INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

l. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORK

AGAINST EUNOMIUS AND OF THIS TRANSLATION

Basil of Caesarea's treatise Against Eunomius, which is published in English translation for the first time here, will be of interest to a range of readers. Students of early Christianity and of Christian theology more generally will find here a set of theologically profound and historically influential reflections upop the mystery of the Trinity and the nature of theological knowledge. Basil finished the three books Against Eunomius in 364 or 365 CE, and this work reflects the intense controversy raging at that time among Christians across the Mediterranean world over the question of who the God whom Christians worShip is.

In this treatise, Basil for the first time in his corpus attempts to articulate at length a theology both of God's unitary essence and of the distinctive features that characterize Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This distinction of common essence or nature and individuating properties, which some (perhaps misleadingly) hail as the cornerstone of "Cappadocian" theology, has some fourth-century precedents. Yet it was Basil's arguments in Against Eunomius that provided the touchstone for debates that would continue to rage after his unexpected death in late 378. These debates between Basil's target, Eunomius, who wrote a response to Basil's work shortly before the bishop of Caesarea's death, and Basil's younger brother, Gregory of Nyssa, who defended his deceased brother in his own three books Against Eunomius, were indelibly marked with the imprint of Basil's Against Eunomius.

Despite the impact of Against Eunomius, Basil himself continued to revise his own account of the Trinity in subsequent works. This does not diminish the importance of Against Euno-

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

mius, however. On the contrary, it allows us to read it as a fascinating snapshot of a process of doctrinal development and definition. Older historical accounts of the fourth-century doctrinal controversies corralled participants into two competing camps: those in support of the Council of Nicaea and its term homoousios, and those opposed to ·it. Basil's Against Eunomius, however, would make no sense if this were the case. He uses the term horemain unresolved regarding the development of Basil's Trinitarian theology from his early letters, through Against Eunomius, and into his late works such as On the Holy Spirit. We hope that this translation contributes to the emerging discussion of Basil's Trinitarian thought, not least with respect to Against Eunomius itself.

In Against Eunomius, we see the clash not simply of two dogmatic positions on the doctrine of the Trinity, but of two fundamentally opposed ways of doing theology. Basil's treatise is as much about how theology ought to be done and what human beings can and cannot know about God as it is about the exposition of Trinitarian doctrine. Basil rejects Eunomius's view that humans can know the essence of God. His response requires him to articulate how one can have meaningful knowledge of something that falls short of knowledge of that subject's essence. He insists that humans cannot comprehend what it is to be God, but that this in no way leaves theology with nothing to say. Rather, the theological endeavor directs the theologian ever more fully to what humans do know of God, especially through Scripture: God's goodness,justice, wisdom, and benevolent provmoousios only once in this text to describe the relation of Father and Son, and there, in the judgment of Lewis Ayres, "the term does not function as a point of departure for the argument."1

Moreover, Basil's later distinction between "substance" (ousia) and "person" (hypostasis) is strikingly absent from Against Eunomius. The emphasis on formulae dilutes the richness of a text like Against Eunomius as a source for both historical and theological reflection.

Unfortunately, Basil's Trinitarian theology has not received sufficient attention in English-language scholarship.' Only recently have scholars working on the development of Christian doctrine turned their attention to Basil as a pivotal figure in the fourth-century controversies and as an interesting theologian in his own right.' Stephen Hildebrand's 2007 book is the first English monograph devoted to Basil's Trinitarian thought.' More recently, our own monographs have explored key issues in Basil's Trinitarian theology.' Nonetheless, many interpretive issues idence. It is these conceptions, which we learn from God's activities, that provide good theology with its subject-matter.

Basil's treatise is highly rhetorical and includes the kind of invective all too familiar to students of fourth-century Christian theology. Yet amidst this (sometimes hilarious) vitriol is a call to epistemological humility on the part of the theologian, a call to recognize the limitations of even the best theology. Basil himself

1. Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy. An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian

Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 195. refined his theology through the course of his career, making

Against Eunomius a testament to the early development of a brilliant mind aware of the provisional-but not arbitrary-charac2. There were monographs in French and German in the 19908: Bernard

Sesboue, Saint Basile et La Trinite (Paris: Desclc~e, 1998), and Volker Henning Drecoll, Die Entwicklung der Trinitatslehre des Basilius von Ciisarea (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996). ter of theological formulae. Basil's capacity for clarifying his views over time in fact enabled him to become one of the architects of the Trinitarian doctrine that eastern and western Christians to this day profess as "orthodox." We hope that this translation will help acquaint a wider readership with the theology of this understudied, yet profoundly important, Father of the Church.

3. josephT.Lienhard, "Omia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of 'One Hypostasis,'" in StephenT.Davis, et al. (eds.), The Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 9g-121; Ayres 187-229; Behr

263-3244. The Trinitarian Theology oj Basil oj Caesarea (Washington, DC: The Catholic

University of America Press, 2007).

5· Mark DelCogiiano, Basil oj Caesarea s Anti-Eunomian Theory of Names: Christian Theology and Late-Antique Philosophy in the Fourth-Century Trinitarian Controversy,

Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 103 (Leiden: Brill, 2010); Andrew RaddeGallwitz, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity,

. Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford:-Oxford University Press, 2009)·

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

caesarea10 during Basil's youth. Basil the elder's family had been deprived of property during the persecution of Maximin Daia, and Emmelia's grandfather had died a martyr's death. II Basil's paternal grandmother, Macrina the Elder, had had contact with the circle around Gregory Thaumaturgus, the "apostle" of Pon-

II. BASIL'S LIFE: AN OVERVIEW

Basil was a brilliant and complex man. Aristocrat, rhetor, theologian, polemicist, preacher, pastor, bishop, reformer, politician, ascetic, friend, and foe: his multifaceted character and his range of concerns makes summarizing his life difficult, and comprehensive biography perhaps even impossible.6 Every biographical sketch of Basil must inevitably pick which aspects to highlight and which to mention only in passing. The survey of Basil's life presented here is meant to introduce the theological treatise

Against Eunomius, and accordingly our focus will be the stages of Basil's intellectual and theological formation and his increasing tus, who had once been a student of Origen. Macrina was instrumental in the religious education of Basil and his siblings.

Basil was the eldest son of ten children, nine of whom survived infancy. His sister Macrina the Younger (so-called to distinguish her from her grandmother) was around three years older than he, and his younger brothers Naucratius and Peter

(later bishop of Sebasteia) were about five and ten years younger, respectively. Gregory (later bishop of Nyssa) was between five and ten years younger than BasilY A second sister named Theosebia was probably slightly older than Gregory.!' Basil also had three more sisters, whose names are unknown. The members of Basil's family exerted immense influence on his religious conversion and were deeply intertwined with his ecclesiastical caengagement with the theological controversies raging in his day.

We unfortunately give subjects such as his activities of social concern, his role as pastor, his reorganization of ecclesial structures, and his ascetic teaching only scant attention.'

Basil was born ca. 329/30 CE at Caesarea in the Roman province of Cappadocia. His wealthy, landowning family had been Christian since the pre-Constantinian period and was distinguished as much for its Christian piety as for its wealth and status.' The family estates were located in Annisa' in the province of Helenopontus on the Black Sea coast of northeastern

Asia Minor. His mother, Emmelia, was a noblewoman from Cappadocia, probably descended from a high-ranked family of civil servants. The wealth and status of Basil's family were due largely to her. His father, also named Basil, a native of Pontus Ptolemoniacus, was a teacher of rhetoric in the provincial capital of Neoreer; more will be heard of them later.

I I, Basil was first educated in grammar and rhetoric by his father in Neocaesarea. Mter his father's death ca. 345/46, he continued his education in Caesarea, probably with maternal uncles.

During. this period he met his lifelong friend Gregory, later bishop of Nazianzus. 14 In 348/49 he spent a year studying in Constantinople, for a while under the famous rhetor Libanius.

About a year later, he and his friend Gregory traveled to Athens to continue their education in rhetoric and philosophy. Basil remained until 355/56, studying under the renowned rhetors

Prohaeresius (who was a Christian) and Himerius, among oth6. The necessary starting point for anyone interested in Basil is Philip Rousseau's biography: Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley: University of California Press,

10. Modern-day Niksar in Turkey. Neocaesarea was about 65 km, or a threeday journey, from the family estates in Annisa.

'994)'

7· Of particular worth here is Paul Jonathan Fedwick, ed., Basil of Caesarea:

Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, 2 vals. (Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Ig81), which contains several excellent articles on these subjects.

11. Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Macrina 20.10-14 (Pierre Maraval, Gregoire de Nysse. Vie de saint Macrine, SC 178, 206; cf. 144 n. 3).

1 2. The best summary of Gregory of Nyssa's life is Anna M. Silvas, Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1-57.

8. For the basic chronology of Basil's life, with a critical discussion, see Paul

J.Fedwick, "A Chronology of the Life and Works of Basil of Caesarea," in Fed13. On Theosebia, see Silvas, The Letters, 98-100,

14For a summary of Gregory of Nazianzus's life, see Christopher Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 3-62. wick, ed., Basil of Cae sa rea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, 1.3-19. g. Also spelled "Annesi." Modern-day Ulukoy in Turkey (it was called Sonnusa until 1958), about 8 km from the junction of the Yer,;il Imrmak (Iris) and the Kelkit Gayi (Lycos). See Rousseau 62 n. 7.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

ers. It is not known specifically with whom Basil studied philosophy in Athens at this time, but the culture of the intellectual life of the city shortly after his time there is preserved in Eunapius.!5

That Basil received a solid philosophical formation is evident in his writings, and we will have occasion below to discuss the deployment of his philosophical education in Against Eunomius. What we know of Basil's education and his later writings indicates that he was well-trained in rhetoric and philosophy at some of the best institutions of his day.!O probably at this time he elected to be baptized by Dianius, the bishop of Caesarea."

Mter his baptism Basil returned to his family estate in Annisa to join his mother, his sister Macrina, and others in their pursuit of an ascetic life. Mter Macrina had professed virginity as a teenager in the 340s, her mother and others joined her in the ensuing years in the practice of traditional household piety. Their practices multiplied and evolved so much that by the early 350S the household had effectively been transformed into a kind of ascetic community.'! Yet Basil cannot be considered a "member" of this community since he formed another community and lived at a distance from his family on the far side

In 355/56, disillusioned by student rowdiness and factionalism, Basil left Athens, against the wishes of his friend Gregory.

He returned to Caesarea to teach rhetoric, and his younger brother Gregory became one of his students.!' But after a short while, perhaps less than a year, he abandoned teaching. For a year or so during 356 and 357 Basil followed Eustathius "the philosopher" through Coele-Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, but apparently without ever catching up with him.!S This

Eustathius is probably to be identified with Eustathius, bishop of Sebasteia since 356. As a leading figure in both the theological conflicts and the ascetical movements of the era, he had attracted the young Basil's attention as a churchman worthy of emulation. Eustathius became something of a mentor to the young Basil both ascetically and theologically.!' On this same of the Iris River. Perhaps he did so because he sought to pursue an ascetic life, or as he calls it, a "philosophical life," whose goals and ideals differed from those of his family. It is possible that his younger brother Gregory joined him in this endeavor."

Basil's vision of his "philosophical life" during this period is preserved for us in two letters he wrote to his friend Gregory trying to persuade him to join him in Annisa.23 Mter further persuasive efforts that continued into 358, Gregory joined Basil and his small community. The friends immersed themselves in the study of scripture and Christian theology, and during this period they may have produced the Philocalia, an anthology of Origen's works, if they are really its compilers." Though Gregory stayed with Basil only for a year or so, his departure was but the tour Basil also visited monastic sites and thus was exposed to the burgeoning ascetic movements of his day and the manifold forms they"took. No doubt the information gained on this trip prelude to another pivotal change in Basil's life. critically shaped Basil's own development and informed his later ascetic writings. Inspired upon his return to Caesarea in 357 to emulate the greats among the ascetics he had encountered,

Basil next shows up at the Council of Constantinople inJanuary 360. This council ratified a creed that enshrined Homoian

20. It is uncertain whether Basil was baptized before or after his monastic tour.

21. For a description of the household ascetic community, see Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Macrina. For a critical discussion, see Susanna Elm, Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), Chap. 3·

15· Eunapius studied in Athens from 362/63 to 367/68. See Wilmer Cave Wright, ed., Eunapius: The Lives of the Sophists, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1922). Prohaeresius and Himerius are included in Eunapius's account.

22. See Silvas, The Letters, 9-10.

23. Epp. 14 and 2. For a discussion of the character of Basil's "philosophical life" during this period, see Rousseau, Chap. 3, and Elm, Virgins, 60-68.

16. See Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetar and Philosopher (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 18-28, for a discussion of the curriculum of rhetorical and philosophical studies most likely followed by Basil and Gregory.

24The nature and function of the Philocalia continues to be debated; see Neil McLynn, "What was the Philocalia of Origen?" Meddelanden fra Collegium Pa~ tristicum Lundense 19 (2004): 32-43, who argues that the staff of Eusebius of Caesarea's library produced the collection and that Gregory of NazianZlls pur· chased a copy during his stay in Palestinian Caesarea in 345/46.

17· Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. 13+ 18. Epp. 1 and 223.2.

19See Rousseau 72-76; Silvas, The Letters. 56-60.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

doomed to deposition and banishment, he fled Cons tanwere d d h me 30 Because of this Basil was later actheology, which, aiming at political compromise, limited its doctrinal affirmations to confessing that the Son was "like" the Father according to the scriptures, and nothing more. The Homoian leaders also managed to orchestrate the depositions of the lead, ers of their opponents, the Homoiousians (who argued that the Son was like the Father in substance), including Basil's mentor

Eustathius of Sebasteia. It is not clear what prompted Basil to travel to the imperial capital. His learning and talent had not gone unnoticed by Dianius of Caesarea, the bishop who had baptized him. It was probably shortly before the council that Dianius ordained him a reader. 25 If it was Dianius who brought

Basil to Constantinople, he most likely wanted to take advantage of both Basil's theological advice and his superior rhetorical power." Basil was also probably drawn to the proceedings because of his theological and ascetical sympathies with Eustathius of Sebasteia." Whatever his reasons for going, he took tino~e;n ;:~~~~:. wh71e Gregory defends his brother ag~inst cthuse hO co he do~s not deny that Basil left the proceedmgs e c arge, k h beginning of I 31 The Council of Constantinople mar s t e.

'd ear y.

. d h' tree mto the WI er Basil's life as a Cappadocian cler!c an IS en ecclesiastical world and its confliCts. d bishAt this council, in order to replace on~ of the ~e~oz~~us 32 A the deacon Eunomius was made bishop 0 Y .'

~~:' ears older than Basil, Eunomius was also CappadoClan by bird:, born in Oltiseris in the extreme northwest o~

C~pp~dOCl~ G I tia He had studied in Constantmople, ntloc, an near a ~ .

6-348 he became a disciple of AetIUS.

Alexandna, where ca. 34

. nd became Aetius and Eunomius returned to Antioch ca. 3~~:e bishop of part of the circle around EudoXIUS, who was

. dea .

8 and soon thereafter ordained EunomlUS as AntIOch m 35 d f Basil and Eunomius meeting at the con. There IS no recor ~ though Eunomius is our source for Council of Constantmop e, . his brother Gregory along with him.'s Nevertheless, Basil played a negligible role at the council. It is unlikely that he participated in the debates." Once it became clear to Basil that the Homoiousians had lost the contest and Basil's early departure from i~ ~~~~ :~~:; ~:~~~~~i~iu~~:~~~

~I:~~~~e:~~s ~p~~~;:~~~c~ ~,asil would refute a few years after25. It is possible that Dianius ordained Basil as a reader shortly after the Council of Constantinople, not before. There is no scholarly consensus on the matter, save that it was around the time of the January 360 council. wa~::r ~~eA~~~~~~~~~:::sbiShOPS like Dianius wh~ w:r~ ~~; osed returned to their sees. A few months a ter, unn dep f 60 Dianius, like so many eastern bishops, ;',as cosummer ~ 3 erial threats into subscribing to the counCIl s Hof

26. Basil's superior rhetorical power at the time of the council is noted by Philostorgius, h.e. 4.12. erced by Imp. d B '1 to leave Caesarea once moian creed." ThiS prompte aSI 27. Kopecek 361; Rousseau 98-101.

28. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.82. See also Silvas, The Letters, 11-12 and Rousseau g8.

I Ra ond Van Dam, Becoming Christian: The have been Basil of Ancyra. Se~ a(;~ila~ hia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

29Gregory of Nyssa says that he and his brother "were present at the time of the contest and did not mingle with the contestants" (Eun. 1.82). Basil's non-participation is also noted by Philostorgius, who attributed it to timidity (h.e. +12).

It is often claimed that the young Basil was chosen as the spokesman for the Hemoiousians at the council but when faced with debating the deacon Aetius (the spokesman for the Heteroousians), he declined out of fear. See, for example,

Conversion of Roman CappadoCla P 2003),197 n. 22.

H Gre ory summarizes the account of 30. Gregory of Nyssa, Eu~. 1·79· ere h g the b.ishops were debating and . h . d that BaSil was present w en EunomlUs'dw h O sal b t does not mention Basil actually participating. encourage tern, u Hildebrand 21 and 214; Kopecek 300-301 and 361-62; Behr 26$ and Richard

Lim, Public Disputation, Power; and Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 119-20. But this claim is based on a misinterpretation of Philostorgius, h.e. 4.12; the historian refers to Basil, the bishop of Ancyra, as the representative of the Homoiousians. This interpretation is corroborated by the fact that the Basil in question declined to debate with Aetius because it was inappropriate for a bishop to dispute with a deacon. At most a reader, Basil of Caesarea could not have lodged such a complaint. Thus the spokesman must

31. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.~9-(~:fe sec Vaggione, passim, and Van Dam, 32 . On all aspects of EunoffiElus S I. ' 's theology see Vaggione, passim, Ro- ..

Ch pIOn unomlUS'

Th Becoming Chnstzan, a.· Th P ,f God (Washington, DC: e ecek 306-46, and Michel R. Barnes, e ower oJ Pc h r University of America Press, 2001), 173-21 9. at 01C . f these twO documents below at p. 33· 33. We discuss the datmg o. h d to assess. He was one of the Dianius's theological 1eanmgs are ar 34·

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

understanding and returned to his ascetic retreat at Annisa for again for Annisa, this time on account of amon oth tho hi'"

' germgs s Susp,cIOn of DIanius's orthodo 35 H ' sophicallife" for a period of about: e reIsumed his "philoory . oined h'

0 years. nearly 362 GregJ a third time. Mter Basil had spent eighteen months in Annisa, his friend Gregory mediated a reconciliation between him and Eusebius. Gregory may have been motivated by Eusebius's re- '~ agam, dIStraught over his recent ordination as pres yter by h,S father, the bishop of Nazianzus Their co retreat lasted only a few months si G' mmon hom d . nce regory soon returned e ~n B~SII w~s ~ack in Caesarea by mid-362. There Basil cent display of theological inadequacy when debating Homoian b theologians during the emperor Valens's visit to Caesarea in 365, In several letters, Gregory appealed to Eusebius that he be reconciled with Basil and encouraged Basil to put his talents rec~ncIled WIth D,amus before the latter died In I t

BasIl had nothing but reverence C D'

. , . a er years, . lor lanlUS S memory.36

Eusebms succeeded Dianius as bishop of Ca d bl h" esarea an proba y at t IS tIme ordained Basil as presbyter 37 Mter ab

. or so, Basil broke with his new bishop as ~ result of ~:: ~~~ at the service of the wider church." Therefore, Eusebius may have recalled Basil to Caesarea in large part for the purpose of engaging in theological debate. But in the following years

Eusebius came to lean on Basil as much for his pastoral and administrative talents as for his theological expertise. This was most evident in Basil's coordination of relief efforts during the recipients of the letter Julius f R h . holding a council at Rome in ~ I orne a~ :vntten to Eusebian bishops after misconduct and d ar Y 34 1, W lCh found Athanasius innocent of exonerate Marcellus's th

Athanasius, Apol. c. A1: 21- .' eo ogy as ~rthodox (preserved in Antioch held during th 35)· Dlamus attended the Dedication Council" of e summer of 341, (Sozome h ) , two creeds that reflect Eusebian th 1 H' n,.e 3·5 ' whIch produced (Synodicon Vetus 4 Cappadocian famine of 369. During this period Basil was the de facto chief pastor of Caesarea, preaching regularly and organizing social charity, the care of the sick, the distribution of sur-

When Eusebius died in 370, Basil was regarded by some as his obvious successor, yet his election to the episcopate was not without opposition. Despite Basil's tremendous success as a pasplus, and hospices.

) Dianius leo agy. e reportedly brought along Asterius in 343 and signed its decre;as ~ so pr~~nt at the "eastern"· council of Serdica

Eudoxius, then bishop ofGe~ an~ng ~t , amon.g others, Basil of Ancyra and to be allied with the Euseb,'ans a 'thca, atetr of AntIoch. Though Dianius appears

. .

In e ear Y 340S there .

. polItIcal and theolomcal aliia d'

'. were numerous shifts In o' nces unng the ensuIng 'd f years. For example Bas,'1 of An d E peno 0 nearly twenty , cyra an udoxius fAn' h h emies by the time of the Coun'l f C .

tIoc ad become en· .

CI a onstantmople Hence D'

III 360 cannot be known fa .'

" mnms s pOSItIOn See the next note for furth;rcceortam, gIVen thD~ sc~nt evidence for his own views. mments on mnms's theolo 35. In his denial of the char th t h h d gy. subscription to the Homoian creg~ Ba '1 e a anathematized Dianius after his tor in Caesarea, some were resistant to him because of such issues as his family connections (and their wealth), the arrogance that some perceived as resulting from his elite education, his eagerness to incorporate asceticism into the church's life, and his abiding concern with ecclesial matters far beyond the boundaries of his own diocese. Gregory of Nazianzus's father, Gregory claimed to have subscribed to it :niy ,,:1 U::~~~;~c~tya~~~~~~::~ hisddeathbed the Elder, the long-time bishop of Nazianzus, played a decisive role in securing Basil's election.40 Nonetheless, his consecraave abandoned the Nicene fai h ( . an never to being more apolo etic tha f t E~. 51). WhIle one suspects that here Basil is did not include thg I '

In actual, It does appear as if Dianius's many virtues eo oglca acumen who h tl .

Basil to Constantino Ie in 6 ,IC may par y explam why he brought h tion as bishop was surrounded by controversy and factionalism within the Caesarean church, which thwarted his effectiveness as bishop, at least in the early years of his episcopacy." specific theowgical trJectory: a~~a~e;ec~o:~Yf~~t~~~~:~fl~ate Dianius within a be beggIng the question, for his own theological vie e pen~d, may Simply ficiently refined to warrant labeli th . ws may not ave been suf·

. See Ep. 51. ng em as belongmg to any particular group.

Ai; bishop of Caesarea, Basil became more and more em38. Gregory of Nazianzus, Epp. 8, 16, 17, 18, and 19·

39. See Rousseau 136-44'

40' J. McGuckin, Saint Gregory oj Nazian'Zus: An Intellectual Biography (Crest· 37, Philostorgius (h e 412) h '

Constantinople b h'" states t at BasIl was a deacon at the Council of , ut e was at most a reader at th·· S records that Meletius of Antioch ordained B '} d IS Orne. ocrates (h.e. 4-

) for a discussion. aSI a eacon. See Kopecek 300 n. 1 wood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001), 169-76.

41. See Rousseau 145-51.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

broiled in the varied ecclesiastical matters and disputes of his day. Only a few of his most important episcopal activities and expenences can be mentioned here. During Basil's episcopacy, ~appadoCla played a strategic role in Emperor Valens's campaIgns agamst and diplomatic missions to the Persian emperor. us of Sebasteia over the issue of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.44

Sometime after 37', Eustathius's views on the Holy Spirit became suspect to some of Basil's Armenian allies. Over the next few years Basil had a series of meetings and exchanges with Eustathius aimed at gathering evidence of his orthodoxy. Mutual

42 In order to achieve the administrative and fiscal efficiency necessary for these objectives, Valens decided to divide t?e province of Cappadocia into two smaller provinces, effectIVe Septem.ber 372. ~ut when visiting Caesarea in January 372 m preparatlon for this, the emperor and his prefect Modestus were s~ imp:-essed with Basil, despite their being doctrinally at odds WIth h,m, that Valens co-opted Basil in several ways that advance? Roma',' military and diplomatic strategies concerning the PerSIan empIre. He entrusted Basil with oversight of the sedistrust slowly developed, and by 375 the two had devolved into attacking each other. Basil tagged Eustathius a "Pneumatomachian"-that is, a fighter against the Spirit-for denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Eustathius accused Basil of Sabellianism on account of his earlier association with Apollinarius of Laodicea, now known more for his Christological heresy. Sabellianism emphasized the unity of the triune God in a way that failed to recognize the real and permanent distinctions between Father,

Son, and Holy Spirit. Eustathius connected Apollinarius with Sabellianism because of his promotion of the Nicene term homoou- ~ectlon of bIshops in Armenia, as a way of consolidating Roman mterests in this crucial buffer-state. sios, though modern scholars view the charge as unfounded. As a young man, Basil had probably corresponded with Apollinarius

Nonetheless, the division of Cappadocia proceeded as planned, .senously under~ining Basil's position as the metropolitan bIshop of the undIVIded Cappadocia. In order to secure his continuing influence after the division, Basil orchestrated the appointment of several of his allies to sees in the newly created province of Cappadocia Secunda. In 372 he' appointed his fnend Gre~ory (with the connivance of his father, Gregory the Elder) as bIshop of Sasima and his brother Gregory as bishop of Nyssa. The next year Amphilochius, a cousin of Gregory of in the early 360s, inquiring about homoousios.45 Since Eustathius exploited Basil's connections with Apollinarius in making his case against him, Basil had to distance himself from Apollinarius, even though the Laodicean bishop was a staunch adherent of the Nicene Creed. Eustathius died around 377, still at enmity with Basil.

As Basil's rupture with Eustathius had major significance in his own life, so the debate over the divinity of the Holy Spirit was increasingly significant in the life of the wider church. 46 The issue had only come to the fore in the late 350S and early 360s.

The third book of Basil's Against Eunomius, as well as Athana- ~azlanzus, was appointed bishop of !conium. Gregory of NaZIanzus res:nte~ the appointlnent to Sasima and probably never assumed hIS. dutIes .. Hewas indignant with Basil for using him as a pawn m ?'S eccleSIastIcal schemes; Basil was irate with Gregory for not taking up h,S post. The incident led to a rift in the friendship between Gregory and Basil that was never fully repaired. BaSIl ousted Gregory from his circle of confidants and never again sius's Letters to Serapion and Didymus the Blind's On the Holy Spirit, represents some of the earliest attempts to argue sy~tematically for the full divinity of the Spirit4' Around 375, BasIl wrote h,S trusted hIm as an ally in his ecclesiastical agenda. 4' Despite the nft, . th: two men and their families remained cordial, though not IntImate.

44. Rousseau 239-54; Ayres 225-26; Behr 10g-10..

45. George L. Prestige, St. Basil the Greal and Apollmarn ,<Londo~: SP9K, 1956); Henri de Riedmatten, "La correspondance entre Basile de Cesaree et

Apollinaire de Laodieee," JTS n.s. 7 (1956): 199-210; 8 (1957): 53-70.

Basil also had a falling-out with his one-time mentor Eustathi46. Michael A. G. Haykin, The Spirit oj God (Lelden: Bnll, 1994); Hanson

738-go; Ayres 211-18.

47. See the Introduction in Mark DelCogliano, Andrew Radde·Gallwltz, and 4 2 . Van Dam, Kingdom o/Snow, 109-17.

43· Rousseau 234-39; McGuckin, Saint Gregory ojNazianzus, 189-2°3.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Homoiousian than anything else and in time adopted a proNicene stance; and (3) Euzoius, Meletius's Homoian replacement. Both Paulinus and Meletius were supporters of Nicaea, yet their communities were opposed to one another for a vaown On the Holy Spirit, which dealt not only with the divinity of the Spirit, but also with the Spirit's role in the life of the church and individual Christians. He dedicated the book to Amphilochius of !conium, who looked up to Basil as a mentor, much as Basil had once done with Eustathius. An exchange of letters between them is extant, Basil answering Amphilochius's questions on matters of ecclesiastical discipline and the finer points of theology. In the correspondence, Basil's affection for his protege is evident.".Perhaps his friendships with Amphilochius and other bishops like Eusebius of Samosata that developed during his episcopacy consoled him for the pain of his estrangement from Gregory of Nazianzus and Eustathius of Sebasteia, the companions of his youth." riety of other reasons. Like many other bishops in Asia Minor,

Basil supported Meletius, viewed as the best possibility for reconciling the Antiochene factions. Another criterion for reconciliation was the condemnation of Marcellus of Ancyra. Basil realized that his plans could be achieved only by gaining the support of Athanasius of Alexandria and Damasus of Rome, who represented the western bishops. And so, he wrote a number of letters to Damasus and Athanasius (who never answered

Basil) and even organized diplomatic missions to Rome. As the western bishOps tended to support Paulinus and were reluctant

Though Basil did not mention the Nicene Creed in Against Eunomius, as bishop he became one of the leading pro-Nicene theologians of his era. Only gradually did he come to accept the creed as the sufficient means for unifying adherents of diverse theological positions. Shortly before he wrote Against Eunomius, he had rejected the term homoousios in his correspondence with Apollinarius; shortly after writing the anti-Eunomian treatise, he admitted his acceptance of the Nicene term in a letter to Maximus the philosopher.50 Later, as bishop, he promoted the Nicene Creed as the expression of standard orthodox teaching, provided that it was supplemented by a statement about the divinity of the Spirit." to condemn Marcellus, Basil's plans came to naught."

Basil died before his fiftieth birthday, probably in late September 378.53 Death robbed him of seeing the groundwork that he had laid come to fruition a few years later. The new emperor,

Theodosius, raised to the purple only a few months after Basil's death, was a pro-Nicene Christian from Spain. While some progress had been made in the formation of a viable pro-Nicene alliance in the late 370S and 380, the emperor convened a council in Constantinople in 381 to resolve lingering issues.

54 The 52. For Basil's role in the attempt to build a pro-Nicene alliance, see Rousseau 288-317; Ayres 224-29; Behr 104-17.

Basil's attempts to build a pro-Nicene alliance required navigating a complex set of relationships among the sees of Rome,

Alexandria, and especially Antioch. By the 37os, there were 53. Though for centuries Basil was thought to have died on January 1,379, since the 1980s there has been a dispute over the date of his death. Building on earlier scholarship, the most important studies are Pierre Maraval, "La date de la mort de Basile de Cesaree," Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 34 (1988): 25-38 three rival bishops in Antioch: (1) Paulinus, leader of the "oldNicene" community loyal to Eustathius of Antioch, who had been deposed around 327; (2) Meletius, the Homoian candidate who upon his consecration revealed himself to be more

(August 377);].-R.Pouchet, "La date de l'election episcopate de saint Basile et celIe de sa mort," Revue d'histoire ecclisiastique 87 (199z): 5-33 (late September

378); T. D. Barnes, "The Collapse of the Homoeans in the East," Studia Patristica

29 (1997): 3-16 Uanuary 1, 379); and Pierre Maraval, "Retour s~r ~uelqu,e~ dates concernant Basil de Cesaree et Gregoire de Nysse," Revue d'hzstolre eccleslLewis Ayres, Works on the Spirit: Athanasius and Didymus (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, forthcoming). astique 99 (2004): 153-57 (late September 378). For good reviews of the liter~ ture, see Rousseau 360-63 and Vaggione 304-11, who both argue for t~e tradItional date of January 1,379, as well as Silvas, The Letters, 32-39, who reVIews the most recent scholarship and argues for a date oflate September 378.

48. See Rousseau 258-69; Ayres 224-25; Hildebrand 27-28.

49· On Eusebius ofSamosata, see Rousseau 254-58.

50. Epp. 361 and 9.3. On Basil's early doubts over homoousios, see Ayres 18891; Hildebrand 210--22.

51. See, for example, Epp. 52, 113, 125. 128, and 20454. On the Council of Constantinople, see Hanson 791-823; Ayres 253-60;

·Behr 117-22.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

homoousios and those opposed to it. For a long time it was customary to place Basil in the former group and view him, along with and inseparable from his fellow Cappadocians Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, as the heirs of the theological and polemical legacy of Athanasius of Alexandria. In turn,

Athanasius was seen as the beleaguered champion of an unalcouncil fathers ratified a revised version of the Nicene Creed which was more explicit concerning belief in the Holy Spirit as divine and to which many former enemies could subscribe.

Imperial legislation throughout the 380s and 390S encouraged acceptance of the council's decrees. It needs to be stressed that "the Council of Constantinople does not mark the end of Trinitarian debate in the eastern empire."" In the following years, there were continuing efforts to entice dissidents (such as Heteroousians, Homoians, Pneumatomachians, and Apollinarians) to accept pro-Nicene orthodoxy, by legislation on the part of Theodosius and by theological argument on the part of Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others. Basil's efforts had not been in vain. terable theological vision enshrined in the Creed of Nicaea in 32 5 and the indefatigable opponent of the heresiarch Arius and his progeny. Eunomius too was linked with currents from earlier in the fourth century. The title "Neo-Arian" was egregiously used to describe his and Aetius's theology, suggesting a revival and perhaps radicalization of Arius's thought. But these interpretations rely too much on the polemical categories promoted by biased contemporaries of the debates.

The other so-called "Cappadocian Fathers" acknowledged the impact of Basil, each in his own way. Gregory of Nyssa took up the mantle of his deceased' brother in the ecclesiastical and theological realms, defending him against detractors and developing the doctrinal insights of Basil into one of the classic expressions of pro-Nicene Trinitarian theology. Gregory of Recent revisionist scholarship has taught us that the story of the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies is far more complex and uncertain than such traditional accounts would have us believe-and endlessly more fascinating. Arius and Athanasius are no longer seen as the fountainheads of two irreconcilI able and long-lasting streams of theology. The idea of a monolithic Cappadocian theology rooted in Athanasian thought, or Nazianzus's Trinitarian theology is not as explicitly indebted to Basil's as Gregory of Nyssa's was, but nonetheless represents a signal achievement in pro-Nicene theology. Shortly after the Council of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus eulogized

Basil, still feeling the sting of old hurts but appreciative of the many accomplishments of his one-time friend.56 He depicted

Basil as an exemplary pastor, teacher, and theologian, and bestowed upon him the epithet by which he is still known today:

"Basil the Great."57 of Heteroousian theology as a resuscitation of ArillS'S doctrine, is now recognized as a fiction, or at least a reductionistic disI

\ tortion. All of the Cappadocians-Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa-developed distinctive theologies with unique emphases. With this more precise understanding of the fourth-century doctrinal controversies, we can ~ee how the participants in the Eunomian controversy-Eunomms and Basil-do and do not relate to the broader course of the controversies. Accordingly, the two following sections first trace the broad contours of the fourth-century debate and then locate Basil's work Against Eunomius in its immediate context in

III. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

OF AGAINST EUNOMIUS

the mid-360s. The final section briefly recounts the fate of Eunomius and the Heteroousian movement after the publication of Basil's groundbreaking treatise.

Traditional accounts of the fourth-century Trinitarian debates have tended to corral participants into two competing camps: those in support of the Council of Nicaea and its term

55· Ayres 359· 56. Or. 43. See Rousseau 18-20; McGuckin, Saint Gregory ojNa:J:.ianzus, 372-7457· Or. 43.1 and 43.16.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

bius of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius ofAnazarbus, Theognis of Nicaea, and Narcissus of Neronias-an ecclesiastical alliance commonly called the "Eusebians" after its two most prominent leaders." These bishops did not agree with Arius's theology in every detail. Though there were theological differences between them, they rallied around Arius in common cause against what they deemed to be Alexander's doctrinal innovations and his mistreatment of Arius.

The &mote Context The T"

. nnltanan controversies arose in h when pre-existing theological tr .

. t e fourth century I· tl aJectones clashed 58 Th It e agreement over what it . ' ere was what "Father-Son" langua e ~ea~~ t~ ascnbe divinity to the Son, image of God (Col ) gI mp Ie , ~r how the Son was the and Son were both ~'~~e' do~~~ ~uestlOnable whether Father degrees of divinity. For centuri~s C~;~er one could speak of scriptural terminology for speakin ~tJans had used common but only in the early fourth g a out the Father and Son, diverse interpretations existe;.entury came to realize fully that After a series of failed attempts to reconcile the feuding factions within the Alexandrian church, the emperor Constantine convened a council at Nicaea in 325 to resolve the controversy-now spread throughout the churches of the East-once and for all. The council ratified a creed designed to exclude the theology of Arius and to secure his excommunication and exile." Thereafter Arius was marginal. Constantine recalled him from exile a few years after Nicaea, but the Alexandrian church repeatedly refused him re-admission to communion. He died outside of the church in the mid-330s, having long ceased to be a factor in ongoing theological debates. He was not the founder of "Arianism" as a theological system or as an ecclesiastical movement.

The dispute that arose between h bishop Alexander arou d

t e presbyter Arius and his theOlogical diversity AI n 3 ~ occurred within this context of were co-eternal on a~co:~~:f~ taught t?at the Father and Son the Son. In additl'on th S e Fhather s eternal generation of , e on was t e 'C. d"'

. of the Father able to I h m Ist.J.ngulshable" image seemed as if Mexande~~:~~ tie Fa~her ,Perfectly.59 To Arius, it that is, two first principles w~~ ~~ ImplJed two "unbegottens," ism. Furthermore Ar'

'th IC h estroyed Christian monothe_ , IUS oug t that AI d'" on the co-eternity of th F th . exan er s mSlstence . e a er and Son Ig d h . mherent in the languag f 'F h' nore t e hierarchy . e 0 at er and 'So '60 A .

ArIUS stressed the Son's d' t' n. ccordmgly, Father.51

IS mctness from and inferiority to the After Nicaea the theological controversy shifted its focus from Arius and Alexander to the emerging debate between the Eusebians and Marcellus of Ancyra. The leading Eusebians had subscribed to the Nicene Creed, but their actions and writings after the council reveal lingering questions over its meaning.

Indeed, the 320S and 330S were the golden age of Eusebian theological development. Foremost among the Eusebians was

Many Christians throughout h shared Arius's theology f th ~ e eastern Mediterranean unbegotten. Besides his ~llies e;~~~u~ status ~f ~he Father as nearby Egyptian cities . exandna Itself or from him against Alexande; ;~~::e~t eab~tern bis?ops supported

, use IUS of Nlcomedia, Euse62. "Eusebian" is a problematic term, as recently discussed by David M,Gwynn, The Eusebians. The Polemic of Athanasius oj Alexandria and the Construction oj

58. Ayres 31-76. the 'An'an Controversy' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). We use "Eusebian" here in contrast to the Athanasian usage deconstructed by Gwynn and in line with other recent usage to name the ad hoc alliance of eastern bishops and theologians initially formed around the figures of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea that lasted from ca. 3~w to ca, 350, For a definition of the category, see Ayres 52, and Joseph T. Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, Marcellus of . 59·. OUf primary SOurces for Alexander's theol

' dISCussIon, see Ayres 43-4 . B h ogy are Urk. 4b and 14. For

S 5, e r 124-29; and Hanson 1 8o. ee p. 78 below in this IntrOduction for 3, 45· double quotation marks in th the uses of Inverted commas and

e present volume . 1. OUf primary sources for Mus's theol~ . naslUS, Syn. 15.3 and Ar. 15 6 F d'

. gy are Urk. 1, 6, and 30; AthaH '.

. -. or ISCUSSlOn see A anson 5-27 and 60-128' and R W'll" yres 54-57; Behr 130-49' d '

Owan I lams A' oR ' e . (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2 0 01), ' nus. eresy and Tradition, rev.

Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 34-35'

63. On the events from the outbreak of the controversy to the Council of Nicaea, see Ayres 15-20 and 85-100; Behr 62-69; and Hanson 129-78,

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

the divine power and wisdom that existed in God eternally and the power and wisdom manifested in Christ. 70 He spoke of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct hypostases." The Father is always Father, at least potentially SO,72 and the Son is the indistinguishable image of the Father's divinity, substance, will, power, and glory.73 The unity of the Father and Son is understood in terms of a harmony of wills, not a sharing of nature."

Asterius the Sophist, a layman from Cappadocia (he was permanently debarred from clerical status because of his lapse in the Great Persecution). Around 320-321, he had published a theological handbook entitled the Syntagmation; it is even claimed that Arius himself used this little book.64 Around 323, Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote to Paulinus of Tyre urging him to write to Alexander of Alexandria to protest the excommunication of Ar· 65 P I· , I IUS. au mus setter to Alexander became something of an instant classic, although the theological language used by him became so outdated within a few years of its composition that it was a cause of embarrassment among the Eusebians.66

Eusebius of Caesarea is the other major theologian of the ecclesiastical alliance that bears his name.75 For Eusebius, God the Father is the unbegotten, eternal source of all. The Son derives his existence from the Father: he is the only-begotten of the Father, not co-eternal with him, and a product of the Father's will, not his substance. Eusebius distinguishes between begetting and creating; the Son is not co-ordinate or even pre-eminent

Around 327, Asterius wrote a defense of Paulin us's letter. In the early 330s, Marcellus of Ancyra, who had attended the Council of Nicaea and supported its creed and decrees, wrote a book against Asterius's defense of Paulinus. In 337-338 Eusebius of Caesarea issued two anti-Marcellan works: the Against Marcellus and the Ecclesiastical Theology, the latter of which is in many ways the apex of Eusebian theology. A fragment of an anti-Marcellan work written around 340-341 by Acacius of Caesarea, Eusebius's successor, in defense of Asterius is devoted to explicating what it means to call the Son the image of God. 67 among creatures, but, rather, uniquely rehited to the Father.";

The Father and Son have independent ontological existences, which Eusebius sometimes caIls hypostases. Eusebius posits a very close relationship between the Father and the Son. He insists that, as the image of God, it is the nature of the Son to be like the Father with the greatest degree of exactness possible, being in himself the whole form of God."

In contrast, Marcellus's theology was driven by a concern to preserve the unity of God at any cost.'" He prefers to speak of The Eusebians were by no means characterized by a monolithic theology.68 Each offers a distinctive perspective within a loosely shared framework that tended to see the differences between the Father and Son as primary, while at the same time affirming the uniqueness of the relationship between the Father and Son. In the early stages of the Trinitarian controversies, there was relatively little reflection by anyone on the divinity of the Holy Spirit or the Spirit's relation to the Father and Son. tra Marcellum, 89-100; and Markus VlOzent, Asterius von Kappadokim: Die theologischen Fragmente (Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill, 1993)' Kopecek 29-34 gives a summary of Asterius's theological differences from Arius.

70 . Asterius, Fra~ents 64-68 (Vinzent).

7 1. Asterius, Fragments 54-55 and 61-62 (Vinzent).

72 . Asterius, Fragment 14 (Vinzent).

73. Asterius, Fragment 10 (Vmzent).

7+ Asterius, Fragments 39-41 (Vinzent).

75. On Eusebius's theology, see Ayres 58-60; Hanson 46-59; an~ r:olger Strutwolf, Die Trinitiitstheologie und Christologie des Euseb von Caesarea (Gottmgen:

Asterius was the intellectual force of his era and the most significant early Eusebian theologian. 69 He distinguished between Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999)· 64. Athanasius, Deer. 8.1.

65. Urk. 8. On the date, see Williams, Anus, 58.

66. Urk. 9.

67. Preserved in Epiphanius, Pan. 72.6-10. On the date, see Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, 185-86.

76. Eusebius, E. tho 1.10.1.

77. DelCogliano, "Eusebian Theologies," 47 1-76.

78. On Marcellus's theology, see Ayres 62-69; Hanson 217-35; LIenhard, Contra Marcellum, 49-68; Klaus Seibt, Die Theologie des Markell von Ankyra (Ber~ lin: De Gruyter, 1994); and Markus Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra:. Die Fra~ente

[und] Der Briefanjulius von Rom (Leiden, New York, Cologne: Bnll, 1997)· C?n , Marcellus's life, see Sara Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Anan

68. Mark DelCogliano, "Eusebian Theologies of the Son as Image of God before 341," Journal of Early Christian Studies 1+4 (2006): 459-84Controversy, 3 2 5-345 (Oxford and New York : Oxford University Press, 2006).

69. On Asterius's theology, see Ayres 53-54; Hanson 32-38; Lienhard, Con-

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

exiled bishops were seeking the support of Julius, the bishop of Rome. Julius held a council in early 341 at which Athanasius was found innocent of misconduct and Marcellus's theology was exGod and his Word and downplays 'Father-Son' language; the Word can only be called Son and other Christological titles at the Incarnation." He spoke ofthe Word as eternally intrinsic to God, existing in God much as the power to reason exists within onerated as orthodox, thus overturning the decisions of the eastern councils. If they had not met earlier, Athanasius and Marcellus most certainly met in Rome, and perhaps Athanasius wrote the Orations against the Arians at the suggestion of Marcellus.

~ human being.so He denied that there were two of anything III God: two substances, two hypostases, two powers, two persons, and so forth. God was understood to be a unitary divine monad that mysteriously expanded into a triad (namely, the Word and Spirit) without losing its essential oneness and indivisibility.8l

Marcellus also taught a distinct eschatology wherein Christ's kingdom comes to an end." His Eusebian contemporaries came to accuse him. of Sabellianism, though he denied the charge."

Nonetheless, III 336 Marcellus was deposed and exiled for his theological opinions, a victim of Eusebian machinations. He eventually made his way to Rome in 340, where he made common cause with Athanasius.

Though Athanasius had begun to conceive of his conflict with the Eusebians as a theological debate before he arrived in Rome, the Orations marks the transformation of his ecclesiopolitical struggles with the bishops of the Eusebian alliance into a quest for orthodoxy against the "Arianism" of his opponents.

In this treatise, which Lewis Ayres calls "one of the key early anti-Eusebian theological manifestos,"8' Athanasius sets out to refute the tenets of "Arianism" as taught by Arius, Asterius, and other Eusebians. Nothing much, however, is heard from him on the Nicene Creed as the standard of orthodoxy until the early

As a deacon Athanasius had attended the Council of Nicaea in Alexander's entourage." When Alexander died a few years later, Athanasius succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria, though not WIthout controversy and steep resistance from the Melitians,

WIth wh?~ Athanasius struggled in the early years of his episcopacy. Wlthlll a few years Athanasius was charged with violence and other crimes, tried and convicted at the Council of Tyre in 335, and exiled to Gaul. For the remainder of his ecclesiastical career, these charges would dog Athanasius, rendering him suspect and tainted in the eyes of many eastern bishops. Before his death in 373, Athanasius would spend five periods of exile outside of Alexandria, about seventeen years in total.

350s.86 It is now recognized that his depiction of the fourthcentury church as polarized between his own "orthodoxy" and the "Arianism" of his Eusebian enemies is a polemical misrepresentation aimed at pleading his own case against his many detractorsS7 Despite his distorted polemics, Athanasius is a significant theologian in his own right, and his writings represent a considerable theological achievement that had immediate and long-lasting influence, though perhaps not as pervasive as previous generations of scholars have believed. 88

85. Ayres 117· 86. Lewis Ayres, "Athanasius' Initial Defense of the Term Df.l00UOlO<;: Rereading the De decretis," Journal afEarly Christian Studies 12 ( 2004).: 337-59'

87. David M. Gwynn, The Eusebians. The Polemic of Athanaszus of Alexandna and the Construction of the Arian Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Having returned to Alexandria from his first exile in 337, Athanasius was ousted from Alexandria again in early 339 and fled to Rome, where Marcellus arrived a few months later. Both

88. For general introductions to Athanasius's biography and thought, s.ee Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius (London: Routledge, 20°4), and Thomas G. WeIflandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007)· For overviews of Athanasius's Trinitarian doctrine, see Ayres 45-48, 110-17, and 140-44;

Behr 163-259; Hanson 417-58. For more detailed treatments o~ his the.olo~; 79· Marcellus, Fragments 3,5,7,65, and 94 (Vinzent).

80. Marcellus, Fragment 87 (Vinzent).

81. Marcellus, Fragments 48,73, and 110 (Vinzent).

82. Marcellus, Fragments 107 and 109 (Vinzent).

83· Marcellus, Fragment 44 (Vinzent).

84· On Athanasius's life, see TimothyD.Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius:

Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 1993). see E.P.Meijering. Orthodoxy and Platonism in. Athanasius. Synt~estS or A~ta,he~tS.

2d ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1975); Charles Kannenglesser, Athanased'Alexandne. Eveque et Ecrivain: Une lecture des traites contre les Ariens (Paris: Beauschesne, 1 983); J. Rebecca Lyman, Christology and Cosmology: Models oj Divine Activity in Origen, Eusebius,

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Summarizing Athanasius's theology is difficult because of the sheer number of his extant writings composed over a fifty-year penod. But a few points of similarity and difference with other theologians already discussed can be mentioned. For Athanasius, theological reflection begins with God's eternal Fatherhood. It follows from this that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. As it was for Alexander, the eternal correlativity of the of theological orthodoxy in the East that avoided the poles of Arius, on the one side, and Athanasius and Marcellus, on the other. The Dedication Council produced two creeds that would become standard in the East for the next twenty years. The Second Creed is a bold statement of Eusebian theology, echoing the theology of Asterius.9o The Fourth Creed was drawn up a few months after the Dedication Council to summarize the Second Creed and was brought to the West 91 The latter became the standard creed in the East for more than twenty years and was reissued at many subsequent eastern councils.

F~ther and Son was central for Athanasius. Similarly to Eusebl~S, Athanasius also distinguished between begetting and creatmg; hence, the Son, as begotten from God, is radically different from the creatures created by God. Against the Eusebians, he repeatedly speaks of the Son as proper to the Father's substance; in other words, the Son's existence is intrinsic to the Fath:r's nature. Therefore, the Son is the Father's very own Word,

Wisdom, and Power. There are not two, as Arius and Asterius The Dedication Council marks the beginning of a period that lasted through the mid-350s, in which various Eusebian councils sought to achieve theological consensus and eliminate the extremes of Arius, Athanasius, and Marcellus. But the situation reached a nadir before the serious work of consensus-building began in earnest; the debacle of the Council of Serdica in 343·

Western and eastern bishops refused to meet With each other m had claimed. Athanasius was concerned, as was Marcellus, not to compromise the divine unity. Nonetheless, Athanasius taught that the Father and Son are distinct, though he did not employ any techmcal terminology for distinguishing them as the Eusebians did. Despite their theological differences, Athanasius and Marcellus were able to join together in their ecclesio-political struggles against the Eusebians. the same place because of political maneuvering on both sides and mutual distrust. The western bishops suspected the eastern bishops of "Arianism," and the eastern bishops could not tolerate the western bishops' support of Athanasius and Marcellus. Each side excommunicated the other. The documents issued by each side reveal how far apart they were at thiS. point.

The western bishops held that the Father, Son, and SpIrIt were In this initial period of anti-Eusebian collaboration between Athanasius and Marcellus, the Eusebians were not idle. Mter the Roman counci!,]ulius sent a letter to the Eusebians that is signif'

Icant because It adopts the polemics of Athanasius and accuses the Eusebians of "Arianism."89 In response to the Roman council and]ulius's letter, the Eusebian bishops held a council in 341 in conjunction with the dedication of the church in Antioch-the so-called Dedication Council. The Eusebians rejected the idea that their theology could be described as "Arian." They considered themselves as representatives of the mainstream tradition one in hypostasis or ousia, whereas the eastern bishops claimed that the hypostases of Father, Son, and Spirit were different. The westerners emphasized the eternal correlativity of Father and Son, but the easterners maintained that the Son had some sort of beginning. The westerners distinguished carefully betw.een

"begotten" and "created," a distinction which many Euseblans tended to blur.

The failure of Serdica prompted attempts at rapprochement.92 The so-called Macrostich ["long-lined"] Creed of 345 is the best example. Responding to western Serdican theology, it attempts to moderate the Eusebian theologies of the DedICaand Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993); Peter Widdicome, The Father~ hood of God from Origen to Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon Press. '994); Khaled

Anatolios, Athanasius: The Coherence of his Thought (London and New York: Routledge, 199~8); Xavier Morales, La theologie trinitaire d'Athanase d'Alexandrie (Paris:

Institut d 'Etudes Augustiniennes, 2006). go. Preserved in Athanasius, Syn. 23· 91. Preserved in Athanasius, Syn. 25.1-5.

92. Hanson 306-1489· Preserved in Athanasius, Apol. c. At. 21-35-

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

tion Creed and the eastern Serdican statement in order to find common ground with western bishops. Another key council took place at Sirmium in 351. Here Basil of Ancyra (Marcellus's Eusebian replacement) managed to have Photinus of Sirmium, an adherent of Marcellan views, deposed on theological grounds. This set off a series of councils, such as at ArIes in 353 and Milan in 355, in both East and West-often at the insistence of Constantius, now the sole emperor-aimed at effecting theological consensus by securing the condemnation of Athanasius,

Marcellus, and Photinus.

The confession's theology also rejects the Dedication Creed of 341, that classic statement of Eusebian theology that had found widespread use throughout the East. The Sirmium Confession of 357 sent shockwaves throughout the East due to its stark subordinationist agenda, and catalyzed all participants in the Trinitarian debates to take stock of their own positions and to formulate responses.

In early 358 Eudoxius of Antioch convened a synod in Antioch that voiced its approval of the Sirmium Confession of 357.

Eudoxius also welcomed Aetius to his see, where he propagated his radical "Heteroousian" theology that emphasized that the Son was "different in substance" (heteroousios) from the Father."

In these councils of the 350s, we can trace an increasing reluctance to use ousia-Ianguage, viewed as problematic because of its associations with the positions of Marcellus and Photinus.

At the same time, the Eusebian alliance was splintering over this issue. Some rejected ousia-Ianguage altogether. Adherents of this approach are generally called "Homoians" because they affirmed that the Son was like (homoios) the Father without specifying anything about the ousia of either. Others endorsed the use of ousia, although differently than first-generation Eusebians like Asterius and Eusebius of Caesarea. Adherents of the Nicene theology had of course always used ousia-Ianguage in their defense of "same in substance" (homoousios). This debate over the significance of ousia for Trinitarian theology was the undoing of the old Eusebian alliance and constitutes the immediate context of the debate between Eunomius and Basil of Caesarea.

For many, the teaching of Aetius would have appeared to be the logical conclusion of the Homoian theology of the Sirmium

Confession of 357. Indeed, in this period there was no clear line of demarcation between Homoian and Heteroousian theology, or for that matter between Homoian and Homoiousian theology. The reticence of Homoian theology allowed for various-and at times widely divergent-interpretations of it.

The Homoiousian alliance developed in response to the Heteroousian theology of Aetius. Its leaders were George of Laodicea and Basil of Ancyra. Alarmed at the developments in Antioch, George wrote ·to Basil of Ancyra and a number of other bishops who had convened for the dedication of a church in Ancyra, to alert them to the situation in Antioch. George apprised them of Eudoxius's active promotion of Aetius and his teaching and warned them that if Aetius was not checked, his doctrine would spread beyond Antioch and "shipwreck" the entire church.96 This letter prompted Basil to convene a synod in Ancyra in concert with the dedication of the church to respond

The Proximate Context At Sirmium in 357 a small council of bishops produced a confession of faith that condemned all use of ousia-Ianguage when speaking about the relation between the Father and the Son. to the teachings of Aetius.97 It met shortly before Easter 358 and produced a long doctrinal statement that constitutes the initial statement of Homoiousian theology?'

93 This Homoian confession clearly exhibits an anti-Nicene and anti-Homoiousian bias, explicitly condemning the use of the terms homoousios and homoiousios--in fact, the Sirmium Confession of 357 marks the first appearance of the latter term. 94

Mter the conclusion of the council, Basil of Ancyra headed a 95. Sozomen, h.e. 4.12. On Aetius, see Kopecek and Vaggione.

96. Sozomen, h.e. 4.13.

97. Epiphanius. Pan. 73.2.1.

98. Preserved in Epiphanius, Pan. 73.2-11.

93· On this council, see Hanson 343-47 and Ayres 137-40 .

9+ Hanson 346-47.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

delegation to Constantius in Sinnium to secure the deposition and banishment of Eudoxius, Aetius, and Aetius's pupil Eunomius, whom Eudoxius had made a deacon. They were successful." Constantius then convened a council in Sinnium at which imperial endorsement was given to Homoiousian theology, though the doctrinal statement produced at this council does not survive. loa Perhaps thinking that Homoiousian theology could achieve lasting consensus, Constantius planned a large double-council at Nicomedia in late 358. When an earthquake made the city unsuitable, it was decided that the western bishops would meet at Ariminum in Italy and the eastern bishops in Seleucia in Cilicia.101 The Council of Seleucia met in September 359, and the other met first in late May at Ariminum in Italy and then transferred in mid-summer to Nike in Thrace.

The Council at Seleucia met in September 359, but things did not unfold as Constantius had hoped. 105 The fragile agreement reached between the Homoians and Homoiousians at Sirmium in 358 and early 359 quickly fell apart over political and theological differences. George of Laodicea was one of the principal leaders of the Homoiousians, along with Eleusius of - Cyzicus and Sophronius of Pompeiopolis. Basil of Ancyra had been accused of some unspecified misdemeanor that limited his participation in the council. lo6 The Homoians were led by Acacius of Caesarea, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius of Antioch. Aetius pushed to have Homoian theology interpreted in a Heteroousian manner. After three sessions of fruitless debate, the council president attempted to dissolve the council. But the Homoiousians re-assembled in order

Before this double-council met, however, Constantius convened another council in Sinnium in early 359 to compose a to adjudicate the case of Cyril of Jerusalem and other bishops whom Acacius of Caesarea had recently deposed. When Acacius statement of faith that could be presented to both sessions of the double-council. This statement is called the "Dated Creed" because the date of its promulgation has been preserved: May 22,

359. 102 It was intended to be a document that would find acceptance among Homoiousians and Homoians, but exclude Heteroousian and Homoousian theologies. Since the Dated Creed proscribed the use of O1lSia-language, Basil of Ancyra signed it with trepidation, including a note with his signature giving the Dated Creed a Homoiousian interpretation.lo, At this juncture the Homoiousians recognized that Constantius's desire to effect theological consensus threatened to compromise their theology.

Hence shortly after this, George of Laodicea, together with Basil, composed a defense of Homoiousian theology against Heteroousian theology, seen as a competing-and mistaken-way of interpreting the Homoian theology of the Dated Creed.104 refused to attend, he was deposed, along with some of his Homoian supporters. And so the council ended.

Embassies representing the various positions were then sent to Constantius at Constantinople. The emperor became so exasperated with Aetius during an audience that he threw him out of the palace. I07 Through coercion and trickery Cons tantius attempted to get the Homoiousians to subscribe to a modified version of the Dated Creed, sometimes called the Creed of Nike because of its place of original composition. While the Dated Creed had declared the Son "like the Father in all respects (ollolOV KaTa 1'lav-ra), as the holy Scriptures also declare and teach," and condemned the use of all ouaia language, the Creed of Nike omitted the phrase "in all respects," an omission that excluded the possibility of its Homoiousian interpretation.

Thus the Homoians now had the backing of Constantius; the Homoiousians had been out-maneuvered. The Homoiousian embassy in Constantinople signed the Creed of Nike on December 3 1 , 359.

99· Sozomen, h.e. 4.13.4-14.7; Philostorgius, h.e. 4,8. On Basil's response to Aetius, see Hanson 349-57 and Ayres 149-53'

100. On this council, see Hanson 357-62 and Kopecek 172-76.

101. Socrates, h.e. 2.39.2-4; Sozomen, h.e. +16.2-5; Theodoret, h.e. 4. 16.

In January 360 Constantius convened a small council in 102. Preserved in Athanasius, Syn. 8'3-7. and Socrates, h.e. 2.37. 18-24103· Epiphanius, Pan. 73.22.7-8.

10+ Preserved in Epiphanius, Pan. 73.12.1-22.4. On its date, see Ayres 158 and Hanson 365-67.

105. On this council, see Ayres 161-64 and Hanson 371-80.

106. Socrates, h.e. 2.39; Sozomen, h.e. 4.22.

107. Epiphanius, Pan. 76.3.7-10; Philostorgius, h.e. 4.12.

INTRODUCTION

INTRO D U CTI 0 N

tate became emperor, and would even be made a bishop (though without a see). But after the Council of Constantinople of 360,

Eunomius eclipsed him as the leader of the Heteroousians. Eunomius's reputation as a theologian grew with the publication of his Apology in 360 or 361. The Heteroousians attracted the support of bishops like Serras of Paraetonium, Theophilus the Indian, and Theodulus of Chaeretapa in Phrygia, who promoted Heteroousian theology through missionary activities and othConstantinople to ratify the decisions of the twin Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia.IOB As mentioned above, Basil of Caesarea attended this council in the entourage of either Dianius of Caesarea or Eustathius of Sebasteia. Acacius was the council president and ruthless in his attack on his Homoiousian opponents. He managed to depose nearly all prominent Homoiousian bishops on non-theological grounds by accusing them of various crimes. 109 Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Eustathius of Sebasteia, and Sophronius of Pompeiopolis-all hitherto leaders of the Homoiousians-were deposed. Aetius was also banished for his failure to accept the Homoian position. Basil of Caesarea was a minor player and could easily slip away to his erwise. They created a parallel episcopal hierarchy to minister to Heteroousian Christians.lll Under Julian, the Heteroousian movement thrived.

The spread and growing strength of Heteroousian theology prompted Basil to issue a refutation of Eunomius in the mid-360s. During his third ascetic retreat at Annisa, Basil had not secluded himself from the wider ecclesiastical world, and Cappadocian homeland. Eunomius's strong connections with Aetius, however, left him suspect to the newly-ascendant Homoians. Near the conclusion of this council, Eunomius probably delivered the speech that would later be issued as his Apoldespite his insignificant role at the Council of Constantinople, he remained deeply concerned with the issues under debate.

He tracked the progress of the theological controversies and even accompanied Eustathius of Sebasteia to the Homoiousian Council of Lampsacus held in the autumn of 364 (but did not himself attend).112 Some scholars hold that he composed

Against Eunomius during the period of his third stay at Annisa, ogy in order to demonstrate his agreement with the Homoian theology endorsed at it. 110 He did not merely avoid the fate of his teacher successfully; he was in fact rewarded for his carefully crafted speech with appointment as bishop of Cyzicus. Soon after taking up his post, however, Eunomius enraged the Christians of Cyzicus by flagrantly promoting his Heteroousian theology and by contravening traditional beliefs and practices, such as Mary's perpetual virginity. After prudently fleeing the city, he never again exercised the pastoral oversight of that church or any other church. probably in its initial form, rather hastily dictated to Eustathius in preparation for the Council of Lampsacus, or at least resulting from conversations between the two churchmen. ll3 Raymond Van Dam has suggested that Basil wrote Against Eunomius soon after the accession of Valens (which occurred in 364) to ingratiate himself with the new eastern emperor, whose opponent, the usurper Procopius (proclaimed emperor in 365), was·

Aetius would return from banishment when Julian the Apos108. Socrates, h.e. 2.42; Sozomen, h.e. 4.24-26.

109. See Ayres 164-65 and Hanson 380-82. The Homoiousians could not be deposed on theological grounds since they had recently signed the Creed of Nike. supported by EunomiusY' Hence a date of 364 or 365 IS most likely for the publication of Against Eunomius.

110. See Lionel R. Wickham, "The Date of Eunomius' Apology: A Reconsideration," jTS n.s. 20 (1969): 231-40; EW 5-9; and Vaggione 226-27. It is some.. times said that situating the Apology of Eunomius at Constantinople in January

360 is made difficult by Basil's denial in Eun. 1.2 of its delivery there, especially since Basil himself attended the council. But Basil did not deny that Eunomius delivered his Apology at Constantinople; rather, he denied that there was a need for Eunomius to make a defense there. On the basis of the lack of need for defense at Constantinople, Basil dismisses Eunomius's Apology as a fiction. See

Wickham, "The Date of Eunomius' Apology," 238.

111.Vaggione279.

112.Ep.223·5· 113. ].Gribomont, "Notes biographiques sur s. Basile Ie Grand," in P.J.Fed~ v-rick, Basil of Cae sa rea, 35-38 (364); Fedwick, "A ChrO~ology,". 10-:11 n. 57 (the second half of 364); Sesboue, SC 299, 42-45 (before 366, pOSSIbly III 364); Ro~s seau 102 follows Fedwick; Drecoll 45-46 and 145-46 (Bks. 1-2 in 364; Bk. 3 m

365). Other scholars place Against Eunomius a few years earlier: Kopecek 364-7 2

(360-361) and Hildebrand 214-18 (360-362).

. 114Becoming ChristicJ,n, 27-28.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Basil's theology in his Against Eunomius is not intended to represent the Homoiousian thought defeated at the Council of the appeal and vitality of the Heteroousian movement in the decades after the Council of Constantinople should not be underestimated. Basil undoubtedly calculated that he would propel himself into prominence by taking on so dangerous an enemy to the church. 116

~onstantinople, nor is it meant to refute the Homoian thought Vlctonous at ct:e council, but specifically focuses on countering the Heteroousla,n ct:eology of Eunomius, Basil was surely influenced by HomOiouslan thought, as his mentor Eustathius of Sebasteia ide.ntified with this group in Basil's formative years. At the same. arne, even in this, his earliest doctrinal treatise, Basil reveals himself as an independent and innovative thinker who drew ~n many theological currents. The teachings of Origen,

EuseblUs of Caesarea, Athanasius, and the Homoiousians all make appearances in Against Eunomius. Basil integrates various streams of thought in such a way that they could later coalesce, through further efforts on his part and those of others into a The Aftermath of the Debate between Basil and Eunomius

Aetius died in 366. The Heteroousians were increasingly viewed as a nuisance by ecclesiastical and imperial authorities alike. Soon after Demophilus succeeded Eudoxius in 370, Eunomius was banished to Naxos, an island in the Aegean. He would spend the next eight years there, until Gratian allowed the return of exiles after Valens's death in late 378. Probably during this period Eunomius began to write his Apology for the Apology, a defense of his original Apology in response to Basil's Against Eunomius. Why Eunomius waited so long to respond is unclear, but it may well be the case that early on he did not deem it worth his while to respond to a mere presbyter. But in 370 Basil had bevia~le pro-Nicene theology, that is, a set of doctrines and theologICal practices aimed at promoting the Nicene Creed as cipher f~r orth?dox Trinitarian theology. But note that in Against Eunom2US Basil does not appeal to the Nicene Creed at all and the term homoousios, while used, is not central. Therefor~, his

Agaznst Eunomius represents a signal theological achievement.

It contaills the foundations for the Trinitarian theology that his b.rother Gregory of Nyssa (and to some extent Gregory of Nazlanzus) later developed and clarified in the 380s and beyond, and that became the standard expression of pro-Nicene orthodoxy, sometimes called "the Cappadocian achievement."

B~sil wa.s not the only one to respond to the Heteroousians III thl~ penod. Heteroousian gains brought other countermeasures III their wake. The Heteroousians started to run afoul of ecclesiastical and imperial authorities because of the disturbances they ~aused within churches. There was growing discord be~een AetlUs and Eunomius and their former supporter, EudOXIUS, wh.o was made bishop of Constantinople at the January

360 counCIl and was now even more influential throughout the East. Their Ideas ran Counter to mainstream theological developm.e?ts. They found themselves in trouble with imperial authontles because of their political associations.n5 Nonetheless, come the bishop of a major see, and Eunomius could promote his own cause by writing against so prominent an opponent. 117

The work ran to five books, issued at intervals from 378 until the early 380s. Eunomius circulated the first books soon after his return from Naxos to Constantinople in late 378, making it unlikely that Basil ever received copies of it before his own death in September 378, despite Philostorgius's later claim that Basil died after reading it from the sorrow of being refuted. 118

Throughout his career Basil had remained concerned with combating Heteroousian theology, dealing with it in a number of his homilies and letters. Of particular note is his Homily against Sabeliians, Arius, and the Anomoians, where he mockingly refers to Eunomius as "Anomius," playing on the popular characterization of Heteroousian theology as teaching that the Son was unlike (anomoios) the Father. 119

116. Van Dam, Becoming Christian, 25-30.

"7· Ibid., 3~3· 118. Philostorgius, h.e. 8.12.

11g. Hom. 24Others used the same slur.

115· See Vaggione 267-311.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

The publication of the Apology for the Apology seems to have contributed to a resurgence of Heteroousian theology, which nonetheless sparked an immediate reaction.l20 In 380, while in Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus delivered three or four of his renowned Theological Orations, which were directed sius,as mentioned earlier, supported pro-Nicene Christianity, orchestrated its official adoption by the bishops at the Council of Constantinople in 381, and gave it imperial sanction. At the council, "Eunomians" were listed as one of the heretical groups, but of course this did not lead to their immediate dissolution. In 383 Theodosius summoned a "council of heresies" in an attempt to reconcile dissident groups deemed heretical at the Council of Constantinople. Representatives from various

"heresies" were asked to present a written statement of faith so against Heteroousians.l21 Further east, news of the Apology for the Apology reached Gregory of Nyssa. He managed to borrow a copy of the first two books for only seventeen days.'" Based on the notes he took, in 380 he wrote the initial installment of his own Against Eunomius against Eunomius's first book. In a letter to his brother Peter shortly thereafter, he wrote: that it could be judged whether they should be rehabilitated and admitted to communion. Naturally Eunomius represented the Eunomians and composed a profession of faith (which is extant). Soon after, Gregory of Nyssa refuted it in his A Refutar

When the holy Basil fell asleep and I received the book of Eunomius, while my heart was still hot with passion and in anguish at this common misfortune of the churches, Eunomius not only wrote on the various topics which might pass as a defense of his own doctrine, but expended the greater part of his energy on laboriously wtitten out abuses against our father (Sc. Basil).I" tion of Eunomius's Profession. This would be Gregory's last work specifically against Eunomius. But other theologians of his and subsequent eras also took up the cause against Eunomius as well: Apollinarius, Didymus the Blind, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrus are all said to have written treatises against him.'" Many others, such as Cyril of AlHence Gregory felt compelled to write against Eunomius not only to refute his theology but also to defend his brother against posthumous attacks. He considered himself Basil's heir in the doctrinal controversies of the era and the guardian of his brother's legacy. Gregory responded to Eunomius's second and third books between 380 and 383 (with the second and third books of his Against Eunomius). Ironically, Eunomius's Apology for the Apology is extant only in the fragments preserved by Gregory.

Since Gregory never refuted the fourth and fifth books, nothing from them survives.l24 exandria, refuted him in works on the Trinity.l26 In this era, it is almost as if a pro-Nicene theologian established his credentials by taking on the heresiarch Eunomius.

The "council of heresies" was a miserable failure. Theodosius rejected all but one of the statements of faith drafted by the various groups trying to be reconciled with the official church.

Soon thereafter, Theodosius promulgated a number of decrees

against the heretical groups, forbidding assembly and construction of churches, threatening confiscation of property ifused in worship and even expulsion from the churches.l27 Nonetheless,

Though Eunomius was becoming increasingly marginalized in the late 360s and 370s, the accession of Theodosius in 379 marked the beginning of the end for him. As key architects of pro-Nicene theology in the late 370S and early 380s, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa had made the refutation of Heteroousian theology one of their primary concerns. Theodoin Constantinople and its suburbs Eunomius continued to meet with his followers privately and sought to win friends at the imperial court to redeem him. I" When Theodosius discovered that Eunomius had supporters at his own court, he took swift

125. Richard Paul Vaggione, Eunomius: The Extant Works (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), xiii.

120. Kopecek 493-94.

121, Or. 27 and 29-30, possibly also 28. See Kopecek 495-503.

122. Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. 29.2.

123. Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. 294; trans, Silvas 207 (modified).

124. On Gregory's rivalry with Eunomius, see Vim Dam, Becoming Christian, 33-37· 126. Cyril of Alexandria, Treasury on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, PC

75.9-656.

127. Vaggione 329-30.

128. See Vaggione 350 and 354.

↑ Back to top