Which theologian advised Theodosius?

Question

This question is based on chapter 23 of the 1988 book by R.P.C. Hanson - The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. "RH" in the quotes below refers to this book. He describes the conditions leading up to the Council of Constantinople in 381 in that chapter.

Theodosius' Edicts

In the year before that council, emperor Theodosius made the Trinity doctrine the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other forms of Christianity. His edicts describe the theology of the Roman Empire as follows:

“In February 380 … His subjects were ordered to believe 'the single divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within (sub) an equal majesty and an orthodox (pia) Trinity'. Heretics would be punished.” (RH, 804)

“On January 10th (381 - still before the council meeting) Theodosius issued an edict ... The correct Nicene faith was described … as: 'He who professes the Nicene faith … who confesses God Almighty and Christ his Son in one Name … who does not blaspheme the Holy Spirit … by denying him … the undivided substance … of the pure Trinity” (RH, 805)

My question is, which theologian advised Theodosius? Clearly, it was a Pro-Nicene theologian but Hanson describes two factions in the pro-Nicene camp in the period leading up to Theodosius’ edicts. The question is, which of those two factions advised Theodosius?

The Two Factions

“Determined, but sadly ineffectual efforts were made by Basil of Caesarea to bring about reconciliation and consensus in the East and between the East and the West between the years 371 and 377.” (RH, 797)

However, that was not limited to disagreements between Pro-Nicene and Anti-Nicenes. Hanson's focus is specifically on two factions within the Pro-Nicene camp. He spends a few pages on what he calls an “apparently fruitless interchange between these two eminent men (Damasus and Basil)." (RH, 800) Both of them were pro-Nicene.

The leaders of the one faction were mainly Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Athanasius. On the other side was mainly Basil, bishop of Caesarea. For example:

Hanson refers to an “apparently fruitless interchange between these two eminent men (Damasus and Basil).” (RH, 800)

Hanson says that the dispute was partly due to personalities:

“We have already had occasion to remark upon at once the resemblance and the incompatibility of their temperaments.” Basil described Damasus as “a haughty man.” (RH, 800) “Simonetti says of Damasus, 'authoritarian and superficial.” (RH, 800)

But I will show below that the main reason for this split within the Pro-Nicene camp was that Damasus and Athanasius were one hypostasis (One Reality or Person) theologians while Basil believed in three hypostases (three Realities or Persons).

Evidence of Conflict

The following confirms that Damasus and Basil opposed one another:

Damasus stated “that Basil's letters addressed to the West were returned as unacceptable.” (RH, 798)

“A confession of faith (was sent) from Damasus which Basil was to sign without altering a single word.” “Basil replied to this demand in a polite but biting letter.” (RH, 798)

Basil and Athanasius also opposed one another:

“Basil writes letters to Athanasius asking him to approach Damasus and assist Basil's overtures. None of them was answered and nothing came of them.” (RH, 797)

Three Hypostases

The following shows that, while Damasus was a one hypostasis theologian, Basil and his friend Meletius believed in three hypostases:

In a letter to Basil, “Damasus sent a very cool reply … conveying a considerable theological statement on the ousia and the personae which deliberately avoided making any statement about the three hypostases. It was the adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this doctrine of the hypostases which caused Damasus … to suspect them of heresy.” (RH, 798)

The Bishop of Antioch

The two factions disagreed about who the rightful bishop of Antioch was. This also reveals that the dispute was primarily about the number of hypostases in the Godhead. Damasus and Athanasius supported Paulinus because he was a 'one hypostasis' theologian, while Basil opposed Paulinus for that same reason.

Damasus’ support for Paulinus:

In 375, Damasus wrote a letter which “constituted also an official recognition of Paulinus, not Meletius, as bishop of Antioch.” (RH, 799)

Paulinus was “Marcellan/Sabellian.” (RH, 799) He derived “his tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop about forty years before” (RH, 800-1).

"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.“ (LA, 69)

Athanasius’ support for Paulinus:

Basil and Athanasius also disputed over who the rightful bishop of Antioch was; Meletius or Paulinus:

“Basil would not desert Meletius and Athanasius would not recognize him (Meletius) as bishop of Antioch.” (RH, 797)

Paulinus “was recognized as legitimate bishop of Antioch by Athanasius. Later, Athanasius' successor Peter extended the same recognition to him and persuaded Damasus to do the same.” (RH, 801)

Damasus was a generation younger than Athanasius but note the link in the previous quote between them through Athanasius' successor Peter. This is confirmed by the following quote:

“In May 373 Athanasius died, Peter his successor was driven out, fled to Rome, and proceeded to poison the mind of Damasus against Basil and Meletius.” (RH, 798)

Basil opposed Paulinus

But Basil opposed Paulinus because Paulinus taught only one hypostasis:

“Paulinus was a rival of Basil's friend and ally Meletius. … Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. Paulinus' association with the remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the expression 'one hypostasis' … rendered him suspect.” (RH, 801)

This quote also confirms that Basil believed in three hypostases. See also my question: [Did the Cappadocians teach one or two substances?]

Support for Marcellans

The theologies of Damasus, Athanasius, and Basil are also reflected in their support or opposition to the Marcellans. The ”watch-word” of “these disciples of Marcelius … had always been 'only one hypostasis in the Godhead'.” (RH, 802)

Since they believed in only one hypostasis, Damasus and Athanasius supported the Marcellans:

Basil wrote a letter which “contained some shafts directed at Damasus because of his toleration of Eustathius and the Marcellans.” (RH, 799)

“Basil was never sure in his own mind that Athanasius had abandoned Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers.” (RH, 797)

“In a letter written to Athanasius he (Basil of Caesarea) complains that the Westerners have never brought any accusation against Marcellus.” (RH, 802)

“About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine.” (RH, 801)

The Question

So, given these two factions within the Pro-Nicene camp; one supporting three hypostases (Basil and Meletius) and one supporting only one hypostasis (Athanasius and Damasus), on which of these two factions did Theodosius rely for his theology? Given Theodosius' description of the Trinity doctrine in the imperial edicts, was Theodosius' theology similar to Damasus' one hypostasis theology or Basil's three hypostasis theology?

Answer 1

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the church ended that Controversy by finally rejecting Arianism at the Second Ecumenical Council (the Council of Constantinople of 381). In reality, already in the preceding year, a Roman emperor put an end to Arianism and the Controversy through Roman Law. In February 380, through the Edict of Thessalonica, Emperor Theodosius made Nicene Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed Arianism. The subsequent council in 381 was a mere formality. Since Theodosius’ Edict had already outlawed and criminalized Arianism, no Arian was allowed to attend. And to ensure complete control, Emperor Theodosius made one of his unbaptized civil servants both the presiding officer and the archbishop of Constantinople. Further, by severe persecution, both before and after that Council, Theodosius eliminated Arianism from among the ruling class and elite of the Eastern Empire. Theodosius forbade Arians from meeting for worship, confiscated their churches, and exiled and even killed their leaders. (Read more)

But what theology did Theodosius prescribe? In what is known as the Meletian Schism, there were two factions within the Pro-Nicene camp in the decade before his ascension:

• The Western pro-Nicenes, led by Athanasius (died 373), Damasus of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria, believed that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis (Person).

• They were opposed by the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians), who maintained that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three equal hypostases (three distinct Beings with three distinct minds). (Read More)

This schism manifested particularly in a dispute over the rightful bishop of Antioch. The following quote refers to the Western pro-Nicenes as the "old Catholic party" and the Cappadocians as the "new Catholic party." It also confirms that the main issue was the number of divine hypostases:

“The schism at Antioch, between the Eustathians, or old Catholic party, under their Bishop Paulinus, ordained by Lucifer before his return to the West, and the new Catholic party under S. Meletius, had troubled both the East and West. The holiest Bishops in the East, such as S. Basil and S. Eusebius of Samosata, sided with Meletius. S. Damasus and the Western Bishops communicated with Paulinus. Meletius asserted Three Hypostases in the HOLY TRINITY, Paulinus One: S. Damasus would not allow the former, for fear of being considered an Arian, nor S. Basil the latter, lest he should be imagined a Sabellian.” [A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Volume 1, by John Mason Neale, page 204]

Note that the notion that God is both three and one (one Being but three Persons) did not yet exist. During the controversy, some claimed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Beings (three hypostases) while others claimed that they are one Being (one hypostasis). The concept that God is both one and three resulted from later theological development. (Read more)

Theodosius' edicts show that he adopted the Western 'one hypostasis' view:

Firstly, while the Homoians (Arians) and the Cappadocians believed in three hypostases, the Edict describes the Father and Son as a single deity (one hypostasis).

“His subjects were ordered to believe 'the single divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within an equal majesty and an orthodox Trinity'.” (Hanson, p. 402)

“We shall believe in the single deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.” (Ayres, p. 251)

Secondly, the Edict identifies “Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, Athanasius' successor in Alexandria” (Ayres, p. 251) as norms of his theology. By then, Athanasius was already dead and Damasus and Peter were the leaders of Western 'one Person' theology.

“In February 380, when he was residing in Thessalonica, he issued an edict … which declared the pro-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity to be the official doctrine of the Roman Empire, and named Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria as the two episcopal norms of doctrine.” (Hanson, p. 402)

Thirdly, the term homoousios (same substance) can mean ‘one substance’, which is how the Westerners understood it, or it can mean two distinct substances of the same type, which is how the Cappadocians understood it. Theodosius’ second decree a year later in January 381 explicitly describes the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single undivided substance, which was the Western interpretation of the term homoousios.

The January 381-edict refers to the “Almighty God and Christ the Son of God ... the Holy Spirit … the undivided substance of the incorrupt Trinity” (Ayres, p. 252)

“It is noteworthy that the texts do not invoke the language of homoousios (Ayres, p. 252), probably because it could be understood in two ways.