Pro-Nicene theology did not exist in 325.

Summary

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Trinity doctrine was established orthodoxy when the fourth-century Arian Controversy began and is reflected in the Nicene Creed of 325. Consequently, the later Nicene theology was simply a clearer restatement of the Nicene Creed.

However, the Nicene Creed was a drawn battle. On the one hand, there are several indications in it of the Arian view that the Son is subordinate to the Father. (See here) On the other hand, the inclusion of the term homoousios implies a strong Sabellian influence. (See here)

In reality, Nicene theology, as we know it today, did not exist when the Controversy began or when the Nicene Creed was formulated:

“Orthodoxy on the subject of the Christian doctrine of God did not exist at first.” (RH, 870)

“There is no one original Nicene theology that continues unchanged through the century.” (LA, 237)

The ‘orthodoxy’ as we know it today was worked out through that struggle as one way of interpreting the Nicene Creed:

“The century is understood as one of evolution in doctrine.” (LA, 13)

“This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy.” (RH, xix-xx)

“In the period after 360, we also begin to see the emergence of what I have termed throughout the book so far ‘pro-Nicene’ theology.” (LA, 167)

One important aspect in which Nicene theology evolved was the number of Persons (hypostases) in God. For the first 40 years after Nicaea, the Nicenes taught that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). (Read more) Only in the 360-370s, following the Cappadocians, did Nicenes accept that God exists as three Persons.

Athanasius wrote his De synodis over the years 359–61. “For the first time we have considered a text that offers the logic of unity at one ‘level’ and distinction at another.” (LA, 175)

“During these two decades (360-380) we also see the beginnings of an evolution of terminologies that will distinguish what in God is one from what is three.” (LA, 434)

“The Cappadocian Fathers presented the Church with the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Hanson).

In conclusion, pro-Nicene theology deviated from the orthodoxy of the first three centuries. 

“The break with the past which the evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity made … that it was a change can hardly be denied” (RH, 871-2).

“Those whose views finally prevailed … what was a bold and creative new formulation of the truth” (RH, 873).


Authors Quoted

This article series is based on books by world-class scholars of the last 50 years. 

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 Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. In some instances, it is the opposite of the true history.

Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English, written by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published. This article series is largely based on the following books:

RH Bishop RPC Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1987)

RW Archbishop Rowan Williams
Arius: Heresy and Tradition (2002/1987)

LA = Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy (2004)
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology

KA = Khaled Anatolios
Retrieving Nicaea (2011)

Purpose

There were many different views of the nature of Christ during the fourth-century Arian Controversy but we can group them into two broad categories: Arian and Nicene.

Explain more

The term ‘Arian’ is a serious misnomer because Arius did not have followers, was not regarded as an important writer, and was irrelevant after the Council of Nicaea. (See here) Nevertheless, this article uses the term ‘Arian’ for the anti-Nicenes because most readers are familiar with that term.

The purpose of this article is to show that Nicene theology evolved during the Controversy, meaning that the Nicene Creed is not equivalent to what eventually became accepted as orthodox.

The purpose of this article is to show that Nicene theology evolved during the Controversy, meaning that the Nicene Creed is not equivalent to what eventually became accepted as orthodox. For this purpose, in the quotes below, Lewis Ayres distinguishes between Nicene and pro-Nicene theology:

    • Nicene refers to the theology of the Nicene Creed.
    • Pro-Nicene is the form of Nicene theology that became accepted at the end of that century.

The Meaning of ‘pro-Nicene’

In pro-Nicene theology, the three Persons are one Being. 

Ayres explains pro-Nicene theology as teaching that the Father, Son, and Spirit not only have the same type of nature; they are one undivided nature or Being and work as one. Since they are one Being, the generation of the Son and the Spirit did not divide the one divine Being. This is more or less the traditional Trinity doctrine.

Show Ayres' definition

Traditional Account

In the traditional account, pro-Nicene theology is simply the clearer restatement of an original Nicene theology. 

In the older account, “a clear Nicene doctrine (was) established in the controversy’s earliest stages.” (LA, 11-12)

“My use of the term pro-Nicene is initially defined against those accounts that present the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies as having one solution: the clearer restatement of an original Nicene theology.” (LA, 236)

“This (original Nicene) theology is understood as defended (if not defined) by Athanasius (and) taken up and given more precision by the Cappadocians.” (LA, 236-7)

Pro-Nicene theology evolved.

In reality, ‘pro-Nicene’ theology, as defined, did not exist when the Nicene Creed was formulated. 

The ‘orthodox view’ as we know it today did not exist at the beginning of the Arian Controversy but evolved over the 62 years of that struggle. There was no one original Nicene theology that continued unchanged through the century:

“There is no doubt, however, that the pro-Nicene theologians throughout the controversy were engaged in a process of developing doctrine and consequently introducing what must be called a change in doctrine” (RH, 872).

“In the period after 360, we also begin to see the emergence of what I have termed throughout the book so far ‘pro-Nicene’ theology: theologies which contain new arguments for or pro Nicaea.” (LA, 167)

“There is undeniably a development of a theology of the triune being of God from Alexander to the Cappadocians and Augustine, as there is a development of the theology of the divine will from Arius to Eunomius.” (Anatolios, p. 35)

Show more quotes

Aspects that changed

These include the Holy Spirit, the distinction between ousia and hypostasis, and the Persons of God. 

Holy Spirit – The Nicene Creed does not describe the Holy Spirit as God or as homoousios. In the beginning, the Controversy focused on the Son of God.

Hypostasis and Ousia – At the time of the Creed, and in the Creed itself, the terms hypostasis and ousia functioned as synonyms. The Cappadocians, in the 360s and 370s, proposed a distinction. (Read more) Without this distinction the Trinity doctrine does not exist for it describes God as three hypostases (Persons) but one ousia (Being).

Persons of God – For the first 40 years after Nicaea, the Nicenes, including Alexander, the Sabellians, and Athanasius, taught that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis) with a single mind. (Read more) The final form of Nicene theology, to which the Cappadocians in the 360s and 370s contributed significantly, was that God is one Being but three Persons. 

An Explanation of Nicaea

Pro-Nicene theology is one possible interpretation of the Nicene Creed. 

“By ‘pro-Nicene’ I mean those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … All of these theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s.” (LA, 6)

Show more quotes

Athanasius was not a Trinitarian.

Athanasius was Trinitarian at first. He was a Unitarian. 

“I also use pro-Nicene to refer to theologians who seem to be the direct precursors of that later orthodoxy but whose theology still falls short of it in some respects. The most important Greek example is the later Athanasius while in Latin we might point to Hilary.” (LA, 239)

Athanasius wrote his De synodis over the years 359–61. “For the first time we have considered a text that offers the logic of unity at one ‘level’ and distinction at another.” (LA, 175)

This is important. During the previous decades, Alexander, Athanasius, the Sabellians, and the Western Church argued that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis. In other words, they explained God as only a single Person. (Read more) But Ayres says that, around the year 360, Athanasius for the first time explained God as both one and three. This was the first time anybody did this, preparing the way for the development of the Trinity doctrine. It was to support this notion that the Cappadocians proposed a distinction between hypostasis and ousia:

“During these two decades (360-380) we also see the beginnings of an evolution of terminologies that will distinguish what in God is one from what is three: a statement that God is one in nature, power, glory, or essence is combined with a statement that there are three persons, hypostases, or ‘things’. This balance of statements is understood as the context for interpreting Nicaea’s terminology, and marks the full emergence of ‘pro-Nicene’ theology.” (LA, 434)

The Cappadocians were pro-Nicene.

Ayres describes the Cappadocians as pro-Nicenes. 

“The theologies of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzen are three key examples of pro-Nicene theologies.” (LA, 434)

A previous article concluded that the Cappadocians described the Persons as three distinct Beings with three distinct minds but with the same type of substance, like three human persons also have the same type of substance. (See here) This is not consistent with the Trinity doctrine in which the three ‘Persons’ are one Being with a single mind and will. Such a theology is also open to the accusation of tri-theism.

However, other carefully worded evaluations of Cappadocian theology emphasize the one-ness of the three Persons more.

Show Ayres’ explanation

Pro-Nicene deviates from Tradition.

In conclusion, pro-Nicene theology deviates from the orthodoxy of the first three centuries. 

“In order to perceive the full genius and drive of the Christian faith it was necessary for them to some extent to emancipate [liberate] themselves from the tradition, even from the orthodoxy of the past” (RH, 873).

“The break with the past which the evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity made … that it was a change can hardly be denied” (RH, 871-2).

“Those whose views finally prevailed … what was a bold and creative new formulation of the truth” (RH, 873).

“The theologians who contributed to form the doctrine of the Trinity were carrying out, whether they knew it or not, a kind of theological revolution, and one that left to the next century the task of squaring this new understanding of God with a belief in the Incarnation” (RH, 875).


Other Articles

In the Nicene Creed, is the Son equal to the Father?

Or did the delegates at Nicaea understand the Creed to describe the Son as subordinate to the Father? To answer this question, this article first discusses what the delegates to Nicaea in 325 believed and then what the Creed says.

AUTHORS QUOTED

Scholars explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy today very differently compared to 100 years ago. 

A main barrier to understanding the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy is the fragmentary nature of the ancient sources. However, a store of ancient documents that have become available over the last 100 years.

Show Quotes

Due to this new information and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. In some instances, it is the opposite of the true history. (Read More)

Show Quotes

Older books and authors who do not specialize in the Arian Controversy often still offer the 19th-century version. 

For example, in the traditional but flawed account, the Trinity doctrine was established orthodoxy but Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy, winning many supporters. While despotic emperors supported the Arians, Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy, which ultimately triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Unfortunately, many still accept the false account of the Arian Controversy because rejecting it would raise questions about the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity, as opposed to the Mark of the Beast.

Show examples of the Traditional Account

This article series is based on books by world-class Trinitarian scholars of the last 100 years. 

Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published, of which R.P.C. Hanson’s book published in 1988 is perhaps the most influential. This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson’s book. This series also quotes from the 2002 book by Rowan Williams, which focuses more specifically on Arius.

Show details of the books quoted

SUMMARY

All Christians of the centuries before Nicaea described the Son as subordinate to the Father. During the fourth-century Controversy, both pro- and anti-Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate to the Father. Almost all delegates to the Council of Nicaea came from the East and the Eastern church believed the Son to be subordinate. Therefore, the delegates to Nicaea must have understood the Creed to say that the Son is subordinate.

The Creed itself also presents the Son as subordinate:

    • It calls the Father Father and the Son Son.
    • While the Father is Almighty God, the Son is ‘Lord’.
    • While the Father is the Creator, the Son is His means of Creation.
    • While the Son is ‘begotten’ the Father exists without cause.

The term homoousios implies equality but was explained and accepted at the Council as allowing subordination.

The Creed refers to the Son as ‘God’ but that did not mean that He is equal to the Father. For example, the Arians, who regarded the Son as subordinate, also described Jesus as ‘God’. The reason is that the Greek term translated as ‘God’ (theos) had a flexible meaning.

The pro-Nicene of today is not equivalent to the Nicene Creed of 325 but evolved after Nicaea as one way of explaining it. Emperor Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was the first clear Trinitarian document.

THE DELEGATES

All Christians of the centuries before Nicaea described the Son as subordinate to the Father. 

“It is evident in Origin’s writings that he considered the Son’s divinity lesser than the Father’s, since he even calls the Son a creature.” 1Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 1971, The Chicago University Press, p. 191.

“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy”2Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.

The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god … a second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture). 

During the fourth century, both pro- and anti-Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate to the Father. 

“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)

“Until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism.” 3RPC 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.

Almost all delegates to Nicaea came from the East and the Eastern church believed the Son to be subordinate. 

Almost all delegates at the Council of Nicaea came from the East:

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

“The Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way.” (Hanson, p. 156)

The Eastern church believed the Son is subordinate:

“Almost all the Eastern theologians believed that the Son was in some sense subordinated to the Father before the Incarnation,” (Hanson, p. xix)

”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)

The creeds formulated by the Eastern church in the decades after Nicaea, such as the Dedication and the Long-Lined (Macrostich) creeds formulated respectively 16 and 19 years after Nicaea, confirm that they regarded the Son as subordinate.

Sixteen years after Nicaea, the same delegates formulated a creed that clearly describes the Son as subordinate. 

As stated, almost all delegates to Nicaea were from the Eastern (Greek) part of the Empire. Sixteen years later, in 341, the same Eastern Church formulated the Dedication Creed. Similar to the Nicene Creed, it describes the Father alone as “Almighty” and the “one God,” in contrast to the Son as who is the “one Lord” and the Father’s agent in creation. But, more explicitly, it says that “the names of the Three signify the particular order and glory of each.” (Hanson, p. 287) (Read more)

Therefore, the delegates to Nicaea must have understood the Creed to say that the Son is subordinate. 

Since they accepted the Nicene Creed but also regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, the Easterners, who were the vast majority at Nicaea, must have read the Creed as saying that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

THE CREED

This section discusses indications of subordination and equality in the Creed.

Indications of Subordination

While the Creed identifies the Father as the ‘one God’, the only Almighty Creator, the Son is Lord and Means of Creation.  

It is often claimed that the Nicene Creed describes the Son as equal to the Father. However, the creed begins as follows:

“We believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten of the Father …
through Whom all things came into being …
very God of very God …”  (Earlychurchtexts)

In several ways, this identifies the Son as subordinate to the Father:

God vs Lord – The Creed describes the Son as “one Lord” but the Father with a higher title, namely, “one God.” It excludes the Son from being the “one God.”

Almighty – It identifies the Father alone as “Almighty.” Consequently, the Son is not the “Almighty.” Two ‘Almighty’ Beings are impossible, for each would limit the might of the other. 

Creator – While the Father is the “Maker of all things visible and invisible,” all things were made “by” the Son. This means that the Father is the primary Creator and the Son is the secondary Cause: It is the Father who makes all things ‘through’ or ‘by’ the Son. (Cf. John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

Father vs Son – The titles “Father” and “Son” also identify the Son as subordinate to the Father.

Begotten – The creed describes the Lord Jesus as the “Son” of as “begotten” by the Father, implying that the Father is the source of the Son’s existence, meaning that the Son is not the original Source of all things; the Father alone exists without cause and is the Cause of all things.

Homoousios

The term homoousios implies equality but was explained and accepted at the Council as allowing subordination.  

The Creed says the Son was begotten from the Father’s substance and that He is homoousios (same substance) with the Father.

In the Trinity doctrine as later developed, Father and Son are one Being with a single will and mind. (Read more) Therefore, it interprets homoousios as ‘one substance’, meaning a single substance. But homoousios (same substance) can also mean two substances of the same type. (Read more)

In both cases, the term implies that the Son is equal to the Father in terms of substance, nature, or being (ontological equality).

However, since the Creed presents the Son as subordinate to the Father in other respects, other options must be considered:

Tertullian described the Son as a portion of the Father’s substance. That would mean that they are homoousios (of the same substance). But, since the Son is part of the Father’s substance, Tertullian described Him as subordinate to the Father. (Read more)

At the Nicene Council, the emperor, who proposed and insisted on the term, also explained it and said it must be understood figuratively as merely meaning that the Son is from the Father. (Read more) With that explanation, the Eusebians were able to accept the creed. However, if it only means that the Son is truly from the Father, the Son can still be subordinate to the Father:

“In Eusebius’ reading of the text it is still possible to read Nicaea as implying a certain subordinationism” (Ayres, p. 91) (Read More

The Sabellians at the Council understood the term to mean equality but they were a minority.  

Before Nicaea, ‘homoousios’ was a Sabellian term (Read more). At the Council, the Sabellians were able to include the term in the Creed because they allied with Alexander and because the emperor took Alexander’s side. (Read More) Since, in Sabellian theology, Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind, they would have understood the term to mean ‘one substance’.

However, the Sabelians were in the minority and, after Nicaea, the church eradicated the term homoousios from its vocabulary by exiling all leading Sabelians. (Read more) Therefore, the majority accepted ‘homoousios’ as consistent with subordination.

God

The Creed refers to the Son as “very God of very God,” but that did not mean that He is equal to the Father. 

In English translations of the Nicene Creed, it seems to profess equality when it describes the Son as ‘true God from true God’. However, in the original language, the term does not require equality.

For example, the Arians regarded the Son as subordinate but described Him also as ‘God’.  

Later in the century, the Arians formulated several creeds that also proclaimed Jesus as ‘God’:

The Dedication Creed, which opposed the Nicene Creed, describes the Son as “God” and as “God from God.”

Two years later the same people – the Easterners (the anti-Nicenes) at Serdica – condemned those who say, “Christ is not God.” (Hanson, p. 298)

The ‘Arian’ creed of 357, which has been described as the high point of Arianism, describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345)

As another example, all pre-Nicene fathers regarded the Son as subordinate but also described Him as theos. 

The Nicene Creed was not the first to use the phrase “theos from theos” or to describe the Son as “theos.” For example, Irenaeus wrote:

“That which is begotten of God is God” (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47).

The following statement by Irenaeus nicely brings out the flexible meaning of the word theos:

“There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption.” (Adv. Her. 4. Pref.4 – 4.1.1)

Here, Irenaeus referred to the Father, the Son, and human beings as theos, creating an interesting challenge for translators. Since Irenaeus regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father (see here), when he described Jesus as theos, he did not mean that Jesus is equal to the Father.

The reason is that the Greek term translated as ‘God’ (theos) had a flexible meaning.  

In modern English, while we use the word “god” for a range of beings, we use the term “God” as a name for one specific Being – the One who exists without a cause – the omnipotent originator of the universe (Merriam-Webster). (Read more)

Like the Bible, the Nicene decree was written in Greek, which did not have a word exactly equivalent to “God.” In the Creed, the word “God” is translated from the Greek word theos which had a wide range of meanings. This is the same word the Greeks used for their gods; the Greek Pantheon, believed to be immortal beings with supernatural powers. When the Jews began speaking Greek, they used this word for the God of the Bible but they used it also for other beings. For example, Jesus even referred to humans, “to whom the word of God came,” as “gods” (the same word – John 10:34-35). (Read more)

“At issue until the last decades of the controversy was the very flexibility with which the term ‘God’ could be deployed.” (Ayres, p. 14)

When theos refers to the Almighty, it is translated as “God.” In other instances, it is translated as “god.” To translate theos, when it refers to Jesus, as “God” is based on the assumption that He is the Almighty. It is an application of the Trinity doctrine and should not be used as proof of that doctrine. Since the Creed already identified the Father alone as the “one God” and the Almighty, and the Son as “Lord.” It uses the term theos for the Son in a different sense and should not be translated as “God.” (Read More)

THEOLOGY EVOLVED

The pro-Nicene of today is not equivalent to the Nicene Creed of 325 but evolved after Nicaea as one way of explaining it.  

The century must be understood as “one of evolution in doctrine.”  (Ayres, p. 13)

“By ‘pro-Nicene’ I mean those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … These theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s.” (Ayres, p. 6)

Emperor Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was the first clear Trinitarian document.

As stated, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being with one mind. In that doctrine, the term ‘Persons” is misleading. (Read More)

The Nicene Creed does not contain the Trinity doctrine for it still identifies the ‘one God’ in whom we believe as the Father and because it does not describe the Holy Spirit as God or as homoousios.

Theodosius’ Edict, which made Trinitarian Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other forms of Christianity, was the first to describe the Trinity as the ‘one God;’ a single ‘Being’. It reads:

“Let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” (Read more)

The Creed of the Council in Constantinople of the next year (381) still identifies the Father alone as the ‘one God’:

“We believe in one God
the Father Almighty …” (Read more)

KINDS OF SUBORDINATION

Some Christians distinguish between ontological and functional subordination. They claim that the Son is ontologically (in terms of His being or substance) equal to the Father but functionally, in terms of role, subordinate to the Father. I would respond as follows:

Firstly, the Bible says nothing about God’s substance and it is not something that human beings are even able to understand.

Secondly, I am not aware of any of the fourth-century fathers who distinguished between kinds of subordination.

Thirdly, if the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father, and if He is eternally so, it implies He is also subordinate in person or being. If the Son is eternally subordinate in terms of roles, what difference does it make to say that they are ontologically equal?

THE CREED

The Nicene Creed reads as follows:

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into being,
things in heaven and things on earth,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,
and became incarnate
and became man,
and suffered,
and rose again on the third day,
and ascended to the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and dead,

And in the Holy Spirit.

But as for those who say, There was when He was not,
and, Before being born He was not,|
and that He came into existence out of nothing,|
or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,
or created,
or is subject to alteration or change
– these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.


OTHER ARTICLES

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 1971, The Chicago University Press, p. 191.
  • 2
    Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.
  • 3
    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.