Arius: Heresy and Tradition

R OWAN

W I L LI AM S

R EVISED

E DITI ON

ARIUS

ARIUS Heresy and Tradition

•

•

RE VISED EDITION

Rowan Williarns

William B. Eenlmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U. K.

ID 1987, 2001

Row~n

Williams

First published in 1987 by DarlOn. Longman and Todd Ltd Second edition rirst published in 2001 by SCM Press This edition published in 2002 in the Uni ted States or America by Wm. 13. Ecrdrnans Publishing Co. 255 Jeffeuon Ave. S.E .. Grand Rapids. Michigan / 1',0. Box 16$, Cambridge CB3 9l'U U.K. All rights reserl'ed Printed in the United Stmes of America 07 06 05 04 03 02

7654$2 1

Library o f Congress Catal ogin g-in-Publication Data

ISBN 0·8028-4969-5

To Christopher Stead in gratitude and affection

Traditions, when vital, embody continuities of conflict. Alasdair Maclntyre, After Virtue (London 19B 1). p. 206

Contents •

Preface

~

Preface to the Second Edition

XIII

\

Inttoduction: Images of a Heresy Part I Arius and the Nicene Crisis

29

A Anus before Arianism \

29

Origins

2 The Troubles of the A1exandrian Church I: 32

The Meiitian Schism

3 The Troubles of the Alexandrian Church IT: 4\

Bishops and Presbyters

B The Nicene Crisis: Documents and Dating \ The Comrovel1lY

2 The

to

48 48

325

62

7halia

67

3 Nicaea and After

82

C Conclusion Part II Anus and Theology

95

A The Theology of Arius B Alexandria and the Legacy of Origen

1\7

Philo

1\7

2 Clement

\24

I

.. vu

3 Origcn <4 Alexandria after Origcn

C Theology Ou uidc Egyp! An!ioch

o

'" '"

'" 158

2 Me!hodiu. and Eusebiu.

'"

Conclusion

'" Pan ill Arius and Philosophy

A Creation and Beginning

B Inldlec! and Beyond

C Analogy and Panicipalion

o

Conciw ion

Porucrip! (IMoIogical)

Appendix I: Ariw . ince 1987 Appendix 2: C=W Documo:nu

Bibliography Index ofNarnt:I

'"

'" '" "" '" '"'" '"

'" '55

'"

Preface This book has grown slowly and inexorably from what I had originally conceived as a couple of minor bits of research in the background of the Arian heresy, sparked off by an invitation from Professor Henry Chad wick to review Rudolf Lorenz' important work on the subject. As so often happens, what had seemed clear points of reference faded away alarmingly as my studies advanced, and the idea of writing a longer treatment of the whole area became increasingly attractive, if only for the sake of clearing my own mind. But since there has been a quite remarkable amount of new work on Arianism in recent years, in this country as well as in the USA and Europe, it also seemed to be a good idea to try and draw together and assess where it had allied . In the event, there proved to be many topics that could not easily be dealt with adequately in the compass of this book. I have done my best to indicate where there is 'unfinished busine»', or where 1 have adopted a contentious conclusion that would need fuller defence than is possible here, in the hope that there will be plenty of better and more energetic scholars to pursue these issues as the discussion advances. It is not exclusively an historical study. As the introduction will make plain, there has seldom been a ' purely' historical treatment of the Arian controversy. This work, like others, ventures some reflections, mostly in the introduction and postscript, on the contemporary theological import of the issues discussed. The historian may want to skip these sections, but I hope will not - there are some questions here, I believe, of wider methodological relevance. Equally, I hope that the theologically-minded reader will resist the temptation to ignore the history, even (though this is asking a lot!) the rather technical discussions of Arius' philosophical antecedents: there is never, then or now, so purely theological a debate that it can afford to bracket out the need for awareness of both social and intellectual constraint! on the language of controversy.

Preface I gladly record my indebtedness to the many persons and insti~ tutions that have helped and supported me in the writing of this work. I have already mentioned the role played by Professor Henry Chadwick in starting me thinking on this subject: he has continued to be a source of support and constructive criticism throughout the period of writing. Professon Timothy 8ames and Charles Kannengiesser have also shown generous and friendly interest, and given time to the discussion of various questions; vigorous disagreements have never clouded amicable relations, and I have learnt enormously from both these colleagues. Like many others, I found my perspectives on the Arian issue were challenged and enlarged by the very fertile exchanges in the seminar on this subject at the 1983 Oxford Patristic Conference, and I must thank all my fellowparticipants in that group. Or Gwrge Dragas has been an invaluable source of information about, and frequently of copies of, contemporary Greek studies in the field , and I owe much to him in this and other ways. Canon Richard Young of Chicago and the Revd Philip Ursell of Pusey House, Oxford, kindly provided hospitality at crucial times during a sabbatical term. My former colleagues al Clare College, Cambridge, oITered the help and support of an unusually friendly and open community of scholars; and the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge, in particular the Patristic Seminar, gave me more than I can readily say. The dedication of this work expresses my debt to one colleague in particular, who has made very much his own the whole subject of Arian origins. His work, especially on the philosophical background to the controversy, has been one of those poinu of reference that have not faded; it has set me a standard of sympathy and exaclness which I am aware of most of the time as only a distant goal. His careful and expert criticism has contributed greatly to everything that 1 have written in this field , and I have. no doubt that the familiar cliche of acknowledgements is true - that this would have been a much better book if I had listened to him more often. My wife has not only tolerated the invasion of our home by large numbers of third- and fourth-century figures in the shape of bloated mounds of books and papers over four years; she has helped to expedite their departure by typing the greater part of this manuscript with speed, accuracy and an impressive restraint in complaining, at the state of the footnotes in particular. I am very grateful. The staff at Darton, Longman and Todd have been their

,

Prifact usual encouraging selves, and have once again greatly lightened an author's load by their advice and friendship. At a time when there is so much renewed bitterness over doctrinal disagreements in my own and other churches, and so much unclarity over what might be involved in being 'loyal' to the tradition of the Church, it is important to bl': more aware than ever of thl': numl':rous and often elusive factors that help to form that tradition. My hope is that (to borrow David Tracy's terminology) the 'public' for this book will include thosl': concerned for the Church's health and honesty, as well as the 'academy'. 1l0WAN WlLUAWS

Oxford, Novtmbtr 1986

.

KO

Preface to the Second Edition Since 1987, research on the fourth century has continued 10 fiourish. The pn:sent work has attracted its fair share of discussion in the past fourteen years; and, while there are many pages that ....,ould now need to be written otherwise and a good many areas in which I might want to approach a subject differently, it would be a very large task to revise the entire book. The generous suggestion from Alex Wright at seM Press that a new edition might be possible has allowed me the oppor-

tunity to respond to various criticisms and to acknowledge weaknesses, as well as in some cases to offer further argument for what I still believe to be defensible positions. The appendix to the book, 'Arius since 1987' attempts 10 give a sketchy sUlvey of some new moves in research as well aJ to engage with some conunentators and critics. My hope is that this additional material will stimulate further debate and clarification. I am deeply grateful to all my colleagues who have taken the trouble to discuss the original work, to readen and students who still wish to tackle its subject matter, and to SeM Press for giving it a new lease of life. Whatever the very limited merits of the book, it should be clear that the questions both of substance and of method dealt with here are no less absorbing and significant now than when the work finl appeared. ROWAN WTl.l.lAMS

Ntwport, Passiontide 2001

Introduction

Images of a Heresy

1 'Arianism' has often been regarded as the archuypal Christian deviation, something aimed at the very heart of the Christian confession. From the point of view of history, this is hardly surprising: the crisis of the fourth century was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced; it generated the first credal statement to claim universal, unconditional assent, and it became inextricably entangled with issues concerning the authority of political rulers in the affairs of the Church. Later, it would become simila rly entangled with the divisions between Roman and Barbarian in what had been the western empire: Rome was sacked by Goths who had adopted what was by then the non-imperial version of the Christian faith , and Arian rulers uncomfortably governed their conquered territories with the aid of Catholic, Roman civil servants. By the time that the great upheavals within the empire were over, Arianism had been irrevocably cast as the O ther in relation to Catholic (and civilized) religion. Arius himself came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics, a man whose superficial austerity and spirituality cloaked a diabolical malice, a deliberate enmity to revealed faith. The portrait is already taking shape in Epiphanius' work, well before the end of the fourth century, and is vividly present in later accounts of the martyrdom of Peter of Alexandria, who ordained Arius deacon. By the early medieval period, we find him represented alongside J udas in ecclesiastical art. (The account of his death in fourth- and fifth-century writers is alread y clearly modelled on that of Judas in the Acts of the Apostles.) No other heretic has been through so thoroughgoing a process of 'demonization' . 1

Introduction This may be unsurprising - as I have said - given the range and depth of the issues involved in the crisis, political as well as theological issues. Whal is rather more surprising is the way in which the modern study of Arius and 'Arianism' has often continued to accept, consciously or not, the image of this heresy as the radically ' Other', projei:ting on to it whatever theological or ecclesiological tenets currently represent the opposition to a Christian mainstream in which the scholar and interpreter claims to stand. Of course, until relatively rei:ently, not all that many Christians were prepared to deny or question that Nicaea and its (revised and expanded) creed were the indispensable criteria of orthodoxy; so, if one wished to justify a continuing adherence of some kind to Nicaea, even though one's own theology might be very significantly different from that of Athanasius and his supporters, Arius' views had to be represented as standing for some hopelessly defective form of belief. I t is certainly not the case that scholars have engaged in deliberate sleight of hand here; but the combination of Nicaea's traditional and liturgical importance with the long history of what I have called the 'demonizing' of Arius is extraordinarily powerful. Anyone setting out to reconstruct the life and opinions of Arius has to reckon with this - and also to be aware of the temptation to correct the balance in a simplistic way by making Arius a theological hero. I am aware that, in some of what follows, I shall not have avoided distortions of one kind or another: my reading of the material suggests various patterns in the life of the Alexandrian church of the early fourth century strongly (eminiscent of developments in contemporary Christian experience - conRicts about authority between the representatives of an hierarchical institution and the charismatic lea.ders of 'gathered' congregations, house-churches of various kinds, conflicts over the right theological use of Scripture, and so on; suspiciously contemporary questions. But the point at which an authentic and illuminating analogy turns into a Procrustean bed on which evidence is tortured is never very easy to identify. The reader as well as the writer needs warning here.

2 The point may be illustrated by looking briefly at a variety of scholarly treatmenu of Arianism in the last century and a half. The

2

lrrwges

oJ a HmI)

modem critical study of the subject really begins with Newman's justly celebrated essay of 1833, The Arians oJ the Fourth Cmtury, a work many times reprinted, which exercised a formative influence on British scholarship in particular. Newman rightly claimed a degree of originality for his interpretation of the roots of Arianism: in an appendix on 'The Syrian School of Theology' added to the fourth (1874) edition (pp. 403-15), he noted the fact that, up to the 1830s, it had ~en customary to associate the Arian system primarily with Neoplatonism, whereas he had explained it in terms of the distinctive theological and exegetical positions of the Antiochene church. Earlier chroniclers had not, of course, ignored the ancient allegations that Arius was a follower of the doctrines of the Antiochem: Paul of Samosata, and the likelihood that he had been a pupil of Lucian of Antioch, the exegete and martyr; but it is quite true that Platonic influences had been more emphasized. Cave's Eccltsiastici of 1683 alluded to the Neoplatonic principle of a hierarchy of hypostases as forming Arius' mind on the trinitarian issue; following Cud worth, Cave held that later Platonists deliberately accentuated the subordination of the second and third hypostases 'out of spite to Christianity, (to which the old Scheme [of Plato, and perhaps Plotinus1l did too near approach' (p. 44). Only at the end of a longish disquisition on this does Cave add that Arius had ~en predisposed to such views by his apprenticeship to Lucian, who taught, like Paul of Samosata, that Christ was 'a meer man' (p. 45). This is not untypical of the approach to which Newman was reacting. In sharp contrast, the first twenty-seven pages of his essay deal with the Antiochene church, and, as has already been noted , he was later to add an appendix on 'Syrian' theology, a good deal of which reproduces some of the discussion in the Essay on Dtvtlopmmt. The philosophical background to Arius' views is barely touched upon in these opening pages, though the second chapter (pp. 28-42) postulates a close connection with the 'Sophists' identified with practitioners ofsyllogistic disputation in general and the 'Aristotelic school' in particular (p. 32); this discussion is cast in very vague terms, being almost devoid of specific reference to authors or movements of the period, and blandly merges together a number of very diverse phenomena. But the first chapter is meant to set the tone ofthe whole work. Arianism is the child of Antiochene Christianity, which - as Paul of Samosata's teaching demonstrates

3

IntroductWn - is in thrall to Judaizing te.ndencies, in practice lU well as in doctrine, The church of Antioch retains many traces of Jewish ritual observance and is the pttuliar nunery of what Newman calls 'Humanitarian' views of Christ. 1 will not say [he writes (p. 20)) that the Arian doctrine is the direct result of a judaizing practice; but it deserves consideration whether a tendency to derogate from the honour due to Christ was not created by an observance of the Jewish rites, and much more, by that carnal self-indulgent religion, which seems at that time to have prevailed among the rejected nation. 'Jewish' ritualism is unable to see outward observance as the type of deeper truth, and so encourages the fallen mind's unwillingness to see more than what presenu itself to the senses: thus it nurtures a low view of Christ, and a disputatious, rationalist temper, typical of the mind untutored by the heart. Naturally this is linked, as Newman seeb later on to show, with an impatience at the idea of mystery in theology and exegesis, a rejection of allegory, a refusal to read Scripture within tradition and an unintelligent adherence to the letter of the Bible combined with wooden syllogistic analyses of biblical language (pp. 236--44) - though the Arians can also, inconsistently, use allegory or metaphor when it suits them (pp. 244-8). In the appendix to the fourth edition, Newman made still more of the Antiochene devotion to the 'literal and critical interpretation of Scripture', the invariable connection between 'heterodoxy and biblical criticism', and the implicit denial of any real doctrine of inspiration by those rejecting allegory (1874, pp. 404-5). The Alexandrian church is held up, in contrast, as the very exemplar of traditional and revealed religion (ch. I , s. Ill, passim). So far from Arianism being the product of an unhealthy Alexandrian flirtation with philosophical mystagogy. an adulteration of the gospel by Platonism (pp. 7, 26), it is the result of a systematic refusal of true philosophy, a refusal of the wisdom that pierces the material veil of things, in favour of shallow materialism. In true Alexandrian (or at least Origenian) style, Newman regards certain exegetical options as moral and spiritual in character and effect. Antioch's exegetical preference is no mere alternative within the spectrum .of possible techniques: it is a spiritual deficiency. One must charitably say that Newman is not at his best here: a 4

Images fJj a Heresy brilliant argument, linking all sorts of diverse phenomena, is built up on a foundation of complacent bigotry and historical fantasy. However, setting aside for the moment the distasteful rhetoric of his exposition, it should be possible to see something of what his polemical agenda really is. The Arians of the Fourth Cmtury is, in large part, a tract in defence of what the early Oxford Movement thought of as spiritual religion and spiritual authority. It works with a clear nonnative definition of Christian faith and practice, in which ascetical discipline goes hand-in-hand with the repudiation of Protestant biblicism (and Protestant rejection of post-scriptural development in teaching and devotion) and a commitment to the 'principle of reserve' a mystagogic approach to the faith in which deep mysteries could be concealed beneath simple fonns and words and only gradually unveiled. Such a picture naturally supports a high view of priesdy authority, and a low view of the rights of secular power in the Church. By 1874 Newman no doubt saw more need to underline the risks of the critical study of Scripture (the first chill draught from Gennany was already making itself felt) than to labour the perils of old-fashioned Protestant literalism; hence the slight shift of emphasis in the Appendix. But the essential point is unchanged: allegory is necessary for spiritual religion. Newman's version of the fourth-century crisis, then, rests upon a characterization of Arianism as radically 'other' in several respects. It is the forerunner of stolid Evangelicalism ~ Erastian worldliness (,carnal, self-indulgent religion'), and - by 1874, anyway - the new style of university theology. What unifies these diverse distortions of Catholic truth is their common rejection of mystical and symbolic readings of the world in general and Scripture in particular; they are all doomed to remain at the level of surface reality. And it is this 'Judaizing' tendency that provoked the early Church's worst crisis; let the modern reader take heed. Yet there are 'cheering and edifying' lessons to be drawn, as well as warnings. Then as now there was the prospect, and partly the presence in the Church, of an heretical power enthralling it, exerting a varied influence and a usurped claim in the appointment of her functionaries, and interfering with the management of her internal affairs ... [S]hould the hand of Satan press us sore, our Athanasius and Basil will be given us in their destined season. (p. 422)

5

IntToJ~ttion

This ringing exordium makes it abundandy clear that the 'Arians of the fourth century' are, in significant mea.5ure, those members of the nineteenth-century Church of England beyond the confines of primitive Tractarianism, those whose essential worldliness (even in the guise of devout biblicism) has left the Church a helpless prey to secular domination. At precisely those points at which his historical analysis seems eccentric, superlicial and prejudiced, Newman shows his skills as a controversialist. Even more than in the fourth century itself, 'Arianism' is being created by abstraction from what it is not, and the importance of Newman's work is in its classical exemplification of this technique at least as much as in its contribution to serious scholarstlip (and probably more).

3 The same process is observable if we turn to Harnack's discussion of the nature of Arianism in volume II of the great Lelzrhuclz der Dogmmgeschichtt (4th edn, 1909; the English translation is from the 3rd edn, but the text of this section is substantially unchanged between the two editions). Like Newman, Hamack sees ' Aristotelian Rationalism' as the background of Arius' system and as typical of the school of Lucian (pp. 189-90; E.T. pp. 6-7) ; Lucian himself is descrilxd as heir to the tradition of Paul of Samosata, and synthesizing Paul's teaching with that ofOrigen Cp. 187; E.T., p. 3). Harnack suggests a parallel between Antiochene theology of this sort and the earlier adoptionism of Theoclotus: there too, according to Hamack, Aristotelianism combines with the critical study of Scripture to produce a theology stressing the humanity of Jesus at the expense of his integral divinity (pp. 189-90; E.T., pp. 6-7). However, the mixed legacy of Paul and Origen transmitted by Lucian leads to severe tensions in the thought of Arius. On the one hand we have an adoptionist picture ofa Christ who 'is the Saviour, in so far as he has conveyed to us the divine doctrine and has given us an example of goodness perfectly rea1ized in the exercise of freedom' (p. 220; E.T., p. 39); on the other, we are faced with a basically cosmoiogiclJ/ problematic, to which soteriology is irrelevant, the question of how to bridge the gulf between the transcendent God and the created order. Here ..the Son or Logos is brought in as a mediatorial figure ofa straightforward Neoplatonic kind. The two

6

Images of a Heresy disparate elements are held together by the idea that the created mediator actually advances in status as a result of the incarnation (which thus becomes part of a trajectory of glorification, not a radical humiliation) ; but Anus' scheme is adulterated by a mytluJ.. logical version of adoptionism (involving the Logos, not Jesus) that leaves us finally with practical polytheism, two objects of worship (p. 220; E.T., p. 40). In that Arius leaves no logical room for a pre--existent Son (for we must suppose the mediatorial Logos to be promoted to sonship in his post-incarnate state), he distances himself from Origen as much as from Nicene orthodoxy (p. 221; E.T., p. 40). The Logos who participates in the divine life. in however subordinate a role, and thus is able to unite creatures to God and bestow saving illumination upon them, is excluded on this showing: Arius and Athanasius together finally dismiss the Logos of Philo and the Apologists from the scene (p. 226; E.T., pp. 48-9). Both contribute to the elimination of hierarchical gnostic structures of thought from • Christian theology, both make it impossible to base Chnstology upon cosmology. Yet Arianism and Nicene orthodoxy are by no means comparably acceptable versions of Christianity: Anus' teaching is novel, self-contradictory (p. 221; E.T., p. 41) and, above all, religiously inadequate. The combination of cosmology with veneration for a heroic teacher is characteristic of H tflmism (p. 222; E.T., p. 42); cosmology and morality fail to provide a vehicle for understanding that fellowship with God that is attained in and through Jesus, and, if Arianism had triumphed, it would have meant the end of authentic Christianity (pp. 222-3; E.T., pp. 42-3). Arianism lacks the vision of perfect unity through love. faith, feeling, that Hamack discerns in the theology of Paul of Samosata (p o222; E.T., p. 43); it knows only an external obedience to God, in the Logos and the believer alike. Naturally this helps to provide a rationale for heroic asceticism, and it is this, combined with the polytheistic aspect of the system, that makes Arianism attractive to the Teutonic nations (po 223; E.T., pp. 43--4). Athanasius is no c1o.ser to the Samosatene notion of union with God, but, at least, in his stress on the unity of nallJ.Tt between Father and Son and the ontological participation of believers in the divine life, he goes beyond the extrinsic model of union defended by Arius and preserves the idea of Christianity as 'living fellowship with God' (pp. 223-5; E.T., pp. 44--6). It is deeply paradoxical that true 7

Introduction

Christianity should be saved by a theologian for whom the hislOrical humanity of Jesus of Nazareth is of no interest at all: Athanasius salvages the gospel at a very high price - ultimately, as Harnack evidently believed, an unacceptably high price (pp. 223-4, 226-7; ET. , pp. 45, 48-9). Yet Arianism has 'no understanding of the inner essence of religion' (p. 227; E.T., p. 49), and the Church was right to reject and condemn it. Harnack's lengthy 'evaluation' of the Arian and Athanasian systems is no less brilliant and no less eccentric than Newman's reading. Arius' teaching here has become a paradigm of that 'radical Hellenization' which, fo r Harnack, marks the whole post-biblical development of Christian doctrine. h makes certain necessary and correct negaliue moves (dissociating Christology from cosmology, emphasizing monotheism, 'demystifying' the divinity of Jesus), but destroys the possible advantage to be gained therefrom by retaining an hie:rarchical mythology, stressing morality and obedience at the expense of love and personal communion, and countenancing a practical polytheism ; it thus leads 10 superstition and prideful asceticism. For Harnack, in fact , Arianism is the: archetypal he:resy in that it illustrates all the corruptions of Helle:nized, Catholic Christianity (mythology plus moralism, the compromising of monotheistic faith , a sub-personal account of salvation, lacking in true interiority) without any of those features which have, historically, prevented Catholic Christianity from wholly losing sight of the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth - above all, the abiding commitment to the goal of communion with the divine life, however imperfectly and naturalistically this communion was understood. The 'othe:rness' of Arianism is the otherness of formalisti c, moralizing religion. ' Protesta~t orthodoxy' or monkish Catholicism. The basic polarity between the spiritual gospel and the moralism that is always seductively close at hand is in fact spelt out by Harnack in the major essay on 'Presuppositions' which forms the second chapter of his first volume; in the light of this, the classical character of the Nicene crisis in Harnack's presentation becomes clearer still.Just as much as for Newman, the very nature of Christianity as a 'spiritual' religion is seen to be at stake.

8

ITMgu CIf a HereS]

4 Harnack is far more cautious than Newman in judging the root of all evil to be located in the school of Antioch, yet he too still sees Arian origins in terms of a fusion between syllogistic logic and biblical literalism, with an admixture of mythical cosmology. Again, like Newman, he sees the issue as essentially to do with the person and work of Christ. It was H . M. Gwatkin, in his Studies CIf Arianism (1882 and 1900), who seems first to have challenged the main lines of this consensus. We should not look to Antioch for the sources of Arianism; we have no ground for believing that Jewish influence was stronger at Antioch than at Alexandria; we cannot suppose that later Antiochene Christology, with its fervent devotion to Nicaea, is in any way an 'outgrowth ' of Arianism (pp. 17- 20). In a few brief paragraphs, Gwatkin effectively demolishes the greater part of Newman's picture, and sets a question mark against much of Harnack. However, like his predecessors, he continues to see Arianism as the result of irreverent philosophical speculation: it is 'almost as much a philosophy as a religion' (p. 20), 'measuring the heights of heaven with ... puny logic, and sounding the deeps of Wisdom with the plummet of the schools' (p. 28). So far from being Jewish, it is essentially pagan in its elevation of a demigod to a central position of honour in its worship (p. 26), and, as such, it has an instant and facile a ttractiveness to half-converted heathens (pp. 30-1). But th(': essence of Arianism is its doctrine of the relation between God and the world, rather than its Christology in the strict sense. Arianism crystallizes the common J ewish, pagan and early Christian assumption that the spiritual dignity of the Godhead is to be defended by elaborating its absolute contrast to humanity (pp. 20-1); but the Christian doctrines of creation, especially the creation of human beings in the image of God, and redemption through divine involvement make it impossible in the long term to sustain such a strategy. Arius resolves the tensions in Christian thinking by a simple assimilation of God the Father to the remote and isolated absolute of Middle Platonism and of the Son to the ' creative demiurge. However , Arius' concern to remove all trace of emanationism and materialism from the relation of Father to Son leads to the idea of an arbitrarily willed generation of the latter, and a stress on his creaturdy freedom.

9

Introduction Here we get another view of the Pelagianism which is an essential element of the Arian system. Both schemes depend on the same fa lse dualism of God and man, the same denial of the Christian idea of grace as a true communication of a higher principle of life ... [TJhe liberty of God is nothing but caprice, the freedom of man a godless independence. (p. 25) The incompatibility of pure philosophical monotheism, belief in an absolute divine simplicity, with the revelation of the eternal divine love in the world's history goes unnoticed in Arianism, so that it fails to offtr any hope of true communion with God (pp. 27, 31). It is this issue of the possibility of genuine relation between God and creatures that most preoccupies Gwatkin, and he retunu to it at the very end of his work. Arianism failed because it lacked any notion of divine purpose working itself out in and through the material world, that notion which emerges with increasing clarity from evolutionary science: 'the theologian's problem is not so far removed from that of the historian or the zoologist, or any other man of science' (p. 273; and cf. pp. xi-xii of the Preface to the First Edition). Any system of thought, scientific or philosophical, that rules out in principle the manifestation of purposive love supremely in Jesus Christ - cannot but perish. If we turn from Gwatkin's Studies to his Gifford Lectures of 1904 and 1905 (published in 19(6) , we find these themes elaborated at great length. There is a revelation in nature of divine power and wisdom (ch. Ill); but mere power is a meaningless definition of the divine. We need to understand the nature of the will that activates such power (vol. I , pp. 83-4), and that is revealed in ' the spiritual nature of man' as essentially moral (ch. IV). The Dhsoluu goodness of that moral will, however, can only be made known by specific historical revelation (ch. V), the nature of which is discussed in vol. 11 of the lectures, along with the history of its reception and interpretation. In the course of this sUlVey, Arianism is briefly touched upon (ch. VI ), to be'characterized as a form ofOtism, deficient in imaginative sensitivity to the nuances of metaphorical language, applying the .bludgeon of common sense to the subtle metaphors of trinitarian language to produce a crude and contradictory system in which God is isolated and despotic - a kind of foreshadowing of Islam. In this respect, Nicene orthodoxy guarantees 'the political freedom of a distant future ' (p. 112): 'God ... will not deal with us as slaves

10

J"""u of G Hmsy Like a d""pol in h""ve". And if we are frtt before God. we ougbl to bo f_ heforr men' (p. ll3). The sui"" endJ with a visiom.ry NOCaUon of the globaL aynthesi. of theological and scientific knowL. ed~ toward. which the inlcliectual world it movi"ll - a clas.ic .ummary of the grat heritage of Maurice. Westcott and others in Ang~ca" thinking (pp. 323-30). For Gwarkin. then. Ariani.m iI 'Olher' iD that it makes imf'O"' ible the distinctive vDaOtion ofCltrittian thought, which is to provide the religio ... framework for a triumphant evoluUon&ry morality and phil""""lty; if the problem of Hamad;', Arin. is that he has IIOt digated Ritsehl. Gwatltin', An .... uffen from IIOt having .tudied in late ninetttnth-~ntury Cambrid~. Ariani.m as Gwatkin delina it could never have produced that beautifully and $tduetively integrated Ang~can vilion that briefly made the Church appear .... the Datu",l ally of welfare and enlight""ment in the ".".t advanced society (as it bdi~ iw:lf to bo) in Europe. In that Gwatkin does not identify Arianism !3.cirly with any .pecilit contemporvy aberntio,,". he is botteT able than Newman and Harnad 10 CUt through the tangle of ,lanted or dittorte ~rtain feuures of the bi'tM)' and badBround of Arian origins than the works of Gwatkin', great predeceuon. But in ill determination to 'read' the beresy as subve ... iw of thu particular Cbristian project 10 which Gwatkin was so pasoionudy committed, ill agenda;' jutt u much of its time and place as Newman', and Harnad· •.

5 On. ofGwatkin's contributions to tbe development of Arian nudies was. I have suggested, to Ihift some of the empbasil away from the IUpp<»ed Chriotological f"oc:ut of the berny and toward. the dcx:trin .. of God and c:uation. Tb. anaLysi.o of Ariu,' doctrine u a variety of adoptioni"" IC>t:>b a good deal I... plausible in the light of GWlItkin', discuMion. Nevt:rtbeleu such an imerpre!3.tion continued to be influential fOr JruLny yea .... in Britain and on the continent of Europe. In f~ct, relatively liuJe of ral originality appeared in Anus scholanhip in the lint few dead .. of the praen< cetltul")'. SeminaJLy important work w... of course dQIK in th~

IOI'ting-ouI of tho: chronology of th~ controvcny, and in th~ UoIalion oh. bard core of rdiable primary docum~nts by the greal clusical Kho"'r Eduarcl Schwartz; even where more 1e<;enl ochobrship ha.! disputed o:r overthrown Ju. conclUlionJ, tho: debt of all suboequenl lIucienu 10 Schwartz'. work remains very conside.... ble. And ir iJ h.is ' W"rd> .. that lie behind tho: work of Hans-Georg Opiu, who, ;n tho: 19301, published a very ;n8u~ntia.l chronology of the begin· ningl afthe cmls and a .till indl.peruabJ~ (though frequently flawed and euenlric) edition of the primo.ry 'uu, designed :os put of a nuojo:r edition of Ad:w!Nius' works; Ju. aadJy premature death in the Second World War left this project still in a fragmentary .talt, and Atbanaoius b.u y~t 10 find a lyJlemalic editor 01 team of editon. Bul iD th~ actual inltrpre .... tion and ana.lyliJ of the ;"u", iD tho: cootfOYe,*y, Iiltle w:os achieved in the pre-war period . One notable (:I:ception 10 this judgment, however, iJ a brief bUI aignifieant essay by Wa.lter ElIiger, publilhed iD 1931, ' Bemer· kungen zur TheoJogk d.. MUS' ('Observations on the Theology of Anus' ). Without naming hiI .... >'lIets, EU;ger argues thal the COf\ICI\IUS of ea.:rlier .cholarship has radically milund .... tooc: iI -.king 10 clarify the doctrine of God (p. 245). And 1.. 1 I>c: .hould then be aceused of philosophical rationalism, EUig.". continua, we .hould ,ecognize thal Ariw' God iI living and active, and thal Arius lpeaks of mm ;n toneS of devotion and awe (pp. 245-7). Wbat Ariw ha.! 10 say aboul ChmlOlogy musl not I>c: abstraCted from hilt primary rtligioUI concern, the unity and mysltty of God; and _ should Iliso give him eredillOr resioting any lUnd of'phJ"k.aI' or IUb-peQOnal doctrine of redemption (p. 248). In emphasizing the role of monJ pros"" in the life of ChrUt, Ariw lIandl cloae 10 Paul 0( Samcsata (pp. 248-9) . Rio ;ncol\I;lten<:y - a raw one, in the evenl - ill 10 oeek 10 reconcile this JumlnowJy .impl. piClure with a thtoJogy ofth~ preaislent LOgOl (a th<:<>logy learned from Lucian) ; here he is l""sl distincti~ and inltrnting (pp. 2.1-SO). But tho: bean of hiJ theology is a moral and Ipirilua.l conception of God and of human ulvation, and an account of union with God in termo of ... iU and action. Our miltake i. 10 try 10 inlerpret him iD lemu ofa thf:Ology with which be ill nol al home, the Logos--theology he llu>.ra with his opponents. Ona: _ ha~e IlOpped looking at him from Athanasiw'

11II4l" of 0 H.my

perspective, We shall have a fairer picture of his strength. But this invloves a recognition that hu wider import: We must acknowledge that the history of dogma is far more pluriform than conventional scholarship luggest. (p. 2$1). Elliger in fact does what he ux:u..,. othen of doing: he reClm.truCts a good duI of AriUll' lhtology from th<: teotimony of tu. opponents ~ takes us bad: to the old adoptionist pictu", that Gwatk.in had ch.allanged. He seems to be engaging with Hamacl. on this question, anempting to ,ho... that AriUll WH, afte. all, a ... orthy ,U'n3l0T to Paul of Samo.ut.a, and an accept.ablc hero for poot-Riu..:hlian Protestantism. ElJiger is, in elf«t, denying that Nicenc oMhodoxy hu any kind of hermeneutical privilege in the study of patri.!tics, ~ denying it moll' bluntly ~ openly than Hamaelt. Arius' theology mu.t be judged in the dogtee to which it f.aithfully media\e!l aulhentic religiou. experience, and on such a criterion the judgment must be positi"" (p. 2~) . We nill have here a CO'o'eMly contemporary reading of Anus; hut what is n..... it the rcfus.oJ to 'demoruze' Anus, the search for a genuine religious motivan"" in his teaching, ~ the open a.dmistion of the legitimacy (and una~oidability) of radical pluralism in dllClrin. and Ipirituality. In IUch ... ay., Elliger offers a striking anticipatiOll of much more r«ent scholarship.

6 In Britain mean ...hile ~arious of Gwatkin', judgments ... ere being taken up and de~eloped al a more popul .... level. The association ofNicene nrthodmr.y wilh liberal detnOCJ"atic valueo had pat appeal to thc»c doctrinally orthodox Anglo-CatboUCI who espoused the "Christian Sodali'" pooitiOll. The remarkable COIIrad Noel, whoac vie .... _re ... ell to the left of G ...atkin'. cautious ",formi.m, publi&hed in 1909 a pampblet On &ri41i.nn """ CIut"A TraJin-, cont.aining a st.artling paragraph on the Arian controversy. The issue: Wall beld 10 be a life Or de:ath principle in demllCfatic poliUCl ... The principle at ua.ke, politically, wu Democracy !!
"

tw:I no. t.r..n abl~ In bridge the gulf I>o:,w..,n the heavens and the earth . Now, if !I';. wu $0, they a'lu"" llui. ,uch a mtary I>o:ing wu bal ",pro:so:nt"" upon eanh by a ..,Utary Iyrant ... The Calholic philosopher> repli"" that the higb .. t form of uniry wbich could 1>0: conceived by us wu the coll..,ti~ uniry of the many and the one ... The Catholic democrat leiud upon the philosophic idea and
This spirited lrav.. ry wu an inlluential element in th~ camp;t.ign of Anglo-Ca.holic Socialists early in Ihi, century to .ummon patristic au.hori.y to their aid. From the hi.!tonan'. point of view, it is a, bal a wild oversimplification, but h did raise a perf..:tly ",nou. qu .. tion .bout the co"..,Ia.;on I>o:,,,,..,n dogma and poIilic. in the founh century' anyone bmiliar with E ... ebi .... ofCaeoarea 's writings to and fur Constantine would 1>0: bound to recognize that there wn. tho5<: with anti-Nicen~ sympathi.. who sa'" hierarchical ...,\ation 1>o:1~"" God and the Log ... extending down ..... rru through the omperorto the rest of creation. The ambiguoWl political implication! of strict mOl>Olheism in the Ia,e antique ",orld we..., to be ""plor"" \a.er in a Kminal •• udy by Erik Pete ......n, tnr M ....1IuiJ>Jw Q]s Polilisl:lws p,..1mo (19S.')), a work which conlinu.. to 1>0: dion, • ....d by palrologiSls and dogmatidan. in Germany, and which has "'CTci.Jed a considelllble influence 00 the thrology of J Urgen Molunann. But the allog"" 'democratic' implicationt ofNicene onhodoxy have t.r..n sharply chall.ngN by OthCT scholars. Samual Laeuchl; in 1968 altaclr.ed Banh', trinitariap theology for ill loyalty to the Nicme conf...ion, because that conf...ion not only . prings from but aclua.lly artkulat .. and legitimiz.. a totalitarian and monolithic "";,1 schema {I .hall return to this essay later; Ke below, n. 26 to the PostlCript):More ",cendy, the anthropologist Edmund Lnch, in a paper on 'Mdchi"""",",,h and th<: emperor' (d eliYa"" in 1972, published in 1983), bu a..gut
I",.,,, of" H"tJy inspires all the elect (pp. 75-7). The c.ondusion is that 'wihle hierarchy among deities goes wilh egalitarian politico among mm; i$olat<:d monolheism goes wilh hierarchical politico among men' (po 83). This ingenious variation on Pete,.."n', th~ is oupponed by a compla. argument from iconography, though it is historically as inaCC\lr.lte and imp,"uioni$tic at N~I's pie.ure. But hen: again, a significant question is raiKd: does lhe lubordination of Son I<> Father belong naturally wilh radicalsecurian styles of Christianity, and is Nicene orthodoxy thUI a betrayal of the millenarian detachment of the fim bdicven? This would need a long discwoion in ill own right; SOtm hints at my own response may be found in the POttscript I<> this book. For lhe present, it is enough I<> nole how Arianism can Ie",e as a 'radical other' to Catholic faith cven in the analyses of those not committed 10 that faith. Although in the fourth century the actual practice and organization of Nicen. and oon-Nicene churdles was virtually indistinguishable, it is very tempting '0 IUppose, with Leach, that anythinc that was 1001 the hi.rarcltical, legally-protected church of lhe empire mll.lt have bttn 'teCuria,,'; but this neat condu.ion is spoilt by the £aCt that Arianism itlelf wa.J interminently the imperial failh. Gramed aUthi., howcver, there is ..,mething 10 be said for the idea that the theology of Ariut hirnsdf may have had _ of the 'teCurian' resonan= L
7 Gwatkin'. cltatge that Arianism ruIQ OUt a proper account ofGod', relation with creatures aoo hu something of an 'afterlife' in G. L. Pr... ige's famous series of Bampl<>n Lectures, F.ulIns IINi Hmti&J (1940). The lecture on 'Athanuiut; or. the Unity of God' rtpeatl a number of familiar points - that Arianism is crypto-pagan, poly_ thei..e {pp. 68, 91}, rationalistic (po 8~), rendering true oalvatioo impossible (po 76); hut P .... tig •• preaching in th. fi .. t yearofwar (po 90), .nomptl 10 provide a more ckarly contemporary pe ... ptttive. Arlanism, by driving a wedge berw... n God and lhe world, encourages human beings 'to look for .u.lvation 10 snur<:es other than the Lord ofheaven and unit' (p. 91). It tit ... fOllen reliance on secular Ichem.. of welfare - the idcologi.. that have provoked the war-

or on degenerate fonns of ...,Ligious faith - vulgar Catholicism, with iu dependence on wnu and relics, or the 'polytheism' of (presumably) the kind of Calvinism 'that playt off tM di'< IJ"U. 10 itKlf, to have a critical and regulatiw: 1od..lOn. for iu; theology, :and to I><·.bl. to resist secular liuhion, Chru.ti.anity needed Ath.anuiUl and the Nia:n. f.o.ith . Gwatkin't critiqu. he..., acquires • w:ry ,lightly 'Banhian' tinge (OOt that P .... tig. was an admir.r of &nh!)i the scnae of where the Christian a:nlre i. inevitably modified and .harp.ned by the experi.na: of crim io public life, and the image of Arianism ,hifu accordingly _ towan:l.o the .pectre of the idoIatries engulfing Europe in blood.hed.

a The pou' >n! period hu I><en astonishingly f.rtile in Arius .cbolor· ship. N the beat of confessional and ideological conftias I>
w. .tand.

lmagu of /Z Hrruy defended by Simonetti in his major work of 1975 on the history of the Arian crisis in general, and in substantial reviews, in 1980 and 1983, of the works of other scholars. Few experts in the field have so consistently resisted premature schematization of the material. One other writer who has successfully done so is G. C. Stead. His discussion of the Platonic elements in Arius' thought (1964) remains an .authoritative guide (though there are areas where it can be supplemented from other sources), and a 1978 paper on Arius' TluJ/itJ is probably the most thorough and judicious study in English of the subject. Although its conclusions about the metre of the work have been effectively challenged (see below, p. 285), it does much to establish the relative usefulness and trustworthiness of different blocks of quotations from or paraphrases of the work in Athanasius' polemical writings. Stead's contribution to the understanding of the background of Nicaea's ow-Ianguage, in his magnum opus on DiuiN Substance (1977), should also be noted . One of the strengths of Stead's J978 paper is its refusal to follow the convention of ascribing a sort of religious or spiritual philistinism to Arius. The possibility that Arius was religiously serious, that he was genuinely concerned with salvation as well as with philosophy or cosmology, is, as we have seen, ignored by most earlier writers, except for Elliger, and is one of the most effective tools in the construction of'Arianism' as a merely parodic Christianity. Perhap5 the last work to insist on the total spiritual sterility and unreconstructed rationalism of Arius was Pollard's monograph of 1970; like this author's earlier articles it faithfully reproduces the Anti~hene­ Aristotelean-adoptionist portrait of the heresiarch. One such article provoked the well-known response of Maurice Wiles, ' In Defence of Arius' (1962), which, in addition to suggesting an A1exandrian background for Arius as an exegete, questions the assumption that Arius' position must be seen as 'unspiritual'. The fonner proposal, since it still takes Arius' literalism for granted was fairly decisively set aside by Simonetti in 1971 - in the sense that he sees no difficulty in making out Arius to have been well within the Origenian mainstream of A1exandrian exegesis. The Jailer point, reminding us that we do not have evidence sufficient to justiry the denial of an Arian soteriology, remains perfectly valid.

I7

9 BUI what son oflOU!rioLogy? Wiles conr....... himulf uncertain, bur various .rtemp.. at reconstruction have been offered. If Ariw is ..en as an ad<>ptionial, some of lbe difficulties may seem to be 10......0 - Christ bea>mes the exemplar of gn.a: - umlcd freedom ". the aeatun: _ but complications remain. C . MOnnicb, in an interelUng and rather ntglcctt:d paP" of 1950, pl"'JlO'ed • mo~ D"aneed venion, drawing attention to the tradition wr Mw had hem involved in the early daY" <>fib. Mditian oclUsm in AJenpdria, and lbw had JOme hislOl'y of inv
the LogQl ... active, motive powe, in the pas.ive flesh of J.'''s, with no admnnure of compromised, f""bl. human freedom (pp. 399--1<1+) , Th. differmce Mtw""" tIW and Apollinarianilom is that free will ;., .till involvM, but lilt free will of an "nfallco creature, the Logos. acraining immutability (.u.:.0ui4 and ~fJ4tMi4, like the Stoic sage) by eonai,te<>t choict- (pp. 406-7). Christ i.o the 'protOrype a1the divinized ereatu,.,,' (p. '1{17); b"t h~ i.o so ... on~ in whom """"" Iibtny i.o non-existmt, and the Huh is made the instrument of a tuperhUlnan will. ThUl h.e i.o not an '""emplat"' in a straightforward sense: the uutic, following Chrilt, has to lose the power of h"man choi"" in to~ tubminion '0 God (pp. 408- 10). Christ is not the: model of good moral beho.vio"r, b", the ligo of ww", can happen (divinizatiWl ) when there i.o a radical extirpation or "nfu] human will. The conllicl thw be.,.,m", One abou' the meant of ... lvation: Ariw l tand. for the path ofindividuo.l _eoi •• the Nicenes for 'the way of the church' . Heroism and ~ .tand "I'p",ed to ""ch omer, the 'pMumatic' and the ' catholic' models of discipleship. A..........iw.1Id hi. followeR naturally believe in ucc:ticism, bUI an asceticism pcaiblc ooly through the grace of Christ _ ... the Vi", Aotnii maul plain from the Ath·nuj." .ide (pp. 410 - 11). Ariw Ut h.".", .... Iber ... jn Ha .... dt'. pie'ure, the enemy of. true Reformed doctrine of grace, and Athanasiw the champion of NI. foIu. This ceru.inJy bringa IOteriology into d,e h",," of the debate, though it does 10 by some atraining of the evidence both Dfl Ariul'

ImtJgts

oJ 11

Hrrtl)

Melitian ante ced ents (and , inde ed, the natu re of the Mel itian schism) and on the cen tral ity of ascetic stru ggle and progress in Arius' view of Chr ist. However, it is a powerful argu men t, and succeeds in taki ng pro per acc oun t of the trad itio n that Arius den ied the existence ofa hum an soul in the saviour. Its influence is evident - and fully acknowledged - in the most recent atte mpt to con stru ct an Aria n 5Oteriology, the mon ogr aph by Rob ert Cre gg and Dennis Gro h on Early AridnUm (1981 ). Her e the alleged ado ptio nism of Arius is emp hasi zed very heavily: the Aria n Chr ist is conceived in Stoic term s as one who underg~ mor al adv anc eme nt (prokopiJ by a bett erm ent in his will (pp. 15- 24); his obedience is the prot otyp e for our own , the disposition that leads to ado ptio n as chil dren of God (pp. 28- 30). It is in this con text that we mus t und erst and Arian assertions abo ut the Logos' mutability: it is his solidarity with us in the process of choosing and growing in virt ue. Elected and ado pted as Son , this crea ture who adv anc ed by mor al excellence to God exemplified that walking ' in holiness and righteousness' which brings blessing on all chil dren of God who would do likewise . In this sense, and with this idea of salv atio n inte nde d, the Arians prea che d their C hrist and in that very prea chin g sum mon ed believers to hop e for and to striv e for equ ality with him. (p. 65) Mo nnic h's poin t abo ut the app eal of this to ascetics is taken up in a cha pter argu ing in detail that (as Mo nnic h implies ) the ViU! Antonjj ascribed to Ath ana sius deli bera tely sets out to 'cap ture ' Ant ony for the Nicene cam p, 'brin ging his heroics und er the control of this (Nicene] scheme of grac e' (p. 150) . A possible thre at to episcopal auth orit y from wha t Monnich calls the 'pne uma tic' win g of the Chu rch is thus neu tral ized . As the final cha pter of Gre gg and Gro h's book exp lains, the issues at stake are prac tica l and political: to opt for the model of an hero ic rede eme r divinized by virtuou s will is to opt for a Chu rch in which the tran smi ssio n of wisdom by a qualified teac her is cen tral (pp. 163 -4); to opt for the saviour' s imm utab le divi nity is to acce pt the fixed categories of episcopal orthodoxy. The vag arie s of indi vidu al wisdom and san ctity are not eno ugh to sust ain the Chu rch in the trau mat ic days of persecution, when ther e is cha nge and dec ay all arou nd, betr ayal and back sliding. The imm utab le Chr ist tran sfor min g our 1U1/lm, not our will

19

alooe, through u,., Qbjective ",cram ental life of u,., apootOOc Church -this is what the beli~ need. in-1rOUbled tim .. (pp. 181_2). Much empb.a.oi. is placed on the role Qf exegew in all this, .. pecialIy exegesis of Heb",WI, though n"t 100 much iJ made of 'litenlism'j the authors are wary, 100, of pnllulating 100 straightfor· ward. link with Paul of SamDlata (pp. 16S-a). But the hoo.lE stiU opther creatures, 'early' Ari.o.niam (,q Qpposed to whal has come to be caUcd 'neo-Arianism' in the middle of the fourth century) is not distinctive because of ill vQluntarism or adoptionism. Others, such .... S. G. Hall, noted somewhat .lanted intetp"'tationJ of Arius' Greel<. Eric Otbom, in a willy es"'y in 198.j. ('Arian Obedience: Scouting for Theologians') granted _ force t" u,., idea that the contro\"e.. y wu panly aboul gn.ce and ethics, but concluded thai, if Arianism w,q indeed a moralistic pietism of this sort, it 10 inimical to the gDlpd. 'Tb.i..o accounl ... might ""plain ill appeal to the imperial estahli,hme n l and 10 perennial piet.i.om, and is therefore worth noticing u we pus the KVenty·fifth anniversary of the Boy ScoUI movement' (po 506). Gregg and Groh'. view has already been influential in u,., writings of other patriotic schob... in the USA particularly, hut a full UlpotlSC 10 the quite damaging criticism of Simonetti and Qthers hu yet to appear. In this v."ion of the controve.. y, we see a furthcr tral1lmutatlon of the Ari.o.nism-as-Other theme, this time into the categories of inotitutiOlll and authority. MDnruch·, hinu about pneumatic and catholic ideals are developed into a contralt between a .transactional unive ..... ' in wruch categories of will, choice and relation determine the Ityle of Church life and a world of defined lubstanccs, divine and other, whose relationo are specified in authorized IIfer a one-sidedly 'modern' Ariu.!, or a dernoni~ed Athana.siuo. And in facl their roe... upon diffe",nccs in altitudes .0 authority may h..ve SOIDe mileage, '" l ohall argue in wha, follows. R. Lorenz'.

20

Images of Q Hmsy major monograpb of 1978, Arius jrukJi1;tmSJ sketched out (pp. 119-22) a picture of Arius as teaching a new version of (orthodox) Alexandrian gnDJis, the wisdom ofinspired saints. This suggestion has some connection with the book's other main contention, that Arius is presenting a residually but significandy Jewisb-Christian theology of the angelic, high-priestly mediator, given that Alexandrian psis has such close affinities with Hellenistic Jewish wisdom, though Lorenz perhaps overstates the likelihood of real links here. Origen's doctrine of the mediatorial, mutable but perfect, soul of Christ is, for Lorenz, the means whereby the tradition is passed on to Arius; but it is doubtful whether Origen's doctrine owes that much to Jewish infiuence. Simonetti, in 1980, . criticized many aspects of Lorenz's case, notably a certain lack of historical perspective (such as allows Lorenz to see Arius as synthesizing really radically opposed theological styles, Lucian's 'Origenism', so-called, with Paul of Samosata's adoptionism), and provoked a lengthy and heated rebuttal from Lorenz in 1982. However, the point!!! made about gnOsis, about Arius' closeness to - for example - Clement of Alexandria, should stand. They are further reinforced by an important and, i!l many respects, highly controversial paper by the Athanasian scholar Charles Kannengiesser, delivered in 1982, arguing that Arius is propounding a more autonomously 'scientific' hermeneutics than his opponents, a style more at home in a community of conscious intellectuals - that is, though Kannengiesser does not use the term, a psis. This is less vulnerable to the charge of simplistic polarization because it aUows for the fact that an Arius of such a kind would have stood in a long theological tradition in his own church. We are still in the business of identifying something of the spiritull1 impetus of Arius' teaching, in terms of what he wished to conserve against episcopal innovation; a great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and . his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition. In this connection, it is worth mentioning two more recent essays which go some way towards suggesting that the Nicene solution in certain respects blocked out some legitimate concerns of Christian devotion. Wiles and Gregg, writing in 1985 on Arius' supporter Asterius, or rather, on the homilies ascribed to him, conclude that Asterius (together, by implication, with others) wished to guarantee the idea of a divine

21

Uoviour who truly sbred the c:oo.ditiolU of a luffering humanitya gelluinely iMc_ redeemer. it. P. C. Hansoo, in the lame volume (a coIlectioB of papen on Arianism from the 1983 OxfMd P:auUW: Conkrente), agT«l, adducing IUbiWltial eWjence from latet' Arian litenllure: 'Arian thought achKvcd an important insight inlO the wiDless of the New Testament denied 10 the pro-Nia:nes nf the 4th century, who unanimously !hied away from and endeavoured 10 ""plain away the vandal of the Cr_' (p. 2(3). The parado>I iI, though, that this inlight is held at the high pria: of pOllluiating 'two unequal god,' ; only Nicaea can actually do ju.tio: 10 a doctrine that the Nicene FatMn would haw rejected - the self-.aailici"ll vulllerahility of God. A similar poim;' doquendy made in a hrief but scan:bing discussion by A. C. McCill in hil book, SM.fJni1v: A T..I ~f ~rW1 MdltH (I 982) . The God of M .... ",mains, al the end of the day, defined by his own self-lulliciency: the God of Athanuius all""" for the presence of dq>endency, even ' need' in the divine life, and 10 challenges any notion that God is walWIy unilatetal do!ninatic:". (pp. 70--8Z) . PoIarities again; but McCill', account is D<>t meant panicul;orly .. an hlslOrical lJIIe. It puu the unavoidabk questioa of ",hat the respective ochemes in the Ionjj: term make pouible fur theology; and the answer 10 that question, from a thwlogially aCUte historian of doctrine lite HanlOn , may indeed lead to the odd """du.ion ilia, tM Nicene &then achieved not only !nO"' than they. blew but a good deal more lban they wanled.

10 We have come a fair ",ay from the hanh polemic of Newman, though the shadow of AtianUm·u-Otber still haunu modern di5<:uaion. 1 do not think thu n«d paraly.., dfortl at interpretation, hnw<:ver. ' Arianilm' ....... that which 'Catholicism' rejected or IdI behind, and th ... is ....... usefulness in ..,eung 10 understand il in these amithetical terms: nearly all the ",adings I have mentioned contribute some real insight 10 the conunuing dilcuuion. Bu, a fundameotal q.... tion of method remains, which ...... y pethap$ be illuminated by a diu,,",;"n in another academie field. JoI>an .... fabian', hook, r ...... aJ Uu OIluT: How A,w,,,,JI'DIi>v M.ws ;u Obj«/ (1983), maiptains that western academic a nthropology woru with

!he implicit notion of a 'normative' time ill which the KhoJar lIand·, ;u oppoRd to !he distant or 'other' time in which the objecu of 'Io.>dy oUsl- they are, for aample, 'primitive', tbt is, are located in ow" lenns at • distant point ill our time-track, The problem of relation ...... wi!h penono and groups who are in 6act '~' wi!h US is thus awided : a self-com.ined object is ClUted for COnICmpbtlo:n (~eApecially !he remarks on the image ofBali, pp, 1:«_5) , and there can be no conl'rolltatlo:n that radio:aJJy cballengu !he observer, If Fabian is rigbt, the aeation and imp<>oition of 'rwnnative' tUne is a device for avoiding the reLativization of one'. own positiOIl (and thu. tbe p<>ooibility of change): because - .urely - Oil< past is decisively and undeniably IlOl where we DOW ltand, whal can be relegated In the palt i. not tn be listmed to KJioUJIy, Agailllt this, Fabian iUlertl: 'Tradition and mndernity are ttOt "oppoud" (except 5C'miotically) . , . What are Of'p".td ... are IlOl the same IOcietie. at different It ages of developmeru , but different societies facing each other at the same Time' (p, 155), ThiI lhould give the hiltorian of doctrine pause. '''Ananism'' ..... tbt which "Catholicism" rejected or lefl bebind', I wrnIC io the last pangraph. Trill:: but that can be Wen to mean thal there is a Jingle llOtlllative time ill which Cbristian thought develops, the 'time' of Catholic doctrine, for which variOUI deviations and erron are decioively past, Fabi.n'. poilll is that 'IWnnative time' confUKI .pati..al q;.liDclJICSl with ICmponJ: tribe X is dilta.nl from WI now, and SO is also dinanl from us in developmt:llw terms. What I am IUgge.ting is thoot the converse also bold" luch-and-tuch a beresy is an undeveloped, anuted, inadequaIC fann of belief, distanl in \emu from present ortbodoxy; so it is 'over against' WI IOIIW, an 'other' in re.pect ofprestllt doctrinal prioritie. , The diltonions this produces are lcos practically damagi.ng than the dfects of a pre-critical allthropology (the happy, if usually unconscious, ally of Eurocentric pnlitia and CCOIIOmLa), bUI they are serious enough. They encourage a .impfutic and conllict-f..,., acwunt both of the hiltory of Catholic onhodo.y and of iu present characler and r"'luiremenll; they fOoler that Ilerile dialogue of the deaf that p~ ill 10 much ]>t""ICllt di"' .... ion be .... n;D doctrina.l 'con",rvauveo' .nd 'liberals'. We ,.."nDOI, of CO"""" help Idling the ltory of doclrinal CDtlU'OV(rlY, in ruU awurneSll of the way in which the very I"orms of a history seen ao d«triMl history preuing towards the idea of a ROnnative time culminating in Ill) or .... prestnl, has

"oN}".-""

imponan! leuoru fOr .... Wc need to giv~ full W<'igh! to Ibe fact Ibal 'Ariatu' and. '(:,.Ibolia' we~ conducting a debate within a w-g.,ly common l.a.nguag~, acknowledging Ibe ume kind of rules aoo authorities. We need to Ott how 'Arian' and. 'Catholic' wen: coeval as CbNtiaJu engaged in !be definition of the very idea of normative faith, and. to Ott how diffu"" this IttuUle wu and (of\.~n) bow unclear ill boundaries (hence my in""rled commu for 'Arians' and. 'Ariani&m' ). We need to grasp bow deeply Ari ... ' agt"nda - and the nther diffen:n! COncc .... of mool of his folIow~~ - entered ;nto whal wu to be<:ome ~ in !he pr<>CelO of the contrOVe~y. And if thiJ can ID..,me ex"",1 ~ achieved, we ,han ~ clearer aboul whal in Our l upposedly Ilu.ighlforward doclrinal ' pratnl' ill owed, ncgati",,]y and positi""ly, to Ari .... Tbe dfon to unde~u.nd Ari ... and his foUowcn,1O far u pouihle in !beit own !emu, is besel with difficulties, .incc nearly all Our primary ma!erial is already fu<.ed in Ibe polarities I ha"" described. Neverthcles.o the allempl is l tiU wDllhwhilc: 10 follow Ihrough !be in ..... logie and probl~matic of Anus' lhoughl and lbal of Ibe laler ~Demies of Ni~ is to discover wbal it is !bal 'ortbodoo:y' b.a.I to Wc on and make ill owo _ to diocovcr !be ' Arian' probl~"",tic &I foI"rN.ti"" of whu we now uUer as Drthodox. The same could be said of olher early Chri,tian deviations: modem ICbolanb.ip has become increasingly aware of bow Ibe very vocabulary of orthodox Ibcology is lbaped by borrowing and reworking Ibe lemu and images of dw.idenl groups, Valentinian, Mesmian, Pclagian, ong.nisl. To unde~u.nd l uch prDCCIscs is to apcriencc orthodoxy as tOm.thing ,UU fUlure (10 ~come 'cocval' with the debale, al IOme level) ; which m..... Ibal a bristly undialectical rhetoric today of 'conserving' and 'defending' a clear deposil of failb may come less eu.ily to us. The long-Ierm credibility and IUltainability of Ibe Niccnc failh may have something 10 do with Ibe degree 10 which il Juce.edJ - usually more or I... unwiltingly - in lubsuming and even deepening the Christian concerns of the leachers il ""I Oul to condemn. A piclure of docuinal history along lhe"" lines il perhaps more colUlCuctive Utan a reilCration of imagined abaolule oppositions _ !be implication ~inl lbal, in any doctrinal conllict, the0logians are ""I likely 10 knnw wilh tolal clarity whal Ibe docuinal (and eoncn:le ccdesial) fOrms will ~ Ihal will IUCCeed in HlOI' comprdlensivdy hoI
Im4ges of tJ Hmsy stmuJi above the struggle; there is, ideally, a continuing conversation that mwt be exploratory and innovative even when it is also polemica1. Orthodoxy continues to be 1If4lk. 'Loyalty' to how the Church has defined its nottnll must contain a clear awareness of the slow and often ambivalent nature of the processes of definition if we are to avoid supposing that the history of doctrine is not really history at a:ll and that contemporary 'right belief' has no connection with or conditioning by a specific past and present. That this need not involve a wholly re1ativilll view of doctrinal truth will, I hope, be clear in what follows, and is made more explicit in the Postscript. But what . the articulation of doctrinal truth conc~ly is can be · traced only through the detailed reworking and re-oimagining of its formative conflicts. That, surely, is the stricdy tIzeowgiui point of studying the history of doctrine.

25

Part I

Arius and the Nicene Crisis

A

Arius before Arianism

I ORIGINS

Epiphanius tells us' that Arius was born in Libya: and a number of other small pieces of evidence tend to bear this out. Arius' two most consistent episcopaJ supporters in later years were Secundul and Theonas,2 biJhops respectively ofPtolcmais (or 'the Pcntapolis', in some texts)S and Mannarica: Ptolemais was the chief city of western or 'upper' Libya, the older eyrenaica, whose five major coastal setdements gave the district its familiar name of the Pentapolis; Marmarica or 'lower Libya' (sometimes Libya si«a) was the desert area between Cyrenaica and the fow Akxtmt/rilu, the border of the urban area of Alexandria at the western end of the Mareotis. 4 Diocletian's reorganization of the empire established the distinction betwttn the 'two Libya' as a matter of nomenclature but there is no secure evidence as to whether this was also an -administrative diviJion. Whatever the truth of this, it sounds as though Secundus and Theonas may have been effectively metropolitans of the Libyan districts;' and when Philostorgius, the Arian historian, lists other bishops sympathetic to Arius,6 the lint four are from some of the other cities in the Pentapolis. In fact, we know of no Libyan bishops opposing Arius; given a certain amount of Libyan resistance to the claims of the Alexandrian see over its western neighboun,' it would not be surprising if a Libyan cleric in trouble with the bishop of Alexandria commanded more or less unanimous support from his homeland. The same picture is suggested in a letter from the Emperor Constantine to Arius, written around 333,B Arius had been given permission to return from exile to his 'native territory' (unspecified) in 327 or 328,'1 and Constantine writes as though Arius is cullently in Libya. Evidently Anus is enjoying widespread popular support,

29

since Constantine shows signs of panic at the idea of a schism. A little earlier (331 or 332), we find Athanasiw visiting Libya,IO and the emperor's letter clearly suggests that it was becoming a very troubled area from the point of view of the Alexandrian see. Once again, the whole pattern makes excellent sense in terms of partisanship for a local celebrity against intrusive foreign prelates. If Epiphanius is to be relied on as regards Arius' place of birth, is he wo to be trusted when he describes Arius as an 'old man', gtrOrl, at the time of the outbreak ofthe controversy?ll Here we have no collateraJ evidence, though Constantine's letter of 333 contains a passage l2 describing, in most insulting fasion, Arius' wasted and lifeless appearance - a passage which certainly fits a man welladvanced in years. The widespread consensus that puts Arius' birth in the 250s ls has no definite foundation in the texts of the fourth and fifth centuries, but it s~ms safe to assume that he was not a young man when the crisis broke. If he was ordained presbyter by Bishop Achillas, as several sources c1aim,14 and if the Nicene regulations about the minimum canonical age for such ordinations reflect earlier practice, he was at least thirty in 313. All in all, a date for Arius' binh some time before 280 is most likely; assuming that Epiphanius has an authentic tradition behind what he writes, we can probably push this date rather further back, but without any hope of cenainty. The only clue we have as to Arius' education is the single word .nJl~t4, which occurs in his letter to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia. appealing for help in the first years of the controversy. Historians have generally taken 'fellow-Lucianist' pretty literally, and assumed a period of study with the martyr Lucian of Antioch. Ever since Newman,l~ this has produced some very questionable reconstructions of Arius' intellectual background;16 but in fact - yet again - we can be certain of very little. Lucian's own theology has to be reconstructed from hints and allusions {and there is also a credal statement used by t}le synod of Antioch in 341 which wu alleged to have originated with Lucian);l1 he cannot be taken as representative of an Antiochene 'school' of theology or exegesis (he taught in Nicomedia for some of his car~r at leut) ;11 and it is in any case not clear that we should assume from the one word in Arius' letter that he had actually been Lucian's student. WallaceHadrill notes l9 that Arius is not named by Philostorgius in his lists 20 of Lucian's pupils, and supposes that the Lucianists fanned a

30

Anus before A nanism coherent political and theological grouping quite independently of Arius. Certainly, if Philostorgius is to be believed, there were real theological divergences between this group and A.rius,21 and the later 'neo-Arians':n of the mid·cemury traced their theological ancestry back to the Lucianists rather than Arius. This is not entirely conclusive: Philostorgius is not by any means a reliable source, and we need not, in any case, assume that he ever means to give a full list of Lucian's pupils. But the anti·Nicene theological tradition evidently preserved the memory of a certain distance between Arius and some of his allies; it cannot be taken for granted that Arius was a 'disciple of Lucian in the sense that others such as Eusebius of Nicomedia claimed to be, even if he had attended lectures by the martyr. ' Fellow·Lucianist' may be no more than a captaUo belllvolmtiae - laying claim to common ~ .... ;'nd with potential supporters; or it may rest on the fact that Arius W studied. in Antioch or Nicomedia, with Lucian. It is very doubtful whether it tells us much about what lies behind Arius' utte.-ances in terms of theological formation. Likewise, although he is described as a skilled dialectician,23 we cannot with confidence reconstruct a philosophical education. If he was (as has been arguedp · indebted to certain currents in revived Aristotelianism and Iamblichus' version of Neoplatonism, he could have encountered such teaching in Syria around 300, when Iamblichus himself was teaching at Antioch and Apamea.2~ lamblichus' teacher Anatolius was probablr. the Alexandrian Christian Aristot· dian described with some veneration by Eusebius;26 he ended his life (we do not know exactly when, but probably in the 2705) as bishop of Laodicaea, and seems to have been caught up at some point in the struggle against Paul of Samosata. A tempting candidate for the role of Anus' mentor he is still regrettably a shadowy figure: no evidence connects him directly with the heresiarch, and we should have to push the date of Arius' birth a good way ba.ck into the 250s to make any personal contact possible. Links with Anatolius and his celebrated pagan pupil, a period of studying philosophy in Syr;a - these are intriguing possibilities, but no more. Whatever the nature and extent of his putative earlier travels, the Arius who at last emerges into clear historical light at the end of the second decade of the fourth century is fimlly anchored in Alexandria, presbyter of an important church and a popular

31

Amu rmd tJu Niarw Crisis preacher with a reputation for asceticism. Epiphanius' penportrait27 is worth reproducing: He was very tall in stature,:" with downcast countenance29 counterfeited like a guileful serpent, and well able to deceive any unsuspecting heart through its cleverly designed appearance. For he was aJways garbed in a short cloak (himiphoriMa) and sleeveless tunic (blobiDJI); he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive and flattering. The sleeveless tunic is reminiscent of the txomis worn both by philosophers and by ascetics: PhiJo'O mentions that the contemplative Therapeutae of his day were dressed thus. Arius' costume would have identified him easily as a teacher of the way of salvation - a guru, we might almost say. It is not surprising that Epiphanius ilio notes 3L that he had the care of seventy women living a life of ascedc seclusion, presumably attached to his church. What we do not know is precisely how long Arius had occupied this infiuentiaJ post; as already noted, he is said to have been ordained by Achillaa, and, according to Theodoret,S2 Achillas' successor Alexander gave him authority to 'expound the Scriptures in church'. So we can perhaps trace Arius' public career baclr. as far as 313, and assume that, for most of this dec::ade, he ministered at the church which Epiphanius calls 'Baucalis'33 - a respected cleric of some seniority, with a high reputation as a spiritual director. Before 313, nothing is clear; however, one story surfaces in the middle of the fifth century which has been widely believed, and, before going any further, it is necessary to look briefly at this. It is the allegation made by Sozomen54 that Arius was involved in the most serious internal disruption of Egyptian church life prior to the controversy over his own teaching: the schism initiated in 306 by Melitius, bisbop of Lycopolis.

2 THE TROUBLES OF THE ALEXANDRlAN CHURCH I: THE MELITlAN SCHISM

In February 303, Diocletian initiated what was to prove the most serious and sustained persecution the Christian Church had so far endured. In the eastern part of the empire and in Africa, martyrdom

32

bttame common; though in the West, Diodetian', coUeague Mu;mian and Maximian'. juniOoT coadjutOor Cons~cins, father of Con5!anline, did vinualJy nothing to further the pencculiQn in Iheir territories." When, in So.'>, DiQdelian abdicated in fav"ur "f hi, fanatically anti-ChriJlian ..,cond_in·command, the wesar Galeriw, the , ituati"n in the Eut deteriQrated funher from the Church'. puint Qf view. Galeriu,' prut or eady in 306. fQur Egyptian bishQP" He.yehiu., PachQmiu., TbeodQm> and Phile.. , wrote from prison to their conrme, the newly· appointed bishQP Qf Lycopoli. (ApoIlQniw' succcollOr)," tOo complain that he had entered their dioceses and performed ordinatiQns, contrary to ntabli.hed law and CUstQm. If he . hould argue in hi. defence that there i. a grave pastQral need IQ be met, thi. is far from the truth' there i. no .hortage of authorized vi.iton (n_......... It. It ~ImW ';';14 .. ) - and, in ~ny case, it is fOT the people of the diocese them..,lves to make representations to their bishops if they think they are being neglectod _The ..,le circumstance in which such behaviQur might be pennined would be if the biohop ofLycopoli. had received a direct cnmmllsiQn from the bishQP Qf Alexandria;" and this would only be possible in the event Qf a dioceun'. dealh and a subsequent interregnum. Melitius Qf Lycopolis has not consul'ed with the imprisoned bishQPs, nor, it appears, has he r.ferred the alleged pmblems of the Qrphaned dioc...,. to Peter of Alexandria: he has Qrdained u",uitable and factious penoru (for

Arius 41ld tIu NiuItt CrisiJ how could a peri pate tic bish op judg e the suit abil ity of can dida tes in an unfa mili ar diocese?), and cau sed grave divisions in the churches. Pete r, we gath er, was abse nt from Ale xan dria , in flight or in hiding; late r legend d has him travelling bey ond the imperial frontier in Mes opo tam ia, and spen ding long peri ods in Syria, Palestine and 'the isla nds ' (Cy prus ?), but the imp lica tion s of the bish ops ' lette r are that he can be reac hed with out too muc h difficulty. At this part icul ar poin t, any way , he is mos t unlikely to have been outs ide Egy pt. Thi s is reinforced by the frag men t of narr ativ e that follows the bish ops ' lette r in the codex (from the Cha pter Lib rary at Ver ona ) which preserves the text : After he had received and read this lette r, he [Melitius) did not reply nor did he visit them in pris on, nor did he go to blessed Pete r: but whe n all these bishops, pres byte rs and d eacons had heen mar tyre d in the prison in Ale xan dria ,·' he immediately ente red Ale xan dria . The re was a man call ed Isidore in the city, a regu lar trou blem ake r, eag er to be it teac her [or: eag er to run his own faction] ;" and also a cert ain Ariu s, who had an outw ard app eara nce of piety, and he too was eag er to be a teacher. Wh en they had discovered wha t Mel itius wan ted and wha t it WaJ that he requ ired , they lost no time in join ing up with him (being envious of the auth orit y of blessed Pete r); and - with the result that Mel itius ' aims bec ame publicly known - they poin ted out to him whe re the pres byte rs to whom blessed Pete r had dele gate d the powt:r to visit the dist ricts of Ale xan dria were in hiding. Mel itius notified them [sc. the pres byte rs) of a charge against them ,U exc omm unic ated them,46 and him self orda ined two pe{SOns, one to work in prison, the othe r to work in the mi.nes. 47

It seems as -thou gh the com plai nt is that the episcopal dep utie s are not doin g thei r job: Isid ore and Arius are able to tell Melitius that the 'visitors ' .themselves havt: gone into hidi ng, givi ng Melitius an oa:4Sio for susp end ing them . The ordi nati ons can not have followed immediately: Egy ptia n Chr istia ns were first tran spo rted to the Palesti nian mines in 307 or 308 , so at leas t ont: of Melitius ' new pres byte rs is unlikely to hav e received his orde rs in 306. Thi s pres upp oses that Mel itiu s stay ed in Ale xan dria for several years as we sho uld ded uce from the letter of Pete r to his flock which imm edia tely follows this narr ativ e frag men t in our collection. Pete r 34

Arius before Ariallism writ~s

as if M~litius is still in the city, baving ordained a number of 'prison chaplains' and brok~n communion with P~ter' s own del~gates.411 If this reading is right, Melitius saw a pastoral need not only in th~ dioceses of th~ Nil~ Delta in gen~ral, but among ~e prisoners in particular, and was concerned that there. should be those among th~ presbyters whos~ main job it was to minister ' to th~m - which would fit with the remark in the passage quoted about his activities following OD a general slaughter of th~ cl~rgy who happen~d to b~ a1r~ady in custody.49 It may be alsl? that b~ regarded som~ of th~ clergy l~ft in the prisons as, for some reason; disqualified from administering the sacraments. This raises the question of whether there is any truth in Epiphanius' version of th~ schism (probably derived from Me1itian ·sources) ,Xl in which the real issue between Peter and Melitius (who is described as it. kind of archbishop. second in rank to Peter) is the ~atment of those who lapsed under pers«:ution. Meliuus . . is represented as objecting to P~ter's canons on this matter, during a period when both bishops were in prison tog~ther. Since the canons we possess 51 date from Easter 306, when Melitius was almost certainly at liberty and P~ter was probably in hiding or abroad, Epiphanius' circumstantial tale cannot be true as it stands. Lat~r Melitians, who c~rtain1y described themselves as 'the church of the martyrs' , )l may have thought it in their interest to depict the schism as a dispute of the familiar kind about penitential rigorum in the Church. P~ter's canons are fairly lenient, though hardly scandalously so, and their publication may have offended Melitius, and removed any remaining scruples he may have had about usurping the bishop's office in Alexandria: it would not be surprising if.he were a rigorist, especially in the light of his predecessor's apostasy at Lycopolis." However, we can be confident that this was not the main cause of the schism, since it is perfectly clear that Melitius was active before the spring of 306. A dispute over the canons sounds like an ex post facto justification for his behaviour. Nor is it even dear that Melitius himself w'!s ever in prison in Egypt.!>4 If we largely discount Epiphanius, and translate the nGtoriously difficult ill eareere et in mttallQ of the Verona text as I have suggested, and not as implying that Melitius is himself in custody, we are left with a straightforward picture of Me~irius as an episcopus vagans taking full advantage of the disorder of the Church in the Delta between 306 and 31t to establish a finnly-rooted rival jurisdiction,

35

An... IlsuII1I. Nk_ Crisis

unhamper"" by the aUontio"" of Ihe penccUI,,". P.,.r'. con«m, ... shown;n his lm ... '0 Alexandria, i. ra. more int.Uigible if Meliliu. is .uppc.ed 10 be at large in the iklll. for a sUMIaQ,;al period than if he is coruIuCling on:!inatio"" from hi. own cell (let alone in Ihe di.laQt Phaeno min .. ). And Athan ...;u.' rather ab.un:! accusation" thu Melitius had been depoMia. •• and

Anus befort Arianism Serdica, and finally found its way into the rather disparate collection of canonical and narrative pieces preserved in the celebrated Verona Codex LX. Specifically, the attempt has been made to show that this book in its full form was the source for the additional detail in the Latin passio about Arius' Melitian phase, since the translator does not mention Sozomen as a source, and none of the other recognizable supplementary sources named carries an adequately complete version of the story: the one otherwise unidentifiable source, a Latin lihtllus containing much material on Athanasius, would then have been the Jubilee Book itself, in a rather fuller Latin version than that surviving in the Verona ~ex. And if all this is granted, momen's story is independently confirmed, and the identification of the Melitian Arius with the Arius of the later controversy becomes overwhelmingly probable. This ingenious case must, unfortunately, be regarded as far from proven. We simply do not know how much more narrative the 'Jubilee Book' contained, but we do know that the letter of Peter excommunicating Melitius followed immediately on the narrative section mentioning Arius; there is no room for a reconciliation with Peter and a later breach when the bishop rules against Melitius. There may have been further documents confirming the excommunication and rejecting the validity of Melitian baptism, but this is pure speculation. In fact there are no elements in the Latin JHlSsio that could not have come from Sozomen: the redactor obviously knew of Sozomen's low reputation as an historian,62 and may have been reluctant to mention him for this reason. So, although it is highly probable that the libellus used by the Latin translator was indeed the Jubilee Book, we cannot confidently assert that it provided him with a full and circumstantial account of Arius' schismatic adventures, independently corroborating Sozomen. We cannot even know for sure that the translator had any more of the Jubilee Book before him than we have, as no other identifiable fragments survive,63 though one or two details 64 do· suggest that he may have been familiar with documents not preserved in the Verona codex. The identification thus rests solely on Sozomen's authority; and it must confront the monumental objection that no writer before Sozomen 50 much as hints at it. Alexander of Alexandria 63 angrily describes Arius' arrogantly divisive behaviour without adding that it is not the first time this has been in evidence; Athanasius 66

37

Anus and tJu Nimu Crisis describes th~ obstinacy of th~ Melitians and their tactical alliance with th~ anti-Nic~n~ party without any suggestion that this was what might hav~ be~n expected in th~ light of th~ ~arli~r hinory of M~litius and Arius; Epipbanius too'l has an account of th~ ArianM~litian rapproch~m~nt aft~r Nica~a, but the only previous link that h~ m~ntions is a tradition61 that Melitius was th~ fint to d~nounc~ Arius' h~r~sy to Alexand~r (some" hav~ seen in this M~litius' delayed r~v~ng~ for Anus' des~rtion ). It is hard to believ~ that any ofthes~ could hav~ r~frained from m~ntioning a conn~ction pot~ntially discreditabl~ to both groups of adv~nari~s; and A1~x­ and~r and Athanasius at l~ast w~re in th~ best pos5ible position to know Arius' record. It is just conceivabl~ that the A1exandrian bishops fail to mention this becaus~ of ~mbarrassment at the stance on Melitian baptism allegedly tak~n by Pet~r: Arius' objections would have been vindicated by the Nicen~ canons, which prescribe rebaptism only for unequivocal heretics (followen of the ' unitarian' theology of Paul of Samosata). 70 And, as far as we can tell, the position of the great Dionysius of Alexandria in the mid-third century was inimical to a unifonnly rigorist policy towards baptism outside the Catholic fold .1l Batiffollong ago pointed out" that Sozomen's story was not particularly creditable to P~ter in the light of subsequent practice and policy; and it would certainly be a striking fact ifhe so dramatically rejected the views of the greatest and most authoritative of his predecesson. However, Athanasius and Alexander would not have needed to go into details: the mere fact that Arius' past had been ecclesiastically murky would have sufficed. Interestingly, the Latin redactor of the possio omits all mention of a controv~ny ov~r baptism, and has Arius simply objecting to the excommunication of Melitius' party: why could not a fourth-century writer have heen similarly selective? In fact, no source other than Sozomen (once again) suggests that the validity of Melitian baptism was ever at issue; had it heen, we should expect the Nicene canons to pronounce on it, as they do on Novatianist and Paulinian baptisms and Melitian ordinations. n 11 begins to look as though this detail of the story at least derives from quarters eager to discredit Peter and whitewash the memory of Anus. Sozomen is heavily d~pendent in this section ofhis history on the Arian chronicler Sabinus of Heraclea,1:Labout whose reliability Socrates has some hard thiqgs to say;l~ it seems highly probable

38

Anus bifim A nanism

that Sabinus is the ultimate source of the identification of the two Arii. Sabinus was writing in the 3705: he is likdy to have known the Jubilee Book and it is indeed quite possible7' that he composed his Synodikon as a counterblast to the Athanasian anthology which was beginning to circulate in the eastern Mediterranean. If we assume that he knew Arius to have been a deacon under Peter, the mention of a schismatic lay Arius 77 in Peter's reign would suggest a rupture of some kind: Arius must have been reconciled with Peter before his ordination. The further refinement of a subsequent break and reconciliation, culminating in presbyteral ordination by Achillas is a bit more puzzling. It may be pure invention; but, at the risk of over-ingenuity, we might perhaps imagine a funher letter or letters from Peter in the Jubilee Book78 immediately preceding some notice of his martyrdom, which, like Alexander's encyclicals against Arius, carried a list of those excommunicated along with their ringleader - a list including the name of Anus quidtI.m. Add. to this a (Melitian?) tradition that Peter had at some point rejected Melitian baptism, and you have all the materials for a story that from an Arian or Melitian point o( view - is flattering to Arius and unflattering to his bishop: Arius appears as the defender of genuine Catholic and Alexandrian tradition. . The coincidence of two troublesome churchmen , named Arius in Alexandria during the same period is .hardly greater than the fact that Arius (the heretic) had an associate of the same name. 79 But for Sabinus, the identification must have seemed irresistibly obvious: and at a time when Arians and Melitians were allies, the picture of an Arius supporting Melitius against Peter would serve a useful politica1 purpose. The Catholic historian Socrates ignores .this story, rerognizing that, as Sabinus tells it, it is a rather double·edged weapon; the less intelligent Sczomen seizes upon it to discredit Arius. The rather confused tradition of Peter's excommunication of Arius then finds its way into the Greek pasJio; and, finally, the author of the Latin version makes an impressive attempt to reronstruct a full narrative. He uses Theophanes and Cassiodorus to correct some chronological and other errors in the Greek, and finds in themBO the outline of the tradilion of Arius' Melitian episode; he turns to the Jubilee Book (if this is indeed his libtllus) for further information about Melitian origins (he knows the letter of the imprisoned bishops to Melitius, and, apparently, one or more letters from Peter to them) ;81 and at last, perhaps aware of the same

39

Anus and the Niunt Crisis

puzzles that Sabinus faced (Arius is ordained by Peter, yet appears as a layman, both in 306 or thereabouts, and in a list of excommunicates in 311), he checks Cassiodorus against his sources and comes up with Sozomen's story, which he proceeds to reproduce in splendidly vivid and dramatic form . So the Melitian Arius, beloved of several modem scholars,l'l appears to melt away under close investigation. The only thing emerging from this jumble of unreliable tradition that looks at all like a fact is the assertion that Anus was ordained deacon by Peter: if this was recognized as well-established recollection in the fourth century, it would explain a good deal of what I have proposed as the later development of the story. Probably we can also take it that Arius was indeed ordained presbyter by Achiilas,13 as all the historians agree in describing him as already a presbyter on the succession of Alexander. Two texts record one final piece of tradition about Arius prior to the outbreak of the controversy: TheodoretlM and Philostorgius u state that he was a candidate in the episcopal election of 313. According to Theodoret, Arius' defeat by Alexander was a contributory factor in his later delinquencies; according to Philostorgius, Alexander owed his victory to the fact that Arius was prepared to transfer to his rival the votes that had been cast for himself. In literary terms, these narratives are independent; both are nakedly propagandist versions of a tradition, which, however, neither of them is likely to have invented ex nihilo. Disappointed ambition as a stimulus for heresy is a theme found elsewhere (Tertullian ll6 tells a similar tale about the Gnostic Valentinus); but, as with the- Melitius story, we should expect Alexander or Athanasius to make some capital out of such a fact. And if Philostorgius' version is true, might nOt Adus himself or his allies have had a word to say about Alexander's ingratitude, in their protests about the bishop's treatment of the heresiarch? It seems most likely that a 'disappointed ambition' story grew up in Catholic circles as part of a conventional explanation for Arius' behaviour, and that Philoslorgius, nOt confident enough to ignore this, attempted to rewrite the record in Arius' favour. However, it is not clear that we can be absolutely certain that all this is pure legend: our sources agree in representing Arius as an extremely popular figure a few years later, and it can hardly be thought impossible that he should be thought suitable for episcopal election. We are left with yet another of those

~nWizjng

pouibiliti.. bovcring on the margin of wbat we can leCuroly know of Anus.

3 THE TROUBLES OP THE ALEXANDRlA1I CHURCH BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS

n:

The church of which Alexander beame bilhop in 313 does not ",.m .0 !la"" been a particularly harmonic ... body. In addition to th. M.litian problem, th.re ~re evidently difficultin with an ultrauaric group aslOciated with a certain Hieracu (or Hie"",) of LcontOpoiis:"' Hieracas q"enillned tm: .... u......:tion of the body, beld that Christians ,hould practise: celibacy, and also denied that bapu.ed childr.n would !law an opportunity of entering heaven if they died in infancy, as they had done IIOthillj! to deserve ulvatiou. His lU"allj!e v;"ws on the Holy Spirit ate rt(:Orded by ·Epiphaniw,and Ariu, lis" him- among the trimtarian heretict wboK views he r"pudiat ... One further, rather intriguing, fact mentioned by Epipham ..." i. that meracas was fluent in Copti. as well as Gred<, and wrote exterui""ly for a non-Grttk 'peWng public: a point which IIhouId lead us to tread very carefully in attempting to I:Ol"TClate schism or heresy with ethnic tensions."' Hieracas has some alliniti.. with Origen, as Epiphanius no{es, 10 that a deep gulf at this date between sophistica.ed Greek-.pc.aking lpecubcive!hinkn and .imple Coptic faithful i. unlilr.eiy." How ",rious a ihuat the 'Hieradlt' mov<:ment was to the Egyptian church we cannot .dl: the dearth of fourth-century rooence IUIIII"" that il was a small and localized group, which probably never 'pread beyond the Ddta. I" in •• ...,.t is in the .vidence il provid.. , not only rnt theological bilinguali.y, but aloo ror the IUrviv.ol, in d",. proximity 10 normative Catholic
the difficulties Alexander faced in Alexandria itself. The bishop of Alexandria occupied at this dat~ wb.a.t may !IeCTII a highly para~ca.l position in the Egyptian church: On the one hand - as OUr evidence has alrudy hinted - he more closely resembled an archbishop or even a patriarch than any other prelate in Chrimndom. The I<,t.. of the rour imprifoned bishops to Melitiu. s""ab of Pe .. r u something"",", th.an a mere senior confrtrf,: the plain implication or the t"","" ;' . that he has the right to appoint '((Imminari.,.' in vacan' oees; and there is a fair amount of evidence'" that h. nonnaLly mnsecra,ed other Egyptian bishops, and perhaps even nominated them. A,leu, from the time of Oi",,_ y.il.."" he was add .... -ed as JlGJIG, and other bishopo in Egyp' refer to him ;u their 'fa'her'." On th~ other hand, within Alexandria ilUlf the bishop was IUI"TOUnded by powerful and independent prnby,. ..., su""rvising their own congrqa.tions: thcu;, already something like a 'parocbial' 'Y'tcm, with the bishop u pruiden' of a college of ncar-equab. DionY'iul ,till writes" 10 his 'felLow prahyten' in the mid-third cm'ury. A rather ((Infused tradition long survived thu, until the acceuion of Athanuiw in 328, the bishop wat ~\ed by the Alnandrian pruby":n.1 college and no, by any other bishop; and although the evidence ;1 unclear, ,,,ch a p,*",icc: would by nn mean • .be surprising.'''' DeJpi,e his unique powers in the telt of Egypt, thc Alnandrian pope remained, in his own city, I J1ri-I ilIkr JIG''', W. have no evidence as to the origins or the 'pamcb.ial' I}'JI~m in A/foxandrU., although r~ in E.... biU$'.' 10 the 'ch .. rch ..' and 14roikiili (which mou commonly meana 'dio«sa') or Alo:undril go bad to the early third century. Tbe city was, in any cue, split into five districts,'" with very dear physical dividing lin..;'O> and it is possible that Ihis enmuraged a pl .. rality in Cbristian leadership from an early da'e. However, thc nam .. wc pos.... of the varioUI Alexandrian church« do not euily fil into th~ geography of the .. parate .e<:"'rs, and the distribution of prabytcn and church.. was probably more haphuan:l. Epiphaniu. tdb UI'" tha.t AI"""ndria had an unwually large n.. mber of ehurchea in his day, in addition to tile .piKopal basilica, ,he Kalsareion, "" and gives the names of nine - the churchel of Oi""ysiuJ, Tbconu, PieriuI, Scrapion, P~rsaea, Dizya, the Mendidion, Annianw and Bauca.lis - adding that lhis i. Dol a ((Implete till. The later p.sJi4 of Peter refers'''" to a . brine on the ,ite of SI Mark's manyrdom in the

ArilLf before Arianism 'Boukolia' district, eastward of the new harbour aua which extended beyond the mole leading out to the Pharos, probably near the north-eastern neclopolis; this may be identical with Epiphanius' 'Baucalis'.IOl We also hear in the passio lO8 ofa church dedicated to the ' Mother of God built by Peter, somewhere in the region of the western necropolis. Athanasius n:fers 109 to a church called Kyriou or, more likely, Kyrinou - but gives no clue as to its whereabouts, or its date or origin. The great church of St Michael, on the edge of the Jewish quarter, had b~ a temple of Saturn; we are told" O thal it was turned over to Christian use during the episcopate of Alexander (probably only after 324). Most other churches of which anything is known an: substantiaJly later in date. Epiphanius' 'Mendidion' is an anachronism in a list of early fourthcentury churches: Athanasius consecrated this new church in the old forum area in August 370, II1 to relieve the long-felt overcrowding in the older church of Dionysius nearby.112 The church ofTheonas may originally have been built by the bishop whom it commemorates, but was certainly n:built (again to n:lieve overcrowding) by A1exander:" 3 it seems to have been in regular use for larger gatherings before the building of the Mendidion and the coDversion of the former temple of Augustus, the Kaisareion, into a basilica. lit It was known as the church of the Mother of God by the sixth century,m and may be identical with the shrine mentioned in the passio of Peter: the statement that he built it need not be taken too strictly (he may have extended or adapted an existing building; or the assertion may be purely legendary). If, as the pasno indicates, Peter was buried near this site, this would help to explain the importance ofthe church under Peter's successors; its enlargement by Alexander may have been connected with an attempt to establish it as a pilgrimage centre, a shrine for the 'crown' of the Egyptian martyrs. ll6 Earlier bishops had been buried near the marryrium of Mark on the other side of the city. 111 If the identification of Boukolia with Baucalis is correct, Arius could have been custodian of the relics of Alexandria's protomartyr and patron; a fact which would, no doubt, further have complicated his relations with the bishop and reinforced his prestige in the local church. But this is very uncertain: we have no firm infonnation about the origins of the cult of St Mark in Alexandria, and the whole legend and cultus may date from after 300. 118 What is perhaps more likely is that the Boukolia church began as an oratory in or near what had become

43

ArillS QIIII tM NiuM CriJis

a mainly CIlri.ti.." area of the eastern necropolis; there i. no particular reason to doubl thal a number ofbiahopo We'" buried al this lile, and the church would thus $tilI bave been a place ofoome l igni6".nce. The ulhu I11I"PQ in Epipha.nius IIOUnd like house-churcbes. 'Annianu.' iJ probably the lame a l the Annianus mentioned by Euseblus'" "" Mark's successor: if a house-church identified by this name w,," known to be the "Id .... t o:ontinuDllldy used "ratory in the city, this migbt have been the source of a traditiDO that the first '.uh-al""tolic' hi.hop w"" caUed Annianus. Of 'Serapion',''''' 'Pen.aea', and 'Dh:ya', we know nothing at aU. 'Pierius' i. an interesting case: almost cenainly, il w"" the meeting_place ru a congregation led by the PieriUl who w... head of the cateeb.tical ,cb""l in the lale third century.'" The", is r""-'DO I" belleve'" that be apoS(atiud under p.,..ecutinn; yet he appears ... a saint and martyr in later tradition.'" It has been plausibly luggtsted'" that tbe exlJtence of a church under hi. name funered the mistaken belief that be was a martyr rornmem<>rated by the buUding. The plurality of church.. in Alexandria. .uU....1I thal the beginningo ru Chriotianity in the city were piecemeal and variow - no .ingle primitive congregation under ill Catholic bi,bop. This picture is reinforced hy such evidence "" we baw: of the prevalence in and around the city of gn ...Uc infIuenCCl and the .".....;v.l in 'respectable' circlts ru extracanonical literature."" The 'catho]jci.ing' ru the cbnrcb was evidently weU under way by the end of Ikmetrius' episcopate (233),'" but the .urvival of numerous iPdependent congregationo evidently continued to pose prohlems. The .... igning ofregularly "rdained p"",byten to tbe local congregations probably gOes bad: to the time ru Demetrius, ,n and may have been an attempt to =""t a rather fragile unity between the pIffl'a;,.i. But the evenll of the catly fourth century show the iPadequacies and rlsb ofthia ")'3lem. The pr.. hyten - ... ha. been noted - we", Dot docile dioceun cl"'gy but members ofa eollegia~ body. It is DOt entiuly sutprioiPg that we . bould come """'" di'put .. between bi.hop and presbyters over the ",.pective limiu of their authority. Problems were no doubt intewified by the after-effecu of per"lecutinn. We hne leen lbal Bishop Peter'. Bight from the city and !he impotence or incompetence ofbU; prnbyteral oommissari.. "",ated a vacuum which Mclitius w,," only too eagcr to fill. In .... po"". 1<1 this unhappy legacy (and wc .hould not forgel the long

intelTegnum that followed Peter', martyrdom), Alexander _nu to have embMted on a campaign 10 c;.orIlO!ic!a.te the church around the bishop_ Both Soc,.,,,,,,,,'. and the Emperor Consta.nlinc"" repreun' Alexander as initiating discw.oion On a vexed theological and """gelic:al IOpiC and attempting 10 give some son of lead himself; indeed Con..aotine implies that A1nander demanded specimen exegeses from the presbyteR, pruumably to reasoure himself that they wcn: onhodox. The detail, and date an:, as usual, obscure; wha.t is clear is Wt Arius finally emerges into oomcthlng lift rull historica!ligh, at thlt juncture. He and Alexander publicly repudiated each other', theologia, and, although there is no .uggestion that Arius wholly rejected the bishop's authority, a tangible schism gradually d""Hopcd: Alexand.r complains'''' of separate conVentides or Arius' .upportcn meeting IOr wonhip in the city - probably breakaway gmu!'" from churches whose presbyters continued to luppon the bishop. We do not know how nany of thcac then: were. Of those named hy Epiphanius as '~rUh' presbyten, two appear in the fuu of Arius' lupporten;'" and if the 'AchiUas' who w.... initially cloM:ly associa,ed with Arius'" is the head of the djM,to'm described in laudalOry !emu by EuscbiWl, 's> the pro-Arius faction in the presbyteral college was impres,ively weighty. How""",, EpipbaniuI plainly implies tbat there wen: .harp rivalries betWtt1l the presbyten themselves, and that rheir rollower1 already constituted distinct ~rties: if this i, true, it would be wrong 10 _ Arius as the figurehead of a l"'"tU presbyleral revolt against Alexander', '~paliJm'. And rhe 'UhsCriptiOl15 '0 Alexander's culminatiog pronoun~en' :o.gairut Arius '" testify that rhe ovn-whe!ming majnrity in the pres· byterate - induding, preJumably, at leut IOme or the parish pricsu, as well as the presbyten attached 10 the bishop', offjceo or worlUng ouuide 'he city boundaries - continued 10 IUpport rhe bi.hop. The m... ' con.picuous odd man out is the celcbnl1ed Colluthus. Alexander '" Itat .. that Colluthus usa! the crisu. provuked by Arius as an ne,,,,, for initiating Or maint-aining SOme lUnd of ochismatic activitY' the most "-,ilfactory intcrp-ret-ation 0( this not very clear «"" is that ColJuthu. "'as already presiding over independen' cong..gation. in the city (and Eplphaniw'. claims that hil lupponen described them .. \vcs .... 'CoBulhians' at the period prior <0 ,he Arian cris~ ), but explnited the uouhltd lituation brought about by Ari ... and Achillas to justify hi.o continuing iD schi,m.

From later testimony by Athan ••iw,'" Wt learn that Colluthus h3d al lIOPle poinl begun 10 ordain his own clergy - a painful ll:minder for any Alaandn"" bishop of the penilting problem of Mditius. CoUuthus obviowly coruidercd hinueJfto be a bishop; Alexander'1 ll:m..ns luggen tha.t the p«:llbyter w..... dinarufied with Alexander's leadenbip, and especially with hi. handling of Anus and Acb.i.llas. This implies tha.1 Col!uthus represc:med an opposite theological Ut",m. 10 Arianism (oome kind of mo!l.1.rchlani.un?), for which Alexander'. vi("Ws would be :oJmos. as ''''peo ... Ari .... '. The bishop'. IUpposed unorthodoxy would disqualify him from his ofl",e, which would devolve upon a filler eandidale - prohably the presbyter OUI in .K"Iliority.t. Arius and AchiUas did not go this far (""d, accordingly 10 Alexander, di .... pp~ Jlrongly ofColluthw' handling of ecclesiutical funds);'" bUI they IwI in CoUuthus tht prtudent for roisting "" episeopal authority beli~ed 10 be he"'tical. AI the I... t f("W p3gts have been designed 10 show, ""ither Colluthus nor Anus w..... doing anything tha.t th. history of the Alexandrian chuKhes would not have Led .. s 10 ""peo. The beginning. of Ari.o.nism lie, ... much ..... anything, in the . truggles of the Aluandrian episcopate to cotItroL and unify a I]l«tacula:rly IiloSi~ro .... Chrittian body _ and thus aoo in a characteristic early Chrittian "neenaiDIy about the ultimate locus of ecclesiastical aUlhorily itself (we shall be coming had to this issue in I.C. below) . A1ex,."der, ..... his Letter to Alexander of Byzantium about the local troubles amply shows, feh himself threatened with the vinual disintegration of the Ale.. ndrian church iOlo a bundle ofmulually bmtile sects. AI we shall Ott,'''' Colluthus' evenlual "",""taliatine and lubmis.sion to Alexander was made possible througb Ihe decisive and final "'.i.roon of Ariu. and his party by the bishops and clergy of Egypt. Repeated and uncompromi.ing episcopaJ deDIIDciatio ... of the Arian faction mu.t have made Colluthw' position I..., and I... ddemiblej the rut tha.1 he w..... allowed 10 continue ... a presbyter in good IllUlding" t does ""&8"*', however, that he demanded a price for hi. return to Catholic obedience, a kind of canonical oafe-conduct in return for his .agent.." 10 join in the excommunication of Arius' faction. The yean between the outbreak of the ",,",roversy and the Council of Nicaea evidendy laW a good deal of hard wor.... in Alexandria, aimed 0.1 uniting Ibe church againltl a single common enemy. The IOJid anti-Arianism of the majority of the Alexandrian

Arius before Arianinn Christians faT the Test of the century owes something to this puiod as wdl as to the efforts and the personality of Athanasiw. At this point, it is necessary to turn to the very complex questions arising out of the uncertain chronology of events during these years. Our primary evidence consists in a number of relatively brief and and sometimes very fragmentary documents surviving for the most part in dossiers and chronicles of much later date. The standard collection of documentary sources made by Hans·Georg OpilZlt2 remains indispensable; but it does not provide a fully consistent and satisfactory chronology for either the pre- or the post·Nicene period. Absolute precision is impossible, given that we have so few external fixed points against which to check conclusions. but the documents give us a reasonable amount of internal evidence; and their intrinsic interest amply justifies a close inspection of their contents.

47

B

The Nicene Crisis: Documents and Dating

1 THE CONTROVERSY TO

32~

Recent JChoJanhip has generally accepted the order and dating propped by Opitz for thc documentary ,.maim ai the early days of t1u: crisi,.I 0pi12 begins h.i.o collection with u.., wry wen.known and well·atteoled letter of Arius to E.... bill' of Nioomedi.o., and placa it around 318; WI iI then I"oIIowcd by a fragment ofEuxbius' rq>ly, a letter of E.... biul aiCaeaaru to Euphration (or Eupbranlion) ofBalanaeu, an rui " " - fragment of Alexander of Alcn"dria (319), and the important.u- s...... , op!l from Egypl and ebewhf:ll:. Constantine'. lelter 10 Ariw and Alexander Opilz asaignIlo October 324 (al Nioomedia). Leav;ng :uide fOr tM momenl the olher
TIu Nimw eriris: DO
as tM Paleotinian EUM:bius. Both E~bii at once involved them· selves in campaigning for Anus' reinstatement, and the hew si,..du repretenlll Alexander'1 counte .... mOV • . Preoumabiy MUS and a number of his .upporten had by now Idt Egypt; and, encouraged by the luppon of the Bithynian bi.hopa, they wrote from Nicomedia to present their CUt to Alexand .... The epiltolary battle d""'elopcd rapidly, and preasure &om Nioomedia led to a fuMber synod in Pal."tine IUpponing MUI; and finally, Alexander, Ctalperated by the constant appeal.l of Ariu,' episcopal all;"', iuued a ..:riea of letters (or "",eral venioJU; of One le'tu?)' lpelling out the euct nature not only of MUS' heresy but of his behaviour and tha< of his supponers in Alexandria. It is possible ,hat MUS Itad actually returned to the city by this tim., as the letter of Conltantinc: to M..., and Alaand.r jointly' seems to have been taken by Oss;us ofCordova on hit miuioo to Alexandria and the East.' Unfortunatoly we POOl"" vinually no aternal fixed poinlll by which to checl: the plaw.ibWry of this reconstruction. Constantine's appeal to the parties to compose their differences mUlt in fact da", from the very end of 324 or the .arly mondu of 32~: he ..:t out "" hit tour of the East in November 324,' and, in the letter, he teUI the qua.ndl.ing deries thu the cau.. of hit turning bad before completing hi. planned visit to Egypt was his deep distress a< the condition of th. Alexandrian chureh.1 He was back in Nicornedia by feb~ary 325:' to allow lufficient time for Ossiw' travels in the Lev:a.nt I!l'i the .ynodl at which he was p..,..nt in Egypt and Syria., we should have tn ,up])O't that the leller .... wnll(O on CoDltantine'.joumey bad<- or perhaps in Syria, wMn the emperor 1\',," on the point of retumiDg. The evidence taken overall sugge.1lI COIllpooition in Antinch around Christmas 324 (we.hall rtturn later 01\ to the chronology of lubtequeil1 "",enlllluding up to the council); this is the ""ly date which we can rtly on with "",en moderate confidence. Much would be illuminated if We knew for certain the date of Liciwus' e<\ic,'o prohi;,;ung episcopal meetings, .. this would p"""';de a It1IniuI ~ ~ for IIOlOe al least of the evenlll in queotion; but >« can only be Sure that it occurnd later than the publie breach between Con.stantine and Liciniw ill 321. Eusebiw' history might be ..... d as implying !hat the anti·Christian enact· m.nU of th~ .... tffn AugU!tus actually followed on the beginning> of tM wn with CoIUltantine, and 10 date from the spring of 324. This is not poAible;" but the faCt that l.iciniw undoubtedly wed

anti-Cllli.nian legislation as a weapon of rttallation apinst eonltantine·. earlier aggreuion would support the view that these measures belong to .the aitical period ohummer 323." Ifso, the information is no. all that hdpful: the prohibition of synod. may have been in force lOT no mort than about .ixtun months. &> we are left to detcnnine the order of our doeum""u aimoIt ""ti,..,lyon internal evidence. One such pi.,.., of evidence which has genen.lly been rtgarded as significant is rh( role of Colluthw:" the __ $;;....,.., cania hi. lignatu.e. at the bead of the lilt of lubKribing pusbylen, while the hi pllw,nMJ lpuU. with .trong feeling. of bit .ehismatical activities." TIW oeemJ clear en.ougb; and , if we follow Opiu, Alaaoder'1 bilter complainu in Ioi p/liJ4nJw that An ... and AchiUas are forming ..-parate congrq:ations in Al"". andria and thal cut.ain bi&hopo Ut uncanonically .upporting thd. view:I and activities migbt follow very imclligibly on the encouragemem given 10 the berttia by the Palestinian IY nod (placed by Opia in 321/22) 10 assemble {~) their followers and 10 continue uting as presbyters. '. If ~ ""''411, then, antedates this move in Palestine, the Bithynian .ynod mUlt be plact:d around the lame time as the encyclical'. GOIJIpooitioo - probably not earlier (Alexander does not refer 10 anything other than individual activity on the f>&rt of Nicomedian Eu~bi ... ), but representing the climu of Wt growing p..... Arian agitatiOll of which Aleunder complai .... Working bad: from a 319/20 date for!tnw .0II14II>., we arrive.t the tnditional date of c. 318 for the beginnings of the [risi •. Althnugh all these da... are appl"Oltimate. thq provide a .euonable narnti"" l1n.u:turc inlO wbich the rtmalning letters and declantions may be fitted with fair plawibility. However. this wideIy.acccp.ed structure is in fact fraugbt with difficulties. fint of all, thert i. the matter of CoIluthw' activities. Hi!4't.rdw noc only dCKrihes bim as a ochismatic, who appartntly jwtified his rupture with Al .... nd.r on the grounds of the bishop'. tolerance of Anlll;'" it aoo claims that Ari .. ' setting up of sepa",Wt congrtgations wu prompted by di.",., with ColluthUl." This is (as we have oeen) a very tangled web. But if htuJ ,,;,,,w is given iu wual dat • • it is th( culmination of a ~ries of mtasutf:l agains, Anus and is roughly conlCmporary with Eu..,bi ...• Bithynian . ynod; h thw "",t-
!h.o.t AriU$ and hi. lupJlOrte~ retumed III Meundria afie. ~ JO" .to.!, encouraged by the sym~thy of Palestine and Bithynia, &Dd ooly then embarked on the """ne: d",cribed in 1ti}llU14«lw. This is possible: eonnth", might havc ~n prolesting althe filet!h.o.t Arius had ~n permilted 10 retunt. But ,t is a nlther awkward read'ng of IIi ~"MS: ,t leavc. unexpJ;Uned th. aboen"" of rereren"" both 10 Ih. synod of ' nearly 0"" hundred bishopo' which, :acconiing 10 .v- ,....,"',,. confirmed Ari",' excommunication, and to the activities of E..... bius of Nicomed.i.o.. Nexl, thete i. the problem of interpreting the decision of the Palestinian biohnps (Opiu 10). If thiJ synr.d'. permiuiOIl 1<> Anu. 1<> <>fficiue as a priest is a licen"" for him to act in AItuJodri., a very eccentric view of canonical propriety on the ~rt of £usebi'" P:ampbilns and bi. colleagues is imp~ed; bnl if it it a ~Cl:nCl: t<> form 'imigTe' congregatio"," in Palestine, it ha! 00 rd..-anCl: 1<> the aituation de.cribcd in hi plriiar""", and cannot oIfet- any IOrt of help in dating the latler. Thirdly, _ bav" nottul the support given ID Anus by thrtt unnamtur nf the recipient of the letter. And, in ..............1oJ, Eusebius is described as 'eager 10 n:new his former tnaI..-nlence' (poIriIm ,0' ""t/xr ~ ... .......,.;,,n hDuimstIw):" this u an odd rem ....k, we know of nn rt:a.IOo for """wiry belWttO Alexander and EusehiUl prior 10 tbe nutb .... k <>f Ihi. controVer$y, and a brief interruption in the coune: of (say) 319 in the flow ofEusebius' polemical OUlput would hanlly seem 10 justify the imp~ca.ti"" here of a filirly prolonged ailenr::e. Again, Alexander describes Ihe Aria.ru ... eager 10 prtWOke persecution al a time of peace - a very odd remark if the letter w ... wrilltn in 3'23 or 324, althe time ofLiciniut' IlDti-Christi.t.n legislation. Finally, in regard 10 /mo, .....,." the ... i. th~ difficulty pooed by u.., a<:coun .. olf~red of Ariu.' leaching. As h ... often been remarked," th~ lill of Arian """" in I
"0""

CODlpoled the n..J04 very IIOOn after w. acommllRic.otion and e.;pulsion from Alexandria; in whlcb CQe, the verses would have been circulating freely by 324, and it ;. 'urprising that hi;JriUuOt quite ... impllusihle ill il ..,UIIdo, I;ncc Epipb.aniul an.d Athanasiw give w 10 undentand that MUI' lOllowen wc,.., driven out of tM dry ill well ill the he"",iarclt himsdf; and AlC:ll&llder'. letten ..... um. that otben apart from Anw au liable to present themselves IOr communion in the cb.urcheo of Syria an.d Alia. It ;. a.loo possible that the list of tUbtcriptionl to the letter7' ILu und"'l"ne ",me revision: the PfCICllce of thc Ma,..,otie presby'er I'iotus" at the end of the lis,;, curiolll, as i.o the £&et that the names of the two bishop' stand after those of the priests and dacona. A wpyi.1 aware of the notoriery of the Libyan hi.ohops: may have onugbl, by adding their nama, ,n bring the list into complete conformiry with thal given in IrnIor JC-"'I," 'lDd mayallO have feh thal Piltu, (later COllICCra,ed by SecundUJ and, rot a time, Arian bishop in Alexandria)'" deserved a mmtion in view of Itio lIter prominence. So the problem. railed by the list oflignatorieo .. ,.., IIOt inauperable. How.... er, it it ,u'"Prising that the tat makes DO complaint abou, excommllRicatio.o or ilI-treoltmeot, ],.,t limply sets OUt a series of propositions which A1aandcr is inYiled to ree· OSOizc as identical with b.is own pUblic teaching. The lat malt.,. oli&bdy better le.... if placed earlier in thc controversy, bc(ore the finl major IYnodal condemnation; the obvious COntat for it would be either as a response to Alaa"", ... '1 do:rnand for clari6cation" when An ... was 6 .. 1 delated Cor here$)', or ill .. IUbmiuioo to be read out .. I the synod iucLf. If 10, m;, letter is the fint utual Arian document we P""es'. It migh' be pointed out tha. Alhao"'iUJ in "" 'J 0 fr placet it after w. ntr&CII from the Tlw/.u.;],.,\ A ,b'n ui", it """ giving • Itricdy chn.>nologica.l record, and m;, wilD_ "'n""l be deciaiYC agahut the th«Ity of an earlier ,,",te. Wltat then of AI ..noder'. two lette..? Hi presuppol .... tha\ a Iynodie&l decilion bill been taken ag&iDlt Anw ..nd AchiIW, thoUgh i! ;, OOt clear whether the mef'ting in question was • 'home

,mu.w.

52

synod' of the city of Al"""ndria and its envUolts or:o. fun epi.ocopal session. The fonner leems mOR likely, as Al"""ndcr would probably have mentioned the £acl if the entire Egyptian epi.ocopale had Wen pan in rru, procet:dings. Aga.in il ~ nol whoUy clear whether the oqiarati51 txllIgn:ptions organized by Ari"" and Achillu are active in Egypl or outside il (or both). It sounds very much as if An"" and h~ ,upporten are travdling beyond the borders of Egypl (EftCMirislm tie pniimMis . .. ).. al the time of writing, and Al"". ander may well be objecting I<> the existeD."" of Arian ~4u outside hi. jurisdiction; bUI the opening paragraphs of rru, letter suggeu thal some kind of dissidenl activity had preceded the synodicil condemnatinn." Foreign epi.s<:opal SUppoll iI already forthcoming for the heretia, and Alexander specifically mention!" rru, encourag<'menl given by th ..... unnamed Syri.o.o prcl.alQ. Since AnU!, writing I<> Euscbi"" of Nicomedia, mentioru six bithops of Ihe provin,," ofOrien. anathematized by Aleunder,'" one or IOOre of the three Syrian delinquents may be among them: almOll a:rta.in.ly, Euscbius of Caeu.rea and Paulinua of Tyre wer<: 1.00 of tha.e whom Aluander had iu miud. Anua, thai, has been COrresponding with the Syrian epis<:opate both before and lina: the IYnod: and, .ina: Al"""nder refers" '" the dluidents having penuaded some bilhops IQ write in their support, Eu .. biUl of Caesar ...'. lener I<> Alaander ""'y belong I<> the period preceding Ili plrikudros (thoUgh we are ",Id thal .""eral other of !>is letlers '" AJ"""udcr wert known: and this lexl may be a good deal later). So tDO, if the exil., an:: forming "pan"e congregations, the PaJ.. tinian synod pennilting thit mull already have Wen place. Sozomenll describes Ariua as having initially approached EusebiUl PamphilUl, PaulinUl, and PurophilU! of Scythopolio for this pcnniHion; 10 that Patrophilw it mo.n pr
53

him no, '" to. the ... me person u the AchiUu who IUcettd"'" the

martyml Pe",r U bishop -thi. AchiU ... would M.veguaran,""'" for Anus a friendly haring in Caes..,..,.,; but the identification is not comple,"ly lttW"e. N"""rthel ... i, is oafe In oay tha, Palestine and lI()ffie pa.ru of Syria wdoom"'" the Egyp~ exiles; and therd....., it is from Palestine that Anus writes to Ewebiu. of Nicom""'ia. AI thilleller IU",,"13, he hu had time ,n ootw>lida", his .uppun: he can speak confidently of the vinual unanimity nr the bishnp' of the Crienl in favour ofhia viewl . EvidenUy he hu not yel traveU"'" or canvassed beyond Syria: the approach 10 Nicomedia maru a new departure. Thi. folio ... Epiphaniu.' nuc:ative reuonably closely, though Tdfer u right to to. lceptical (on the basu of the documentary evidence) u to whether An". "",,er actually Inlv.ll"'" 10 Nicom""'ia itIClf. When and why wu such a new depanure made? Thu ia not easy 10 answer. E....,bi u. had be<:n an.ch"'" to It«: coun of Licinius for SOme oonsider.ble time, and would therefore have been a persoo whose favour wu worth cultivating. However, he can hardly have been particularly inllu.otial during .he period of Lidoi"s' haraaJ"'''''. of the church to..ween summer 323 and autumn 32. - when, inde<:wed Ewebius' translation to Nioomedia, as the letter mcotiom his , ucC"'wr at BerytUl, Greg<>ry, u having been condemned by Aleunder alnng with Ewebius Pamphilus," preo"mably wme linle: time prior to the writing of the letter. However, if Ewebiu. had js;,,, ,""""oUy moved to the imperial capital, his furmer colleagues in Syria might well encoung<: Anus 10 look to hi, powerful patro"., And the likeliest reawn fOr this ..,arch fOr a new aUy is a new oUctUoive by 'A1exander: hi pltillJ,cMS is an obviou. candidate. A lener to the bishop of Byzantium designed to waro th~ churches arouod the Bo.phorw agairul a heresy beginning tn sprea.d into Alia" ,"""uld indeed have rouoed Anu.' Palestinian Iymp;>thiun tn cas, around fOr hdp. No douht E"",bius' resporue from Nioomedia was encouraging;" and (if Athanuiut is 10 be believed )" he urged Alterius the Capp.adocian oopbiat, who had, like himself, been a pupil of Lucia. .. of Aotioch," to tour Asia and Syria spcuing in support of Arius.

HOWf':Yer, sinu Mw sh· ... rep~nlS Euoebius u having rttently returned to the fray after an internl ofhuclivity, we must .uppose that he had other preslure!l to contend with for a lime - moot probably the difficulties ........ ·;ooed by I ;dnius' polic;Q in 323-4.. Thi •• uggalS thllt the ~new.1 of activity 011 AriUJ' behdf followed Licinius' defeat and Euoebius' allillnce with the illteralS of Constalltine; but it i. impossible to oay whuhc:r the Bithynian synod mentioned by 50»0men" occurred befoR mid-323 or after Consuntine's victory. 50»0men says that the synod. led to Il gentral bamoge oflell.n in suppon of Atius to A1aander and othen; and if the synod was heLd lOOn after the defeat of LiciPius, this requireo Il very rapid leq uence of activiry in the lut montlu of 324. This is not impossible; but A1aander'. f.ilure to mention any reant lYDOd called by Euoebj us is a faCtO!" weighing agawt il. In .... y caK, though, Mw ..0-10, filS atremely weU intu the period after the fall of Lici.nius: £uoebius is free to campaign opc:nly, he is confident of his influence ;n Church affairs," and is eager to consolidlle tbit influence funber," Al ..... nder;' impc:lled to give a, authoritative. ' 1ato:rtU:nt u h. can of his .ide of the argument. If Itntos sh· ... is indeed a documenl of this very la~ Stage of evrolJ before Nicaea, a possible sol ution to the question ofCo!luthus suggClIJ itself. At the time of Iti #iWdw, CoUuthus is obviously under censure, and a cause of COIIJide..ble anxiety to \h( bishop. However, although those who had received ordination at his hand.! continued to trouble the Egyptian church," CoIluthus hinuelf apparently ...,turned to AlexandeT's communion ... a prClby~r: Atbanuius tells us" that CoIluthus, 'having made rumJelf OUI to be a biollop, wu subsequently commanded to be a simple priQ' [onOl: """e) by the generalae1l1enOl: of a synod, deli".rtd by Ossiu. and the bishOJ>ll with him'. This i. undoubtedly the mteting held .arly;n 325, when O .. ius arrived in Al ..... ndria with Con.tantine'. letler. Was MwS so-w approved by the Alexandrian dergy on this occasion? If CoIlUthUI had jwt been rronnciJcd to his dio
the emperor wan.t:n. There are no other lignificant coll.liderauons arguing apimt a late dale for NnoJ..,;"w.". and, aI we have ~. a certain amounl of internal evidence polnu in the same direction. Such a revoroal of the Iraditio",,1 order <>f Alcullder'1 Iwo greal k.ters, .~ther with what may be gleaned fr<>m Iri plriUJ""'" in particular "bout the circumstances of writing. offers the l.kelelOn of a ""mtive for the tally development of the Arian crisis rather diffe,..,nl from that commonly accepted. bUI (I hope) making .tightly be.ter aenK of IOme of our evidence. 0". immensely important document. of cou.....,. has yet 10 be placed: the 1Miill. But befare we turn w Loolr. al thal in detail, le, us lummarize the tentative tonclusions 10 far readtt:
56

tium; and h~ aJso, according to Theodor~t," wrote to his allies in Syria, Philogouiul of Antioch and EuslawUlofBeroe:a. This in turn disturbed Ariu.' partisans; they urged him to approach Eu.. biUl of Nicomedia (perhaps with half an eye :already to the pOilSibility of secular intervention to reirulate Anus)." AriUll did so, emph:asiWtg his agreement with Euscbiw' e~twh;le oolleagueo and continuing friend. in PaJestine, and reai~ a friendly reply. EUlCbiw' ener· getic championship of Arius, and probably also the circulation of Aluander's J~tter or letters," prompted furth~r approaches to the bishop of Aleundria; Asttriu. nOW ente"' the liats as a funlter dcf~nder of Ariw . By early to mid-323 the dispute i. at its height: Alnander m.o.y h.a"" convened a further .ynod at this point (probably the synod of 'almost one hundred bishops' mentioned in Mw si"o/ll,)," a full-K:ale meeting of Egyptian and Libyan bishops (with some preJ:ates from other districts?). If the Syrian fragments of a conciliar IImIor published by Opiu as Urkundc 15-" a", authenti<:, !hey prob.o.bly come from the . ynodical letter of this mttting; the large number of .ignatures reported (thougb I>Ot reproduced) suggests that the non_Egyptian bi.hop. present were encouraged to cir<:ulate the document further and obtain more subscri ptions. The incomplete list we hall(: conclude. with the namc of Philogoniul of Antioch, who oecms to ha"" been supported by a good number of Syrian and PaJ.. tinian bisbops - which suggrsts that many of Anw' initial suppon .... were wavering." Euscbiul ofNicomedia evidently thought it ou:ces .... ry to eaU on his fricndo in Syria to bestir them""Iv.. : only Eu.. bius Pamphilus was unHagging in hil zeal." Licinius' meuureo in 323 prt\l~n'ed any further decilive actions, though they proh.ably did little to stem the How of COfTtspondcna. Whcn peace returned to the Chur<:h, E"",bius of Nicomedia ""leb"ued with a synod in Bithynia (dnubtless designed 10 allract Conslantine'. attention) and a furth ... flurry oflcttc~_ Constantine begao to take an inlereol in the affair: whether or no. the Im.. blts in A1er.andria were the real reuon for hi. premature re'urn from rhe Eul i, uncertain;'"' but he was .ufficien tly concerned to deopatch OSlius to Alexandria in the winter of 32i/5. By rhe time Ossiw reached the city, ne"" of the Bithynian .ynod and evidences of it! effect! in tho: .hape of yeL more letters had aJl(O arrived: Alexander was offended and intransigent. However, he welcomed Ossius' auth_ oritative assi.tance in restoring some sort of .. nity to the Egyptian chur<:h by the regularization in synod of Colluthus' pooition (u

IIOled already, the tacl thal CoUuthw was nol dept.ed entirely from the ordained rninisuy nn doubt owed something 10 his willingness 10 anathematize his old enemy, Ariw}," and probably also by the deposition of the Libyan metropoJiuns, Sccundus and Theonas, who had supporled Ariu •. Either al oh( syood or (mo~ probably) shortly afler'ts formal Wl>cluaion (there are no q>iscopal lubscrip. lions 10 "-» ........1oJ), the encyclical klter of Alexander and his clergy was issued , oh( lener ofa 'home synod' only. Ouiw no doubt infanned Constanune pl"Olilpdy of these devolopmenu; bul the emperor had already delermined on further action. Ossiw would ha.~ rtaivod nolice, 011 his arrival (late March 325?) in Antiocb, of the imperial decision 10 call a general council. At Antiocb, O ..;u. p<eoided over .. funh(r synod" which confirmed the election of Ewuthiu. of Be"",a 10 succeed PhiJo. gnruu. (who had died in December 324; the intervening months bad bttn turbulenl).·' The election (and the activities of the .yood ) confirms thai, fur whatever uason, the majority of bishops in th( Orie", we..., now firmly behind AIe"'nder. thtit synodical leuer (again .urviving in Syri,",,)" was sent to Alo:under of Byuntium , among olhen, and incl.,ded _ IU.pend<.d smtcneC p..std on the di ... ntienl bishops al the synod {Euscbiw Pamphilus, Theodotul of ~icea and Narci .. u. of Neronias)." Their case was 10 be referred 10 the n.wly-announud aynod 10 be held at Ancy ...; the change of venue (10 Nicaea) mUl l bave followed wry swiftly.'" This giv .. the following ord .... fur Opilz' main documents (hi. propno-al dates,...., given in bn.ckellt ): Urkunde 6; Ariw' credal letter, c. 321 (320) . Urkunde 10; the decision of oh( Palestinian synod, c. 32 1 (32 1/2). Urkunde 14; Iri pki/4rdtos, 32112 (324). Urkunde I and 2; Ariw to Eusebius of Nicomcdla and Ewcbiw ' reply, 321/2 (318). Urkunde 15; the /o!n4s of the ep;";"pa1 synod at AJeundri_, ea rly 323 (324). Urkundc 8; Ewebiw of Nicomedia 10 Paulinus of Tyre, 323 (32{)fI ).

Urltunde 5; the Bilhynian Iynod, 324 (320). Urkunde 17; Constantine'. leller, CluUuna. 324 (OClober 324). Urkundc 4b, Itnos ........ w, January/F~bnaary 32!> (319).

Urkunde 18; synodicalletter from the ADtiochc:ne Council, March 32S (325) The remaining p",·Nicene documenu can be fiued in ;n vari<>us ways; the evidence is notlufficienl In justify aoy dogmatism. Easebius PamphiJus' letter to Eaphration (OpilZ, no. 3, daled 318119) could be an indi,cct riposle 10 hi plrikJ.,duu: AleXlnder" 11r~ the coeternity of Father and Son (,..; p"'. otos III1i r..iw), and dioCiJJSCS" the significance of calling the Son an ri4o" of the Father (the image of the eternal mwl be eternal iudf); Ewebiw vigorowly denies the to-exi!lence (_p.mhtin) of Father and Son, and a •• the $On ofhi. (ather, 110 that the father must exiSI prior 10 the $On. A. al",ady noted, Ewebius Pamphilw' letter to Alexander (Opitz' 7, c. 32'0) may be earlier than hi plti/iJrdw. UnliU the leu,," wc have just been conlidering, it is fairly unspecific and reli"" heavily on MUS' credal letttt. However, ... Opitz observed, it C1hibits OIle or two apparent wrbaJ parallel! with IImos """.'",." The,e is thus a pouibiJily of its being a '!;u'-minu.e' rupoouc In the encyclical, d"'gned to ltate a case for the defen"" befu'" the """ning of Ihe NjCCD~ synod. If 110, it ;1 part or th. hasty and anxious ..action of Mus' Syrian supporte" to the disutrous verdict of th. IYnod of ADtioch, a rtllCtion traceable in the fragment of a lener by NarciuU!! ofNeroni ... prinled by Opil2. ... no. 19. This leaves only Alex.aoder'1 lener 10 the clergy of Alaandria and Mareolis (4a), the fragmrnt of a letter written hy hulin.., of Ty," (9), the lener of George to the Arian. in Alnandria (13), and

the ...u ....d of Alcx.ander', correspondence with Pope Sylvater (16). Th~ first of th ..... is normally and a1mosl cenainly COlTeCtly aucci· ... ted with and .uggeou thallhc encyclical i. indeed a rqlrUe of earlier condemnaoOllJ ' the introductOry U <w- is p.... umably manl 10 brillJll Ih~ J«.l church up '" date "" the number ... nd namCl of ruenl dcfectio"" 10 the Arian party, while the body of the encydical .... um .. that the disoidcnu named there have been away from Egypt for $OnIC time, and. is directed 10 those

_J '.....',.,

likely'" have dcalingl with them. P... ulinus ofTyn:'. letter i, aimool impossible '" dale in iu hgmenwy condition; it may again rtpf"Ql!nl pan of the gencral raponsc to hi ~, but ther. is no finn ~enco: even rnr iu being prc-Niecne. Geo. gc'. letter '" the Ari....... tilI in Alexander'. junodiction ..ems to pick up A1cx.ander'. phrase; in /Ii ~r<M'" .tating that the Son is d ,.... _ r ~, when he suggesl to Anus' followers an acctptablc interpTCtaUon of the bishop'. doctrine thallhe Son is lA; ".. sAH..; and 50 il is likely that it belongs in the lame period as hi,letter to All!Und .... himsdf. f inally, there is Alexander'. letter or letters '" Sylvtllter, 'e<:oJding the ""communication or eleven clen".; Llberius, who prescrvCl this record,"" ... ppean to datt the correspondcnco: 4IIl<"~ AIMo_ .ni. This may be an unnliable memory," bUI il may aIJO mean th ... t Alexander'. letters I,. the pope: were known n,lI 10 have been drafled bji Athan .... i ... as Alexander'. oecrelar)' - or, poosibly, thal lit" or clericallUboaiptions to leners from Egypl al this date lacked the name of Athan .... i.... In either caoe, a date around the ome of hi pIriUlrdw, or even earlier, is indicated. Athanasius would have been in hi. any Iweno .....1 this time; and if the lal~r canonical rcgul ... tio ........ hout the minimum age fBr ordination .... dacon ........ in fora: already, he would nol have bei:n admitted 10 the di ... conale brio.... 322- 3, which would fil ... en with the general pictu .... propcnd here. H~r, this mu", .... main unco:rtain. nu.. rcviaed chron<>lt>gy for Opitz' documenlll doet not suggest any very revolutionary changes in our understanding of the heresy itself; bUI a few polnu or imetal do em~rge . f irsdy, if J,i plriUJrcJw is .... early .... I have , uggeoted, il is • more oil!1lificanl documenl than h.... sometimes been .... cogni~cd. h provided ... quarry of coni .... vcrsial polnu to be ""plailed by Ariu . ... nd his supponen, and ctrtain fea""... of illl ph~ing and th""k>gy thu. helped in tharpeRing the focus of the conltOVf!tsy . Wc ,hall return in a later chapI" to ... closer eurninJ.tion of the the<>logy of thit letter. S«:ondly, if

Eutebi"s of Nicomtdia's entry into tIu: debate OCCIlrTUI at l oomewht later stage than is commonly s upposed, the role of Eu.scbiw Pamphilu' becomn correspondingly more .ignifica.nt; as I. good deal of recent research'> has indieated, Eusebilll of Caes.area', adhe .. nce to the Arian caUilt was nOt a matter peripheral to his general tho:ologieal style and commiunent. Thirdly, if we are right in , uppooing that Eusebiw and hiJ collagu,," in Palestine allowed Anut and others to function as presbyters in their territory, we have a very dramatic and specific contemporary Cl-'" underlying the fifteenth and .ixteenth .anon. of Nieaea,· which prohibited the clergy from moving between dioceses. Canon 16 in particular ellvisages the ca.. of a presbyter or deacon moving of hit Own will from the churdl of hi. normal obediellce and being 'received' by another church, thal it, accepted into communion and, probably, recognized as a cleric" by another bishop. As ob..~ already, the canonical dtcisiollS ofNicaea are nOt alwayl llO fa, removed as ~ might think from the m.a.i.n doctrinal debate. It is nolewonhy tbat the Palestinian synod apparently allowed the A1exandrian rd"ug ... to act as presbyten in the Alexandri .... l1yle, independently convelling and presiding al services. It would be a mistake to read 100 much into this; but a E .... biw who could approvingly .. port the doctrinal illtet"1"O@:ation of prominent bishops by learned presbylen on more than one occasion,- and whose language .till . uggesa a fundamental conlinuity betw~n episcopal and pres'oyteral office'" i.likely enough to haw shared the historic Alexandrian bias toward. the idea of a pr.,byter exerci,ing a kind of 'episcopal' authority as leacher and congregational president. How much this attitude helped to provoke tlw: h"'tility of episcopal colleagues in the Orielll, we cannot .ay; but Athanasius' description" of the resentment aroused in Syria 'oy the behaviour of Mt";us in teaching publicly nol even in holy orders _ and uninvited _ in churches when he of any kind doubtles. rcflem inc«:asing episcopal ,uspicion of independenl teachers or pn:achcn. Th~ r
w..,

61

2 THE TIUl.UA

I1 remairu for IU 10 Look al the questiom poaed by MIU' 1MI...... It cannol Imedy be considered u 'a' document ;n the Man cue, .;lIce _ do not poosa!I a lingle compte'" aDd COlltinUOIU tat; and the ;lIterprcu.tlon of many punges in the atnu:ta we do poll .... remains a maU",. of vigorDUI controversy.ft h iI more than usually IU1ificial ;n this instance 10 ""pante chronological from docuinal discusaion, but a fuller .... minotion Of the theology of our extraCtS must wait until a la.er chapter, while iD the pages that IOIIow we 1h.all.impJy attempt to locate the tat withiD the framework 10 far worked OUI. Th. only e:o;pHdt chronological lIalement we have about the work is that of Athana.o;uI nearly forty yean lal",. ... Aflor lummarizing the original teadting of MUS aDd recording ru. acommurucatlon by AlaaDd",., h. cootinues: 411' oUliwu hi; .pi.tribtis A7tiGs I"'d u;,. pm &ub~ _l.\iblt A.·r .... IirI .w;rut. III clustli{i} hli M. to tMliD (i) ... polld. This has proved difficull 10 translate sucuufully. Tb.: U"adilional "'oderi..... tonIr. rU/itNU and tpitribti< together u referring 10 MUS' troubles in Alexandria, aDd assumed Wt ,..,." Iitt pM meaDt 'whik with the Eusebians'; bUI Tclfer'" long ago poinled oul the difliculties with this reading, aDd he has beeo foUow<:d by more rea:nt Kbol.arship (nota.bly Kanneogi_.).- Howt\ICr, Telftr'1 own hypothesis, that the tal indicates a temporary bUI IICrious breach between Ariw and his alli.s {so that o1blitJuis aDd .pitribti< refer 10 Arius' t<jeclioo by the ~nas, /l'Ud IiII pr,; ElUtbin } has IIIIt I"ouDd wide accept.ance, although il makes good gnommatieal $CD"". Leu grammatically ""y," bUI bistorically more plausible (would _ no' find ...me bim in Catbolic polemic of I breach io the opposition .:amp a' this crucial mommt?), is the IrallSlltion 'After bis o:xcom_ munication, MUI, under p ..... urc from the Eu""bian pattY, committed 10 writing a lummary of hi. herCIy .. .' A funber poui_ biliry is 10 take /Jd1d u;,. pr,; Ew.6iMl as meaoillg 'from the Euscbian .:amp'. pethapt (Ieu probably in th~ ligbt of certain coltlido:n.tlons about the theology of the lClI.j, 'from the Eusebian point of view' ; or, more Ipcculatively, building upon a ..,nsc of pa'D well evidenced in AthanuilU' writings," 'at the prompting of', or 'arising from the ageocy of the Eu""bi.ans'. This would meall taking p4ftl 1ft J>ni Lurbin with lIUIIlIIiUn ram ... than with the two openiog pa, ticiples (wbicb would mer back 10 AriUl' m:aunen. by Ale:o;aDder). Sucb

' ' pMi ".,.

e....b"'"

a reading il aurauivc, though th( naWly causal u.., of pa.a in IUch a cont""t is undoubtedly awkward . Wha' ..... r 'M pr(ci.u: interpr(tation of the ph ..... e, the gist of it is cl .... r (!lOugh in all the IUggUiblc for him as for all '''her creatures. ffthi. fairly ropr""ent. what Ariu. beli .... ed and lI>ught, the TlWi4 could hardly be d...,ribed as a 'Luciani'" document. How ..... r, ifwe ..." no, only Athana.ius' fragmentary r.po" and paraphn... in rhe fi .... t book of hi. COfI!.a AriomDJ but allO the long

63

AriIu aM

tJu Ni",,, CrisiJ

poetic <:lqu .. tionahly ovenimplil)ring tIu: iuuct, from me penpc<:tive of IOmeone oommilled to a Eunomian theology . If Wt lum from tbe T!udic lO ElI5Cbiu. of Nicomedia'l letter ID Paulinu. of Tyre, IQr install"", we find some referen"" to me incompn:hensibility of God ;". but ;t is

also noteworthy that .£u""biu. """"'" to avoid laying directly that Ihe Son cannol lnow the Father, and 'eem. mo.., cone<:med to emphuiu that neilher wc nor the angels can Irnow the arW of !he Son,'" and tha< the Son', nalure i, inexpressible - like that of the Father whose likeness i. i, ,'12 We Ihould nOI, then, ascribe In the earlier Lucianists the fuU-blown revduional optimism of Eu""",ius; but it islikcly that theole>giaD.'l formed in a tradilion which concen_ .rated on the idea of the Son u perfecl image of God'" would have round 1<>0 d .... tic a d""trine of the Father's rem,,,en ... from the Son uncongeniaL The TIuJIi4 i. a strongly-worded piece of apophatic theology, but it do<:s ""t belong in a different universe of thoughl from that inhabited by Eu.ebius and Paulinus; whtttu;t is clearly d"tinc. from 'he system. of AetiuI and Eunomiw, We have no knowledge or later Arian u"" of the TIuJli4, and the paucity of information about it in orthodox historians suggests that - in contrast to !KIme of the let,"" we ha". already discussed - it never IOrmed part of a regular doosier on Arianism, at Inst after 360 or !hereabouts; wbich '''"",IS that it was not to the fore in the debates of the mid-contury, and represented a theological style no longer acceptable in Arian circles. The only pos,ible exceptioIU to thi. ,ilence aboutlale, u"" of the 71uz1i4" a passage in Athanuius' letter to the Egyptian bilhoJ'l.II' Afler describing with IICOm how !he anu·Nicene party of !he 3!iOs attempted 10 e"",pe the imputation of Ariani.m be points out that the l.aduI of the party are undeniably people who bave benefited from the patronage of Eu.ebiu. and hi. allies. The anli-Nicenes have produt«l a creed against which tM Egyptian and Libyao bishops mUll be warned:'" they bave onderwen to pus judgment on dogmatic iss"e. , and , de.pile thrir own c""fusion and con.radictions, they have PUI forwan! 'a TlulJi4' aJ a ~on of faith. This hardly .uggestS a we oflhe original TluJIi4, or even a revised edition of it, .ince we have jWI beeo told thu Athaoasius' opponents are cager to di.."ci..e thenuel~ .. from .he memory of Ariu •. Presum_ ably, Athanasiu.' point i, that any ereed put out by thi, group ;. in fact equivakn •• o Ariu.' own original composition from the poinl of view of Nicene orthodoxy. However, the idea of a re~ TIuJIi4 publi.hed in the 3!iOs has lately btto d..r~oded by Kann engies.er. II ' He argues that the vene extract reproduced in tit >yMdis l~ is closer in language and theological concern to the deb;ote. of .hi. decade than .0 the earlier day,

of ttu: controversy,'" aDooI of Aetius and Arius himself; il ,. jusl poaible if we We the remark in Athanuius' "" '/i.w>ptu A'vlli qui •• liter..Jly and imagine a theologan u.wcia,ed with Acacius ofCaauca (the leading antiNicene bishop of the day) producing such a work. However, ifth" " what happened, Athanuius' use of the lexl in '" ~ is hard 10 explain. He may (u Kannengiel$(r suggQu)'" wish 10 prestnt AcaciUJ u a new Arius indistinguishable in lu:",ticaJ intenl from the old; but Ihis p,aupposcllhat h" radul will "'cognize the text u coming from Acacius or someone of comparable contemporary prominenct. Otherwise the use of the ,at in a controversial work is ",the. poinrJ"". BUI thi. lCCmI 10 run COunler 10 the poftsuJ purpose of Athanasius in the xcond oe<:tlon of lhe "'."...w, which is 10 exhibil the essential continuity of Arianism from finl 10 last: beneath a deceptive appea",nce of variely, all oon-Nicene fOrmulltnes of belief really lad bad \0 the naked 'blasphemia of Anus'. Indeed Athanui ... ' pUrpo!les are far better ocrved by the ulC of a genuine teX! of the n.ui.o which will be an embanusment to thoM: anti-Nitenes who would prefer 10 forget about Anus himsolf. In 10 far as th.", are difficulties ""e, Ihe theology of thi. extract, they art 10 be tr:solved not by treating il as a pscudepigraph but by a greater lIer.ibili ry in useuing what could and coulP"ning of nqotiations with Eusebiu.o of Nicomtdia, and probably after the 'synod of one hundll:d', • date in the lummer ~ autumn of 323 is most Udy, though whether ear~er or lal~r than E....,biu.' lell.. '" Paulinus (a parI of th. same campaign of conlO~­ dation and reusu.-ance) ;t i. ;mposlible to say.

3 NICAEA AND AFTER

At Antioch .arly in 325, .he bishops .uppond tha. the 'great and holy synod' was to mee. at Ancyra;'>l but further lenen fr"'" the Emperor were proNbly alr.ady on .he way, moving the meeting t" Nic.aQ,. If the I.".r attributed Cons .... n.inc (Iurviving "nly in Syriac) and publiJhnl by Opitz as no. 20 in hi. collection i. authentic, the reU<>lU for 'hi' dw>ge bad I" <>.h.. to check; Athanasill5, ha>;ng at fin,'" "'tunl for around 300, rounded up th. figure .h. familiar Iymbolic 318 I... in life. "'> Rean, ,.,..."reh'''' h ... been le .. generou" and detailnl exam· ination of such Hlu a. we do possess h.as failed to yield more than about 200 names. The contradictions may be partly explicable by ex.agge..ation (!hough EIl5 .... tbi ... was in a good position tu .,.timate the numben) or by Ihe La.. arrivals, early departur.,., and irregular auendance al scssions, in the time-honoured lradilion of oounciJ., episoopal and o.he ......"" It is fairly likely at leas •• hal a good many ""'re lhan 200 we", presen •. '" E"",biw of Caeoar",,' • .,.tirnate'· of abou, 250 i. probably as near a.s any. philollorgi"s' Ot records .he names of twenty-."", bishops Iympa.hetic to Anus at .he oouncil. If this list is reliable, Anu.' support wu still qui,. strong: onc bw.op in ,en, in a council full "f people wi,h no very deep thMlogical oommitmenl one way or the nth .., i. a promising base .0 work from. H"",ever, the lis. brilll.. ",;Ih problems: one of .hose named had been dead for some )·ears,l>· two had SUMCribed to .he oon
.0

.ha.

.0

inlU"'ting fealutts or !he list is the presence or tix bisl>opl from Ubya - four from the Penlapolis, in additon to Ihar metrOpOlitan, Seeuru:hlt, and his colleague from 'lower Libya', Theonu. Obvi. owly !hete i• .om. IOIid €oundation for !he prQefl<:C of a good many of thest names, ~ral or which are f~miliar from duwhete-!he Bithynian triumvirate of E....,bi ..., Theogni. and Man.., €or inuanee, and !he group of Syro-PalQtinians and Ciliciam prom;· IIe1It in the early IlqQ of the luuggle; Iltogether. aboul thin...,n namQ seem weU-esublisbed, two ate impouible, the resl unceru.iD, bul, for the II1O&t pan, wildly IInlikely. Since Sozomen oaYI'" that IeWIIttw bisl>opl IUpported Ari ... at the opening of the council. PhiloolorgiW' catalogue mUSt be regarded at being orvery limiled ..... though not wbolly untnllt\OI hope to enmiru: them all in detail. '» What i. imponant for ,.,or presepl pllt"JlOK is to note that it becarM o:vident very early 00 that !he condemnation of Anus was praclically illeviuble. Ewuthius'" describes how a credal doeumentofsome IOn written by 'Euoebillt' (which one~) was presented. repudiated and tom "l' ia !he presence of the whole aynod. al III early stage in !he pmccedinp. '" Thcodoret. in additoa to reproducing th.it .tory, mentiolL'l'· a formulary drawo up by a number of Arian bishops (neither of the E....,bii is named) wbich waali.kewiK presented and tom up, apparently ra!her later on. nu. may be !he s tatement of faith o~ecting to tbe ...., of ,v",.. ouias mentioned by Soaatel;'. if IO, it belongs in the ltage of debate immediately foUawing the fi~1 propotal of the final form of the rynodical creed - by which time Anw' party m... t have known that their ea...., WII hopelQI. They ean only bave been motivated by the desire 10 register .. Itrongly as pouible their incredulow indignation It the fact that • Christian alSCmbly could sancion the bluphctnO\lsly materialistic implieations of the ~.'" A. what point did the word MInMMties bewme a matter md.bate? Anus repudiates Onc pouible meaning IOr it in hi, letter to A1e>;andcr'" and another in the n..IiII 21 reponed in tit ~ Ambl"OM:'" records a fragment fmm a letter of E.... bil1l of Nicomedia (1)0. 21 in Opiu)'" read at the eouncil, which Of'poacs the *erne m Mono,ouW.s atlacked in the n..I;':' "11"", he [EIIKbiwJ said, " we do indeed call the Son of God IInaeated [ineru_, no doubt representing .,..(~)iIo>aJ .. weU. we are on the way 10 eonfcqing

.,....w..

68

that h~ is ~s with the Father.'" And Ambrott adds thu, when this w... read at th. council, the bishops decided 10 include Ibe word in the crttd, .eeing hnw strongly Ibe Aria.n.o disliked il. Thi. i. certainly an oversimplification; but if i1 men 10" gc:nuine lelter ofEu.. biu., the chances are that il was this documenl which was tOm up urly in Ibe sessions (despi le impressive argumenu from Slead, it does ..ill Ittm prol>able that Ihe Eu.. bius merreate and redrafting than E ... ebius

rebtes. Howtver, his pleuantly complacent picture may bave_ !rum. Evidently, if he did propote a i, WJ.. r".i«:ted as inadequate. AtbanasiuI .ketches'" the proceso whereby It lIIOI P41roJ and lIu4r tUilfli1rtJJ weu p...,.sed on the Arians wr ac""ptan"", and describes how mq We'" able to find wayo of milking such language amenable to their herelleal views; E"""billl' creed fill woll inw!hi. pro<.eP. Whether i, i. hi. own compoti,ion or a baptismal creed of Catsarea, i, is ambiguou. in just me crucial areas Amanuius memionJ - me meaning of d 1Anho, of 'continued' or GofItinuow"" (as op~ to strictly.1mI4I) exUltn"", of iJlillriMs as applit:d '0 me Son', being and Godhead. It wu becoming plain mat me hardes' .tiding·poin, was, after all, ~, at>lr ik.fotO were e.tiJt:d by Constanti"" al the wnelusion of tbe ct>UnciJ. This dual puni.hment, eed..ia.slicaJ and civil, wa.s not only an ominou. precodcnt: it sowt:d the Sttds of endl .... billemeu and

,ex"

confusion in the YUfl that followed, ,inee, although the emperor could rescind his nwn legal decisiollJ, "" could not on tu. JOIe authority reverse ecd""iutkal rulings, The tWO systems were to be sddom ill .tep :after 325, According to PhilOStorgius,'oo Arius (and presumably ElWIius) :and the Libyan bishops Weft '"'-'led immediately at the cnd of the council :after rdiu;ng to oub$.cribe the creed and iu anathemas, Thc fate of Ariw' other chief defende .. is le.. easy to son' out, Euoebius of Nicomtdio., Man. and Thcognis were variously dcocribed as having .igned the Nicen. decree.o and then changed their minds, having signed with meoul reservations or pri\lllte emendation! of the '''''', :and h.aving refUKd to oign frOm the fin .. Socrates'"' aIIum"" that Euoebius:and Thcognis we", '"'-'led at the o.ame time and for the ume I'USOfl as Anus, Sozomco'O:Z d·im. that Eu..,biw and Thcognis signed the creed, but not the depooition of Ariw, and _re ............ ed from thw teeS fairly promptly by Const:a.ntine, Tho:o<1oret '" has only Secundus and Tbeonu exilf:d a. the dooc of the council, but offers a 1'lther garblf:d account of the fue of Eusebiw some cl\ap"''' furth., on.'" PbilOltorgiu. giv"" the mot. detail, although it is doubtful how much is to be relied on: Eusebiw, Thcognis and Mw w<:re prepared to sign a text containing~1W rather than ..... ,,, • .w, and so escaped immed.i.ote cenaure;'" th"", months lat"', they approached the emperor and announced thi! they had oigned only from motives ofprudcnce, Their rept1Itance was rewarded with exile to CauL'" PhilOftOrgiW' narrative in iu present fonn u not very plausible. The in.nxluction of"-in.sios as a compromise term belongs to a Later date,'" and the .udden pro. t1t anudtttu of the three bishops sound. like an attempt to give an a<:<:epuble Arian gJoss to the cmbar.....ing facl that Constantine had .uddenly turned against the Bithynian champion. of Arianism. Philostorgius, or his lOurce, was evidently tryi.ng to mUe oensc of the two equally awkward facll that the Bithyllians had ';gned th. crttd and that, none the less, they suffered exile for their belief•. Howev.r, the hud tore of facl is certainly the repon tut they _re nO! ""iled immediately. Athan:asiuI'" dearly impli"" th:>! thw condemnation was distinct from that of the clerics anathemati2ed at the council. This is dill presupposed in the most authoritative document we pas.... 00 the ,",-,le of Eu..,bitl. , Constantin.'. own lelter to the Nicomedian church .... Constantine gives '""0' .0 some llton& f""lingo about

An'w and Iiu Nictne Crisis Eusebius' previous closeness to Licinius, aceusing him of conniving in the martyrdom of bishops by the late emperor of the East, and of plotting against and insulting himself. Eusebius left Nicaea, it seems, under a c1oud,I1O his case suspended while he did penance of some sort (a temporal)' prohibition against exercising his orders rather than a deposition?); the emperor indicates l71 that Eusebius begged him to intervene personally on his behalf to prevent him losing his office altogether. However, the bishop had not changed his views, and, when certain Egyptian dissidents 172 were summoned to the capital to answer for their contumacy at a meeting of their native hierarchy under the imperial eye, Eusebius and Theognis presumed to defend them (and receive them to communion?);173 consequently, Eusebius and Theognis have been deposed and banished, and their churches are invited to elect new bishops. This suggeslS that Sozomen is right in saying that Eusl':bius and Theognis refused to subscribe to the anathemas of the council, and were saved fro m disgrace only by their signing of the creed (and this is exactly what the two bishops themselves say in their letter petitioning for restoration). 174 They were then put under discipline for some set period;17S and presumably their ill-judged support of the Egyptians occurred before their penance was completed. The occasion of their delinquency was almost certainly the meeting described by Eusebius Pamphilus 176 as following closely on Nicaea: continuing dissension in Egypt led Constantine to recall the Egyptian bishops for further discussion, after which (in true Eusebian style) all was harmoniously settled, and the emperor endorsed the bishops' decisions. Bearing in mind the number of Libyan bishops claimed as Arian sympathizers by Philostorgius, it may have been some of these who were involved, and whom Eusebius tried to assist. m The imperial deposition of bishops would have had to be sanctioned by a synod, of course, and a meeting of Egyptian prelates would hardly have the authority to remove bishops of another province; however, the canons of Nicaea had made formal provision l 78 for the calling of provincial synods twice yearly, and Eusebius and Theognis must have been canonically removed from their sees at such a synod of the Bithynian clergy (Constantine's letter to the Nicomedian church tells its recipients that they must now proceed to elect a new bishop, and a synod would in any case have had to meet to effect such an appointment).'7'.I So we can conclude that the recall of the Egyptian bishops to the capital was

72

The Nicene CMS: Documents and Dating followed almost immediately by a loaJl synod (late in 325) of the kind envisaged by Nicaea, called to deal with the consequences of the imperial sentence against Eusebius and Theognis (and, apparently, a number of inferior clergy regarded as adherents of their party):I80 Maris ofChalcedon, although he had evidently shared his colleagues' reservations about the Nicene anathemas, is not mentioned as suffering the same fate, except in Philostorgius' account. lSl The institution of twice-yearly provincial synods has often been overlooked by historians seeking to clarifY the extraordinary complexities of the course of events between Nicaea and the death of AriuS. 182 There is no need for an undue multiplication of quasiecumenical councils to account for the numerous doctrinal and political shifts of these eventful years: most of the matters in question have to do with precisely those processes which the Nicene system was designed to facilitate - the review of cases of excommunication and the election of new bishops. The chaos of the period owes much to the fact that there was no very obvious way of guaranteeing general acceptance for such local decisions - with the possible (extra-canonical!) exception of imperial pressure. So when we read later that 183 Arius was recalled from exile and given an opportunity to clear himself, it is not to be taken for granted that this was the act of another large-scale synod. Socrates, Sozomen and Gelasius l84 give versions of the letter sent by Eusebius and Theognis to an episcopal meeting some time after their exile. They protest (though mildly) that they have had no formal trial, note that Arius (in whose guilt they have never believed)l85 has been restored by the same synod, and express their anxiety that their own silence may be taken as proof of their guilt. They very carefully state that their faith is the same as that of the other bishops, and that they have examined the implications ofthc homoousios and are now committed to preserving the peace of the Church and avoiding heresy - which is a neat evasion of the question of whether they actually accept the formula. t86 They petition for the same clemency to be shown to them as to Arius. This letter has often been taken 10 be addressed to a 'second session' of the Council of Nicaea,181 or at least some major gathering which reversed the Nicene decisions;t88 but the~ are difficulties in such a reading. The plain implication of the letter is that the synod addressed is the same synod that condemned the two exiled bishops; and since they were not deposed at Nicaea, the council addressed cannot have had

73

tbe same pc=nnel as Ni""ea. Again, it iI nuh.,. difficult to imagine a council il .... ion for .. long enough time 10 cover all the evenlS involv~: Ariu. is ...:call~ and ...:admiutd to communion, n ..... of this iI smtlO [u.. biu, and Theognil, probably in Gaul, they write and ask 10 be summon~ to the council 10 make their defence, and, ucording 10 Socrates l " and Sozomen,'" their petition iI accqaed and their epi.copal IUCCCllOn are removtd from office. Even if the lYnod did not .ummon the exiles to defend themul~es in penon, thiJ still requim an uncomfortable amOunt of coming and going. h iI not ;mponible that all thi •• hould bave occurred; bUl I think it ""ther more lilr.ely that the conte>;t is "",enl soo:ul1i", meeting. of tll<: provincia.l . ynod of Bhhynia. Afl.r Arius' readmission, Eusebius and Thcognis would have wrilten 10 the .,,1 m":ling ID request a hearing al the session after thal. But how had it come about that Ariu. could be 10 soon restored? The cnd of 325 was a low point for the Arian-Lucianist group, but events in 326 dramatically redressed the halanu. Th.o.l forthright and conliJtent opponeol of Ariani.m, E"stathius of Amioch, Iuld become involvtd in a quarrel with Eu.. bius of Caesarea soon after Nicaea,'" and, when Constantine', ag«l mother vi,;t«l Ih. £..ut late in 326, E"slathi". made IOme tacde •• or critical remark about her which provided an opening for ItiJ Paleninian eoemies to mount an attack. Accused ofhe'''y.nd immorality, as well uof di ..... pcct for the imperial family, EUllathius was deposed by an Antiochene synod and exiled by ConstaDtine, prohahly in 327J", A DumbeT of bishops who ohar<:d Eu ..athiut' thtOlogical pmerenus' " wcre aho ejecled at the same Iynod, on a variety of charges. Thi. wu dearly an aUlpicioul moment for reopening the question of Arius' fate. CollSantine wrote to Ari"" in November of 327'" .ummon ing him 10 coun al Nicomedia, and expressing lurpriK 11,." he had not come earlier. This luggests tba, the Antiochene .ynod had, !ormally or informally, """ended an invi,a,ion to Arius to clear hi, name \)<'fo,"" the emperor, bul that Arius (O(JUihly) waited for oome official 'ignal befo...: pr..enting himself. Rulinu.'" oeerm to be the J('u",e of the story that Ihe emperor's sister Con.taOlia in. her last illneu inlroduced her Ari:lUt chaplain to Collllamine; after Constantia', death, this presbyter encouraged the emperor to believe that Arius' faith was no differen, from that of Nica",,: and the result was the surviving letl<:< to Anu •. The story is aim ... , certainly legendary in its deliulo, but may ...:lIect a

TIu Nicnu Crisis: Documents aM Dating

memory that members of the royal house had some sympathy with the anti-Nicenes; Constantia, after all, had been close to Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had joined her in interceding for the life of her husband Licinius,l96 If there is any truth in this, family pressure joined with ecclesiastical encouragement in prompting Constantine to give Arius a second chance in the winter of 327, Arius and Euzoius returned from exile and presented a rather non-committal creed to the emperor and his ecclesiastical advisers: it speaks of the Son as 'begotten from [or out of] the Father before all ages', but is silent about the /ro1llfK)usios, Evidently, however, it satisfied Constantine, who wrote 10 A1a:ander, 191 pressing him to accept Arius and Euzoius back in Ala:andria; and (if the reading proposed above of the letter of Eusebius and Theognis is correct) it was successfully presented to the local Bithynian synod, which readmitted Arius to communion, The exiled bishops petitioned for restoration a few months later, at some point in the first half of 328, and were back in their sees by the late summer or autumn. This, incidentally, suggests that Philostorgius (or his epitomizer) is right in saying that Eusebius and Theognis returned from exile after 'three whole years' ,l9I'The Arian historian then goes on to describe a major council (of 250 bishops) held at Nicomedia after Eusebius' return, at which a new creed was promulgated and Eustathius and Alexander of Alexandria were deposed, This is obviously, for the most part, fantasy: Philostorgius seems to be conflating several meetings, The synod which deposed Eustathius has taken on some of the features of the Tyre-Jerusalem synod of 335 which accepted Arius' confession of faith ,'99 and perhaps the Antiochene 'Dedication' synod of341 , with its various non-Nicene approved creeds. The figure of 250 bishops is most probably an attempt to claim equality of numbers with Nicaea as recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea,m The core of truth , if an'y, is no doubt some record that the returned Eusebius lost no time in calling a synod201 to confirm Arius' reslOration and (possibly) formally to anathematize the views associated with Eustathius and Alexander (who had firmly refused to comply with Constantine's req uest), By this time. howevcr, Alexander had died (on 17 April 328).2O'l and his successor had been elected, though in the face of strong opposition.:IO' At the end of the summer of 328, the new bishop of ,A1a:andria, Athanasius, and the rehabilitated bishop of Nicomedia embarked on an ecclesiastical civil war which did not relax for a

75

mom~nt

in 341. Th~ Bithynian synod of lat~ 328, und~r Eus~bius' chairmanship, must hav~ been th~ souru of th~ ren~wed appeal to AJexandria for Arius' restoration as recorded by Soaates and Sozomen.- Once again, this was supported by th~ ~mp~ror,205 and once again the request was refused. Athanasius was threat~ned by Constantine and Eusebius with harsh r~tribution for his disobedience, but h~ remained adamant. It s~~ms to have be~n at this point that th~ Melitian schismatics in Egypt rev~rted to an open hostility to th~ 'Catholic' ~piscopate which they had not shown in the last days of Alexand~r.206 By 330, they had made a tactical alliance with the Arians,207 and gained th~ patronage of Eusebius of Nicomedia;208 a concerted campaign to have Athanasius disgraced and removed began, a campaign which was to dominat~ church affairs in the Levant for over a d~cad~. The details of the accusations laid against Athanasius, and his defence, are not our immediate concern here, however; what matters from the point of view of Arius' bioglaphy is that the struggle against Athanasius increasingly obscured the cause of the unfortunatc heresiarch in the years between 328 and up to

th~ d~ath ofEus~bius

335. We do not even know where he spent this period. Constantine's letter inviting Arius to court promises him the chance to return to his 'native land' if all goes well;209 and it is likely enough that he was in Libya for some yean. 210 Secundw (and Theonas?) must have returned from exile at some point before the death of Constantine,211 and Athanasius often speaks as if their restoration had been part of the great Eusebian campaign ·of the years after 328. In 331 or 332212 Athanasius (who seems to have made a policy of visiting troubled areas under his jurisdiction early on in his episcopate)21~ went to Libya Pentapolis; and it has been plausibly suggested 214 that his aim wa., to bring pressure to bear on the Nicen~ side in episcopal elections. If Arius himself was in Libya, such an txplanation is still more likely; with the return of his oldest and most faithful allies, Arius was assured of a welcome. However, there is no evidence that any effort was made during these years to restore him to communion in Alexandria after the uncompromising refusals of Athanasius in 328. Arius evidently came to feel that his friends at court had forgotten him, and took th~ bold step of protesting directly to th~ emperor in 332 or 333. H~ asked in desp.!ration what h~ was to do ifno one (in Egypt?) was prepared to take the initiative

76

in ..,ceiving him!" and proffered yet atKIthu conJ'es.sio.> of faith,'" ... pparently employing ... highly ambiguous furmula stating that !he ~l~ of God'. substance was "",,'*>.'" The sUMvin, fragmenu of this letter suggest a man at the end. of his to:!he •. MUll' mistake was to emphuioe the numerical ttrength of his suppon, especWJy in Libya.''' Righdy or wrongly, Conttantine assumed th ... t Arius was threatening a .chum,". the Wle thing which all the imperial efforts wc.., designed 10 avoid. The emperor wroto:, probably in 333,'" an opon le.",. In !he bereoiarcl> and his lupponen which is cun.o,dinary in its venom and tobUllWmeu, dubbing MU! an 'Ares', a god of war,'" "'ho KW In create Itri[" and violence, and quoting the SibyHlne Oracles'" "" the divine judgment th.eato:ned for Liby... on aCCOunt of !he LibyllllJ' lino against he... ven .... Arius' ereed is dissected and fuund 10 be incompatible .. ith Nica ....;... and when !he emperor has finished refuting his theology, he turns"'" to .neering at Anus' wasted and ascetk appearance. Cl.ri.,. and laity who b.talr. the peace of !he Catho~c cburch by continuing todhertllce 10 MUS are assured of legal..,tribution .... The lette. suggesu a very confu.sed situation in Libya. Anus, thougb reslnred In communion in another province and permitted tn ..,turn (by imperial decree) In hil own prnvince, has Itill not been Iynodically ",habilita.ed by an Alecanclrian decision. Not surprisingly, his allies in Libya hne _umed that he is 10 be regarded as 'in good standing',;n the light of!he imperial reprieve. MU! appeals to !he emperor, on the groundt of this restoration by a majority in Libya, to bring preuu,"" to bear on Alexan_ dria [0 allow a formal " ..or... tion. But Conttantine _ no doubt mindful of the Donatiot troubl", - lI«I in this the creation of a scparate church, and thu! withdn.ws from Ari.,.' Iymptothizen the privileges of Catholic Christians, It IOUodl as though Anus had, in effecl, asked the emperor .. hal alternative he and hi. suppo.",n had bUI to act as if th"" we", had in communion with the Chu~h at large until !he empero. fonnaUy compelled the churd>es 10 r;l1ify this .... JI i'I probably ... n ... nachronism 10 thi.n.Ir. of anything like a K1f-<X>tU<:iou.ly 'Arian' d>urch in Libya emerging or b.,ing evisaged at this dale; but Arius wu accuslOmed from earlier ecperlencc to acting on the decuioR.l offriendly local churches rather than waiting for a volle-face in Alexandria. Even 10, his lettcf was evidently writto:n out of long-standing billemeu and. impatience with the Egyptian church whid> tu: btod .......ed faithfully and which had

"f-

Atius and tJu Niunl Crisis excluded him for nearly thirteen years. Arius is caught in the crosscurrents of uncertainty about the workings of a church unexpe<:tedly and unpreparedly having to adjust to a situation in which its unity and doctrinal consistency have for the first time become matters of public and political concern. Constantine's concern was dramatically shown in the edict which accompanied his reply to Arius,228 associating Arius' supporters with Porphyry, the great pagan critic of the Church, and ordering that Arius' works be treated like those of Porphyry: they are to be burnt, and anyone who does not surrender copies in his possession is to be executed. This edict - apart from its depressing foretaste of varieties of intellectual fascism through the centuries down to our own day - explains, to some extent, why Arius' written works survive in such fragmentary form, why they are not available for quotation even by later Arians (or perhaps especially by later Arians: it would be far easier for quotations to survive - as they have done - in works dedicated to their refutation). The emperor had concluded his letter to Arius by inviting him once again to make his defence in person at court; and Arius evidently did so, with unexpected success - success, that is, to the extent that he was encouraged to present his case to a major episcopal gathering in 335, when Constantine convened a synod for the dedication of the church he had built in Jerusalem. According to Socrates,229 sixty bishops were involved, though it is not clear on what basis invitatiolU were issued: obviously the Syro-Palestinian and Cilician bishops would be present, and we know too that Eusebiw of Nicomedia, Theognis and Maris were present, together with two new and youthful recruits to the Arian episcopal camp, Urasciu$ and Valen! from IIIyricum. 2S0 The bishops were instructed to meet at Tyre first, to settle once and for all the (by now very numerous and serious) accusations against Athanasiw. They set up a commiuion to investigate the charges, a commission consisting of Athanasius' worst enemies, including the omnipresent Bithynians; the commission reported back to a second session at Tyre after the dedication festival at Jerusalem in September 335. Their report was predictably hostile; and they delivered it to a synod which had apparently, a t Jerusalem, admitted Arius and Euzoius.:t31 According to Socrates, the emperor had intimated to the bishops that he was satisfied with the orthodoxy of the two petitioners; and Sozomen:t32 adds that he invited Ihe synod 10 examine their credal

78

T1u Nicnv Grim: Doamtmts aNi Dating Statement. Sozomen clearly believes that this statement was that printed by Opitz as no. 30; but this is more likely to belong to the first stages in Arius' rehabilitation in 327, as we have assumed above, Socrates speaks of a 'recantation', which is not an obvious description of the surviving CJ edalleuer, and the fragments of Arius' confession of 332/ 3 suggest that Anus was prepared by this stage to concede (at least in ambiguous formulations) some things which he had still held to in 327. However, it is possil:!le that the supposedly earlier letter is indeed that presented at Jerusalem; in which case the synod showed remarkable flexibility in admitting a statement of faith which makes no concessions to Nicene language indeed, takes no notice of it at all. Whatever the details, Arius was accepted in September 335, and the bishops wrote from Jerusalem to Athanasius in Alexandria infonning him of their decision, and appending a copy of the emperor's recommendation"! - which, they emphasize, is based on personal interviews with Arius and his followers. They claim, unconvincingly, to believe that Athanasius will be only too pleased by this restoration of Christian unity and tranquillity. In fact, Athanasius did not immediately receive this letter, having (by the end of October) made his way in ~ecret to Constantinople to appeal in person to the emperor234 - a stratagem which turned out disastrously for him , as it led uhim ... tely to the first of his exiles. in November 335. The Alexandrian church was left in chaos. When Arius arrived in Alexandria (probably as Socrates state5,:m after Athanasius i exile, considering the volatile siutation there), rioting broke out; and he was refused communion.:DIi Constantine summoned him baclt to the capital,"' apparently holding him responsible for fomenting discord; but Athanasius' enemies were 'in the ascendant at court, and Arius suffered no further penalty. Constantine continued to regard him as orthodox. No immediate action on Anus' behalf was talten in the early months of 336; but the position of the Nicene party continued to worsen. Marcellus of Ancyra, a prominent scourge of the antiNicenes, had refused to participate in the dedication festivities at J erusalem when he realized that Arius was to be admitted to communion.m Various indiscreet statements in his polemical tracts (especially those directed against ASlenus) were inconclusively discussed at the second session of the Council' of Tyre,m and the Eusebian party were thus able to point 10 accusations of heresy 79

agaiDlI MaIUU ... , a.s weU ,.. his insull to the emperor in refu.ing to participale in the dedication al Jerusalem, when they reported 10 CO ... tantin •. '"" The emPeror had recalled 1lu: synod for a further """;on ill the co.pital, to deal with 1lu: problem of Athalllllius, bUI the majority of the: exhausted bishops wem .traight home from Jerusalem.'" This left lhe field open for E.... biu. and his allies, WM!IOt only ."cueded (a.s noted already) in securing Athana.si ... ' banilhment, bUI also induced the emperor to S"mmon a f"nIIe. IYnod to deal with MarceU ..... ' - probably a synod of bishops from Marcellu.' own province of GaJatia and the oeighbollring province of Bithyrua ... • The ag«! bilhop of Constantinople undent2lldably took exception to the calling of. synod ;n hi. diocese at which he had DO canollical >tat us;'" he wa.s also well aware that the intention. of !hooe chicOy responsible for the: synod were not friendly 10 his own !""ilion at a strict Nicene. His protests fell on deaf un. The new synod met in the lumme' of336 and drpooed Maredl ... for holding the heresy of Paul ofSamosata;'" the Bilhyniaru seem 10 ha"e decided 10 ""ploit the opportunity of cmbarnssing Alexander of C01IStantinoplc still further by pressing him to recei"e An ... iulO communiOll _ presumably with the . pokeu or ulUpoken threat that the synod would not be a"crse 10 another heruy trial More it dishanded. Ari ... w,.. examined by 1lu: emperor, and, to eorutantine's evidem IUrprisc, dedaml his _nt to the creed of Nicaca .... Athanasi ... reports'" that Anu. read a sta tement of his bclicf but kept concealed about h;" person a fuller and more unequivocally 'Arian' confession; this enabled bim to swear solemnly tha, he held "r ...... to 'wha. tit had .... tilten'. Socrates repeall tIW ltory,'" bUl,judicio... as ever, admits that it is heanay only: all tit is lure of, from an c:u.mination of Constanunc'. COlTe'pondence, is that Anu. bound him5c:lf by an ~th. The emperor ordered A)o.;mder to admit the peniten. he.esiarch to commuuion. Ariu. may have been genuinely repentant; hUI it SOIlnds..., though he -..nt, rather, struggling to find a p<"aceful compromitc. He may, llke Thom,.. Cranmer in hi$ mi ..... ble last dav., hay. thoughl tha. the humiliation of a doubtfully hones. I'tcanl2tlon w,.. a nc(:aQ.ry price to pay for dying in communion with the church ofhis bapti.m; or he may ha", been the fraud and perjurer Alban...,i ... bclitved him 10 be. Th, former altemati", is ycrhaps the rrtOl't pla",iblc ,.. weU ,.. the more gwero ... judgment. Whatever the truth of thio, the: story immediately disapp<ears imo the sphere of melodramatic

semi-fiction. According to Athana>iw,'" it w .... a Saturday wben the emperor ord~ A1euMu to admit Mw (at the liturgy "" the following day). Faced with this u1timatwn, Alexander (accompanied by Athanaaiw' friend, rhe pl"etby«:r Macariw) with· drew to the episcopal church (Hagia £irenc) and prayed that either he OT Mw might die before morning. M"$ mea.pwhlk, .miltm by 'm.: nect.llitiet of nature', ,."tired to a public lavatory, and died, apparently from some kind of inlernal Iw:morrb.alJ(' or mpt",."."", The emperor and the city were duly .hoclr.ed aod edified . Thi •• tory it not without its dill'icultks. On the one hand, Athan_ uiw reliet "" the presence of An eye-wilru:S.S; on m.: other, in h.i.t let«:r 10 Serapion on MW' death (written arnuod 3iO),2I' he admits that some lX>IIJid ...... ble uncertainty prevaill as to wberhe. or BOt MW died in Catholic communion - an admWion rather hard to square with the atremety public and dramatic evenll which he goes on to relate. Socra\el, ... we have noted, a.llucles to letlen of ConstanUne on rhe tubjttt, and il 1ik(ly "DOUgh that the emperor did indeed regard Anus' .uddm death as a judgm.... l; bUI Sommen (relying probably on the Arian SabinUt at tItit point)"" reporll that opinions varied aod tha. some <:Yen believed Anw to have been ulled 'by magical aru' . A.ban,..iw hUttodf say .... thal MU. was buried by E.....,bi". of Nicomedia and his colle2guet _ wlticlt does 1>01 IUggest tha. he was universa.Uy Ioo::>ked on u ..., impcni"",. beretic cut 011" in his peljury .... On hala.nce, we have .... rtUOn to doubt that MW' death was embarn.uingly lud
_nu

"

Conclusion

Arius' death, like molll r>f hi. life, ;. ,urrounded by uncertainties, and i, yet at the o.ame time an unmercifully public aHair. H;. life and dealh wen not easy malerial for a conyentional hagiography, and (if we can judge by Phil05torgius) he wu ncver unequivocaUy a bero fa. the parties .. mated wilh hi, name. How"""" this I. not SO puzzling a fact u the modem .tudent;' inclined to m.a.ke it. 'Ananism' as a coherent 'y"tcm, founded by a lingle great figun and luslaincd by hi! ditciples, i! a fanwy - more ~t1y, • fanwy based on the polemic of Nicene writen. above all Athanuiu •. Some ann. Nlct:n.. may. ;n the early days. have been happy with the name of 'Arians',' .... dt$ignation of their theological preferences - nl)t rru.ir ~iutical allegiance; but;t i. most unlikely that th"Y would have been contet" with IUch a name fl)r long alter Nican. ·Arian;'m· was neither," church nor a ·connectioo·. in iu own "Y" . •AnanJ' tlw>ught of lhe"""lvCl ..... turally enough. as CarhoLies; 0 •• n>OtI:: accurately. the very wide .pectrum of non-Nicene belicvm thoughl of themIClv.. .. mainstTeam Christia.... and regarded Athanuius and h;' aUiea ... isolated ""l1em;'u' - though increuingly they also looked on the mo.e aggrasive anti.Nicenet (Actius, Eunomius, and rh. Like) u no less ali .... 11) the onainJl1cam r>f Catholic tradition. It was not jUII e"desiutical protocol which nwJe the b.. hops at Antioch in 341 declan, by way of preface to. nonNic.cne c.onlhsioo .,r faith, that th.-y wen no1 ·followe.. of Anus; fl)r Iw>w could we as b;'hop. be followe .. of a presbyter?" 1l>ty meant exactly what th.-y "'cnl on to Jay, that Ihey had aecepted Anus u nrthodt>ll. bUI did no. look on him ... a factional 1e000er, or ascribe: any H>divid..w authority to him. h iJ bc:cause thil i. lhe case that Athana";"I' con"""e..i.lenergies, especially in dt 'yWir and (as Kann.ttgi...... has recently and expertly shown)'
~n~m;~s

as unifonnly commilleci, aplicidy or implicitly, 10 a specific set of doctrines auvanced by Mm ~ • smaU group of confederates like EusebiUl of Ni~ia and .... lonUl the Sophist, Niceo~ apologisll Ihus turn ' Arianism' ;010 a sdf-consciow sect - as if th~ boundaries of Catholic id~ntity Wtre firmly ~ durly drawn in advance. aUI the whole biotory of A,;uI and of Manism reminds us thu this was not so, and, indeed, thal the facl thal il was not 10 was one of th~ .....jor ~lt:menll in the con~ny. Of course, the Christian Ch .. reh had beoome fairly well·accUllOmed ;n the semnd century to reflecting upon ill identity and ill bounda';.. ; yet the conventions tMn established were not univ~ly or unam_ biguOWlly fur.~, Aga;""1 tM g"""tics, 'Catholic' critics maintain~ their commitm.nt 10 a ch ureh in which authenticity ~ acceptabililY of leaching could b<: musutt:d by IOm~ poAlid) avail_ able ltancbrd . Ignatiul, ! <en •• us, T et'tulliltn and omen fur. this 'landard (with varying emphaJeo) in terms of a determinate number of sacred lall as interpreled within those ch"rch.. which can d.mons trate continuity of leaching wjlh the fint apostl .. of Chrisl - a continuity nonoaUy focused in the unbrok.n succeuion of presiding tuch .... from the apostl ...• H owev.r, the cuUr ofOrigen throws into .ha'1' r.lief many of Ih. loos •• nds left by the conI..,. v.... y with gnosticism. Nnrmally the authoritative teacher is the bishop, even for Origon;' but there il no clear way of resolving the lensions sel up when a bishop's ruling "",ru again.1 a leacher who bell""eo himself 10 be (and is b<:lieved by othen 10 be) a faithful exegete of the sacred t.,,, in the Catholic Chur<:h. O';gen touch .. on Ihe question in a famou. pa.sag. from his second homily on Numbe ...:' (m/" ;n the Church is above all a .piritual i.... e; there must be a true corr.. pondeoce between institutional a uthority and spi';tual ota'ur •. The truly Ipi';tual ~non, 'free enough from worldly habill to oearch nul all things and 10 bejudged by n<> ""e', may sometimes occupy a lower clerical rank, while lh. selfish and slupid occupy lhe ulNdn ~ (which may mean either p... sbyleral or episcopal offic., or, I..s prob;ably, thal of a liceORd catechU.) .' The imp~caliOl\ is dear enough: like the apo$tle, the inspired t.ach.r i, entitled '<> rely on his own (sc';plurally grounded ) aUlho';ty when confronted with an un,p;';lual de';c se<:king 10 decide f<>r him whal he shall do or say. A< von Campcnhausen observes," this U a 'piuis.' critique of episcopal authority, not a wholesale denial ofit; we do not .nd up

AriIIs """ IIw Niutw Crisit with a 1>(IfI.llienrchical Church, but with a dual Iyuem of hierarchy. " EpiJoopal authority had emerged originally,., somethiog doaely bound up with lM role of charismatic teach.", " and it praented oonsiclerable diffieuLties when apparently divorced from cbariam or unctity. The relevance of this for practical problerm about p"nlteotial discipline is ObvioUl: here are the moll of Cypriao'. slrUggle with the _fuHTU who had ... dramatically acquired lM repute of holio .... After all, it w,., in the matter of penitential discipline tn..t the urly Church was mOllt directly ch.llenged to define ill boundaries and determine itS identity. The b,.,ie parado:r. remained a lharp one: how could a p"nDlI who did not embody (and 10, in a selUe, dauicaUy .%ptlSJ or .... r;"'r,") lM identity of the Christian community,., a commllnlty of ~piratioo and holiness p","ume to ufou that identity in an active and juridical maIIJl<:r? EpilcopaJ authority ,., a disciplinary office was fraught with these 'e""lo"". Yet it is clear that episcopal authority even,., a leaching office was equally problematic. Catholic apologetic in the second century is nol collCC"med with the individual bilhop'. /IOsiiiN 'eaclting 10 mucb ... with the fa!O\ tn..t he iI 'I1ructun.!ly' safeguarded from crTot as presiden' of '" self-continuoWl body with readily·available docuinal ""mu." What then of the case of a bishop whose ',lrUc, tun.!' credentials are in.peccabk offering controve .... ia1 or offe""ive ..... dinga of the tcrip",,..l tell! which iI the 6eld in which he is called ID exercise his authoritative char;"m? N Cyprian luggatcd," he is, in the fi ....t place, answerable ID the jlldgmenl of h;" fdlow bishopl; bu" in cireumotances in which he anempto ID require conformilY 10 bis dubious teaching from his own church, lM qllestion ofwhat rigbt thal church might have ID rcs.i.ot IW ttaching is not readily dccidable in ~tilutionalter"",. A churcb aCCUllOmed to the 'dual ltien.rc.by' notion migb' wdl expect 10 noise up indivKIualteacben convinced of their rigb, and ""Iillllitm ID rOOt an beretical hilbop; and the loag·n.nge recourse of such rullenten wOllLd bt app"aL ID • wider CDrueRlUS of 'lrUe teachers', episcopal and otherwiJe. 101 the Aleundrian church, we have 10 do not only with an environment in which this ann of response would bt predi=hle, hilt also (,., BOted above) with one in which 'monarchical ' episcopal au.thority over against the presbyteral ooUege was iU-defi.ncd. The presbyter lia:nsed 10 expouod Scripture in virtue of his ordination and oommission 10 a . pecific congregation WlU e,..,rcising an auth·

onty significantly like Iba, of I bishop;" and .... I membe of me group which (il Kern.) corporalely conseera,ed m. bilhop, " he would 1>01 have Ken thil authority u tU~ upon that of \he bishop. I n oth.,.. words, ecd..ial practice in Aknndria relnfura:d the tradilional Orig<:nlan view of parallel hien.rclU ... And when Anus , ..i",. Alcxander'. anemp' w mu. the presbyle .... aruwerable w the bilhop for 'he doctrinal probity of their preaching, he lurns W those in and beyond Egypl who uJ>denund me tradition in which he is worlr.ing. He is .upported by his immediale colleagues, and pe,haps by the head of the diJ4Jhhiim, by Eusebius ofCaeoarea, a man deeply commined 10 \he ideal of 'lChool' traditioo looking 10 a chari$matic m ...."'r, and by EUICbiul of Nicomedi.o. .... a ' Lucianil,', and 00 again I 'school' meologi ..... His firt, episcopal alii •• are men woo have IwI experience of leamiqg from Ihe wiae and inspired; and ,h. TluJliII is addrCSlled implicitly 10 all who share ouch an ."perieocc::

m.

According 10 the faim of God's chosen, \hose wim diacemmenl ofGod,/Hu holy children, imparting the truth and open 10 God'. holy .piril,/TbeIC are \he things I have learned from Ihe men' wOO partake of wiod.omfthe keen-minded men, instructed by God, and in all respecu wile./l n such men's 1Iq>t I have walked, advancing in thougb .. lik. theirs,fA man much ,poken of, who .ulkrs all manner of things for God', glnryJAnd, learning from God, I am DOW DO "In.ngcr 10 wisdom and knowledge."

Anw IwIleamed fr"", the t%"r'ikk' ,,;, a.o nthen nave learned from Pamphil ... ()1" Luci.an, and be mU...... implicil claim to be himself a 'eacher in this kind of su=,ion, Pan of his tragedy iI thal (""en among his alii .. ) the tradition of such ochooI-<=tred Cluistianity iI

a dying one. D • .fo<~, me conllOversy beco",.. a miller of episcopal poijtico. Mw"' .... an anlchl"ODism, .... k.ing that the Constant;n;"n Church raoIve iU proble .... as if il w.,..c the federation of studycircl.. plUUpp< ed by the profoundly tnditional A)""""drian languIgc of the TIuJIi.o. !I or cou~ Anw _ like Origen _ addreued hi~ to I wider Christian pubij<, and, if w<: are to bel,eve PhiJ.,.. storgius," WQ a olliful popular propagondj,,; bUI the Tlr4iill prologue .hOWl vn-y d~arly where be beJi""ed the pulse nfChristilll life 10 be. H. IW 10 be judged by those wh_ lpirilual experience

85

ODITapondS to his own. and woo und~ntand the proper liberty of IpttUlatioo that bdonp to the tkttlI/idtJJ;/o<.

Wh.ther this would ever h.o.ve been;o realistic re<[uest is doubtful. A theologian like Orig~n IIIight receive international aeclailll and ru:ognition of his teaching authority ." but this did 11<>1 prevent his ordination from beUtg declared invalid in Alexandria by his relentlessly b",tile biobnp Dcmetnus." Th. difference between !ht cases nf Ori~n and Arius is that. whereas in the early- to midthird ccnlury" it wu pouible to live with unres<>lved dillciplinary or canonieal disagreem~nll,n by the oewnd decade of!ht fourth century !ht vi$ibJe harmony .nd uniformity or the church had becom~. as nbsuv.d ;lbovf" a question nfpublic and legal int.,...,.!. It ....... a development which bolh $id.. in th. COfI....,...,ny wer. eag .... 0 exploit in !htir own i", ..... I. Arius had asked for rewgnition rrnm other churches .1>11 for pre.. ure '" be applied to hi, own church 10 that his deposition mi8ht be revened; but whoever fint encouraged Con'tanti,,~ 10 take a" interclt in the deb.ate must have had some idea of repeati"8 the successful a.tivatio" of otaolat power against ~y that had occurred in the case of Paul ofSamoaata.:tI this time with • greatly increased adva.oco: lilr.dibood olluCCCII. Catholic unity could at I.as, be enforced by law. th.law of a (more or le.. ) Christian ruler. Thus the hiotary of Arius iJJum;nat.. from one 'pecific pen pccti"" the great Ihlf't in Christian ..If_undentanding which We anociate with th~ ;lg~ of Co ... tantine. W. are witnessing a new dev~lopmen, in Christian rdleetion on the boundaria and !ht defut.ition of tht Church. P~Niccne Christianity had been obligtd to live with a certain degree of nrganjution.1 mal becau.. ofi.. chronic inability 10 IOrt OUt a .ingl. policy ror resolving conflicts between inatirutiOf worship, antring upon th~ presence of the symbolic tokn of continuity and $Cif_identity. the aposlOlicaJly-validated bUhop.'" ",th~r than a focu. in the ptT
,dok,,,,

i
th~e

.wo approac:hes the 'CathoUc' and the 'Academic' (in the cJusica.l .."",)" ..... pectivdy, i. Jt:CmI that Arius, like hi. grca. Aluandriall p..wtttloon, i. euentia1ly at! 'Academic'; and, Ulr.e those predecesso ... , he might have su"";ved tolerably weU in a different ttdesia.uica.l and political climate. Hnwevcr, both hi. friend. and his enemies pressed for a 'Catholic' oolutinn to the problem, a solution in term. nf episcopaIIy as" d "'ling. about th.limi" of admis.ion to communion. The earlyyean nf th. ",mtroveny lhow the imp<:d$ibility of this .kind nf ruoIution through the mechanism nf Ioa.l synod.; imperial authority intervenes tn mak. pOllible a universal, 'e<:nmenical' ooluOOn, in accord with Comll.ntine's own goal ofhomogeni>ing his potentialJy chaotic emp''''. By this me.... , the 'Catholic' modcl of the Chutc:h comes to be allied with the idea nf a monoUthic oocial unit and the policy of religi01n """rciM.lnitially it had .. rved 10 guard the c:hurch o.pi .... the fissiparous tendencies nf a ·.1'1>001' Christianity, tn keep the cri.ma nf Chri.tian identity. maner of public vi.ibility ",thet" than priva.dy 'irutpired' decisiorut tahn in the inlen.. atmosphere of the group of pupib around a charismatic master. lu cmlibility had depended a good deal upon ill Owll incorporation nfthe appeal 10 • !nditiM of teaching and ill exercise of a teaching ministry. As IUch, ;t could ..'""" as a precariOUJ but fairly arneptablc me .... of holding diverse 'Academic' groups in loo.. unity, as well as affirming that being Chris.ian was no. ""dwi....,1y a maner 0{ belonging in a phil~phical •• udy circle. Bu' in th. brgcr citi.. of the empi"', bishops wet"<: incr.... ingly detaChed from the COmat of teaching, increasingly engaged in admini ..ering chariti~, building aoo mainuiniug churches, negotiating disciplinary issues with their colleagues:'" in Rome, Canh.age and Alexandria in the third t:tntury, bishops we", vulnerable 10 the pratesll of the charillllatic 'paraUd' hi.rarchy of teach .... and ""n(esoo... , proletU based on tht fioc. thal the bishop him ..lf "".. Id no Iong~r credibly be preoeDted "'"' a tModiJ4J;l4s limply in vinue of his offi~ in the Church. H e w",", liable tn make disaauow judgmenll about discipline, blurring the moral boundaries of the Church and compromiting iu purity, liable to Cltc .... fli&hl in ptrsttlltion, liable to introdut:t false teaching I7r .npprua true, acting Out of envy for Ihe God-i ... tructed elite. Cal· wtu., Cyprio.n and Detnctriw we", bitbops wbo carried ~tde conviction with their ·A<2demic· and ."""tical b",thren; and Euse-

biw' contemptuous portrait of Paul of Samosata'" depicts lbe nem""i. of a certain son of episcopacy from lbe standpoint of a scholar heavily committed to 'Catholic' continuities, yet formed in a 'school' environment, a man who believed in the proper unity of the t_ models. He could take .. p ,h. CoO .. S. of Ariu. precistly beea .."" of his belief that bishop. wc .. io cenain cir<:u""""""'" answt-rablc 10 the judgment of charismaric ,e.. chen when they failed ID act themselves ... ~~. How iI thi. to be hannoniud with the appeal toaecular authority to resolve dilpute. over the thing. of God~ The fact of central importance in understanding thU i, that .EwebiUl PURphil ... and many othe.. did not regard Con. tantin.', authority .. secuJar. On the cootrary, the emperor was a God-inspired man, a Inle philosopher,'" a ",acher who directs hi. Rod 10 heaven, and eauses 'school. of holy learning'" ID be ""t up. Church conflict is resolved by the virtual utidinitioD of the empire iuelf u a 'school' gathered around a wrilm.atic royal teacher. No longu dDl'S the Church ha"" 10 dellDe iudf:u a pure and ""If...,.,orin .. ou' community Ovt:r against Ihe _.ld; the whole .~ now has its 'bishop' and putor." M the visionary co.ugh, up in the conlemplali(}D of the Logos,'" the emperor It.>..! the right, like any authoritative teacher, 10 ."amine aDd criticize and, where necessary, discipline or apel ru. pupilo - language and ide:u dearly visible in, for example, Conatantine', correspondence ..;th Ariw." ThUl the parado:x of the early fourth-un,ury Chu..m u that the tension between 'Catholic' and 'Academic' in the chu,..,h'. life •• tcnIion sbarply higblighted by the Arian OIroUI., w.u dult ";th, at I.... t in som. quart .... by a 'Catholic' polity (onc centring upon episcopaUy administered sacram.ntal discipliue. usiug Ih. sancrion of."communieation from the church at large) enforced by a lay authority conceived in qua.i-Academic temu (Uling the sanetion of nclwioo from the group of inlimat.., reinterpr"ed as legal exile and bamahmcnl from the imperial pr... nce).'" In !heorer:icaJ terms, this ra.pidly proved to k DD solutiOll at all: imperial in.pirarion was as blatant a case of iustitutionalized c .... rilma u epiooopal authority had been, and conflict wu as oharp a. ever. None thel ..s, one of the effects of the breakdown of EUM:bius' synthesis wu '0 reinforce episcopal authori,y within the Church: an Athan.uiUl. resisting the (in his eyes) fa,uou. religious claims of a Constanliu •• could be pr«enled as an ittspired leader of God.directed spiritual discern·

88

ment. The Catholic (NiceRe) bi$hop, indilfe~ot to the thre..... ~nd blandishments of unspirilual authority, conlidem in his apostolic legitimacy and his obnlien"" to the holy and inspired uniwruL IIynod of 32$," could ~trkve ... good deal of the aura of the tluo<Jiteacmr. h was Catholic prelate. like Basil of C~esarea and Gregory of Nyua" ",ho promoled again the language of Christian ",aching and Chn.tian (sPfciIica.lly ....""Ii') life as 'true philosophy' - a b.Rguage originally ... t home in the 'Academic' world of JUltiO, Clement, Crigen and E ... ebius. P... n of what made thi. ponible wu another significant new facl. 'I"ht 'school' tradition ofOrigeo and Ari ... "'.... incr ..... ingly at odcb with the "end of urban Church life in the Lev... nt by the end of Ihe third ""n,ury, and it ~ no, sn:m '0 haw poueu<ed the inner ,",,"'e« to survive in i .. ctaosical form. Origen' •• 'atus had a lot to do "'ith his deserved reputation as ~ ma .. er of the life of prayer; 10 belong 10 a school with such a maoter ... as to kam a ... hole form of life, ... >e' of d;'cipline., irruo.gin""iv. and phy.ical, disposing the human being for the discovery of 'he Logos and union through the I..og<>s with its ground and sour"".'" V., Lucian of Antioch, ~membered ... an uegete of colo&sal sta,ure, d""" no, Kern '0 have betn remembered as a mUt.< of the spiritual lif.; .. and Arius likew;'., despite his impeccable credentials as an ascelic and his great popularity ... ith asutiCf,," is pr~ted to u. U primarily a teacher ofideas and an interpreter of Scripture. That aspect ofth. Origenian tradition ... hieb con""ived the 'school' .... a community of religiou. discipline was ,a reappear initially in cirel.. very far from th<:JR in which Origen hirrudfhad betn a' home. The monastic movement had i.. root> in the Egyptian peasantry, and An,ony the Great is unlikely to have been familiar wilh Origeniud PI.a,()[';.m. Ve' his biographer ( if nOt Ath.anuiu. himlelf, certainly a commilled Athanaoian)" depicts him .. confidently employing the li1IglIiJ jrflJl£l1. of late clauical philosophy and mu,ing both Arians" and nonChri.,; ... n philooophen with ea", and Rueney." H", i. the true philosophical tife. Much has been ",ritten about the .imilarities be,,,,un the Vit.o A""",jj and the conventioru of the d."ical .age'. biography;" but perhapo w..... '" m"", significant'" the implicit alli ... nce belwe<:n this new ' philosophy' and the int .....13 of the Catholic episcopate." Very generally sp"aking, Ariaoism railed to capture the ..... ""ti, movemenU of the fOurth ""n,ury;" and in this , esp"", ",ha, w .... left of the 'school' ,radition out of whieh Ariani.m

""/#,

had finl corn<: ~ained its vigour in a firmly Catholic and monastic selting. 1"}u, .."'ngthening of the bonds between the monastic world and the eastern epiJcopale in the fourth and early fiflh «nwrie. h.as bcf,,, well chro"icled and discussed ." There were certainly interruption. in this harmony, noably the ongenisl and the Pdagian crises; bUI these were ""t so much diviolon. between bilhops and monu as duagreement. wilhin the aso:tic m(nlcment i\self. On the whole, monut;o.m performed the important job of ","toring the charismatic spiriop. of Aleundria); there...,ms 110 final escape from Ihe muti_ fold ambiguili .. surrounding the exercise ofpower in the Christian ChuKh. The ca...,e, of AriuI, a meeting-point for ""me ~et)' di~erse currents ;n Ihe story of the Church, rightly compels US to altend (theologically as well as bistorically) 10 these ill,," of limill and power in the religious group. Rclativ. pluralism, wilh a regular rilua! focus, aod an ag...,ed oet of texts as a basi. ror ,caching and exploration, was appropriate 10 a Church which l.ded any notion of ;\self as a .inglc ilutitMliMI4J unil, and whose communications we..., necessarily private and piecemeal. Bd"orc Con'lam;ne, Ihe Church w,,:" 'imply not in a po,ilion to make uni"" ..ally binding and enforceable deciaiOTll. From Nica.. onwards the Churcll decided, and communicated its decisions, through the official oetwork of ,h. empire; it had become vi,ibl. 10 iJ.u1j, as well as 10 the world, in a "ew way. And to those concerned with enforcing agreed deciliono, whelher for Ihe Wc of 'he empire'. unity like Con..anl;"_ or ror the oait of theological inttgrity lilte Athanasius (and pechaps f use· bius of Nicomediaj, the independent and actually or P"'tnti.aUy recalcitrant 'school" group WaJ irKYitably redefined not mtrtly as a leet, but .. a body outsid( the framework of civilized ,ociety. The Church', new 'visibiliIY' meant that the wrong ""n of Christi;lJl group WaJ ~arded PTCtty much as the Church ;\self had be_n

90

reprded by the pagan empi"', a, somelhing subversive of the o.ac"' of authoritarian;"m :.nd forma!i,m ) on the onc hand, and ho!ines., purity, and highly ~roona]j.ed guidance (with its mk> of eliti.m and introvrroion) on the other was nOt to be wiped OUt by the Chu""", metamorpho:li.o into Ihe guaNlian of legally sanctioned idtology. In what we hav~ come 10 call the 'post..const:IJ:ttinian' ...., th;,. tension i. no longer avoidable; and wC may perhapo !carn from the nory of the early Chnrch that we art wrong to (:l<~t it to be rao!vt:d in tenoo of the of one model. Recent pa,,;.tic &eholarship" has hetn mnch pn,occupied with the relation of gnottici.m to 'episcopal' Chri.tianity, and cag<:r to point to the non_theological motives (especially to do with power) in the Camo~c rcpud;"'tion of gnottic groups. It i. pan of a general, aod nol unhealthy , swpicion of hi>!ory written hy the winncTO, the 'government ~n.'. BUI m;" ,..,action can fall into the oppooi" [rap ofoupposing the apparently .uppressed .. yle of Church ""iotence to be the loot ideal _ a modern ve ... ion of the long-otanding tendency to "'lyon a 'myth ofChriu;"'n beginnings' ." The hiuorian may happily bypa.. much of th;", observing only tbe paradigma,ic charaCler of cenain crUn ~k m~ onc we have betn examining in this pan. The Iheologian who continues 10 locale her- or bi.melf in the active hiatory of Chmti.o.o . pccch and imaginalion h... a longer job, and has al'" a "spoIIJi_ pancnu of lifc. are not bility to do mo", 'han idealize u=pt from 'he ,ask of examining and "",t""riIot the byways of early Chri"ian Ihoughl and e"perience in tbe ligh' of the poin' which 'he ",ory has reached now. In plain ,erms: Ariu. may .und for an important dimenoion in Chri.tian life thal wu di~ifyingly and unrortunately crushed by policy or circUlmtancc and yel may "and in olher ways for a Iheological lIyle doomed to spirilual s<erilhy. Some of Ihis tort of evalua,ion wilt bt anemptr
oil,...,

I.,.,

W.

Pan 1!

Arius and Theology

A

The Theology of Arius

We ha"e only:a handful of texts that can confidently be treated aa giving ul Arius' own thitlking in his OWn WOrdl; apan &om the.." we are wholly deprndent upon the reportl Df his enemies. And, as intimated in Pari I, such ""ports, especially in the writin!" of Athanasius, have to be handled with caution - n01101,I.\ sceptici.m, indeed, hUI with th., rtcognition mu, divorem from Ih.,i. own original literary conlcst, they are, in the work.. iD which they an: now found, "ery far from presenting ID .. I the .yllematic thought of Anus as he hu.....,lf saw it. In other worW, we can """". be 'ure that the theo\ogical priorUw ""cribed to Arius by his opponents W<:f'I: his OW!!, evo:n if his sl4lmlnltS arc u"ammilled colTCCtiy . On the other hand, ~ should be equally cautious about lotally I'<'jecting ~ allusions ca Anu.' theology which com:spond 10 nothing in his own undoubted works - &imply became the lalt"!' are so limited and fragmemary. All chi. is an UD!latisfaclory bu;s for OIudying Anus' thought, bUI, !Ihon of dramatic new documentary discoveries, ;1 il the only basis we are liltdy 10 ha"". As Kannmg;.:..e. juniy observes,' we can only rely on refinements of in«:rp""la!ive tccb-

nique and literary cri!icism 10 advance our undenl8.nding, and OUr conclusiom are accordingly proviaional and p&nial. The complete texU thal can be ascribed mo"" or less diree!ly 10 An~ are only three in number: in the chronological order prop<m:d in Pan I, they ve (i) the confession offaith pl"Qenled to Alexander of Alexandria (Opiu, 6) , signed by Anus and d = supporters (excluding the two bishops, whose lignllO"'" are of doubtful IUthen!icily), (il) Ariu.' letu.r 10 Eusebiu. of Nicomedia, (iii) the confession lubmllled by Anus and EuzoiuI to the emperor in 321, or jult poaaibly, 33.5. AhooLlgh the fragmenu of the 'l'luJiIl a"" in lome r ..peru our mOlt imponaOl evidence for COO!'lfUcling a 'profile' of AriuI as an independent thinker, we 5hal1 begin by

"

looking at thue alightly less distinctive texts, so U to undemand liut bow AriUl presented hifl1Jelf to diffmmt kinds of 'public' (witb decidnlly differ""t degrees of sympathy!). The two statements offaim differ notably in style. The lelter ID Aleunder is elaborate, even diffuse, a stattmmt which explicidy claims to be within a tradition sbared. wim its recipieot and potential audience. Tbis claim is nrongly ",inforeed wllen the letter is compared wim the synodal cn:ed of the Aotiocheoe Council of325;1 both begin with a lilt of divine predicates, nrongly empha.U.i:ing God', transcendence and inllCce..ibility, bUI also bil providellli:al ~rance of the unive:tae; both describe God ;u Lord of'tbe Law, the Prophell and the New Covenant'.' The Chrutologicai 'eCIiolll (understandably) diverge l harply for the m",t part, yet coincide in a number of p<»itive poinll: the Son of God exists tdilhOs (though Antioch dant! mis to mean :also that he is called 'Son' lJiiiMs),' and i... like the Father, 'unchangeable, inalienable' (d/reP"" and ~14r), yet nOI ~"""Io.r.· Otllu panJlels are sparK; and it is noticeable mat Arim rcfcn m~ to the tradition of teaching of the Churdl, Antioch mor<: to the Scriptures - probably for tactical r<:nons in bolh taSes. Anus is ddendiog bis stalus u a teacher in the Church, who hu 'learned' nOI only from tcadlen of the put but from the hilhop' - a polile concession to Alexander's view of episcoJ>'lI aUlhority. Antioch is opposing a group who insisl 00 the SCriplural logic of Iheir position. All in all, however, il is very plain thal ,. common let of conventions underlies bolh documents; and Luise Abnmowski, in her pioneering study of these texts, is probably eom:ct in locating them within . broadly 'Origenian' framework and relating Ihem to tM theology exprcssed in the confession offaith ascribed 10 arisen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgu'-' 10 COntrail, tile creed submilled 10 Coostantine, though nOl wholly unmaled 10 this framework, is bald and bricl". The Son is ,aid to ~ 'produced' by the Falher (grglflimnum or gtg"",",""'~? probably the laller,:as il would have: been acaprable 10 Ariu. ~1l
77u TMolDO ~f Ari",

almoal en\i~ly coIOUfless in terms of the debales thal had dividrd eulem Christianity in the «ntury Of to leading up 10 it: lit vocabu· lary is strikingly un·AJeundfian , and il hu only a few phrua in rommon wilh Ihe cruel PfOPO,rd at Nicaea by Eu",biu. PamphiLu,. It has some points of (onl&CI, though the,.., are significant divergeneet even hefe, with 'he second orttd or the Drd ica.tion Council at Antioch in lil - the text alleged to have nriginalm wilh the many. Lucian. or tIli. lalter creed, mo.e will be said latu.'· In any event. the document presen"~d to Constamin•• ells w almoo. nothing about ,h. diSlinctive viewI or Arius. excepl !"'.haps for reminding u< of hi, Slrong commitment 10 belid in Ihr« di"inCI divine hyposlun, existing Q/iIMI." Part, of.he tut, especially the final S«tion, may .... n d.rive from" formula or more western cr!"', encounterr:d by Arius in hi. Illy.ian exile. A. for the letter to Eu..,bius, this is largely couchm in n.gativ. I.rms, u a repudialion of Aluande.', views. and Ih.".., of Aloun· der·s aHin in Palestine and Syna. It i. inadmi ss ible CO oay that God and hi. Son 'co-a;ist':" God mUst p,,·uist" the Son. Ifnot, ...e are faer:d wilh " whole ranBc of unacceptable ideas _ that the Son i. part of God, or an emanation of God, or. worst of all. Ihal he u, liltc God , ,,,If'$ub$iSlcnl.'' Th. Son . " i.1S by God'. f.ee will, brought inlO ex;slence by him before all times and agn and uiuing stably and ·inali.nably·... The logic of ,hi. position _ which quite elude. Alnande. - is simple: God alone i. Q""",v•. and 'he Son has .n Q"M.'· Since the Son is what he is , th. firstbom and only·begotten, he canno, be mad. ou , of anything.t .. (nothing but God pre-exists him): but he i. no, a portion or God, who i. a .implc. spiritual reality: and thus he must be made, like all c. cation. oul or nOthing ,11 The leller condudc. with the well·lonown apostrophe to Eu.sebiu. al ,~II.uJ;imliJla,
re/leclion appear more sharply. First, !>owe""r, we . hall allempt 10 . kelch Ihe twofold consen.ut nn which he relies. (i) God alone i. s.lf"lubsi.tenl, ",,,,,,,11,,;,· he il immaterial, and thus witbotll any kind ofp; ;Jralily or composition; he i, .ubjecl 10 no nalural p~ues, no emanalion Or diffution of his substance.'" (iil He i1 entirely f",e, Talional and purposive." (iii) H. initialC:llhe creative process by f",ely bringing the Son into being, as a subsiltent individual truly ("W/W) dillincl from himself;" he does Ihi. 'be/"o", all age.'," yel there i • • &cn&c in whicb Ihe Falher elcis(l; prior 10 the Son, . ince Ihe Son i. nOI elernal, that is, nol timd ...ly .elf..,ubs"''''nl.'' (iv) By Ihe will of God, the Son i. stably and unaherably wbal he is, a p"rfecl creature, not just 'cme among othen';'" he i. the 'inherilor' of all the gifts and glories God Can give him, but, since this i. the e!feet of God', sovereign will, \he F alher'. glory and dignity i. in no way lenened by such a gift." (v) Although the rok of the Holy Spiril ... nol .pell OUI, Ihe Cath. oIic faith is defined as bdief in th= divine suhsi1lentll (AU/JIMltum) ." It . hould be dear from Ihi. catalogue Ihal God'. freedom ofwill i. a Iheme of centra.! impol"lan •• in such a theology. Anything which couJd possibly compromise it il carefully and e"plicitly excluded. God i. the e,nraeu, a Mother more complu set 01" iuucs arise •• Athanasiu, twice prnenlS us wilh fairly long reporls of che conlenU of Ihi' work, in a"'I'~ Ari"" .. 1.5 and 6 and i. 'J'UXIis 15; bUI it is not dear how exactly Ihe.. passages are related 10 each olher. The ",n1r4 Ari4M. texl (A) begin. wilh .even memcal line., designed 10 iUIISlrale the frivolity 01",. man who could write 01" thwlogy in ,. melre auociated wilh la.dvio""

comedy,'! and then proc: I. to gi~ a list of theological propositions, somo:ti!nel introduoed with 'he say.', or 'he presumed 10 lay', or some similar fonn of wonh. These proposiliolls cannot, for !he IIIOl't pan, be co,;"uued as metrical- which could mean either that the 17raIi
99

A

(For the opening lines, see p. 85 .upro.. The numbering ofpoinlll in what follow. i. my own.) [The ridiculous witticism. he hammers out in this work, wild· cWruo that <>IIghl 10 be shunned by all, full of im:vcfmcc: as they are, are things tike lhese:] (I) God wu not (l"mally a £aliter. Thel"<' Was {a time] Wb(,1I

God was all alone, and was nol yel a father; only later did he become a fathu. (il) The Son did nol always exist. E~rything auted is oul of nothing (IX od oaiiIIj, all exi.ting creatures, all things that are made: 10 the Word of God himself came into exUten« out "fnothing. There wu ra time] when he did not exist (ift pol'MU 01 yet ai'l. 8uI then God wanted 10 make us; and only then did he mue some kind ofbeing (MM riM) that he dubbed Word, Wisdom and Son, .w lbat through him lie might make UI. (iv) So: thell: all: two 'Wisdom", he says, one Ih&l is proper 10 God and ex.i.ou togelher with him (idWl kIU _14m."':JjI1I), and [the other] the Son who hu been broughl into being in this Wisdom: only by participating in thil Wisdom i. the Son called Wisdom and Word. 'Wisdom', he oays, 'c.ame inm exiSlenCC through Wisdom, by the will of the God who is wise',- Likewise he say. that there is anoIher Word in God baid"" the Son, and the Son, participating in this Word i., once again, called Word and Son by gnce-alld_favour ... [The n:ferenee to AstenuI follows} (v) .. . Like all othi:n, Ihe Word himsclfabo is IUbjCCl10 change V..plos ); he goco OIl being good as lnng as he wanU 10, by his own rree will. And Ihell, when he wanu 10, be 100, jusl like UI, is able to change hi. way. , Meau"" he is changeable by naturc. For il is Mea...., of lhil, he .aJ'l, Ihal God, knowing in advance that he would be good, gave him this glory ofbi. i,!-lmicipaliOll, the glory he afle ..... arru had u a human being on account of hi. virlue. So it w ;u beeaule of his actions,

100

nu 'I7wUo of An'u whid! were known in IUivance to God, that God made him bea:Nne: the kind of heing he in w:t iI. (vi) Again, he hu prCllumecl to"y that the Won:! iI not true God (1MoJ tdilAi_). He may be called 'God' but he il not '/nu' God'. It il only by participating in grace. like all othel"l. that he too iI called by the name 'God'. All being. are, in _peel of their lub.lance (.1:41' ~), alien to God and unlilr.c him (UIIiII ui .......... ioill); and so too the Word is entirely diffi:renl from and unlike the Father'l subslance and propuly (;,&t. illl.). He i. 'pN~' to (idiu) [the: dUi of! made and created things and it io to this that he belong,. (vii) On lOp of all thi., as if he had bemrne a pupil (di .... -AoJ") of the d~ hill1S(:lf in recldeQllcu, he: Slated in the: '1MJj,. that the Father is thus invi.ihle to the Son, and tbat the Word can neither lee nor know his own rather clearly and eucdy (Urih01), but what h. know. and what he Ices he knows and sees in proportion to (~p.) the rnC""Iure of hi, own capacities _ juat ""I wc know a<:oording 10 Ollr own proper capacity (kw IiII iiWt .....",.... ). For not only (he says) doe! the Son not know the Father dearly and eucdy, since he lads oomprch"".ion (u~), but also the Son himself does not know hio Own substance (1iII Ma"", ....n.u). ("Hi) [And he"ys tbat] the: lubslances (nsiai) of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are sepanu: in nature, alienated and cut offfrnm cad! other, foreign to each nther and having nn participation (dOUIo>dloi) with cad! oth.... As he himself put it, 'they on in sub,lanCl: and in splendour wholly unlike each othu, infinitely (.p' dprirtifl) unlike.' So, u regard. likeness of glory and of ,ubslance, the Word, he lay', is quite oth... than tbe Falher and the Holy Spirit. In words sud! U thelle did that godlCJ.S man exp"" himac:lf. He claimed that the Son i.o a distinct being in himself and has no kind of pa"icipation in the rather.

s· I

... So God him..,lf (ulhl> £ftLo) ill inexprClllible (dmIOJ) to all

beinjl. He alone has none equal to him or like him, nOne of like glory. We call him unbegotten (..,.,...m.o) on acm",nt of the onc who by natu~ is begotl",,;

101

W~

li"l bis pniselu without beginning beca1.lK o(the one wbo bu a beginning. 5 We wonhip him as eternal becault O(him who wu born in o. di.....). the order 0( rime C The one without beginning eatabliahed the Son u the beginning 0( all ereaturn (.rt4iII .. . /ill ,..ut#rt) , And, baving r.then:d C ""'Fiiw) ouch. one, he bore him as a 100 for hinuelf." He [the Son] poIv"ea nothing prop<"!" 10 God, in the raJ vnv or propriety (i.uIi' ""JMWiR ~w) , For he i. DOt equal to God, nor yet ia he 0( the tame lubilance

10

(.w",.outidJ). God i l wiae in Iho: lenlt that he ia the tc.mer of wiodom (_PkUS diJ,uuu,).

A run demonstration that God i, invisible (.,.,.,,) to all, Invilible to what ia made througb the Son, inviliblc: to the Soo himvlf: I shall ..y in p1a.in word, how the Invisible il ~ by the

So. -

It ia in [or byI the pono<:r by which God bimvlf can -'«, (but] in hia own degree," 15 That the Son mdures the vilien of the Fatber, III far u il lawful [ •. . ?J Or again: then: exiltl • trinity (trial) in \lIIequal glories, ror their lubsil tmDCS (aJMI4Sris) al"': not mixed with each other. In their gloria, one iI mon: gIorio ... than another in infinile degltt (.,' .pti_). The rather is other than the Son in lubalan"" (ht' ...n.n.), beau... be ia without bqinnil18. '1'0\1 shoIIld understand (MW) that the Morlad [always] wu, but the Dyad was not before il came 10 be. 20 AI once, Ihen, {you I « that} the F.ther il God [even] when the Son dOCl 001 exift. So the Son, IlOl existing [eternally) (""* ill) (Iin"" he came into being by the Father'l will) , la God tlw: Only-Begotten, and he {lit.: Ihil ooe - the Holy Spirit?] il d.ilf"ettill from both." 'Wiodom' came into ailtence Ihl"OUjj:h Wisdom , by the will of the God who i. wise,"

'02

25

And 10 it iI thought of (,p;-u",/ in OOIIntleu manifestationl (.",~.'=i,), 'Pirit, power and witdom, God', glory, tnlth, imag.:, Won!. You .hould undcntand (-J that he illhough t of too as radiana' and u li8ht The Higher One (... i:ml/ilt) iI .ble to beget an equal 10 the

....

But not one ~ renowned , bigher or ~.Ier than he. By God'. will (/.Woo IluliHi) the Son illum.s lie is, by God's will he is as ~II IS he il, SO From [Ihe time] wlten, .Jnee the very moment wlien, Ite look Iti. lubsillenc:oe from God (.k to. Woto aptst;); Mighty God he is, ht.ingJ lite pm..:. of the Higlter One with onl~ panial adequacy (d .......s). To put it brielly: God is inu.pruoible (....,..) 10 Ihe Son, For ht i. whal he i, for [or 10, or in] himself, and tha, i, unutterable (dtklo.l), So that the Son does OOt h."" the understanding (........ ) that would enable him 10 gi"" voice 10 any words upreuing comprehension (lilt k,~.to", " k4kJipn~). 35 For him it is imposlible 10 K2rch OUI the mYltenel of the Father, who W i ts in hinw:lf (.pA' . v -); For the Son does no! {even] know hi. own .umtance, Sinu, being a son, he came inlO ilCtuallub.islcnec: (apir_ ..u1Ms) by a rather'. wHl (tN/im flGtm ). What IIChemc of thought (WIOJ ), then , could admit the idea that he who has hil being fmm the [a?] Father (",. ok fIG/ToJ

I,

-

)

Should know by comprehension (... bWipsti) the OIlc who pve him birth~ 401 For deaT1~ Ihe onc who h.. a beginning (I• • ",Iti~ ".In) i, in 41 nn way [i n a position)!o encompua in lhoulht Or Lay hold upon die one without beginning as he is [in himKII] (Ms 1S1iJo). The diff~nCf:S in /.oat betw«n Ihc..: Iwo ""nioru i, .. pKi.a.JJ~ Itnkinl. Athanuiu.' brief lenlencea. underlining the llCIati"" poin~ being made, reduce Arius' thollghllo the limpl.. t oflcmll, spelling il oul with menu... ocplicitneu; while the S IUI bal.ancrt negationa with affirmadon. of the Son'. dignil~, and IJCnerally avoid. the neat

'"

and condensed argurnenU of A. Even when S appa",ndy undenal:es 10 se. ou, all argument (ll), whal follll ..... i. aull I.,.,.., in fonn and rhetorical in slyle, A giva the impression at &eVeral poillU of elabonoun, • """ark 10 .1 III bring OUI unacceptable impllauiont Of rephnue it in leas emo llient terms. ThUl the 'only later' of A (i) i. a fairly obvious deduction from S4, S, 1!l-Z2, 40-41, but iJ ""preue.: ill such a wly tu t<> imply ehanll" ill God, and 10 luggat that hi, fathering of the St>n is a P"'tty peripheral malter. What S apreoseo (20) by saying thal the Father'l divine StU,," ,. ,"dependent of the existence of the Son, A puu in term. of 'fatherhood ' being incidental 10 the divine lIature . The point may be the lime, the emph.. i. i. diffe"",t. Again A (viii) piles up • leri.. of very negauve-sounding lerms 10 describe the disunction of the divine hypo.IUes, • distinction which i. far more neutrally defined both in S (16-18) and in the purponcd '1uotatilln from Arius in A (viii) i!$Clf. And ill A(ii;), At..., Ii.... , 'a cerlain being', 'some IOn of!hillg or IIther', il almost certainly a deliberately COntemplulI,," paraphrase. A(i;), (v) and (vii) contain tqua!1y obvio,," gloua: the Son i. repeatedly auimilaled to the Itvel of other- crealures, and the phrases 'like u.' and 'like all othen' recur. The Ariul who wrote 10 Alexander" Ihat the Son was a 'perfect creature, yet nol u onc among tn. c",atum (iIn IiII A1iNn1zift), a bcJotten being (f......... ), yet not tu one among thingl begotten (4.... tiftZtlt1f1litfrnim)' i. cagcr to avoid any IUWllion that the Son i. limply ' like .11 othen' lhough .some of hil supporten were lal ca",ful." Alhanasius is again bejllg re a funher queslilln <Jf CIIntiderable difficullY regardiDg Ihe rclalion of A .0 S, and of orthodox reporu of An,,"' leaching In general. A(v) ha. no p1lrallcl in S, IIOr any in Ari,,"' le .. en. Yel nOI only A bUI the IWO encyclicals of Alexander empb,uloe very llrongly .hal Ariu •• aught • mu.able Logos," whose divine dignlly il a reward for his un,werving .piritua! fidelity; and Alhanl.;u. is obliged, in ",.I'd A ........... «> «:ply to Arian ""egesia of a number nf .eltU tbat .peak of some IOn of 'promotion' or apnthcosil for the Saviou.r. S 1 ha. tndi.ionaUy bttn scen .. a buis ror thi. 10.. of accusation; bu. it hu righrly bttn p<>inted DU'" .hat, althoush this li~ it nOlle 100 ouy to inrerp«:t,

"'...--1,"

",.

it is most unlikdy to mean th.t.t God ';ulopted' the Son in th~ ~ A1eu.nder has in mind in Iri li'iIJmIioJ. h is pauible to Ifeal the whole of A(yl as a deduction by Atbn..i.... on !be basis of the Son'. <:Kalurdinesa: if a <:Katu"" Ihm mutable; if mutable, thm capable of rnoraII,pirltual advance or .cgtus. Or: ifOod' • by grace not naIU"" them rtUUlt 10 be God'. Son; if made 10 be God'. Son, then made 10 in the aam~ Kn$£ tha, ...., hope: 10 be - by an ICI ofadoption , whicb wc ~"" a a result oftaithful aoo vinoou. living.'" Howevet", given the '''enlion Athanuius e:.pends on the e:.egetical ;DUQ COnnttted with this, it cannot be, problem wbolly ~ncrated by anli-Arian polemic. The total lad of all ....ion to aoy IOn of adoption in Ariu.' own undoubted worb, I>owevet", m....1 malr.e it doubtful wbWter the theme wu cen,railO hilt conccrm , a ha 10 often been maintained. A fuller d;ocu ..ion will be undcnalr.cn later in this Itttioo, when ...., turn to Ih~ consideration of toUi"OeI and inlluenccs I"or Anu.' thought. Comparing both A and S with Anut' leltcn , we may obterve • great deal of """fbp: God is alone qmJIil., and ....,dooJ, his &eo.dom is 1In:ued (with four allu.ions in S _ 11 , 21 , 23 , 29, 37 - 10 the begelting of the Son al the hthef'. 1friIr), his priority to the Son and essential independence of the Son is clear, a is the Son'. cri.lCl1ce alitltis, u a InI~ , distincl hypDIwis, who ~Yt:I all the grace he i. capable of receiving, indeed, all the grace a c:rulun -U ~"" (S28 ); and the Catholic litith involva belief in thret' hicnrchicaUy ordered divine lubliltcntl. WhJol is moU iimMlWt in thc 'TII4iUi, hoWCYCl", is the theme thlt dominlla both A and S, Ihe atJ,olule unkJ!owlbiJi ty of ,he. ralher. Nothing in An .... ' lcnen dinctly OOl"fCIponds 10 ,hi., IIOT does anything in the fra""mU we poNeSf from Ariu.' l upponen. Eusebiu. of Nicomedia writini ID Paulinul tlreslCS that the mode of the Son'. ~nenllion is .utalipkls," and that th~ Son i. ""'ated in perfttl likenas 10 the 'inalienable and unullenbie' " nllun: of the Father, bul this difficult tnt (already discwsed briclly above)" does not affirm the SM', ignonoce of Ihe Father. Ariu.' pDlition , howtver, dcpcnd..o upon the argumenl . pelt QUI al the cnd of S: w Son', ignorance is a logie.J oo.,.~quen(e of hUe creatednus . The Son is dependen., and th .... hi. mode of being is quite oth.r than Ihe rather'.; how can he comprebend • mod~ of being which ;. DOl like his? This nilC& the related queslion ofwhat Ariul meant by his denial of die Son'. knowledge of hil ...", ...n...'"' in the coni .... ' of S, thi.

.son

w,

ona: aaain to mate to the SoIl'. mod~ of being: he is willed into t:ltistena by the rather, and CIonnot thudo,.. ha~ that 'penpective' on hi. own ",bf;lIIno;:e which h.i.o cru.lor ",,"_Kt. This may be a ""ther condetlKd Wly of ..ying that a cuatu..., cannot know i~ras God u.ows himself, that il, eternally and nea:qlrily: or (.. I have .usgeoted ebewt=e)>> it may be an affirmation thal DO crutu...,ty Klr-know~e can be kDOwled~ of iIID """". We .ball be ...,turning later 00 10 the queslion 01 Ariua' .dation to the tnditiom of AJCUOOriiIID theology and to the philo.op/licat debates of IUs age, aDd it is in this context that I bd~ ~ can bell ma.ke sen ... oflhis - al firs, punting - notion. In tlu: conteJll of the 7l.t;.. hOWIeVel", the function of the doetrine Items 10 be 10 underline yel qain the fact that the Son is by tLltu..., I cru.IU..." livi", Uld operating as autures do. It i. not a gnotuitoul dercsation from the Son', dignity, but iIID explanUion of the facr that he stand. in need nf" gract: uhe i. 10 penonn the rUllCtion IOr which God h.. bl"OU(hl him inlO being. It is 'by God'. wilt {thal the Sonj is as great .. lie is' (S 29). We are returned once mo..., 10 the theme or God'. gracioUll will. Having created the Son, he emurcd the Son'. dooeneo. to him...lf by giving him all the glOI)' he is able 10 reuive MiI by bestowing upon him oome IOn of participation in the divine intdleCt. Thi. scema the bat reading ofS 14," and it aeoonb with the implication ofother p .... ga: SIO, fOr inatanOl:, luggnu a conttUl between the: Itnse in which God is IOpNN, at IOUltt ofwUdom, and the IenlN: in which any =atull: mlY be to (at panicipuing in the wiadom emanating from God); and S23 poinu in the ..tn<: din:ttion, on eitlu:r of the pouiblc: readinp of the line. Thua the Son i. by God's will granted what ~ mUll presume 10 be I unique d9l'c:t of knowledge of God: it is logically OUt of thc quntion that anything that is 001 God lhould undentand 'by comprcilen.ion' what it is to be God, the divine .......; but thi, don not mun thlt CfUtiOQ is totally cut nlffmm God , .inOl: God i. a oeIf-tartaling being. 'Because of the one who !tu a beginning', we know and wonhip a auti"", activc, loving deity, sina we sce Ih~ dl"ecu of his auti~ love in tlu: glnty of the Son. The inoompuhmaibility of God in the 77utIia is not therefore an isolated or arbiuvy dogmatic affirmation ; it is a nec:esu.ry conlequenOl: of God'. being what he il, M-;""'!Jo ,dr... ublistenl. And it is that very ",tf-.ubf;ist~ncc which rendcn him unconditionally nee, &«U\.I

106

U>d

as and when be wilb. All tllal Iimiu hi • ..,Lfrornmurucatioa and aelf-nvdation is !he irmlucible difr=ncz between him and hill aution; bul what he "" give, be dQC:I givt:. If my previouI analysis 0( the n.!;' as an apologia addreued to !he Lucianitu it correct, the p... pCl~ 0( thi. dialectie between tramcendo:nce and revelatioo within the Trinity iuelfi.to penuade a rath"" suspicious al.ldicnce lbal a SITel.l upon lhe unknowability 0( God did DOl imply any qucstioni"l oflhe reality of graciouJ m..nifestalion in hi.tory. Wc may I'fl:aIl Arius' emphaais in hislC11er 10 Aleundcr I1po11 the diviDe goodneu and providence, and upan the importance of the ScriplllfU of old and new covenanu. "£'here were thOS<' in the fourth-cenlury Church who auociated strongly apophalic stalC1llCllU abollt the divine with gnootic;:ilm - Balilides' 'non ..... islent' God," the Valmtinian Christ exboninB W aCQlll to be content with Jlld! *,l4IiIJ;" aa they poIlelled (that is, the knowledBe orGod as ·t."lipWi)." Some of those who made Ihi. conncction were to be found in 'neo-Arian' circles !aler in the cmtury," and their theological lO~bea" WCTC no doubt 10 be found among lhooe wltom AriullOuBhllO win over by the n.!ia. As in letter 10 Alezander (and in the ,,"cd l ubmilled to Constantine) Ariw p'" ••,nu himself aa CQC1Itially a ~licGl theologian. The~ i. a good deal 10 be Aid abolll MUS' rd&tioruhip with laIC clauica! philos· ophy; but we misunderstand him complelely (as ~ rnisundentlnd Origen ) if we sec him aa primarily a seLf--<:OnScious philosophical Ipct;IIlaIOT." Like his Alexandrian predeeeuors, be prnsc:o philosophy into service 10 establish on a finn basis whal revelation teaches ; and revelation, for Mill, was the revelalion ofa ,up~mcly free and acrive God. To undersland hislibcny, ;t was nee.......,. 10 &11\"" his fioo
~a1

ru.

ru.

that Ariw and his IUpporto:B we~ illterated in a l&IJe number of lau, from Old and N~ TCltamet>1I alike. 1"hoK who have inaioted a that the Arian OXIttoveny is eSlallially abllut hmnm· WtiCl an: right - II1II leal becaule, u Simonelti remarked ," the hillOJ"y oftbcology iuelf, particularly palrilti~ theology, iI. history of exqaa. (&Dd ... ill aisela", crUc:o f.... the~;Iu ofc:xqais).1II UlIfOnunalely, however, we have very linle evidence for Arius' OWl!. Oqetll (though rather ~!'or that oClOmeofhillupponera). Wc caMOl be completely certaill thal all the 1011 dealt with by Athanaaiw ill the ",Ill,. An-. wen: wed by Arius hinudf, though loOme of them mWI hlW: been. AlexaDd .... mmtiollt that Ariw __ 1aU appealed 10 IeXII (in thegospell?) which pn:KIIled the illcamatc Word U weal< Or ignoranl: thctc no doubt included oome of u.., p"" p conaidered in the Jailer pan of _ An-. Ill." LiIIcwioc Ale"'''''''r alludell to the Arian use of Ptove.bi 8:22, and Euscbiw of Nioomcdi.'s lell(r 10 PaulillUS qoolea il direcuy . AlhanuiwA hu a loot dixu.uion of halm 4$:7~ ('You have loved righ'«>III' nCOl and hated iniquity; therd"o", God , you. God, .... anointed you with the oil of g]adnCOl above your kindred'), and this 100 io mentioned by Alexander ... one of the ter;u in dispute. Onc tat baTeIy lOUChed UpoP in ""'"" A ......,. bUI IlOICd briefty in Ucmil'" and given a pll'ition of ... me signifi.<:ance in Iti~" is Iu.iab 1:2 ('I have begottCII and raised up JOIlI, and thq MW: ",bcUed &pi ... t me'); agaill, this .ppnn io Euscbius' leller 10 Palllinw," along with reference 10 Deuteronomy 32: 18 ('You MW: IOn.al:3 ), and ' I came out from u.., Father and have come' (M "'" ,.ne. ,1IiWttM hi Itiki, John 8:42). The ICCIInd of these wu evidently in wc in Ala ...· der's circle," and wu perhaps uaed by DionYliul of Rome '"' in his Ci)"'Qpondcoce with Diony.iUl of A1enodria (Ihough the .uthen· ticity of this m.l(ri.1 ha httll caUed in q",eauon);'" al any rale, il oeem. 10 have beeo po.n of a standard Old Teatamcot C&tcna in Aleundna. Two 6.rtal f
«

n.n".v·JA.... ated wilh apeci6.: worb oflpccific autbon, Ihey an: DOt likely to hII~ been pan of Arilll' own .tpciloin: of aegctica.l al'JUmaltJ." h appears probable, Iht1l, that the pau'Stl O\!, which the tbeo-

Josical

d;"8ICu"enh bf:tween Mill &/Id AlaUlc fint I'ocIlKd wen:: halm 4S;7-8, Proven.. 8:22, Isaiah 1:2, and a n"mber or

unapccified New TeatamcD.t telIlI. Aa Simouetti hu arJI>ed," John 14:28 ("The Father ;.. gmter tha.a I') is unlikdy to haYe bun among them: and AtlL&nuiu'" bolh "ac it to make an anti-Arian polol (if 'grcatu' - not 'better' or 'hilher'" -Ihen not difrutnt in.l:iAoll, and the same arg\lment n:appean in VictorinWl." Only laler ;.. it thou8ht nV"'"1')' to n:fer this "'rinI only to the incarnate condition or Ihe Word. n..:, initial debate wu not about the riptnal or wronpetS of hienn:llical modela or the Trinity, which wen: common to bolh ,idea. MON: pIaWliblc candidaltl WOIlld be tome of Ihe p....ges mcationed by Athanuius - Pbilippiam 2;9-10 (i" co"j"nctioa wilh PNlm 45;7-8)," Hebrewt 1:4 and 3:1-2,- A«t 2:36," RomIUII 8:'29,. and perhapo the: goopd ta:tI of ~ ... AriaJiu III - John 3:35, 10:30, 12:27 , 14:10, 17:3 and 11 , Matthew 11:27, 26:39, Mart. 13:32, Luke 2:52 (though this is M;J dOllbUul), and 1tYCn.1 _ rdcllcd to in paW",. Taken .. a whole, Ihcoc citations had apparmtly bccn WIed by Mill and hi& IOllowtn 10 tltabliah three buic tbeological pointJ;

Alcundt..-·

Ill.

_1""

(i) The Son;" a cru'lln:, that is, a product of COO', will; (ii) 'Son' is Iherefon: a for the _ d bypootuU, a"d mill. bc undentood in the lilht of COI1Ipt.nblt metaphorical in Saiptun:; (iii) The Son'I Itatlll, like his ~I')' ailtmoe, depend. "pon God'1 will ,

One thi", which IholIld bf: noted immedialely i. that none or !his e1"1eticai material, u dtlCribed or implicitly characlcriud by M .... ' manitl, n:aI}y '''ppDrtI the idea .hat Mill wu a 'literalist',h;' not literalism 10 take the Psalma u spoken ioo /HIS.' ClirWi or 10 identify the 'WiIdom' oftbe Old Ttltammt with ChrUl. AalDr the inte,pte~tion of the New Ttllamelll, ...., baYt 1\0 idea of how Mill might ha~ treated goopt:l na"..tivc or pt.nblc (though Athanuiul of Nazarba WIll dt:.rly no ,tn.ngt:r 10 allqorital read· ingsh" if M UI ...1ntI that Ihe \.aiI.~e of Ac:tI, Philippi&ns Or "ebnw. abo". the ex.aJtarion ofChriot mtanI thr.' Christ recciYCf

109

hia glory at the Father'. will, we can _

quite plainly from the lem:n and the n.iioltnu he did IIItI undenWld tlli. in the crude temu of all .potheoois of the mu ja..... al " point in UIm. AthanasiUI' objectioll to Ari ..... • ... qcais is DOl that il i. negligent of a 'Ipiritual teme', that it is 'Judaising' in ch.,."cler,·' bul that it is arbilrllry, .bI.a '- iiin _ ,. il is haxd on. prival<: or individual mding of the 5e1LlC ( . . . .) of the tal. Ona: again...., return to the issue: of authority in the Church: AriUII is accuKd of teachins, on hilt own authority, ..., interpretation of Scripture al odd. with the mind of the Church. h is no! thal there is.n established 'w:JesiaJueal' mdin~ of the controvcnial pa..ages that Ari ..... deliberately .purns; AWn","iu. clearly hu to wart very hard to develop an alternative CUfI:CIi. to that of his oppoac:ntJ. The poinl is, plUumably, thal Anm' inlerpretatioN.re 'pri\fate' in 10 far as they undermine the actual faith and p"ctite of the Calholic Church; Ala~ and Alhan.uiul" both .ppeal 10 the fact that Christ is won.h.ipped .. divil>C, Athana.iUII clWJenl"" the Arians'" to make _ of the baptismal rile on their theologieal plUupposicions. MUll' mdinp an: th ..... lit J-Il> divisive. La .raMi ux UtIn;U1Wi is AthanuiUII' govo:tning rule; bul Arius - 0I1a: more echoing Ongen - evidently believa Ihal, 10 long u the fundamentil 1fpJ_jWi Ut IlOl dillurbed, aaiptu ...! elucidation by duly qualified teachen may provide a critique of popular religious practice, or, al leall, may oblige the initial<:, the mature Chri!ttian, to reinterpretouth prattia: when he or ohe is involved in it." The: background ofthc ucgetical debate i, that telllinn between 'Catholit' and 'AClIdemic' modcb of the Church outlined in our fim .ection. We may IlIppote, then, that Arius began from.n awan:ncp thal Churdl p ... ctia:, and pcrha"" popular preaching, bad left a good many thwlogical loose ends in the early yean of the f'ounh OC1Itury,- His objection! (in the aedal!euer 10 Aleunder) to the milUlt of 'nu dQCribinl the Son as 'comi"8 o ul of God' 'U'OfIgly luggesl that A1eunder'o circle h~ bttn citing .uch puoages in ouppt>it of their conlention thal the Son ai.led in conlinuity of .ubltaoa: with the father, MU., in dfC<:t, intiIu upo
110

like lhoIc of Alexllld.... and hi. '"pporter1 .dkc:t a Ca.. '--I aad \U!tbinki", hmneDeUtie, unwilq 10 grapple wi!h the .u.t..Wltiw doctrinal problmll niIcd by !he taiptu'" wi_ u a wbole to the relation of God wi!h his Son......1lmiDc, u Arilll did, mal ~ ChllCdl'. teachi", of God'. unique aoo immaterial Q&lu~ is ....,nepiable, a ne<'".-ry wroIlary of believiDc in the ICriptunl God al all, then _ jUlI u wi!h .ta~"" apparaluy _tradicti", or compromiJi", God '. incorporulity 'oo - aU that il Wd about !he Ixgcttina: of the Son mllll Ix interpreted in !he Ilsht of this c:entnl belief. If anyone is ofupoM'li to __ here the dominana of a philoooplLica1 or rationalislic "",tif ""... the dlta of revelation, they should beaT in mind thai, for .u !he writen of the urly Church, thal 6ccOOm from time, maner, fale and d!anoe apruied in the d:u,;cal pbilooopbical altribution of neptive pmIic&~ to God (irnntaleriality, immutability, and 00 011 ) __ .df-evidently the only way to make "IlK of ..::ripIU'" data - wlUcb !hemsdvel, in llDy t;UC, witnessed ujIrusU wrb 10 a God whom 'no one bad Ren 11 any time', whOle pllrpolCl did not Chln&e, immonal and unapproachable,'·' Athanuiu. is alone wi!h Anlll here: the dilfenna= between them hu tn do with the role in theo!ogy of unl)'Slematie tnd.itiona of Ixlief and Ixh.viour - whal BuiI the Greal'· wu later ID eaU 'dogma ' u <1'1""-...:1 to ' kerygma'. It is not t'i rily a dioagret:mcnt &boul the god of the pbilolophcn NmII the god of Abraham, hnc: and Jac:ob (!his is a lensi011 u IharpIy felt in Catholic: as in helerodoll writen), and the n..JioI (whatever Athanuilll may say) i. unnmtabbly a hymo 10 tbe living God of taipIura! nHTatiw.'O> An",' aim i. to develop I bibllc:ally-b,oed .... rationally CXlI"IIislcnl a !CChail. Tbi. iI wby he is interostcd in qUCIUoru. of II~, metaph« and genre in IUs exqai •• He iI c:oDfrooted with a bewildering c:omplt:Xity of c:oovention. in Scriptun: I"or naming !he media ..... between God and O"eI.tioTI, and he _b to reduoe this ch...,. (and the CDnICQuent ch...,. of theokIgy and preaching) to IOfM kind or order. Tbus, th~ aft texts (like Provttb 8:2'l) which affirm that the medialor it crealed by God 'I win , and there are """" (like halm 110:3) which, ;ri-foOt, imply I ' na!ural ' conti_ nuity birwccn God and !he medialor, and I",,,,, thl"O\lghoul the New TCltameal u well al the Old describing the mediator u 'Son', and the ~L.tiODlbip of the mediator wi!h God 1'1 onc of bMng b _iP!tr:n .... brought to birth. How do we know wbich kind of Illl(Uage

HI

.... jA;"'ity~ By the fact that the 1r.1W", tUen IiteralJy, is plainly j.,c··.qmll with what the"'" ofScriptlU'e and tradition .nchtl about the natllre: 0( God. And II.Idi a c:oachWon is borne OIIt by the fiartber fact that meraphorical mea oftbc IaDpar: of'..,.ubip' and 'bEgelli"g' can be found dxwbcre in Sc:riprure: (I .... 1:2). The metaphor of •...·bip' appliM to the mediator'l relatiou 10 God it " ,MUei by the Icripllual wiUleU to a God. distinct in elKaCC from all contingent being, a witnc:u ankulated in P"I,... 1ike Proverbl 8:22. IrGod it a God who createl ofhit own free aDd. rraciout will, all odIa- !hi"", depend llpoD Wt will: there it no other, qllUi· ph)'liical, kind of depc,odency·relation·hip. when in Saiptvn: we eDl;O\lDlCI" the maapbor of OOIIIhip in web a conical, we mllll be aware: that the 'core' elemeral of the metaphor eannot, in the n&wre: of the caK, be the M:mantic field th.ac c:ovcn kinlbip, bioIocicaJ _tinuity, ,.. manbenbip of the u.me Pili, aDd 10 iorth; ;1 mllll be the run lO"""r field of familial intimacy, a depm· dcncy cap' ·ed in INlE or love - the field evoked for III when "'" call God 'Father'. Klnnmg;"mtr it righl'''' to call. thio a 'learned' 01" 'tcholutie' Q~, in 110 far .. iQ arwumenl is "'.,., upon a let 0( ~IIJ prindpla loictly applied, prior "1"ioN about what _troll the I dillJ of the 10::11- .. OPPCI«lIO whal M le"", the 'narn.tive' or 'antluupo::norphic' caqail of Atb· nnius. I IhouId prefer to daaibe Athtn..illl' approach u I.e ·,iw, an caq:aio which it DO leu conccmcd than that of Mill with notional ooDliltcncy, but it wary cl ion:c\oo&ill, iu optOolll, and ""'"' illclined 10 allow the mtuphor of ' JOIIIhjp' 10 atablil.h iu own core .re:a in rdatiotl 10 all the nther clutters of iIna.(ery used to chuacttrize the: mediator'. ltallll., in Script""' and ia worship. The dICe! of thit it 10 challcugc the primacy of anyone mode of.....-ki"'.boul the: mediator (.uclt u Wlltpt mted by Pto.elM 8:22) ill iIoIation, and to nix the quel!tion of whtther om d.-pendmcy .......... the ultima'" IIOU=, tbe Father, mUll be the relwl ofan antbrapomorphkally conceived.et of divine d!oo.ing:'OI whal it the will to produce the dq:totndtnt reality of creation it intelligible only it the divine life it finl conceived u i!ldfan acl ofgiving and l"CIpoodina;, which ilfor, in the ItDIt of bei*'ll utterly IlnCOIIItraintd, yu .,.' I.!, in the Itnse of DOl being the dl"ca of a puncti\i.r acl of contcioUl teIf-

no...

1

dettrminatioo~'Of

AthallUilll' htrmenwtic would

rcq..u-e a "'paRle tnau.., to do

il j1.lSt>a:, and il il thUI briefly Utttbed here limply in order to bigbl.irhl wbal is, in ODntrQ!, dw'acu:",Uc of Ari1.lS' mode or procwii",. We..bave ob.c:rval how Ari"" deals with the ""'riqlled ac:riptural material lbolll thc Son'l rdationahip 10 the Father, and how biI oond",ioo s If"C supporlcd by aUusion 10 !lIe metaphorical leaves the natllre or O()lI"'ip-l~ dKwllere in Scripture. thin! poin! ooted above U I majOT theme of Arian excgeo;' 10 be: invatigaled - tile qucstion of tile Son'l ItalUI, 11;' 'promotion' I1 God's will. We have already remar:lr.ed thal it is very difficult 10 llannonir.t whal Athanuiua and Alexander u.y abolll Anus' view. on this subjecl with whal we have of An",' own writings; and what, if anythill8, in the w .. eoponded 10 Am-nui",,' summary in A(v) cannot be: m,((rminod . However, the problem is somewMI illuminl!ed by tbe f~ that both Aleundcr and Athanasi ... o.uoo;ille the tryp1O-adoptionill viewl they ucribe: 10 Ari ... with the lIeretie'. excgesil of Psalm .~:7-8. Albln ... us reports'" thlt the Arians, in inlerpretill( both this p....goe and Pbilippians 2:9, Wc! much Itreu on the dia /oIaI6 and IU, 'therefore', in tile W«I.. They did nOI, appa«nUy, ilK these expn:uions directly in I Upporl of a limpk exaltation-thcolo(y (Chrisl .. a ereall.re promoted bc:caUK of vinue); deopite the pe.-.ua';"" argumenll ofGregg and Grob, ,'" we ha"" to be cauDDlII in ucribinllO Anus the exempll"'l doctrine: of u.lvation m-t migllt be: implied in IUch .. ICIIcme, and tn be: mindful of the fact that Arius himldf ;. ..., .peaking of CII"'I" IlIuman being rewarded for his probity."" Accnrding 10 Allla .... i"", tile poinll made in IlIe Arian exegcsis nf Ihe pIIlm wtre (i) thl! the dia _ implieo .. rewlrd , and a reward implies voluntary choiu (pONiruiJ) and thus mutability ; and (ii) Ibat exaltation,..., _ ...... 1, , sow, 'above your kindred' nr 'fellowo' implies that the Son it .. member of the cla.u of things crealed'" {that;', ",,/fdw i. be:ing taken in the COII1mon clauical and Sepluagintal aeRSo: of'wllcague' nr 'pann.... ' nr ~oinl p?lScl"'r'j.'" Tb", Ari ... ' readin, ofthia pulm WII cl...,ly WRneeted with SOme fairly CC"Rtral therna in hil Ibeology - tile ctUcednCII of the Son, .nd the fa<;l. that lie doea!lOt by nature poueu any of the divine allribulCI. If M"" really restriclcd himself 10 ra;'ing only these lwo poinll in commenting on Psalm U and Philippiln' 2, it ....y well be lhat lie wu U UI\CUy with the mewne of exaltation and apotlleoa;' u wue hi. critiQ. Ari ... ' tcheme depcnd. upon the faet that God bc:oWWl power and glory upon the Son fmm Ibe bcginninA:, 10 Ibl!

nu..

n.ua.r

113

-.t- the Son i._PIN Ui .. ,I/'m,,; if thi!

wen: nOt 10, th~ Son would not h.&~ the role he h.... ~,. I""/iito, as _pM., as the m.rut'(3to:r of God'1 glory, Then: tan be no cbronologicaJ demerit in the virtue,and-reward lICheme implied in Psalm 45, Again , it oemu .. if Anus ;. attempting 10 IOn Out a let of confUJing .nd appamltly contradictory ebtll in 5<;:ripIU...,: and again Proverbr 8:22 .(pt aenUt the centTal oonlroUins principle, Th~ a.., puoages, like w..e in p..lm 45 and Philippiana 2, whid! might .uperficially be read ...ugearing a change of .lalUS ror the Son (jUSt as Ihe..., Ire thole which, It the othu ""tn:me, mighl imply that the Son il 'pan' of God): ~t to read them in thQ way is to overlook thOle mon: fundamental witneucs that depict the Son .,. cruti~ Word utd Wisdom and the ima~ of the Father's glory from bd'o..., the world wu made, Arius il, in fact, f&eed with I OOIUiderable dilemma: the Son cannot h2ve hiJ godlike glory utd .tability by lI.tur~, .nd 10 mUll be givea them : but ifhe is given them, the implication mUlt be avoided thal then: ir some lIOn of ~ in his .latus - that then: iI a time when he ;. nol WiIcIom and Word (cf. S 29--30) , On the other h2nd : .,. • creature the Son is mutable , and ... a ration'l cream« he iI mutlble "cordiog to hiJ choice (p""';,..iJ): and wb.t illO be .voided hen:;1 the luggeuion thal God ~rruJes the Son'. flftdom by hil pmntmdaPe gif\r .od gr""', It ;s "peculiarly acule fann of the c1...iaJ dilemma aboUI grace and flftdom, and Anus' lOlution ;. 00 belte1' or wor.>e than mOll cft'om that hive been made by theo!ogialll Ih'"""lh the .gca, RealDItrUCrins Anus' view. from Ath·nuiUl' condensed and ho.tile lummaries, wo: can conclude that An ... argued (i) that the Son, in hil pre-incamall: llall: and in hi. life on urth fItII_rily 'loved rightcoulnua and hated iniquity'; WI i!, he fully and properly exercised hiI crclturoy flftdom accgrding to God '. pU'l""" in acating rational beinl', by oonll:mpiation, vinue, and praix of God , ( u) !ha,"Uc:h an aerciK orrational freedom i. normally what fill III fOr IJllllfisuri"g gra~, tM 'glory' of familiarity with God, 10 far as .ny aatun: can be familiar with the unapproadlable myltery of the Father; (iii) th2t God, in endowiog the Son with this dignity of hea.venly intimacy from the very beginning of his aill' m~, " thtl'dOrc acting IlOl arbitrarily but rationally, knowing that hiI fintbom atnOI'II autu"" is and will tolways be wonhy of the higbes. deg.ce of~, a perfect channel for creariw and redemp.-

tive 1U:tion, and 10 a peoft:<:t 'im..gc' oflhe divine, wholly tranlparent to the hthu," . ThiI may lOuncI rathu tortl>O\lS: it is undcqtand.ble that Athanuiu'" Ihould relentktaly pras his opponents to mmit thll I disjunaion between n.l.tuJ'C and gna: mult ........ nt to I belid'thal the ltate of!,".a. "'praenu an """""" from Ihe Itate of nllure, and. thu a dlanp; or that lOme of Mw' pnlumlbly laslOphiatia!ed or Lua cautious l upporten were penUlded to say that the Son wu capable offlllinglwilY from bill "'ate ofvirtue and ,Iory."· However, it millt.n u much KtI~ (in iu th"'llogial tonl""t) U Alhanuius' aegai, of thet!: ilwkward PIW"gel - awkward fur MUI" wcll .. for Alhilnuiul, if we take the theology oftbe TINt/it. It fat;t value. It is polliblc tbat MIlS en,lged with tbet!: 'adoptionill' tall quite deliberately beeaUK of theit ilt1ua.l use by O1ber theologians (of a SabeUian or Pa"linian c:a..ot of mind ), or becausc of dinati .. faction with a tradition of partial, evuive Or Imbil"ou' interpretiltion which enc:ouragecl ouch exploitation of the passages by beretia. If 10, Mill cannO! be scen as advancing, on bill OWn initiative, a Pr"QVOClltiveiy adoprionilll doctrine; ",ther he is IItempling to 'capture' tbe inuogery of adoption or olltation for orthodox theology I.. he toncdvea it), once again by a rigorolll reading of certain InlS in the ligbt of a cenlnl <XIfIlroUing principle. And, be", as elxwhere,'" pIn of Itthanasius' poIcm.ica.lI«hllique i. to .how that Ariu.' '1OIution' to a tbeological apm. lead, bim inexonbly loward. Ibe poIltioo he moot wanu 10 avoid - ill thi, inll&lloe, the CbrillOlogical doctrines allOciatecl with Paul of Samonla. However, a MItt elucidation of this demands. fuller discussion of Mm' rclatiolllhip 10 earlier Chritri.an theology. We bavc seen 10 far tbal /triu. i. anxioIlJ to presenl himl<:lf . . . defend.., of rnditional onhodoxies, a le.cher in I reputahle 'UCcessiOIl, and tbal he i. likely to be delibenlldy in dispute with other wr11CT1 in his oqni •. It great many allemp" havt been made 10 locale him in ont IOn of tradition or another, bul il i, pt"rhap' a millake 10 look for olle selt-containecl IlId oelulive 'lhMlogical school ' to which to a..ign him, even Ihe dUl;vc 'school ofLucian of Antioch'. It is more helpful to look at hi. inlellectual <XIfIlexl, nol 10 discover al<:l ohources for hi. ideas, bUllO understand beller hit; theological q<:nda: whal made tAu. panicular quntions, lerml or texll

m

imporWlI for IUch a man at that particular time~ Hio eN"Pies linl'" 'noo·ted him with Paul 0( Samouta and with J..d.iEip, !mdenccs in ChrUtoIngy; Later on, after the reputation of Origcn had b=I vin\lally ruined in the Chun:h, Ariu. wu repnIed by tome ... an Ori~ uJi........''' Some man: modem acboIan'" hive b=I mud! preoccupied with the qUelDoa of whether Antioch or A1o=nndril obould be aeen .., his Spiril\lal and lnldleelual home, ....umiDg that the ahemauvCl 0( Paul of Samou.ta or OrigeJI repruenl a reuonably aCCUrate l talement of W Optiolll, Otben' .. hive b=I rigbdy aceptical 0( thio rather u.c:ile antithes'" N~e­ letJl, it .. COlIvetUmt ID divKIe the ltudy of Ariu.' anleeedenll into - broadly "p"'ki", - euP'l.ination of Aleundrian and non-A1aandrian traditions - granted that Ih= will be overlap betwem W two, and that neither .. a~tematic or bomogenCO\ll, Thtft J.hnvld al least be no dafllCl' of oeei", MU. ... a .lavish follower of theoJoricaI oonvcntion, A1exandrian or otherwise , if the analy.is ofhio lhinling in dW acctioa makes any xnae 0( ou. lUll, Hio claim 10 be a traditicmaliol mUll be euP'l.ined and "Hlsed, bUI wc: .hoold 1>01 forget tha, he is .. think"" .. nd CliIqjetc of ~ulnetJl, tharpneso and onpnaiit}' ,'"

'"

B Alexandria and the Legacy of Origen

1 PHILO

Pethapo the ITIOII ntremc atalemenl of AriUl' purdy AJeundrian moll is WoIfSon'. conclusion that Ari". W&I raponlibJe lOT ." (C>'C"· lion 10 the original view ofPhilo' on the Lcgoo, .flet the .bc...... tioru of. modaliam which deprived the Logos of uallubNtcDU;' Anu., Like Philo, believul that the LogoI had twO ph.ues of eWtenct, ... " quality of lM divine: M'ma and then as " oepantc being o::n:ated by an act of di~ will. ThiI u.lCrpmatlon depend_, of COIln/:, cm .......mng that Philo io.J teach " ' twtHtage' doctrine of the LogoI (comparable wilb that of ~ra1 of the aecond-afllury apolos;illI ).' WoI&on lay. mild! .tJ'eU on • ratheT limited number of Phiionic to:u' thallpeU. of the Logos u tM. totality ofw noetic ClUQoII, the emcmbk of intelligible thin,., in so r.... &.11 thit i. 'ouUiidc' the milld of God, 'Logos' mUll designate lOmethi"l other than God in ."cb" conIUI.' And in thilseme the Logos iJ 'lintbom' and 'oldest of antures',' " realily distinct from the ~ God ,' I1 is ~ry doublful indeed whether we can confidently ascribe ... lharply defuled. picture to Philo. De.pitc the numCTOul ap> .io:ms implying that the Logo. is. being in iu 0Wrt risht (1101 leNl thoM: p"' ageI in whic:h Philo IpeU' of the LogoI at t.U.u) ,' Iher-e it! ac""aUy vny little wt suggaua 'crutioa' aCthe LogoI by an act of will. The nearat PbUo <XIfnQ 10 thio is a remarkable parallel 10 the view Athan.uius ucribn 10 Ari,," - thal God brines forth !hi: I.ogoo becaLUle he has decid!!d 10 CI'U~ the world. Philo'. ~. is that God, 'havitlg willed 10 create Ihis visible world', finl 'ueldlQ OUI' 0<" 'model.' the: rulm of id ..., !he .us-. .-w, of which the malerial crcuioo ia the i~, and whidl a b.tn pt'l'lc'. c:lcarly idctltifiel with the Logoo. The phrald'JCf certainly aecml 10 imply thal the Logos wu 1.1 God'. will in .., r.r .. ill Il.Iboillena: in the

m

IOrm

~

a 'world of ideall' depc:rw;U upon a prior d~ 10 aute the world ~ partieulan." 10 wltidl cnd the aoeae world is aJl instrument.'" But dais doet not o ..... '&ri1)' j .... tify a coDclwion Like WoIlioo·, . Philo la clearly COtICUhcJ to dCQy that th~ 11 anythi"l ~ God that ha, a put in creatiOIl. or any motive [or creation other than God', &ee will." aDd to ;t is n«:e::II&l)' for him 10 illlilt upon the dependcna: ~the world ofideu OD God; but on the otbu hand, the iem"...,., is the 'lhadow' or;mqe 01 God," ....tIcai"l what 11 eterually ;0 him, not the product of an mi/Ja1;1 act of will untdated 10 the divine nam,.,. God will. to CJcIItc ., "-din( 10 hi. OWl! nature, aM to '~ out' the OlfIteat of tu. diviDe rcuon" in the bnn of a pandip (.... the W'OI'id. If could be Aid, tbcn, that, for the purpoK of cn:atioa, the 'immanent' Losoo b...xhlLCI the ag=cy by which a multiple which is OOQC the Ra ..w.._ taiftcd m OIdwly. intelligible form, is conaaMed as pouiblc and actual. But this is 10 ... y that God'. n:ato.II becoma acti"" and fonnaci"" accordmg 10 hi. cboicc, and his choice is dfi:c1Cd accordi"l to what his ruJOII allow. - 1101: that a ocpanote agent Or C'len a todf .... , ,. that Philo deliberately adopu the COIIvcnru:.n. of Alcaan. drianJewish mythDlorY conccminc an helper for the creawr, with the overall aim of . .~tid'tlluch a pictun: by rdati"l it 10 what is kw him the fundamental iMue of bow God is knowoo by rationallpirig. Langu.., about a '.,cond power' or ' ""cond God' fi.u>ct:iDouo to ddinc what Sandmd has called" a point of 'ill'~ lion' bctwccn God and the created mind: lhc I..ogc. it that in virtue of which WC Qn bcgiD 10 know God through the rational SU'UCIUfU of the world which arc acces.ib!e 10 the .... Of course, whu makco Philo ~ th.... 'routine' PI.\Oni$t is his oonviction that lhis knowkd~ depend. Upoll God'1 initiati"", Dot lIiI.Iy in creation , but m the inspirarion ofScriptutt (that la, the Torah), and iD the gifts bcolOWed OD the I0Il1 in OODccmplation and oncditatioD OD Ihe Law." The LopJ might indeed be ca1ltd the principle of,,- in God, 'disposing girll' ," 6lIed with 'ionrnatcrial pow.... ' ... thotf: po_n tIunugh wklcb GcxI la I",own 10 UI - IUjHu.ocly, the two po*u, tha. '.ttcrod' God Like the cl>c:rubim on each .ide of .he • ..t,"

ulIi_.

,..C

118

bmiDa;. with God . the ttiDity 01' qeb lb.1 appeamllO Abnlw:a al ~ _ Ihe cn&rM power and the kinstY po'Aer (by which crt:arioq i. IUltained ...et orp.ru-t). It lboo"d be IM)ted lb.1 the Loora- io __ the two primary powen, aad. ., CL El 10 the divirn: be..... ...m:. it io the anM of existent thinp. and their 'ocmiDaJ IUt.taDce' (.,.. "nu """j," but, when it iI !xi", 0DlUidered ova&I"inl! the m....tiple IOfftlI of God', pr-ovidePtiaI involvallent in the worid (!he' rill. it i, clearly ...1 separable &om the one God. h is God himself uuned toward. wbat is IlOl God. ConJcqucntly, il is DOl awprisiac that PhiJo'. ~ aboot the Lccoo iI confusing. AI a kiDd of 'boundary' fM' ,,.;,.,) betweea God and Whoal bu come illlO being (Ill ,.Id" 101 ), the I..ogoI is neither ..,. ...... DoOr ilr,s (as can be aeen, WoI&on'l \lie of th.iJ pon'l't dislOlU Phi]o', carduJ pal'ldoll). VCI, .. QJ.Uailliac aDd .....cM..... God', capacity 10 ~1ale 10 a contingent world, the Lccoo is 'cldc:at of u...., minp lbal haw rrceival !ftl"ration·... n.c Logo. is I 'place in die mKbl' ( IO(;) ......(1): mill, 10 be 'in' the Lcsoo la DOl 10 be in God n.l'lili1n, but nther to be in a poIition to grasp the ~a1 l:raII.I«Ddence 0( God and hia incomprehensibility 10 mt crg.led miDd.- ]n this KnM'. the Logo. i, the leacher and healer 01' the miDd ; bul to S« the Logm ...uch io only 10 S« !he ,hadow (n ) nf GO!!." Th~ mind thal hu been \nIly purified .-..ai\IC:I the graa: 10 S« both the ~.... and iu u ; thlll MORI ~ves his

,e

knowledge 0( the heavenly la.bernaclc directly by God 's power. but Bea]cJ u.ow. il ODiy &om the 'Ihadow'. that is, £mm the rational imace in the mind 0( Motel, who himseJ{ KCI both i~ and ~ - both the Logo. as abrine of the clcmai ideal, a.nd the .implicity of God which is btyoad the multiplicity of idciPllP ." The 6n.a1 aoaJ, it 1CCmS, is 10 sce the Logoi ' in' God, 10 grup that for God 10 be God is ....,. than for God to be the fint principle 0( the univcnc; and UI pass beyond the aw:u"CIIClt of thi.t gulf (I: ·;ng God 'in' die Loswl to dirttt with or 'nourilhmcnl' by God in hia l implicity,$1 'bc: ,"Ond form and beyond ,;gbl'." We P'''I,QS &om contact with God in his .r.. PTmu, aWU"C1lCSl of him iPIIP .-dating providentially to au.rurea, 10 oHiIl( that God .dJ thlll bccalllC be u thue.: ~ is (lel"1lIlly in him. b°nd.1ion Cor his CQm .... Wlic:a1ion with rarion.l IOU", • ' pI..::c' for the work! IS an ord~ oyatcm do:si&n~ to lead crco.ted tpiriu back to him. Bul, havinl; thlll IICC11 and WldcntoOd God IS Losoo, as rumed toward. the world. wc an: then confronled with the 6act thal rhio ' tumiDg' don 001 ab.llIl

u.mon

the divine belli(, which in itsclf ;1 immeuu~bly """" than the ensemble of n,riooll IInICIUlU, and arc drawtl tOWarm me fiDal UId unfathomable fIIY'ltery of God .. God. Wllelhu Philo b.ad a doctrine of'my,n ;ca] union' ;n any atria ..,n.., ranau.. dd)atable;" b.1I (deopite me logical difficulties involved in 11Iet. a poeition) lie au II«m 10 have bdi~ lbal thcTe could be a relation 10 God other than in hiI world·rdated aspect a, LogoI. Perhapll me mere recognition of me in""haustible depths of divine simplicity, and a will.ingncA to tOrgcl any apprehension of God .. ufotd by hiI relation to aatlllU is all PlUln means (in wbich caIC, be ~ Itrikins1y amicipara mal patlcm summed up in the weatcrn Chrllti&n tradiricm by the language of TIll elM'f U~). h is no! that Philo has any limpLittic dOClrinc of an advanoe from thinp wc do underlland 10 things wc do not, a crlKk I"CI.IOPfaim dichotomy. On the conlrary, the knowledp acquired by the rilJhteoolllOUl is, mroulJhout iu developmenl, IOmething other than c:ont:qltual maltcry. We mUll begin with adr·knowledge,. but thi.! il not .. knowlcd~ of the IOUI'. or mind'. nW~. Like the eye, me mind behold, other things, not iue\f, and Adam, though he n.arnc. me ~u, dnea not name him.dr." It ;1 .. kllOW~ of me nothi.II(ncu of c:onrin~nt ai.lenc<:, .. kind of ..,If--deapair:. the lmowk!lge of God beginl in an awareness of the diolll.noe between God and cruturu, not in the fonnill( of .. concept of onc', own lpiriWal euo:noe. I...ik.-wi.!c, at wc learn to know God through hi.! ............ , wc do .. /learn the definition or esstnC<: ofthesc powc ...,. ROT do they ICU III the proper name (brioIr ........) of God . AI wc have leen, when Ihe opint comes to be fully 'in' Ihe LogoI, it apprebeoo. only the incomprehentibility of what is beyond; and the lnIe name even of the Log"" cannot be uttercd.oo God alone perfectly know. (ikribir.) his own IbJis:" hil hM , ....., ... peroeiwd by the lOul that ;, leaving multiplicity belUnd, is 40 "", 'He Who Is' ," but thil 'Il\0l, generic.' of dnilJTll.tiom41 dOCl not, of COUnt, ... pr... potitively what il illO be God. The word 'God' pnoes oome problCJM: ;n iudr, it don not namc God .. dcciaively;u ........ and JCCmI, in Philo', er", to rela'e more apecifically 10 God qua creato •. Thus /Jutu may dnignatc the Logoi" or even !he creative ""-,, as o pposed 10 the rcpl "'-i.r {which io called horioJ);" but "'hen applied to these '.b.adOWl' ;t ill UICd III UlMIrtiui, ·ia a tnnaferrccl .e,,",,', and withoul the article. H, /Jutu mean. God in hill own rnynerioul being, IMttJ God ..

pvrpoaiYf: and aaiYf: in rapecl of <:rU1ioft. PtUlo iI fu &un clc.Ar in 'P"'lIinl OUIWa diJtinaion: .rrictly OM would "Ipp' r noe:n

u..t

.. ".., would M inappropriate 100- God i~ bimtdf, in -0 far AI 'tbr __ it by dc:finition linked lO",cMck~tiaI inYO"UII<."1It.- Howcvrr. rYaI God boi , ,,,,1d all hit rdations with tM _Id it, u _ ha"" aerrt, lI0II_ and 'coawller' of the ClUti"" ideu, and cka _ &et ....;",1 hi. nal\l~ in rnaki ... and prcxrvinl t.IK _Id. PhiIo'. problem i. intrinak 10 hit ",hOH: Khune 01 thoulhl: il mu" DOl M IUppoted that the manifal, nul visible or audibJr IMtt of Sc,;ptu~ it idenlical wilh the ;ncomprmenaible Klr-emlent God; yel u..t which iI mlnUett in ~lalioft io nominl . Ilon Ihan the lrue God . The IIPle tenlion i • • ppa~nt in Philo', Yaryinc UK of worda like ·l"U and c.J is the ultimate unity of thillP, the monad lhat iI oc:en ",hen We p.a, 'C\'e" bryol>nt-ida-ed u principle of all Ihi ....: the L.cgt. Clnnot be tile i ..ut: of God '. fret: dtoicr pou::iady btt:aute ;1 iI God u M iI. God in hit intqral brinl , who liedy _ 10 bri"l ttK world ,nlo btins. God u onc: in ...d lOt hinudfio already the God who iI ..dj' n rapecc olauoo.: tIw: trnninoaqical uodariry 0Ytf ~. 'PP " , and ..dj IC:1Vet U a mrrindcr W I God nCYCl' becoa .... an)'t/tUlc oche. than hinuelf' u ... at.cc., yel ;1 not Ql:;a\l.llcd and defiMd (It dflun>i1lC'd by c:reaQon. PhiIo ;1 obl,~ by his U>napI ofa frK and IC:Ir-rncali"l God 10 rtIQI"" u far u pouibl~ the dill'erurtlevcl. of coecnic uniry found in tbe h",..,.;a, and tile Neopylh...,.-ran. inlO a Ji"lle prindpl~, the divine ael ftowinl freely ftom tile unkoow.blc ~I

.mw.

'IM,._

"'FI' _i"".

_"'''I

12'

loving divine naIUK: !he plllT&lity which poocs no probl=s fOr an hiervcJ,icaJ or emanatiOllisl COImology has 10 be heavily qualified in a moK personal;,1 ocheme. It il notCWOfthy 100, in rhil CORnection, that Pbilo'l God i. nol 'beyond being', like !.he Onc of rhe PQmtn
'22

thU shOWl is, rather, thAl Philo mapped 0'.11 the ground fOr the Alexandrian tMological tradition to build on, and thal Mut' the0logical problematic il firmly within thAl tradition. PhiIo is allempting 10 l,uiliu lide by .id( two r:qually po .. uful mocidl of ' •• vinl knowled~': 011 ihf: OII( hand ItandI. tradition ihalltrf:SOCI

uccnl, purification, the mind'l Itripping away of the iUutwn. of Knse-eo;perien~ 10 anive at rational and ideal humony; 011 the other, a lTadition mlting upon the ~ frttdom of a peraonal God to manifest himsclf in a creation th .. is not n«e:asary to his own Iik. For th('f",,,,er, the human mind can anive at a point gf unification or simplification when: il COnfronlS the unooneeptualizable ..,If-identity or reality as .udr - 'the On(', 'the truly alttent', IAI4I "'", or that which is 'beyond bring and mind'. The problem that arisc:l is how what is by definition rel.led to (or relative to) nothing but i!Selfi. connected with the unity the oontin~1 mind can attain and 'nand' in: the problem which, fur later Platoniau., turned on the natu« of the gulf between ultimate unity and intdliI"n~, and wbich ~erate. m( enoT1!IOUIIy importanl doctrin( that the ide.. , me ICruClUrel ofralional harmony, are inttrna.l1O intelli_ gence illdf, lOtH what imelli~ce bo:hoLda oulSide illelr, in the Onc. In whit ..,. ... it ihf:rt continuity, participation, bo:tw«n tbete finl and se<:ond principlea, and 110 bo:tween ' rulity ...uch' and concrete ruJ.i/ils.1>f In contralt 10 thil emphui. on th( ...::ent of m( mind, the 'revclationill' tradition secs the human mind .. being activated by an initiative from beyond i!Self; and lin"" that initiative it whoUy &tt, it dca not "'" a mechlllism of mediation through &to hierarchically ordered COfma.. All language that luggtIlI • real plurality of continuous leveb of being (beyond the simple duality of material and immaterial or intelligible, inevitably taken for granted by IOmeone like Philo) ilultimately metaphorical: ihf: gulf ;. between the fl'tfllom gf Ihe creator and the total dependence of everything cbe. Y(t here me problem arioc:o of how God is to communicate 10 the crelted mind exa:pt through crea~ and Iimiled words or image.. In lhi. contexl, the problem become. onc ofk«ping ICpU"Ile God and the created 'projectiom' by which he communicates, while ,eoos .. izinl that he illlill truly pt"'CIent in hi.

~"".

Both rnditiom ""= ultimatdy lpophlti,; both thcrcl"ore, produce Ihe paradox thl! the mum by which God becomct known both is

'23

and iI no! God. Ph.ilo, who is not a particularly rYllematic thinker, ill DOl attempting 10 rnoIvc thac two IchemQ inlO a lingle compre. hmaivc theocy, but 10 deploy two .ind. of metaphor and mctori<: iD the ~ of what iI QoentialJy • li",le ..won of Ipiri1ual developmenl. To look fOr a clear definition Or identification of the Losoa iD his writinp woWd be u r....ideu u (10 borrow. Willg""lu:illian aample)" 10 try 10 define an eo:pralion without drawinS a face, or 10 detcribe. contrapuntal piece ofm..wc without plariftS the meJodiea. Hm: we are dealing with relations in which the terms define yet do DOl exhaust each other. n..: paradox of lOII1etbing thal 'iI and iI nol God' ill only dilllurbing if that oometbing iI Uxlocd aCOOlded an identity mitt own - which ill pm::ilely the early Cluiatian problem , That which iI oeither ,l1l&I nor "";/N, neiwr limply Wllporal IlOl' eternal u God iI clcnW, pan of the divine life, Y'" criating fOr the We of acation, IIws but not'" /JuGs,..doi ~ derived from a hisher principle - if thi.l il not j lllt the deliberatdy '1Joun' and hYpDlwized area of relation Or iOleraecrion between God and the univene, hut ~ being, the paradOJles thrc&len to become ftat contradktiom. Aleo: ...drian theology ~lowl Ph.ilo in wilhinS 10 deploy two languagca al ODCC', but il haun!Cd by the difficulties for bHA Iansuap ofa Loso- who C&D l ubm1 U a human individual, &QC{ who is 10 be acen U relatins pc:"ooally, u 'Sea', 10 the oourc:c of all thinp. In thU ICIIIC at leul, Philo may help III 10 undcntand Arius, for whom me logical 11> E. Cl of the Aleundrian Cluiatiu tndition fioally pl'DYed inlolerahle: withoul wholly dilcardinR the vocabulary and framcwotl; of meUlpMr P"I bad. 10 Philo, AAW alWllplS to Cut the Gordian knol produoed by thox ofhil fOrchcan who have taken PbiIo I'o:r granted .

2 CLEMENT

Prominent &mOOR lhcac ;" Clcmcat. III .pilC of ......e diaag,ament OVCT the alCl
'.1-"

,,.

He iI unciKUllllClibecl and unlimilcU:d' (Ib t'ut ..,) wisdom Call bring w: 10 the depth oI"God'. OWl! being." The Lngoo il lupremely the teacher (liM,i."..) 01" wUodom, illllnlcrins: - in diwne waY' - the whole uniwne:" il, or he, is the Father', coullldlor, ill hill role u Wildom, Ihe". 'L< and_vie of the Father," the prima.ry 'orpn~' Of 'adminislntor' of the urUvene, who gu.anontec:s providential care for even the tiniest portior: of the whole;" M i. Hich Print" and 4rd1i of all other principle., activated by tm will of the Father." Indeed, he can be called the W/irIuJ of Ihe Father, as in the beautiful appeal to the hurnall nct: which Clemml puts into the mouth of '!ht one gt'CI-t High Prit!o: of the one God his Father'" in the 6n.a1 paga of the

Pmn;Abs; I long, I Ion( 10 endow you with this graot, granting you the biased heritage of immonality; &Dd I fruly gi"" you rea"", (,.,.,) , knowledge of God, I frffiy gi"" you what' myKlfptrftctly ThiI'"Wha I I am, th·· 'Ill I b'" " . _p t ' "'., , iUI'i . 11 IS w ha I God WI, this is the ...."..oir;. of lhe Father, this Son, this Christ, thio Word ofGocl, the arm of the Lord, :ht power ofall thinI', tm Father'. win, For all you who Ire imaga (tiiM") yet not all true likmalel (....,.wm.), my wish is 10 brillg you 10 your righl form, to the arci>etype, 50 that you toO may beeome like me," The 1.ogoI;1 the primary ;mare of God, who then 'ltal. the gnostic with pufect
125

011 earth 0( th<- 'S«OPd ca.ue' in ilcave!, 'life itu:ll"." In the !;km of the l.oRoI. >« attain a 'full aDd occure COJItcmplative visiou' (tc .. /j1HF Iliu;') ofGod," that IOIid nouri.ahmenl of me Besh and. blood ollhe Word which it • 'comprd>c:mlilll (t, ..';,.,.,) of tlM: divine' f' aM..". ... pins ofthedivine ... botance·... AI with Philo, 10 for CIu..uu then: is • dj.unction bet".cu knowi.., or wine the l.oioI aDd kDowini: G
the divene _pinNal oN are I!:att..,ed inw one'" (u radii pthered into !he CUI~~ Or as piec:a of day rolled ;DID • b&ll~ more prot..bly. I thillk, the fonner).- ThUl be is knawablc and nameable, in IIImc ddinablc." AI pluraliry-in'1,Il\iry, the Lagos i. F,?",- and Clement fOllows PhiJo in aflinnina; the father'. tnfI.. ' ·-JUICe of thQ level of unity,- though the doctrine ol the Losot AI nu. remilMls III Iba, IhiI mn ..... udcna: is not aJ.olulc div..ni. nuiry, and we can find strong .tatementa of the unity bet_tt" God and Logoo." 81,11 the Father is IliU, ;1 tennS, to be grasped as an . , ' 5 -', an 'immensity', beyond the ... '" that can be .uched by abouacu,. alcmion and location from contingent thinp." Thus far, lb.n: is AI.""., nothing in Ckmcul duu could not have been oaid by PhiIo, !hough the habitual I~ of Father and Son .. distinctivdy Christian aDd tht range of Scriptun: ayai.Labl~ .... quotation is widt:r. Bill, while il ha. rightly bo:en ~"lhal the PbiIook J...ngo. d
,

le....,.

...,v

~

126

III bad: to whal WC lJ'UIy 11"",

hoOO'C'OtI, aDd ...... !his !he fleshly life

~!he

Chri"t is indispensable.~ wc have already DOled,'· " Cbrislia.D wri~ a.o bardly "void thal problem wbich doe. DOl arise IiDr Philo, !he problem of IOI"tin« OI.It the rdatioo bel .. em Logo. u!he ktlowable aspect ~God "00 Logo. u, ill lOIl1e KIlK, ,.., "~I ill iudf, Cl.pabk ~ buomi"l identified ..nth " lpecific IM.terial individuill. The KtXW>d-a:nwry ApoIuri.1I largdy l"oIIowed the Ya(IIe binl ill Philo'l « otiJirio, diJawed "bove, poIlu."ting thal the Lops emerged as " distinct lubaillenl "I the time of, iII.IId for the purpote of aatioo, Or die j ... t prior \0 the incarnation.'·' Clemenl i(ooeu !.be diffiCUlty man: DO" len comp1~y in hit major worlu;'" but the difficult and fraamcntary notebook ncn~ u nod,., I!ImeD.1I on VaIc:otioi,.., roo-t:ic writinp, 111",,"11 Wt he bad oomc rympathy with the lDluhoo adVill.llced by the }I."oIo"isll. The: fllmDlll and mucb-di.putcd sectioo 19 ofth;. DDICbook If 'zk. of the ...viour ... a 'Child of the Logo. that is ident:ical with God''''' - as if th= ~ " n:ill duality between the eternal 'immaoent' Logo. and " ptholl.l.lizcd subject which comes into C1islmce ... • rdti(i) : 'And the Won! became fIca.h' - not only wbtu he became " human booing ill hit,.-n. (on earth], but abo 'ill the bqinninr', when the WonI identical with God (oW III w,.,) becanoe "Son, not in lubstana: by by limitat:ioo [or: circunuaiption,.bIoI ,....,.,,....]. Again he 'became Hez.h ' when he h.ad acted throu(b the prophclI; ,.. and the saviour is called • child of the Won! that is ~tical with God •.. Paul say., 'Put on the new man, the onc crated a......... ding to God ['I PUl"P'*l'," uhe should say, 'Believe io the one cn:llcd by God, "ccording to God'. purpote (.bioi """"), in the Word that is in God [or, mot1: probably: ao:ordinS \0 God's P"'1"'*', that is, "cco.-.:iina; 10 the Woni thal ;. ill God]' .. . StiU more dearly and distinctly, he "'yldxwhcn:: , .•• who;. the image oftlu: invisibIcGod' , and sooon, 'fintbom of illl creation'. fDO" this 'image of the invisible God' ;. the 100 of thc Won! th"t is identical with God, yet ,,110 'thr fintbom of all creation' .....

,....Iiti

Some scbobn'" haw: tak .... this togethcr with " npenl of Clemenl'. HHWYJIouI praervcd by Photiul,'" and with a eurious

quotation lurvivilll in Latin which dacribel the Son ·and Spirit aI 'primordial po_no fint created. unchangr;able, ez4ting in their own right (:uy,., ,us"","-)','" and conduded thal Clemenl did indeed ICaclI what PhotiUl chartet him with, a doctrine of two /4,-, one immanent, one lublistilll independently 1.1 a relult nf the action of God by I'l\eI.IlI of the other - I very clear foRshadowing of ",hal Athanl.lius "'POtU of Arim' teaching .... But Ihis is a ler10w misreading cl Clement - catainly cl the __P14 p.... ge, though _ cannot know euctly whal .tood in the original tat cl the HJpltJp"tI . Iu Lort:nz leoJjjhizea,"" the crucial phn."" in the pal'lge quoted is 'nnt in lubltan«, bUI by limitation '. Throughoul these notes, Clement il auempting 10 o:>me 10 \(rml with a ty.lenI which ... emphaaiu, very .harply, the formal distinction betw~n the various grades cl divine sdf"-manifeotation. "f]u, Valentinians _ the intelligible world as a realm cl tepan.ble fOrm. and definitions: the heavenly powers, numerically ""parate from euh other (1Iri1l 'i(i) &lpl.,ot'), can be IpoUn of at 'bodies' of a son, each with its own (inlelligible and immaterial) IlruClurt: and sphere of actiOll. They are 'fcmnleM' by comparison with the grou physical fomu of earth , and the Son is 'formleM' by o:>mparison with the IowI:r IpiritUal powen; but even he i. detcnnina\(, circum.-:ribcd, o:>mpared with the Father.''' Clemenl is well aware th.t the Valenunianl do nOl believe in a crude and anthropomorphic multiplicity of heavenly beings, or in a rt:al distinctiOll between the Son u he SUbl;1I1 in heaven and 1.1 he rt:latel 10 the creation:'" but he IoCCnII 10 be awart: .110 of the risu of this kind of imagery" " The LogOl .. '''',Iili, Clement wiota, i. entirt:ly continllOUl with God , 'one God' with the Father .. " The light which is teen in the incarnate Christ 11 hiI tranI6~"'tion il om a t""";eot and created phenomenon, 001 • reduction or o:>py of hi. eternal glory , but the same rt:a1ity, the light of the Fatha's elemal """"-is which i. the eternal Son.llt Hen« me '"'PH .iOO in 19: Ihe F.ther's 'identical' Logoo must take on form and definition, mUSI be, 1.1 ;1 wert:, ';ncamlle' from the very bcginnilll. 10 fulfil iu role of manifesting the unknown ut"" the 'oo.om of thf: Father'; bUI this form and ddinitioo _ as re.olm of ideas, and then as human agent .nd interlocutor - does not and cannot affect Ihe enence ofwh41 is .cting, God in his saving power and love. The pcnon of the saviour can be called a 'child ' of the elCmaJ Word only in the JOOKIt poosible ICnsc: God •• I..ogo:o 128

gftIer&les - evm 'ereata"1O - the l!Lapes in which be revulI himldt but doel nOl become anolher ~. Tm fomIs and shapes an dictated by the COIltf!Jtt ~ lIIaniftltation: '" God t:aII n>ee\ what is detaminat( only by appearing in detcnninale I'orm: 'Structure (KAiIN) is perceived by Itructure, &co: is t ( m by faa:, leODRnizabJo: ch_riatitl &r1: (l'Uped by oonp with structure and , .. bltantial ckfinltion'. ". B.. I Clm>enl M. 10 maiJlu.in a .. ther ~ balana: oI'viewa. He i, )]"e"y with the Vakntinian tcndeocy tocalV( up the hu'l(ll/y world into distinct ... beiltmtl, as if the divine IiR: could be partitioned: lib later .mIen,'" be IIIly hl~ been diopo.ed to la: in thiJ an illlpossibly IItI.lerialisl vi('W of divine ... bltana:, and to insisu thll God', life ..ndugou DO d>anF Of dimin ..tion in the prD"V' of 'nnbodimml', the taking of cklerminale form, in which revelation oonoistl. B.. t there is. further problem in that the VakDtinian l«hniq .. e ODDfUXI lho: fundamental diff=na: berwem God and the world: the IIow of reality frnm the Father down to human beings i, lCCtioned oft" in vario... ways; bul this mean, WI the diuinC"tion between God and Los<- can a>IIIe to be """" .. no different in kind from that belw«n lo«oIand .. tionalIOUI. Clemenl" Valentinian """1"0: IIY, that the ',pirituall«O:l' in \11 is an elllanation (_po","o ) from lho: angelk 1«0:1;". and the ansdk aeedI come fOM from 'the Mal.' (the hish.,.1 principle after God , !be O1Ily-B.egott(n, Mind and Truth)'"' ' not as a cration, but .. chil· dl'(ll '.,n They Ill: rmted to the Son in m.. ch the lime way u Clement believes the mamat. lI¥iour 10 be relalCd to the eternal Loso-. Th... Clelllent h.u to insist on a stronger bctwem Son and Father than tm Vakntiniana appear 10 allow, and on a doepel ~il.1 belween the Son and aealion. The imagery oC the '1«0:1' is a<:riptural enough; but Clelllent cannot gratlt that the polential fOf redttmed life is lilllply a natural capacity waiting 10 be activaled in Ibe elect.''' We have lem I lready that he doel nOI believe uviDg £aim to be a nal .. ra1 endowment , b .. t the prod .. et frtt clioia:; and ifwe can rely on lnother Latin fngmmt,'''1he Word .. _ is the work God, b..1 the 'dyad' , tbe prClCflI 1II .. ltiplicity of th~ act .. al .. ni~...." is the ......11 nol of a cosmic Cl.tutrophe but oC voI .. ntary disobcdien~e ID th~ Law Cod _ Ind is prelWl\IbIy, lherefore, to be oven:ome by \
-.u

or

or

or

129

subsistent eterually distinct from God: we """ .,.j, conceiv~ th~ Logo. u having fonn and determination. I! is God', capacity to pl"8Cnt hinuclf 10 \U in intelligible .hape, and 10 we call1lOl fail to I « the Logo. u distinct from God-aHuch . Yel all the fornu in whiclt the Logo. appeArS to t.llI an: manifat&tionI accidental to the '..,al' life of the Logo., which is in God, identical with God. When w<: come to be. 'in' the Logp., wc have attained a JRlP, a bl4lipsis, ri whatcv~r of God can be conceived and undcntood, and ... have alto oom.e to the trontier of conceptual knowledge, to a ",,"ition wbcnu we can I « into the depth beyond. Despite the ambiguity of mllCh of his liUlgul/l~, I do not think Cl!:menl believa! that w~ coWd ever form a definition of God in himodf. But here il the difficulty : how can the enena of God be partly knowable lu Logo.) and partly unknowable? It. Logos which (like PhiIo'I) i. III upect of the divine ffUiII CIon uiU come dangeroullly dOle U) the Valentinian proj«tion of diviUon and plurality into lIIe divine life . Id. noting that Anus (who explicitly !"IlIa out any .."aim of the divine .ubstana:)'" in h;" oonfenion of faith"f and A1exander!1! b6th ulOCiue Valentinul and Sabelliua: divine emanation mucs the divine ....n.. a Ilnity-in-p1unality, and 10 las than perl"cc:dy .imple and ael{-llIbaiattnt. Clement', n::butlal of Valentinian;"m and hiI ingenioul theory of a 'Protean' Logo., generating the aeated fornu of ill! manifatation, of which the lupn::me IIId ....,.t complete .. JClt.llI Cbrill, thn::attDI 10 erode the diatinction betwcell finl and occ.ond principlca, which w<: have al..,ady I«n as a problem in the TnlrgllU of Philo. Hen: again, the .taJle il SCI !"or lII~ characteristic Arian agenda 10 emerge. Howewr, mia ;1 not 10 deny that Clement at ... pancl Of! • ",,"itivc legacy 10 AriulI .nd h;" generation. We have seen that Ckmcnt'IIYIICm aUowed ample lcope for free will - on the divine ';d~ as wdl al the human : God il nOI obliged 10 revell or live, yet he d~ .... BUI, perbap.o more inlneotingly, there are the numerous paraUeu. il"l .....:abuJ.uy bctwccl"l Anul' :rw... and th~ language of Clemellt.'- In the introductory Iinco, _1
worm

*

it appean in "'22,f', wt: may 001( Wt tniIIu for God is found in Clement;'" aDd tIw !be 'good things' Wd up for tM believu in heaven, thoK thiap wtucb <XNlIDtute ~ beatific vision of God'. ""'JIH., aft: desaibed by turn u IIITiU and ,kt,o;'" and thltu, ,... appnn IeVt:ral Dmes in I p""ge like Srrom. V.IL'M God u fu·qJ.r is 10 frequent ill C\emmt as to dd'y com~ivc mDng here.'" s..nti (u in Ar;"..' - . . ,"",) , like _"", often td'cn 10 lpiritUal penetration in Clement,'· We have noted Clemetu', habit of<:alling the LogoI • • 2 Iil of God; .nd he can lpeak ofme divine power inspiring III 10 virtue throua:h human .,u..;.;,>" CLement ill a major e>lponetlt of whit I hive called 'Academic' ChrisDaniry, the """,DC circle around i .. tucher; Ind, U Lorem. IUgatl, ;t ill probably Ihroush the medium ofteachen like: C lement thlt Ari ... ' nlOOtI go back ulDrnately to 'Judaeo-Helleniltic witdom' : 'Evidence for thu ;1 provided by me role of the Witdom Lil(ratu~ (Prov. 8:22, and Wisdom 7:25) in the l.oa:ot doctrine of Orisen, at alto by the harmony of,uw and JfpItU, 10 reminilcent of Clement, in the prologuc of thc 1'1WioI:'· Once again, it ilIlCII I qucaUoo of. direc:1 iaflumce on Ariul than of a a:>ID.lDOIl ethos - within which, as we have ....,n, there can be visornu1 d~,"menl. Ari ... bqins £mm the apophaDc tndilion o.hr.m:I by Philo, Clemenl and hetcrodoa gnosDcism, the dcacriptions of God u """"'1, akl;us, and 10 011, which an 10 important a feature of the vocabulary of esoteric cin:Ie.; but hil importance tiel in hio mlllal to qualify these deocripDons by Ihe admiuion w" IIw tlioiM RtbJ_ of I _ d principle, with ill implicaDons of a conDnuoul -u. from the world to God. In millrespe<:t, hecan be said to have punued more rigorowJy than Clement that maller'l insight into the centnliry 0( freedom, divine and human, in any properly ~Logical l(:COIfnt of God'. dealings with the ... orld.

u_

S OIllOE;N

Tbc relation of Origen 10 Arianillm wntlnueI 10 general( much dispute amntI( III:hoLan.>" From very early on, there "'c"" those ...ho ...... Oria:en u the I.lltimate IOU>'CC of Ari ... ' heruy: and it is nOkWoriby that perhaJOO the eariiC:lt IUch accuu.ti.on COIOeI from MarceUI.l1 of Ancyn,'" complaining that Origen UolIght that the Logoo wu • dilDntt apellwns. Indeed, one of the feawres of

'"

ongen's theology that pUtl bim decillively and p~tJ)' CONisuntly over against Clement is that insittc:ru:c on the fact that the Word ot" Son is an "poMuiI,'" "fJwlUil ot" . .,..tot, a. In 1.'23,'" Origen ch.aUenges Cdsus 1(1 show thal the Gf'eCk deities have ""PMI41i.J and ........ , Bther man being pu~ in~ntions thal only seem 10 be 'embcxlied' concn:lely. HWjlMlGJU and IIIIrid a~ obviowJy mOTe or Idol lynon)'l'llOIU hue, and mean 'real indivHlual lubsiltencc·. a. opJ>Cled to wllence as a mental CONtnlCI only: in the badground is the familiar phiJoeophio;al distinction between what aUtI UlII' -/lfJ14SitI and what aUtI only Ut") ·· '·n, 'conceplually·.'" So, in _"" CAn;. VIII.I'2, '" on,m Slalel ~ry plainly thal he rejectll the vi!";Wll of those who deny that the~ IlR two IlaposliJHU in God : Father and Son .~ 'two thinp ~) in lubsistence (......taris ). but are One in likemindedneu, harmony (......p.w.;.), .. and identity of wiU'. ~h<:n: again,'" he deplore. thos.: he~tiQ who oonl"l1JC the 'conc:epu' (...o..i) of Father and Son and make them (HJt to be one in llaputaris, .. if the distinction bct~n Falher and Son were only a matter of.p;.;. and ofname., a pu~ly mental di.tinction which wc make in RHecting on the .ingle ..~ of God . And in the M ...... 1~. 1,'" 0rigaI mentions that he hI., 'proved elsewhere:' Ihat Son aDd Father are distincc in ....... and ""~. That the Catholi<; Chriltian faith involv", bcIiefin 110."", _puliJHU i,sUlted finnly in the ~ntary on John , 11.10:'" and this o:oncludea an argumenl thu the Holy Spirit has iu own 'proper ...n..',I" being di.tinct from the Son .os Ihe Son i. from the Father. Further on in Ihe Commenlary,IJO limilar langu~ recur. when Origen objn:u 10 the diltortion of biblica.llangll'le about the l"(Jurrection (the Fath.,.. raising the Son) perpcu.,ued by !hooe who do nol ' numerically' distinguish Fath" and Son and who say Ihl.t mey IlR one '1101 only in AM bUI aba in IlapoUi_, distinCt only t.IC IiMs .pww not kaI4 _PMICJi1J'. In the light ofaIllhit, it il ~I coertainly right to o:onclude that Origen could nol hl.vc: spolL:en of the Son .os A....... IWs with the rather.'" The pa...gcjulI '1UDlullhould 1101 be wen.os implying an endonement ofuni lY in fIIUU; .. dscwhCl"L'c, me word'. meaning 11"",,1 coertainly ovulaps. even if it d~ nol wholly coincide, wilh thu of "/»JICsis. Then: is one celebraled fragment, however, whell' Origtn appcan 10 ~ction the ~ of ..........,.",., pruc ....ed in lI.ufutus' Latin vcnoion of Pamphilus' o.ft- V Oril"'. ,.. But in iu prucnl fonn, lhil le<:m.I 100 cIo.ely bound 10 the .pecific inltrClU

",ItN c.u....

132

of the pall-Niane period (for "".... ple, in insitting that the Son it 'alien from crutvrdy.ubslan«') to come direcdy from Pamphilul, kt alone CIrip. It i. probable that Pamphilul did utili.., Origen'l lost commentary on Hebrewtl in Chaplet'l III and V of the Dol-., u our venion 1'ttOfd1; ....h1.1 i, un«rtain u .... bethCT he uaed it to make: the same poinu RufinuI wilhes ID make:. The 1",,1 needs ID be. 1ooI<~ al iD some detail. In Chapter V, ....., tiave a litl of nine ch&Jtel levdl~ against Origcn,'" to which Pamphil'" undenaktt to giw. rt:ply. The fint three tum on the. ltalul of Ihe Son: Origen il 1I.ccu.sed by IIOm. of c:alling the Son iaI!dIIu, ' .. by othen ohuming him into a Valenlinian , .. !.ti", an emanation, and by othen (contrariwi.., to the lint twO groups) of redlKing the Son 10 • mert: human Ming, 10 that he cannot M called 'God '. To nch of thete, as 10 the rt:maining .i., Pamphilul f'CIpond. with • ClIe .... of tesll from Origen, adding. few brief interpretative commenu. Wc ahoukl espea the fint of these catenac to con«ntrlte on the Son', distinction from the father, In fact, it does not consistcndy do 10. The fifJt Ihrec quotation., from the Romans and John Commentarico, amount to Litde more than C'Yidcnce that Origen called the Son u;,..w.u and 1I/lIWJ', The n""t thrt:e, the qUOtations purponing to come from the Hebr."" Commentary, rail( different iu,,", .nd I«m, pUI~lingly, to I'ocu. on the Son', oontinuiry in InthinSt with the Father. Wc art: referred fifJl to Oril"n'l oi>Krvationl on Hebl'CWll 1:2--4, where the Son is said to have recr:ivcd 'the inhcritanu of all things', and ID have 'inherited ' a name 'mo..., aunent' thin th.". of the angdl: mere humin nalure, runl Ih. commentary, is not capable of rccr:iving the inheritance of all rule and power;'" the OM who it 'more exullcnt' (JNrJlalNIr, rt:ndering the epi,de', tiW~) mull ,u...,ly be. he who inherit! 'in genus and 'peci"" and substanu and , ub,it ten« or nllure, and allluch lhings' from the falher, SIIh./4ItI;" .1 mrillnllia ""- _,~ probably translate ........ and ""/O'liUis, So rar, there il admittedly nolhing that could nOt have come from Origcn: all thal it said i. thal the: Son receives hi. cRI;..., being and clLanocter from the father, that the father be..IOWS On the Son IOme sorl of generic likene" ID himself. The Son'. distinct realiry (hi • ....,;" and lat.fHU/iUis) derives directly from the Father; pcrhal" the ArislDlekan diclum that 'inheritance i. by I\Itu..." nol a gift' is in the badground '" - 110 ,hal Origen in hi. commentary would be, I f the ~n.ral coRlat ,uggesu, insitting on the Son', kwhil wilh the

Fathe" as apilllllhoR who deny lhe tilk!1w. 10 the Son,'" and who inloprel IQU .uch .. I~ <me in question '" rcfarinllO a human hd"l exalted by va"". The nexl quotation in the lexl i, cvid .... tJy onlen', commenl OD Hebrew. 1:3: Origen almale. Ihe epi&tJe'. phrax, ·the dfulgeace (a,..,_) of hi& glory and the imprinted im.~ oChit l ubsillenot C_ .....wis )' with the lanIU"'. of Wisdom 7: 26, where Wisdom is dt:SCribed as the.,...,...,.. mthe eto:mal lighl and Cin the prectdinl verse) 'a brcalh of the powe, of God , the mOll pure rmanation C.,...,"'-, the u.uat Lalin tran.lil....tion of .po,,"ia ) of the IIory of the Almighty'. And in !he ncxlllCCOOn ciled, we ha"" an nplanation of how Scriplure rt'plarJy worb by using melaphon drawn foom malerial reality 10 indicalc lrulh 10 the mind: ' brcalh', Mj»t, proc«ch fmm a bodily Iu~w,,:e. Chrisl ill lib mallncr origillal", from the powe, (m"",,) of God. DiflicuJties arise in the ~nes thal immedialeLy follow , ~ .... 's.. lOO', the quotallon conlinu",: WiIldoD"l, I='f'llCCcdillg from him, i. Im<:rued by thal self..... e substancc of God. No len i. the: call: with the lilr.enns ofa bodily .,."to.l, by whieh Wisdom i, .... id 10 be a kind of pun: and authentic .,.." L '" of the: Almigkty. Both thetc: melaphon quite clearly ahow that then: it a communion of ,umlaJ]Ct bc:tween Falher and Son. For il would .«m thal an ....",lwa i. A",......., i.c. of OM lubstanQ:, wilh Ihe body of wIIich il it I .........- or bn:ath.' .. The problem it not only lhal O~n in the Cc" rn",? '" jMtt, xx. I e, ,ot lharply n:pudiales the idea lhal the Son i& ~lIe"'ted OUI oI"the Father'."""", all \hU; impli'" that hthcr and Son In: mato:rial n:aJitiell; mon: Itrikingly ,till, in XIII .2!> of the .....e commentary, we find'" a n:jtttion of HrrackDn'. vi .... lhal lhoi<: created . pirits d",tined for oaIvaUon an ...."uws with God, and '·' an exegesil of the oame text from the Wi&dom of Solomon that dirtttly oontradiclt the fragmn"lt on Hebrtwl . Having said lbal Ihe father Inn,,,,,1Ido the Son and the Spiril ...,. than Ihey lranscend the CI"tIlurcly world. Ori~n potnll OUt that Wisdom. is called an .,.."...... !"lO1 m God but m hi. gIo.-y and Jishl, and a 'bn:ath' nOI of th<: Father but of his powe,. Judgin, from other P....les ,'.. ill weU all from the erilirum of Heracleon io XIII.2!>, Ori,"" understood L tJ£0Ji0J 10 designal<: co-ordinate membc: ... of a 'ingLe dUI , brinp .harinl

m. .....

the aam" propenieI. Sina: tic C¥1"""DU !.Iushl Wt holy wa>: of <)DC .... bltance with God, tbcr imp!ied, Orip d'i mM ,

..wo:

that God was .. capable of cb.~ aod corxupriou .. any aealed apiril. Obviously thia ~ eotoIWy woukI !:lOt apply if the Son were spoken of .. 'rv 'Fwiu; but il WOI.IId be imJK*ibU: fOr ~ to regard the Son u another membcl' of a dui ux:hadiDs the Father, lIIId 10 it iI difficult to imagine him ...i n • the term of

.. s...

Fl'cutially, he b.u a l i . Kt ofDOtioftl in mind .. hill polemical tl.l'tt't in these and other p'M?~ of the CoI!Immtary. Valenrini'n pallia such ill H"ncleott live the imp.. sion of Inchi", Wt Ipiritl desrined fOr wvatioa an 'poniona' of the divine lublta".....

sucb spirits are the ume ki.i of thine as God bccauoc ~ eortK IOnh from him (compao: what wc noted above about the docuinc of Clement's Valentinian OfPO'X'ntl - the 'spirirual seed' ill an ..,.."da from a higher l""rl). Orisen objectllO the implication Wt the diviDe IUo.tana: iI di..;,ib!e (and 10 materialj,'U aDd, in XllI.2S, appral'l to be ~ting alia to the way Valcnrini,m UIC A, '" un.. 10 describe thil rclaricm of derivation: 'they do PO! 1ft that wbat is 4hiLL! ..., iI a IUbject oftbc u.me pndic:ata (_ .... ,.:,tt;q"j" " - that iI, a co-ordiAale reality . Th ... the 'derivation' ICPJe of ,,,"LiTun.. and t:lq'.>h ';CI'l\.J Iilo:.e 'out of the Falbcr's IU\>. • ItaDa:' equally reflect the ",.teria!.itt implicatiom of ..... tic ~cbin. in Orisen's eyes. Rius-Campo'C> sugnu thaI, wrule ~ objected 10 the Son beu., laid 10 be ',nlntiM out of the Father's IUb.tlIIIa:' (u in

,,,rily

XX. IS of the John Commentary), be would not ...... have denied thal the Son could be described limply .. 'from' the Father'l lub.tanec. This doo not bclp us with the Hebrews fragment, !bough, where WiIdom " i,1Il sWJIaM IHi ~;'. IllId ~ iI DO dear "";d"";,, that Origel work"'! with • diltinction of this son. The problem of reconciling the pain., quoted ia the pi =1 tat of the Doft- with the opinions ofOricm cJxwherc apt, • ...! mnailll "nsol~ - especially U"''' an 001 dalin( with. ~ point in .bU thinking. Tbt: polemic apinll gnoariciNn is • CCIItraI ~.

If Pamphilus' tat has bee, u we m... t a)IlCIude, doctoral by Ruti,., ..., is it pouiblc 10 RC how this has bem done? I beliew il io. I.' n..: three Cf.ll'aell from the Hd" eWI Commentary bear no rclation " all 10 the lil'lt ::Iwwe in Pamphilus' cataJosue (which

there is nn obviQm I"CaJI)JI fQT 'mpemng); but oher 11. bav. IIOIII~ relevance 10 ohe 5tCOIId and tbird. Tbe firll qUQlatitln plainly malr.~ tbe point tha. the s.m i. indeed ro be called Greality in Gnd him.self - as the eaI.ting 1'tJ~ to the -""'Ond accusation makes dear. hi. quite likely, then , that Rutinu. h.. taken quotations front the latcr ru~s to till out the Ii"t. He ba. taken Pamphilus· original heading IOr the lint caten.o. - 'That the Son i. born from the Fatber' _ as an occuion for arguing that ongen believed in In unbroken continuity betw"n Son and Father; thul he add. In ohe heading the words: 'and i. of one .ubstance with the Fatber, alien from creaturely substance'; he eioher ignores or fail. 10 :I« PampbiJus' need here ro establish a proper ii,ti.tlilltl bctwef'n Falher and Son. After aU, the beresy of teaching 'two unbeg<JlIeru· no longer has its old fo.-.:e by Rufinus· day, having b«n used $0 ~ularly by anti_Ni""net at a stick to beat th~ir opponents with. Pamphilu.' original series of
talion. It has clearly escaped his noti« thr.t I\( hu ~rfo""ed W: considerable ""'. tk fom of mwng Pamphihu' fint ru~ ... y the aact op"""te ofwh.u ill compiler intended. Blit if Rllfinlls i. 011110 ~ude any Arir.n ..... or onbocknr. ",bus. of Origcn, ;t is lICK slIrprising that he add. his Own brief gloos to the third atract from the Hebrew. Commentary.''" I SUlpcct thr.t &tinm. . .. ,.. ;1J4 ....slalia Dti ,....,_ is Rulinua' rmdtring ofa Greek original that ",ad something like.,e. Iw./H {or ~rhapo ,.,.) lis !#or 1"- ........ prlil4 or fiN,,;, And tl\( word. following 'Both these melaphon • . .' arc an aplanalOry glon by Rllfinlll! it is obvlou. that a IMJ/>M is of onc slIbstan« wilb ill source, 10 then: shOllld br: no doIIbt Ibat Origcn, to all intenll aod purposes, ""'''IIht W: coosublltantiality of FalhcT and Son, sin« he wu ~rfrctly hr.ppy to I1It .uch imagery. As hu often been ",marked.'" we should not seek to enforce llpon Origen a coosistency he himlltlf seldom seenu to ha"" worried about. Yet, although it i'ltill iust poslible that the conclUlion of the Hebrew. fragment i. authentic, even if delibcntdy milplaced, it is unUlual to find ID flat a contradicr:ion on 10 significant a mattu. Allowanco: may br: made for the early due and polemical tendency of the John Commentary;'" but ~ have IIOted that lOT Origcn. a. fur Clement, the mutation of the implicit mr.terialism oCV.Jentinian cosmology is of fint importanco:, and he would br: tI'IoOIIt unlikely to ullt an exprcuion that migbt gi"" any counteoanco: at all to it. The transco:ndtnQ of the Father tkptods upon his having no 'c0ordinate!' {if he i. a membr:r of a class, he mllst bt diSlinguilthed from other memben; ifso, he ha. particular defining characteriltiCl, and 110 i. not infinite)'" and on his br:ing immaterial and indivioible. 'Participating' in God is not having a shan: of IOme malerialllulf, but doing whr.t God dotS,'" having one puis with Ibe Son in contemplating Ihe Father. '" To lilt the language of later Gn:ek theology, wc share in, ptrceive and an: conformed to, the opcntion, "",,N, nDllhe enenco: of God. Origen's Logo. il thlls (like Philo'. and Clement'.) that of God which i. aeco:s.ible to u• • nd apable of btins .hared by us. But because Origen ha. SO mud! dearer adoctrineoflbc Word', diWncu...,. existence from all eternity, he has to dcal nlber more ~ten­ oi""ly t ..... his predcctuQI'I in Alexandria with the question ofhow the Word ilt ...,Ialed to the F.ther. A5 is well-known 10 "udents of Christian doctrine, Origcn believed Ibr.1 the Son wu eternally,

timelculy, gmaaled by the Father,' " if anyone is 10 fooLi.h as \0 'UUUt that there was a time when the Logos did nol .,.isl,'" they wiU have to explain why God-did not brina; him into being JOOIle', Md, prcuing the implications of the n4l/itj u a$ll' hI, We come finally 10 le<: that, for God, there is DO gap between possibility and effective wiLLina;, and.., no im~il!lmt \0 IUs aLwaY' 'haYing what bt' WUlU', 10 \0 speak. The only ' bogimring' the Word bal is God, '£mm wbom he is, of whom he is born ' - a cbuaCt"";31IC play on the mIIny lenses 0( IlfCWo' the Word doe:a nOI bave M utili, a polm o(origin, in time, onLy an..w, 10 origin and 'nllion,u.,' ci.,.iltmce in the being of God .'" Origen adds an argument of IOme fralmeaa and importance \0 thU: God .., falher mutt have a son in order to be what he iI.'" If we we for granted the diYine ch.a.leaanell, as Origen and IUs inlcrpreten did, whal is uid of God mull be timelessly true: if pan of whal il aaid of God is Ihal he is one lenn of I relation, the other tenn mUlt allO be eternal, Origcn goes on 10 apply this \0 God '. nmnipotence, arg1.ling for a kind of nC«Nity in tile elcmal existence of erealUl"CI 0Hf whom God U omnipotent. 1'hit 'neceuity' for creation depend. on the prior fact of God', defining himJelru Father: he creates 'in' the Word and Wisdom be hu bcgonen ,'" Tlti. JUI poinl may be an attempl 10 avoid any Iugge»Uon of an 'au tomatic' crealion: God crealCl bccallK he fin! (logically not lemporally, of coune) willl \0 be the progenilOr of Wisdom . This U nnnc too dear, though, and Origen's JlO'lbumous ",putarion wu 10 lulfer on accoum of these speculation s; the logk of the aTJUmc:m is more compl.,. than Origen rulilcd, and he ~ 10 confllK the £aCt lbat (on his premises) sc..ltmenll about God mUll be timelessly trlle with the mUIUen deduction thal anything appearing. u one tenu of. relarion of which the other ICTm is God mutl .,.ill eternally. There;' a muddle about the logic of relations here, u a confulion of mdlessfboginninglc$,l du ... tion with I;mciellnr:., or rather le/l,Jeltslnc". HoweV(:r, an improved £om> of the a~umc:nt to appear, 10 good efW:t, in anti·Arian writinll" of tbe fourth a:nlury. ," Thi. diacuuion reve.ls a lignific:am tensinn in Origm', tho",hl . Much of the .second chapler of hi, finl book 0. F;rJll'riMi,us (from which the.., argumenll come) UICI very rreely lbe imagery of Ihe Son or Word .., _po ...':" and Dd/,« commenting on the opening ve,...,. of Hebrewl and their counterpart in Wisdom 7, G...,.tic maleria1;,m is repudiated, '" and the Word is uid 10 COme forth

wen ..,

w"

'"

AkxaNIritJ aNI tlu ugO&) DJ Origm

from the Father 'as the will does from the mind'.l" Origen's profound concern for the simplicity, immateriality and indivisibility of the divine nature l" naturally leads him to emphasize the analogy between God and the human mind ; so it is not suprising that what 'proceeds' from God, his Word or Wisdom, should be conceived on the analogy of a mental operation . Wisdom is the nwgeitJ of a divine virtw of dllnamis,l8~ the actualization of ~ divine capacity. Origen exploits the technical sense possessed by the words used in Septuagintal or New Testament imagery; Wisdom is called a mirror of God's nwgeia or dll1lllmis in Wisdom 7.26, and Origen tidies this up as 'a mirror of the nwgtia of the dllMmis of God,' observing the Aristotelean order of potency and act. But of course this leaves him with the difficulty that a divine act is not a subsistent reality in itself; and he is equally eager to affirm the Word's subsistent reality, as we have seen. The Word of God is not only a cosmological convenience, bUI the paradigm for our knowing and loving the Father,l86 and so must have a 'hypostatic' existence comparable [0 ours: he must be a lllbjltl of knowledge and love. The Logos of Philo may be a paradigm for knowledge of God, but is so only formal", as that which contains those truths to which our minds must be conformed. Origen's Logos is also Son, glorifying and being glorified by the Father,111 enjoying a relation with God which is far more clearly of a personal nature: hence the appeal 10 the logic of relation (if a father, then a son too) serves, in the Commentary on John,l88 to underline the real plurality and mutuality of the divine life. The Son is clearly seen as more than an instrument for connecting God with the world: he is the sharer of God's glory, irrespective of his role vis-ti-vu the creation. Origen hints at a fundamental datum of later trinitarian thought, that the Father-Son relation is simply part of the definition of the word God, and so does not exist for the sake of anything other than itself. Yet he also inherits and accepts the Alexandrian tradition of emphasizing the absolute transcendence and unlmowability of the 'first God', the sour«: of all, 1ft and identifying the Logos with the world of divine ideas. l90 This involves thinking of the Father as 'simple' and the Son as 'multiple',l'l and stressing the Father's distance from the Sonl'Y.! (though some passages from works later than the Commentary Dn John l93 play down this element rather). Origen was certainly accused I,. of teaching that the Son did not know the Father perfectly, but on the basis of some very obvious

139

misunderstandings of certain remarks in On Fi,Jt Prinriples.l~ However, this is a complex and intriguing question, and here too Origen shows a somewhat divided mind. It is essential for him to affirm that the Son knows the Father if the Son is to be the medium of flU' relation to the Fatberjl96 but what the Father is to and for himself does not depend on the Son. And, in at least one tantalizing section of the Commentary on john,191 Origen suggests that, although the Father's joy in himself is in some sense shared and known and capabJe of being expressed by the Son, his contemplation of his own being is prior to and independent of, !lnd perhaps beyond the capacity of, the Son .l98 The point is really less to do with the Son's knowledge of God than with defending the Father's self-sufficiency. Origen is in fact fa r less inclined than Clement to emphasize the Father's utter incomprehensibility; but he does say that God transcends nolU and OW I99 - that is, the order of intelligible definition, olUia here having its quite common Platonic sense of 'structure' or 'form '. He is happier, it seems, to work with the awn between God and 1lO1U, which allows him to speak freely of God as subject of knowing and willing; but because the Son is identical with the realm of ideas, and so represents that level of being where intellect is supremely dominant, the Father must, logically, be beyond intellect. As we shall see later on,200 this is perhaps best understood against the background of the philosophical developmenu of Origen's age. It is a particularly clear instance of the rather uneasy relationship between the twO controlling factors in Origen's thought: the given constraints of scriptural metaphor and the assumptions of Platonic cosmology. On the one hand, scriptural language about the Son's subordination and passages that seem clearly to envisage Father and Son as distant subsistents go reasonably well with a system emphasizing the gulf between an ultimate oneness beyond all relations and all understanding and the ensemble of intelligible forms within a cosmic ' mind'. On the other, it is hard to deny mind to the willing, purposive God of Scripture; and language about the perfect communion and mutuality of Father and Son, combined with Origen's own argument about the eternity or even 'necessity' of relations in which God is involved, militates against the idea that the Father can be seen simply as a self-sufficient absolute. Hence Origen's ambiguities over whether or not the Son exists at the Father's will. tol We have noted already that, within the same chapter 202 of Fi,st Principles, O rigen can use the analogy of the 140

relation between mind and will to illustr~te how the l..ogoI OOIntl forth from the Father, and can alao speak.... at if the begetting of the Logo. weu the result oh choice (admittedly a 'timel<:Sll' choice) by the Fathe!'. Aglln, a pusage in the Ca. mm",? "" jo/ttI.;1IiO discuuiog Johll +;3+ ('My food i. 10 do the will of him who .....1 me'). clearly distinguishes the wiU of the F~thcr from the will of the Soli, while at the same time Ilre"ing lhal the laner i. in a1llUpecbI the perfect image of Ibe I"onner, 'so that then: an: 11<.1 longer two wiU. but olle· .... The Son 'holdl' OT 'ddinu' the F~ther', wiU"'alld so, pn:sum.bly. n:vals it Q perfectly .. CUI be; just all be .. Ibe revealing Ni!! of God's goodlltlS, and hU divinil)' the rikio: of the Father'. divinil)'."" It is through this 'food' of perfectly imaging the hthcr's will thou the SoD is wh.al he il.- Th .... Origcn, in spiu: of the metaphon of Firs' Pri1Ieiphs, vCUI away from Clcmmt'. apparellt n:adincu to eaU the Soli the tIulirfUl of the Fuher;'" yet there is relatively little to suggest any limple doc;triru: that the F~ther wilb the Son illto beillg in anything like the $aIIIC IICIlK at Ih~1 in which h. wills the world inlo being. Origen almosl cenaillly called the Son 41i.nnd in the originallCJJ:l of Finl l'7iMipJd'. (u he called him a ,u",u,r far U he sea to il thal these divenitic:o add up to I viable whole, a but thl')' CUlIIOI be regarded at expressing bis will. It could be said, thougb rather awkwardly, thal the world wc inhabil la material beings is not 'created' by God: il is m.de, or at leasl COIlditioned, by the choices ofhis cr<:atun:s,'" and regulated by his providence. 'Crc.aUDtl'. 41iru, i. Itrictly only the unimpcded expression of God'. rational will. It is nOI clear thal Ihe lemtinol<>8kal distinction is cans4lently maintailled, or th~1 il really rcsolvltl the theological problem aboul the Logos. It doe., however, rcmitKi u' thal Origen saw creatiOfl

""",,,,...IUo,"""

.,

prUpariIy diviDe odf......... · 'io." then: iJ nothi", arbiuvy abou. it. ADd siDcc !he rmcrw.tioII. of the Logoa iJ !be..dii of all ralioQal "riDf', the fin. 'et... " Km' of God's wi1I and the ItlOIt pureu., Q

theft iJ

pan;cu.lar reNOII

why <>risen Sho,,1d not speak of him Q 'Cft.&,ed·, V« he ma.t ~bly repudillted the ides that the San ..... cru.ted 0\11 ofnotbinf;. RufinUl' vcnioa of Finl i"tWi,w IV .•. ! may be heavily dtw Io,).uI. bul !he 1incI''' ill which Origm iJ ""'" acnted Q daIyi", both iba. 'J, pan of God 's subttaQce is rumcd inlO the Son' and iba.·the Son iJ rmented by the Falher from Ihinp iball-« not (11.1' alliI JII"~) , tlu.1 is. from WMI is ouuide the FJ,thcr's own subtlUiOl:' malr.e J,n inldligiblc J,lItithesill -the SoD is.,alher &om 'i...Kle' _from 'ouuit;lc' God' •• uhl'lawc, bet:auroc tIiis iJlIOI bow God'.Ii(c should be conc..ivcd. h iJ plJ,usiblc ~ tOr Oripn, J.IId il is qwtc: ""plicitly tli.uJb. by SoIlowen of his ,'" ThJ,1 the rather aJ,o,w, iJ the .nJ,; of the 1..clJt-, Q the Logoo ;" the ..u.Jof&l! elK,'" mCUII ibat the "ri", ottbc rJ,!hcr prvvidcI the intelligible form of the Logos; and lince tbc Lopo' wbole ;mri':1 ;" 10 be the rather's im~. i. would be imF-"'p.... a!id milJcadinc for Or;gcn 10 .peak 10 him u 'ou. of nothi",' or 'ou. of the nonexi1Ienl'. I1 is a moo! point whether he wou1d. Mve ..,~ily deacribed the rabon&l crution u a wholc U,It .... """'" (thougb the Rlllib!e .....rid dearly ;")10' _ for the Hme .u.oo.. tha. it UfH' ICI tbc miIId of God. BUI wMtevcr ....y be the ,nllh of this, the Logoa ia .,..;thou. daub! '",nul by Ihc rather, directly J,!id lUliq1idy. in a WJ,y Iba. sctI him apan at leasl from what blU ortbodory undtntood as 'cn:ation'. Tbctc corsid,",,-tiom may throw _ light on another appo.n:II' Y ... .JM- .1118 fairly contJ'ldiction in Origca. The dearlY"" iba. the Son io divine io vinue of his ~tion in the Father', bcinr; a!id thne io a p'n'I" in FUll ~ which c:ouId be read in the .......e 1Cl\IC. Vel then: arc two ""qcik:al fragmm .. which teach pn:ci...!y the OjIjIOIilC. The uJ«t." p .. ' " po El eo "" _ OQ Pu.lm 154 in whim Orip le&... to PJ,ul·. 'godI many and Iordl many' (I Cor. 8:.5) and thm cortil:tllQ: 'bo,.. tIto.c _pan &om the Trinily who I-« caUuI "godI" aK 10 by panidpatiou (-.;",) in the Godhead; wlWc !be Saviour io God no! by paniQpatioQ but in "'bI.... cc (... Uloi _ ........ .JJ. .bI' aria)·.- Similarly, a frapcnt on the Apocal)'l'u'" caUo tht SoD 'He Who 10, io IUs very I UbtlUiOl:' (_ ill ..... (i), applyiq to the ChtU. in Itew:lalion ! : 18 the divine sdf-det.ipalion of Exoduo 3: [3 DO

c."'JF 0'

oornn\CII'

,.,

AI .wdotd in the SepfllqiDt; wIw the Son ill, be ill !lOt by F ' Pt onIy.- Pouibly, AI Lo..:4& 1ug(Qr.," the ,t:almellt in Fm' J'rW. "",k- that the Son hu '1IIWtlntia! 1"""_ . in binwdf aIIo .d!u:u eomcthin& limal'. Thio raiws lC"Oual quite _pia qllesliono, to 0;10 with the ddi· Ilitioa of 'panicipatioa' iDdf, and the ........ ill which Ori«ea, in hiI Iau:ryun, might have ....... ed to emph,size!be Fatbcr', h'aJIIOeDd. eoa: of 'bcil!:g' (10 that he wol,t\d ~..., I .. io) _ qllCltioM wc IhalI reNnl to in the third KCtion of thio book. For lIOW, thoup, it all: be oaid that what mal1en fOr Origcn ill that the Son doe. IIOt fim conk into being and /Moo receive additioaal qualities from God: hill ddinitioo. ('*IN in the KV ... of 'form', 'idealltfUCtUf'!:') is to manifeu the Father, and be. hu 00 reality apan from thio. !fbe io by. oarure or "HOOl! God', imqe, tbcn: is tIOlbioc io him that io IKIt the Fatbcr'1 life ~aIi.Og itwl£ Yet, Aoa: be comes from the Father, aod ill what he io by deri .... tion from the Father, i. would make xmle ..."... to oay that he ill ' made God by parttgpaboo in the Godhead' .... io order 10 guard &pi ... t any lugotioa of !WO linl priociplel. If (u is probable) the ocgctical fi"q>OGIlI ~ Later than the C lttPry .. ]Ma, Orifen runuelf recognized that the Ia"l\l&f<: of participation in thio coooection could be mialeading; and thU would «:naioJy aa:ord with a tendeac:y io hillau:r worb to minimiu the ",lfbetwttQ Father and Son.Th.,. far, Oricen praCOll1l1 with IOvaried and nuanced a picture: that il is easy to sa: wby hiI rdatioo 10 Manilm hu been tIN: subject of 10 much dioputc. A few poinUl, however, """'Id ~ dear. Fint of all, M ....tando in the uadition of Ori..... in 10 &r AI he hold. to the. traNcendmcc of the rather, the impouibility of

COrOrdina!e q.(R)il&, .cIf-oulliciml fin' prin. aples,"" and the IUWt.antive and diotiGct reality of three divitM: or ...ut! and be probably hu Origeo 00. hio lide in repudiating the A.lR,,""" aod tIN: idea that the Son ill 'ou. of' the Father·. llIbiWlOl:. Both arc: pusionatcly concerned ID give no quarter to .mterialillm, &Dd to the: materialis. implicatiotu of c,UiDI the Soo • J".oIi. bo(h sa: SabeUianilm and ValcnDoiaoilrn u the IfUI enemies of nnhodoxy .... B"t Of · ,ndly, i. ill jUl' u plain. tha. M ... and Orip &f"e funduroeatally ., oddo DYer the eternity of tilt SoOI and the q.... i·occaaity oflbe Son to !:be Father. Clricm. u we !Lay<: DOled, aoticipatCl developul founh-cenlW'y onhodOl
believing in

!WO

..,..I&uis

'"

fda,.ion,hip iI inuinaic 10 the divine life as .... ch - and abo in that he bu ~ Dation ~ this n:mtion as exilting for iQ own we, IIM as a meant fOr oonnecting the One and the Many. An"" on the other hand, remaintd firmly within the tradition wbicl> law the diltinct lubsiltence ofthe Secoad Hypoawia as COI'lDeCteCIIO God's pwpoat: as ClUlOr - a tradition with reputable anceauy in the ApoIO«i&Q,- and probably, as IlIggOltd abovf;, in Cltfl'lent. On other matte"' :' the Soa'.lmowledge of the Father and paniciplloon in the Father, and the dCpendCDce ofbi, emteDa: upon the divine wiII_ Ori",,, I,ambivalent when: An", is dear. Oril"ni .... phrasa, or even whoie pan'p, that ha"e an 'Arian' navouron fi"'t rudinl an: man: carefuUy qualified wbeo teen in their COlI_I.. One 0, two other differen<::a an: wonh remarlting. An", in the ICeS the Son as prailing the Father in huvm; Origtn "'nc .... ally a"oid. J.anruagc ....(JeI1ing thal the Son 1DMl1ti.!S the Father as God (then: ia one ~ which .u,~1 be ~ in . ... ch a KIlIt). Yel - paradoxically - while Origen nOlOnOl1lly dilcouragtd prayer 10 the Son (Christian prayer ahould be made ill the Soli '" the Father),'" An", and hie foIlowe", appam:ltly allowed it, th", givilll Athanasi", onc ~ h.i.a moll drecti~ oontl'O\'eni.al opeainp'"' (the wordiDi of the n.t.:. al 531 may re/lw some early form of the TriUIIW. uIdteucd 10 the Son)."" Qrism, for all h.i.a'!reII OD the Soa as an independenl ...n., doeo l1l,I1 fOr a momenl allow that the Son might be .... 'objecl' 10 '" in iIolation &om. hit ..,Iation 10 the Fathc:r. and ,illte hit rdation 10 the Father il the elernal form alld grt>I1nd of.u rational and 'pinl ... a1 ..,1&0011. 10 the Father, he a n 110 mo.., be aD objw 10 '" than can 01.U' own .pirilual growth. He is the IDil on which we VOW, the eyca with whi<;h we Itt. B... I this aUo implie. thal he C&l>1I01 'pray' 10 the Father ill any fMI'" ratmbling that in which .... pray, as all 0 ... prai"" and wonhip iI in and thl"OU8h him. An",' i...uto:nOl: on the Son as an i.OOividual exiltina; at God '1 will and 1'tCtivina: grace ironically rn.okca il ....i ... for him 10 UUt tIw: Son as both objcet and l ubjecl of worship. Lote\U." haa recently propooed thal wo: ohould look for the anteccdcatl of An ... ' doctrine IIOt in 0rigen.'1 lrinitariall. th~ but in hit account oftht inc:amatioa. For hen: we have a created rational lpint who perfectly fuW. the vocr.Uoo of all raoon'l ClUIU",", tranoanding itl inherenl lilbiliry ID chanfc and decay by (rttly and etemally cleavillK 10 the Word and Witdom oCGod, 'in..eparably ..... indinol ... bly','" reocivi", all tIw: glory that il p"..ibly can

ru

now.

tW(+lIilll 'OQC .pHil' wilh m~ Locot .... In virtue of !his, the of Jealll QII "",11)0 be called by namc::I piopt:l to lhe elema! ('5011 of God', ' power of God ', 'Chrit!','" 'Wildom of God'), tM.so. an be called '1- Chri'" aIOd 'SooI of man .... - tM linl .. t~P' to work OUI .. tbcOf)' of ·,.ti· iJit in the hinOf)' of Chritti.." thcokI!,., The oouJ of Jeo .... retains ill coatin, g'" and in the Q ,!try "";...,....... wdlas in Finl ;O' .... n:jnfOlU$ the panJlcI. The ' kenotic' hytllfl of PhilippillU , 11"1so applil'd by Orip not 10 the t..oso. as luch b... t to the "",I of Ja,,".- AI with Ari .... hlmtclf, Iheac tull ........., 'anointine' and •.... ltation' IK eardiJlly inlc'1l"'~ 10 . . nol to ...... c:ount~&I\CC to any hinl of ~optioni,m in the ua... aI sen.., _ lhal 11, Ih~ IT. 000i Ilk.n 10 be referring IQ .. promotion on Ihe gro"nd. of virt ... e .!t.. ined in an tlMhly wllenu. It il. rather, .. m.. llcr of I 1111\11 of glory Ind dignity .Iemally and newr 10111, ..... l.Iin..:l by the ae,cise oHreu'om in the face oft.mptaUon (10 Ihat ;1 hu .... Iu~ I"or ul as an ..... mpl~)" .. thiI ui..... phantly pt tl'''''''II dignilY is made mlnilOl in !he: ~ olJeo ..... chmcn and ......... ted , Ihc: r..a Ihll , in the providence of God, be ' bccomco ' !Or ... the onr who ...n:iseo the 1'0)'11 pow.r of the Logoo.... B'1\ Origea don not _uqctl .. ny tc-mponl pl'Ofl"U'iot' hen, the royal ..nointi", ofJ ..... il" gift, he don not pc 1= ,he pow"" oftb.\..otIIIt by oal""" )"'llh< ot~rnally aioti"l IOU! of Ja", is new. I"or a _ n l .. nythinc bul thr r«ipient of th. crace of the diviru: Son in all ill r"lnal . Througkoul Ihe finl book of the c-.y ... jt/tII, the .,.uw;.i of the Logoo, the m"ltiple fono, 0( hif manifeotation, Ir. lU.ribed 10 'Christ ' or

I.IId lOI.II Son I.IId

e'

B",

i,w...

poo""'"

,.,

'the Word' indilfermtly; jWI u, fOr MW,'" it il the created Son who can be said to h.a.ve ma.ny .,i LoW by which we can c:on«ive him, so for Origen the crealed I0Il1 of jaw iI, 10 all inlcnn and purpcltl, the IUbject of all ~ can Ix aid .boul the Logot, .1 lea.Jt U far u WbOLmo our .", ·",Not of the Logoa. We can and mUll, in Origen, dillinguilh Logoa and jaw,'" llIId yel they ~ no! oepano.ble in the economy of revelo.tlo:::.. Even if we move beyond the incaJ'U.l!Ie condition ofChrill in OOJf Ipirilual.pprehmoioo, the lOuI of jaw illtiil • ~igm for the relation of rational ~"I" 10 the Loso-, u the Logc. himself il the pliradigm of .eil.tion to the F.ther. We arc 10 btCULLL( wuloi through the anointed soul of juu..... u "'" bea::lne Io,w.: and t4t0, in the Logos. The d~r:u of the twO Khemeo iI evident. Of COUL'IC, the cruci.l diff=cc ranaino WI Anus' God rcquirn a ClUted individual for hit oelr-revd.tioa, while Origen'. God i. eternally and ai_I 'nML"Lnrily' one who manifeoll himself in hi. Word limply to !Upend to .1Id IIlorify and rejoice in hil own being, b::fore and beyond creation. Bul L::N-tnli illUrely righl ID underline lhe parallell, and to cunllCCl them""" with Origen'. intc=lt in the 'inearnatiotal' mythology of Alcun::lrian j:..daiam - ilJlgelic Ipiriu: daa:nding to ODOUpy mortal bodies - a mythology he refen 10 in dilcuuing the idea thatjohn the Bllptist m.y h.ve b«n llIIllngelic pre-aistenl lpint (th.t iI, Dol one who wu ~I;," to desctnd into the .....,trial world).1" AriUl m.y very wdl h.a.vc known the l:.ind of Jewish Of jewish-Chriltilln worl: which freely "-' the imagery of ucending and dm:cndinll heavenly beings: _ hllve ICen that the ~ 'ft..w. w•• being m"d in AleaLUldrill.tlhe bqinninK of the fD\lrUt century, .nd th...., iI plenty of m.ten.1 Ih...., .boul the incarnation of the Son u the deaccnl of • celellial/ angelie individual- and , incidentally, aboul the 'lilurgical' role of Son Ilnd Spirit in heaven; we may t'Cca1l Ariu.'liJ'tII on the Son as pliradigm ll"...Jrippn.'" Origen, like Phi!o, iI inclined to reduce the mo«: obviowly .nthropomorphic clemcnu: of thiI Irlldition, though defendi"" of CDUI'IC, the real .ubailtcnce of the Logoa: Ariu. ICe"'" 10 'rernythologi~e'. H"'nca. had .ppareolly woven I..ether theme. from both Clement Md Origcn in hil TtIlding of the Am,uia of J..w., reducing the Son in him",lr to • b..n:ly penon,,1 em..... tion from God, yet ..wntaini.ng an inCllrnatiOl'lllI mythology in which heavenly individua .... identified lhough nol in eurnce, with the innate and oon-penonaliud po_n 0( God , plllytd Q'Ucial

-.r-,

..

,

IVIes. MUI' linn dmuDCiation of ffienc:u'" io patamount w a cWm lbat tIu: imageI'y of Jewioh-Chriscian ,pnralyptic - !he hea .... mly liturgy, the arc:haDcc1ie high prieal, the deoa:nt of the higbcot co:lestial puWCI throusb the ranb of aagcb down 10 earth- - io oot to Ix ration·liud and al~ away. OriSm's LofIoI io too cloIcly bound la the divine life;" u 10 'carry' much of the vmc:rabk A1eundrian imllflel")' of anrdic liturgy; bul the p~tenllO\ll ofJesw. <:an take <m:r .1 ml tome ofil. How p~ody, lhen, does il come to be tranlfClled by Ariw. Hd- to the The aD:I~ to this queuion will em~ more fully in 11.0 of our study: without ""'ticipa!ins too much of this, wc Q.D simply note for now thal a sreat deal depends, in Origen'. accnunl, OD hio wider theory aboul the pre-aioten<;e of Witho\J.l this doctrine, the .wkward questioa ha. to he £ac:ed ofwhal CUI be doae with !he hallowed (and scriptural) imageryofa lupremely ~ hea.-mly individl1al , 'more htmourabk than the cherubim and incomparably more glono...l than the Ser.phim',- ' The Man"", alll.llion io deliberate: Ncwman, in a £am_ P"I'~ of the &J.y .. wrote thai, after the Nicene qcriprioo of conau!l.tantial divinily to the Son, 'there was " a wondef" in hea~n": a throne far .bove all created puweh, med.iuorial, inter<:cM<>l)'; • tide .fChe. typai: a crown brighl "" the morning It...; a glory istui,. from the Eternal Throne; a nd 'ICCptre 0Ytt all; and who wu the predestined heir of thal Majesly?' WhatevCi" may be thought of Newnun's ins=iolll and eIoqUCllt attempt to fOllnd the cultlll of Mary u lupreme inltt<:cllOl" (...d the habit of applyins lIIe IOphiank imagery of the Old Testament to Iwr aad not 10 Christ) upon Nico:ne C hrUtology,"1w .rticulates c:uctly the question which a repudiation of Origc1l'. doctrine of creation and £all implied for

t.oso-?

IOU",

DtPtU,,, '-'," w"" ......,

thlrd-co:nfUry theology. However , il would be a .ru.takt to _dudc that Mill io indebted to Origen'l view of the inClm.lion in any direct way. The poo...u.:1o noted add up limply to thio, tllal a lel of IXInventions uted in on~ way by Orism reappears in • rtther more uchllic fOrm in Mill . Ariw. inheriu from hio A1CU11drlan milieu no! only th~ tndition of .pophatic theolDJY which w~ have alrea.dy diocuued a! 80mt I~ngth, but aJ.o lIIe langu.~ ofllle the realm of'nsclic wonhip and in!t:rc:esoion before !h~ throne and altar of God , the realm presided over by onc to whom God siva a uniqu~ shore in hio properties, in whom he malt.. hio Name to dwell.- Aad, of courx,

n..-u,

'"

&om pre-Philonlc: timet on ....ard, theK two themet an: connected: the •.otiw> of a God beyond all Aame and form itnpllet that the IW1lCI and forma of a t'eYe.aled God all' lOfIIethlns 1_ thall the

divine liCe iuelf. It might be moll' atturate 10 lee Origell'S leper to An ... in relation 10 ~I method. As the fint Chriltian to comme:nt .. uc.s. aad by ··M.., apoaition, upon the Scriptura, Ori(en allbws aqai, to take. lIOte of and 10 raoIvc appan:nt eontradic. tionI: CL.. . i, can, and indeed mUJI, be a problem-solvin( acrcix. TII we one imponant i " , _ that we ba~ ~y discuued. Psalm .~: 7-8 ca.n be IIeCII . . probiemati' in 10 f... as it speaU of Cbriat apparmtly acquirillJ ....bat be did. IIOt have bd"on:. fArJintheologiaot"U bad used the lat without raWng &fly del';1ed que.tiom about it, bec:a"", itlerv.. a purdy iU ... trative and 'ocorioooal' filnctioo m their work. Orip is committed 10 wadi", out a rational mterpll'tatioll in tenns ofhi& JPIfIMM radiI!( of the bibWal tal overall as providing a trinit.arlan and cosmokJtlical sdleme; alld by means ohucb interpretation be ailllllO dd'end Saiptull'" claim to be divittely impired .,al",1 KCUSationo of ma;N1llistency and cootndictiolt from pagan 01" JMltic. Cebuo and Hcradeon alike m"'t be shown 10 ba~ miarad a tal wt.o.c CCllltinuiry and urury lie al a ,ubtle level acces,ible only 10 pnyerful Catholic .....ding. BUI once the elernellt of problem·solvillg is admitted , alld the lleed i>r tighl theological CCIIIIist~ in exqais is recocni&ed , atCHeaU becoo".. moll' and ""'"' the primary field of doctrinal CCIIIRict, ill I "'Iy il is 1101 iD the earlier second cenlury: debate with """cia-m tu ..... "'" on the reading of lpeci6e tall 10 mu,h .. on the nalull' and atcnl of the canon itldf; detailed exegetical ditpule nquilU autboritati~ common ground.- If, u ..... propotCd earlier, Ari", is quinteaKntially an aponenl of 'leArned', rationally a>hell'llt, o;atecbetil, be iI in the 11ICU"';oa ofOrigen: and, as with Clement, i, is pouible 10 lee hiI vocabulary echoillg thal of !be euIiet mute"-' and rdlCCIittjj the idcolosY of the cba.riamatk tcaeher and tu. circle of initiatel. But m other IUpcc:tI, !be o;wrlidenl andcnt and modem judgmenl tbl' An", repraenu • development within an ,~,' theological KhooI can"", be IUlWllaI in any bUI • radically qualifial .ellK.

H.

Auxandria aNi IIu ugaq DJ Origm

.. ALEXANDRIA AFTER ORIGEN

Part of the trouble is the very word ·Origenist'. Standard histories of doctrine have rather tended to assume that the majority of Egyptian, Syrian and Asian writers of the late third and early fourth centuries could be seen as 'Origenists' of one sort and another, and that theology in Alexandria in particular was dominated by Origen. Hamack268 believed that Origen's successors in the catechetical school made no substantial modifications in his system; Loofs 269 proposed a distinction between Origenists of the ' left' and the 'right' (the former being more inclined to subordinatiorusm in their trinita· rian theology) - a distinction that has left a considerable mark upon subsequent accounts of this period. But what makes a theologian an ' Origenist' in the first place? 'Subordinationism'? allegorical exegesis? the doctrine of the prc-existence of souls?'2~ The fact is that the 'Origenism' that caused such controversy around the year 400, and the views condemned under Justinian in the sixth century simply do not appear as a ~Slml in any earlier writer (it remains a moot point whether they should be treated as a system derived from Origen's own writings in any strict sense). In his admirable study of Dionysius of Alexandria, Wolfgang Bienert rightly says21l that 'no "Origenist" theologian {of the third or fourth century) took over and unreservedly argued for Origen's system in its entirety'. Likewise, Bienert suggests,212 it would be wrong to look for a consistent tradition of 'anti·Origenism' in this period. Particular doctrines are criticized; and, as we have seen, there is evidence (from Pamphilus' Apolov)2n ·of the drawing up of catalogues of suspect propositions. Yet Athanasius can speak of Origen with respect,274 and there is no suggestion before 399/400 of wholesale o.lfo;ial repudiation by episcopal authority in Alexandria or elsewhere - however harshly individual bi!hops as theologians27~ might have criticized Origen. Even Bienert's own contention that there was a fairly consistent and deliberate policy of episcopal coolness towards Origen in Alexandria 276 may be overstating the case a little: Bienert himself proposes that, after a period of something like real hostility to Origen under Demetrius' successor Heradas,271 the reign ofDion· ysius (247/8-264/5) · saw a relaxation of official attitudes - not unconnected with Dionysius' wish for closer relations with the Pal· estinian churches in which Origen's reputation stood so high 218 -

'49

which survived until Peter renewed the attack in the early years of the fourth century. Dionysius the Great is a figure of particular interest and importance in the background of the Arian controversy since there existed, by the forties of the next century, a small dossier of extracts purporting to be from his works which the Arians were using in support of their position. According to Athanasiu5,279 the expressions in question come from a leuer to Euphranor and Ammoniu5, dealing with the outbreak of Sabe1lianism that was afflicting the churches of the Libyan Pentapolis in the 2505. If the letter is identical with the one to 'Euphranor, Ammon and Euporws' mentioned by Eusebius,2IG its recipients were bishops in Libya, presumably supporters of the anti-Sabellian line (Euphranor was the dedicatee of another opusculum of Dionysius)211 in need of additional theological armaments fo r controversy. Dionysius insisted m that the Son was a poiima and a gmiton, a thing made and generated, not 'proper' (idion ) to the nature of God, but 'alien in substance' (XIJIDS kiJ" oJUian), as the vinedresser is different from the vine and the shipwright from the boat: 'and being a poiitruz, he did not exist before he was generated' . Zealous colleagues forwarded this text to Bishop Dionysius of Rome, who replied m in a long and strongly-worded letter, denouncing those (unnamed) teachers who in their eagerness to avoid Sabellianism spoke of three dunamtis or separate Iwpostastis or 'divinities' (that is, divine lives or natures, t/Uolius)," and repudiating as blasphemous all talk of the Son as a c/Uiropoiiton, a work of God's hands,m or a poiima,'lfI6 and of a 'generation' of the Son and a time when he was not.217 The Son can be, and in Scripture is, said to be 'created' by God the Father, but not ' made': ettise in Proverbs 8:22 is not ,poies,.- And he is 'begotten' (g,gennistfwi) but not 'generated' in the sense of 'deliberately produced' by the Father (geganenai).289 The attack on a doctrine of three distinct huposlaseis foreshadows Marcellus' criticism ofOngen's language, and suggests that Dionysius of Rome, like Marcellus, considered 'two {or three] substances, subjects, or independent existents' as equivalent to ' two [or three] self-sufficient first principles (a rchai)' - a doctrine which the Roman pontiff associates with Marcionite dualism. wo It is worth noting in passing, that, if the bite noir of Alexandria was Valentinianism, Rome's worry was Marcionism: a difference that helps a, little in understanding the diverse emphases in their trinitarian 150

.-dlanQ:. ~ and Arius wanl 10 .traI that me Son ;" DO men: manifestation of me 'Protean', essentially remote yel infinitdy divil,bie, divine life; while Roman wrile ... won to lvoid ... y lugeation oh gulf bclw«n Cl'Qtor and ndeoem.er. N to the propc r ed diltil)(:' lion bc~n 'mUing' UId 'cn.I!inc', wc hl~ leen I hinl oftlm ill Orip, bul il ocemo ID hive no very delr Incauy: it ;" probably 1ft eUletic:aJ a)IlvenUoo in OionyuUl' Rome - not I very IUbtit: one, bul 11 IUI! I Teo::osnition, on.ce again, of me demuvh of rational t::X]>Witol")' luching in I Church obli«ed 10 defmd tM coherence ofill foundalionallClII. Dionysiul of Alcundril'l rcpiy, ..y. Amll'll,;ul, was 10 oompose I pair oCtreltisa, me 'intenog.,lion' (Mdu) ...cl 'dd"cnc:c' - po.Iibly two of the four JClten of his 10 DionysiUl at Rome rmntioned by Eu""bi ...... ' Doubt hu n:cently been CUI on the authenticity of Athanuiul' c:iUUiOnl,'" p"'r.Jy, il teeml, bca~ mey IPI Ir to nu.U Oiony.ill. too onhodox • I"ourth-oentllry Niane; bUI then: ...., reason. for maintainina: their gi:nuinenou. The fon:mDll of thtIe is .imply m.t the p ....ge. qUOfed do nOf"Y whit Athanuiut Irieo 10 make them lay. In .ections 10 .nd 1I of AthUlQ;u.s' pamphlet on Dionysiu.s' opiniom, for in.tance, he defend. his pmiec",.or'. 11.. of the vine Ind vinedrcuer analogy beCl~ il is billed upon whit Chri.t ... _..xl. ofhirmclf:'" and the 1nl oCProvCl"M 8:22, 'The Lord created me',ju.sti6c. the ltatemcnl that the Son is o;nated becalllC it is again 10 bot n:ad o.s .poken by Wildom inQ.ma~.'" Blit Athano.siUl admill thu DionY.;II·s only ;"'p/iu allth;s, lin« he ;" rcdllCCd in section 12'" In im"';ning whit Dionysilll mightilY 10 the Ari ....; and uncc the eaegetic:aJ device of ascribing .!iCb embal"tllSing dicta ooIdy 10 the human Jesu. u so very chanCIeristic of AthanQiu.- and '" COIUpicuCll,llly lacking in earlier meolclgy, Dionysiut evidently did not defend himself along th_ UnCl. Whcn Athanuiua IUIlll to quoling from Dion)'liut' own defeace, he ClR adduce nothing c:onesponding 10 whit he hiRlldf hit j .... t Olltlined. On thc IXNltrary. Diony.iul i& represented"" IS viJomully maintaining tile propnely of calling the Son .t:eu-. or ,.wo.. .ince • hllman being can bot ..xl. 10 be the atalor of hi. OT ha- uUmu:><:c (lop.) or • doer (J
a.. ,;.,

.....

hu no .. ced 10 make luch a DIG"", ,i,OI hit maia .,thal Dion)"i1U ,,,

TIM: appcallO • Hezibiliry ill KC"I .. UUCe tOr lAd aDd ,... iI WlIUIIN in !be i>unh cmlW')', tlpccially ill Alh.....,;IU... Once dw: "<""'_ 0( IM So.. .. l " - bad. bc:u>onc !be dilcillc:tm: _!riDe 01 An", aDd .... 1OI1o.u .. ;I ...... .m.o.1 ;m~blc 1Or. Nicme wriu:r 10 deYdop luch • POUIl; """"I"ullly il .. rn.o.l u.nlikdy that the material hen: NCribed 10 DionyaiUl is oIpo1l,N~oricia. IlKIml , u. the uutisc pro«ed.. the themes &om Oioa)"i... ' apolosia become incn:&tin,ly cQo: 10 Ori&CII. R&diula: it aimull&nco ... with the IOUra: oIlia:hl: the Son is d""'~ of the elema/lielll (Wisdom 1:205 iI quoced) .... TOlpeu ofa parenl iI necnaarily aIIo 10 lpeak oh o:h.iId: 'the name [Father) is whal provides the IfOUnd IOr the wUon {of Father and Son)'.'" If AD mUDll oaly ,~, "Wi', .. a human parent bdonp 10 the nme &cnUl .. his 01' her dilld, it is adrninibk:· Dionyaiua claims Iba! he used this anakl&Y .. well .. Ibato(lhipwri&t>I.1KI _I. oChuman banp is thu;o"d. o(milKl, pill< ii", bth aDd cakin, oa dislirla eubeitcena: .. il io ulttnd, but not diminiabin& the ullemal,.,., 'ill the bean':'"" mind io lOC'a wi~t iu uti"" m.nifaulioa ill UIteraDa:, ,",uuana: io DOthi", withoul the mind thal mu" (,HWI) il." Won! is wiDm and tnlth, proc:ccdillll from the God who iI bo:,ond wiodcvn aDd tnlth"" - to thai, "'YI Ath.naahu, Dionysi ... would not: &&ne with the Aria!! id" of[.osol ill God genen.tillll Locw oouide CGd, becaUK God i, not: identicAl with wisdom, lruth, 01' J.p.. III fact, DionYli ... obviouJly camel very dose 10 the distinction oC immanent and IIltcnd I.pI so popular with lhe ApoIo(iIlI (Bimen and Orbe* an: ",hi to note the affinltitt here ), Bill the .,..,.,...nd 1,.",i11aDJua&e. the analo&Y ofmelltal &oetioa (mind aDd will, fOr Oricm, mind and speech for Dionysiua), aDd, .boYe all, tht: lfI\IJMftt £rom the ooc,d.\tivily of the deaipatiou 'F.ther' and 'Son', an Al'J"l"CDt whido. Alb.nu;1lI dC"'cIopo mU........... ca1Iy,lO£ .U addt lip 10 • pictun: 01. DiooIyIilll Il.I.ndl"l VU)' cbe to Oricm in hit lriail&rian tbouchl, h is ,till b,Mi", ibat be ;, alIqecI 10 ha"" .-id thal the So.. 'did £>01 eDll bdon: he WII ,UKl.ted': no ""p""K to tNa iI ,_'d«!, and il is in very ltatk cont...1 10 !be Oricenian views oIl);oayllul ' dcfena: ownll.- I Q&I only IUppoK lbat it ...... orifinaUy • corollary ded~ by thr bilhop'. opponmll and Jilted with his authentic wordl in the kner of del.tiOLl 10 Rome (lbal U, thal it bean the

,,,KIios

The,.,..

n.c

ch.""

ame relation to Oionysiw' actual Ihought as Athanaaiw' ~ of the 11wl~ does to the original); but I recognize that thia it a rather deaper&te raort. Thil loose end apan, Athanaaiw seen\I 10 have been right in _1111 Dianr-iul aa a precUQOT. He doea DOl read him very inrdl;g.,ntly It rim"", but neither, it ~, did the Ariaru: the Origenian model of (a) eternal mm:lativity and (b) 'emanatioo' conceived vC<}" aorcfully on the analogy of the cooaete act of mind IUbaiJting aver againn undill"etelriated and amrioUOUl mental life or IUbstanU, clearly pl"e\'aill in DionysiUl' theology. Like Origco, he both repudiates the Sa1xllian idea ofa lingLe divine individual undergoing divet"K aperiences, and aho qualifies what might turn ;010 unbalanced and cqulllly mythological plllraJilm by the lIS(' of meuphol"l from human interiority, and the idea of IUbailtwe. whole iJNil.J il in definillland being defioed by each other. Dianysiu. waa certaioly critical of Origcn'. leachiog an the prcexisl~ of IOUl.- and all that wenl with it (thUI he iOlilu that the parldi.e in which AlIa... and £~ Were placed al tha.. cru.tion waa an NrIhI.1 place):'" and in thit he was followed by BidlOp Pelc:!", 11 the beginning of the century following. Pcter', lost I1UIti.e 011 "" &od (mentioned by ProoopiUJ of Cau)'" criticized Ori«en'l IlIlqoricaJ reading of the 'garmcnu of wnl' with which the f.uco AlIa... and £~ wen: clolhed as being material and mortal bodies;'" and, if the fl"l(TnCllu publilhed by BieneR in 1973 arc allO Imm t.hi.o worlr., il aho argued thal human beings as ilN.("" of God could 001 be the telult of a sw r WJ of previously c:xiOling ,ubltanc,,", and that we could h.a~ no authority for l pewng of a prcmunda.le ~o.'" The indivisibility of body and """I i, • theme that aIJo underlin the quite numerow fngments of another work by Peter, 011 "" Ru." ..h·..,'" in which he ml;maim that resulTCCUon must be the >alOration of the identity we actually possess .. humllllP , the tnnaformation, 001 the total and uorcoogniuble mutation, of OUT mortal .elves - a chango:, in fact, whole analogues we -'« in )""UI trallSfigured and )""u, ru.:n.'" Thi. doea not add up. in Diony~us or Peter, \0 a repudiation of Origen - even of Origm'. ClICfl"esi •. Peter's criticilm q not of aJlegoriution as I to:cluoique. bul of on~ particular and mql~adi", imwu::e of ;t. and DionyaiUl' batik agailllt lire""wr view. or the Apocalypse doea not luggesl a man opposed. to Origenian aeguil.· P1 Given that Method; ... ofOlympu" critialnu ofOrigm (to which _.balltum ,,"ronly) cover lOnIe oftbe same: JVOIInd, il

_ _ that tlw moIt wieldy expo .ed d.isu.tiIfaction about 0riaOl'. teachi .... had to do with a particular arg. oflWo teaching; COImology and Nlthropolosy. Even when we tum to the cataloruc of compt.illtl aboul Ori(cn jH h'cd in PamphiIUl' Dcjau,'" three tuno directly Or indirec:tly Do the nalu~ and deatiroy of the .....1."· The three th.al concern the relarioo of Father and Son do nol allld the tOundatioas ofOri(en'. undentandi ...., but haLf-grupcd featul'Cl ofit that a~ 'oft"en'i~ to pious ean' (we lhould tiOI pray to the Son, the Son iI not ItrictJy aDd in hil own righl 'good', and the Son don. nol fully know the Father). AI We ha~.een already. PampllilUl iI more concerned to defend Origen from the charge of aypto-Valentiniaro emanationism than 10 de ... him &om unduly .ubonlinating the Son to the Father. Laler ""nluriea had problems with the other A1o::ano:1ri .... of the third cenlury preciJeIy bec:aUIC their trinitariaro idea. ohared Origcn'l own ambiguitin. ThOOS'lOItUI (pn>bably Dionyoius' .11-" . or u head of the """'t.'riM) aw-retltly ClUed the Son a .ttu..,'" but abo oted the 'argument &om COlTdativity', prelum· ably to defend the Son'. eternity u IIeOtII&l1' 10 God'. being Father .... He abo .poke of the Son as .~ and .~, comi .... 'out of the Father'•• ubll ....... ' ...! cchoinj Origcn'. dilcu..>on of Wiodom 7 and Hd»t .... I, wbile being ptrhapo ICOI wary than Ori(en of the pouibLc malCrialism of ~ about derivation from the ...n. of God (be goeI on u once to deny thal he inltueb any such implication); and • further £rapent recaU.o Oionyeilll' view of tht Son u the ullerance of the divine mind .... The Son is alJo lpoken 01" as image nr 'imilltinn' (MiLL;'.) of tht Father, h.vi", compLcr.. likcncu UlGuiolir) with him .... orn.cogno.tUI' luCcel'O" PitriUI wc mow e>'e!I 1eSI. PhoUIII dtterlbcs him as teaching the aislOlce of" twO subl ..... ctI or natul'Cl (....w or "wuris ) in God, jusl u Orl!en had OOnt,'" aml aloo meritinlll • di&cuaion of the cberubim flanking the art: and of 'the pillar of jlcob';m dcopilt RadIOrd's heoilltinm. - I thi.nI< we can .........·bly 8« here another bil of angelologicallpeculation, "",ed 0" Phi ... , probably ldentifying the dluuhim with Son and Spiril, and ptrhapo piclr.ing up Philo'. identification of J.cob/brael with the Logo.,m or using (u did Origcnl" the Pr.~ of;-,4. or both . little or nothing in what wc have of the wott of these two oblcurc tcacben indicales a gnal suIf dividing them from either Ori«eD or Dioo~iUl. h tcemI, then, that il iI not wmtlJI le> think of aD 'Origen;"'"

'"

in Ale...""';' _ g both bUbo", and tuchen, on the doarine oftbc Trinity - IIOt pm:ixly an '~! tradition' , lina: it coukI ~S! with sharp ailicisml of other features of Origen's thought, but I peral o;:oot(nunent with certain images and afIU* mcnlS, and an agra::ment abo ... t the ""qelil ofWitdom 7 in conn_ tomenIIQ

tioa with H~btc .... I. Witho ... t thia background, it wo ...1d be impouibl( to make IImIC of A1cundcr of AIexand';". theology, SI ClIp. 'ed in the left8thy letter 10 his name.......c in Byualium. He ia areful to insist that there is only onc who iI .,"";w, without

nng;n, and th.1I ia the rlther;"' ~t he denies that ther( ill any 'interval' (ofW-lilu) between Flther and Son."" The: rather i. I lway. Father, 'the Son being etemallywithhim •.II\ Hebte ... I'" ia quoted on the Son SI 'heir of all thinp' and SI .;a,.srtIIII and image,'" rco:alling once spin Orip'. ""egesis of mis P"'''ge; 110 ""plicit allwoion is ma.x 10 Wisdom 7, but the designation of the Son SI tikilI, following immediately on the mention may be a conscioll* echo of the Language of the Witdom lext. )n any cue, Hebr~ itWf is 10 marked by the vocabulary of the older worlt that it is impouible to allude 10 the onc without the other. Alcx.r.nder follows Origen in calling Flther and Stln two Ir.,.,..,..,. and, li .... e Piaiu', UICI ' two pluuN' SI I .ynonym'" - though he fotnhadOWl later ChrUtologicsl confw.ionl by u.ing pIauU alJo as equivalent 10 ·CISC1la' .... The Stln SI image ia a ' mediating being' (1IWIi_..... ,MMs),'" in IOme KnK JCII than the rimer, but contain. allml! is capable of being ~a1ed and reflected in me rlther's life;.... .,";/111, the Famer remains tn.tllccndcnt Ind ;nCllprCllible, greater than th( Son .... But Aiuander does IIOt, it 1ttmI, hold that me Fa!h<:r alone is unknowable: me Son', mode of n';gin and hi. "'/lUwu an: alJo beyond the UUP of created miDd.s .... Both the Klf-.... boiltcncc of the Fint God "'" the nal ... ..., of the onc who .xrivea directly from him (n __ IOW MW F.IrW. 'from the truly existing rlthu hinuclf' )'" ate equally beyond ronccptuali .... tion. A1cundcr he..., follows through me logic of Origcn'. i"';'tena: of eternal ~laliviry: if me begelting of the Son i. I n eternal and 'necallry' upect of the d ivine life, pan of the proper accoun! of 'what it is to be God', the Father cannol be more unknowable than tht Son; what is inCOJnpret.cn.iblc is oot tht person of th~ Father but me patterq of the divine"""" - another lignificsm 'Origcnian' anticipation of full poot-Niccne onhod""y. Alexander iI no more wholly COIlIiI!Cnt than Origen , b... t he

of.,...,...,..

providet • fairly \horo1.Lrh and .yllemati, '<:COWI! of (.t leut) one importaDl 'reading' of the Aleundrian tradition of uinitarian Ia"",age, The .pophati' concern - given • tlightly novd twiat - i. mucll iD evKIenc:e: 10 i.I the often ..ther awkward balancing of rmtapbo .. d ........ &om 'I&pimtial' IeXU in Scrip".Ln:, whicll teI>d to .tn::u wntin.uty, idmtity, 'emanation', with !he repudiation of any docainc: of one God in • ml,lltiplicity ohhaF'", one God com.pc I ~d, as il wen:, of disparau manifatanon., ADd the. h e di..;.ible and quasi-m.teria.l_Alexander predictably rqecu the views of 'Sabdli.,. Md ValentiD.,.' on em.nation'l (............).... Abo present, coailting • little I,Ineui.ly with the heavy anptw.. (Ill the <:<>-elernity ofF.ther and SotI.,'" retidual notion of the Father'. tnm«ndenc:e and or the Son', function as mediator bclWftn !hi: ab.oIuuly oelf.lIhIo"tenl and the whoUy contingent. All in all, it ... bold but ~ precarious Khane: the amfliCII ~ ....wed as anbryonically pretellt in PhiIo, etpeci.lly a Philo corucipced into Chri.tian K:rVic:e, an: vuy dole 10 the ,unace in A1ennder. He i, writing apinlt a theolOKian who tw l.lready taken one of the poqiblo: drutic ,tepa towards reaolving tbeae conIlictl I<>r good .nd all , by denying any _"'" c:ontinuity at all between F.ther and Son. Yet he himlelf doa 001 ql,liu take !hoe linallu-p. towards the opporiu reooll,ltion, ... hicll .. to abandon the identification of the Father with the firsl, U'UIICendent and unknowable God, and to redefiM primordial divine unity .. , lite Il,Ihsilting in and COOItituud by • pattern of internal n:lations. S\IclI a redefinition comet only after decadet of complex reA""Uon: it is h.rdly .wprising that Alexander .hol,lld !KM linsJehandedly reconllru" Christian theology . But his significance as • mediator to Athanasius of a:nain classiw Alen.ndri,n themes, and own boIdnett in handling them lho\tld not be minimi1ed,. An.,. it an unmittabbl .. Aleundrian in his .pophaticis.m, hi.s inlCral in the mo:chanica of mediation bct_ the etcma.l and the contingent, even hi. «hoes ofJudai, angelology; and he is the heir of a narmwer A1n,ndrian tndition in It;. uoe tho: VDCIbulary al ""'Iene illumination , inspired piN and charismatic teaclling authority. We have no real j ... tification even for rqanling him .... a rebel in the m.lter of ""cgtail. He i. Dot wrong Or oelf-