The Dedication Council of Antioch of AD 341

Reading only the green blocks should provide a good overview of this article.

In the year 341, approximately 90 bishops of the Eastern Church met in a Council of Antioch and produced four documents. The second is the most important. It is known as the Dedication Creed because the Council met to celebrate the dedication of a new church built by Emperor Constantius.

This article quotes mainly from the recent writings of three world-class Catholic scholars, specializing in the fourth-century Arian Controversy, R.P.C. Hanson1The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987, Rowan Williams2Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987, and Lewis Ayres3Nicaea and its legacy, 2004.

Extracts from the Dedication Creed

Hanson4Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988 provides the entire Creed (see below). The important parts are as follows:

“We believe in one God Father Almighty,
artificer and maker and designer of the universe;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, God,
Through whom are all things,
Who was begotten from the Father before the Ages,
God from God … Lord from Lord …
Unchanging and unaltering,
Exact image of the Godhead and the substance and will and power and glory of the Father,
First-born of all creation, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word according to the text in the Gospel [‘and the Word was God’, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things exist;]

And in the Holy Spirit

They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.”

The Creed condemns all who say that:

      • “Either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten”
      • “The Son is a creature like one of the creatures” (Hanson, p. 286)

Purpose of the Council

The Eastern church previously exiled Athanasius and Marcellus but, in the preceding year (340), the Western church declared both men orthodox and innocent. The main purpose of the Dedication Council was to discuss this.

The Council met to discuss the decisions of the Council of Rome of the previous year (340), and the letter written to the Eusebians by Julius, Bishop of Rome, earlier in 341, after that council:

“There can be little doubt that this Council of Antioch was conceived by those who organized it as an answer to Julius’ Council of Rome and the letter which he wrote to the Eusebian party after it.” (Hanson, p. 285)

The council was “an immediate response” to “Julius’ letter to ‘those around Eusebius’.” (Ayres, p. 117)

That Council of Rome had vindicated Athanasius and Marcellus. Both were previously condemned at councils of the Eastern Church; Athanasius in 335 for violence against the Melitians in his see and Marcellus for Sabellianism. Their vindication caused significant tension between the East and West. That tension was heightened by the letter that Julius, the bishop of Rome, wrote to the Eastern Church. In that letter, he accused the East of Arianism, meaning, being followers of Arius’ already discredited theology.

Like Nicaea, an Eastern Council

Both the Nicene Council of 325 and the Dedication Councils were essentially councils of the Eastern Church.

The Dedication Council consisted exclusively of bishops from the Eastern part of the Empire:

The Dedication Creed “represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop.” (Hanson, p. 290-1) 5“They constituted a widespread point of view, but we can hardly call them a party.” (Hanson, p. 291)

Similarly, the vast majority of the bishops attending Nicaea were from the East:

“Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church. … The Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.” (Hanson, p. 170)

The delegates at Nicaea were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).

But a Different Creed

Although the two meetings were only 16 years apart and represented the same constituencies, there are significant differences between the Nicene and Dedication Creeds:

No Mention of Homoousios

While homoousios is regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed, the Dedication Creed does not use it at all. The reason is that the term homoousios disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and was not mentioned by anybody for more than 20 years.

One difference is that, while Nicaea describes the Son using the terms ousia and homoousios, and while these terms are viewed today as a crucial part of that Creed, these terms are absent from the Dedication Creed. The reason is that, soon after Nicaea, these terms fell out of the Controversy. For more than twenty years, nobody mentioned it; not even Athanasius:

“What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture)

“Even Athanasius for about twenty years after Nicaea is strangely silent about this adjective (homoousios) which had been formally adopted into the creed of the Church in 325.” (Hanson, p. 58-59)

“During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (Ayres, p. 431) (Read more)

The Nicene Creed and the term homoousios were only brought back into the Controversy in the 350s by Athanasius:

“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144)

“He began to use it first in the De Deeretis … in 356 or 357.” (Hanson, p. 438)

The Dedication Council of 341 and the Council of Serdica of 343 were both held during the 20 of more years when nobody mentioned the term homoousios. For that reason, these councils do not defend or attack the term. It simply was not an issue.

Anti-Sabellian

But the main difference between the two creeds is that, while the Nicene Creed is open to a Sabellian reading, the main purpose of the Dedication Creed is to oppose Sabellianism.

Eminent recent scholars confirm the pro-Sabellian nature of the Nicene Creed:

RPC Hanson: “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the [Sabellian] theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235)

Lewis Ayres: After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (Ayres, p. 96, 97)

Manlio Simonetti6La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975): “Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of Arianism. … The ‘Asiatics’ … were able to include in N a hint of opposition to the three hypostases theory.” (Hanson, p. 171)

The following indicates the pro-Sabellian tendency of the Nicene Creed:

Before Nicaea, the term homoousios was preferred only by Sabellians. (See here) Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata used it to say that Father and Son are one single Person. 7“The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a Sabellian or monarchian tendency.” (P.F. Beatrice) In the year 268, about 70 years before the Dedication Council, another council in the same city (Antioch) had already condemned both the Sabellianism of Paul of Samosata and the term homoousios.

In the Nicene Creed, as stated, one of the anathemas seems to say that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, which is the hallmark of Sabellianism.

After Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed the Nicene Creed as support for their theology. (See here)

This is not to say that the Nicene Creed is clearly Sabellian, but at the least, it can be said that it does not exclude Sabellianism. Elsewhere, Hanson describes it as “a drawn battle:

“It is going too far to say that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a drawn battle.” (Hanson, p. 172)

Note that Hanson above associates Sabellianism with one-hypostasis theology. Sabellianism is one form of one-hypostasis theology, which is the teaching that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person with a single Mind. Monarchianism and Modalism are other one-hypostasis theologies. The main dividing line in the fourth-century Controversy was between one- and three-hypostasis theologies.

In contrast to Nicaea, the main purpose of the Dedication Creed is to oppose Sabellinism:”

The Dedication Creed’s “chief bête noire [the thing that it particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 287)

The Dedication creed is “strongly anti-Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. 287)

“The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (Ayres, p. 119)

In contrast to the single hypostasis of Sabellianism, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (Ayres, p. 118) “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’.

Why these creeds differ

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian because Emperor Constantine took Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius and because Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians. Consequently, the Sabellians were able to influence the wording of the Creed significantly.

The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian because “Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best.” (Hanson, p. 850)

“The Origenists had considerable reservation about homoousios and the other phrases containing the term ousios (substance), but the emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved.” (Erickson)

The emperor took Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius. 8“Constantine had taken Alexander’s part.” (Ayres, p. 89) However, at Nicaea, Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus against the Eusebians. 9“Eustathius and Marcellus … certainly met at Nicaea. and no doubt were there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius.” (Hanson, p. 234) 10“Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians.” (Ayres, p. 69) (Both Eustathius and Marcellus were later exiled for Sabellianism. 11“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix) Marcellus of Ancyra “cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism” (Hanson’s Lecture). 12Eustathius attended the Nicene Council (Hanson, p. 208) but was deposed soon after Nicaea (“in 330 or 331”) (Hanson, p. 210) “primarily for the heresy of Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 211).) Consequently, the Sabellians were able to influence the wording of the Creed significantly.

The Dedication Creed

The Dedication Creed is strongly anti-Sabellian because the main threat was the Sabellian (one hypostasis = one Person) theology of the Western Church. This is indicated by its vindication of Marcellus and Athanasius, who both maintained one-hypostasis theologies, and its explicitly declared belief in a single hypostasis. 

This can be illustrated as follows:

Firstly, the Council of Rome vindicated Marcellus, the leading Sabellian:

“That Julius and later the Westerners at Sardica should have declared him (Marcellus) orthodox was bound to appear to the Eastern theologians to be a condoning of Sabellianism.” (Hanson Lecture)

Secondly, the Council of Rome also vindicated Athanasius, who also maintained a single hypostasis. In his theology, the Son is “in” the Father as the Father’s only Wisdom and Word:

In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (Hanson, p. 426)

“Athanasius’ argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is intrinsic to the Father’s being.” (Ayres, p. 114)

“The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (Hanson, p. 428)

Athanasius, therefore, taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis (a single Person):

The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, p. 48)

“Athanasius’ most basic language and analogies for describing the relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as intrinsic aspects of one reality or person.” (Ayres, p. 46)

“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)

Thirdly, at the failed Council of Serdica in 343, the Western delegates explicitly formulated a one-hypostasis manifesto. (See here) 13Hanson refers to “the apparent Sabellianism of N [the Nicene Creed], and the insensitiveness of the Western Church to the threat to orthodoxy which this tendency represented.” (Hanson, p. 290-1)

Anti-Arian

Following Athanasius, the West accused the East of following Arius. But the Easterners did not follow Arius. Arius had no followers. Indeed, the Dedication Creed explicitly condemns some of Arius’ more extreme statements.

Julius, the bishop of Rome, accused the Easterners of following Arius’ already discredited theology. The Dedication Council denied this.14“We have not been followers of Arius.” (Ayres, p. 117-8) “We have rather approached him as investigators and judges of his belief than followed him.’” (Hanson, p. 285)

The Easterners did not follow Arius. Arius did not leave a school of followers.15“Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century (after Nicaea).” (Ayres, p. 56-57)16“The views of Arius were such as … to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering. … He was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii) (Read More.)

Consequently:

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Rowan Williams, p. 82)17Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. (2002)

Perhaps in response to Julius’ accusation, the Dedication Creed explicitly anathematizes some key aspects of Arius’ theology.18It “deliberately excludes the kind of Arianism professed by Arius and among his followers by Eusebius of Nicomedia/Constantinople.” (Hanson, p. 290) It “does anathematize doctrines associated … with Arius.” (Ayres, p. 120) For example, the Creed anathematizes all who say: “that either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten” (Hanson, p. 286)19“True-blue Arians would have found it impossible to accept the statement that the Son is ‘the exact image of the substance (ousia) … of the Godhead of the Father’” (Hanson, p. 287) The following is an good summary of the Dedication Creed:

It “represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been shocked and disturbed by the apparent Sabellianism of N [the Nicene Creed], and the insensitiveness of the Western Church to the threat to orthodoxy which this tendency represented.” (Hanson, p. 290-1)

Other Teachings

Subordinate

The Dedication Creed claims that the Son is subordinate to the Father. However, this was not a concession to Arius’ theology because, at the time, all theologians, even Athanasius, regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father.
      • It says “that the names of the Three signify the particular order and glory of each.” (Hanson, p. 287)
      • The Father alone is described as “Almighty.”
      • The Son is the Father’s agent in creation. The Father is “maker and designer of the universe” but the Son is the One “through whom are all things” and “by whom all things were made.”
      • In contrast to the Father as the “one God,” the Son is the “one Lord.”

However, subordination is to be expected because it was orthodoxy at the time.

”Almost everybody in the East at that period would have agreed that there was a subordination of some sort within the Trinity.” (Hanson, p. 287)

“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism.” 20RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153. (Read More)

In other words, the subordination in the Creed is not a concession to Arius’ theology.

Image of the Father’s substance

While the Nicene Creed says that the Son is the same substance as the Father (homoousios), the Dedication Creed creates a bit more distance by claiming He is the image of the Father’s substance. 

The Creed says that “the Son is ‘the exact Image of the Godhead, the ousia and the will and the power and the glory of the Father’.” (Hanson, p. 288) In contrast to the Nicene Creed, which says that the Son is of the same ousia as the Father (homoousios), the phrase “exact image of the … ousia … of the Father” means that the Son is distinct from the substance of the Father. Later in the fourth century, in the mid-50s, after Athanasius had re-introduced the term homoousios into the Controversy, “image of the Father’s substance” became the catchphrase of the Homoiousians (meaning ‘similar substance’).

The Son is God.

The Creed regards the Son both as subordinate and as “God” (theos). However, the term theos in the Bible and in the 4th century was not equivalent to the modern word “God.”

For example, it describes the Son as “God from God.” While we use the term “God” only for the Almighty, there were many theoi in ancient Greek:

“It must be understood that in the fourth century the word ‘God’ (theos, deus) had not acquired the significance which in our twentieth-century world it has acquired … viz. the one and sole true God. The word could apply to many gradations of divinity.” (Hanson, p. 456)

This “reminds us of the variety of ways in which the term ‘God’ could be deployed at this point.” (Ayres, p. 124) Read More

The Fourth Creed

To serve as a means of reconciliation, the fourth creed uses mainly Biblical language, avoiding all Nicene and Sabellian terms derived from Greek philosophy.

The Fourth Creed of Antioch “was intended to function as a reconciling formula obnoxious to nobody and capable of being accepted by all.” (Hanson, p. 291) This creed “was destined to be used for nearly fifteen years as the basis for all other creeds which were designed to be ecumenical.” (Hanson, p. 292)

It condemns both Marcellus and Arius. “It has a special clause inserted against Marcellus” (Hanson, p. 292) and ends with an anathema against Arius: “But those who say that the Son is from non-existence or of a different hypostasis, and not from God, and that there was once a time or age when he did not exist, these the holy Catholic Church recognizes as alien’.” (Hanson, p. 292)

But otherwise, it leaves out all contentious issues, such as the words ousia and homoousios, and does not even address the crucial aspect of the number of hypostases in God. “it makes no attempt to establish the distinctness of the ‘Persons’ in an anti-Sabellian manner.” (Hanson, p. 292)

FULL DEDICATION CREED

Hanson gives the Dedication Creed as follows:

“Following the evangelical and apostolic tradition, we believe in one God Father Almighty, artificer and maker and designer of the universe:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, God,
through whom are all things,
who was begotten from the Father before the Ages,
God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole, perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, unchanging and unaltering,
exact image of the Godhead and the substance and will and power and glory of the Father, first-born of all creation, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word according to the text in the Gospel [quotation of Jn I: 1, 3 arid Col 1: 17]

who at the end of the days came down from above and was born of a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and became man, mediator between God and men, the apostle of our faith, author of life, as the text runs [quotation of Jn 6:38], who suffered for us and rose again the third day and ascended into heaven and is seated on the right hand of the father and is coming again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead:

And in the Holy Spirit, who is given to those who believe for comfort and sanctification and perfection, just as our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying [quotation of Matt 28:19], obviously (in the name) of the Father who is really Father and the Son who is really Son and the Holy Spirit who is really Holy Spirit, because the names are not given lightly or idly, but signify exactly the particular hypostasis and order and glory of each of those who are named, so that they are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.

Since we hold this belief, and have held it from the beginning to the end, before God and Christ we condemn every form of heretical unorthodoxy.

And if anybody teaches contrary to the sound, right faith of the Scriptures, alleging that either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema.

And if anyone alleges that the Son is a creature like one of the creatures or a product like one of the products, or something made like one of the things that are made, and not as the Holy Scriptures have handed down concerning the subjects which have been treated one after another,

or if anyone teaches or preaches anything apart from what we have laid down, let him be anathema. for we believe and follow everything that has been delivered from the Holy Scriptures by the prophets and apostles truly and reverently.”


OTHER ARTICLES

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
  • 2
    Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
  • 3
    Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
  • 4
    Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988
  • 5
    “They constituted a widespread point of view, but we can hardly call them a party.” (Hanson, p. 291)
  • 6
    La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975)
  • 7
    “The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a Sabellian or monarchian tendency.” (P.F. Beatrice)
  • 8
    “Constantine had taken Alexander’s part.” (Ayres, p. 89)
  • 9
    “Eustathius and Marcellus … certainly met at Nicaea. and no doubt were there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius.” (Hanson, p. 234)
  • 10
    “Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians.” (Ayres, p. 69)
  • 11
    “Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix) Marcellus of Ancyra “cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism” (Hanson’s Lecture).
  • 12
    Eustathius attended the Nicene Council (Hanson, p. 208) but was deposed soon after Nicaea (“in 330 or 331”) (Hanson, p. 210) “primarily for the heresy of Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 211).
  • 13
    Hanson refers to “the apparent Sabellianism of N [the Nicene Creed], and the insensitiveness of the Western Church to the threat to orthodoxy which this tendency represented.” (Hanson, p. 290-1)
  • 14
    “We have not been followers of Arius.” (Ayres, p. 117-8) “We have rather approached him as investigators and judges of his belief than followed him.’” (Hanson, p. 285)
  • 15
    “Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century (after Nicaea).” (Ayres, p. 56-57)
  • 16
    “The views of Arius were such as … to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering. … He was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii)
  • 17
    Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. (2002)
  • 18
    It “deliberately excludes the kind of Arianism professed by Arius and among his followers by Eusebius of Nicomedia/Constantinople.” (Hanson, p. 290) It “does anathematize doctrines associated … with Arius.” (Ayres, p. 120)
  • 19
    “True-blue Arians would have found it impossible to accept the statement that the Son is ‘the exact image of the substance (ousia) … of the Godhead of the Father’” (Hanson, p. 287)
  • 20
    RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.

Homoousios was not regarded as important at Nicaea.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The Nicene Creed of AD 325 states that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance as) the Father. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, this term is the key word of the Creed.  [Show More]

However, soon after Nicaea, it disappeared from the debate. For more than 20 years, nobody mentioned it, not even Athanasius, the great hero of the Arian Controversy and defender of the Nicene Creed, nor the Western church, which is often described as the stalwart defender of Nicaea throughout the fourth century.  [Show More]

It wasn’t until the mid-350s, some 30 years after Nicaea, that Athanasius re-introduced the term into the debate. Only after that did the West slowly begin to defend it and the Eusebians began to attack it. [Show More]

In other words, it was not regarded as important at Nicaea. [Show More]

This article explains why it was accepted at Nicaea, why it disappeared from the debate, and why it again became part of the Controversy 30 years later.

This article quotes extensively from leading scholars. Although almost all quotes are hidden in ‘read more’ section, they are a crucial part of this article.

Authors Quoted

Based on discoveries and research over the past century, leading scholars today explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently from scholars in preceding centuries. This article quotes from the main books on the subject from the last 50 years. [Show More]

WHY INCLUDED

Athanasius claimed that homoousion was inserted in the Creed as an anti-Arian term, namely, to force Arius and his supporters to reject the Creed so that the emperor could exile them. But Hanson says that it was included as a pro-Sabellian term, namely, because the Sabellians preferred it.

It was inserted in the Nicene Creed because Constantine insisted on it. Constantine took Alexander’s part in the dispute. Alexander viewed the Father and Son as a single Person (a single hypostasis). Since the majority of the delegates were from the East, and since the Eastern Church regarded the Son to be a distinct Person, Alexander’s theology was in the minority. For that reason, Alexander allied with the other ‘one hypostasis’ theologians, namely, the Sabellians. This gave the Sabellians much influence in the Council. Since the emperor had taken Alexander’s part, he insisted in the term because the Sabellians preferred it. [Show More]

[Show More]

However, although it may be true that homoousios was inserted in the Creed to get Arius exiled, most delegates strongly objected to the concept. As discussed here, the Eusebians opposed the term because it is not Biblical, was borrowed from pagan philosophy, was not part of the standard Christian language of the day, and was already condemned as associated with the heresy of Sabellianism. Furthermore, ‘same substance’ implies that God has a body, which nobody was willing to grant. The Dedication Creed of 341 shows what the majority at Nicaea really believed, when not compelled by an emperor. They opposed both Arius and the term homoousios. The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority.

[Show More]

More or less the same people who attended Nicaea also attended the Dedication Council 16 years later and the Dedication Creed opposed both Arius and also the term homoousios. So, the Nicene Creed does not reflect die views of the majority: [Show More]

 


Did Ossius propose the term?

If Ossius, the chairperson, proposed the term, as some think, then it was on instruction of the emperor, for he was the emperor’s agent.

“According to the Arians … the Nicene Creed was presented by Ossius of Cordova in his capacity as president of the assembly.” (P.F. Beatrice) However, Ossius did not preside because of his position in the church. He was the bishop of the “obscure” see of Cordova (Hanson, p. 155). He presided in his capacity “as the Emperor’s representative” (Hanson, p. 154) and represented “the Emperor’s interest.” (Hanson, p. 156) 

The emperor was the final authority.

Given the modern culture of religious freedom, the reader might find it strange that an emperor was able to insist on the inclusion of a keyword in a church creed. However, the Roman Empire was not a democracy and religious freedom did not exist. The empire was ruled by the general who commanded the strongest army. Consequently, the emperors decided which religions were allowed and also acted as the final judge in religious disputes.

“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine (during the Arian Controversy), there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.” (Hanson, p. 849)

The so-called ‘ecumenical’ church councils of the fourth century were “the very invention and creation of the Emperor” (Hanson, p. 855). “Everybody recognised the right of an Emperor to call a council, or even to veto or quash its being called” (Hanson, p. 849-50). “The Emperor was expected to dominate and control them” (Hanson, p. 855).

Conclusion

The term was not mentioned for some decades after Nicaea because the Nicene Creed was the work of a minority under the protection of the emperor, while the majority was most uncomfortable with this term.

Nicaea was not regarded as binding.

Furthermore, at the time, the Nicene Creed was not regarded as binding. It was a temporary solution to an immediate problem. 

“Many modern readers assume that the Nicene creed was intended at its promulgation to stand as a binding and universal formula of Christian faith.” (Ayres, p. 85) However, “by the time Nicaea met, Church leaders … had no precedent for the idea of a council that would legislate for the Church as a whole.” (Ayres, p. 87) “Councils were not expected to produce precise statements of belief.” (Ayres, p. 87)

“All the bishops at Nicaea would have understood their local ‘baptismal’ creed to be a sufficient definition of Christian belief.” (Ayres, p. 85)

For a further discussion of this point, see Ayres – 4.1 The Nicene Creed as a Standard of Faith.

HOW WAS HOMOOUSIOS REVIVED?

As stated above, the term homoousios was re-introduced into the Controversy in the 350s; about 30 years after Nicaea. This section explains the history chronologically.

The West was not at Nicaea.

At first, the West was not part of the Controversy. For example, the Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.

At Nicaea in 325, “around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire.” (Ayres, p. 19)

“The Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.” “The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church.” (Hanson, p. 170)

Post-Nicaea Correction

The inclusion of the term homoousios caused an intense struggle during the years immediately after Nicaea. Sabellians claimed the homoousios in the Creed as a victory for their side but that struggle resulted in the exile of all leading Sabellians. After that, homoousios disappears from the debate. (See here.)

Period of no Controversy

As already mentioned, after the post-Nicaea Correction, the Nicene Creed and Homoousios were not part of the Controversy for more than 25 years. In fact, there was no controversy.

“At some times there was almost no controversy at all. If there was any controversy from 330 to 341, it was a controversy about the behaviour of Athanasius in his see of Alexandria.” (Hanson, p. xviii)

“There was a long period of confusion and uncertainty from 341 to 357 when it was far from clear what the controversy was about, if there was a controversy.” (Hanson, p. xviii)

In other words, the Council of Nicaea brought the dispute between Arius and his bishop Alexander to an end. The Real Controversy began only decades later:

Athanasius’ Polemical Strategy

After he was exiled in 335, Athanasius developed a masterful polemical strategy to explain why he was exiled. He claimed that:

      • Arius developed a novel heresy.
      • He (Athanasius) represents scriptural orthodoxy.
      • He was exiled for his opposition to Arianism.
      • An Arian Conspiracy manipulated the council of Tyre to exile him for violence, of which he was innocent.
      • His opponents are ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius’ condemned theology.

None of these points are true but the important point for the current article is that homoousios was not yet part of his polemical strategy.

During those decades after Nicaea, while nobody thinks about homoousios, Athanasius and Marcellus were both exiled from the East and sent to the West (Rome). There they met and joined forces against the East:

“Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (Ayres, p. 106)

In Rome, Athanasius developed his polemical strategy:

“Athanasius’ engagement with Marcellus in Rome seems to have encouraged Athanasius towards the development of” “an increasingly sophisticated account of his enemies;” “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years;” “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art.” (Ayres, p. 106-7)

What was his polemical strategy?

“Athanasius’ account begins by presenting Arius as the originator of a new heresy.” (Ayres, p. 107) In contrast, “Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy.” (Ayres, p. 107)

Athanasius described “his enemies as ‘Arians’ seeking to perpetuate a theology stemming from Arius.” (Ayres, p. 106) “To this end Athanasius quotes extensively from Arius’ Thalia.” (Ayres, p. 107) See also – Athanasius invented Arianism.

This polemical strategy is discussed further in – The Creation of ‘Arianism’. It presents a misleading picture of that Controversy:

“If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis.” (Williams, p. 234)

“Once we begin to grasp the problems with Athanasius’ rhetorical unmasking of ‘Arians’ then we need to look beyond the Athanasian terminology of an ‘Arian’ conspiracy to get a more accurate sense of how to understand non-Marcellan and non-Athanasian eastern theologies during this period.” (Ayres, p. 432)

Rome accepted Athanasius.

Using his polemical strategy, Athanasius appealed to the bishop of Rome. The bishop accepted his version of reality, called a council, and vindicated both him and Marcellus.

The subsequent events are described in more detail here. In brief:

“Athanasius appealed to Julius of Rome in 339–40 by using his strategy of narrating a theological conspiracy of ‘Arians’. His success had a profound impact on the next few years of the controversy.” (Ayres, p. 108)

Julius of Rome held a council in Rome which “quickly vindicated Marcellus and Athanasius.” (Ayres, p. 109)

“Julius wrote to the east in 341 in a letter which shows the strong influence of the emerging Athanasian account of ‘Arianism’.” (Ayres, p. 109)

Caused division between East and West

It is traditionally thought that the West had always supported Nicaea. In reality, similar to the East, most in the West believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Beings. However, after the West had declared Athanasius and Marcellus orthodox, cracks in that unity began to appear. That was the real beginning of the ‘Arian’ Controversy.

In Ayres’ discussion of the Western (Latin) Theologists at the time of Nicaea, he concludes that they believed more or less the same as the theologians in the East:

“These Latin theologians have as far to travel towards later pro-Nicene theology as the eastern trajectories.” (Ayres, p. 75)

“Ironically, an anti-monarchian, anti-‘modalist’ polemic fundamentally shapes these early Latin theologians, and that is taken so often to be determining the future course of a unitary western theology!” (Ayres, p. 74)

This last quote says that the West opposed the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Being.

So, around the time of Nicaea, there was harmony between East and West. It was the West’s acceptance of Athanasius’ polemical strategy that first caused division between East and West:

“Once Julius had acted we begin to see divisions between the Church in the eastern and western halves of the empire emerging.” (Ayres, p. 109)

This, in the early 340s, was the real beginning of the ‘Arian’ Controversy. However, the bishop of Rome’s acceptance of Athanasius’ strategy did not mean that the entire West accepted it.

“We should … be cautious in our reading of these divisions. The divisions we initially observe are between one group of eastern bishops taking their lead from Eusebius of Nicomedia and Julius and his immediate associates. We must be wary of reading this as reflecting a simple division between eastern and western theology. Even when just such a division appears to come clearly into the open at the Council of Serdica in 343, even there the participants cannot usefully be divided in purely geographic terms.” (Ayres, p. 109-110)

Constantius strived for unity.

In the 340s, while the empire remained divided East and West, the division between the church in the East and West remained. However, after Constantius became emperor of the entire empire in the early 350s, he attempted to get the Western church to agree to the key eastern decisions of the previous few years.

In the same year that Julius wrote his letter to the East (AD 341), the East formulated the Dedication Creed which says that the Father, Son, and Spirit “are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” Two years later, in 343, the West formulated a Manifesto at Serdica which “opted clearly for Una substantia meaning one hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 201) There-after. the Western and Eastern churches continued to oppose one another. Since they were ruled by different emperors, there was little incentive to reconcile these opposing views.

However, in the early 350s, Constantius became emperor of the entire Roman Empire:

“Over the period AD 351–3, and after a complex civil war, the eastern Emperor Constantius achieved complete control of the whole empire.” (Ayres, p. 133)

“At this point Constantius found himself sole ruler of the Roman world and with the ability to push for a unified religious policy throughout his domains in a way no emperor had been able to do since the death of his father in 337.” (Ayres, p. 133)

He attempted to get the Western church to agree to the eastern Creeds:

“As his control over the west grew Constantius increased his attempts to get bishops to agree to the key eastern decisions of the previous few years.” (Ayres, p. 135)

“Through the 350s … we seem to see a growing opposition to Constantius’ attempts to force western councils to agree to the decrees of Sirmium 351.” (Ayres, p. 136)

He attempted to isolate Athanasius.

Since Constantius’ greatest enemy, both politically and in the church, was Athanasius, his primary goal was to isolate Athanasius.

“Athanasius had a desire for power; he suppressed ruthlessly whenever he could any opposition to him within his diocese … towards the end of his life he had reached a position in which his power (in Egypt), not only ecclesiastical but also political, was virtually beyond challenge.” (Hanson, p. 421)

Therefore, the emperor “attempted to get the condemnation of Athanasius and probably some sort of theological statement accepted throughout the west.” (Ayres, p. 135) With that double goal in mind, “the council of Sirmium in 351 set the trend for a series of councils.” (Ayres, p. 135) For here for a discussion of the Creed of 351.

Athanasius re-introduced Homoousios.

In response to the emperor’s attack on him, Athanasius incorporated homoousios into his polemical strategy, which was the basis for the schism between the East and West. Therefore, homoousios became part of the dispute. As argued above, that was in the mid-350s.

“He began to use it [homoousios] first in the De Deeretis and thereafter regularly in his theological works, defending it fiercely against all criticism of it. If we place De Deeretis in 356 or 357, we can perhaps see the reason for this change of policy. By then it had become abundantly clear not only that Constantius was everywhere trying to isolate Athanasius himself from ecclesiastical support both in the East and the West … Athanasius decided that he must begin a policy of defending the very words of N as a slogan or banner round which to gather.” (Hanson, p. 438)

It was a turn to Nicaea.

Athanasius and the West did not oppose Constantius because they defended Nicaea. Rather, they turned to Nicaea to strengthen their resistance to the emperor’s efforts.

“It seems unlikely that previous adherence to Nicaea motivated their (the West’s) growing opposition (to Constantius’ efforts): it is much more likely that events in the second half of the decade prompted a turn to Nicaea as a focus for their already strong opposition.” (Ayres, p. 136)

In the ‘West’ there were, already before 357, “the beginnings of attempts on the part of a few to turn to Nicaea as a standard against the direction of Constantius’ policies.” (Ayres, p. 139)

Anti-Nicene Accounts Emerged.

As stated above, anti-Nicene theologies, particularly Homoianism, emerged in the late 350s; only after Athanasius introduced homoousios into his polemical strategy.

For example, Homoian theology is specifically anti-Nicene. Particularly, it opposes ousia-language. For example, they were “refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith.” (Williams, p. 234) It appeared only in the 350s:

“Though Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius, we cannot with confidence detect it before the year 357, when it appears in the Second Sirmian Creed.” (Hanson, p. 558)

“Many of the theologies we have considered so far are non-Nicene more than anti-Nicene: only in the 350s do we begin to trace clearly the emergence of directly anti-Nicene accounts.” (Ayres, p. 139)

Homoousios divided the church.

As a result of the introduction of homoousios into the Controversy, the church divided into various factions. Those who accepted homoousios were divided between one-hypostasis and three-hypostases views. Those who rejected homoousios were divided between those who rejected all ousia (substance) language and those who did use the term in their theologies.

One-hypostasis Homo-ousians (Sabellians), such as Athanasius and Marcellus, interpreted homoousios as “one substance,” namely, as saying that Father and Son are one Being. See above the Council of Serdica in 343, where the Western delegates asserted ‘one hypostasis’.

Three-hypostases Homo-ousians, such as Basil of Caesarea and Meletius of Antioch, interpreted homoousios as “same substance,” namely, that Father and Son are two beings with the same type of substance. (See – Basil.)

The Homoi-ousians (from ὅμοιος, hómoios, “similar”) maintained that the Son’s substance is like the Father’s, but not the same.

The Heter-ousians said that the Son is like the Father but His substance is unlike the Father’s.

The Homo-ians, who remained the dominant emperor-supported faction, rejected all use of ousia-terms. They held that Jesus Christ is like the Father, without referencing ousia (essence or substance).


OTHER ARTICLES