The Dedication Council of 341
In the year 341, approximately 90 bishops of the Eastern Church met in a Council of Antioch,[1] formally presided over by bishop Flacillus of Antioch. Other leaders of this council included Eusebius of Nicomedia, now bishop of Constantinople, and Acacius of Caesarea, who became bishop of Caesarea in 340.
The Council produced four documents. The second is the most important[2] and is known as the Dedication Creed because the Council met at the celebration of the dedication of a new church built by Constantius II.[1]
Extracts from the Creed
The following are the key parts of the Dedication Creed:
- “We believe in one God Father Almighty, artificer and maker and designer of the universe;
- And in one Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, God, Through whom are all things, Who was begotten from the Father before the Ages, God from God … Lord from Lord … Unchanging and unaltering, Exact image of the Godhead and the substance and will and power and glory of the Father, First-born of all creation, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word according to the text in the Gospel [‘and the Word was God’, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things exist;]
- And in the Holy Spirit …
- They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.”
The Creed ends by anathematizing all who say:
- “That either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten.”
- “That the Son is a creature like one of the creatures.”[3]
Purpose of the Council
The Council met to discuss the decisions of the Council of Rome of the previous year (340), and the letter written to the Eusebians by Julius, Bishop of Rome, earlier in 341, after that council.[4][5] That Council of Rome had vindicated Athanasius and Marcellus. Both of them were previously condemned at councils of the Eastern Church; Athanasius in 335 for violence against the Melitians in his see and Marcellus some time earlier for Sabellianism. Their vindication, therefore, caused significant tension between the East and West. That tension was heightened by the letter that Julius, the bishop of Rome, after that council wrote to the Eastern Church. In that letter, he accused the East of Arianism, meaning, being followers of Arius’ already discredited theology.
An Eastern Council, like Nicaea
Both the Dedication Council and the Nicene Council of 325 were essentially councils of the Eastern Church. The Dedication Council consisted exclusively of bishops from the Eastern part of the Empire and represented the view of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop.[6] Similarly, the vast majority of the bishops attending Nicaea were from the East:
“Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church. ... The Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.”[7]
The delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004. p. 19) However, although the two meetings were only 16 years apart and represented the same constituencies, there are significant differences between the creeds produced at the two councils:
No Mention of Ousia or Homoousios
One difference is that, while Nicaea describes the Son using the terms ousia and homoousios, and while these terms are viewed today as a crucial part of that Creed, these terms are absent from the Dedication Creed. The reason is that, soon after Nicaea, these terms fell out of the Controversy. For more than twenty years, nobody mentioned it; not even Athanasius:
"What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture) “Even Athanasius for about twenty years after Nicaea is strangely silent about this adjective (homoousios) which had been formally adopted into the creed of the Church in 325.”[8][9]
The Nicene Creed and the term homoousios were only brought back into the Controversy in the 350s by Athanasius:
“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144).[10]
Both the Dedication Council and the Council of Serdica, two years later, were held during the period that nobody mentioned the Nicene Creed or the term homoousios. For that reason, these councils do not defend or attack the term homoousios. It simply was not an issue.
Anti-Sabellian
But the most significant difference between the two creeds is that, while the Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian, the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian. Eminent recent scholars confirm the pro-Sabellian nature of the Nicene Creed:
- RPC Hanson: “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the [Sabellian] theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235)
- Lewis Ayres: After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (Ayres, p. 96, 97)
- Manlio Simonetti[11]: “Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of Arianism. … The ‘Asiatics’ … were able to include in N a hint of opposition to the three hypostases theory.” (Hanson, p. 171)
The following are indications in the Creed of its pro-Sabellian tendency:
- Before, during, and after Nicaea, the term homoousios was used mainly by Sabellians. Before Bicaea, Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata used it to say that Father and Son are one single Person.[12] In the year 268, about 70 years before the Dedication Council, another council in the same city (Antioch) had already condemned both the Sabellianism of Paul of Samosata and the term homoousios.
- One of the anathemas seems to say that the Father and Son are one single hypostasis, which is the view that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Person with one single mind, which, as Hanson said, is the hallmark of Sabellianism.
This is not to say that the Nicene Creed is clearly Sabellian, but at the least, it can be said that it does not exclude Sabellianism. Elsewhere, Hanson describes it as "a drawn battle."[13]
Note that these authors associate Sabellianism with one-hypostasis theology. Sabellianism is one form of one-hypostasis theology, which is the teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis or Person with one single Mind. Monarchianism and Modalism are other one-hypostasis theologies. The main dividing line in the fourth-century Controversy was between one- and three-hypostasis theologies.
In contrast to Nicaea, the Dedication Creed explicitly opposes Sabellianism. Its main purpose is to oppose Sabellinism.[14][15][16] In contrast to the single hypostasis of Sabellianism, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (Ayres, p. 118) “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’.
Why do these creeds differ so much?
So, why is the Nicene Creed pro-Sabellian while the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian?
The Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian because “Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best.” (Hanson, p. 850)[17] For that purpose, the emperor took Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius.[18] However, at Nicaea, Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus against the Eusebians.[19][20] (Both Eustathius and Marcellus were later exiled for Sabellianism.[21][22]) Consequently, the Sabellians were able to include in the Creed at least a hint of Sabellianism.
The Dedication Creed
The Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian because the main threat was the Sabellian one-hypostasis tendency of the Western Church, which can be illustrated in a number of ways:
- Firstly, the Council of Rome vindicated Marcellus, a well-known Sabellian. “That Julius and later the Westerners at Sardica should have declared him (Marcellus) orthodox was bound to appear to the Eastern theologians to be a condoning of Sabellianism.” (Hanson Lecture)
- Secondly, the Council of Rome also vindicated Athanasius, who also maintained a one-hypostasis theology. In his theology, the Son is “in” the Father as the Father’s only Wisdom and Word.[23] Athanasius, therefore, taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis (Person).[24]
- Thirdly, at the failed Council of Serdica in 343, the Western delegates explicitly formulated a one-hypostasis manifesto.[25]
Anti-Arian
Julius, the bishop of Rome, accused the Easterners of Arianism, meaning that they were followers of Arius’ already discredited theology. The Dedication Council denied this.[26] The Easterners did not follow Arius. In fact, Arius did not leave a school of followers.[27][28] Consequently:
“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.”[29]
In response to Julius' accusation, the Dedication Creed explicitly anathematizes some key aspects of Arius’ theology.[30] For example, the Creed anathematizes all who say: “that either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten.”[31] The following is an apt summary of the Dedication Creed:
It "represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been shocked and disturbed by the apparent Sabellianism of N [the Nicene Creed], and the insensitiveness of the Western Church to the threat to orthodoxy which this tendency represented." (Hanson, p. 290-1)
Other Teachings
The Son is subordinate to the Father.
The Dedication Creed asserts that the Son is subordinate to the Father.[32] But subordination was to be expected because subordination was orthodoxy at the time.[33]Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag In other words, the subordination in the Creed is not a concession to Arius' theology.
He is the image of the Father's substance.
The Creed says that “the Son is 'the exact Image of the Godhead, the ousia and the will and the power and the glory of the Father'.”[34] In contrast to the Nicene Creed, which says that the Son is of the same ousia as the Father (homoousios), the phrase “exact image of the … ousia … of the Father” means that the Son is distinct from the substance of the Father. Later in the fourth century, in the mid-50s, after Athanasius had re-introduced the term homoousios into the Controversy, "image of the Father's substance" became the catchphrase of the Homoiousians (meaning 'similar substance').
The Son is God.
The Creed regards the Son as subordinate to the Father but also refers to the Son as “God” (theos) and as “God from God.” The reason is that the term theos is not equivalent to the modern word "God." While we use the term "God" only for the Almighty, there were many theoi in ancient Greek:
"It must be understood that in the fourth century the word 'God' (theos, deus) had not acquired the significance which in our twentieth-century world it has acquired … viz. the one and sole true God. The word could apply to many gradations of divinity.” (Hanson, p. 456)[35]
The Fourth Creed
The Fourth Creed of Antioch " was intended to function as a reconciling formula obnoxious to nobody and capable of being accepted by all.”[36] It was destined to be used for nearly fifteen years as the basis for all other creeds which were designed to be ecumenical.”[37] It condemns both Marcellus and Arius.[38] But otherwise, it leaves out all contentious issues, such as the words ousia and homoousios and does not even address the crucial aspect of the number of hypostases in God.[39]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988, p. 284
- ↑ Hanson, pp. 285-6
- ↑ Hanson, p. 286
- ↑ “There can be little doubt that this Council of Antioch was conceived by those who organized it as an answer to Julius' Council of Rome and the letter which he wrote to the Eusebian party after it.” (Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988, p. 285)
- ↑ The council was “an immediate response” to “Julius' letter to ‘those around Eusebius’.” (Ayres, p. 117)
- ↑ It “represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop.” “They constituted a widespread point of view, but we can hardly call them a party.” (Hanson, 290-1)
- ↑ Hanson, p. 170
- ↑ Hanson, pp. 58-59
- ↑ “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (Ayres, p. 431)
- ↑ “He began to use it first in the De Deeretis ... in 356 or 357.” (Hanson, p. 438)
- ↑ La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975)
- ↑ “The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a Sabellian or monarchian tendency.” (P.F. Beatrice)
- ↑ “It is going too far to say that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a drawn battle.” (Hanson, p. 172)
- ↑ The Dedication Creed’s “chief bête noire [the thing that it particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 287)
- ↑ The Dedication creed is “strongly anti-Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. 287)
- ↑ “The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (Ayres, p. 119)
- ↑ “The Origenists had considerable reservation about homoousios and the other phrases containing the term ousios (substance), but the emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved.” (Erickson)
- ↑ “Constantine had taken Alexander’s part.” (Ayres, p. 89)
- ↑ “Eustathius and Marcellus … certainly met at Nicaea. and no doubt were able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius.” (Hanson, p. 234)
- ↑ “Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians.” (Ayres, p. 69)
- ↑ "RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy". From Daniel to Revelation. 2021-11-26. Retrieved 2024-03-12.
- ↑ Eustathius attended the Nicene Council (Hanson, p. 208) but was deposed soon after Nicaea (“in 330 or 331”) (Hanson, p. 210) “primarily for the heresy of Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 211).
- ↑ “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (Hanson, p. 426) “The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (Hanson, p. 428) “Athanasius’ argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is intrinsic to the Father’s being.” (Ayres, p. 114)
- ↑ The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, p. 48) “Athanasius’ most basic language and analogies for describing the relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as intrinsic aspects of one reality or person.” (Ayres, p. 46) “The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.” (Ayres, p. 69)
- ↑ Hanson refers to “the apparent Sabellianism of N [the Nicene Creed], and the insensitiveness of the Western Church to the threat to orthodoxy which this tendency represented.” (Hanson, p. 290-1)
- ↑ “We have not been followers of Arius.” (LA, 117-8) “We have rather approached him as investigators and judges of his belief than followed him.’” (Hanson, p. 285)
- ↑ “Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century (after Nicaea).” (Ayres, pp. 56-57)
- ↑ “Arius’ views were such as … to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering. … He was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii)
- ↑ Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. (2002), p. 82
- ↑ It “deliberately excludes the kind of Arianism professed by Arius and among his followers by Eusebius of Nicomedia/Constantinople.” (Hanson, p. 290) It “does anathematize doctrines associated … with Arius.” (Ayres, p. 120)
- ↑ (Hanson, p. 286) “True-blue Arians would have found it impossible to accept the statement that the Son is 'the exact image of the substance (ousia) ... of the Father'” (Hanson, p. 287)
- ↑ It says “that the names of the Three signify the particular order and glory of each.” (Hanson, p. 287) The Father alone is described as “Almighty.” The Son is the Father’s agent in creation. The Father is “maker and designer of the universe” but the Son is the One "through whom are all things" and “by whom all things were made.” In contrast to the Father as the “one God,” the Son is the "one Lord."
- ↑ "Almost everybody in the East at that period would have agreed that there was a subordination of some sort within the Trinity.” (Hanson, p. 287)
- ↑ Hanson, p. 288
- ↑ This “reminds us of the variety of ways in which the term ‘God’ could be deployed at this point.” (Ayres, p. 124)
- ↑ Hanson, p. 291
- ↑ Hanson, p. 292
- ↑ “It has a special clause inserted against Marcellus” (Hanson, p. 292) and ends with an anathema against Arius: “But those who say that the Son is from non-existence or of a different hypostasis, and not from God, and that there was once a time or age when he did not exist, these the holy Catholic Church recognizes as alien'.” (Hanson, p. 292)
- ↑ “it makes no attempt to establish the distinctness of the 'Persons’ in an anti-Sabellian manner.” (Hanson, p. 292)
This article "The Dedication Council of 341" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:The Dedication Council of 341. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
