Overview
In 359-60, Emperor Constantius called a series of councils to formulate a creed for the entire church. The Homoousians (same substance) and Homoiousians (similar substance) were strongly represented, but, after pressure from the emperor, the delegates finally agreed to a Homoian creed, which rejected all substance language.
The Homoiousians were the Arian group nearest to the Homoousians. Seeking their support, Athanasius claimed that he and they fundamentally teach the same. By explaining the ousia (substance) phrases in the Nicene Creed figuratively, Athanasius attempts to persuade them to accept the Creed.
After Athanasius had returned from exile in 362, he called a Council in Alexandria to discuss these matters. After the Council, he wrote a letter (the Antiochene Tome), setting the minimum requirement for restoring communion as the acceptance of the Nicene Creed. However, Athanasius gave a new interpretation of the controversial terms:
Much of the Controversy up to this point revolved around the question of whether the Son is a hypostasis (a distinct Person), as the Arians claimed, or whether the Son is an aspect of the Father, namely the Father’s own Wisdom, as the Nicenes argued.
The Nicene Creed seems to say that the Father and Son are one hypostasis (a single Person). However, Athanasius now argues that the Creed can be interpreted as teaching three hypostases if the term hypostasis is understood not as literally three distinct Persons. Athanasius taught that the Son and the Spirit are internal to the being of the Father, but also claimed that they are identifiable as distinct aspects of the Father. So, if one uses the term hypostases figuratively, one can say that three hypostases exist.
Athanasius says that the statement in the Creed, that the Father and Son are one hypostasis, must not be understood as saying that the Son and Spirit do not have distinct existences, but simply that the Father, Son, and Spirit share one nature, as opposed to the created order.
Another interesting aspect of the Antiochene Tome is that it claimed that Jesus Christ had a human soul and mind. This was different from Athanasius’ traditional theology. He had never previously admitted a human mind in Christ. So, why this change?
The Councils of 359-360
Twin Councils – In the years 359-60, Emperor Constantius called twin councils in the West (Seleucia) and the East (Ariminum) to formulate a creed for the entire church. Show More
| “In AD 359 Constantius decided to emulate his father’s action in calling Nicaea and summon a general council” (Ayres, p. 157). “He decided to hold twin councils in east and west” (Ayres, p. 158).
“The two councils met in 359: the eastern council at Seleucia in Cilicia (near Antioch), the western at Ariminum in northern Italy (modern Rimini)” (Ayres, p. 160). |
In the Western Council, the Homoousians (the Nicenes = same substance) initially seemed to have had the upper hand, but, through pressure from the emperor, the council eventually accepted the Dated Creed, which states that all ousia language should be avoided. Show More
| “A majority of those present voted in favour of retaining the creed of Nicaea and not introducing any new creed” (Ayres, p. 160).
“After much pressure the delegates of the majority at Ariminum accepted the Dated creed excepting only the phrase ‘in all things’ used to qualify the Son’s likeness to the Father” (Ayres, p. 161).
“The creed on which they finally agreed (the Dated Creed) asserts, on the one hand, that the Son is ‘like the Father in all respects, as the Holy Scriptures also declare and teach’.” “On the other hand, it asserts that all ousia language should be avoided” (Ayres, p. 158). |
In the Eastern Council, the Homoiousians, who maintained that the Son is like the Father in substance, but not homoousios (the same substance), were in the majority but eventually also had to accept the Dated Creed. Show More
| “The eastern council met in September of 359 and was divided between those around Acacius and Eudoxius [Homoians – forbid substance language] … and a larger party (if the later historians are to be trusted) sympathetic to those bishops who had recently stood with Basil of Ancyra [Homoiousians = similar substance]” (Ayres, p. 161-2).
“Acacius’ [Homoian] creed was ultimately rejected by the majority of those present. … The majority … deposed Acacius” (Ayres, p. 164).
“Each group sent embassies to the Emperor in Constantinople. The Homoian delegation arrived first and agreed to a modified version of the Dated Creed. After much pressure … the Homoiousian delegation finally agreed (Ayres, p. 164). |
Although the Homoiousians rejected the term homoousios (same substance) and said that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, they were the anti-Nicenes who were the nearest to the Nicenes (the Homoousians). Show More
| Ayres discusses a letter written by one Homoiousian (George of Laodicea – Ayres, pp. 158-160) to show “how close the Homoiousians had come to the language of pro-Nicene orthodoxy” (Ayres, p. 159). See here for a discussion of Homoiousian theology. |
De Synodis
Athanasius defends Nicaea – Athanasius discusses these councils in his De Synodis. In it, he claims that he and the Homoiousians “fundamentally teach the same doctrine.” He “reaches out to the Homoiousians by attempting to refute their objections to Nicaea’s two uses of ousia language, ‘of the Father’s ousia’ and homoousios” (Ayres, p. 171). He defends the phrase ‘of the Father’s ousia’ by saying that it merely means that the Son was not produced like the created things. And Homoousios is simply the necessary consequence of the phrase ‘of the Father’s ousia’. Show More
| Athanasius focuses on “the phrase ‘of the Father’s ousia’.” He defends this phrase by saying that it is to protect “the difference between the generation of the Son … and the creation of all else. Homoousios is defended as a necessary consequence of the phrase ‘of the Father’s ousia’” (Ayres, p. 171). |
Non-literal – In other words, like Eusebius of Caesarea (see here), Athanasius had a non-literal and non-corporeal explanation of these terms. He was also willing to accept those who accepted the Nicene Creed but had doubts only about the term homoousios. Show More
| Athanasius said that those who accept the Nicene Creed “and doubt only about homoousios’ are not to be condemned as ‘Ariomaniacs’” (Ayres, p. 172). |
Misstatements – Seeking reconciliation with the Homoiousians, Athanasius made several misstatements about their theology. For example, he claimed that Homoiousians, such as their leader Basil of Ancyra, taught that the Son is from the essence of the Father and that the Son is the Father’s own Word and Wisdom. There, Athanasius wrote, they are not far from accepting even the phrase homoousios. Apparently, Athanasius’ knowledge of Arianism was defective. Show More
| Athanasius wrote:
“For confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father … and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase homoousios” (Ayres, p. 172).
“But since they say that he is ‘of the essence’ and ‘like in essence’, what do they signify by these but homoousios?
“Athanasius’ knowledge of Arianism during the period when he was constantly liable to pressure or attack from the imperial government (c339-361) was manifestly defective” (Hanson, p. 646). |
Homoousios – While Athanasius wrote that the Homoiousians effectively accepted homoousios, Basil wrote that the Father is ‘of an essence like himself,’ which seems like an intentional denial of homoousios. Basil has already explicitly anathematized homoousios, but Athanasius avoids commenting on it. Show More
| “Basil speaks of the Father being a Father ‘of an essence like himself’ and seems consciously to avoid Nicaea’s terminology” (Ayres, p. 172).
“Athanasius studiously avoids commenting on (Basil of Ancyra’s) 358 letter’s direct anathematization of homoousios” (Ayres, p. 172). |
The Father’s own – And while Athanasius wrote that the Homoiousians believed that the Son is the Father’s own Wisdom, Basil wrote that “Wisdom is Son of the Wise one,” which makes a clear distinction between the two Beings (Ayres, p. 173). “Epiphanius, in his commentary takes this phrase (of an essence like himself) to be an intentional denial of homoousios” (Ayres, p. 172).
Conflict in Antioch
The Church in Antioch was frequently divided during the fourth century:
Eustathius, who was deposed after Nicaea for Sabellianism, was the bishop of Antioch at the time of the Nicene Council and was influential at that council. After he was removed from office, he had continued support in Antioch. In 361, Paulinus was the head of the continuing Eustathians in Antioch. Show More
| “In the aftermath of Nicaea,” Eustathius was removed from office but he had continued support (Ayres, p. 175).
“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 211).
“Ossius of Cordoba probably chaired the meeting (Nicene Council); Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Alexander must all have been key players in the discussions” (Ayres, p. 89).
“The leader of the ‘Eustathians’ in Antioch during the 360s was one Paulinus who received the support of the bishop of Rome and a number of eastern bishops” (Ayres, p. 176). |
Meletius was consecrated bishop of Antioch in 361 but was soon deposed for seeming to teach Homoiousianism. Later, Meletius accepted the Nicene Creed, but not as interpreted by the Nicenes (one hypostasis), but as interpreted by Basil of Caesarea (three hypostases). that are alike in all respects. Show More
| “In 361 Meletius … was consecrated bishop of Antioch” but was deposed after delivering “a sermon in front of the Emperor that seemed Homoiousian in tone.” “Many of those in the Antiochene Church who had kept faith with the memory of Eustathius would not support Meletius, at least in part because of his initial Homoian support, and also because of his sympathy for the terminology of ‘three hypostases’” (Ayres, p. 175-6).
“Basil lets us know his preference for the phrase (‘invariably like according to essence’) to describe the relationship of Father and Son” (Ayres, p. 189). “Basil still seems to view the relationship between Father and Son in a fundamentally Homoiousian way (Ayres, p. 190).
“Paulinus was a rival of Basil’s friend and ally Meletius. … Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead” (Hanson, p. 801). |
“In Antioch there was also a sizable Homoian community” (Ayres, p. 176).
Alexandrian Council
Purpose – Constantine died in 361, after which all exiled bishops, including Athanasius, were allowed to return. After his return to Alexandria in 362, Athanasius called a council in that city to set out “basic rules for re-establishing communion with bishops who had subscribed to the decisions of Ariminum and Seleucia” (Ayres, p. 173).
Minimum Requirements – The council decided to set the Nicene Creed as a minimum requirement for restoring communion, except that the Holy Spirit must also be acknowledged as divine, which the Nicene Creed does not explicitly state. Show More
| “The council took the pragmatic decision to set fairly minimum conditions focused around subscription to Nicaea and an acknowledgement of the spirit’s divinity” (Ayres, p. 173). (The Nicene Creed of 325 does not state that the Spirit is divine of homoousios.)
“The only demands for restoring communion with these Christians of Antioch which the Letter makes are:
-
- (i) to condemn the Arian heresy
- (ii) to accept N
- (iii) to condemn those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature and separated from the ousia of Christ.
- (iv) to condemn the heresies of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata and Valentinus and Basilides and that of the Manichaeans” (Hanson, p. 640).
|
Antiochene Tome
After the council, Athanasius and others sent a letter to the Church in Antioch, known as the ‘Antiochene Tome’. In this letter, Athanasius adopted a new strategy. Show More
| “Immediately after this council Athanasius and others wrote a letter to the Church in Antioch known as the ‘Antiochene Tome’” (Ayres p. 174).
“Athanasius’ letter to the Antiochenes was almost certainly designed to reconcile the party of Meletius and the party of ‘Eustathians’” (Ayres, p. 176).
“In this text Athanasius makes a significant move beyond the De synodis” (Ayres p. 174). |
His aim is to convince other parties, particularly the Homoiousians, to accept the Nicene Creed. For that purpose, he attempts to explain the Creed in a way that is acceptable to them.
The Nicene Creed identifies the Father alone as the ‘one God’ and seems to say that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person). Show More
| The Nicene Creed begins as follows: “We believe in one God Father Almighty Maker of all things, seen and unseen, And in one Lord Jesus Christ …”
“The production of N [the Nicene Creed] … must have been deeply disturbing for many who could not seriously be described as Arian in sympathy but could not believe that God had only one hypostasis, as the creed apparently professed” (Hanson, p. 274) |
This is consistent with Athanasius’ theology, in which the Son and Spirit are aspects of the Father, existing intrinsic to the being of the Father. Specifically, Athanasius believed that the Son is the Father’s own Wisdom and Word. Show More
| “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology” (Hanson, p. 426).
Athanasius argued that the Son is “present with Him (the Father) as his Wisdom and his Word” (Ayres, p. 46). The Son is “himself the Father’s own power” (Ayres, p. 47).
“Athanasius’ gut reaction is that there can be only one eternal reality and source, and that proposing more than one hypostasis would imply a dualism” (Ayres, p. 48).
In the Antiochene Tome itself, Athanasius explained the Holy Spirit as not “external, but proper to and inseparable from the Father and the Son” (Ayres, p. 174).
See here for a discussion of Athanasius’ theology. |
The Western Manifesto formulated at Serdica in 433 explicitly states the belief in only one hypostasis. However, in the Antiochene Tome, Athanasius makes the deliberate misstatement that the Western bishop at Serdica never declared that only one hypostasis exists. Athanasius was present at Serdica and must have known that that was not true, but he made this false statement because he wanted to argue in this letter that three hypostases are also acceptable. Show More
| “The Letter makes an important statement about the utterance of the Western bishops at Serdica, nineteen years before. It says that the ‘pamphlet’ about the faith alleged to have been drawn up by the Council at Serdica has no authority, because the Council did not make any such doctrinal statement. No one is to circulate it because it only causes dissension.”
“The statement about the Council of Serdica is a direct untruth, and Athanasius must have known that it was untrue.”
That council “roundly declared that there is only one hypostasis in the Godhead” (Hanson, p. 640). |
In opposition to the one hypostasis that the Nicene Creed seems to proclaim, the Eusebians (Arians), including the Homoiousians, believed that the Son is a distinct Person. Consequently, they taught three hypostases. Show More
| “We have to resist the anachronistic characterization of him (Arius) as an antitrinitarian theologian.” “He writes simply, ‘So there are three hypostaseis,’” meaning “the set of beings that form the object (or objects) of Christian confession. … the three hypostaseis seemingly form a certain unity” (Anatolios, pp. 47-48). |
Much of the Controversy up to this point revolved around the question of whether the Son is a hypostasis (a distinct Person). While the Nicenes claimed that Father and Son are a single hypostasis, the Arians professed two hypostases. Show More
| “The way of using the word hypostasis characterized the two opposing parties for much of the fourth century; one preferred to speak of one hypostasis in God, the other of two (or three, if the Holy Spirit is considered). … These terms signal a profound difference in theology, one that touched not only the way God— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—was understood, but also the way Christ’s person and saving work were described” (Lienhard). |
Since Athanasius desired the Homoiousians to accept the Nicene Creed, he attempts to explain the Nicene Creed as consistent with the ‘three hypostases’ principle by redefining the terms:
He firstly states that the Eusebian view, that the Son literally is a hypostasis (a distinct Person), and that three hypostases exist, as madness. Show More
| “We made enquiry of them whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, hypostases foreign and strange, and alien in essence from one another, and that each hypostasis was divided apart by itself” (Ayres, p. 174).
Athanasius declared that ‘three hypostases’ are acceptable if it does not mean “three separate independent Beings of different ousia to each, other, each being an isolated hypostasis” (Hanson, p. 640). |
He then proposes that the term “hypostasis might primarily indicate a logical distinction” (Ayres, p. 174). Although Athanasius taught that the Son and the Spirit are internal to the being of the Father, he also claimed that they are identifiable as distinct aspects or features of the Father. So, if one uses the term hypostases figuratively, one can say that three hypostases exist. Show More
| Athanasius declared that ‘three hypostases’ are acceptable if it means “Father, Son and Spirit each subsisting distinctly … a single Godhead and a single ultimate principle and a Son consubstantial with the Father … and the Holy Spirit, neither a creature nor an alien, but belonging to and inseparable from the ousia of the Son and of the Father”.
See here for a discussion of Athanasius’ theology. |
One challenge of this is as follows: Since Athanasius taught that the Son and Spirit are aspects of the Father, even if the term hypostasis is used figuratively, two of the hypostases are internal to the third.
A second challenge to Athanasius’ new strategy is that the Nicene Creed explicitly states one hypostasis. He explains that one hypostasis is used “only to indicate that the divine is one reality distinct from the created order” (Ayres, p. 174). In other words, that the Father, Son, and Spirit share one nature, not to state that the “Son and Spirit are not truly existent realities.” Show More
| “Those who confess only one hypostasis are doing so only to indicate that the divine is one reality distinct from the created order and not indicating a belief that Son and Spirit are not truly existent realities” (Ayres, p. 174).
It is not used “in the sense of Sabellius, to the negation of the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Ayres, p. 174). |
Sabellianism – The letter rejects Sabellianism, defined here as “to destroy the distinct real existences of the Persons” (Hanson, p. 641). In Sabellianism, like in Athanasius’ theology, the Son and Spirit are aspects of the Father. However, in Sabellianism, the Son and Spirit only have temporary existence, while in Nicene theology they have eternal and permanent existence.
Synonyms – The letter claims “hypostasis to be equivalent to ousia” (Hanson, p. 641).
No reconciliation – Athanasius went to Antioch but was not reconciled to Meletius. Nor were the Meletians reconciled to Paulinus. The Meletians suspected Paulinus of Sabellianism, and Paulinus objected to Meletius’ teaching of three hypostases. Athanasius left Antioch, having recognized Paulinus as bishop of that city. Show More
| “Paulinus had been consecrated bishop of Antioch” (Hanson, pp. 652-3).
“The Meletians suspected Paulinus (whose party had hitherto embraced the slogan of ‘one hypostasis’) as Marcellan or Sabellian in doctrine and the Paulinians (as we may now call them) disliked the Homoian Arian past of Meletius” (Hanson, pp. 652-3).
“It is clear that Athanasius left Antioch having recognized Paulinus as bishop of that city” (Hanson, pp. 652-3). |
Human mind
The Antiochene Tome claimed that Jesus Christ had a human soul and mind. Show More
| “The Saviour did not have a body which lacked either a soul or a capacity for feeling or a mind” (Hanson, p. 641). |
This was different from Athanasius’ traditional theology. In Sabellian theology, Jesus has a human mind and received inspiration from God. But Athanasius never admitted a human mind in Christ. He explained Jesus as God existing in a human body. Show More
| Hanson refers to “the extraordinary silence of Athanasius in his works written before 362 about the existence of a human psyche in Jesus Christ” (Hanson, 646).
Consequently, Athanasius was unable to explain Jesus’ ignorance and fear. “When he was compelled, in dealing with the Agony in the Garden and the Passion, to cope with the subject of Christ’s human soul, he found himself in an embarrassing situation from which he could only extricate himself by a series of implausible contradictions (not ‘paradoxes’ as Dragas calls them): Jesus Christ was ignorant and omniscient; he suffered and did not suffer: he showed cowardice and did not show cowardice” (Hanson, p. 646).
“He [Jesus] made no human moral decisions; he could not exercise faith nor experience temptation, the example which he gave was one of divine, not human, behaviour, or, to be quite exact, not of a man but of a divine Being acting in the ‘space-suit’ of human flesh” (Hanson, p. 646). |
So, the question is whether Athanasius was serious when he said in the Antiochene Tome that Jesus has a human mind. Show More
| “A much more difficult problem arises when we ask how serious was Athanasius in declaring in the Tomus ad Antiochenos that the Logos in becoming incarnate had taken to himself a human soul or mind as well as a human body” (Hanson, p. 645). |
Another question is, why this change? Hanson says that Athanasius never really understood Arian theology. Specifically, he never understood the Arian argument that Jesus Christ does not have a human mind. Arians argued that the Logos took the place of a human mind in Jesus so that the Logos directly suffered and died. Since Athanasius had now come to understand the Arian theory, he admitted a human mind in Christ. And yet, Athanasius never seriously integrated this into his doctrine of the Incarnation. Show More
| “Athanasius had before 362 never encountered this Arian doctrine (denying a human soul to Jesus).” “He never grasped the significance of such an idea” (Hanson, 646).
“Athanasius’ knowledge of Arianism during the period when he was constantly liable to pressure or attack from the imperial government (c339-361) was manifestly defective” (Hanson, p. 646).
“But what happened to cause Athanasius in the Tomus ad Antiochenos, written in 362, to change his doctrine and admit that the incarnate Logos was not lacking in a human psyche, aesthesis and nous? It is clear that by now Athanasius had encountered… the Arian doctrine that at the Incarnation the Logos took flesh directly so as to encounter directly human experiences without the filter of a human soul or mind between. Once he had realised that such a doctrine was designed to display the inferiority of the Logos to the Father in the Arian view, Athanasius took fright and realised that there was some point in recognizing a human psyche in Jesus. Hence the Tomus ad Antiochenos. … And yet, when all is said and done, Athanasius never seriously integrated this realization of the necessity of recognizing a human soul in Jesus Christ, far less a human mind, into his doctrine of the Incarnation” (Hanson, p. 647).
“In fact in the Christology of Athanasius … there is virtually no place for the human mind of Jesus to play any significant part” (Hanson, p. 650). |
Other Articles