalS thllt the ~new.1 of activity 011 AriUJ' behdf followed Licinius' defeat and Euoebius' allillnce with the illteralS of Constalltine; but it i. impossible to oay whuhc:r the Bithynian synod mentioned by 50»0men" occurred befoR mid-323 or after Consuntine's victory. 50»0men says that the synod. led to Il gentral bamoge oflell.n in suppon of Atius to A1aander and othen; and if the synod was heLd lOOn after the defeat of LiciPius, this requireo Il very rapid leq uence of activiry in the lut montlu of 324. This is not impossible; but A1aander'. f.ilure to mention any reant lYDOd called by Euoebj us is a faCtO!" weighing agawt il. In .... y caK, though, Mw ..0-10, filS atremely weU intu the period after the fall of Lici.nius: £uoebius is free to campaign opc:nly, he is confident of his influence ;n Church affairs," and is eager to consolidlle tbit influence funber," Al ..... nder;' impc:lled to give a, authoritative. ' 1ato:rtU:nt u h. can of his .ide of the argument. If Itntos sh· ... is indeed a documenl of this very la~ Stage of evrolJ before Nicaea, a possible sol ution to the question ofCo!luthus suggClIJ itself. At the time of Iti #iWdw, CoUuthus is obviously under censure, and a cause of COIIJide..ble anxiety to \h( bishop. However, although those who had received ordination at his hand.! continued to trouble the Egyptian church," CoIluthus hinuelf apparently ...,turned to AlexandeT's communion ... a prClby~r: Atbanuius tells us" that CoIluthus, 'having made rumJelf OUI to be a biollop, wu subsequently commanded to be a simple priQ' [onOl: """e) by the generalae1l1enOl: of a synod, deli".rtd by Ossiu. and the bishOJ>ll with him'. This i. undoubtedly the mteting held .arly;n 325, when O .. ius arrived in Al ..... ndria with Con.tantine'. letler. Was MwS so-w approved by the Alexandrian dergy on this occasion? If CoIlUthUI had jwt been rronnciJcd to his diom Iri plriUJ""'" in particular "bout the circumstances of writing. offers the l.kelelOn of a ""mtive for the tally development of the Arian crisis rather diffe,..,nl from that commonly accepted. bUI (I hope) making .tightly be.ter aenK of IOme of our evidence. 0". immensely important document. of cou.....,. has yet 10 be placed: the 1Miill. But befare we turn w Loolr. al thal in detail, le, us lummarize the tentative tonclusions 10 far readtt:
IIOled already, the tacl thal CoUuthw was nol dept.ed entirely from the ordained rninisuy nn doubt owed something 10 his willingness 10 anathematize his old enemy, Ariw}," and probably also by the deposition of the Libyan metropoJiuns, Sccundus and Theonas, who had supporled Ariu •. Either al oh( syood or (mo~ probably) shortly afler'ts formal Wl>cluaion (there are no q>iscopal lubscrip. lions 10 "-» ........1oJ), the encyclical klter of Alexander and his clergy was issued , oh( lener ofa 'home synod' only. Ouiw no doubt infanned Constanune pl"Olilpdy of these devolopmenu; bul the emperor had already delermined on further action. Ossiw would ha.~ rtaivod nolice, 011 his arrival (late March 325?) in Antiocb, of the imperial decision 10 call a general council. At Antiocb, O ..;u. p<eoided over .. funh(r synod" which confirmed the election of Ewuthiu. of Be"",a 10 succeed PhiJo. gnruu. (who had died in December 324; the intervening months bad bttn turbulenl).·' The election (and the activities of the .yood ) confirms thai, fur whatever uason, the majority of bishops in th( Orie", we..., now firmly behind AIe"'nder. thtit synodical leuer (again .urviving in Syri,",,)" was sent to Alo:under of Byuntium , among olhen, and incl.,ded _ IU.pend (319).

Urkunde 18; synodicalletter from the ADtiochc:ne Council, March 32S (325) The remaining p",·Nicene documenu can be fiued in ;n varius ways; the evidence is notlufficienl In justify aoy dogmatism. Easebius PamphiJus' letter to Eaphration (OpilZ, no. 3, daled 318119) could be an indi,cct riposle 10 hi plrikJ.,duu: AleXlnder" 11r~ the coeternity of Father and Son (,..; p"'. otos III1i r..iw), and dioCiJJSCS" the significance of calling the Son an ri4o" of the Father (the image of the eternal mwl be eternal iudf); Ewebiw vigorowly denies the to-exi!lence (_p.mhtin) of Father and Son, and a •• the $On ofhi. (ather, 110 that the father must exiSI prior 10 the $On. A. al",ady noted, Ewebius Pamphilw' letter to Alexander (Opitz' 7, c. 32'0) may be earlier than hi plti/iJrdw. UnliU the leu,," wc have just been conlidering, it is fairly unspecific and reli"" heavily on MUS' credal letttt. However, ... Opitz observed, it C1hibits OIle or two apparent wrbaJ parallel! with IImos """.'",." The,e is thus a pouibiJily of its being a '!;u'-minu.e' rupoouc In the encyclical, d"'gned to ltate a case for the defen"" befu'" the """ning of Ihe NjCCD~ synod. If 110, it ;1 part or th. hasty and anxious ..action of Mus' Syrian supporte" to the disutrous verdict of th. IYnod of ADtioch, a rtllCtion traceable in the fragment of a lener by NarciuU!! ofNeroni ... prinled by Opil2. ... no. 19. This leaves only Alex.aoder'1 lener 10 the clergy of Alaandria and Mareolis (4a), the fragmrnt of a letter written hy hulin.., of Ty," (9), the lener of George to the Arian. in Alnandria (13), and

the ...u ....d of Alcx.ander', correspondence with Pope Sylvater (16). Th~ first of th ..... is normally and a1mosl cenainly COlTeCtly aucci· ... ted with and .uggeou thallhc encyclical i. indeed a rqlrUe of earlier condemnaoOllJ ' the introductOry U <w- is p.... umably manl 10 brillJll Ih~ J«.l church up '" date "" the number ... nd namCl of ruenl dcfectio"" 10 the Arian party, while the body of the encydical .... um .. that the disoidcnu named there have been away from Egypt for $OnIC time, and. is directed 10 those

_J '.....',.,

likely'" have dcalingl with them. P... ulinus ofTyn:'. letter i, aimool impossible '" dale in iu hgmenwy condition; it may again rtpf"Ql!nl pan of the gencral raponsc to hi ~, but ther. is no finn ~enco: even rnr iu being prc-Niecne. Geo. gc'. letter '" the Ari....... tilI in Alexander'. junodiction ..ems to pick up A1cx.ander'. phrase; in /Ii ~r<M'" .tating that the Son is d ,.... _ r ~, when he suggesl to Anus' followers an acctptablc interpTCtaUon of the bishop'. doctrine thallhe Son is lA; ".. sAH..; and 50 il is likely that it belongs in the lame period as hi,letter to All!Und .... himsdf. f inally, there is Alexander'. letter or letters '" Sylvtllter, 'eught, the TlWi4 could hardly be d...,ribed as a 'Luciani'" document. How ..... r, ifwe ..." no, only Athana.ius' fragmentary r.po" and paraphn... in rhe fi .... t book of hi. COfI!.a AriomDJ but allO the long

63

AriIu aM

tJu Ni",,, CrisiJ

poetic giaD.'l formed in a tradilion which concen_ .rated on the idea of the Son u perfecl image of God'" would have round 10 d .... tic a d""trine of the Father's rem,,,en ... from the Son uncongeniaL The TIuJIi4 i. a strongly-worded piece of apophatic theology, but it doP"ning of nqotiations with Eusebiu.o of Nicomtdia, and probably after the 'synod of one hundll:d', • date in the lummer ~ autumn of 323 is most Udy, though whether ear~er or lal~r than E....,biu.' lell.. '" Paulinus (a parI of th. same campaign of conlO~­ dation and reusu.-ance) ;t i. ;mposlible to say.

3 NICAEA AND AFTER

At Antioch .arly in 325, .he bishops .uppond tha. the 'great and holy synod' was to mee. at Ancyra;'>l but further lenen fr"'" the Emperor were proNbly alr.ady on .he way, moving the meeting t" Nic.aQ,. If the I.".r attributed Cons .... n.inc (Iurviving "nly in Syriac) and publiJhnl by Opitz as no. 20 in hi. collection i. authentic, the reUlU for 'hi' dw>ge bad I" Rean, ,.,..."reh'''' h ... been le .. generou" and detailnl exam· ination of such Hlu a. we do possess h.as failed to yield more than about 200 names. The contradictions may be partly explicable by ex.agge..ation (!hough EIl5 .... tbi ... was in a good position tu .,.timate the numben) or by Ihe La.. arrivals, early departur.,., and irregular auendance al scssions, in the time-honoured lradilion of oounciJ., episoopal and o.he ......"" It is fairly likely at leas •• hal a good many ""'re lhan 200 we", presen •. '" E"",biw of Caeoar",,' • .,.tirnate'· of abou, 250 i. probably as near a.s any. philollorgi"s' Ot records .he names of twenty-."", bishops Iympa.hetic to Anus at .he oouncil. If this list is reliable, Anu.' support wu still qui,. strong: onc bw.op in ,en, in a council full "f people wi,h no very deep thMlogical oommitmenl one way or the nth .., i. a promising base .0 work from. H"",ever, the lis. brilll.. ",;Ih problems: one of .hose named had been dead for some )·ears,l>· two had SUMCribed to .he oonopl IUpported Ari ... at the opening of the council. PhiloolorgiW' catalogue mUSt be regarded at being orvery limiled ..... though not wbolly untnllt\;andcr'" and another in the n..IiII 21 reponed in tit ~ Ambl"OM:'" records a fragment fmm a letter of E.... bil1l of Nicomedia (1)0. 21 in Opiu)'" read at the eouncil, which Of'poacs the *erne m Mono,ouW.s atlacked in the n..I;':' "11"", he [EIIKbiwJ said, " we do indeed call the Son of God IInaeated [ineru_, no doubt representing .,..(~)iIo>aJ .. weU. we are on the way 10 eonfcqing

.,....w..

68

that h~ is ~s with the Father.'" And Ambrott adds thu, when this w... read at th. council, the bishops decided 10 include Ibe word in the crttd, .eeing hnw strongly Ibe Aria.n.o disliked il. Thi. i. certainly an oversimplification; but if i1 men 10" gc:nuine lelter ofEu.. biu., the chances are that il was this documenl which was tOm up urly in Ibe sessions (despi le impressive argumenu from Slead, it does ..ill Ittm prol>able that Ihe Eu.. bius merrelr ik.fot;t is "",enl soo:ul1i", meeting. of tll of faith,'" ... pparently employing ... highly ambiguous furmula stating that !he ~l~ of God'. substance was "",,'*>.'" The sUMvin, fragmenu of this letter suggest a man at the end. of his to:!he •. MUll' mistake was to emphuioe the numerical ttrength of his suppon, especWJy in Libya.''' Righdy or wrongly, Conttantine assumed th ... t Arius was threatening a .chum,". the Wle thing which all the imperial efforts wc.., designed 10 avoid. The emperor wroto:, probably in 333,'" an opon le.",. In !he bereoiarcl> and his lupponen which is cun.o,dinary in its venom and tobUllWmeu, dubbing MU! an 'Ares', a god of war,'" "'ho KW In create Itri[" and violence, and quoting the SibyHlne Oracles'" "" the divine judgment th.eato:ned for Liby... on aCCOunt of !he LibyllllJ' lino against he... ven .... Arius' ereed is dissected and fuund 10 be incompatible .. ith Nica ....;... and when !he emperor has finished refuting his theology, he turns"'" to .neering at Anus' wasted and ascetk appearance. Cl.ri.,. and laity who b.talr. the peace of !he Catho~c cburch by continuing todhertllce 10 MUS are assured of legal..,tribution .... The lette. suggesu a very confu.sed situation in Libya. Anus, thougb reslnred In communion in another province and permitted tn ..,turn (by imperial decree) In hil own prnvince, has Itill not been Iynodically ",habilita.ed by an Alecanclrian decision. Not surprisingly, his allies in Libya hne _umed that he is 10 be regarded as 'in good standing',;n the light of!he imperial reprieve. MU! appeals to !he emperor, on the groundt of this restoration by a majority in Libya, to bring preuu,"" to bear on Alexan_ dria [0 allow a formal " ..or... tion. But Conttantine _ no doubt mindful of the Donatiot troubl", - lI«I in this the creation of a scparate church, and thu! withdn.ws from Ari.,.' Iymptothizen the privileges of Catholic Christians, It IOUodl as though Anus had, in effecl, asked the emperor .. hal alternative he and hi. suppo.",n had bUI to act as if th"" we", had in communion with the Chu~h at large until !he empero. fonnaUy compelled the churd>es 10 r;l1ify this .... JI i'I probably ... n ... nachronism 10 thi.n.Ir. of anything like a K1f-<X>tUurch in Libya emerging or b.,ing evisaged at this dale; but Arius wu accuslOmed from earlier ecperlencc to acting on the decuioR.l offriendly local churches rather than waiting for a volle-face in Alexandria. Even 10, his lettcf was evidently writto:n out of long-standing billemeu and. impatience with the Egyptian church whid> tu: btod .......ed faithfully and which had

"f-

Atius and tJu Niunl Crisis excluded him for nearly thirteen years. Arius is caught in the crosscurrents of uncertainty about the workings of a church unexpeOtI:: accurately. the very wide .pectrum of non-Nicene belicvm thoughl of themIClv.. .. mainstTeam Christia.... and regarded Athanuius and h;' aUiea ... isolated ""l1em;'u' - though increuingly they also looked on the mo.e aggrasive anti.Nicenet (Actius, Eunomius, and rh. Like) u no less ali .... 11) the onainJl1cam r>f Catholic tradition. It was not jUII e"desiutical protocol which nwJe the b.. hops at Antioch in 341 declan, by way of preface to. nonNic.cne c.onlhsioo .,r faith, that th.-y wen no1 ·followe.. of Anus; fl)r Iw>w could we as b;'hop. be followe .. of a presbyter?" 1l>ty meant exactly what th.-y "'cnl on to Jay, that Ihey had aecepted Anus u nrthodt>ll. bUI did no. look on him ... a factional 1e000er, or ascribe: any H>divid..w authority to him. h iJ bc:cause thil i. lhe case that Athana";"I' con"""e..i.lenergies, especially in dt 'yWir and (as Kann.ttgi...... has recently and expertly shown)' denund me tradition in which he is worlr.ing. He is .upported by his immediale colleagues, and pe,haps by the head of the diJ4Jhhiim, by Eusebius ofCaeoarea, a man deeply commined 10 \he ideal of 'lChool' traditioo looking 10 a chari$matic m ...."'r, and by EUICbiul of Nicomedi.o. .... a ' Lucianil,', and 00 again I 'school' meologi ..... His firt, episcopal alii •• are men woo have IwI experience of leamiqg from Ihe wiae and inspired; and ,h. TluJliII is addrCSlled implicitly 10 all who share ouch an ."perieocc::

m.

According 10 the faim of God's chosen, \hose wim diacemmenl ofGod,/Hu holy children, imparting the truth and open 10 God'. holy .piril,/TbeIC are \he things I have learned from Ihe men' wOO partake of wiod.omfthe keen-minded men, instructed by God, and in all respecu wile./l n such men's 1Iq>t I have walked, advancing in thougb .. lik. theirs,fA man much ,poken of, who .ulkrs all manner of things for God', glnryJAnd, learning from God, I am DOW DO "In.ngcr 10 wisdom and knowledge."

Anw IwIleamed fr"", the t%"r'ikk' ,,;, a.o nthen nave learned from Pamphil ... ()1" Luci.an, and be mU...... implicil claim to be himself a 'eacher in this kind of su=,ion, Pan of his tragedy iI thal (""en among his alii .. ) the tradition of such ochooI-001' Christianity, tn keep the cri.ma nf Chri.tian identity. maner of public vi.ibility ",thet" than priva.dy 'irutpired' decisiorut tahn in the inlen.. atmosphere of the group of pupib around a charismatic master. lu cmlibility had depended a good deal upon ill Owll incorporation nfthe appeal 10 • !nditiM of teaching and ill exercise of a teaching ministry. As IUch, ;t could ..'""" as a precariOUJ but fairly arneptablc me .... of holding diverse 'Academic' groups in loo.. unity, as well as affirming that being Chris.ian was no. ""dwi....,1y a maner 0{ belonging in a phil~phical •• udy circle. Bu' in th. brgcr citi.. of the empi"', bishops wet" in the Egyptian peasantry, and An,ony the Great is unlikely to have been familiar wilh Origeniud PI.a,()[';.m. Ve' his biographer ( if nOt Ath.anuiu. himlelf, certainly a commilled Athanaoian)" depicts him .. confidently employing the li1IglIiJ jrflJl£l1. of late clauical philosophy and mu,ing both Arians" and nonChri.,; ... n philooophen with ea", and Rueney." H", i. the true philosophical tife. Much has been ",ritten about the .imilarities be,,,,un the Vit.o A""",jj and the conventioru of the d."ical .age'. biography;" but perhapo w..... '" m"", significant'" the implicit alli ... nce belwe of authoritarian;"m :.nd forma!i,m ) on the onc hand, and ho!ines., purity, and highly ~roona]j.ed guidance (with its mk> of eliti.m and introvrroion) on the other was nOt to be wiped OUt by the Chu""", metamorpho:li.o into Ihe guaNlian of legally sanctioned idtology. In what we hav~ come 10 call the 'post..const:IJ:ttinian' ...., th;,. tension i. no longer avoidable; and wC may perhapo !carn from the nory of the early Chnrch that we art wrong to (:l
oil,...,

I.,.,

W.

Pan 1!

Arius and Theology

A

The Theology of Arius

We ha"e only:a handful of texts that can confidently be treated aa giving ul Arius' own thitlking in his OWn WOrdl; apan &om the.." we are wholly deprndent upon the reportl Df his enemies. And, as intimated in Pari I, such ""ports, especially in the writin!" of Athanasius, have to be handled with caution - n01101,I.\ sceptici.m, indeed, hUI with th., rtcognition mu, divorem from Ih.,i. own original literary conlcst, they are, in the work.. iD which they an: now found, "ery far from presenting ID .. I the .yllematic thought of Anus as he hu.....,lf saw it. In other worW, we can """". be 'ure that the theo\ogical priorUw ""cribed to Arius by his opponents Wowe""r, we . hall allempt 10 . kelch Ihe twofold consen.ut nn which he relies. (i) God alone i. s.lf"lubsi.tenl, ",,,,,,,11,,;,· he il immaterial, and thus witbotll any kind ofp; ;Jralily or composition; he i, .ubjecl 10 no nalural p~ues, no emanalion Or diffution of his substance.'" (iil He i1 entirely f",e, Talional and purposive." (iii) H. initialC:llhe creative process by f",ely bringing the Son into being, as a subsiltent individual truly ("W/W) dillincl from himself;" he does Ihi. 'be/"o", all age.'," yel there i • • &cn&c in whicb Ihe Falher elcis(l; prior 10 the Son, . ince Ihe Son i. nOI elernal, that is, nol timd ...ly .elf..,ubs"''''nl.'' (iv) By Ihe will of God, the Son i. stably and unaherably wbal he is, a p"rfecl creature, not just 'cme among othen';'" he i. the 'inherilor' of all the gifts and glories God Can give him, but, since this i. the e!feet of God', sovereign will, \he F alher'. glory and dignity i. in no way lenened by such a gift." (v) Although the rok of the Holy Spiril ... nol .pell OUI, Ihe Cath. oIic faith is defined as bdief in th= divine suhsi1lentll (AU/JIMltum) ." It . hould be dear from Ihi. catalogue Ihal God'. freedom ofwill i. a Iheme of centra.! impol"lan •• in such a theology. Anything which couJd possibly compromise it il carefully and e"plicitly excluded. God i. the > it may be an affirmation thal DO crutu...,ty Klr-know~e can be kDOwled~ of iIID """". We .ball be ...,turning later 00 10 the queslion 01 Ariua' .dation to the tnditiom of AJCUOOriiIID theology and to the philo.op/licat debates of IUs age, aDd it is in this context that I bd~ ~ can bell ma.ke sen ... oflhis - al firs, punting - notion. In tlu: conteJll of the 7l.t;.. hOWIeVel", the function of the doetrine Items 10 be 10 underline yel qain the fact that the Son is by tLltu..., I cru.IU..." livi", Uld operating as autures do. It i. not a gnotuitoul dercsation from the Son', dignity, but iIID explanUion of the facr that he stand. in need nf" gract: uhe i. 10 penonn the rUllCtion IOr which God h.. bl"OU(hl him inlO being. It is 'by God'. wilt {thal the Sonj is as great .. lie is' (S 29). We are returned once mo..., 10 the theme or God'. gracioUll will. Having created the Son, he emurcd the Son'. dooeneo. to him...lf by giving him all the glOI)' he is able 10 reuive MiI by bestowing upon him oome IOn of participation in the divine intdleCt. Thi. scema the bat reading ofS 14," and it aeoonb with the implication ofother p .... ga: SIO, fOr inatanOl:, luggnu a conttUl between the: Itnse in which God is IOpNN, at IOUltt ofwUdom, and the IenlN: in which any =atull: mlY be to (at panicipuing in the wiadom emanating from God); and S23 poinu in the ..tnd

as and when be wilb. All tllal Iimiu hi • ..,Lfrornmurucatioa and aelf-nvdation is !he irmlucible difr=ncz between him and hill aution; bul what he "" give, be dQC:I givt:. If my previouI analysis 0( the n.!;' as an apologia addreued to !he Lucianitu it correct, the p... pCl~ 0( thi. dialectie between tramcendo:nce and revelatioo within the Trinity iuelfi.to penuade a rath"" suspicious al.ldicnce lbal a SITel.l upon lhe unknowability 0( God did DOl imply any qucstioni"l oflhe reality of graciouJ m..nifestalion in hi.tory. Wc may I'fl:aIl Arius' emphaais in hislC11er 10 Aleundcr I1po11 the diviDe goodneu and providence, and upan the importance of the ScriplllfU of old and new covenanu. "£'here were thOSed," John 14:28 ("The Father ;.. gmter tha.a I') is unlikdy to haYe bun among them: and AtlL&nuiu'" bolh "ac it to make an anti-Arian polol (if 'grcatu' - not 'better' or 'hilher'" -Ihen not difrutnt in.l:iAoll, and the same arg\lment n:appean in VictorinWl." Only laler ;.. it thou8ht nV"'"1')' to n:fer this "'rinI only to the incarnate condition or Ihe Word. n..:, initial debate wu not about the riptnal or wronpetS of hienn:llical modela or the Trinity, which wen: common to bolh ,idea. MON: pIaWliblc candidaltl WOIlld be tome of Ihe p....ges mcationed by Athanuius - Pbilippiam 2;9-10 (i" co"j"nctioa wilh PNlm 45;7-8)," Hebrewt 1:4 and 3:1-2,- A«t 2:36," RomIUII 8:'29,. and perhapo the: goopd ta:tI of ~ ... AriaJiu III - John 3:35, 10:30, 12:27 , 14:10, 17:3 and 11 , Matthew 11:27, 26:39, Mart. 13:32, Luke 2:52 (though this is M;J dOllbUul), and 1tYCn.1 _ rdcllcd to in paW",. Taken .. a whole, Ihcoc citations had apparmtly bccn WIed by Mill and hi& IOllowtn 10 tltabliah three buic tbeological pointJ;

Alcundt..-·

Ill.

_1""

(i) The Son;" a cru'lln:, that is, a product of COO', will; (ii) 'Son' is Iherefon: a for the _ d bypootuU, a"d mill. bc undentood in the lilht of COI1Ipt.nblt metaphorical in Saiptun:; (iii) The Son'I Itatlll, like his ~I')' ailtmoe, depend. "pon God'1 will ,

One thi", which IholIld bf: noted immedialely i. that none or !his e1"1eticai material, u dtlCribed or implicitly characlcriud by M .... ' manitl, n:aI}y '''ppDrtI the idea .hat Mill wu a 'literalist',h;' not literalism 10 take the Psalma u spoken ioo /HIS.' ClirWi or 10 identify the 'WiIdom' oftbe Old Ttltammt with ChrUl. AalDr the inte,pte~tion of the New Ttllamelll, ...., baYt 1\0 idea of how Mill might ha~ treated goopt:l na"..tivc or pt.nblc (though Athanuiul of Nazarba WIll dt:.rly no ,tn.ngt:r 10 allqorital read· ingsh" if M UI ...1ntI that Ihe \.aiI.~e of Ac:tI, Philippi&ns Or "ebnw. abo". the ex.aJtarion ofChriot mtanI thr.' Christ recciYCf

109

hia glory at the Father'. will, we can _

quite plainly from the lem:n and the n.iioltnu he did IIItI undenWld tlli. in the crude temu of all .potheoois of the mu ja..... al " point in UIm. AthanasiUI' objectioll to Ari ..... • ... qcais is DOl that il i. negligent of a 'Ipiritual teme', that it is 'Judaising' in ch.,."cler,·' bul that it is arbilrllry, .bI.a '- iiin _ ,. il is haxd on. prival
HI

.... jA;"'ity~ By the fact that the 1r.1W", tUen IiteralJy, is plainly j.,c··.qmll with what the"'" ofScriptlU'e and tradition .nchtl about the natllre: 0( God. And II.Idi a c:oachWon is borne OIIt by the fiartber fact that meraphorical mea oftbc IaDpar: of'..,.ubip' and 'bEgelli"g' can be found dxwbcre in Sc:riprure: (I .... 1:2). The metaphor of •...·bip' appliM to the mediator'l relatiou 10 God it " ,MUei by the Icripllual wiUleU to a God. distinct in elKaCC from all contingent being, a witnc:u ankulated in P"I,... 1ike Proverbl 8:22. IrGod it a God who createl ofhit own free aDd. rraciout will, all odIa- !hi"", depend llpoD Wt will: there it no other, qllUi· ph)'liical, kind of depc,odency·relation·hip. when in Saiptvn: we eDl;O\lDlCI" the maapbor of OOIIIhip in web a conical, we mllll be aware: that the 'core' elemeral of the metaphor eannot, in the n&wre: of the caK, be the M:mantic field th.ac c:ovcn kinlbip, bioIocicaJ _tinuity, ,.. manbenbip of the u.me Pili, aDd 10 iorth; ;1 mllll be the run lO"""r field of familial intimacy, a depm· dcncy cap' ·ed in INlE or love - the field evoked for III when "'" call God 'Father'. Klnnmg;"mtr it righl'''' to call. thio a 'learned' 01" 'tcholutie' Q~, in 110 far .. iQ arwumenl is "'.,., upon a let 0( ~IIJ prindpla loictly applied, prior "1"ioN about what _troll the I dillJ of the 10::11- .. OPPCI«lIO whal M le"", the 'narn.tive' or 'antluupo::norphic' caqail of Atb· nnius. I IhouId prefer to daaibe Athtn..illl' approach u I.e ·,iw, an caq:aio which it DO leu conccmcd than that of Mill with notional ooDliltcncy, but it wary cl ion:c\oo&ill, iu optOolll, and ""'"' illclined 10 allow the mtuphor of ' JOIIIhjp' 10 atablil.h iu own core .re:a in rdatiotl 10 all the nther clutters of iIna.(ery used to chuacttrize the: mediator'. ltallll., in Script""' and ia worship. The dICe! of thit it 10 challcugc the primacy of anyone mode of.....-ki"'.boul the: mediator (.uclt u Wlltpt mted by Pto.elM 8:22) ill iIoIation, and to nix the quel!tion of whtther om d.-pendmcy .......... the ultima'" IIOU=, tbe Father, mUll be the relwl ofan antbrapomorphkally conceived.et of divine d!oo.ing:'OI whal it the will to produce the dq:totndtnt reality of creation it intelligible only it the divine life it finl conceived u i!ldfan acl ofgiving and l"CIpoodina;, which ilfor, in the ItDIt of bei*'ll utterly IlnCOIIItraintd, yu .,.' I.!, in the Itnse of DOl being the dl"ca of a puncti\i.r acl of contcioUl teIf-

no...

1

dettrminatioo~'Of

AthallUilll' htrmenwtic would

rcq..u-e a "'paRle tnau.., to do

il j1.lSt>a:, and il il thUI briefly Utttbed here limply in order to bigbl.irhl wbal is, in ODntrQ!, dw'acu:",Uc of Ari1.lS' mode or procwii",. We..bave ob.c:rval how Ari"" deals with the ""'riqlled ac:riptural material lbolll thc Son'l rdationahip 10 the Father, and how biI oond",ioo s If"C supporlcd by aUusion 10 !lIe metaphorical leaves the natllre or O()lI"'ip-l~ dKwllere in Scripture. thin! poin! ooted above U I majOT theme of Arian excgeo;' 10 be: invatigaled - tile qucstion of tile Son'l ItalUI, 11;' 'promotion' I1 God's will. We have already remar:lr.ed thal it is very difficult 10 llannonir.t whal Athanuiua and Alexander u.y abolll Anus' view. on this subjecl with whal we have of An",' own writings; and what, if anythill8, in the w .. eoponded 10 Am-nui",,' summary in A(v) cannot be: m,((rminod . However, the problem is somewMI illuminl!ed by tbe f~ that both Aleundcr and Athanasi ... o.uoo;ille the tryp1O-adoptionill viewl they ucribe: 10 Ari ... with the lIeretie'. excgesil of Psalm .~:7-8. Albln ... us reports'" thlt the Arians, in inlerpretill( both this p....goe and Pbilippians 2:9, Wc! much Itreu on the dia /oIaI6 and IU, 'therefore', in tile W«I.. They did nOI, appa«nUy, ilK these expn:uions directly in I Upporl of a limpk exaltation-thcolo(y (Chrisl .. a ereall.re promoted bc:caUK of vinue); deopite the pe.-.ua';"" argumenll ofGregg and Grob, ,'" we ha"" to be cauDDlII in ucribinllO Anus the exempll"'l doctrine: of u.lvation m-t migllt be: implied in IUch .. ICIIcme, and tn be: mindful of the fact that Arius himldf ;. ..., .peaking of CII"'I" IlIuman being rewarded for his probity."" Accnrding 10 Allla .... i"", tile poinll made in IlIe Arian exegcsis nf Ihe pIIlm wtre (i) thl! the dia _ implieo .. rewlrd , and a reward implies voluntary choiu (pONiruiJ) and thus mutability ; and (ii) Ibat exaltation,..., _ ...... 1, , sow, 'above your kindred' nr 'fellowo' implies that the Son it .. member of the cla.u of things crealed'" {that;', ",,/fdw i. be:ing taken in the COII1mon clauical and Sepluagintal aeRSo: of'wllcague' nr 'pann.... ' nr ~oinl p?lScl"'r'j.'" Tb", Ari ... ' readin, ofthia pulm WII cl...,ly WRneeted with SOme fairly CC"Rtral therna in hil Ibeology - tile ctUcednCII of the Son, .nd the fae than mOll cft'om that hive been made by theo!ogialll Ih'"""lh the .gca, RealDItrUCrins Anus' view. from Ath·nuiUl' condensed and ho.tile lummaries, wo: can conclude that An ... argued (i) that the Son, in hil pre-incamall: llall: and in hi. life on urth fItII_rily 'loved rightcoulnua and hated iniquity'; WI i!, he fully and properly exercised hiI crclturoy flftdom accgrding to God '. pU'l""" in acating rational beinl', by oonll:mpiation, vinue, and praix of God , ( u) !ha,"Uc:h an aerciK orrational freedom i. normally what fill III fOr IJllllfisuri"g gra~, tM 'glory' of familiarity with God, 10 far as .ny aatun: can be familiar with the unapproadlable myltery of the Father; (iii) th2t God, in endowiog the Son with this dignity of hea.venly intimacy from the very beginning of his aill' m~, " thtl'dOrc acting IlOl arbitrarily but rationally, knowing that hiI fintbom atnOI'II autu"" is and will tolways be wonhy of the higbes. deg.ce of~, a perfect channel for creariw and redemp.-

tive 1U:tion, and 10 a peoft: .... , ,. that Philo deliberately adopu the COIIvcnru:.n. of Alcaan. drianJewish mythDlorY conccminc an helper for the creawr, with the overall aim of . .~tid'tlluch a pictun: by rdati"l it 10 what is kw him the fundamental iMue of bow God is knowoo by rationallpirig. Langu.., about a '.,cond power' or ' ""cond God' fi.u>ct:iDouo to ddinc what Sandmd has called" a point of 'ill'~ lion' bctwccn God and the created mind: lhc I..ogc. it that in virtue of which WC Qn bcgiD 10 know God through the rational SU'UCIUfU of the world which arc acces.ib!e 10 the .... Of course, whu makco Philo ~ th.... 'routine' PI.\Oni$t is his oonviction that lhis knowkd~ depend. Upoll God'1 initiati"", Dot lIiI.Iy in creation , but m the inspirarion ofScriptutt (that la, the Torah), and iD the gifts bcolOWed OD the I0Il1 in OODccmplation and oncditatioD OD Ihe Law." The LopJ might indeed be ca1ltd the principle of,,- in God, 'disposing girll' ," 6lIed with 'ionrnatcrial pow.... ' ... thotf: po_n tIunugh wklcb GcxI la I",own 10 UI - IUjHu.ocly, the two po*u, tha. '.ttcrod' God Like the cl>c:rubim on each .ide of .he • ..t,"

ulIi_.

,..C

118

bmiDa;. with God . the ttiDity 01' qeb lb.1 appeamllO Abnlw:a al ~ _ Ihe cn&rM power and the kinstY po'Aer (by which crt:arioq i. IUltained ...et orp.ru-t). It lboo"d be IM)ted lb.1 the Loora- io __ the two primary powen, aad. ., CL El 10 the divirn: be..... ...m:. it io the anM of existent thinp. and their 'ocmiDaJ IUt.taDce' (.,.. "nu """j," but, when it iI !xi", 0DlUidered ova&I"inl! the m....tiple IOfftlI of God', pr-ovidePtiaI involvallent in the worid (!he' rill. it i, clearly ...1 separable &om the one God. h is God himself uuned toward. wbat is IlOl God. ConJcqucntly, il is DOl awprisiac that PhiJo'. ~ aboot the Lccoo iI confusing. AI a kiDd of 'boundary' fM' ,,.;,.,) betweea God and Whoal bu come illlO being (Ill ,.Id" 101 ), the I..ogoI is neither ..,. ...... DoOr ilr,s (as can be aeen, WoI&on'l \lie of th.iJ pon'l't dislOlU Phi]o', carduJ pal'ldoll). VCI, .. QJ.Uailliac aDd .....cM..... God', capacity 10 ~1ale 10 a contingent world, the Lccoo is 'cldc:at of u...., minp lbal haw rrceival !ftl"ration·... n.c Logo. is I 'place in die mKbl' ( IO(;) ......(1): mill, 10 be 'in' the Lcsoo la DOl 10 be in God n.l'lili1n, but nther to be in a poIition to grasp the ~a1 l:raII.I«Ddence 0( God and hia incomprehensibility 10 mt crg.led miDd.- ]n this KnM'. the Logo. i, the leacher and healer 01' the miDd ; bul to S« the Logm ...uch io only 10 S« !he ,hadow (n ) nf GO!!." Th~ mind thal hu been \nIly purified .-..ai\IC:I the graa: 10 S« both the ~.... and iu u ; thlll MORI ~ves his

,e

knowledge 0( the heavenly la.bernaclc directly by God 's power. but Bea]cJ u.ow. il ODiy &om the 'Ihadow'. that is, £mm the rational imace in the mind 0( Motel, who himseJ{ KCI both i~ and ~ - both the Logo. as abrine of the clcmai ideal, a.nd the .implicity of God which is btyoad the multiplicity of idciPllP ." The 6n.a1 aoaJ, it 1CCmS, is 10 sce the Logoi ' in' God, 10 grup that for God 10 be God is ....,. than for God to be the fint principle 0( the univcnc; and UI pass beyond the aw:u"CIIClt of thi.t gulf (I: ·;ng God 'in' die Loswl to dirttt with or 'nourilhmcnl' by God in hia l implicity,$1 'bc: ,"Ond form and beyond ,;gbl'." We P'''I,QS &om contact with God in his .r.. PTmu, aWU"C1lCSl of him iPIIP .-dating providentially to au.rurea, 10 oHiIl( that God .dJ thlll bccalllC be u thue.: ~ is (lel"1lIlly in him. b°nd.1ion Cor his CQm .... Wlic:a1ion with rarion.l IOU", • ' pI..::c' for the work! IS an ord~ oyatcm do:si&n~ to lead crco.ted tpiriu back to him. Bul, havinl; thlll IICC11 and WldcntoOd God IS Losoo, as rumed toward. the world. wc an: then confronled with the 6act thal rhio ' tumiDg' don 001 ab.llIl

u.mon

the divine belli(, which in itsclf ;1 immeuu~bly """" than the ensemble of n,riooll IInICIUlU, and arc drawtl tOWarm me fiDal UId unfathomable fIIY'ltery of God .. God. Wllelhu Philo b.ad a doctrine of'my,n ;ca] union' ;n any atria ..,n.., ranau.. dd)atable;" b.1I (deopite me logical difficulties involved in 11Iet. a poeition) lie au II«m 10 have bdi~ lbal thcTe could be a relation 10 God other than in hiI world·rdated aspect a, LogoI. Perhapll me mere recognition of me in""haustible depths of divine simplicity, and a will.ingncA to tOrgcl any apprehension of God .. ufotd by hiI relation to aatlllU is all PlUln means (in wbich caIC, be ~ Itrikins1y amicipara mal patlcm summed up in the weatcrn Chrllti&n tradiricm by the language of TIll elM'f U~). h is no! that Philo has any limpLittic dOClrinc of an advanoe from thinp wc do underlland 10 things wc do not, a crlKk I"CI.IOPfaim dichotomy. On the conlrary, the knowledp acquired by the rilJhteoolllOUl is, mroulJhout iu developmenl, IOmething other than c:ont:qltual maltcry. We mUll begin with adr·knowledge,. but thi.! il not .. knowlcd~ of the IOUI'. or mind'. nW~. Like the eye, me mind behold, other things, not iue\f, and Adam, though he n.arnc. me ~u, dnea not name him.dr." It ;1 .. kllOW~ of me nothi.II(ncu of c:onrin~nt ai.lencnapI ofa frK and IC:Ir-rncali"l God 10 rtIQI"" u far u pouibl~ the dill'erurtlevcl. of coecnic uniry found in tbe h",..,.;a, and tile Neopylh...,.-ran. inlO a Ji"lle prindpl~, the divine ael ftowinl freely ftom tile unkoow.blc ~I

.mw.

'IM,._

"'FI' _i"".

_"'''I

12'

loving divine naIUK: !he plllT&lity which poocs no probl=s fOr an hiervcJ,icaJ or emanatiOllisl COImology has 10 be heavily qualified in a moK personal;,1 ocheme. It il notCWOfthy 100, in rhil CORnection, that Pbilo'l God i. nol 'beyond being', like !.he Onc of rhe PQmtn E. Cl of the Aleundrian Cluiatiu tndition fioally pl'DYed inlolerahle: withoul wholly dilcardinR the vocabulary and framcwotl; of meUlpMr P"I bad. 10 Philo, AAW alWllplS to Cut the Gordian knol produoed by thox ofhil fOrchcan who have taken PbiIo I'o:r granted .

2 CLEMENT

Prominent &mOOR lhcac ;" Clcmcat. III .pilC of ......e diaag,ament OVCT the alCl « attain a 'full aDd occure COJItcmplative visiou' (tc .. /j1HF Iliu;') ofGod," that IOIid nouri.ahmenl of me Besh and. blood ollhe Word which it • 'comprd>c:mlilll (t, ..';,.,.,) of tlM: divine' f' aM..". ... pins ofthedivine ... botance·... AI with Philo, 10 for CIu..uu then: is • dj.unction bet".cu knowi.., or wine the l.oioI aDd kDowini: G
the divene _pinNal oN are I!:att..,ed inw one'" (u radii pthered into !he CUI~~ Or as piec:a of day rolled ;DID • b&ll~ more prot..bly. I thillk, the fonner).- ThUl be is knawablc and nameable, in IIImc ddinablc." AI pluraliry-in'1,Il\iry, the Lagos i. F,?",- and Clement fOllows PhiJo in aflinnina; the father'. tnfI.. ' ·-JUICe of thQ level of unity,- though the doctrine ol the Losot AI nu. remilMls III Iba, IhiI mn ..... udcna: is not aJ.olulc div..ni. nuiry, and we can find strong .tatementa of the unity bet_tt" God and Logoo." 81,11 the Father is IliU, ;1 tennS, to be grasped as an . , ' 5 -', an 'immensity', beyond the ... '" that can be .uched by abouacu,. alcmion and location from contingent thinp." Thus far, lb.n: is AI.""., nothing in Ckmcul duu could not have been oaid by PhiIo, !hough the habitual I~ of Father and Son .. distinctivdy Christian aDd tht range of Scriptun: ayai.Labl~ .... quotation is widt:r. Bill, while il ha. rightly bo:en ~"lhal the PbiIook J...ngo. dee\ what is detaminat( only by appearing in detcnninale I'orm: 'Structure (KAiIN) is perceived by Itructure, &co: is t ( m by faa:, leODRnizabJo: ch_riatitl &r1: (l'Uped by oonp with structure and , .. bltantial ckfinltion'. ". B.. I Clm>enl M. 10 maiJlu.in a .. ther ~ balana: oI'viewa. He i, )]"e"y with the Vakntinian tcndeocy tocalV( up the hu'l(ll/y world into distinct ... beiltmtl, as if the divine IiR: could be partitioned: lib later .mIen,'" be IIIly hl~ been diopo.ed to la: in thiJ an illlpossibly IItI.lerialisl vi('W of divine ... bltana:, and to insisu thll God', life ..ndugou DO d>anF Of dimin ..tion in the prD"V' of 'nnbodimml', the taking of cklerminale form, in which revelation oonoistl. B.. t there is. further problem in that the VakDtinian l«hniq .. e ODDfUXI lho: fundamental diff=na: berwem God and the world: the IIow of reality frnm the Father down to human beings i, lCCtioned oft" in vario... ways; bul this mean, WI the diuinC"tion between God and LosIIIe to be """" .. no different in kind from that belw«n lo«oIand .. tionalIOUI. Clemenl" Valentinian """1"0: IIY, that the ',pirituall«O:l' in \11 is an elllanation (_po","o ) from lho: angelk 1«0:1;". and the ansdk aeedI come fOM from 'the Mal.' (the hish.,.1 principle after God , !be O1Ily-B.egott(n, Mind and Truth)'"' ' not as a cration, but .. chil· dl'(ll '.,n They Ill: rmted to the Son in m.. ch the lime way u Clement believes the mamat. lI¥iour 10 be relalCd to the eternal Loso-. Th... Clelllent h.u to insist on a stronger bctwem Son and Father than tm Vakntiniana appear 10 allow, and on a doepel ~il.1 belween the Son and aealion. The imagery oC the '1«0:1' is alponetlt of whit I hive called 'Academic' ChrisDaniry, the """,DC circle around i .. tucher; Ind, U Lorem. IUgatl, ;t ill probably Ihroush the medium ofteachen like: C lement thlt Ari ... ' nlOOtI go back ulDrnately to 'Judaeo-Helleniltic witdom' : 'Evidence for thu ;1 provided by me role of the Witdom Lil(ratu~ (Prov. 8:22, and Wisdom 7:25) in the l.oa:ot doctrine of Orisen, at alto by the harmony of,uw and JfpItU, 10 reminilcent of Clement, in the prologuc of thc 1'1WioI:'· Once again, it ilIlCII I qucaUoo of. direc:1 iaflumce on Ariul than of a a:>ID.lDOIl ethos - within which, as we have ....,n, there can be visornu1 d~,"menl. Ari ... bqins £mm the apophaDc tndilion o.hr.m:I by Philo, Clemenl and hetcrodoa gnosDcism, the dcacriptions of God u """"'1, akl;us, and 10 011, which an 10 important a feature of the vocabulary of esoteric cin:Ie.; but hil importance tiel in hio mlllal to qualify these deocripDons by Ihe admiuion w" IIw tlioiM RtbJ_ of I _ d principle, with ill implicaDons of a conDnuoul -u. from the world to God. In millrespe" From very early on, there "'c"" those ...ho ...... Oria:en u the I.lltimate IOU>'CC of Ari ... ' heruy: and it is nOkWoriby that perhaJOO the eariiC:lt IUch accuu.ti.on COIOeI from MarceUI.l1 of Ancyn,'" complaining that Origen UolIght that the Logoo wu • dilDntt apellwns. Indeed, one of the feawres of

'"

ongen's theology that pUtl bim decillively and p~tJ)' CONisuntly over against Clement is that insittc:ru:c on the fact that the Word ot" Son is an "poMuiI,'" "fJwlUil ot" . .,..tot, a. In 1.'23,'" Origen ch.aUenges Cdsus 1(1 show thal the Gf'eCk deities have ""PMI41i.J and ........ , Bther man being pu~ in~ntions thal only seem 10 be 'embcxlied' concn:lely. HWjlMlGJU and IIIIrid a~ obviowJy mOTe or Idol lynon)'l'llOIU hue, and mean 'real indivHlual lubsiltencc·. a. opJ>Cled to wllence as a mental CONtnlCI only: in the badground is the familiar phiJoeophio;al distinction between what aUtI UlII' -/lfJ14SitI and what aUtI only Ut") ·· '·n, 'conceplually·.'" So, in _"" CAn;. VIII.I'2, '" on,m Slalel ~ry plainly thal he rejectll the vi!";Wll of those who deny that the~ IlR two IlaposliJHU in God : Father and Son .~ 'two thinp ~) in lubsistence (......taris ). but are One in likemindedneu, harmony (......p.w.;.), .. and identity of wiU'. ~h sugnu thaI, wrule ~ objected 10 the Son beu., laid 10 be ',nlntiM out of the Father's IUb.tlIIIa:' (u in

,,,rily

XX. IS of the John Commentary), be would not ...... have denied thal the Son could be described limply .. 'from' the Father'l lub.tanec. This doo not bclp us with the Hebrews fragment, !bough, where WiIdom " i,1Il sWJIaM IHi ~;'. IllId ~ iI DO dear "";d"";,, that Origel work"'! with • diltinction of this son. The problem of reconciling the pain., quoted ia the pi =1 tat of the Doft- with the opinions ofOricm cJxwherc apt, • ...! mnailll "nsol~ - especially U"''' an 001 dalin( with. ~ point in .bU thinking. Tbt: polemic apinll gnoariciNn is • CCIItraI ~.

If Pamphilus' tat has bee, u we m... t a)IlCIude, doctoral by Ruti,., ..., is it pouiblc 10 RC how this has bem done? I beliew il io. I.' n..: three Cf.ll'aell from the Hd" eWI Commentary bear no rclation " all 10 the lil'lt ::Iwwe in Pamphilus' cataJosue (which

there is nn obviQm I"CaJI)JI fQT 'mpemng); but oher 11. bav. IIOIII~ relevance 10 ohe 5tCOIId and tbird. Tbe firll qUQlatitln plainly malr.~ tbe point tha. the s.m i. indeed ro be called G law the diltinct lubsiltence ofthe Secoad Hypoawia as COI'lDeCteCIIO God's pwpoat: as ClUlOr - a tradition with reputable anceauy in the ApoIO«i&Q,- and probably, as IlIggOltd abovf;, in Cltfl'lent. On other matte"' :' the Soa'.lmowledge of the Father and paniciplloon in the Father, and the dCpendCDce ofbi, emteDa: upon the divine wiII_ Ori",,, I,ambivalent when: An", is dear. Oril"ni .... phrasa, or even whoie pan'p, that ha"e an 'Arian' navouron fi"'t rudinl an: man: carefuUy qualified wbeo teen in their COlI_I.. One 0, two other differenbably Dionyoius' .11-" . or u head of the """'t.'riM) aw-retltly ClUed the Son a .ttu..,'" but abo oted the 'argument &om COlTdativity', prelum· ably to defend the Son'. eternity u IIeOtII&l1' 10 God'. being Father .... He abo .poke of the Son as .~ and .~, comi .... 'out of the Father'•• ubll ....... ' ...! cchoinj Origcn'. dilcu..>on of Wiodom 7 and Hd»t .... I, wbile being ptrhapo ICOI wary than Ori(en of the pouibLc malCrialism of ~ about derivation from the ...n. of God (be goeI on u once to deny thal he inltueb any such implication); and • further £rapent recaU.o Oionyeilll' view of tht Son u the ullerance of the divine mind .... The Son is alJo lpoken 01" as image nr 'imilltinn' (MiLL;'.) of tht Father, h.vi", compLcr.. likcncu UlGuiolir) with him .... orn.cogno.tUI' luCcel'O" PitriUI wc mow e>'e!I 1eSI. PhoUIII dtterlbcs him as teaching the aislOlce of" twO subl ..... ctI or natul'Cl (....w or "wuris ) in God, jusl u Orl!en had OOnt,'" aml aloo meritinlll • di&cuaion of the cberubim flanking the art: and of 'the pillar of jlcob';m dcopilt RadIOrd's heoilltinm. - I thi.nI< we can .........·bly 8« here another bil of angelologicallpeculation, "",ed 0" Phi ... , probably ldentifying the dluuhim with Son and Spiril, and ptrhapo piclr.ing up Philo'. identification of J.cob/brael with the Logo.,m or using (u did Origcnl" the Pr.~ of;-,4. or both . little or nothing in what wc have of the wott of these two oblcurc tcacben indicales a gnal suIf dividing them from either Ori«eD or Dioo~iUl. h tcemI, then, that il iI not wmtlJI le> think of aD 'Origen;"'"

'"

in Ale...""';' _ g both bUbo", and tuchen, on the doarine oftbc Trinity - IIOt pm:ixly an '~! tradition' , lina: it coukI ~S! with sharp ailicisml of other features of Origen's thought, but I peral o;:oot(nunent with certain images and afIU* mcnlS, and an agra::ment abo ... t the ""qelil ofWitdom 7 in conn_ tomenIIQ

tioa with H~btc .... I. Witho ... t thia background, it wo ...1d be impouibl( to make IImIC of A1cundcr of AIexand';". theology, SI ClIp. 'ed in the left8thy letter 10 his name.......c in Byualium. He ia areful to insist that there is only onc who iI .,"";w, without

nng;n, and th.1I ia the rlther;"' ~t he denies that ther( ill any 'interval' (ofW-lilu) between Flther and Son."" The: rather i. I lway. Father, 'the Son being etemallywithhim •.II\ Hebte ... I'" ia quoted on the Son SI 'heir of all thinp' and SI .;a,.srtIIII and image,'" rco:alling once spin Orip'. ""egesis of mis P"'''ge; 110 ""plicit allwoion is ma.x 10 Wisdom 7, but the designation of the Son SI tikilI, following immediately on the mention may be a conscioll* echo of the Language of the Witdom lext. )n any cue, Hebr~ itWf is 10 marked by the vocabulary of the older worlt that it is impouible to allude 10 the onc without the other. Alcx.r.nder follows Origen in calling Flther and Stln two Ir.,.,..,..,. and, li .... e Piaiu', UICI ' two pluuN' SI I .ynonym'" - though he fotnhadOWl later ChrUtologicsl confw.ionl by u.ing pIauU alJo as equivalent 10 ·CISC1la' .... The Stln SI image ia a ' mediating being' (1IWIi_..... ,MMs),'" in IOme KnK JCII than the rimer, but contain. allml! is capable of being ~a1ed and reflected in me rlther's life;.... .,";/111, the Famer remains tn.tllccndcnt Ind ;nCllprCllible, greater than th( Son .... But Aiuander does IIOt, it 1ttmI, hold that me Fa!hd to have rej.cted allegory.' What IttmS 10 ha~ happened iJ that Ih. undoutlledly extreme literalilm ofThcodorc of MopsllCllia ha! been projected on 10 his pmlCffUO~. Antiochcne exegelil .0. . obviousJy lea given to ... travagant atlcguriu.tion of detail thall

".

Qrisell bad bem;6 bUI it cannot reaJly be Wd thal Athalluiua, for illlWlce, ill ~utely OrigeniaD ill hill n:adiBg of Saipcun:! This whole area il line when: over·oc:hematic oppositiom between 'tnditiolll' of ""eKesis or theology alliocialed with the churches of Antioch and Aleundria ,till do great damage to.moua 'Iudy. Some luggations of dogmatic oontinuily in Antioch, howaolfli. the Son', distinction tht Qn.lfIi ordn itq";te dcv. It is IlOl 'vaeated lhat !he Son cxie .. only 11 the Falhtt', will . Iu Bard y showed."" !hie aoed was 10 be an important ICXI for the: ' homoiOIIsion' party in the mid·founh """n,,y, affirminc .. it did the Sua'I ~rfec! likcneu to the ...n. ol !he FatMr, and, nalllrslly CnOIIP, ill lhcolo&Y ..... rqardcd wilh IUlpOc:iotI by Ihe 'neo-Ariane' who insisted on the Son'lllIbetemisl ...1i.t1ll1lJ 10 Ihe

10 50·.... _

(.,...Jld;",

rr.....

'63

Father. I'hiIo.torgi~ ~ Altcri ... with tW~ Lua..n'. leach.i"l by usi .... the word. ll/MrGll4kw nkiII IiJ "'" fWw -Wo

Evidmtly (judging from Philoawtgiw) the latu 'anomoeans' or 'nCC)ooAriam' tool: great pride in claiming 10 repretml aulhentk Lucianic tradition," and any pl\rue allowing evm .. slight acrom· ....... ·rjon with Nioene views would be bound 10 be n}ec~ at no! ••nMlItically Lua.n'l. However, lillCC the phrue occun in the writinc of one who WQ certainly Lucian'. pupil and in .. creed purporting 10 be L1.Ician'., it may well be tu. - which I~~ tha' .. food deal cl the KCOnd article of tbc creed, in which .w;, ;1 I pivotal notion, may ind~ go b.ack 10 .. c~ uacd by Luc1an. Wblcver was made of the offending phrue by the homoiousialll, ill! origirut.l Kllte WU probably no more than 'i~ of the Father'. "!a.liry'" - rdleeti.nJ the rapectablc pre-Ni~e uu.ge of dma: of b\ltD.l.ll kDowl menu around the year 300; and this is not IlIqliKible concrib"lion, linee il ""plains a ~I deal ,boUI the mixed feelings ohympathy and suspicion with which Ariu> was received in many paru of Syria and Juia. Ariua himself could UIC this idiom 10 iood dreel (as in hit prof..iOll of faith 10 Constanti~). bul if the n.u.. it anything 10 go by, it wa. nol bit native 10111"'" He tall m~tion the Son', nil ... as .nu. in pu.in.:'>' bul il is vcry far &om cenlnLl to hit thoughl; and his obolinale, conoilU:nl and radicallJDOlticilm as 10 tbe nature of the ,uprt:mt God. ev= ilt l1:Ipect of the b'. knowl· edge oChim, remaino "nique. This it pcrha.- the point to repeal thal Ari ...' role in 'Arianilm' was nol that of the fo\Indu oC. st~"" olthe period: they an: DOe "niqudy Christian 01' Jewiah pr;ob' lld, Ihou,b they an: much int .... ·ifed by the Judaoto-ChriItian ua"",pQorl ol autioa ... 1Ii4II#. TIN: poinl io that Ni", int .• iu a dual aw'"1l thal io ~ typicalty Akaandrian. Ori&m b.d I·k .... the bold II.ep ol p.opooinc that thc L.acox ni'lI c:tenIaIty UD"Ciid( God, .. a clio~ WbaiolC:lll: !h", the l.QIDI (and iD him tbc ideal world) io not,." ofthc ..... ofthc Falha- ol all, which ranau.. "..mow,ble; bul the l"'(DI io none the Jeu the &WI of the dunal faa WI the ..... of !he Father io acti"=. FDi' God ID uiot aaivdy and CDDa'CUly inVDhca bim in Iltten", or IUIcratilll hili Word: tJU. it hil eternal act of And . , be wilII, iD and thrDllJh hil Word, io !he eternal world of i"1:.......ble

In Part III we ohalI

lee

bow

IOft\e

will,,,,.

.pnU. Thil il , oompkx and delicately balanced theory, lketeMd ruher than worked 0111 iD detail; il doca not deny thal God iI fru in auti",. yel il aioD avaidl lugaliDf; that God _Id "'1:>Ir",uJ II'JIU"'"'I intcnwint. The Won! who ;" ,"bject id tlM: cxperiencca ofJet'" cl NuarW! il • paaaibl.. Ixi"l, .nd thud"o ... d iltiftct from

"6

GQd. All a distillcl individual, "/IOSwis !If ....., be ill lIot pan of GQd, and could !\eYer ha~ bet:n 'withill' Ihe 1ik of GIld; be ill dependent and .ubcmtwle. And if God ill lift ill rupee! of every contingent. mutable and puaibk reality, u,., Word uilu becaUle GQd dum !hI he .hould. Of IX>\lr"R God is 110\ withoul bi. own k~ and n;/I~ - we canlllM .uppooe him 10 be w. Ihan ¥Os or ~ - hUI there is nothing in tbis immanenl ,..tionaJity !ht compcb him 10 for Anu" but it would be wroag to lee him u sl4fl#v from • DIIrrowly exegetical problem (Id alooe from any one WII) . IfiI theological inheritance raises questions to which a more relined ~tical method will help ID provide

anawerl. He it not a theologit.n of cotaetllUl, but a notably individual intellect. Yet beau..: hit amceJm art: IIh.amI with a large number ofbishDpl and te.u;hcra outside Egypt, he can, a1beil bridly, be the

fi«ur"c:head for a

of sorts. For many of his contemporaries, Anus' conception of orthodoxy al lwt roled out what they wished 10 aee ruled out; bill tdatively few would have endoned, or pcrhapo even grasped, the theology of the TlWia in illl full dittinwveDCSJ. h it JIIJi uue 10 uy that Artu,' 'ynthetlit """,Id have been predicted by anyone who had underatood the ilIlplic;ations of rejecting both Origm'. cosmology and Paul of SillI\OSItI', Christology (any .",ch judgment of any radibJe of everlasting non-nist.nce and of everlasting exi"enee. If i, now exi".. and will go on exi"ing, it i. p.>tently not cap.>ble of eVCTlaoting non·ex;'t Own orthodoxy. Plotinut and hit ' UCcellSO..rw""n God :as he c..entiaJly is and God :as creato._ But why .houk! this disjunction be "'en as tcmporaJ, as ruling OUt the chronological infinity of the created order? The,.., ate IOme hints in Methodi"" . uggMting an aMwer. Otit" and Patte<wn" have both (originaJly in indep.. continued ad i'!JloriIM ... Th. implicatinn seems to be that differentiation is nlighl impacI of pool-Plotinian philosophy on the Chri. tian world before the la.er fourth cenlury," ther" are a f"'" indications Ihal Ari ... could have had sonu: contact with this lradi tion. Firsl and mOll obviously there is his UJe of ""'" itself iU, app&rently, a title for the Logos , a u~ which does nOt . ccm '0 be p&rallcled in

Christian literature; further, his s~rp rejection of the 'correLo.tivity' of Fath.,. and Son, b.iJ repudiation of III fHOJ ,; :u I proper a thought. Crucial to all thit i. the conviction that the world of idea. or forms is 1101 intrinsic to the being of God: God is G_ independently of there being a creation, and thu. independently ofhis being creator. A thtOlogian with IUch P'etluppostiDnl would undoubtedly find an aceptionally Slroag philooophical anchonge in the Neoplatonic and Neopytbagt>re.a.n isolation of the monad over againSl the dyad as gmund of contingency .nd plurality. The oppooition belw..,n the Father as 'aiw.ple' and the Son as 'multiple' goes bad, as we have JeC1I, to Origen at least, and provide. dear preC of. doclrine of analocr, and does lID' argue In IambUd!.an dqrce of " ..it and lndescriboobilijf in "'" lirst prindple _ another indication, perhapt, .hl. he ..,IM-ins III aJ

und.nt~ding:

,h. deminrg. is

IICIU,

subject and abject toguher, an active mind working On "",.ivc obje.t! of thought, was an insupportable nolion: as we ha"" ""tD in the p'"'''cding seC,iliar origin £0< n. be 1ooI!. bad to ,t.. apopl>a,ic deme"u in Plal(l', .....·n won! and forward '0 ,he ablol .... NtopIa· ton;" ~paration of . h. " .., pnnciple from ,M -.. , .... , QO the multiplicity of the world of ide... , whioh separale. it from the One." Th. One therefore eternally eludes """,:" ouly in those unattcn .." being 'like' c, or 'imaK ... • ofe.. Thi, is, " PlaIn knew. an awkward and misleading habit , bur it ;. hard to 'cc how we could a,"Oid il . AlIen illuminatingly discu ..... this i .. ue' with reference to reHection. in a mirror: the ....rf is red, and ;.. mirror image i. red, but in the lalter cue , 'you cannol mean th.J~"" thing you mun when you call i.. original rcd'.1 The imaKC does not ..and alongside the original excmplifyingthe tame ch.o.r:acteristics: what il is i. entirely defincd by its being a reproduction of the original. Thi. d""" not stop u. saying thal both scarf and imag~ are rcd , bUI wc should aclr.nowlcdge the

'"

....

diffeta'lO':

bet..ecn this and ... yinB that. la.hlld • 8q: • ..., bo1.b

This hel.,. in darifyinlf the continuity &lid the diw.linuity bctwCUI form and paniCllbr, though it ka"eI open the Vf:Ilin( quutioa of prKisdy .... the rmn.ess of ,.;ad and imace are one; is then: noc a ralhcr lOrmidabl. problem in luaatins th.I'rM' mcam IOmethi"l ",u. diffi: ..." ......... pplied to each in lurn?" It ""'Y be thai, as Biuer IUO""'," the I..er P"lo., in the n...tltllll and thc S.,lWt, is movilllf away fmm the .d.a ofputidp;otion ... ascntiaUy the ",Iation of particular 10 fonn &lid bqinn'ng 10 oon«i", it in lerml of ",laOOm between paniculan; participation would then mcan limply tht ...,.. tiOD betwern a and b wh,rel»' a ruliuo in b an ideal fonn which is independent ofa, yel nol it$elr ••ubslUltiv. "'ality aain, upon a in the way a aell on b. Thil ill bold readinc (){ Ihe laler Plato, which, u BiJger fully admits, brill«> hi ... dosnto Whilehead than 10 any anc:ieot philotopba; but wheWr ... DOl il is _ .CCI, ' ''toIbC putidp.alion ..... - . the Ins ""d...tOOd univcnally in antiquity in the """"'" outlined by the earlier PLa'oas pri......u,. the re .. tiOll bctwtcn particular &lid 1Orm. And i. WIt eritid&cd acawdir\lfly, fmm ArisIDtk onwattb. In the MtIiI""YM, Arinode .... IS thal il is ' empty talk· 10 caU the n:l:ation betwee:a id.. and lhi". OIIC of ' participation ';" and the IfUt third-oeolury commeataloO"lon hi. work, AJcr. .... dorOC Aphrodisiu and Porphyry, elaboraled his critique with (Teal energy. The notion of separable fonna is rejected,1f 10 Ihal the..., i, 1\(1 , " " , ...,al'ty of which th e ,..-tiaolar can ha .... a Iha ..,. Similar thingll;ln be ..id 10 bt 10 by ·,harm,' a ODmmon form, bUI IhiI il me .... phor; IS ""t«/oi, 'partidpation', is limply Ihe exact comparabili'y Or equality of ....... tiaI qo.oaliti .. in I ....... more partiaolar thin","'t i, biPoiaioo Us'.rin, common nKnOt ... ddinitJon." When IWO ... ~ things in th', way ' participate' in . common ddinition, thqo are Ipk ... or in .enno or 'Iynonymy' (0', u w~ .......Id mon: ..,adily u y, ' univodty'), .. d ..iJnatioao .pplicd to .... ct. thin" .. ~ tntc of each or them i" the ume ......... Thil, of c:ounc, mni'hU Plato', own poln' in the P.",.-Y" that IOnn and panlaolu f;IRl\O. ~ the Um/: nl",. in the u.me KIIM. h alto mea"" thai, luicdy Ipuking, anything other than '1)'DOIl)"DlO ... • or un,Yocal "amlng cannol he trt.ated as an aspecl or participation. the dail' Homonymy', equivociry, is the linguilOC ..,llIion nalionl or ..... particip.ating rub$t:ancn, IhOle wloith, ... ArislOtle

be._"

'"

pur< il," hav~ a diff~...,nl l"l'lt w ......... The .ame identifying ""pro.. ion .poken of two Or mOro .ubjet;Ju.i, without participation" - probably a paraphrase of tlte TMIia.line_ It is Ernebiu. of Nicomedia who lay. in plain term." Ihat the Son's nalu", 'is something entirely without participation in th~ nature of the unbegotten one'. Wlta,,",,CT i. communicated from Father to Son, th~n. is noto",ia or ph",u. It is eq ually dear that the A,;"totelean sense of ",,'odIi or "",';'xu or is ruled nu" God and the Son cannot bejoint ' participants' in a commOn form of Godhead , One of 'he most cOruif.. nt complain" of Arius and Itis tu pport"", w:u that Bishop Alexander'. pooit;"" implied the uisl,n", of tWn Ql"'(~)i/a - lite view which MethodiuI had so effectively rebutted in hi. treatise 0,. ha Will." M,1«lIi as defined by Porphyry (equality of p",prl4) canno, be the rdation of Son to Fa ther, fnr the Son 'poueoses nothing proper to

"""iI";"

222

AMlogy and Parlicipatiml God, in the real sense of propriety ,! For he is not equal to God, nor yet is he of the same substance'.49 It s~ms quite probable that Bishop Alexander and his circle had been using some sort oflanguage about 'substantial' unity between Father and Son, or perhaps - as Numenius had don~ and as Eusebius of Caesarea continued to do)! - had spoken of the Son enjoying metousia or rMtochi of the Father's life, in a still fairly untroubled Middle Platonic fashion . It is possible too that the word nomoousios itself was current in A1exandria, in the wake of the controversy between the two Dionysii half a century before, meaning little more than did related expressions about participation in God's ousia. As Rist has shown,5~ the general philosophical climate in A1exandria at this time was little if at all touched by Neoplatonic radicalism; the spirit of Numeruus still animated it, and there seems still to have been a considerable inHuence from the pagan Origen, fellow.pupil with Plotinus of the elusive Ammonius Saccas. With this general background, in which the first principle was still thought of as intelligent and active, the language of participation in or imitation of the divine ousia continued to be usable. If this is a fair picture of the intellectual atmosphere of the A1exandrian church, and if Arius was ind~d a man with some son of dialectical training, it does indeed look as though his own formation depended on sources rather outside the mainstream currents in his environ· ment. It is nOt only that he uses strong words to deny the continuity between God and the Son, but also that, in the ThnliD , he takes up the (Plotinian) paradox that the first principle is known for what it is through its opposite: 'We call him unbegotten on account of the one who by nature is begotten;! We sing his praises as without beginning bttause of the one who has a beginning' .53 And a good deal of Arius' polemic, in the Thalia and in his letters, hangs together very consistently if it is read as a refutation of all the available senses of substantial identity or participation applied to God and the Son, the whole range of possible meanings covered by /unnoousioJ, ek lis Iou patros ousias, idios lis Iou patros ousias, and so forth. God and the Son are not one subject - /umwousios in what was probably Paul of Samosata's sense; the Son is not a ' property' of the Father, not idios to the definition of God. To idion, for a Porphyrian or Aristotelian logician,5i means the substantial quality or condition of some· thing, not a thing in itself; but the Son, existing alithOs, with his own distinct properties and nOlle of the Father' s defining properties,

223

is a subject in his own right. Nor can Father and Son combine to

form a Iwmoousios compound; there are no such things outside the material world (following Iamblichus). Nor are they co-ordinates, members of a 'clus' of unbegotten beings - Iumwousios in a wellattested generic sense. ss Nor are they Iunrwousios in the Valentinian sense of a higher 01tSia separating itself out into higher and lower by emanation;:iIl the immaterial essence of God does not move or change or divide itself. In ShOM, when we look at Arius! attack on Alexander's theology, we stt, at the very least, a dose parallel to the Neoplatonist dismantling of "earlier Platonic models of God's relation to the world. Consciously or not, Arius is a ' post-Plotinian' ; yet, like Porphyry, he is not willing to be perfectly consistent in denying all predicates to the first principle. We have sttn in the preceding sections how important it is for Arius to retain the language of will and mind in speaking of God, precisely because, in contrast to the Neoplatonists, he holds to the centrality of specific acts of revelationY He is thus particularly vulnerable to the question which seems to have been pressed on him by his opponents: if the Son reveals God in his 'oppositeness' to God , and ifhe cannot have any part in what it is to be God, in what conceivable sense do the divine predicates ('spirit, power, wisdom, glory, truth ... radiance, light', as Arius himself enumerates them) attach to him? Alexander~ and Athanasius» both claim that Arius held the SOn to possess the divine attributes only by mtt«hi, in the weakest sense oflhe word: the Son has his wisdom, goodness, and so on, by sharing in God's gract. He thus can be said to have these qualities in a transferred or 'improper' sense (since God alone fully and properly possesses them). "If he has them only !tJlm:lrristikos,60 this amounts to saying he has them only 'notionally' {kat'tpillOwn)' 1 or 'nominally' (onomati);'2 it is a mllaplwr to call the Son 'wise', for instance, and a metaphor in antiquity was regarded as the transfer of a name from one subject 10 another which already had a name of its own .63 Such languag(: can tell us nothing about the essence of that to which it is applied. It seems most unlikely that Arius himsdf used this kind of vocabulary6t - though his Origenian use of epinaiai to describe th(: various upeCts of the Son's lifeM gave an obvious opening to hostile critics. At first sight, Athanasius' implicit point is very weak. To say, 'Either the Son possesses divine qualities in exactly th(: same sense as the Father or he possesses them in a purdy metaphorical

224

Aruzlogy and Participation sense', is to ignore the quite detailed discussion, which we have alrt:ady toucht:d upon, that deals with the different kinds of homonymy or t:quivocity. However, the argument dOc.':s have some force in this particular instance. Taking Porphyry's four varieties of equivocation, we should have to conclude that the statement 'God is wise: and the Son is wise' was incapable of fitting any of them very comfortably. Theft: is no natural resemblance between CTt:ator and creature; no question of identity of proportion, since God is neussanry what he is, and the Son, as crt:ature. cannot b.e; no sense in which God and the Son function identically in some other subject (God as such does not enter into 'participate in', another subject); no sense in which the Son's wisdom is something oriented to the paradigmatic exercise of wisdom in God, while being predicated of the Son in a wholly difference sense (thert: is no comparison with the relation between 'Socrates is wise' and 'your decision is a wise one'). Athanasius is no philospher. but he IuJs succeeded in identifYing a dilemma which for Arius is mort: grave than it would have been for a pagan Neoplatonist. In so far as the work of Christ is to reveal to us a saving knowledge of the Father, to create in us a transforming gniisis,66 it is of rt:al importance that his being should truly show what the Father is like. For a strict • Plotinian, even for Porphyry and Iamblichus, the human goal is to become fully nous, and (it may be) touch some higher level ofbdng in moments of pure intellectual receptivity; 1WItS, however, though it reflects something of what is higher, cannot be said to transmit or 'enact' the life of the One, let alone to perform the will of the One. There is no 'graspable content to enact, no will to perform, only an everlasting pure agency, sufficient to itself and exclusive of all relation. The Neoplatonist does not and cannot look for a divine initiative to bridge the gulf bt:tween absolute and contingent, nor for a mediator expressing and articulating that initiative and establishing it as rooted in the divine essence. As we have several times observed, Arius is entirely committed to the idea that God is free and active; and he is therefore bound to have some doctrine of the Son's manifesting the Father. The 'glories' of Son and Father are incalculably different and unt:qual,61yet there is some sense in which the Son is righdy called doxa tMoU, and even tilciin6' - a term which Arius very noticeably avoids in his credal professions. Arius cannot have bt:lieved that logos and wisdom were ascribed to the Son only by some kind of 225

distortion of language. In so far as God is identical with hio own reason and wiJdom, be is 0,.' a nd ",pkill by definition, and the Son io 50 only a. a maner of fact; but beau"" the Son i, wh.al he is solely and directly by God'. will," this 'maner of faCl' ha. nothing 10 do with tbe contingencies and vuln~rabililies of the c,..,a.M order. All that .h. Son i. i. wba. the Father wiJ.U and does, and in !his """'" he io rightly C>.IlM titM. If wc rud lines 23-25 of the T/u:li4 '" Athanasiu. ""ems 10 have rememberM them in the '"""" Arl4ItoJ," Ariu. ;, saying ...... t the Onc "" l) , but a ~enl with authentic theology: a 'making difficull' of a goopcl buricd under the familiaritin of folk piety. Of COUD<e the analogy CUlIIOI be p,"'·cd toO fat (with Anus as Emanucl Hinch and Eusebius of Nicorncd.ia as Rciclubischof Mwler?); &Dd il ill an emotively loaded onc, "nf.irly 10. I! oceb only to emphuize that the nature of the Niccne cri.i. is not _ _ thing utterly remote: cb",rcheo • ..., still in OIIr own .,., tenlpud to ,;dnlcp the queooon, 'What, ill our OWIItel"nll, if it thal is distinc:tive in the Christi .... prod.....tion, and 110 in "'" Christian IOrrto d

mix",...,

lirer and to allow IUch a qUettion 10 be muffled by .".;.1 iUld ideological accollnU olwhat the Cburch is. They arc uiU tempted to IUppotoC that fonnulaic liturgical conlinuitiet an: the mMt important guaranlOn of all abiding identity: me...e ha~ been dillCUSlions ol Iilurgical ~on in the Church aC England that have, uwn.ishingIy, aFP-,Iee! 10 the theological 'oeutrality' and undcrdetennin,tion of the Book of Common Pnoyer over asainat the Idf...",...ooUl ~ng of newf:f" rites. In .hon, il i. ,till wonh lucaing that tmoIogical 1idf-aWl.lctd·" is 1101 • Luxury for the Church . Proclaiming _ the same gospel as bdOfl' is a great dnlletl easy than it sounds.1 Bul OlIe lOnuitoul upect of the ,nalogy between the Nicme problem and the 19301 is a certain ;tTCIistible parallcl bctwftn AthanuiuI and Banh: difficult and ambivalent figureo, both of them, but in ODC notable reopeet joint wim et to something that is very dnse1y bound up with Ihe quettion of the dilltinctivcn .... of the ppt:l. Both maist that ther>c it no pp c:onociv.blc between God as he acu wwanl. UI - as the Father of Jr:sUl Chrill - and that ,ctivity in and by which God is eternally what he io. Ath",,uiUl' rd"u.... to scpaiale the divine wiB rrom the divine n.lun: in considering me genention of the Son it an implicit denial that God'. IIIlun: can be an object of thoUght in illelf, pauive ID thc human mind . God is knowable solely bccaUK he ill active; w!ut can be &aid of him can be said betaliteaIthi.r example of the Catholic Christian ethoo than the Church of the Councih. Something of the same point is dt:veloped in an essay on Newman', A....... by the prelent writer, publlihed. in 1990. N"""""" lees doctrinal definition more u ~ n«elllity than as the ext:rc;'" of eccletiaJ power - a point that throws light on his later attitude. to the Vatican Council. But th..iJ essay also examines more of thc background of Newman', historical typologies in the doctrinal historie. of the prttc:ding untury. "The great German Protestant historian MOlho:im had Stt1l the early development of doctrina! Iaoguag< u a p""""" of the COlTUpcion of biblical faith by aI..itn phik>topby, mOll notably by Middle P1atonism and N«>platonism (Ne"'man', use of 'EdeCUciom' for thit followo Motheim). "The chief lOura of ,,>ch COlTUpUon is Alele$tioru my conclusion \hat Arius' soteriology mus< ha,.., been fundamentally th. wn~ 10ft of!hing ... that of Athana:si", - i.e. not particularly concerned abou[!he qU~51ion of J0SU3 aJ moral ex=p!ar; !hor~ is in my anaIy.is no expooition of a OOteriology that would go akmg wi!h what I bdicv~ to be Ariw' doctrine of God. " Sbe goes on to argue !hat the soteriological.ignificanee ofJ~ou .... moraloubject can be demon. trated Irom ~r texts from the fourth ~n!ury in which anu·M"";"ha""" pokmic lays emphuis on tfu, human ~berty ofJ ..uo." Hanson rather misinte.",.eu what was saKI in the 1983 essay, "'·h....., my point w... simply 10 qu~.tion w~ Gregg and Groh _'" COf_ rect to >ce !h~ particular Christological empha.sa wbich !hey aocn"bed to Ariw as dictated by a 5OlenoJogy in which Christ was the exemplar fOr our own 'promotion' to dMnc filiation. But Gt-.:gg himoclf makes a fair comment: my emph ... is in !he tel[[ above was certainly on cosmological ramer than IOteriological qu ..tioru. H~r, the matter iJ mo'" complex: to acquire divinely-originated wUdom about !he CO!ffiOI iJ, for many in the early Church, an estential aspect of"""",lion, and this is how I woold sce Ariu.' project. T o deocribe Ariu .... "'P"'SCnting an "Academic' approach to faith mighL be misleading if we wo-.: to tak" for granLffl the U$Ua.! contemporary scnse of the W in this tradition, in which the inspired teacher" the focus ofauthority. not, I would argue, the kind of scparaUon Gregg ..,.. be"""en all [his and popular picry: it is ajimn of popular pkty, how""", '''''''!'' that may to modern eysta.rK:. in relation \0 anothor. "" "..ith the biblical 'his O"'n Son' and many comparable example •. Porphyry is talking of 10 idion., the ab. tract notion of being 'p~' to a substance, OOt the use of the rommonplac •• To d=y that !hi. could be u,ed or., . ubstance commits \U to a no",en,ic>.! conclu,ion prohibiting the ordinary ~pression by .....hich we assert that ..,mething belOng> 10 .omething

='"

'"'"

Let me attemp' to respond to this be.fore turning to the thomy question of participation. To the acCCific sen", gi=n by lornblichu. i< ju" mfficicndy distincti"". I would to mggest a , lightly different !.Ion, on the lenn and its po .. ible reading> to provide ;added fuel for SOTTlCOne 10 deny its approprWene .. in regard to God. But whether anything like rur"ct contact with bmblichu. i< imaginable I am agnostic, mo", so than in 1983 or 1987. Stead', obje can beding', according to Arrionus. ,ovemor ofthc Thebaid, who pu>umobly witnessed thc bUhop. , oacrifiu (Reymoo>e« tit< end of30~ (the impriooned bishops were executed probably io rebruary 30&; infr>, n,~3) . It may'" ~ the Efypo>, n.lOO): did Mditi .. originolly "'me to AI....,,· dria r", bU copaJ ordinatioo in 3O~ •• bortIy befoK Pet......."t iD10 biding, and thco decid< DO' ." return to Lyropolio in vi ..... of thc critical .i'uotion in the Delta'

39

""ta',

tlUnd'. "", ..

,h.

""""-coofid.,,,.

,ha,

",n..-wis
-6 above). Opitz 242.7; in con. Ar. I, Athana..sius introduces his allusions to the 7'1udill by saying that they contain ' this sort of thing' (toimtlD ), and concludes by saying that the reported propositions an: 'parts' of the work only. Stead (1978), pp. 24-38; even Kannengiesser ( 1982), who is d isposed to think that A is a superior source, admits (p. 14) that we do not have hen: 'the ipsisnma /lCh41 of Arius' . Lorenz ( 1983) considen Stead too sceptical, but d oes not argue the case in any depth. Above, I.B.2, pp. 63-5. - de syn. 15, Opitz 243 .5 (5.23 below) - reading sopM4I IOpM4I{i) Iwpine in the de sy n. text a..s well a..s in con. Ar., rather than sophill IOpIri4lwpiru, , " Wisdom" came to be \Visdom'. The COnlext in con. AI. makes the former very slightly more plausible and intelligible than the latter, though both readings are quile possible. See also below, Ill.C, p. 222-9. The tranSlation follows the G reek line by li ne, except in the last twO lines, where the Greek word order makes it impossible. This has normally b«;n taken - as by Gregg and Groh ( 1981) - to be a straightforward adoptionist statement. Hall (1982), reviewi ng Gregg and Groh, rightl y challenges this assu mption. As translated here, the force of the line is perhaps 'God both formed the idea of such a creature and actually produced him as a real hy/JOSllllis'. Opitz' punclUation (242.22) unhelpfully breaks up this line: there is obviously a continui ty of thought from 13 to 15, perhaps from 11 to 15. H,kalnin allotrioJ MlltoS. Who or what is meant by 1wu14s? There may have been a line or lines following, dealing with the Spi rit. See above, n.38. Opitz, U.6, 12.9-10. Athanasi us of Nuarba, for instance, U. II , 18. 1-3. PllntOn ulin Jw hlI~s can be found in Origen (de princ. IV.t.B, 360.2), but tOO much should not be made of this, as it is a concessive remark in the incondusive discussion of a hypothetical question. E.g. II .71-2, 297A-30IA. Opitz, UAb, 8.2-3 (note the gloss Ms kai fXml4, 'just like every thing else', which Arius would of coune, have repudiated ), U .14, 21. 7-22.3.

310

NoltJ ID poges /04-8 48 49

50 51

52 53 54 55

56

57 58

59

60 61 62

63 64 65

1.37-52, on the exegesis of Phi\. 2.9-10, and Ps. 45.7-8. Hall (1982); cf. n.40 above. The very end of A (v) parallels 5.29; which encourages the speculation that the earlier part of A (v) is Athanuius' interpretation. Opitz, U.8, 16.6-7; cr. Eusebius of Caesar ea, eed. theal. 1.8,66.21- 3 and 1.1 2, 70.26-72.37. This is, among other things, a way of stressing that the Son is ' not as one among the creatu res'. Opitl, ibid. 16.9-10. 1.8.2, pp. 64-5. S.36, assuming (with A (vii )) that ,ulllltoll is nOt a slip for /lulOll on the part of some early copyist. Williams in Cregg ( 1985), p. 8; cf. below, 1l.B-I , pp. 120, 122 on a parallel in Philo, and IlI.B, pp. 200-3, 209-12, on a possible Ploti· nian background. Stead (1978 ), pp. 37-8, also suggests an alternative, taki ng the line to mean 'Using the power by which liivlllil,} ca n see . .. ' But I cannot imagine ho IhtOS having this generalized sense. Hippolytus, refutatio VI I .20, 195.24, 197.16: thenon-existent God transcends even what is named as IIrtitos, being incapable of being lInJ'na me. Sce, e.g.,lrenacus, adv. haer. 1.1.4 (Harvey, p. 2\). For the idea that kIIlllfipsls of God is unattainable by the human mind, cf. Origen, excerpla in psalmos 77.3\ (PG 17, 1418), Eusebius, praep. cv. VII .12, 386.1 2-\3. Sec the rej ection in Book VI of the Apostofu lAnslillltil)lU (cd. Funk, 1895, p. 325) of the gnostic view that God is IIgtWstoJ and IIlti;fill; and cf. Williams in Gregg ( 1985), p. 18. As does Cwatkin ( 1900), pp. 20-1 , and cf. pp. 273-4; followed ID some degree by Pollard (1970 ), pp. 123, 143-4, 316. Opitz, U.17, 33. 1- 5. Following Epiphaniu$, haer. 69.12.1 , 162.68'; see Loren:r. (1978), p. 68, and cf. Simonctti (1965), pp. 32-7 , on Arius' probable interpretation of Prov. 8:22, and iu indebtedness to Dionysius of Alexandria. Simonetti ProlXl5e5 (p . 36) that Arius ' intensification of the subordinationist elements of the trad ition grew out of his philO$ophical concerns, and that ' he saw in Prov. 8:228' the scriptu ral poinl d'lIppui that would allow him 10 treat the Son as a mere creature' (pp. 36-7). I SUSpecl that this a bil of an oversimplification ; it is much quali fied in Simonelti's later studies. Gregg and Groh ( 1981 ), pp. 3, 7-12, Kannengiesser ( 1982) , 1-5 and passim. ( 1971 ), p. 151. For a fine discussion of how this issue remains central ID modem theology, sce KcJsey (1975), especially chs. 2, 5 and 8.

3"

Notes to

pag~

108-10

66 Opitz, U.H, 20.7-11. 67 Chs. 26fT; whether 'Or not this work is from Athanasius' hand (Kannengiesser (1983) argues that it is not), the texts were obviously under discussion. 68 con. Ar. 1.4-6-52; cf. Opiu, U.I4, 22.1-3, for Alexander's allusion to the controversial use of this lexl. 69 1.37, PG 26, 89AB. 70 10, Opitz 9.7-8. 71 Opitz, U.I4, 21.16, when': it is the first text quoted. 72 Opitz, U .B, 17.1-2. 73 Opiu, U.6, 13 .17-1B. 74 It appears in hi philarchos (Opitz, U.14, 24.31) and hnws smtos (Opiu, V.4h, 9.1-3), and recurs in de deer. 13 (Opitz 11.34-5) and 21 (Opitz IB.II-13); here too it is as.rociated .,..,ithJohn 8:42. 75 de deer. 26 (Opitz 23.5-7). 76 Ahramowski ( 19B2): S~ below, p. 151 and D. 292. 77 Opitz, U .11, 18.3--4; on the hundred sneep as the tOtality of rational cre~tures, cf. Origen, in Gen. hom. ll.5, 34.12-24: Methodius, symp. 111.5-6, 32.1-33.16, seems to assume a similar interpretation to Origen's, but US(:$' the passage rather differently. Both plainly distinguish between the Logos as shepnerd and rhe rational creation. 78 de syn. 18 (Opiu 246.1-21 ), con. Ar. 1l.37, 38 (PG 26, 225C-228C). 79 This may be why they do not receive the same extended treatment in oon. N. as do other passages. 80 (1971 ), pp. 153-4. 81 Opiu, V.14, 27.16-17. 82 con. N. 1.58, PG 26.133BC. 83 krtittD1I- the same word used by Arius himself in S.27, and a common appellation for the supreme God. 84 adv. Arium 1.7, 202--4. 85 oon. Ar. 1.37--45. 86 Ibid. 53-&4, and II. I-IO. 81 Ibid. II. 11-18. BS Ibid. 61-1. 89 This interprt:lation owes a grc:at deal to Newman's sharp distinction bet't'een AJexandrian allegory and Antiochene lilerafum (above, pp. 3-4) ; Simonetti (1971) , pp. 319-23, is justifiably critical of the way in which thi.! antithesis still exerts a stranglehold on Arian studies; see above, p. 17, and [I.C. 1, passim. For a recent judgment, !l« also Wallace-Hadrill (1982) , p. 29. 90 Above, n.". 91 See, e.g., Origen, de princ. 11.11.2, 186.1-3, for the idea ofthe literal sense of .scriptural prophecy in particular as 'J~h'.

312

Nolu 10 pagu lJO-J3 92

93

94 95

96 97

98 99 100

101

lOO 103

104

105 106 107

108 109 110

I11 11 2

con. Ar. 1.37, PG 26, 88BC. EHlisitutili diaMia; cf. ibid., 44, PG 26, 10iC; a certain reading is recommended as being more 'ecclesiastical' than (he Arian interpretation. Opitz, U.14. E.g., con. N. 11.23-24, PG 26, 193C-197B. Ibid. n.41 , 233A-236A; cf. the use: ofa similar argument in c:p. I ad Ser., 29-30, PG 26, 597B-6OOC. A5 in the case of prayer to the Logos in Origen's scheme; sec: de oratione XV.I-XVI.I, 333.26-336.20. Kan nengic:sser (1982), pp. 39-40. Opin:, U .6, 12.3. 'God is PMImIa' was evidently such a statement in the intel1c:ctual climate of the early third century, given that jmewntJ was, for the Stoics, (he designation of a material realiry: hence Origen's discu.uion of this proposition in de princ. l.l passim, 16-27, arguing that the COntext of Scripture: as a whole makes it plain that /JMUtIIa means 'what is not SO/M' . On the fusion ofscriptural idiom with classical philosophical conven· tions concerning the divine, Pannenbc:rg (1971) il of great interest; note in particular pp. 134-4{), 173-83. In de spir. sancto, XXVII.66, PG 32, I88A-192C. T he attempt to draw out the implications of scriptural witness to the free and incorporeal nature of God with the help of philosophical tools is, of course, central to the whole A1exandrian tradition. 1I .B.I, below, explores the tensions that result in the case of Philo. The relation of father and son could be sec:n as an example of 'emanation', apornia, in virtue of its being a transmission of 1nUi4; sec: DOme (1976), pp. 73, 77. (1982), pp. 38-9. See, for example, con. Ar. U4-16, 26-29, U.2. On Athanasius' refusal to oppose nature and freedom in God, sec: Meijering (1974/1975:1) and (1974/1975:2) esp, pp, 105-6 of the Jailer. con. Ar. 1.37 (PG 26, SSC-a9B) and 49 (113A-116A). (1981), esp. chs. I to 3. G«:gg and Groh (l98J ) are not always exaCt about this; see, e.g., pp. 59 (' the condition of humans'), 90 ('among the mm incapable of perceiving the Deity') - despite the more careful StatementS of, c.g., pp. 19-24, 81-7. Cf. the con. AT. paraphrase of the TMIUJ, A(vi). Whereas Athanasius, con. M . 1.46 (PG 26, 105C-IOSC) insists on taking Ihe genitive Jl)1I as objective, SO that the text refers to (hose

Now

113 114 115 116

117 118 119

120 121

III

pages 115-/8

who /HJrtidpall iIc Chri st. On the 8uid ity of the [enn lfI(/« hi at thi.5 peri od, see below III.C . Cr. Will iams (1983), pp. 17-a , 80; (1985:1), pp. 11-12, 22-3 . con. Ar. 1.35 -45, ~p. 38 (PG 26, 898 -928 ). Opi u, U.4b , 8.7- 10. For cxampl~ of this technique, see Stea d ( 1976) , pp. 133 -5. Stea d dub s this ft~tilJ rrlllrl lJ: 'it sadd les the opp onen t with the very p~ ositi on whic h he rega rd, as evidently false ' ( 134) . Opi u, U .14, 25.1 1-12 . Sec, for exam ple, the rem ark in Epip hani us, haer. M.4 , 410. 5-6. E.g. Poll ard ( 1970) , Wil~ (1962), Sim onet ti ( 1971 ); ace below, II.C .I, and n.89 above. Abo ve all, Sim onet ti, whose 1971 artic le is of majo r significance; d. Sim onet ti (1975), p . 20. The accu satio n of ' illogicality' levelled at Arius by Gwa tkin and Poll ard amo ng othe n shou ld be laid to rest once and for all. One of the virtu~ of Kan neng iess er (1982) is the auth or's insis tenc e on Anu s' rigo ur and indi vidu ality of thou ght (and cons eque nt isola tion ); see, e.g. , pp. 11 , 35-4{).

B ALE XAN DRl A AND THE LEG ACY OF ORJGEN

I 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 I1

12

Wolfson ( 1956), p . 585. See, e.g., Just in, apol . sec. V1.6 , dial. LXI .1, LXI 1.4, Tati an, orat . 5, Athe nago ras, supp l. 10. Wolfson (1956), p.582, ( 1948), vol. I , pp. 231 -4, 247 -52, on the Log os as a disc rete enti ty over agai nst God. Poss ibly impl ied by e.g., Gen . 1.4, whe re the Logos is [he 'orig inal l/Jh'Dgu (seal)'; but d. n.1 5 below. The re is mor e mileage in texts abou t 'med iatio n', like [hal quot ed in n.6, below. E.g. agr. 12.51, conf. 28.1 46-7 , leg. all. 111 .61.175, imm. 6.31 , som n. 1.37.215. hue s 42.206: the Logos islll&SOJ lin aknin , betw een God and (nat ures . Som n. 1.39 .228 -30, 41.2 38-4 1 , leg. all. III..73.20 7-a; dw.tmu IhMI in qu o Gen . 62. See Sand mel ( 1979), p. 92. In the con. Ar. ThDlia para phra se A{iii). opif .4.1 6. Ibid . 6.24: agai n we find the Logos calle d l/JflrlJgiJ. One mig ht com pare Aqu inas ' doct rine that the divi ne ideas depe nd for thei r plur ality on the plur ality of conc retel y possible beings (ST 1.1 5.2) . leg. all. 1ll.3 1.96 .

314

Notes to pages 118-21 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Note the denial in opif. 6.23 of the presence: of a 'counsellor' beside God in creation. leg. all. III.3I.96. opif. 5.20; the plan previously 'impressed as a seal' in the maker's mind is now to be: realb:ed. SphrogiJ does not necessarily mean anything outside the divine mind. E.g., heres 42.205--6. E.g., cher. 5.16-17. somn. I.41.241. Talbc:rt (1976). Sandmel (1979), p.94. See Louth (1981), pp. 291f, on the significance: for Philo of meditation on Scripture. imm. 12.57. $Omn. 1.11.52. cher. 9.27. Abr.24.12Dff. Louth (1981), p. 28, referring also to fuga 101. quo Ex. Il.68; cr. perhaps heres 38.188, on the Logos as that which makes all things oohere by filling them with his tnuio. heres 42.205--6. migr. 1.4--6; cf. leg. all. III.6 1.175. somn. 1.11.65--6. leg. all. 111.31.96, 33.100. leg. all. 111.33.100; cr. imm. 24.110. leg. all. m.52.I77. post. 5.15. Sce Louth (1981 ), pp. 29-35. $Omn. 1.10.60. leg. all. 1.29.91-30.92. somn., loc. cit.; mut. 2.8; cr. cher. 20.65, 33.116-18. spec. leg. 1.47; cr. imm. 12.62, 17.78-81. mut. 2.15. leg. all. III.73.206. Abr. 24.120-3; cr. mut. 2.11-17,27, etc. For 'Coo' as gmikolalas, see leg. all. 11.21.86. Above, n. 7. Abr.24.120. E.g. plant. 20.86, implicitly deriving thtru from tithimi. Unsurprisi ngly, there are other derivations used elsewhere. Abr. 24.122; -cr. leg. aIUI.J.3. On the inevitable duality of logos, sce gig. 11.52. heres 35.172.

315

Now ID pages 121-5 50 51 52 53

~

55

56 57 !)8

59 60 61

62 63 64 65

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 7475 76

qu. Ex. 1I.68j cf. cont. 1.2, praem. et poen. 6.40. opif. 15.35, leg. all. 18.19, coru. 28.146. On which, lee Goodenough (1935), pp. 35-8. See Pann. 14-IE: the one 'in no way partakes of mui4'. This statement, of course, has a primuily dialectical function: the Pflmwrlidts demonstrates the equal impouibility of saying that the One 'wsts' rwI of laying that it does not. It is beyond being in the sense that existencequestions make no tense when asked about it. opif. 5.21. leg. all. 1.2.2, 8.70, opif. 7.26-28, imm. 6.31-32, ncrif. 18.65; Ke Sorabji (1983), pp. 203-9, for a full discussion of Philo', views on this question. Whether there is time before the existence of the tmlmd cosmos is far from clear in Philoj but he does not believe in eternal matter, as far as we can Idl, and the implication is that some sort of time begins as matter is created. On the whole issue, lee UI.A, below. decal. 12.58. Above, pp. 105-6. Compare Arius' alleged "rihis (A(vii ) with the ikrihiH of mut. 2.14-. See Pan Ill, passim; cf. Smith in Blumenthal and Markus (I98 I) for a hdpful survey of how this problem is posed for Plotinus. Wiltgenstein (I966), pp. 30-1. VOllter (1952), pp. 93-6, minimius the importance of the apophatic clement; Lonky (1974-), pp. 18-23,33-5, allows it a significant place, but considers it to be insufficiently consistently worked out; Osbom (1957), pp. 184--6, and (1981 ), pp. 45-50, defends C lement's seriousness and oonsistency as a follower of the IIi6 ""IlItitIa. strom. 11 .16, 152.19-23. Ibid. 11.2, 115.22-3. Ibid. 11.2, 116.4-5. Ibid. V.12, 380.25. The parallels with Philo are clear, and arc listed in Stihlin'. notes on this and other passages cited. Ibid. V.12, 381.2-3. Ibid. V.l2, 380.10-12, 381.7-8. Ibid. V.12, 380.12-14. Ibid. 11.3, 118.11-119.3. Ibid. VU8, 517.22-3. Ibid. 517.28£1'; for tJuoJi44klM, er. quis dives 70,172.28. Ibid. VII.2, 6.8-28. Ibid. VII.2, 7.9- 11 , 20-2. Ibid. VII.2, 8.10-16. Ibid. VII.2. 8.17; cf. ibid. 3.10, 18. Ibid. VII.2, 8.18.

316

Now to pages 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

86 87

88 89

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 lOO 101 102

103

104 105 106

J2~7

The high priestly image again probably rdates to Philo primarily, rather lhan to the scriptural Htlwtws. protr. 12.12Q, 64.30. strom. VII.3, 12.2 1-2; on ' becoming logos', cf. exc. ex Theod. 27, 116.1!. Ibid. VII.3, 12.23-4. Ibid. VII.3, 10.16. Ibid . V. IO, 370.16-21; seeCamelot (1945), pp. 110-12, on the range of meaning of klll4lipsis. strom. V .3, 336. 1-14, perhaps IV. 25, 317 .1J. Ibid. IV.25, 318.1. Ibid. IV.25, 318.24-319.2; on the Plotinian parallds, ltt [ilIa ( 1971 ) , pp. 206-7. Chbom ( 1957), p. 43, prefers the latter; the word in question can also mean 'twined' or 'plailed' together, as strands in a cord. strom. IV.25, 317.22-4. Ibid. V . 14, 387.21-388.4. paid. 1.71.1, 131.18-19. Ibid. 1.62.4, 127.5-6. Ibid. V. ll, 374.4-2Q; the technique is paralleled in Albinus' fpiWwfi, X .4-5. 5andmel ( 1979), p. 95. protr. 11.111 , 79.5. Ibid. 10.91 , 67.24. strom. 11.16, 152.17ff. protr. chs. 6 and 7 passim; the theme is equally pervasive in 'trom. I and 11 . protr. 1.6- 7, 7.14-8.1. Ibid. 1.8, 9. 10-11. Ibid . chs. 10 and 11, passim. And cf. Goodenough ( 1935), p. 102. For references, ser: above, II.B. I , n.2. Osbom (1981 ), p. 242, rightly argues against [illa ( 1971 ) that Clement's main works do not give a clear two- or three-stage doctrine of the Logos' 'emergenc::e'. 19.2, 112.30-31 , cf. 11 3.8, if we follow Bunsen and 5agnard's reading of lnIiOl here, and do not accept Casey:s retention of logos as it nands in the ms. The aorist participle (t7UTgiJas) in the original suggests this translation rather than ' when he acted through the prophets' . 112.27-1 13.9. Notably Zahn (1884 ); see Duckworth and OsOOm ( 1985), pp. 77-83, for a good discuuion, building on the seminal study of Casey ( 1924).

317

Now 107

w pagu

127-31

bib!. 109; in Stiblin's edition of Clement, with other fragmenu of the

HY/IDlJ/NU4J, 202.16-22. 108 adumb. 211.15-16; J«tIItIbon s.bslimlUzm probably represenu koJit'hMpostAria, i.e. 'really and truly' as opposed to 'notionally'.

109 Thalia, A (iv), S.23. 110 (1918), p. 103. III ac. cs: Theod. 10-11, 109.16-110.22. 112 Ibid. 7, 108.1-14. 113 Discuued at length in 59--6l or the work, 126.17-127.25. 11. Ibid. 8, IOS.2O-2. 115 Ibid. 4, 106. 17-2 1. 116 Ibid. 19, 113.1-7, 20, 113.15- 17; but nou: too the clear cfutinction dnwn betwttn the Logos and the ~ti.JlOi in 10 and 12 (109.16-110.7 and 110.23-4). 117 Ibid. 7, IOS.I3-14. 118 Ibid. 15, 112.1-3. 119 AJu'nder of Alenndria. Opitt. U.14, 27 .5-6, usumes that Valentinian emanationism is materialistic; Arius probably makes the same assumption in U.6, 12. IOff. cr. nn.126 and 127 below. 120 ac. ex Theod. 2,106.6-7. 121 Ibid. 6, 107.17-25. 122 Ibid . • 1, 119. 17-18. 123 Ibid. 2-3, 105.1.-106.12; d . Casey's introduction to his edition (1934), pp. 25-6. 12. On I )n., adumb. 211.6-7. 125 Thalia, S.34 and 39. 126 Opitt, U.6, 12.10-12. 127 Opitt, U .H, 27.6. 128 See Willianu in G,egg (1985), pp. 4-6 and nn.18-28, and Lorcm: (1978), pp. 119-22. 129 See Srah!in'. index, p. 730B; an example at slTOm. 1.18,51.9. 130 strom. VII. 16, 73.\6-17. 131 Ibid. VI.l8, 517.28; cC. n.7\ , above. 132 E.g. ibid. V. IO, 369.28. 133 quis dives 23, 175.4-11. 134 316.7,378.2. 135 Slihlin', index, p. 341 . 136 E.g. slTOm. 111.8, 22• .19, VU4, -HI6.12. 137 Ibid. VU7, 515.2. 138 Lorenz (1978), p. 122. 139 Lorem (1978) and (l983), Simonetti (1971), (1973) and (1980), Barnard (1970) and (1972), and Hanson (1972) represent some or the more significant currents in the debate. Lorenz (1978), pp. 31-6,

31B

Notes to pages 131-4

159 160

is worth consulting for an overview of some of this material. A valuable essay by "anson fonned part of the proceedings of the fourth Grigen Colloquium at Innsbruck in 1985; these proceedings are due to be published as OrigrniQIUJ Qlla,ta, in the Innsbrucker Theologische Studien, 1987. Eusebius, con. Marc. 1.4.19ff, 757--6J. In fact this is not one of Grigen's preferred terms: two possible uses of IwPOlhtiis for 'su bject' (horn. Jee. X IV.14, 120.18, and fr. III in Lam. 236.20) are far from convincing in this respect. On the origins and meaning of hll/JOSlasis tenninology, A. H. B. Logan's study, also forthcoming in OrigrniaIUJ Qlla,Ul , is excellent, correcting as it does, in some respects, DOrrie (1955). 73.14. See, e.g., Alexander of Aphrodisias, in Ari!t. Met., 230.36; several patristic instances of this opposition in PGL \454, 116. Cf. n.I50, below. 229.21-230.4. Cr. Clement in protr. 12.120,84.30 (above, p. 125 and n.78). in Mt. 17.14, 624.1J-16. 334.4-5. 65. 16. 65.8-9. X.37,212.8-19. This is the conclusion ofHanson ( 1972) and Simonetti (1965), p. 125, n.76. Stead (1977), pp. 21 1-13, is, rather surprisingly, less sceptical. This purports to be an extract from a commentary on Hebrews; the to[t is printed in Lommatzsch V.299 and XX IV.357. Cr. fr. IX in Jo., 490.20-1, for an appare nt use of tk liI ousias Iou patror; but these words are obviously th e gloss of the anthologist. Lommat~ch , 353-5. Nautin (1977), p. 150, assumes that the whole list of charges has becn redrafted by Rullnus from the original Jist of 15 preserved by Photius, bibl. 117. I.e. agtnitos or aglnnilOf; compare the texts quoted in ch. 111 of the DtfillCt , ibid. 328, to dear Grigen of the charge of teaching two archai. Or 'all rule and power as an inheritance'; the m!s differ slightly. So Westcott (1889, p. 168), commenting on the idea ofklirolWmia in Hehrews, suggested, referring to Aristotle's POliticl V.8. Lommatzsch,357.11-12. Ibid. 359.1-9. The Wisdom text appears elsewhere in Grigen, notably in de princ. 1.2.5, 33.8-34.7. 35 1.4-1 J. 249.4-1 3.

161

2oW.29-250.3.

IoW 141

142 143

144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152

153

154 155 156 157 158

3\9

Nou!

10

pag's 134-8

162 XX.20, 352.33, XX.24, 358.15, 18. 163 Cr. de princ. 1.2.6, 35.9-15. 1&1- 249.9-10; this sounds like a fa miliar and quasi-technical definition of

"""""""

. 165 (I968), p. 11. 166 Lommawch,359.1-2. 167 I am not completely convinced by Nautin's account of this (1977; pp. 150-3), I believe - as I shall argue in what follows - that there is a plausible context for these charges in me era of Pamphilus and that the distortion comes in Rufinus' handling of th~m. The fact that the rupnsiDnn do not at present correspond to the charges strongly suggesl.5 that this is the point at which Rufi nus' hand is evident. As to Photius' fifteen charges, their exact source is obscure. Since PhotiWl disru.,.usnu the work containing this list from PamphilWl' defence (Nautin's argu ment for d isregarding the distinction - pp. 112-1 3 is very weak), it may well be that it is actually a composition of the sixth centu ry or later: several of the charges would fit well into the intellectual climate before and after the second Council ofColl5tantinople, but would be rather unexpe bey«od the fteoI:Iy Ja ... 10 tbe ~. to Loco> (d. pri .... 11.6. a p. 3-6. et ..... Ctb. Vi.68, "

u..:.......

ISS.1l r I7).

m ...... C.Io.V I . ~ ... 241. a _. "U6 (1978), pp. 21l-l9. 22l-t. ~7 InJ... 11-'1, 88.ti-89.21. ~ 5.31. 259 Opitr, U.6. ".I . 260 Iu dtoooieally iD 1ho.1,. 'Si"'f , .... 10 .1-31. CIIarIawonl: ( 19IJ,)j, '""'- 2, pp. 173-4; r:l. TaIben ( 19~) .... d kticb (I9681 19l8) on II:c 261

262 263

I't.Jff ~JoMIAfroa> tbe byatJI 10 cb. Moth .. cl God la the U • ......,. oL SI job"

au-y-......

(AriM ulioo ... ~, • •• ,. Ch. IV, "..., ILI& 64 _ nt .be..,. (l 1.A, p. 113 .nd 11. 112), "'" Of hio ... pporun ... m 10 b .." "",nt ill "nd ...,and ..... 01 .... unde. . ... ndi", oIonolcel , .h" ;, no. Aqui .... ' -.. view (1Or • ...,.Iu&bk and eon,,....,·.toial dLmw ..... oltbi" ... Bu