Chapter 8

"THEY SHALL WANDER INTO MYTHS"

THE FOURTH CENTURY

As we have seen, the first three centuries had been a period of intense examination and speculation concerning the nature of the Christian God. Jewish and Christian Scriptures, a considerable amount of pagan philosophy, a desire to make Christianity respectable, and a generous pinch of human pride, obstinacy and lust for power, had all been thrown into the furnace of controversy in an attempt to forge a credible concept of God. The fourth century saw the mould cracked open and the rough and unpolished outlines of the final shape emerge.

Two very different writers comment on the background to the development of the Trinity during this period:

'By the beginning of the fourth century it seemed that, though fixity of theological terminology had not yet been secured, the lines of interpretation of the person of Jesus Christ had been safely and firmly laid, and so the development of doctrine might quickly proceed, keeping pace with enlarged experience and able to meet new conditions as they arose. The old religions and the old philosophies of the world had contributed to the process of interpretation what they could.' ⁽¹²⁰⁾

'Even now, but for the commanding characters of the champions who espoused each party, the Trinitarian controversy might have been limited to a few provinces, and become extinct in some years. But it arose, not merely under the banners of men endowed with those abilities which commanded the multitude; it not merely called into action the energies of successive disputants, the masters of the intellectual attainments of the age,it appeared at a critical period, when the rewards of success were more splendid, the penalty upon failure proportionately more severe. The contest was not merely for superiority over a few scattered and obscure communities, it was agitated on a larger theatre, that of the Roman world, the proselytes whom it disputed were sovereigns; it contended the supremacy of the human mind, which was now bending to the yoke of Christianity. It is but judging on the common principle of human nature to conclude, that the grandeur of the prize supported the ambition and inflamed the passion of the contending parties, that human motives of political power and aggrandisement mingled with the more spiritual influences of the love of truth, and zeal for the purity of religion. ⁽¹²¹⁾

Such language, from historians with avowed Trinitarian sympathies, gives us little cause for confidence in the outcome of the discussions that centred around the definition of the Father/Son relationship during this period. Social pressures, philosophical arguments, personal prestige and political necessity took precedence over biblical truth.

This century also saw the establishment of Neoplatonism, which greatly influenced many of the decisions of the Church relating to the Godhead. As always, we say this on the basis of independent, often Trinitarian, authorities:

'Christian Neoplatonism ..... flourished from the fourth century onward. Its origins can be traced back to the second and third centuries AD. Clement and Origen of Alexandria understood Christian revelation in Platonic terms. Combining the teaching of Origen and Platinus, Christian Neoplatonists fashioned a distinct Neoplatonism. Culling from philosophy and from the Bible, they erected a Platonic interpretation that lasted through the Christian Middle Ages. Specifically based on a close reading of the Bible and Plato, their contributions to Neoplatonism's legacy were theological. The Trinitarian doctrines of Marius Victorinus and Augustine are based on Porphyry's interpretation of the unity of substance between the three divine hypostases. ⁽¹²²⁾

And of the Arian theology which caused so much dispute in this century we read:

'This (Arian) theology is a skillful and original blend of the biblical concern with a freely creating personal God and the philosophical concern with the preservation of the pure singularity of the primal monad. This latter theme was becoming increasingly important in the philosophy of the day, as Neoplatonism gradually took shape, blending Platonic language and cosmology with Aristotelian logic and elements from Pythagorean numerology. We hear of Alexandrine Christians who had interests in all these areas; and it was known that Plotinus, father of Neoplatonism, had studied under the same teacher as the great Origen. ⁽¹²³⁾

So, in this rather contentious environment, and on the basis of contribution by the old philosophies, the Church set out on its task of conquering the world; and the 'development' of its teaching on Christ was a crucial element in its armoury.

In the early years of this century Christianity suddenly found itself respectable. Constantine became Emperor and declared the once hated faith to be the official religion. But if he thereby hoped to consolidate and unify the empire under his hand he was soon rudely surprised. For with his ascent to the purple he also inherited the controversy about the nature of God that had been simmering for decades, and was now coming to the boil. In Alexandria bishop Alexander expressed views about the God/Christ relationship that were opposed by Arius, one of his presbyters. The resultant conflict threatened the peace and integrity of the empire and so, for the first time, a civil ruler in the person of the Emperor became involved in formulating Church dogma.

As we have already seen, up to this period all the 'Fathers' of the church had accepted the subordination of the Son to the Father. ⁽¹²⁴⁾  This view continued to be held by Arius. In his 'Thalia', quoted by Athanasius, he expresses it thus: 'God was not always a Father, but there was a time when God was alone, and was not yet Father: the Son was not always ... the Word of God was made out of nothing, and once he was not : he was not before he was begotten'. ⁽¹²⁵⁾

Wright summarises his views in language refreshingly free from the jargon of those times. "Arius claimed that the Father alone was really God; the Son was essentially different from the Father. He did not possess by nature or right any of the divine qualities of immortality, sovereignty, perfect wisdom, goodness and purity. He did not exist before he was begotten by the Father. The Father produced him as a creature. Yet as the creator of the rest of creation, the Son existed 'apart from time before all things'. Nevertheless he did not share in the being of God the Father and did not know him perfectly". ⁽¹²⁶⁾

It is noteworthy, and exceptional, to find that Arius appealed to Scripture in defence of his claims something comparatively rare in all the convoluted writings of those times. As Wright continues: 'He had a sharply logical mind and appealed to Biblical texts which apparently backed up his arguments for example, John 17.3 ('the only true God'), 1 Timothy 6:16 ('alone possesses immortality'), Colossians 1:15 ('first-born of all creation') and Proverbs 8:22 (in the Septuagint,' the Lord created me at the beginning of his work'). ⁽¹²⁷⁾

All this was anathema to Alexander, and to Athanasius his successor as bishop of Alexandria. For them, making Christ a secondary divine being was to deny his divinity. If the Son was divine as both Arius and Alexander believed he was then he had to be divine in exactly the same sense as the Father. This necessitated his pre-existence with the Father from all time. To suggest that 'there was a time when he was not' was, in their view, to deny the very fundamentals of Christianity.

Finding life intolerable in Alexandria, Arius moved to the more liberal Palestine from where he wrote a letter to Alexander claiming that the Arians were only preaching the established traditional views. Alexander, meanwhile, was busy sending to all parts acrimonious ⁽¹²⁸⁾ letters warning the bishops against Arius and his opinions. This war of words increased, with numerous letters exchanged by both sides. The effect on the Church was predictable. Contention filled the churches, factions developed, passions were inflamed, until the whole empire was affected. ⁽¹²⁹⁾   'They fought against each other', says Theodoret, 'with their tongues instead of spears'. ⁽¹³⁰⁾  Even the pagans were outraged by this behaviour, and their theatres echoed to the ridicule of the Christians. ⁽¹³¹⁾

Looking at the dispute with the advantages of hindsight it appears that the ultimate losers the Arians had the more reasonable position. As Wiles says in a recent work:

'A very different perspective on Arianism, which has been put forward occasionally by rebel spirits in the past, is beginning to establish itself as the consensus view of modern scholars. ... Earlier Christians had not raised explicitly the precise question which was now the issue of contention between the two sides. Traditional ways of speaking about the divinity of the Son were ambivalent at best; on balance they stood somewhat nearer to that of the Arians than of the orthodox (i.e. his opponents). Either side could, and both sides did, claim with some plausibility that the witness of earlier tradition was in their own favour. But neither claim (particularly that of the orthodox) is as convincing or as decisive as they claimed it to be. Both sides were innovating in a way they were quite unprepared to admit. But on balance it was the Arian heretics who were the more conservative, the orthodox who were the more innovative' ⁽¹³²⁾   

This confirms that later developments involved a moving away from the previously established position, not a reinforcing of it.

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA

Constantine, worried about the effect of this dispute on the peace of the empire, tried to smooth out the differences, and in a letter to Alexander asks him to restore harmony. But Alexander was inflexible and Arius would not retract. In an attempt to end the controversy and to preserve the peace of his empire Constantine in the year 325 summoned a general Church council at Nicea, within easy reach of his residence at Nicomedia on the Bosphorus in modern Turkey. Probably over 300 (but some say 220) bishops attended, the vast majority being from the Eastern churches. Of these a few were committed Arians, a few supported Alexander, whilst the great majority had no particular loyalty to either view. ⁽¹³³⁾

Few particulars of the council survive, but those that are available are not such as give immense confidence in the outcome of the debate, crucial as it was to the history of the church indeed a turning point of that history. ⁽¹³⁴⁾

Eusebius the historian attended the Council in his capacity as the bishop of Caesarea, and from his Life of Constantine undoubtedly a panegyric written as an obituary, but useful for some historical data we can reconstruct some of the events. The Emperor, seated on a stool rather than a throne, presided over a debate which initially was characterised by not a little acrimony and personal abuse, and he did all he could to preserve peace and unity. ⁽¹³⁵⁾

The representatives even sent to him written accusations about their colleagues. To his credit he collected all these and publicly burnt them unopened, telling the bishops that they must await the judgment of the One on high. 

During the following discussion the 18 Arian supporters ⁽¹³⁶⁾ presented a draft creed for consideration, but it was met with intense disapproval and the document even torn in pieces by their opponents. Eusebius of Caesarea, in an attempt at compromise, then submitted the Creed of his own church. This was approved by the Emperor, but was sufficiently non-controversial to be also accepted by the Arians. This was enough to present a fatal difficulty, for the opposition were determined to find a form of words that the Arians could not endorse. Much discussion ensued, when many terms to describe the God/Christ relationship were rejected. At last a letter from a prominent Arian was produced. In it the writer had stated that to say that the Son was of one substance or consubstantial (Gk. homoousion) with the Father was a proposition the Arians could not accept.

This was just what Alexander and his party wanted. If this term could be included the battle would be won! In the interests of peace and unanimity Constantine (no doubt after suitable representations from Alexander's party) suggested the inclusion into the Caesarean Creed the Alexandrine phrase 'of the substance (homoousion) of the Father'. Eventually this was approved with a certain amount of reluctance by some, and from a variety of motives ⁽¹³⁷⁾ by almost all the Council, and so became an obligatory article of faith: all who believed otherwise suffering the condemnation of the Church. The Creed of Nicea, before it was later modified to form the more familiar Nicene Creed, read thus: 

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things and invisible.  

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is to say, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day; went up into the heavens, and is to come again to judge the quick and the dead. 

And in the Holy Ghost.  

But those that say, "there was when He was not", and "before He was begotten He was not", or who profess that the Son of God is a different "person" or "substance", or that he is created, or changeable, or variable, are anathematised by the Catholic Church.

Thus Trinitarianism, largely as we know it today, became official Church doctrine. Despite the respect that later ages have accorded to this Council, it was very unsatisfactory in many particulars. By his overriding desire for peace and unity Constantine, probably unintentionally, had introduced a new doctrine into the Church. As one writer says of the clauses he inserted: 'That he appreciated the importance of these alterations, or realised that this revision was virtually the proclamation of a new doctrine, is scarcely probable'. ⁽¹³⁸⁾

The Arians protested, quite rightly, against the introduction of the non-Scriptural homoousion in relation to Christ. And the majority saw in the insertion of this term into the new creed an accommodation to almost any interpretation. ⁽¹³⁹⁾

It is probably easier to understand the Greek word homoousia ⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ if it is split into its components, homo and ousia. Homo means 'the same as', but ousia has a wide range of meaning. It can mean 'substance', or an 'entity' or 'person', or 'man' in a generic sense, or simple 'matter'. Ambiguity was built into the word. Kelly says of it: 'There are few words in Greek susceptible of so many and so confusing shades of meaning. .... The precise meaning of ousia varied with the philosophical context in which it occurred and the philosophical allegiance of the writer'. ⁽¹⁴¹⁾

In the works of the Neoplatonists the combined word homoousia is often used as a technical expression. By this term the Nicea Creed sought to teach that the essence of the Father and Son was identical, although their personalities were different. In this way they attempted to preserve the numerical unity of the Godhead, whilst admitting the plurality of the composition. But it must be remembered that essentially the Creed was not an attempt at an all-embracing definition of the Godhead, but a calculated anti-Arian document ⁽¹⁴²⁾  designed to quash the idea that the Son was a created being and therefore inferior to the Father. ⁽¹⁴³⁾

Incidentally, the word homoousia had previously been condemned by the Council of Antioch in 264 as being heretical; but times had changed! 

AFTER THE COUNCIL OF NICEA

With Nicea Constantine's attempt to unite Christianity appeared to have succeeded. Because of the ambiguity in the application of the meaning of 'consubstantial' (homoousia) even Arians were able to demonstrate their orthodoxy and came back in favour at court and were tolerated within the church. But it was very much a case of papering over the cracks, and it was not long before the weaknesses of the Creed of Nicea became apparent. Rusch comments on this period:

'At the Council the emperor himself had spoken, and no one in the emperor's lifetime moved against his creed. In a real sense the council was the product of the emperor. The Council of Nicea was invited by the emperor. Meetings and doctrinal discussions were in his hands. A new chapter in church and state relations had opened. The differing interpretations of what the council was teaching may have been an advantage initially, for with imperial pressure all but two bishops finally subscribed to the creed. But with the passing of time and the removal of Constantine from the scene, Nicea's lack of clarity became a weakness'. ⁽¹⁴⁴⁾

The next emperor, Constantius, intervened in the dispute, and, mainly for political reasons, tried to resolve the disagreement. He supported the Arians, and it was left to Athanasius, who had attended Nicea as a young deacon but was now bishop of Alexandria, to defend the Nicean faith. ⁽¹⁴⁵⁾

Gradually the Arians lost ground, although their beliefs persisted in some quarters for another three centuries. Later at the Council of Constantinople in the year 381 Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa known as the 'Cappadocian Fathers', devised a formula which reconciled most of the objections. At the same time more prominence was given to the deity of the Holy Spirit. As the anathemas (against those that say "there was when He was not") appended in 325 at the end of the Creed of Nicea no longer applied they were removed, giving the basis of the present Nicene Creed. As Rusch again says: 'At Constantinople a coherent doctrine of God ... was achieved. Refinements and nuances of thought were yet to occur, but the trinitarian controversy had ended'. ⁽¹⁴⁶⁾

It just remained to make the belief universal. This was done, not by widespread discussion within the Christian community at large; not even by an appeal by the Church leaders for the flock to rally behind them; but by Imperial decree. Gibbon records that the Emperor Theodosius, immediately after his baptism, on 28th February 380, issued an edict compelling all his subjects to believe in the Trinity on pain of severe penalty:

'It is our pleasure that all the nations which are governed by our clemency and moderation should steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St Peter to the Romans .... According to the discipline of the apostles, and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, under an equal majesty and a pious Trinity. We authorise the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of Catholic Christians; and we do judge that all others are extravagant madmen, we brand them with the infamous name of Heretics, and declare that their conventicles shall no longer usurp the respectable appellation of churches. Besides the condemnation of Divine justice, they must expect to suffer the severe penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict upon them'. ⁽¹⁴⁷⁾

Here for the first time a civil ruler lays down the conditions for Christian orthodoxy and threatens the use of the power of the state against all who do not agree. A far cry from the original simplicity and democracy of the early Church! And Theodosius was as good as his word. A stream of further edicts against those he termed heretics issued from the imperial throne during the next fifteen years. Gibbon says that these were directed especially against 'those who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity' ⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ and consisted of heavy fines, exclusion from office, closing of meeting places with any building or ground used by them for worship being forfeited to the state, and if none of these prompted the return of the wanderers to the fold, the capital penalty was enacted. It was Theodosius who first instigated official Inquisitors of the Faith a term that later struck terror into the hearts of many a devout believer. It is as well that the earlier 'Fathers' of the Church had passed away, for their beliefs would have easily qualified them for these penalties. But such was the price of 'progress'!

THE TRINITY IN THE WEST

The Eastern Church had been the main arena of the conflict over the relationship between God and Christ over the preceding centuries. The West had only sent a few delegates to the Council of Nicea. The Latin speaking Tertullian had already made a contribution to this debate, but it was left to Augustine of Hippo in N. Africa to champion the doctrine in the West. He was influenced by Neoplatonism, especially the Christian Neoplatonist Victorinus who lived in Rome. Using these resources he produced his treatise On the Trinity in which he 'brought Western trinitarian thought to new heights of theological reflection'. ⁽¹⁴⁹⁾

The Athanasian Creed

For most Christians, in the West at least, the one creed that defines the Trinity is the Athanasian Creed. With its formation, alongside the already establish Apostles' and Nicene creeds, the three major creeds of the Western Church were now in place. For full impact it is here given in its entirety:

'Whosoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith.

Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate: and the Holy Ghost uncreate.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal: the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet there are not three eternals: but one eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated: but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty: and the Holy Ghost Almighty.

And yet there are not three Almighties: but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord.

And yet not three Lords: but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:

So we are forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say: There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater, or less than another: But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal.

So that in all things, as it is aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also believe rightly in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;

God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world;

Perfect God, and perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man: yet he is not two, but one Christ;

One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the Manhood into God;

One altogether; not by confusion of Substance: but by unity of Person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation:

Descended into hell',

Rose again the third day from the dead.

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty:

From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved'

Because of the name of the creed it is commonly assumed that it is the work of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c298-373), who so vehemently opposed Arianism, and thus it expresses comparatively early Christian teaching. This is not so. The creed is unknown in the Eastern Church, to which Athanasius belonged. No mention of it occurs until the sixth century, and some of these writings are of doubtful authenticity; and it did not come into general use until after the seventh century. Its author remains anonymous. It did not, like the Nicene creed, arise from a Church council, nor was it, as far as is known, a response to a particular situation that had developed.

One could hardly have a better example of how the simple Apostolic faith had been elaborated. Twelve simple words is all that the 'Apostles creed needed to express the original beliefs about God. The Athanasian creed uses 372. Similarly 21 words define the original belief about Jesus, whilst 157 are required later.

But whatever might be justifiably said about its contents in comparison with the simple teaching of Scripture and the primitive faith of the earliest Christians as revealed in the 'Apostles' creed, its dogmatism stands out prominently. The abstruse speculations of philosophy blended with religion have now become compulsory beliefs without which salvation is impossible: 'Whosoever will be saved .. it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith' ... 'He that will be saved, must thus think ... ' 'This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved'. The trend first noticed in Tertullian has now matured. The Church has become greater than Scripture, and allegiance to the Church and its officers is the criterion for divine acceptance. Ambrose (339-397) reflected this attitude when he said 'Nothing can be found in this world more exalted than priests or more sublime than bishops'. As one more modern clerical writer puts it:

'In one sense, then, the Athanasian creed marks a climax. It puts the claim of dogma amazingly high. Though it has not forgotten that Christ is to "judge ... all men ... according to their own works", orthodoxy is "before all things necessary". ... One understands the motives at work; but it is not with God that "we have to do", still less with conscience, but withthe Church. There is no shadow of excuse in the theory for dissent from Church teaching. Ignorance is encouraged; bad mistakes are excused; but submission is exacted to the uttermost.' ⁽¹⁵⁰⁾

Thus the net of domination of the Church over the minds of its members was drawn tighter.

THE DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

The history of the development of the doctrine of the deity of the Holy Spirit must make difficult reading for those who contend that the Trinity as believed today was an original article of the Christian Faith. For the first three centuries minds were so concentrated on the position of the Son that the place of the Holy Spirit in the alleged trinity was almost ignored. And this was not because, as some claim, that the deity of the Holy Spirit was 'taken for granted'. The early Rules of Faith and the Old Roman creed down to the more elaborate Nicea creed contain nothing that in any sense would indicate separate personality of the Holy Spirit or its equality with God. It was regarded as subordinate to God, and usually thought of only as the power of God. In both creeds is the simple assertion "I believe in the Holy Spirit", which defines or explains nothing. Had the Fathers believed that the Holy Spirit was a person co-equal and consubstantial with the Father, why did they not say so? The omission is the more striking when we remember that at Nicea the consubstantiality of the Son was the subject of debate, and the creed formulated to express their findings. Why exclude the Spirit from the same discussion if it too was so intimately involved?

We have already noted (p. 339) that Justin about the year 150 placed the 'Prophetic Spirit in third rank'. That this view was the consistent one is shown by many references from the early Fathers, from whom we learn that the lower rank of the Holy Spirit was asserted well into the fifth century. Bishop Huet confesses that 'so late as the time of Basil' (late 4th century) 'and still later, the Catholics dared not openly acknowledge the divinity of the Spirit'. ⁽¹⁵¹⁾ And Neander writes of this same Basil that though he 'wished to teach the divinity of the Holy Spirit in his church, he only ventured to introduce it gradually'. ⁽¹⁵²⁾  

Another of the 'Cappadocian Fathers', Gregory of Nazianzus, who was one of the earliest advocates of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, expresses the uncertainty of the Church in his day on the matter. Writing about the year 380 he said 'Some of our theologians regard the Spirit simply as a mode of divine operation: others, as a creature (i.e. creation) of God; others as God himself; others, again, say that they know not which of these opinions to accept, from their reverence for Holy Writ, which says nothing upon it'. ⁽¹⁵³⁾

These facts are completely inexplicable if it is supposed that the doctrine of the Trinity was the original belief of the Church. As Hanson says:

"When we examine the creeds and confessions of faith which were so plentifully produced between the years 325 and 360, we gain the overwhelming impression that no school of thought during that period was particularly interested in the Holy Spirit". ⁽¹⁵⁴⁾

How then did the position change to make the Holy Spirit a third and co-equal member of the Trinity? It seems, at first at least, not to have been the result of a positive decision: rather the deity of the Holy Spirit came in on the back of the decision to give the Son complete equality with the Father. The following extract summarises the process:

'During the ante-Nicene period there is no settled "Doctrine of the Holy Spirit": thought on the subject is fluid and unformed. At the Council of Nicea (325) it is significant that whilst the Father and the Son receive careful and elaborate definition, there is but bare mention of the Holy Spirit in third place without any definition at all. But when the homoousia (identity of nature with the Father) of the Son had been successfully asserted in the Arian controversy, the results were transferred, without any corresponding discussion, to the Holy Spirit, as the third hypostasis of the Godhead (Synod of Alexandria, 362). ⁽¹⁵⁵⁾

Thus the Holy Spirit, almost by default as it were, became 'God the Holy Spirit'. Later Athanasius pressed for official recognition of the deity of the Holy Spirit:

'Another achievement of Athanasius was to bring the Holy Spirit into the centre of reflection and to insist on his full divinity' ⁽¹⁵⁶⁾

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

The formal creeds soon acknowledged the change. The Council of Constantinople (381), was attended by only 150 bishops, but they were "carefully chosen from areas which would be friendly to Meletius, who was its president". ⁽¹⁵⁷⁾

Following the initial leadership of Gregory and the other Cappadocians, this council produced the almost final version of the Nicene creed, which elaborated the mention of the Holy Spirit. Instead of a brief reference to its existence, the Spirit was now 'the Lord, and Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father through the Son, Who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the prophets'. It is significant that this insertion did not gain immediate recognition by many of the churches. Hanson comments that it was a development 'made in the teeth of the witness of Scripture' ⁽¹⁵⁸⁾, and Du Pin says that 'This creed was not at first received by all churches, and there were some that would add nothing to the Nicene Creed. For this cause it was, perhaps, that no other creed but that of Nicea was read in the Council of Ephesus (the third general council, A.D. 431); and there it was forbidden to make use of any other'. ⁽¹⁵⁹⁾

But gradually the new views were accepted, and the next few decades saw the Holy Spirit, which previously had been regarded as subordinate to the Father, now becoming a co-equal Being, part of the Eternal Trinity. This new view filtered quickly through the Christian world. One fifth-century writer records that the monks of Antioch abandoned the usual chant of 'Glory be to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit', and replaced it with 'Glory be to the Father, and the Son, and to the Holy Spirit', as is familiar to many worshippers today. ⁽¹⁶⁰⁾

Historians have not been kind to the Council of Constantinople, at which the tri-unity and equality of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was finally accepted. Speaking of the decree on the equal Deity of the Holy Spirit, Gibbon says:

'The sober evidence of history will not allow much weight to the personal authority of the Fathers of Constantinople. In an age when ecclesiastics had scandalously degenerated from the model of apostolic purity, the most worthless and corrupt were always the most eager to frequent and disturb the episcopal assemblies. The conflict and fermentation of so many opposite interests and tempers inflamed the bishops: and their ruling passions were, the love of gold and the love of dispute'. ⁽¹⁶¹⁾

Gibbon goes on to say that this description was not the report of an infidel anxious to denigrate Christians, but the assessment of one of the actual participants in the Council. As an example of the partisan spirit of that synod one can cite the case of Gregory of Nazianzus, who was chosen president on the death of Meletius, but had to step down because of the factional politics of the delegates. Of this Hanson records:

"Gregory's tenure of the presidency of the council cannot have endured long, though it was enough to render him disgusted with such assemblies for the rest of his life. This is how he describes the response of the council to his arguments on behalf of appointing Paulinus (as president):

 

'I finished my speech; but they squawked in every direction, a flock of jackdaws combining together, a rabble of adolescents, a gang of youths, a whirlwind raising dust under the pressure of air currents, people to whom nobody who was mature either in the fear of God or in years would pay any attention, they splutter confused stuff or like wasps rush directly at what is in front of their faces'.  

Even this is not one of his most ferocious utterances about councils." ⁽¹⁶²⁾

The council then elected an unbaptised layman to take charge of the proceedings, after rapidly ordaining him as a bishop. It was against such a background that decisions on what proved to be the faith of the Church for the next 1600 years was reached! Again the Emperor issued an edict making the findings of the Council of Constantinople binding on all:

"We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendour, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but the order of the Trinity by recognising the persons and uniting the Godhead ... Anyone who refuses to communicate with these (bishops) is declared to be an heretic and is to be refused office in the church". ⁽¹⁶³⁾

This brief description of the Council of Constantinople gives an insight into the final formation of the doctrine of the Trinity that few of its present day adherents are aware of. It does not make happy reading or give the reader much confidence in the outcome of the deliberations. Yet the whole doctrinal foundation of the present church was laid in councils such as these councils to which history has accorded a sanctity and veneration that is scarcely deserved.

Another feature of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity that should not be overlooked is the involvement of the Emperor in the formulation and enforcement of the new beliefs. We have already seen that the Council of Nicea was convened by Constantine, and all later progress was carefully watched and controlled by his successors. In the end the result of the deliberations reflected his decisions.

'If we ask the question, what was considered to be the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period ... there can only be one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority. When Constantius is represented as saying brusquely to the pro-Nicenes at Milan who alleged that he was transgressing ecclesiastical law, "But what I wish, that must be regarded as the canon" he summarises a situation which did in fact prevail over most of this time'. ⁽¹⁶⁴⁾

Although in practice the Emperor could not enforce his will on a majority that did not agree with him, the involvement of civil rulers in the determination of Christian doctrine allegedly essential for salvation would have been anathema to earlier generations, especially to original Christians.

Whilst it is not strictly relevant to our study, it may be of interest to note that it was ideas about the Holy Spirit which contributed to the separation of the Greek and Latin Churches. The orthodox view in the East was that the Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son. But in the Third Council of Toledo, in Spain, in the year 589, the Holy Spirit was regarded as proceeding from both the Father and the Son. This 'double procession of the Spirit' although not at first accepted by all in the Western Church, eventually was a major cause of the rift that to this day separates the Roman Catholic Church from the Greek Orthodox Church.

LATER CENTURIES DEVELOPMENTS

REFERENCES

120. J.F.Bethune-Baker, p.155 (italics ours).

121. Millman, Vol. II p.357

122. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Art. 'Neoplatonism'

123. Ibid, Art. 'Arianism'

124. Lamson: "They occasionally make use of a phraseology, which, in the mouth of a modern Trinitarian, would imply a belief that the Son is of one numerical essence with the Father. But this they never thought of asserting. The most they meant to affirm was that the Son, as begotten of God, partook in some sort of the specific nature (that is, a divine), just as an individual of our race partakes of the same nature or essence with the parent from whom he sprung (that is, a human). At the same time they taught that he was relatively inferior to the Father from whom he was derived, and entitled to only inferior homage". p.284. Hanson: "There is no theologian in the Eastern or Western church before the outbreak of the Arian controversy, who does not in some sense regard the son as subordinate to the Father", p64. ."Many ... could not ... abandon completely a subordinationism that had been hallowed by long tradition", p274.

125. Orat. i. contra Arian, 5

126. D.F. Wright, The History of Christianity, p.156. Lion.

127. ibid, p157

128. The Arians were "enemies of Christ", "apostates", "all preceding heresies appear in comparison innocent". Theodoret, Hist. 1.i.e.6.

129. Stanley reports that the controversy was 'carried to a pitch beyond any bounds which faith or wisdom could reasonably sanction'. History of the Eastern Church, Lect. II, p.61.

130. Ibid

131. Eusebius, Vita Const., 1. ii. c. 61

132. M.Wiles. Chapter on 'Orthodoxy and Heresy' p.205 in Early Christianity, Ed. Hazlet. (italics ours)

133. See, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica Art. 'Nicea, Council of'

134. As Stanley says, it must be remembered that 'they (the Councils) were assemblies of fallible men, swayed by the good and evil influences to which all assemblies are exposed' - Lect. II p.70

135. Stanley op.cit. p120

136. Theod. i 6.

137. Many commentators on this Council have suggested that fear of offending the Emperor, or dread of the influential Bishop of Alexandria, or the fact that this final formula was sufficiently ambiguous to accommodate a wide variety of consciences, played a part in their agreement to support the Creed. Also in Encyc. Brit. Art. 'Nicea': 'We are compelled to the conclusion that ... the voting was no criterion of the inward convictions of the Council'; and Moeller: 'The majority of the Greek bishops only agreed against their wills, out of regard to the Emperor'. p.383.

138. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Art: 'Nicea'

139. Neander, vol. II, pp.377-378. Person says: 'As it stands, the homoousios can be read either as an affirmation of the divine unity or as an affirmation of the equal deity of the Son, and it is difficult in the light of theological discussions which took place prior to the Council to believe that the ambiguity was accidental'. Mode of Decision-Making, p.105

140. For a more detailed consideration of these terms see Appendix 2 to this chapter.

141. J.N.D.Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, p.243

142. "We have already seen that According to Anthanasius N (the Nicene formula) was constructed as a deliberately anti-Arian document. Indeed, we do not need Athanasius to tell us so. Its consciously anti-Arian tone is unmistakable", Hanson, p.164

143. 'The issue at Nicea was the Son's co-eternity with the Father, not the unity of the Godhead'. - Rusch, p.20

144. p.20

145. Chadwick, pp.141-151 gives a good detailed account of this period.

146. p.24.

147. Decline and Fall, ch. 27.

148. Decline and Fall, ch. 27.

149. Rusch, p.25

150. R.Mackintosh, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Art, Dogmatic Theology

151. Origiana, 1. ii. c. 2.

152. History of Christian Dogmas, pp.303-5

153. Ibid

154. Hanson, p.741

155. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Art: Holy Spirit

156. Encycopedia of Early Christianity, Art: Trinity

157. Hanson, p806

158. p.875

159. Hist. Eccles., Vol. II, p. 272

160. Reported by Philostorgius, Hist, 1. iii, c, 13.

161. Decline and Fall, ch. 27.

162. Hanson, p809

163. Theodosius: Episcopi tradi, July 381

164. Hanson, p849