Introduction
The traditional account – Due to research and a store of ancient documents that have become available over the last 100 years, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Arian Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed.
Books quoted – Only a handful of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy have been published since Gwatkin’s book at the beginning of the 20th century. This article series is based on books by world-class scholars of the last 50 years. [Show More]
|
Hanson, Bishop RPC
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1988
Ayres, Lewis
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology
|
Basil of Caesarea, who became bishop in 370, made an important contribution to the development of the Trinity doctrine. [Show More]
|
“Basil was born around 330” and “was extremely well educated in rhetoric and philosophy” (Ayres, p. 187-188)
“In 370 … Basil was elected bishop.” (Ayres, p. 188)
The three ‘Cappadocian theologians’, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa “were together decisively influential in bringing about the final form of the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Hanson, p. 676)
“In some accounts Basil is the architect of the pro-Nicene triumph.” (Ayres, p. 187)
|
Terminology
Terminology is a major hurdle in discussing the fourth-century Controversy. In that century, most people used the Greek words ousia and hypostasis as synonyms; both indicating a distinct existence. [Show More]
| Synonyms for many:
“For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning.” (Hanson, p. 181)
Importantly, Athanasius, the paragon of the West, also used these terms as synonyms: “Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (Hanson, 440)
Hypostasis defined:
-
-
- An “individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193);
- “Something that really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident or a quality;” (Lienhard)
- “Distinct personalities,” “distinct existences,” and “to be existent.” (Litfin)
- “Concrete individuals” (Anatolios, xiii)
|
-
-
- So, when the Eusebians said that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three substances, they are also three hypostases.
- And, when Athanasius said the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single substance, they are also only one hypostasis. [Show More]
| Eusebians – The Son is a distinct hypostasis.
“Asterius (an early leading Eusebian) insists also that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases.” (Ayres, p. 54)
The Dedication Creed, a statement of the Eusebian Eastern Church, says: “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.”
Athanasius – Father and Son are one hypostasis.
The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, p. 48)
“Athanasius … for several years after 343 held this belief (there is only one hypostasis in God).” (Hanson, p. 245
|
However, the Trinity doctrine uses ousia and hypostases for contrasting concepts, namely, that God is one ousia (substance or Being) existing as three hypostases (Persons). (See Article) So, the challenge is to find terminology for discussing the fourth-century controversy that will be clear to modern readers:
In the fourth century, ‘hypostasis’ was the primary term for a distinct existence but, since the term hypostasis has different meanings in the fourth-century writings and the Trinity doctrine, this article attempts to avoid it. [Show More]
| “Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, hypostasis, and hyparxis. … As the fourth century progressed, hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of controversy.” (Lienhard) |
The term “substance” (Gr. ousia) is also slightly confusing. While the ancient Greeks used it for something that really exists, we often use the term today for the stuff a thing consists of.
Perhaps the phrase “distinct existence,” which Litfin gave to explain hypostasis, may be appropriate as less subject to different interpretations.
This article uses hypostases, substances, and existences mostly as synonyms but occasionally also uses the term ‘substance’ for the material a divine Being consists of.
Purpose
While the Trinity doctrine defines the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single undivided substance (one Being with a single mind and will), (See Article) this article shows that Basil taught that They are three distinct existences (three Beings and three distinct Minds). [Show More]
| This may be compared to the various other views during the fourth century:
Emperor Constantine proposed and insisted on the term homoousios (literally, same substance) but he also advised the delegates not to interpret it literally. He glossed it by saying that it only means that the Son is truly from the Father. Based on this non-literal but vague meaning, which means neither one substance nor three distinct existences, the majority accepted the term homoousios and the Creed.
Sabellianism was still a strong force during the fourth century. The Sabellian minority at Nicaea supported the term homoousios and understood it to mean one hypostasis; one distinct existence. In their view, the Son emerges from the Father merely as an energy. E.g.:
“Marcellus of Ancyra uses the language of ἐνέργεια (energy) to explain how it is that the Son can come forth and work without God being extended materially.” (Ayres, p. 197) (Read more)
Alexander of Alexandria also understood homoousios as meaning one hypostasis. E.g.:
“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69) (Read more)
‘Arians’ believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three unequal hypostases (Beings).
For example, commenting on the Arian (Eastern) Dedication Creed of 341: “The bishops of Antioch … [were] insisting that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostaseis.” (Anatolios, p. 24)
|
Identical in Substance
When the Controversy began, all theologians regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. Even Athanasius, the great defender of Nicaea, thought of the Son as subordinate in some ways. Basil was the first to propose that “the Father’s sharing of his being involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” (Ayres, p. 207) [Show More]
| When the Controversy began:
“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 (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. xix)
Even Athanasius:
For example, “Athanasius’ pointed lack of willingness to” say that the Father is homoousios with the Son.
Athanasius described the Word “as proper to the Father, as the Father’s own wisdom,” namely, as being part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, p. 206
Basil – equal
Lewis Ayres says that “in all the previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least implied.” (Ayres, p. 206)
“In Basil, the Father’s sharing of his being involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” (Ayres, p. 207)
Basil “says, of the Three Persons of the Trinity ‘their nature is the same and their Godhead one’.” (Hanson, p. 688)
|
While both the Eusebians and Basil taught three hypostases, what made Basil different is that he believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are “identical in substance and power.” His theology is often stated in ways that sound as if he believed in only a single undivided substance (Being). But the next section shows that he believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct substances. [Show More]
| Statements that sound as if Basil believed in a single divine existence:
He taught a “distinction between a unitary shared nature at one level, and the personal distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit at another.” (Ayres, p. 190)
“Community of essence is the core of his teaching.” (Ayres, p. 194)
|
Three Distinct Beings
Basil understood the Father, Son, and Spirit to be distinct Beings:
1. Began as a Homoi-ousian
Basil did not begin his career as a pro-Nicene. He began as an ‘Arian’; specifically, a Homoi-ousian, and Homoiousians believed in distinct existences. As a Homoi-ousian, at first, he believed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but distinct. [Show More]
| Began as a Homoiousian:
“Basil emerged from a background, not of the strongly pro-Nicene theology of Athanasius, but of the school of Basil of Ancyra.” (Hanson, p. 693) “He came from what might be called an ‘Homoiousian’ background.” (Hanson, p. 699)
“We may even think of Basil’s major dogmatic work, the Contra Eunomium, as the logical conclusion of one strand of Homoiousian theology.” (Ayres, p. 189)
“Through the 360s and especially in the 370s we see him gradually … (traveling) his road towards pro-Nicene theology.” (Ayres, p. 189)
“None of the Cappadocian theologians derived their theological tradition directly from him (Athanasius). Their intellectual pedigree stemmed from the school of Basil of Ancyra. … The doctrine of ‘like in respect of ousia’ was one which they could accept, or at least take as a startingpoint, and which caused them no uneasiness.” (Hanson, p. 678)
|
2. Homoousios as ‘likeness’
Homoousios has two possible meanings. When two entities are said to be of the ‘same substance’ (homoousios) it can mean that they are a single substance or two distinct but identical substances. [Show More]
| Literally, the term homoousios means ‘same substance’, from homós (same) and ousía (substance). This has been understood in two ways:
In the Trinitarian understanding, it means ‘one substance’, saying that Father and Son are one single substance. This is called numerical sameness because there is only one.
Alternatively, it means two different substances with the same qualities. That is called generic sameness.
|
After Basil had moved away from the ‘similar substance’ formula of the Homoi-ousians, and had accepted the term homouousios, he continued to say that the Son’s substance is “like” the Father’s, implying two distinct substances. [Show More]
|
Basil insists that “the Son, like the Father, is simple and uncompound.” (Ayres, p. 204)
He described the Father and Son as “invariably like according to essence” (Ayres, p. 189) or “like without a difference” (Ayres, p. 190).
“Throughout Contra Eunomium 1–2 Basil continues to speak of essential ‘likeness’.” (Ayres, p. 204)
“Basil still seems to view the relationship between Father and Son in a fundamentally Homoiousian way.” (Ayres, p. 190)
|
While Trinitarians understand homoousios as saying that the Father and Son are one substance, Basil explained it in a generic sense of two Beings (two distinct existences) with the same type of substance. [Show More]
| Unalterably like
“Basil … gives his own interpretation of it (homoousios).” He said: “Whatever ousia is hypothetically taken to be the Father’s, that certainly must also be taken to be the Son’s.” He proposes “like unalterably according to ousia.” (Hanson, p. 696-7)
“He says that in his own view ‘like in respect of ousia’ the slogan of the party of Basil of Ancyra) was an acceptable formula, provided that the word ‘unalterably’ was added to it, for then it would be equivalent to homoousios.” (Hanson, p. 694)
Generic interpretation
Adolf von Harnack “argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpreted homoousios only in a ‘generic’ sense … that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance.” (Hanson, p. 696)
“Later, when he (Basil) had accepted homoousios as a proper term to apply to the Son, he still argued that it was preferable because it actually excluded identity of hypostases. This … forms the strongest argument for Harnack’s hypothesis.” (Hanson, p. 697)
Basil wrote: “This expression (homoousios) also corrects the fault of Sabellius for … (it keeps) … the Persons (prosopon) intact, for nothing is consubstantial with itself.” (Hanson, p. 694-5) (The Sabellians taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are only one single Person.)
A semi-homoiousian
“Basil has moved away from but has not completely repudiated his origins.” (Hanson, p. 694)
|
3. Like humans
Basil argued that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three instances of divinity just like three people are three instances of humanity. This is perhaps the clearest indication that Basil thought of the Father and Son as two distinct Beings. [Show More]
| Ousia = abstract; Hypostasis = concrete
Basil “discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man.” (Hanson, p. 698)
Basil explains that “that relation which the general has to the particular, such a relation has the ousia to the hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 692)
“He can compare the relation of ousia to hypostasis to that of ‘living being’ to a particular man and apply this distinction directly to the three Persons of the Trinity.” This suggests “that the three are each particular examples of a ‘generic’ Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 692)
Human persons are examples.
Basil assumed “that human persons are particularly appropriate examples” of “the nature of an individual divine person.” (Ayres, p. 207-8)
“Basil discusses the individuation of Peter and Paul as analogous to the individuation of Father and Son.” (Ayres, p. 207)
The strongest argument
“The instances … in which Basil compared the relation of hypostasis to ousia in the Godhead to that of particular to general, or of a man to ‘living beings’ … (is one of) the strongest argument for Harnack’s hypothesis.” (Hanson, p. 697)
|
4. Distinct Minds and Wills
Basil described the Father and Son as having distinct minds and wills, implying distinct Beings. [Show More]
|
“Basil … speaks of the Father choosing to work through the Son—not needing to. Similarly, the Son chooses to work through the Spirit, but does not need to.” (Ayres, p. 208)
“The Father, who creates by His sole will … the Son too wills.” (Basil in De Spiritu Sancto)
Basil said that the Son’s statements that he does the will of the Father “is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation” but because “His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father:”
“When then He says, ‘I have not spoken of myself,’ and again, ‘As the Father said unto me, so I speak,’ and ‘The word which ye hear is not mine. but [the Father’s] which sent me,’ and in another place, ‘As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do,’ it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a ‘commandment’ a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflection of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.” (Basil in his treatise, “De Spiritu Sancto”)
|
5. The Holy Spirit is not Homoousios.
Although Basil described the Spirit as identical in substance to the Father, for some unknown reason, he never described the Holy Spirit as homoousios with the Father and Son. This supports the view that the Three are not a single existence. [Show More]
|
“Basil showed himself reluctant to apply homoousios to the Holy Spirit. … Homoousios was a word which applied particularly to the relation of the Son to the Father.” (Hanson, p. 698)
“The On the Holy Spirit of 375 is notoriously reticent about using homoousios of the Spirit.” (Ayres, p. 211)
“Basil goes on to defend the application of homoousios to the Son … he never applies this term to the Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 694)
“Its treatment of the Holy Spirit as uncreated and endowed with every exalted epithet except homoousion and theos is eminently reminiscent of Basil.” (Hanson, p. 687)
|
6. The Father is the Source.
For Basil, although the Father, Son, and Spirit are identical in substance and power, they differ in other ways. One is that the Father alone exists without cause. This also supports the view of three distinct Beings.
Since he teaches that Father and Son have the same substance, Basil was sensitive to the accusation that he could be accused of tritheism; three Ultimate Principles; three Beings who exist without cause and gave existence to all else. Basil did not defend by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit really are one, as one would expect if he was teaching today’s Trinity doctrine, but by identifying the Father alone as the ultimate Source. If that is so, it is difficult to imagine that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single existence. [Show More]
| The Risk of Tritheism
“To speak of Father and Son as simply having the same ousia would be … to present him as logically another God.” (Ayres, p. 190)
The Father alone exists without cause.
“Let no one think that I am saying that there are “three ultimate principles … There is one ultimate principle of all existent things, creating through the Son and perfecting in the Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 691)
“Basil consistently presents the Father as the source of the Trinitarian persons and of the essence that the three share.” (Ayres, p. 206)
He explains John 14:28 (‘the Father is greater than I’) by saying that “the Father is greater only by being the cause, not at the level of substance.” (Ayres, p. 206)
“It is the Father’s characteristic ‘to be Father and to exist as derived from no cause’.” (Hanson, p. 689)
|
7. The Priority of the Father
Although Basil described Father, Son, and Spirit as identical in substance and power, he maintained a certain order among the Persons. For example, he never referred to the Holy Spirit as ‘God’ but as third in rank. Again, this implies that he did not think of the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single existence. [Show More]
| Spirit is third in order:
“Father and Son are, indeed, the same in essence, but distinct at another level thus preserving a certain order among the persons.” (Ayres, p. 195)
“The Spirit is third in order and dignity.” (Ayres, p. 216)
“The Spirit is third in order and even rank.” (Hanson, p. 689)
The priority of the Father:
“By the 370s Basil had evolved a formula stating that the activities of God all come from the Father, are worked in the Son, and are completed in the Spirit. In this formula Basil seems … to find a way to speak of the unity of divine action while still preserving the priority of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 196)
Not homoousios
“Its treatment of the Holy Spirit as uncreated and endowed with every exalted epithet except homoousion and theos is eminently reminiscent of Basil.” (Hanson, p. 687)
Not ‘God’
“While the Spirit is third in order and dignity, the Spirit is not third in an order of essences. Basil insists that the Spirit is to be accorded equal worship and honour with the Father and the Son, even if he is not willing to say directly that the Spirit is God in the same terms as Father and Son.” (Ayres, p. 216)
“Perhaps the major contribution of pro-Nicene pneumatology is the insistence that the work of the Spirit is inseparable from Father and Son … but on the subject of the Spirit’s place in the Godhead as such little progress is made.” (Ayres, p. 217)
|
Contemplation
Basil’s theology was not based on the Bible alone but on the Bible + ‘Contemplation’ (epinoia – ἐπίνοια). He explained epinoia as “concepts developed by the human mind” through “a process of reflection and abstraction.” [Show More]
| “For Basil, arguing that Father and Son are ‘unlike’ flies in the face of biblical material such as Col 1:15, Heb 1:3, and Phil 2:6.” As Basil read these texts, they “all … point to a community of essence between the generated and the one who has generated.” (Ayres, p. 194)
But how did Basil know that these verses point to “a community of essence?” Basil answers:
“By ἐπίνοια [epinoia] we know that there is a unity of ousia between Father and Son.” (Ayres, p. 194)
Ayres explains epinoia as:
-
-
- “Concepts developed by the human mind,” (Ayres, p. 191-2) as
- “A process of reflection and abstraction” (Ayres, p. 192), and as
- “An intellectual contemplation of the reality of things” (Ayres, p. 193)
For Basil, we can only understand the Father, Son, and Spirit through “contemplation:”
Contemplation “throws away the letter and turns to the Lord.” (Ayres, p. 219)
“The contemplation of the Spirit necessary to understand the Spirit is itself at the core of Christian life.” (Ayres, p. 219)
That sort of contemplation is only available to “Christians who have attained ‘purity of heart’.” (Ayres, p. 219)
But Eunomius, Basil’s rival against whom he wrote three books, dismissed ἐπίνοια as a way of gaining knowledge of God, as unreliable (Ayres, p. 191-2) and condemned it. (Ayres, p. 193) He argued:
“If we know God only according to ἐπίνοια, then our knowledge is insignificant and our faith useless.” (Ayres, p. 195)
|
Basil was a Philosopher.
It is traditional to accuse Arius of mixing the Bible with philosophy but the real culprits in this regard were the Cappadocians. Basil’s doctrine of God was based on pagan philosophy. Basil obtained the distinction between a common deity and the differentiation of persons (as discussed above) not from the Bible but from pagan philosophy. The Cappadocians all relied on contemporary philosophy more than, for example, Athanasius and Hilary. [Show More]
| Common deity vs differentiation of persons:
For example, he argued that “particularities, being added onto the substance … distinguish what is common by means of individual characteristics … For instance, deity is common, fatherhood and sonship are individualities.” (Ayres, p. 198)
Influences
Ayres identifies “three basic influences on Basil’s account:”
“The first is Stoic terminologies about the relationship between general and individuated existence. … Stoics posited a universal … substrate (or ousia). … At the level of concrete existence individuals are also qualified by further qualities.” (Ayres, p. 199-200)
Secondly, “Neoplatonic-Aristotelian conceptions are used to interpret a basically Stoic scheme.” (Ayres, p. 202)
Thirdly, “we cannot, however, treat Basil’s distinction against a purely philosophical background. … It seems most likely that Basil’s evolution of the distinction occurred within a context where some such distinction was already clearly in the air.” (Ayres, p. 202)
The Cappadocians relied on philosophy:
Hanson concludes that “the Cappadocians all relied on the aid of contemporary philosophy more than … Athanasius and Hilary.” (Hanson, p. 677) “A small work (by Basil) … at the end of Book V of Adversus Eunomium … is full of echoes of passages in Plotinus’ Enneads.” (Hanson, p. 687)
|
Other Articles
Eusebius of Caesarea, the famous historian and theologian, attended the Nicene Council as the leader of the anti-Nicenes. Immediately afterward, he wrote a letter to his home church to explain why he accepted the Creed despite certain “objectionable expressions.”
Emperor Constantine attended the Council and had a decisive influence on the outcome. Eusebius claims that his proposed statement of faith was generally accepted; also by the emperor. He felt it important to have the emperor’s approval. No separation of Church and State existed. In that culture, the Christian Roman Emperor was God’s agent on earth. Consequently, Church and State were one and emperors dominated the church councils and, therefore, church doctrines. [Show More]