Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:28:09.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hilary and the Homoiousians: Using New Categories to Map the Trinitarian Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2020

Mark Weedman
Mark Weedman*
Affiliation:
Crossroads College, Rochester, Minnesota.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hilary of Poitiers and Basil of Ancyra were unlikely companions. The former was a Latin bishop from a backwater part of Gaul who had only recently become immersed in the Trinitarian controversy. The latter was a leading figure in the East, schooled in classical Greek theology and a veteran in the ongoing struggle over the nature of God. It is also true that their political fortunes diverged significantly. Though both Hilary and Basil's parties “lost” at the Synod of Constantinople in 360, Basil thereafter slipped into obscurity while Hilary's pro-Nicenes would eventually secure political and theological victory in 381. This pairing is so unlikely, in fact, that scholars have long been reluctant to acknowledge the depth of Hilary's relationship with Basil. Among other issues, such a relationship creates a number of historiographical problems by challenging the traditional mapping of the various theological and political alignments of the mid-fourth century. In the traditional version, Hilary is commonly portrayed as the “Athanasius of the West,” who, in the late 350s, emerged as the leading supporter of the pro-Nicenes in the West. Basil, on the other hand, is regarded as a “semi-Arian,” who rejected the Nicene doctrine that the Son was homoousios to the Father, preferring instead to call the Son “like according to substance” (homoios kat’ ousian).

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 491 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. I would like to thank Dr. Carl Beckwith, now of Beeson Divinity School, and an anonymous evaluator for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this essay The usual caveat about errors being the responsibility of the author applies, but I am grateful for both scholars’ generous and helpful suggestions.

2. Though a few scholars have asserted that Basil influenced Hilary, the consensus is that no such influence occurred. The classic statement of Hilary's independence from the Homoiousians is provided by Smulders, Pierre, La doctrine trinitaire de s. Hilaire de Poitiers (Rome: Universitatis Gregorianae, 1944), 235–49.Google Scholar

3. For discussion of how hagiography has influenced our picture of Hilary and his career, see Williams, Daniel H., “A Reassessment of the Early Career and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 42 (April 1991): 202–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The standard account of Hilary's career and theology is Hanson's, R. P. C. chapter on Hilary, in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1988), 459–506.Google Scholar Hanson does not, however, entirely move beyond the hagiographic-influenced version of Hilary's career decried by Williams, and the chapter on Hilary in Search has now been greatly supplemented by Ayres, Lewis, Nicea and Its Legacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 186–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also see two recent dissertations on Hilary: Beckwith, Carl, “The Certainty of Faith in God's Word: The Theological Method and Structure of Hilary of Poitiers’ De Trinitate(Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 2004)Google Scholar; and Weedman, Mark, The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers (Leiden: Brill, 2007, forthcoming)Google Scholar

4. Epiphanius applied the “semi-Arian” label to the Homoiousians as early as the fourth century, and in some form it has continued to be used well into the modern period. For discussion and bibliography, see Hanson, Search, 349. Important scholarly treatment of Basil and his party that go beyond the “semi-Arian” label include Ayres, Nicaea, 149-52; Hanson, Search, 348-61; Steenson, Jeffrey, “Basil of Ancyra and the Course of Nicene Orthodoxy” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 1983).Google Scholar

5. Athanasius makes a similar overture in his own De Synodis, but with nowhere near the same nuance and appreciation for Basil's position as does Hilary: see Athanasius, De Synodis 41.

6. See Smulders, LA Doctrine Trinitaire, 235-49.

7. For a criticism of this tendency, see Ayres, Nicaea, 1-7.

8. There is some uncertainty among scholars about the precise basis for Constantius’ motives. He certainly wanted to pacify the church, but he seems to have had a genuine interest in theological affairs, and there is some evidence that the theological solutions he had put forth represented things he believed in. For further discussion, see Richard Klein, Constantius II und die christliche Kirche (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge sellschaft, 1977); Barnes, Timothy, Athanasius and Constantius (Cambridge, Mass.: Har vard University Press, 1993).Google Scholar Also see Ayres, Nicaea, 133-44.

9. See Williams, “Reassessment,” 202-17.

10. See Ayres, Nicaea, 83-130. Also important is Barnes, Michel R., “The Fourth Century as Trinitarian Canon,” in Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric, and Community, ed. Ayres, Lewi and Jones, Gareth (London: Routledge, 1998), 47–67.Google Scholar

11. For further discussion of these perspectives, see Leinhard, Joseph, “The Arian Contro versy: Some Categories Reconsidered,” Theological Studies 10:1 (1989): 1–22.Google Scholar

12. For an overview of Homoian theology, see Hanson, Search, 557-97.

13. Meslin suggests that Germinius changed his allegiance from Nice 360 to the Dated Creed through the influence of the Homoiousians, perhaps even Basil himself, who was exiled to Illyricum in 360: see Meslin, Michel, Les Ariens d'Occident, 335-430 (Paris: Editions de Seuil, 1967), 290.Google Scholar

14. My use of “alliance” to describe Homoianism during these years corresponds to Ayres's treatment of the same period: see Ayres, Nicaea, 137-40. I differ with Ayre here only in emphasis. I want to highlight the diffuse nature of the entire Homoian experience in the East, beyond just the eventual “fracturing” of the radical subordinationists. For the ecclesiastical goals of Constantius's involvement in these councils, see Barnes, T. D.Athanasius and Constantius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

15. I owe this very helpful insight to the anonymous referee of this essay.

16. For a list of who was out, see Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica (hereafter HE) IV.24.

17. The situation is different in the West, where Homoianism did become a viable theological system that attracted the polemical attention of such notable theologians as Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo: see Michel Meslin, Les Ariens d'Occident, 335-430.

18. See Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 11.29; Sozomen, HE IV.6. This list of names must be regarded with some skepticism because both Socrates and Sozomen appear to regard the Sirmium Creed of 351 and the Sirmium Creed of 357 as coming from the same council. This confusion may explain the reported presence of Ossius at th 351 council, since he was associated with the 357 meeting but, as Hanson suggests, was unlikely to have attended in 351: see Hanson, Search, 325

19. For these names, see Hilary, De Synodis 11. Hanson suggests that George of Alexandria was also present, but given the confusion in Socrates’ and Sozomen's accounts, there is no way to verify that he was at both Sirmium councils (344). Also see Eusebius of Vercelli's letter to Gregory of Elvira, in Hilary's Collectanea Antiariana Parisina A 11.1, in S Hilarii episcopi Pictaviensis Opera, ed. Alfred Feder, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (hereafter CSEL) 65 (Vindobonae: F. Tempsky, 1916), 46.

20. See Epiphanius, Panarion 73.2.1 ff., in Karl Holl, Epiphanius, rev. and ed. Dummer, J., Die Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte(hereafter GCS (Berlin: Academie-Verlag, 1985),Google Scholar 3:268 ff.

21. See Sozomen, HE IV.15.

22. Sozomen claims that the members of the council affirmed an anathema that condemned anyone who affirms that the Son is not like the Father in substance, a teaching that he then connects to Aetius and Eunomius. However, Eunomius survives this entire sequence (through the council of Constantiople in 360) with his reputation intact, which suggests the actual target of the anathema was just Aetius: see Sozomen HE IV.15.

23. See Hilary, Collectanea Antiariana Parisina, Series B. VI.3, CSEL 65, 163

24. Hanson credits that Homoian victory to their delegation from the Council arriving at Constantius's headquarters first and thus “securing his ear“: see Hanson, Search, 376.

25. Sozomen, HE IV.23. The biggest change is that the final creed, usually called the Creed of Nice, excludes the phrase “like the Father in all things,” instead claiming that the Son is merely “like the Father.” Also see Athanasius, De Synodis 30. For a fuller discussion of the other differences between the two creeds, see Hanson, Search, 380.

26. See Athanasius, De Synodis 27. The Latin version of the Creed is recorded in Hilary’s De Synodis 37.

27. See Hanson, Search, 328, for the claim that these and other anathemas are “aimed at Nicea.” For an overview of Photinus's theology, see Simonetti, Manilo, Studi sull'Arianesimo (Rome: Editrice Studium, 1965), 135–59.Google Scholar As Simonetti suggests, it is difficult always to distinguish between attacks on Photinus and attacks on Marcellus and many of the anathemas in the Sirmium 351 Creed can be taken as applying to either Marcellus or Photinus.

28. Hilary, De Synodis 11; Patrologia Latina (hereafter PL) 10, 488; Eng. trans, in Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers (hereafter NPNF), series 2, vol. 9, 6.

29. This antimodalism explains why the Homoians insisted on removing “like in to all things” from the Dated Creed—and why Valens is so disturbed to hear that Germinius is using it again. “All things” allows for ousia language, which could open the door to the modalists.

30. Epiphanius, Panarion 73.2.3; GCS Epiphanius III, 269.Google Scholar

31. Epiphanius, , Panarion 73.2.5; GCS Epiphanius III, 270.Google Scholar

32. Epiphanius, Panarion 73.9.6; Eng. trans, in Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 443. Also see Steenson, Jeffery, “Basil of Ancyra on the Meaning of Homoousios,” in Arianism: Historical and Theological Assessments, ed. Gregg, Robert C. (Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation 1985), 267–79.Google Scholar

33. Epiphanius 73.4.2; GCS Epiphanius III, 272; Williams, Panarion, 437.

34. Epiphanius 73.3.1; GCS Epiphanius III, 271.

35. Hilary, De Synodis 11; PL 10, 489.

36. George of Laodicea clarifies the antimodalist potential of Basil's use of ousia. In his letter, written shortly after Basil's, George argues that we should apply ousia to the Son to answer the modalist claim that the Son is merely the “words” spoken by the Father. By calling the Son a being, George asserts, we are claiming that the Son has “reality, subsists, and is.” A word can never be a son, so by calling the Son by that name, we affirm his distinction from the Father: see Epiphanius, Panarion 73.12.6ff

37. Ephiphanius, , Panarion 73.4.5; GCS Epiphanius III, 273;Google Scholar Williams, Panarion, 437.

38. Hilary's correspondents seem to have been those bishops in Gaul who had not entirely been co-opted by the Homoianizing of Valens and Ursacius. At the beginning of De Synodis, Hilary expresses relief at learning that there were still some bishops wh had not given in to the emperor.

39. These were the Synod of Arles in 353, the Synod of Milan in 355, and the Synod of Béziers in 356. For a detailed examination of the events at these councils, see Christof Brennecke, Hans, Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bishofsopposition gegen Konstantius II (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984), 133–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. See Beckwith, Carl, “The Condemnation and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers at the Synod of Beziers (356 C.E.),” Journal of Early Christian Studies 13:1 (2005): 36–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a somewhat different take on Hilary's exile, see D. H. Williams, “Reassessment,” 202-17

41. All of Hilary's major polemical works, including his De Trinitate, date from the year of his exile to a period shortly after his return. For Hilary's development, see Weedman, Trinitarian Theology, chap. 1-4. Hilary also wrote two other works that are important for our understanding of fourth-century theology. The first is a commentary on Matthew that he wrote before his exile, and the second is a long commentary on the Psalms that is highly influenced by Origen and must have been written after his exile.

42. Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle, II. 42 (95-96). Suplicius says that Hilary went to Seleucia simply because the civil authorities had no other instructions about him. It is also possible that Hilary went to Seleucia to support his new ally, Basil.

43. Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle, II. 45 (98). For the circumstances of Hilary's return from exile, see Williams, Daniel H., “The Anti-Arian Campaigns of Hilary of Poitiers and the ‘Liber contra Auxentium,'” Church History 61:1 (1992): 7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. For an analysis of the historical details of Hilary's association with Basil an the Homoiousians, see Brennecke, Hilarius, 335-51.

45. As Paul Burns notes, the order of the councils is rhetorical, not chronological. Nor is the list in any way exhaustive. Hilary chooses which councils to discuss in order to better make his point about the “blasphemy” of Sirmium 357: see Burns, Paul C., “West Meets East in the De Synodis of Hilary of Poitiers,” Studia Patristica 28 (1993): 26.Google Scholar Scholars have widely neglected the polemical context of this work, but along with Burns's study also see Meslin, Michel, “Hilaire et la crise arienne,” in Hilaire et son Temps (Paris: Etudes Augustinienne, 1969), 19–42.Google Scholar For the dating of De Synodis, see Meslin, “Hilair et la crise arienne,” 28; and Williams, “Reassessment,” 209.

46. For a helpful introduction to the context and content of this work, see Smulders, PierreHilary of Poitiers’ Preface to his Opus Historicum (Leiden: Brill, 1995).Google Scholar

47. For further discussion of this point, see my “Not the Athanasius of the West: Hilary’ Changing Relationship with Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 42 (2006): 411-15.Google Scholar

48. Michel Meslin, “Hilaire et la crise arienne,” 28.

49. De Synodis 31; PL 10, 504a.

50. De Synodis 32; PL 10, 504c-505a.

51. Hilary's antimodalism in De Synodis makes the most sense when read in the context of the conflict between Basil and the Homoians. However, as Carl Beckwith has shown Hilary came from a Latin theological heritage that had a long tradition of opposing various modalisms, especially the kind of adoptionism later represented by Photinus see “Photinian Opponents in Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentarium in Matthaeum, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 58:3 (2007, forthcoming).Google Scholar

52. Hilary, De Synodis 20; PL 10, 496c.

53. Hilary, De Synodis 21; PL 10, 497a; NPNF 9, 9.

54. See Doignon, Jean, Hilaire de Poitiers avant l'exile (Paris: Éitudes Augustiniennes 1971), 362.Google Scholar

55. Hilary, De Synodis 22; PL 10, 497 b-c; NPNF 9, 10.

56. De Synodis 12; PL 10, 490; NPNF 9, 7.

57. See Seneca, Epistulae Morales Ad Lucilium LVIII.8; Gummere, Richard M., Seneca, 10 vol., Loeb Classical Library 75 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1917) 4:390.Google Scholar

58. Compare this with Marius Victorinus, who has no category beyond substance and so rejects homoiousios because he feels it removes the possibility of genuine unity betwee the Father and Son. For discussion, see Weedman, Trinitarian Theology, chap. 2.

59. De Synodis 33; PL 10, 505.

60. De Synodis 91; PL 10, 544.

61. Collectanea Antiariana Parisina, Series B. II. 11.5; CSEL 65, 153.

62. Collectanea Antiariana Parisina, Series B. II. 11.1; CSEL 65, 151.

63. De Synodis 68; PL 10, 525.

64. De Synodis 69; PL 10, 526; NPNF 9, 22.

65. De Synodis 70; PL 10, 527.

66. De Synodis 68; PL 10, 525.

67. De Synodis 71; PL 10, 527.

68. De Trinitate 7.1; CCL 62, 259.

69. See, for example, the list of opponents Hilary gives in De Trinitate 7.6-7.

70. For the development of Homoianism in the West, see especially Meslin, Les Ariens. For Eunomius, see Barnes, Michel R., The Power of God: Dunamis in Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press 2001), 173–219;Google Scholar and Paul Vaggione, Richard, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar