Describe the development of the doctrines of Christ and of the Trinity during the Councils of the 4th & 5th centuries. What were the political and religious movements and ideas leading to the Councils of the 4th & 5th centuries?

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

BA Divinity First Year. Neil Lincoln.

Introduction

Through describing the Church history leading up to the 4th and 5th century ecumenical Councils this essay will attempt to outline the cause of the split over different perspectives of the Holy Trinity that eventually lead to the Great Schism of West and Eastern Churches.

On closer reflection it is clear that the human element in any appraisal causes views that will differ. Over the years these views have had to be assessed, refined and concluded. After two thousand years this in reality has only partially been achieved and the schisms still exist although the basic theme may concur.

The term Great Schism refers to either one of two schisms in the history of Christianity. Most commonly, "Great Schism" refers to the "great East-West schism", the split between the Eastern and Western churches in the eleventh century; the second schism, the "schism of the west" in the fourteenth century, refers to a time when three (claimant) popes were elected simultaneously (Great). But the main concern in this essay will be the split preconditions that occurred in the 4th and 5th century. It should be said at this point that the word schism should not be confused with heresy. It is a divide within the church and not outside from the church.

The early period of the Christian church was troubled by a number of dissensions about the nature and relationship of the three Persons of the Trinity. In the West the Holy Spirit was seen as coming from the Father and the Son, though subordinate to neither. In the Eastern part of the (as yet) undivided Catholic Church the spirit was seen as coming from the Father through the Son. And so how and what developed the doctrine concerning the Trinity?

There is an argument that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and hence the Trinity was "undecided" in the Church until after the Council of Constantinople in 381. There were persons and even theologians and bishops in the Church who did not hold the Holy Spirit to be God or a distinct person or hypostasis during the 4th century, for example Arians. “Arian, an adherent of Arianism, the doctrine taught by Arius, a Christian priest at Alexandria, that Christ the son was not consubstantial with God the Father.” (Webster’s. 1996. P.80-81). It also could be stated that the above proposition is applicable to the 3rd century as well (e.g. Sabellianism). Sabellius view of God was that of a monad with three names. Not as being simultaneous, but successive in nature.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear explicitly in the Bible but there are many passages that point to as implying it. One of the clearest passages is the baptism of Jesus Christ: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased'." (Matthew 3:16-17, NJB.). Thus the three persons of the Trinity were made manifest at once.

There are also a number of Bible verses showing that Jesus is God and God is "three in one". Paul said Jesus was the "fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:8.9.NJB.). The apostle also said Jesus did not feel it was wrong to be considered "equal with God" (Phil. 2:5, 6.NJB). Clearly stating that "The only Father we have is God Himself" (John. 8:41), the beloved disciple has given Christians the basis for thinking Father is God. Verses saying the Holy Spirit is God are presupposing the three persons are one: "Don’t you know you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16.NJB). These principles have all been maintained in support of the existence of the Holy Trinity.

Each church must have its doctrine for the believers. Let us see first what the religious rulings which the first generations of Christians had to abide by and how and where they were established. In Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, an ecumenical council is a meeting of the church summoned to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine.

Church councils were, from the beginning, routine exercises. Councils are called to deal with issues and general church business. Written documents were circulated, speeches made and responded to, votes taken, and final documents published and distributed. For all councils Canons were published and survive. In some cases other documentation survives as well. Study of the canons of church councils is the foundation of the development of Canon Law, especially the reconciling of seemingly contradictory canons or the determination of priority between them. Canons consist of doctrinal statements and disciplinary measures—most Church councils and local synods dealt with immediate disciplinary concerns as well as major difficulties of doctrine. Eastern Orthodoxy typically views the purely doctrinal canons as dogmatic and applicable to the entire church at all times, while the disciplinary canons are the application of those dogmas in a particular time and place; these canons may or may not be applicable in other situations.

Both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches recognize seven councils in the early years of the church, but Catholics also recognize several councils called in later years by the Pope, whose authority the Eastern Orthodox do not accept. Since the seventh ecumenical council, the Eastern Orthodox has had what they call Pan-Orthodox councils with representatives of all Eastern Orthodox churches, but they have not claimed that these councils were ecumenical. That would require including the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the Pan-Orthodox councils either.

The Oriental Orthodox only accept the teachings of some of the councils: the Nestorians only accept the First Council of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople, while the Monophysites only accept Nicaea I, Constantinople I and the Council of Ephesus. Their differences in understanding of the nature and relationship of the Son and the Spirit to the Trinity were worked out and defined at those councils, and so they broke away from union with the larger body. "Except for Milan and sections of Illyria, the battle for Nicea was largely won in the West" (Davis, 1983, P. 109). (The author refers to the year A.D. 364).

The 4th century church was not only considering theological controversy but had to look at its own institutional organization. “The doctrinal disagreements quickly became inextricably associated with matters of order, discipline, and authority.” (Chadwick, 1993.P.133).

“The Arian controversy after the Council of Nicea can be split into three stages” (Richardson-Bowden. 1983. P.40). The death of Constantine, the assertion of his sons and the suppression of such under Theodosius. (381)

Arianism was based on the view of triad as opposed to Trinitarian. To say that God is at the head (sovereignty) and of the Son as being of a secondary being. Related ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Arianism was based on the view of triad as opposed to Trinitarian. To say that God is at the head (sovereignty) and of the Son as being of a secondary being. Related to God but as a “first among creatures, through whom God created all else” (Richardson-Bowdon. 2001. P.40). Later Neo-Arians changed in views to that of the Sons divinity being begotten and not bestowed. What was the ‘Arian crises’ came about when Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria “was investigating the beliefs and teachings of his clergy”. (Bertram, P.36). He himself believed that Christ was truly God, begotten not made. Arias believed that “Christ was created out of nothing at the beginning of time indeed there was a time he was not”. (Bertram, P.36). Arian was asked to change from this view and on refusing was excommunicated by Alexander and the Egyptian clergy in 318. A split in the church was inevitable.

Bishop Alexander came from the view that Arian had effectively taken the meaning of Christianity away. The fact that Christ is the Lord and “that He and the father are One, that the Word became Flesh so that we could become with Him and the Father. (Bertram, P.37). We are saved because He has come to share our nature. It is what distinguishes us from Jews and Pagans. The whole debate about the nature of Christ took on new meaning and inevitably people took sides. Constantine became concerned about the issue and called the Bishops to a meeting at Ancyra. This meeting was switched to Nicaea and became what is now known as The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. (325).

Western Bishops failed in any numbers to attend (one) as at that time the problem had very little effect on them. It was a situation they regretted as in later decades when they had to compromise on issues they would in all probability not have had to.

The difference in Doctrinal views between Arias and Alexander are listed in (Comby, 1985 P.88). It simplifies the differing views on the Trinity of each. Alexander’s opposing view is “If the Word were not fully God, man could not be fully divine, because it would not have God who became incarnate in man. So man could not be saved.” (Comby, 1985 P89.). Arias after excommunication in 318 went about the East where his views were more traditional due to the problems in Alexandria.

The second phase 325 to 381 “is dominated by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.” (Bertram P.39). His reasoning is set out in the treatise believed to be written before 318 and seen as the opposition not so much against Arias but against his original statement. This view in its self caused problems and arguments with the ebb and flow of opinions. It was the faith of the laity that in the end saw the truth. “and the triumph of Catholic belief at the close of the century owed as much to the piety of the people as the theology of Athanasius and his Cappadocian friends” (Bertram, P39). There was a clear split with both sides considering themselves Catholic. Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia and a supporter of Arias had signed the Nicene Creed with some reticence and was soon to repudiate it. “He set to work to win over the Emperor to the Arian side and to ensure the downfall of the opponents of Arianism.” (Bertram, P.40). The first attack concerned ‘consubstantial’ and how it does not ‘occur in scripture’. In the end the Emperor was convinced and agreed to readmit Arias to communion. Arias, somewhat conveniently’ is reported to have died on the evening before. Athanasius was exiled to Trier on spurious charges that were not of the religious. Constantine died in 337. This paved the way for Athanasius to return from exile and leaving the three sons of Constantine to battle it out. After 13 years one survived, Constantius.

Due to his geographical position in the East, Constantius supported Eusebius. Athanasius was again exiled and sent to Rome where he enjoyed the support of Pope Julius I. “ This brought a new element to the debate, the relevant authority of Rome and Constantinople” (Bertram, P.40). Athanasius, due to intervention of Constans, (west) was reconciled from exile in 346. Eusabian influence remerged with the death of Constans. Athanasius, once again, was driven by the imperial troops to exile in the Egyptian desert. Again the arguments became rife.

It was the people and their conscience that won the day ultimately. They had come to believe in the true God from true God and continued to support Athanasius. After the death of Constantius in 361 his successor Julius allowed the return of Athanasius. During the early part of his reign he invited Basil of Ceaserea to court. Basil recognising the volatility of Julius declined. Julius was deposed in 363. Not before he had exiled the unfortunate Athanasius to a forth term in exile. Athanasius was to return shortly after the fall of Julius. “The mantle of Athanasius was now to be passed to Basil.” (Bertram, P.41).

Basil, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, his sister Macrina and Gregory of Nazianzen were known as the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’. Their first problem was to clarify the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Cappadocians not only had to show the Holy Spirit is truly God and therefore as a Trinity but also to expel the teaching of Apollinaris, a supporter of Athanasius, who denied the human nature of Christ. And so “The years between 360 and 381 saw perhaps the most rapid development of Christian doctrine ever.” (Bertram P42.)

Still Arianism was within the subdivided West. Valention II being overseer of Italy, IIIyricum and Africa and Gration, Gaul, Spain and Britain. Justina, Valention's mother was Arian. She was in conflict with the bishop of Rome Ambrose. (340-397). Ambrose and Basil effectively achieved agreement between East and West with their acceptance from the Catholic Emperors Theodosius and Gration. It was Theodosius who called the Council of Constantinople in 381. The second Ecumenical Council. It was this Council that agreed the wording of the Creed that is almost as it is today. Arianism was at an end. Or was it?

John Henry Newman, in his The Arians of the Fourth Century states, "As to Semi-Arianism it disappears from ecclesiastical history at the date of the proposed Council of Tarsus (A.D. 367); from which time the portion of the party, which remained non-conformist, is more properly designated Macedonian, or Pneumatomachist, from the chief article of their heresy" (Newman, 1890. P. 379).

Whilst Arianism was suppressed by 381 it was by no means dead. It survived for another two centuries. “Even within the empire there was a significant battle to be fought before the end.” (Bertram, P.43). Justina with her sons had a large number of Gothic Arian followers. At this time Justina and her sons lived in Milan and confronted Ambrose by taking and occupying one of the churches for Arian use. “Ambrose and the Catholics of Milan occupied the church which Justina had surrounded by troops”. (Bertram, P.43). There ensued a standoff and by Good Friday the Empress Justina gave way. She did attempt a second time a year later but again was foiled by Ambrose.

“ Meanwhile, we may take comfort in reflecting, that, though the present tyranny has more of insult, it has hitherto had less of scandal, than attended the ascendancy of Arianism; we may rejoice in the piety, prudence, and varied graces of our Spiritual Rulers; and may rest in the confidence ,that should the hand of Satan press us sore, our Athanasius and Basil will be given us in their destined season, to break the bonds of the Oppressor, and let the captives go free.” (Newman, 1890. P.394).

Even Paganism was still in great evidence, even when Constantine converted to Christianity. “It probably remained the religion for the majority well into the second half or the 4th century” (Richardson-Bowden. 1983. P153). “With Emperor Julian (361-3) dead, his successors increased the measures against paganism and against Christian heretics”. (Comby, 1985.P74). All pagan custom was banned in 392.

The next problem to occur was, now the Son and Holy Spirit were agreed on, was “how to explain the union between the divinity of the Word and the humanity of Jesus”. (Comby, 1985.P.95). The problem was how to explain that God was both divine and human. There were two explanations put forward. In Alexandria that Christ was the Word in human form. “That was the condition for the divinization of man”. (Comby, 1985.P.95). In Antioch the view was of two natures in unity. “ for some people there were two natures for others there was one.” (Comby, 1985. P.95). These differences soon led to discord between two bishops. Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople. Nestorius attacked the view that Mary was therefore Mother of God. His view was she could only be the mother of the human Jesus. Cyril argued that there was only one nature in God. He sided with Celestinus, bishop of Rome against Nestorius. Both insisted that Nestorius declare he was in agreement. In turn he accused Cyril of Apollinarianism. Emperor Theodosius II in face of the problem called for the Council at Ephesus. (430) After what can be described as, unsavory behavior, at the council both were deposed. Cyril later returned to Alexandria whilst Nestorius remained in exile. The main positive from Ephesus “was to canonize the Nicene Creed as enshrining the core of Christological orthodoxy and Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius as its authoritative interpretation.” (Kelly, 2000. P.372). The council due to the absence of Leo, and the fact that his Latin speaking representatives were unable to speak Greek, turned into a brawl as they were unable to be heard. “Leo expressed great indignation at the ‘Robber synod of Ephesus’.” (Comby, 2001. P.98). Flavian’s view of two natures was discounted and he was fatally wounded in the ensuing brawl.

The new emperors Marcian requested Leo preside over a new Council at Chalcedon in 451. Leo was unable to journey but sent his representatives. “The whole object, from the imperial point of view, was to establish a single faith throughout the empire” (Kelly, 2000. P.339). It should be said that the majority of the bishops did not agree “with the formulation of a new Creed “(Kelly ,2000. P.339). They did see the need for a document that they could all sign up to. There are three main points to which agreement came about. “It solemnly reaffirmed the Nicene Creed, It canonized Cyril’s two Letters and Leo’s tome, and it set out a formal confession of faith.” (Kelly, 2000. P339). Despite all this the council in reality failed to bring lasting peace. “The West remained loyal to the council, there was an immediate hostile reaction in the East that was to last for centuries.” ( Kelly, 2000. P.344). The Christological controversies continued. The Monophysite churches remained faithful to Cyril and in the single nature of Christ. The Nestorian churches following “dualality of man and God in Christ.” “It is important to beware of speaking of heresy in the stronger sense of the word. Choices have always been as much political as dogmatic.” (Comby, 1985.P.99).

The first seven councils were called by the emperor (first the Christian Roman Emperors and later the Byzantine Emperors). The relationship of the Papacy to the validity of these councils is the ground of much controversy between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Churches and to historians (Ecumenical). It was indeed Pope Leo I who “successfully asserted the supreme authority of the papacy”. “He formulated a doctrine of papal primacy that was to weather all storms and guide the policy of all subsequent Popes” (Bockenkotter, 1990, P.79). His job was made easier as twilight fell over the Roman Empire.

The following is a list of the four 4th and 5th century Councils called by the Emperors and accepted by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as Ecumenical:

First Council of Nicaea, (325); adoption of the Nicene Creed.
First Council of Constantinople, (381); revision of the Nicene Creed into present form used in the Eastern orthodox churches. Sometimes referred to as a Synod, because it was only local, but its decrees were accepted in the west.
Council of Ephesus, (431); proclamation of Mary as the Mother of God.
Council of Chalcedon, (451); described and delineated the two natures of Christ, human and divine; adoption of the Chalcedonian Creed.

It is very likely that the doctrine of the Council of Constantinople had been decided prior to the Council. The Church Council in Acts 15 bears this out. Many teachers in the Church explicitly held the Holy Spirit to be deity or at the very least, in the case of the Arians, to be a person prior to the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. This does not mean that the Church invented the teaching simply because it defined it at Constantinople and anathematized heretics any more than the Apostles invented the doctrine of including the gentiles in the church at the Council. (Ecumenical).

During times of heresy, political and social upheaval there was a lot of confusion in the Church. Communication was not easy over a Christian Church that went all the way from Britain to Africa and all the way into India. It took weeks or months even for "express" communications to reach their destination. It would be natural to find many of the lay people and some theologians holding to heretical views. There was no public education and seminaries were scarce. After all, Christianity had just come out of 250 yrs or so persecution. Contradictions were inevitable.

The first schism resulted from among other things: the insertion of the “and the Son” (filioque) clause into the Nicene Creed; the use by the Western church of unleavened bread for the Eucharist; disputes in the Balkans over whether the Western or Eastern Church had jurisdiction (Great).

The present Catholic Creed is based on the Nicene Creed, which is also called the Nicaene Constantinopolitan Creed. This is a Christian statement of faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and major Protestant churches. It gets its name from and was adopted at the first Ecumenical Council in A.D. 325, which was also the First Council of Nicaea. (Nicene).

For the purposes of the present study and conclusion of this essay we need to provide the full text of the Nicene Creed (in a modern English version as cited in Nicene):

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of The Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated on the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

All Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches omit the words "and the son" (the filioque clause), from the description of the Holy Spirit, in keeping with the first seven Ecumenical Councils (Nicene).

At the time of its adoption, the text ended after the words "We believe in the Holy Spirit." The second Ecumenical Council in A.D. 381 added the remainder of the text except for the words "and the son"; this is the version still used by Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches today.

The third Ecumenical Council reaffirmed the 381 version, and stated that no further changes could be made to it, nor could other creeds be adopted. The phrase "and the son" was first used by Pope Leo I without the consultation or agreement of the other four patriarchs of the Church at that time. The dispute over the filioque clause and the manner of its adoption was one of the reasons for the Great Schism (Nicene).

The phrase "and the son" was first added to the Nicaene Creed at the Synod of Toledo (Spain) in 447. The formula was used in a letter from Pope Leo I to the members of that synod, responding to the Trinitarian heresies they were confronting. The Eastern Orthodox churches refused to accept a phrase which they saw as an unjustified innovation in doctrine (Filioque).

There is an interesting viewpoint by John S. Romanides, which faults St. Augustine for confusion of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit resulting in the filioque clause. It was likely to be a misunderstanding of Augustine or even a wrong judgement.

It was not the deity and personality of the Spirit that Augustine was unsure of when he wrote "A Treatise on the Faith and the Creed" in AD 393. But what Augustine was unsure of was the specific property that individuated the Holy Spirit's personality from the other persons of the Trinity. Augustine, however, has conceded that he was wrong. Actually Augustine formulated the filioque clause that was later inserted into the Creed in the West.

Further, although the second Ecumenical Council had amended the Nicene Creed, the third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus in 431, had forbidden any further changes to it. In the ninth century, Pope Leo III agreed to the filioque clause theologically, but was opposed to adapting it in worship in Rome, and insisted on using the Nicene Creed in Mass in Rome as it was expressed at the Council of Ephesus and all the Ecumenical Councils up until that time. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine, a related issue was the right of the Pope to unilaterally make a change to the Nicene Creed, as opposed to having an Ecumenical Council define the Creed (Filioque).

The Roman Catholic Church has not proved unwilling to negotiate on the topic. The Eastern rite churches of the Catholic Church—the Maronites, the Melkites, the Ruthenians, etc.—returned to union with the Papacy at various dates but were not required to say the "and the Son" formula in their liturgies. This may also suggest that the filioque clause dispute is merely a symptom of the larger dispute concerning papal authority (Filioque).

Gregory states in the year 380 CE: "But of the wise men amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him" (Gregory).

Gregory begins by noting how the Sadducees denied the existence of the Holy Spirit as well as the angels and the resurrection because they rejected a large portion of what

we consider being the Old Testament. Then he moves on to the Greek philosophers and how they seem to speak of the Holy Spirit as the "World Mind", a kind of Greek Idealism.

Now when Gregory speaks of those "wise men amongst ourselves" which of them holds his own position? We need to look at the views he elucidates: 1) the Holy Spirit is an 'energia' and Activity (someone's view). 2) The Holy Spirit is a creature (the Arian view). 3) The Holy Spirit is God (The view of Gregory himself). 4) Undecided (the majority view). Now of those that believe that the Holy Spirit is God, Gregory further distinguishes the position: 1. Some hold him to be God only in their mind or conceptually. 2. Some hold the Holy Spirit to be God in their thoughts as well as what they profess.

Then Gregory notes that there are others who agree that there are three persons, but yet hold no unity of essence and end up with three gradations of deities. With this background information one begins to understand why A. there was heresies in the Church at various points of time and B. why doctrinal uniformity was not universally present. It should also be considered that the Canon of Scripture was not fixed until almost 20 years after the Council of Constantinople. It was due to the fact that almost a third of the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament were in doubt in various parts of the Church. After all, it was a Church council that canonized the Bible and that council was made up of Trinitarians. If they can be trusted with knowing and discerning which works of the Old and New Testaments are inspired and from God, why cannot they also be trusted to define authoritatively the doctrine of God?

We can probably say that from the practice of only having bishops decide matters in a council, what was considered the majority were the bishops. Here are the opinions of a number of scholars. H.B. Swete, for example, comments, "Whatever individuals may have thought, the consensus of opinion in the ancient Church supported a belief in the personal subsistence of the Holy Spirit" (Swete, 1912. P. 375). "Those who took Him [the Holy Spirit] for an energy were probably a small minority of persons who were either infected with Sabellian views, or sought to escape from the controversy of the hour by denying that the Holy Spirit was an entity of any kind, created or Divine. Such a rejection of the personal life of the Spirit must have been rare within the Catholic Church" (Ibid. P. 375).

It is little wonder that there discourse during this period. Given the magnitude of the subject councils which threw people together to discuss and argue their views. In the time between it must have been difficult to expand theories outside of the group to which they were part. It is easy in this day and age to miss the communication problems of the era. Communication to the other side of the world in seconds is the norm. In the 4th and 5th centuries it would have been months for much lesser distances. Thankfully they persevered.

The political verses the religious authority was deeply felt. Both parties could be accused of using the power they had for personal gratification. I prefer to think of them as having the faith of their conviction and in their love and understanding of God. It is the Holy Spirit that guided them.

The truth may remain hidden temporarily and cannot be depressed. Ingenuity may flourish temporarily and cannot linger permanently. ( De Doctr, Christ, ii)

Word Count 4986.

Bibliography