Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381

THE SEARCH FOR THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

OF GOD The Arian Controversy 318-381 R. P. C. ~ANSON (

T&TCLARK EDINBURGH

T &T CLARK LTri 59 GEORGE STREET EDINBURGH EH2 2LQ SCOTLAND

Copyright © T &T Clark Ltd, 1988

Dedication

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any fann or by any means, . meebanic. a1 photocopying, recording or otherwise. electroruc. without the prior permission of T &T Clark Ltd. First published 1988 Latest impression 1997 ISBN 0 567 09485 5

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Da~~ . A catalogue record for this book is available from the Bntlsh Library

Typeset by C. R. Barber & Partners Ltd, Fort Willi~ . Printed and hound by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenharn, Wiltshire

HENRICO CROUZEL INTER DOCTOS GALLICAE NATIONIS EMINENTI ORIGENIS ILLIUS CELEBERRIMI STRENUO DEFENSORI AMICO MEO DIU FIDELI

Preface Writing a book such as this resembles the attempt to photograph a running stream. The photograph gives a picture of what the stream was like at one instant, but the stream flows on and never remains the same. This book undertakes to represent the state of scholarly opinion on its subject up to the summer of 1987, with a very few touches gleaned at the International Patristic Conference held in Oxford in August of that year, but notlater. It is to be. regretted that I have been unable to take into account R. D. Williams' informative and stimulating work, Arius: Tradition and Heresy. To avoid loading the footnotes with excessive detail, I have for the most part referred the reader for full information about the books and articles mentioned in the text or notes to the Bibliography, and have used the abbreviations codified in a well-known international work of reference. With very few exceptions, all the translations into English of any language quoted in the book are my own, often because no other exists, but also because English translations of Patristic texts tend to be old-fashioned and redolent of Wardour Street. lowe a great debt of gratitude to my brother, the Revd. Professor A. T. Hanson D.D., and to his wife Miriam for their care in reading the proofs. They saved me from several mistakes and on occasion improved the phrasing of my English. I must also thank my wife for help in one or two laborious tasks necessary to the preparation of the book; Miss Molly Whittaker, my former colleague on the staff of the University of Nottingham, for correcting the Greek accents; the Speediprint Company of Wilmslow for their efficiency in copying my manuscript; and the staff ofT. and T. Clark for their sympathetic co-operation during the production of The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. R.P.C. Hanson

vu

-----------------------------_

.. _ - - - - -

Contents vii xiv xvii

Preface List of Abbreviations Introduction

PART I

The Origins

Chapter

1:

W)i~t

did Arius Teach?

Arius' Career up to 318 2. Arius' Own Words -3. The Account of One Contemporary I.

Chapter

2: The Early Supporters of Arius Athanasius7 I Arians' 2. Some of Arius' Contemporaries 3. Eusebius of Caesarea

I.

Chapter 3: The Antecedents of Arius Possible predecessors 2. Philosophical Background 3. Conclusions I.

Chapter 4: The Rationale of Arianism I.

Sources for Arianism

2.

A Reduced God Inferiority and Imperfection of the Logos A Suffering God More Detailed Christology The Attitude of Arians to Arius

3. 4. 5. 6.

ix

3 3 5 16

19 19

27 46 60 60 84 95

99 .99 100 106

109 117 123

Contents

Contents

Chapter 5: Events Leading to Nicaea I. From the Outbreak of the Con90oversy to the Council of Antioch of 325 2. The Alexandrian Alternative Theology 3. The Council of Antioch of 325

12 9

Chapter 6: The Council of Nicaea I. The Calling of the Council 2. The Proceedings of the Council 3. The Creed of Nicaea 4. The Immediate Repercussions of the Council

152 15 2 157 163 172

181 181 190

Chapter 7: Semantic Confusion I. Hypostasis and Ousia Homoousios 3. Other terms 2.

348 348

357 36 2

371 380

PART III The Rival Answers Emerge

202

Chapter 8: Eustathius and Marcellus I. Eustathius of" Antioch 2. Marcellus of Ancyra 3. Photinus

208 208

217 235

Chapter 9: The Behaviour of Athanasius I. Estimates of Athanasius' Character 2. Athanasius' Career to the Council of Tyre 3. From the Council of Tyre to the Council of Rome 10:

Chapter 12: Attempts at Creed-making: Phase Three, 35?-361 I. The Rise of the Homoiousians 2. The .Council of Sirmium of 358 3. The 'Dated' Creed of 359 4. Constantius' Final Solution 5. The Aftermath of Nice

334

341 343

Chapter 13: Eusebius of Emesa and Cyril ofJerusalem I. Eusebius of Emesa 2. Cyril of Jerusalem

PART II Period of Confusion

Chapter

4. Ossius and Liberius 5. The Third Exile of Athanasius 6. The Sirmian Council of 357

Attempts at Creed-making: Phase One,

341~349

Was there an Arian Conspiracy? 2. The Council of Antioch of 341 3. The Council of Serdica of 343 4. Period of Reconciliation I.

11: Attempts at Creed-making: Phase Two, 35~357 Constantius II 2. The First Sirmian Creed (35 I) 3. The Councils of Aries (353) and of Milan (355)

Chapter I.

x

Chapter 14: The Doctrine of Athanasius 417 I. The Dates of Athanasius' Works 417 2. The Theology of Athanasius: the Father and the Son 421 3. Homoousios 436 4· The Incarnation 446 Chapter 15: The Western Pro-Nicenes I: Hilary of PoWers I. Hilary's Career and Works 2. His Theology: Introduction 3. The Relation of the Son to the Father 4. Hilary's Doctrine of the Incarnation 5. Conclusion

459 459 471 475 492 502

293 306

Chapter 16: The Western Pro-Nicenes II I. Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Calaris 2. Phoebadius of Agen and Gregory of Elvira

507 507 516

3I 5 3I 5 32 5 329

Chapter 17: The Western Pro-Nicenes III: Marius Victorinus I. Marius Victorinus: Introdu~tion 2. His Christology 3. His Doctrine of the Incarnation

531 53 I 534 547

239 239 246 262

274 274 284

Xl

Contents 4. His Doctrine of the Trinity

Chapter 18: Homoian Arianism The Identification of Homoiap: Arianism 2. The Theology of the Homoian Arians 3. Homoian Arian Polemic 4. Homoian People I.

Contents

55 0 557 557 562 57 2 579

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

598 598 60 3 6Il 617

Aetius: his Career Doctrine 3. Eunomius: his Career 4. Doctrine I.

2.

PART IV

The The 3. The 4. The

2.

Influence of Scripture Influence of the Emperor Influence of Philosophy Development of Doctrine

Bibliography General Index Index of Modern Authors Index of Biblical References

878 901 922 921

The Controversy Resolved Chapter

20:

Athanasius and his Heirs

The Council of Alexandria of 362 2. Didymus and Pseudo-Didymus 3. Epiphanius 4. Ambrose I.

Chapter

21:

The Cappadocian Theologians

Introduction 2. Basil of Caesarea 3. Gregory of Nazianzus 4. Gregory of Nyssa 5. Conclusion I.

Introduction 2. The Holy Spirit in the Thought of Athanasius and his Followers 3. The Macedonians 4. The Holy Spirit in the Cappadocian Theologians

Chapter 23'. The Council of Constantinople Imperial Policy before the Council xii

!

676 676 679 699 7 15

I.

I.

639 639 653 65 8 667

73 0

Chapter 22: The Doctrine of the Spirit

795 802 805 812 820

Chapter 24: The Development of Doctrine I.

Chapter 19: The Neo-Arians

Abortive Attempts at Agreement The Beginning of the Consensus The Council of Constantinople The Creed of Constantinople The Immediate Sequel to the Council

73 8 73 8 748 760 772

79 1 791 xiii

List of Abbreviations Studi for Simonetti's Studi suit' Arianesimo.

Urk for Opitz, Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites III. US for American edition. N.B. the word 'diocese' has throughout been used for a division of

List Of Abbreviations

the Roman Empire and not in an ecclesiastical sense.

The abbreviations used in this book follow those listed by Siegfried Schwertner in his International Glossary of Abbreviations for Theology and Related Subjects (Berlin 1974), but in addition the following have been used:

AC for Gwatkin's Arian Controversy

C for the Creed drawn up by the Council of Constantinople held in the year 381. CCT for Grillmeier's Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. I. Crisi for Simonetti's La Cnsi Ariana nel Quarto Secolo. DSS for the treatise De Spiritu Sancto of Basil of Caesarea. EOMrA for C. H. Turner's Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima Vol. I. ET for English Translation. Fr Tr for French Translation. GPT for Prestige's God in Patristic Thought. HE = Historia Ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History). LXX for the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek. MS for manuscript. N for the Creed drawn up by the Council of Nicaea of 325. n for note. NT for New Testament. OT for Old Testament. PG for Migne's Patrologia Graeca. PL for Migne's Patrologia Latina. PTAA for Politique et theologie chez Athanasc d' Alexandrie (ed: Kannengiesser).

SA for Gwatkin's Studies in Arianism. xiv

xv

Introduction This book is about what is conventionally known as 'The Arian Controversy', but neither the word .Arian' nor the word 'controversy' appears in the main title. The reason for this is that the author is convinced that the expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a

seriousmisnomer . In the first place Arius was not a particularly significant writer and 1

the people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. He may have written a lot of works apart from his Thalia and one or two letters, which are all that survive. But ifhe did write other works neither his supporters nor his opponents thought them worth preserving. Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote him, and sometimes directly disavow connection with him (e.g. Auxentius of Milan and Palladius ofRatiaria). He was not a great heresiarch in the same sense as Marcion or Mani or Pelagius might deserve that term. He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early stage in its course. It is true, of course, that during the controversy accusati~ns of 'Arianism' were thrown around freely. It might be said that at the Council of Serdica in 343 one half of the Church accused the other half of being' Arian', while in its turn that half accused the other of being 'Sabellian'. But these were wild unsubstantiated pieces of propaganda. The doctrinal issues scarcely appear

in a recognisable

form. capable of being attacked or defended, until in 357 the Second Council of Sirmium, twenty-one years after the death of Arius, produced an unmistakably Arian Creed. and even this Creed makes no reference to him. The views of Arius were such as in a peculiar manner to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering, without giving one school of thought among those existing at that time complete satisfaction. He was the spark that started the explosion. but in himself he was of no great Significance. xvii

Introduction

Introduction

The epithet 'Arian' then is scarcely justified to describe the movement of thought in the fourth century which culminated in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. But is the word 'controversy' adequate either? That there ,:"as plenty of controversy during this period nobody can deny. But the controversy raged round different subjects at different times, and at some times there was almost no controversy at all. If there was any controversy from 330 to 34', it was a controversy about the behaviour of Athanasius in his see of Alexandria. Eusebius of Caesarea could during those years write his Commentary on the Psalms and (probably) Athanasius his Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione without making any direct reference at all to the 'Arian Controversy'. There was a long period of confusion and uncertainty from 34i to 357 when it was far from clear what the controversy was about, if there was a controversy. The situation was peculiarly complicated by the constant use of similar or identical terms by different parties in different senses, without any party realising that the others were using the same words, such as ousia, and hypostasis, in different meanings. Tertullian had long before provided the term persona to Latin-speaking theologians to describe that which within the Trinity should be regarded as Three rather than One. But Western theologians in the fourth century, in as far as there were any, were curiously shy of using this term. Hilary seldom uses it; Ambrose in his De Fide scarcely employs it at all. Marius Victorinus explicitly and emphatically rejects it. Eastern, Greek-speaking theologians had no agreed term for this concept whatever. Latin substantia was as equivocal as Greek ousia or hypostasis. When apparent agreement was reached at Nicaea in 325 the Creed which was the instrument of agreement contained in one of its anathemas a confusion of terms so disastrous as to render its eirenic function virtually worthless. Should this state of affairs be called a controversy, or a search in a fog. a situation when

Another important point to realise about the period which forms the subject of this book is that it was not a history of the defence of an agreed and settled orthodoxy against the assaults of open heresy. On the subject which was primarily under discussion there was not as yet any orthodox doctrine. The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply

coloured by that fact. The supporters of this view wanted their readers to think that orthodoxy on the subject under discussion had always existed and that the period was simply a story of the defence of that orthodoxy against heresy and error. But it ought to be obvious that this could not possibly have been the case. If the solution to the problem was clear from the start, why did the controversy last sixty years? Why did it involve several successive Roman Emperors and entail the holding of at least twenty councils? Why the polemical treatises, depositions of bishops of all opinions, riots, antagonism of parties, numerous creeds, division between Latin-speaking Westerners and Greek-speaking Easterners? The defence of wellestablished and well-known orthodoxy could not possibly account for such widespread and long-lasting disturbances. Both sides indeed''!!l sides, for there were more than two - appealed confidently to tradition to support them. All sides believed that they had the authority of.Scripture in their favour. Each described the others as unorthodox, untraditional and unScriptural. And most had some, though only partial,justification for their claims. In fact nobody, not even Athanasius, had a wholly unblemished record of orthodoxy in the course of events. Some of the Easterners had indeed readmitted Arius to communion. Almost all the Eastern theologians believed that the Son was in some sense subordinated to the Father before the Incarnation. But t~the Westerners had at Serdica in 343 produced a theological statement which appeared to have the most alarmingly Sabellian complexion, and 'Athanasius had certainly supported this statement, though he later denied its existence. Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology which was ingenious and in some respects percipient, but which could quite properly be called Sabellian; and for many years Athanasius and the Pope refused to disown Marcellus. With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy. Hilary in order to defend his Trinitarian theology plunges wildly into Docetism. Pope. Liberius signs a doctrinal formula which was widely believed in the West to be rankly Arian and certainly was not in accordance with pro-Nicene orthodoxy. Ambrose supports the Apollinarian Vitalian for some time after his unorthodoxy has been evident to Eastern theologians, and Damasus supports the nearSabellian Paulinus of Antioch. This is not the story of a defence of

xviii

xix

'ignorant armies clash by night'?

Introduction

Introduction

orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy, a search conducted by the

philosophy which offered too easy an answer to the problem that a solution was reached. Greek philosophy and religion could readily accept a monotheism which included an hierarchically graded God and could easily accord a qualified divinity to the Son. Neither was in the end accepted by the Church. But it would of course be absurd to deny that discussion and dispute between 318 and 381 were conducted largely in terms of Greek philosophy. The reason for this was, paradoxically, because the dispute was about the interpretation of the Bible. The theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself. In the cour~e of this search the Church was impelled reluctantly to form dogma. It was the first great and authentic example of the

method of tria} and error. This is what constitutes its interest and its importance. It is because this manner of presenting the 'Arian Controversy' has

not hitherto been found in textbooks that this work should be thought to have its raison d'2tre.1t is worth taking up the subject again in spite of its treatment by able scholars in the past such as Gwatkin and Harnack. Even the remarkably capable and full treatment recently accorded the subject by Manlio Simonetti has not quite done justice to this point (and how many theological students in the English-speaking world can read Italian?). Since the time ofGwatkin and Harnack, again, much important work upon the period has ,been

done. Schwartz has established much of the chronology of the period more securely. H.1. Bell has published the papyrus which throws such a lurid light on the behaviour of Athanasius in his see; though this was published nearly sixty years ago the significance ofit has not yet sunk in everywhere. It is astonishing to read an article in TRE on the subject of ,Athanasius' by Martin Tetz written as recently as 1977 and find no mention of this document, so important for our

estimation of Athanasius' character. The existence of the Synod of Antioch of 325 has now been brought to light. The Homilies of Asterius have been published. The works ofEusebius of Ernesa have

development of doctrine. For theologians who are to-day interested

in the subject of the development of doctrine, the study of the period from 318 to 381 should present an ideal case-history. This is another reason why the period is of permanent interest and importance. In order to set out adequately the history of doctrine during this period it has been necessary to pay close attention to the sequence of historical events. The reader will have to endure much discussion of

been properly edited. A store of Arian literature hitherto unkno.wn

historical points. In this case the historical events cannot be separated from the formation of doctrine. In fact it would be unrealistic to

or little known has been made available by Turner, Gryson and others. The philosophical background of the fourth century has been much more effectively explored. For English-speaking students at

present any history of doctrine without paying attention to the historical events which took place during that formation. The result may be a certain 'sandwich' impression left by the book; historical

least the time is over-ripe for a new review of the period. The subjects under discussion between 31B and 3B1 were not, as has

narrative alternates with accounts of the doctrines of the leading

sometimes been alleged, those raised by Greek theology or pl1ilosophy and such as could only have been raised by people thinking in Greek terms. It was not simply a quarrel about Greek

theologians. But that is inevitable. Mind is involved in history and affected by it, and historical events are influenced by mind. The account given in this work will attempt to do justice to both.

ideas. In the fourth century there came to a head a crisis (as Simonetti

has aptly called it in the title of his book La Crisi Ariana nel Quarto Seeolo) which was not created by either Arius or Athanasius. It was the problem of how to reconcile two factors which were part of the very fabric of Christianity: monotheism, and the worship of Jesus Christ as divine. Neither of these factors is specifically connected with Greek philosophy or thought; both arise directly from the earliest Christian tradition. Indeed, as will, it is hoped, be shown in this book, it was only by overcoming some tendencies in Greek xx

xxi

PART I The Origins

,

-l

j

I

I

What Did Arius Teach? I. Arius' Career up to 318 In t!:>e year 318 1 Arius, a presbyter in charge of the church and district of ihucalis in Alexandria, publicly criticised the Christological doctrine of his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. Arius must have been born about 256,2 in Libya. We can be confident that Arius was Libyan in origin, not only because Epiphanius says SO, 3 but because Arius himself in a letter written to the Emperor Constantine, which has not survived, claims that 'the whole people of Libya' were on his side, 4 and because it was the Libyan bishops, especially Secundus of Ptolemais, who supported the cause of Arius most persistently. 5 Arius is alleged to have supported the schismatic bishop Melitius of Lycopolis at the beginning of his agitation against Peter bishop of Alexandria. During the persecution of Diocletian, Peter had taken refuge in flight and Melitius had taken upon himself to administer, as well as he could, Peter's against Peter's protests; and even when Melirlus was condemned to labour in the mines at Phaeno for his Christian convictions he had ordained both bishops and other clergy in defiance of Peter's authority, probably maintaining that by his

see.

The date of the outbreak of the controversy is discussed below. pp. 129-38. G. Bardy calculated, Recherches sur Saint Lucien d' Antioche et son ecole, 247-8, but this may be too early. For a more recent treatment of Arius' earlier life. see M. Simonetti La Crid Ariana nel IV Secolo, 985-6, and E. Boularand L' Heresie d' ATius et la Foi de Nicee, 9-[7. lPanarion 69.1, Loafs (art. 'Arianismus' in RE II (~897)7). Bardy (op. cit. 247-8), Simonetti (op. cit. 985-6) and Kannengiesser ('Athanase et les Melitiens' in Politique et Theologie chez Athanase dJ Alexandrie, 3.1-33). 4H. G. Opitz Urk III, No. 34. 20 (71), a fragment quoted by Constantine in his Letter 10 Arius and llis Companions, written in 333. 5S ee H. Chadwick, 'Faith and Order at the Council bf Nicaea', HThR LIII (1960), reprinted in History and Thought oithe Early Church XII; also J. Barnes and H. Chadwick 'A Letter ascribed to Peter of Alexandria', I

2S0

3

What did Arius Teach?

The Origins

flight Peter had forfeited his ~ee. After a lull in the persecution occasioned by Galerius' Edict of Toleration (3 I I), Maximus resumed persecuting in his portion of the Eastern Empire, and at this point Peter was imprisoned and finally martyred (312). Some material in the Collection of Theodosius the Deacon throws light on this controversy, and a confused passage in it connects Arius with Melitius. It says that two people who wished to be regarded as learned, Isidorus and Arius, when, after all the bishops, presbyters and deacons of Alexandria had been martyred, Melitius came to Alexandria, joined him and indicated to him which were the presbyters to whom Peter (perhaps from prison) had given authority to visit the needy in the diocese. Whereupon Melitius, commendans eis occasionem separavit eos et ordinavit ipse duos, unum in careere et unum in metallo. 6 The meaning of this last sentence is unclear; oecasio in late Latin can have a number of meanings. ranging from 'opportunity' to 'accusation'. The first three Latin words may mean 'suggesting to

them that this was an opportunity', and the rest that Melitius separated and ordained the two, one in prison and one in the mine. But if we identify the Arius here mentioned with our Arius, then Melitius must have ordained him at least deacon, perhaps priest.

certainly not bishop (as Kettler in a fine article' on the documents concerning the Melitian schism in Turner's edition of the Collection makes clear). Epiphanius says' that Melitius made some sort of pact with Arius when the latter had been (after 318) excommunicated by Alexander, but does not suggest that the two had had relations with each other earlier. Sozomenus 9 says that Arius

likely that Melitius actually ordained Arius deacon. Athanasius in describing the origin of the involvement of the Melitians with the Arians does not say that Arius was ordained by Melitius,'° and Athanasius is unlikely to have omitted anything to the discredit of Arius. In fact. the association of Arius with Melitius in the early years of the latter's schism rests upon rather frail evidence. Arius was a common name, and the Arius associated with Isidc5rus in meeting

Melitius may have been another person. We may, however, confidently conclude that Arius was ordained deacon by Peter and priest by Achillas, and was a presbyter in good standing in the diocese of Alexandria when the dispute began. Arius very probably had at some time studied with Lucian of Antioch. Epiphanius says that he had done so in Nicomedia," and Adus confirms this when, writing to Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia in the early -stages of the affair. he addresses his correspondent as crOA.A.OUlCluvt This doctrine Arius clearly wishes to avoid at all costs. The next letter consists of a Profession of Faith, to be dated about 32(j~ent by Arius and his companions to Alexander in the hope that Alexander will recognise their orthodoxy and withdraw his excommunication. 2o They have set out their beliefs on the points under dispute: They profess the uniqueness of the Father, with much use of the word 'sole' (monos), including 'sole true, sole wise, sole good', and then, 'He who has begotten the only-begotten Son before aeonian times (xp6voov a(oovioov), through whom also he made the aeons and. everything, who produced him not in appearance but in truth, giving him existence (61toc.rri)craV'ta) by his own will, unchangeable and unalterable (lil'pE1t1'6vn; Kat dVaAAO{Cl)'tOV), a perfect creature (1CtiC1lla) of God, but not like one of the creatures. a product (ytvvTUJ.a), but not

like one of the things produced

(yey.vv~~vrov),

the product of the

Father not as Valenrinus laid down an issue (npopOATtV), nor as Mani taU'ght a consubstantial part (IltpOunt of one Contemporary

into existence and is created (rEV~ 1tAtlS8') of the children, nor the name of wisdom.

Fragment XIII (Orationes can Arianos I1I.IO) Since what the Father wishes the Son also wishes and he (the Son) does not oppose him in either his ideas or his judgements, but is in 34

Fragment XX (65) Asterius declared his belief in God the Father Almighty and in his Son the only begotten God our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, and that the Father must truly (aATjSiiis) be Father and the Son truly Son and the Holy Spirit similarly. 5 2 Here begin the fragments from Eusebius of Caesa rea's Con. Marcellum. They are not all reproduced because they are not all relevant to the theme of this book, and some simply repeat what has already been recorded.

35

The Origins Fragment XXI (96) The Father is distinct (liAAo
Athanasius and Basil quote from the letter of the bishop of Rome and from the work which the bishop of Alexandria wrote, Refutation and Defence (Blenchus kai Apologia), in reply to this protest. Those who had called the attention of the bishop of Rome to these suspect expressions of Dionysius of Alexandria charged him among other errors with virtually refusing to apply the term homoousios to the Son;61 Dionysius of Rome must have referred to this accusation in his work, but his words have not survived. The opinions complained of were conveyed in these words from Dionysius of Alexandria's Letter to Buphranor and Ammonius (the anti-Sabellian work):

SBCCT 165; Grillmeier (164-165) observes that Nautin has criticised de Riedmatten's reconstruction of the matter, and has promise!! a new edition of the fragments and a new account of his teaching. But neither has yet appeared. 59.See below, P.7"3: for a reference to Dionysius as a predecessor by an Arian writer, see below, P.127. 6°The best modern edition of Dionysius of Alexandria is still C. L. Feltoe The Remains oj Dionysius of Alexandria (1904), though it is not exhaustive. The best modem work on this writer is W. A. Bienert Dionysius von Alexandrien (1978). See also Barnard 'The Antecedents o( Arius', 176-179, Grillmeier CCT15j-159, Loofs, 'Arianismus' 9, H. Chadwick History and Thought ofthe Early Church XII, 175-179, Simonetti Studi 27-29. and Lorentz Arius Iudaizansl, 94-100. .

72

'the Son of God is a creature and generate (ltohUla Kai YEvY"j"t6v), and he is not by nature belonging to' (q)\)CrEl 'io~ov) but is alien in ousia from the Father, just as the planter of the ville is to the vine, and the shipbuilder to the ship; further because he is a creature (nohUla) he did not exist before he came into existence (aUK npiv -y6VTJtQ.l).'

nv

Athanasius defends Dionysius, though he admits that he wrote these words, on the grounds that the circumstances, since he was combating Sabellianism, justified such expressions, that when he referred to the Son as a creature Dionysius meant only the Son's human nature (a wildly improbable excuse), and that in a later work Dionysius modified and withdrew many of these views. Dionysius, he says, in his reply to the bishop of Rome wrote that the Son has existed eternally and that there was no time when God was not a Father, invoking the analogy of the sun and its inseparable ray; God is a sun which never sets. 62 And he quotes a remarkable sentence from this work: 'Thus we extend the Monad into an inseparable triad, and we pack up (cruYKEq>a'-atoUJ.lE9a) the undiminished Triad again inio a Monad.'63 D~onysius apologized for using 'two unsuitable expressions' (i.e. vine-planter and ship-builder) and accepted the term homoousios as applicable to the Son. 64 Later Dionysius made much play with the analogy for the relation of the Son to the Father of the relation of a word to a thought: 'the mind is like an immanent word, and the word like a mind expressing itself.'·5 Elsewhere Athanasius says that Dionysius allowed the. image of shoot from seed 61Athanasius De Sententia Dionysii 9.2 (52) and 10.1 (53). 62lbid. 15.1-6 (57). "17·3 (58). 64 18.1-5 (59, 60). 65 23 . 1- 3 (62,63), the quotation from 3 (63).

73

The Origins

The Antecedents of Arius

and river from soutce to describe the relation of the Son to the Father.·· Basil, in his letter Ep 9, is much more outspoken about Dionysius of Alexandria, since the honour of his see is not involved. He says that Dionysius unwittingly sowed the first seeds of the Anhomoian error, by leaning too far in the opposite direction in his anxiety to correct wrong Sabellian views. He maintained not oQ,ly 'the difference (almost 'incompatibility' t,"p6,~,a) of the hypostases, but also the diversity of the ousia and the 'reduction of power and variation of glory' (within the Trinity). And sometimes he rejects the homoousion, because Sabellius used it incorrectly in denying· the distinction of hypostases, but sometimes he accepted it, when he was defending himself against the bishop of Rome. He also numbered the Holy Spirit among created things.· 7 And in his De Spiritu Sancto Basil says that Dionysius uses hypostases to mean, not ousia but 'separate beings. '68 Basil makes no mention of any expressions of Dionysius which modify these doctrines, as Athanasius does. Some have seen Dionysius as a straightforward disciple of Origen,·9 presumably relying ·on Athanasius' account of his doctrine. But there are strong grounds for rejecting this point of view. Lorentz thinks that he was reverting to an earlier conception of the immanent (endiathetos) and uttered (prophorikos) Word found in the Apologists and in Clement of Alexandria,70 and· even to Tertullian, but under the criticism ofDionysius of Rome he reverted to Origen's doctrine. of the eternal generation of the Son. Bienert, wpo ha's subjected the evidence to a very thorough examination, conlA.Oxp!atOo ,.ulptOpo Behmd this interchange, as Ambrose well knew, lies an important.difference of doctrine. Palladius believes that Christ had no human mmd or soul to declare itselfless than God, and therefore that it is the Logos who is speaking; Ambrose believes that the human nature, endowed with a human soul, is speaking. For Palladius, the Word directly experienced all the human experiences; the body was Simply a soulless physical organism in which the Logos supphed the place of

human soul was characteristic of Lucian of Antioch and his· disciples. 55 As this is one of the very few statements about Lucian of

which we can be reasonably sure, and as Arius in his Letter to Eusehius of !yicomedia refers to both of them as OU:u..OUKlaVI.CJ't'U{, we may cohfidently assume that this doctrine was held by Arius himsel£ T~e next witness to this doctrine in point of time, if he is not actually the earliest, is Asterius. He does not directly mention the

absence of a human soul in Christ, but he brings in its correlative idea,

that Christ was not a 'mere man'. 'If he' (Christ), he says, 'was not

mind or soul. . This was not a new idea at the time. Simonetti indeed calls It 'widespread' .50 Eusebius of Caesa rea at one point directly denies that 48Ibid. 290, 292.107. . 49Ibid. Acts of Council 360(40); in Latin the dialogue runs thus: P. Quae emm comparatio est Filii Dei. Et caro potest dicere, 'Deus me maior est'? Caro loquebatur aut divinitas. Qui ibi erat carD? A. Caro sine anima non loquebatur. 50Studi 142 n44; cf. Crisi SI and 469·

no

I

l 's

51 Dem. Ell, VII.I, 23. 24; X.8, 74; Eee, Theol. 1.20, 87. Gericke Marcell von Ancyra 97-99, has noted this. See above. PP.54-5S. 52S 0 rightly Gericke, op. cit. 168. 53 Among the many scholars investigating this period who mention this doctrine we can list. in addition to Simonetti (already mentioned) Gwatkin (SA 17). Loofs ('Arianismus' II, who in connection with it refers to the 'bankruptcy in the Logosdoctrine'), Seeberg (Textbook of the History of Doctrines Vol. n. 204), Sellers (Eustathius of Antioch IS), Bardy (LUcien d'Antioche 154), Moreira (Potamius de Lisbonne 16), Boularand (Hbesie d' Arius 79-80), Ritter ('Arianismus' 702 & 717 n 8), Lorenz (Arius ludaizans? 211-215 particularly full references), and Wallace-HadriIl (Christian Antioch 118, 128). We have already observed (see above. P.9?-98) that Gregg and Groh curiously ignore this point. 54Spanneut, op. cit. 15(100); cr. ibid. 'La Position theologique d'Eustache d'Antioche', 223. 55See above, p. 80. III

The Origins

The Rationale of Arianism

master of them (darkness and sun), they would not have mourned in this way' (he is speaking of the darkness of the sun at the Crucifixion); 'if he was a mere man (Ilv9pw1to, 1jIl1..6,) they would not have bewailed him as their master ... He who is Lord of the Sabbath is Lord also of me and of the Day of Preparation; but a mere man (liv9pw1to, 1jIl)'6,) is not Lord of Days'. 56 It is the heretics who refuse to believe that Christ was not a mere man. 57 And this is followed by a long rhetorical passage insisting that it was not a mere man who was crucified, but God as well as man. 58 There is a revealing passage in Eudoxius' Rule of Faith which illuminates Asterius' words. It runs thus, referring to Christ:

from Mary and monitored him by the powers of divine activity, but the man lived by the motivation and nature of (the Word's) own soul.'61

'he became flesh, not man, for he did no.t.take a human soul, but he became flesh, in order that he might be called for men "God for us" (9£0; iU.liv) by means of the flesh as by means of a veil; there were not two natures, because he was not a complete man, but he was God in the flesh instead of a soul: the whole was a single composite nature; he was passible by the Incarnation (ohcovolJ.iav) for if only soul and body suffered he could not have saved the world. Let them answer then how this passible and mortal person could be consubstantial with God who is beyond these things: suffering and death.'59

Here we see into. the heart of Arianism. The Arians want to. have a God who can suffer, but they cannot attribute suffering to the High God, and this is what (with some reason) they believed the Homoousian doctrine would entail. The suggestion of Moreira"O that the Second Creed ofSirmium of357 (called by the pro-Nicenes 'the Blasphemy') intended such a doctrine as is sketched above in the words eamem vel corpus id est hominem suseepisse (,took flesh and body, that is man') is an attractive ane. Hilary sums up the Adan doctrine of the Incarnation'; ~ot without some exaggeratian, in these words: 'God the Word as some part of the powers of God, enlarging himself by some process of extension, dwelt in the man who began to exist 56Asterius Homilies XXXI.2(243). "Ibid. 3(243). "Ibid. 4-8(243-45). s9Hahn cp. cit. 261, 262. Simcnetti (Crisi 469 and 470. n 3) is right in deciding that this is net tce advanced to' be attributable to. Eudexius. but I do net fellow Simcnetti in thinking that E.:doxius has borrewed this pelemic against a twonature theory from Apellinaris. It fellows from the logic of Arianism itself. 60Mereira op. cit. 110. 112

According to Epiphanius, the Arians went so far as to say that the divine part ofthe Logos incarnate was in need afthe human (to do. the suffering), and therefore the divine part must be alien from and different to God the Father, who is in need ofnothing."2 But this may represent Epiphanius' muddled thinking rather than actual Arian teaching. We can find this doctrine even in the small amount which we have of Pseudo-Ignatius. In his version ofIgnatius Philadelphians 6, variaus heresies are denounced, amang them those which canfess Christ Jesus but hold that he was 'a mere man ... not Only-begotten God and Wisdom and Word of God, but that he consisted only of soul and body.'·3 As we have already seen in the case of Palladius, later Western Arianism did nat abandan this doctrine. A fragment from Mai/Gryson says that the evangelist John at 1:I4 'blocked the mouths of those who say that he took' a soul along with the body.'"4 ¥aximinus in his argument with Augustine in fact refers to. this favaurite Arian doctrine when he insists that the soul afthe incarnate Christ was divine, and Augustine is careful to. emphasize that it was ,human. 65 . The author of the Apostolic Constitutions, Book VII, speaks of the 'Only-begotten' God who 'accepted death through the Cross for our sake'; and declares that God at the end of the age sent his Son to became man for the sake af man and 'to. receive all human experiences' (pathi) apart from sin."" The Opus Imperfeetum in Matthaeum, which is the most sophisticated and able work ofArian theology known to us, commenting on Matt. 21:33 ('a man who was a householder who hired out his vineyard'), remarks as follows: 'Ifanyone thinks that Christ must have had only a human soul (anima) for this reason, because he is called "man". he should listen [to this text where] God the Father is called a man [i.e. a paterfamilias]. The Son of God. knowing beforehand that because of his being called by the 61De Trin. X.50(504). 62Panarion 69.19.7-8(169). 6JCureton, Corpus 19natianum 95. 64Gryson Frag. XX.228 (Mai XIII). 6SAugustine Collatio 9(727, 728) and 14(720.). 66Funk op. cit. XII:XLlI(448l3 and (449)4. 113

The Origins

The Rationale of Arianism

name of human being he would be blasphemously aIlege.d t~. be a

This author refuses to see Christ's human nature as complete, and

mere man (homo purus). called even God the Father who IS mVlSlble a man, so that since the Father is called ':man" the Son should be free from the blasphemies of the heretics.'67

therefore capable of taking the weight of human experiences off God's impassibility. If we accept this reconstruction of Arian doctrine, we ·need not ascribe to the author of the Apostolic Constitutions, who has the same doctrine, Apollinarian tendencies, as Funk conjectured.'o He is an Arian. The Pseudo-Ignatian Letters provide us with many more rejections of the doctrine that Christ was psi los anthropos; the writer continually polemicizes against this view." He emphasizes equally strongly the reality of Christ's flesh or body.72 He regularly

Homo purus here obviously correspo~ds to the ~r~ek p~ilos anthropos, meaning for the Arian not necessanly an Ebl~rute plctur~, of one who was human and not divine, but the pro-Nlcene doctrme of the incarnate Word possessing twO natures or elements, one of .which was a complete man with a human mind. This model would rule out the Arian doctrine that the divine Logos directly experienced human emotions and experiences and was not shielded from these. as from the middle of the fourth century onwards the pro-Nicenes tended to claim. by a human soul or mind. Later the same author says, 'If God the Father, who is only God and not man, is yet to be called ·'man". how much more necessary was it that the Only-begotten Son should be called "'man", eveD though he was not a mere man (homo '68 purus). as he assumed human nat~re.

What this writer attacks is not so much a two-nature doctrine as .a doctrine of two complete natures in which the huma~ nature .15 envisaged as supplied with a human ~oul. We have. seen Ju.st now m

Asterius and in Eudoxius' Rule of Faith that the Arlans beheved that this idea struck at the heart of the doctrine of salvation. A mere man who did not have the divine Logos as his mind could not save mankind. Their argument here is the same as that of the Apollinarians, but is not necessarily derived from them. The author of the Opus Irnperfecturn a little later has exactly the same argument as that of Asterius and Eudoxius. After enumeratmg several err~rs of the pro-Nicenes, he castigates them for saying: 'A mere man (purum hominem) was crucified in soul and body. not just God in a body. in which there was no deity ... For if a mere man suffered, I give up. because the death of a man. not of God. does not

save

US.'69

670pUS Imp! in Matt. XI(8S3).1 take the view that this is certa~n1y an A~an work of the fifth century which has at some point suffered orthodo?, mterl:'0latlons. But its' textual history and composition have by no mean~ been s~tlsfacton.ly se~tled ,Yet. See Zeiller Les Origines chrhiennes 474-82; and Meshn op. Cit. Les Aflens d OCCIdent 150-82.

"Ibid. XLI(859)'. "Ibid. XLV(889)P·

Il4

subordinates the Son to the Father in a manner very reminiscent of

Arianism.'3 He refers hostilely several times to people who subject God Almighty to human experiences or who identify the Father and the Son; this sounds like an allusion to pro-Nicene doctrine.'4 In all of these passages he mentions alongside them those who regard Christ as psi/os anthropos. There are one or two statements unmistakably affirming that the incarnate Christ did not have a human soul and that the divine Word dwelt in a body: inPhilippians6 he denounces various heresies, among them those who confess Christ

Jesus, but hold that he was a psi/on anthropon ... not Only-begotten God and Wisdom and Word ofGod, but that he consisted of soul and body, and these are dangerous Ebionites. 75 In the same passage he warns that even professing correct doctrine does not emancipate you

from heresy if at the same time you approve of illicit sexual unions, and in the category of orthodoxy he places the view that 'God the Lord dwelt (KatK.') in a human body, being the logos in it, as a soul 7°Funk op. cit.lntrod. XX. For views on this subject. see C. H. Turner 'Notes on the Apostolic Constitutions 1', 54--61; Meslin Les Ariens 109-10. 243. 2-44. 393. ?,lCureton op. cit. Phi/ad. 6(95); Tarsians 2(126, 127), 6(129-130); Antiochenes 5(136); PhiUpp. 3-12(149-155).

72lbid. Trallians 9(81). 10(83); Smyrnaeans 2(103): Philipp. 3(14.9). 5(153). 73lbid. Magnesians 11(69. the creed); Trallians 5(77); Philad. 4(91-2); Smyrnaeans 7(r09), 9(111); Tarsians 5(129); Hero 7(145)· 74TralIians 6(77); Tarsians 2(126, 127); Antiochenes 5(136). 75Page 95: as it is wholly unlikely that the sect of the Ebionites still existed in the writer's day, we may take this as an abusive epithet applied to the pro-Nicenes.. On the other hand a writer in Mai/Gryson Fragments (Gryson V. 236-237 (Mai XV») outlines a doctrine which is clearly that of psilos anthropos (hominem tantummodo .. . corpus et animum non Deum) and attributes it to Photinus and his predecessors (Marcellus, possibly also the pto-Nicenes). This is indeed a full Photinian position. as the writer makes clear, denying [he distinct existence of Christ before the Incarnation. For Photinus, see below, P·235-8.

lIS

The Origins

The Rationale of Arianism

in a body, because the dweller in it was God, but not a human soul' (ljIUXiJ).'6 Except for one or two places which so starkly contradict the rest that they must be interpolations,77 he gives every sign of being an Arian, probably an Homoian Arian rather than an Eunomian. because he does not, for instance, object to saying that the Son is begotten, though he is careful to define what he means by this.78 That he should sometimes describe the Son as immutable (li