Understanding of the Incomprehensibility of God in the Cappadocian Fathers in

combating Arianism1

1. Introduction

1 Including Neo-Arianism.1

The development of Trinitarian theology2, stems from the soteriological kerygma of the

New Testament that includes the understanding of Jesus as kyrios3 and logos4. In the course of

time, the inherited kerygma was appropriated with the logos doctrine and Jesus was presented as

logos incarnated5 kyrios as it confronted the Greeco-Roman philosophy6. Consequently by the

third century, God in three functional economy was presented7. But, to explain Godhead in

relation with logos maintaining a strict monotheistic approach remained a matter of delicacy.

This problem became acute in the context of the emergence of Neo-Platonism8. In such a

context Origen’s insistence that logos is the generated Son attained disproportionate reactions

among later interpretations9. Most of the faith deviations in the early Church developed in

2 Embracing Christology.3 This is the borrowed Greek word in Septuagint to designate God and given as the translation for Adonai.4 In Platonism logos was understood as a mediating principle between God and human beings and they

viewed it as an agent in creation. Stoics considered logos as the intelligible structure immanent in nature or as the rational principle.

5 Justin Martyr combined the Platonic and Stoic understanding of logos with the Christian element noting its virtue of origin in God and its nature as the rational principle within God. Thus logos came forth as an agent and underlying structure in creation and appears finally and fully in Christ. The apologetic function of this approach was to argue the universality of Christian faith and to affirm that Plato and the Prophets of the Old Testaments were logos instructed, hence they implicitly point to the incarnation in Jesus. [William J. Hill, The Three Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982; reprint, 1988), 31.]

6 Ibid., 30.The intention behind this appropriation was with an apologetic motive as the Church moved out of the

shadow of Judaism. The impact of the Gnostic religions forced the Christian leaders to bring forth clearer statements on what Christians believed and expressed through their confessions. The Hebrews preferred the titles kyrios (Lord) and “the Son of God” while the Greeks preferred logos. All these usages intended preexistence and incarnation.

7 Tertullian utilized Monarchial Trinitarianism to explain Godhead and introduced the technical term persona as against substance. According to him Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three personae of the one substance and Christ is one persona i.e. logos incarnated. For him economy did not mean the order of creation, on the other hand it meant the order within God’s own being.

8 Towards the second half of the third century, Neo-Platonism emerged as a religious philosophy stressing on the production of everything from the One. Plotinus, a Greek-speaking Egyptian was the one who appropriated this new form of Platonism. According to this, first come forth Nous that contains the ideas of all than can be. Then Demiurge comes from Nous. Finally from the Demiurge souls and the matter. Matter is the last and least valued to be produced.

9 According to Origen, Son cannot originate from Father who is pure spirit by some sort of physical generation. Hence Son’s generation could only be by an eternal spiritual generation. That could imply that there could be never a time when the divine Son did not exist. At the same time he insisted that only God the Father was un-begotten. That implied higher position for Father in the divine economy. Origen might have envisaged only a necessary hierarchical order among the divine persons. [Joseph A. Bracken, God : Three Who Are One, Engaging Theology (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2008), 7-8.]

Following Origen, two streams of thought originated that are indebted to him. Later in the fourth and fifth century they came into conflict with each other. According to Origen, Christ was the only begotten son of God and God the Father existed always, and He could not have existed without generating the Son. One stream of his followers insisted that Christ is the Son of God, Wisdom, and Logos and hence he always was. As a result, he is equal with the Father. Alexander bishop of Alexandria upheld this view.

The other group was represented by Dionysius of Alexandria. He in his refutation of Sebellianism that regarded Father, Son and Holy Spirit as mere aspects or modes of God, insisted on the distinctiveness of the Son as person. In doing so he appeared to imply that Father has created the Son and there existed a time when there was no son. In consequence, Son is subordinate to the Father. This view got rooted in Atiochene school. Licinius who was a contemporary to Dionysius was an influential teacher in the school of Antioch and Arius was one of his students.

2

relation with this attempt. This also marked a counter move to return to the Old Testament

perceptive of divine transcendence.

Christian theologians of the fourth century conceived the dogmatic foundations and

established the dominant form of Christianity and hence they were called Fathers of the

Church10. The society and the culture that nurtured them imparted strong influences on them and

it was mainly in polemics that they developed their theological understanding11. The speculative

input of the early Fathers in the development of Christian dogma is irrefutable. This paper tries

to deal in brief the development of the faith deviation of Arianism and the counter action of the

Cappadocian Fathers12 of fourth century utilizing the understanding of the incomprehensibility of

God.

2. Arianism

Many modern scholars regard Arianism13 as an archetypal Christian deviation14 that

remained within the Christian history as a powerful concept. It brought the ontological question

to the center stage of Christian theology and theological articulation15. In the course of time

Arianism became the ‘radically other’ in relation with the Orthodox Christianity and Arius

himself came to be branded as a kind of anti-Christ among the heretics16.

2.1. Beginning

10 Charles Kannengiesser, "The Spiritual Message of the Great Fathers," in Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelth Century, edited by Bernard McGinn, John Meyendorff, and Jean Leclercq (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc, 1986), 61.

11 For example, Athanasius developed his doctrine of divine incarnation in the process of his negation of the Arian view of salvation.

12 Fathers like Basil of Caesarea (330-379), his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (331-after 394 ) and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus (329/30-390) (These trio came to be known as Cappadocian Fathers.)

13 The controversy bears the name of Arius. It was a serious threat during the fourth century. The paucity of available resources and the complex problems associated with their interpretations makes the quest for historical Arius a difficult one.

Maurice Wiles has pointed out that Arianism was not a self-chosen designation but a title conferred by their hostile opponents. [Maurice Wiles, Archetypal Heresy: Arianism through the Centuries (Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press & Oxford Universtity Press Inc., 1996), 5.]

14 Rowan Williams, Arius : Heresy and Tradition, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 2001), 1; Wiles, Archetypal Heresy: Arianism through the Centuries, 3.

Modern approach to controversies in the early church is transformed by a shift in mind-set. Instead of viewing heretics as someone deliberately maligning the Christian truth, seeking to find out what might have been the truth in the context of changing conditions and evolving problems became the matter of concern. Hence the so called heretics came to be approached as some one trying to defend some aspect of Christian truth that they think being risked in the teachings of their opponents. In such a methodology, ‘Christian deviation’ becomes an appropriate term than heresy. Rowan Williams was the first person to use Arianism as ‘archetypal Christian deviation’ in his work, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1987 edition).

R.P.C. Hanson has opined that Arius cannot be categorized as a great heresiarch in the same implication as Mani, Marcion or Pelegius might justify that term. [Richard Patrick Crosland Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (London: T & T Clark, 2005), xvii.]

15 Hill, The Three Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation, 43.16Williams, Arius : Heresy and Tradition, 1.

3

The root of Arian controversy existed prior to the outbreak of the debate. Christians were

accused as atheists for they had no visible images as object of worship. That forced them to

make theological explanations, especially regarding the relationship between God and Christ.

Conflict erupted on the question of the nature of Christ and his relationship with God the Father.

Alexander17 the bishop of Alexandria taught that “Son is of equal dignity with the Father, and of

the same substance with God who begat Him”18. Suspecting this as a Sebellian position, Arius19

publically criticized20 the doctrine of Alexander21. Only a handful of texts22 could be treated as

authentically representing Arius’ own thinking but most of his views come through the words of

his opponents23.

2.2. The Controversy

17 Alexander succeeded Achillas who served the see for a very brief period (311-312) following Peter the martyr.

18 Schaff and Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series) Vol. 3, 34.19 Arius who was a presbyter in the district of Baucalis in Alexandria and is believed to have been born in

Libya. Libyan origin is mentioned by Ephiphanius. In the letter written to Constantine Arius himself claims the support of the whole people of Libya. Out right support of the Libyan bishops especially Secundus of Ptolemais also supports the Libyan origin. [Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, 3.]

20 The exact chronology of the conflict is matter of debate. But it is generally upheld that the beginning of the conflict falls in between 318 and 323 C.E. [J. Rebecca Lyman, "Arius and Arians," in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, edited by Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 239.]

21 Arius confronted this with the conviction of the absolute transcendence and perfection of the Godhead. With God the Father in mind, he stressed on the absolute oneness of God. According to him, there could not be any other God in the proper sense of the word other than God the Father. Therefore, logos eternal and equal in dignity possessing immortality with the Father was inconsistent with the understanding of God, for God to communicate His essence with another being implies He was mutable and susceptible to change. Further to share the divine nature with another would mean the plurality f divine Beings and that contradicts the claim of God as unique. The inescapable corollary of this approach was the drastic subordination of the logos (Son/Word). [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (London: Continuum, 2006), 231-232.]

22 They include:The confession of faith signed by Arius along with eleven supporters and submitted before Alexander of Alexandria, Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and The confession submitted by Arius and Euzoius to emperor.

23 Williams, Arius : Heresy and Tradition, 95.In the treatment of opponents chances are there that they may not represent the systematic thought as he

himself envisaged. They will be more in terms of how the opponents understood as what Arius thought. Still they represent the complex and grave situation which the Christian community faced during that time.

4

Arius maintained that God the Father is without a beginning, but Son has a beginning 24,

accordingly, son is a created being25. So, Word of God is not eternal and there was a time when

the Son of God was not26. Hence, according to the Arians the Son is a lesser being than the

Father27. In his letter to Eusebius, Arius observed that since Father cannot eternally co-exist with

the Son, God the Father has to pre-exist the Son28. He asserts that Son is the only-begotten and

the first-born, but he emphasizes that Son is not a portion of God and only a simple spiritual

reality that is created. Refuting Arius, Alexander maintained that if Arius’ views are accepted

that could imply that God was not always Father and there was a time when He was not Father.

That could also mean that the inferior son is alien to and other than God in nature. Hence he will

be mutable and susceptible to change. In such a case Father is inexplicable by the Son and

would remain invisible to the Son and stay incomprehensible to the Son. Alexander further

argued that Arius’ affirmation contradicts the biblical understanding of the Gospel according to

John. According to Alexander, John asserts that, “In the beginning was the Word…” implies,

that there was no period when Word was not there. Further, the gospel affirmation that all things

were made by the Word would mean that the Word made himself which is not possible. Again it

was accsused that Arius’ claim would imply that the claim of Jesus, “he who sees me has seen

my Father” would become a false pretension because an inferior son cannot reveal Father for,

they are not of the same essence. He further clarified that if one says that there was time when

the Word (Logos) was not there, that would also suggest a time when God was destitute of the

Word and Wisdom.

2.3. Condemnation of Arianism

24 He drew out the rational implication of Origen’s subordinationism that logos is not only begotten but also created (i.e. he is κτίσμα - a creature). Hence, he is not eternal and “there was when he was not”. He contrasted God as γεννητός (agenētos - un-originated) with Son as γεννητός (genētos - originated), for the Christians confessed Son to be generated and begotten. [Hill, The Three Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation, 41-43.]

25 In other words, this means that there was a time when there was no Son. This goes in line with the understanding of Sophism.

Asterius the Sophist postulated that the created order was not in a position to bear the burden of the direct action of the uncreated and eternal God. Hence, God brought forth the Word. In line with that Arius maintained that Father created the Son. Here Son is not to be equated with other creations in the history for he is the perfect creature and hence he should be ranged among other derivatives and dependent beings. He was the first begotten of all creation. [Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 232-233.]

26 We could read this in the Letter of Arius to Eusabius of Nicomedia who was a fellow student of Arius under Lucianus of the Antiochene School. Theodoret quotes this letter in his Ecclesiastical History 1.4. [Schaff and Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series) Vol. 3, 41.]

We could also find this observation on Arius in the epistle of Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Constantinople which Theodoret quotes in his Ecclesiastical History 1.3. [Schaff and Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series) Vol. 3, 35.]

27 Reflecting on Jesus’ words in John 5: 19, “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself, he can do only what he sees his Father doing”, they argued that Son is inferior to the Father.

Paul S. Russell, "Saint Gregory's Exegeses against the Arians, Still a Viable Christian Tool," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 39/2 (1994): 124.

28 Williams, Arius : Heresy and Tradition, 97.5

Alexander convened a synod and about 100 bishops from Egypt participated in that.

Arius was excommunicated. Eusebius of Nicomedia favoured the sentiments of Arius and

demanded the lifting of his excommunication. This controversy developed into a major conflict

with in early Christianity. An obvious schism became evident in the line of Antiochene and

Alexandrine Schools of thought29. Arius was mainly supported by those influenced by

Antiochene School while Alexander was supported by those under the influence of Alexandrine

School30. Arianism was formally condemned in the Council of Nicea31. The Council responded

Arius’ teaching with the affirmation on homoousios32. This was an endeavor to defend the

kerygma of the Church33 and only the later discussions provided technical precision to the

meaning of the word34. The Council anathematized Arius and all who adhered to his opinion.

Through an edict Emperor sent Arius along with Theognis, Eusebius and their followers into

exile. The whole episode was decisive in the further life of the Church, especially in relation

with the function and role of the Emperor in the running of the Church.

2.4. Subsequent developments

29 Alexander complained that Arius in line with the Antiochene emphasis on humanity of Christ applied scriptural passages of humiliation and weakness to the divine Son while the non-Nicene Arians retorted that the Nicene understanding ignored the Son as authentic subject of suffering and obedience. That also projects the problem paused by the interpretation of the Scriptural titles. [Lyman, "Arius and Arians", 243.]

30 By the time of Constantine, Christianity became a force to reckon within the empire. When he established Constantinople as the capital, the city rose as an important Episcopal see, thereby bringing competition with the Episcopal see of Rome. In the ecclesiastical circle there was enduring rivalry between the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Alexandriafor primacy. In this conflict usually Antioch sided with Costantinople and Alexandria with Rome. During the time of Arian controversy Alexandria was having a honourable position compared to Antioch. Therefore, in the controversy Antioch took side with Arius who was a student of the Antiochene School against Alexander the follower of Alexandrene School.

31 Nicea is situated in the region of Bythynia. Emperor Constantine who convened the general synod by summoning all bishops through a letter to meet him at Nicea. The council was met on 20th May in the 636th year of the reign of Alexander the Macedonian (i.e. 325 C.E.). 318 bishops participated and bishops from Europe, Africa and Asia were present. Persian bishops were also there. Bishop of Rome was not present owing to his old age, but some of his presbyters were there. After deliberations a confession was made and majority agreed to that. But five bishops objected the usage of the term homoousios. They were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmaria and Secundus of Ptolemais. Emperor insisted that all should sign and under the military pressure all signed. But the pro-Arians withdrew their support once they came back to their respected sees.

32 This was a word already common among the Gnostics. Terms ousia and hypostasis were used interchangeably. But with the Cappadocians during the post-Nicean period, ousia emergedto be used in a quite singular sense for God’s indivisible being. It was used to denote that logos is God in every sense as the Father is and not secondary and diminished where as hypostasis came to denote the three forms.

The different senses of the word ousia lay in the field of philosophy. They were constantly confused by ancient writers and they are hard to distinguish between each other even by modern critics which demand acquaintance with semantics, logic and metaphysics. [G. Christopher Stead, "The Concept of Divine Substance," Vigillae Christianae 29 (1975): 2.]

33 It was accused that Arianism through the rationalistic elucidation unfocused the centrality of faith and scattered the dialectical tension with the element of mystery. The soteriological dimension of the kerygma of the New Testament is on it’s functional Christology that rests upon the person of Christ. Hence, denigration of the Son into a pure creature stakes the divinity of Christ and that in turn hazards the incarnation claim and its stereological function. It is in this sense that Athanasius confronted Arius’ understanding with his stress on theosis. The famous dictum of his, “The logos became man in order that we might become gods” has to be approached from this angle.

34 Hill, The Three Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation, 42.6

In the subsequent years it went through various modifications of opinion and with various

successes35. Though it was rejected from the Catholic body of the Church, it formed a distinct

sect maintaining hold on the faith and government of the Church36. The Neo-Arianism37

developed in the form of Heterousians38. Eunomius39 made the whole system look like a

dynamic defense of the distinctiveness and primacy of God the Father thereby reducing the status

of the Son as a necessary corollary of the exaltation of the Father God40. The anti-Nicene

Eunomians stressed on the knowability of God41. Accordingly Eunomius was concerned with

the theological epistemology emphasizing that the genuine knowledge of something is the

35 John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century: Their Doctrine, Temper, and Conduct Chiefly as Exhibited in the Councils of the Church between A.D. 325 & A.D. 381 (London: Gilbert & Rivington Printers, 1833), 1.

Political support of Emperors Constantius and Valens also helped the growth of Arianism. Valens is credited to employ brutality against the pro-Nicene group. They were forbidden to use the churches and church properties, while the Arians were given possession of them.

36 Ibid., 2.37 It is also called Anomoeanism (dissimilarianism). They were widely known as Eunomians from their

most prominent spokesperson Eunomius and in the recent years were called as Neo-Arians. [Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, translated by Frederck Williams and Lionell Wickham (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2006), 15.]

38 They emphasized the subordination of the Son to the Father and stressed that the Son is unlike the Father in essence. Thus they earned the name Heterousians meaning ‘unlike in essence’. The first Heterousian of prominence was Aetius the Syrian and his secretary Eunomius of Cappadocia became the most well-known proponent of the heterousian system. [Christopher A. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God : In Your Light We Shall See Light, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 20-21.]

In Against Eunomius 1.6 Gregory points out that, Arius, the enemy of God, had already sown those wicked tares which bore the Anomaeans … Aetius studied the controversy, and having laid a train of syllogisms from what he remembered of Aristotle, became notorious for even going beyond Arius, the father of the heresy, in the novel character of his speculations; or rather he perceived the consequences of all that Arius had advanced, an so got this character of a shrewd discoverer of truths not obvious; revealing as he did that the Created, even from things non-existent, was unlike the Creator who drew Him out of nothing. [Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 5 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999), 39-40.]

39 Eunomius was a much weighty theologian than Arius. [Robert Letham, "John Owen's Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context and Its Significance for Today," in Westminister Conference (December 2006), 1-2.]

Major works of Eunomius are Apology and Apology for the Apology. There also is extant fragments and a brief confession. Apology was supposedly delivered in 360 C.E. and it provoked the three-book response of Basil, Against Eunomius. Apology for Apology is extant only in the three book response Against Eunomius.

His Apology was the speech made at the council of Constantinople in 360 C.E. to which Basil answered through his three books Adversus Eunomium (Against Eunomius). Eunomius replied to this through the Second Apology for the Apology. But Basil could not made response on account of his death, but Gregory of Nyssa through his Contra Eunomium (Against Eunomius). [Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, 16-17.]

Regarding his works Apology and Apology for Apology see also Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 1.7 in Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 5, 41-42.

40 Anthony Meredith, Gregory of Nyssa (New York: Routledge, 2002), 29.41 Andrew Raddle-Gallwitz, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine

Simplicity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 88.7

knowledge of its essence42. Along with that he insisted on the doctrine of divine simplicity43.

The use of the language of divine simplicity forced an incongruity between God’s ingeneracy

and the Son’s generacy and thereby imposing a dissimilarity between the Unbegotten and the

Begotten at the level of essence44. Here the language and concepts mapped directly onto the

ontological sphere to such an extent that semantic diversity equated with ontological diversity45.

3. Understanding of the Incomprehensibility of God

It is recognized that the Greek intellectualism branded the intelligible with the limited

and found it difficult therefore to relate the unlimited with the divine46. But the early Church

fathers found resources in the incomprehensibility of God to combat the enclosing or the

containing of the divine and affirm the enclosing by or the uncontainability of the divine47 to

reverse this Greek evaluation of the infinite48. This approach is called as apophaticism49.

3.1. Basil of Caesarea

42 His attempt was to state a theological epistemology oriented towards the gaining of objective knowledge. His identity thesis states that God’s essence and attributes are identical. [Ibid., 96-97.]

43 The doctrine of divine simplicity implies that there is no non-substantial or non-essential properties of God and all true claims made about God are predicated of God’s substance. Hence it functioned to ensure the objective nature of the knowledge of God. [Ibid., 97-112.]

44 Gallwitz was of the opinion that it was the epistemological concerns that deliberated Eunomius to develop his doctrine of the divine simplicity. [Ibid., 95-96].

Whether this was unintentional as opined by Gallwitz or intentional as suggested by the classical critiques of Eunomius, subordination of the Son and division with the Father became a projected actuality.

45 It is called hyper-realism. [Ibid., 112.]46 William R. Schoedel, “Enclosing, Not Enclosed: The Early Christian Doctrine of God”, in William R.

Schoedel and Robert L. Wilken, eds., Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition (Paris: Pour tous reseignements concernant nos publications, 1979), 75.

47 By negating enclosing of and affirming enclosing by the divine, it means that God is not restricted to a place or a material. At the same time it emphasizes that God is unknowable in his essence and also he is the creator of all things. The understanding of the uncontainable has an advantage over the usage of enclosing for the reason that it suggests more readily that God cannot be grasped and exhausted with the human intellect. We could see the powerful usage of “enclosing not enclosed” usage in Irenaeus in combating Gnostic theology (Adversus Haereses).

48 Schoedel and Wilken, eds., Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition. 75-77; William R. Schoedel, “Enclosing, Not Enclosed: The Early Christian Doctrine of God” in Everett Ferguson, ed., Doctrines of God and Christ in the Early Church, Studies in Early Christianity (New York ; London: Garland, 1993), 1.

49 Apophaticism or negative theology expresses itself through negations stand in contrast to cataphaticism or positive theology that proceeds by affirmations. Cataphaticism leads people to some knowledge of God where as apophaticism leads one to the knowledge that God is beyond all possible objects of knowledge therefore God cannot be confined to inferior degrees of understanding. [Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976), 25.]

8

Basil underscores the incomprehensibility of God through his argument but he also

cautions that such a position does not deny knowledge of God50. On the other hand he stresses

that in spite of all experiences God is beyond human understanding and faith is sufficient for the

knowledge that God is and not of what God is51. He questioned the Eunomian position that it is

possible to have intellectual knowledge of actually existing things and insists that even they are

incomprehensible52. Hence according to him knowledge of divine essence is in the perception of

his incomprehensibility53. This incomprehensibility is not only true in the case of human

intellect but also is true with the power of the language54. He stressed on Son’s sharing of the

incomprehensibility with the Father55. In contrast to Eunomius, he insists that knowledge of God

has a rich complexity and most of his arguments represent a negative doctrine of simplicity 56.

His understanding of distinctions is oriented to question the Neo-Arian understanding of

simplicity that stresses identity thesis57. In the wake of Eunomius’ rationalistic interpretation of

‘begotten’ and ‘unbegotten’ that negated Son and Father sharing a common substance, Basil

argued that terms like ‘unbegotten’ do not define God even though they reflect some truth about

50 For he emphasizes the distinction between the usage of “to know” the essence of God and “to know” God. According to him, “to know God” is limited to knowing God’s greatness, his power, his wisdom, his goodness, his providential care for us, and the justice of his judgment and he further clarifies that it is not associated with the knowing of his actual essence . [Basil, Letter 234, in Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer, eds., Documents in Early Christian Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975; reprint, 2001), 10-11; Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 8 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999), 274.]

51 Basil, Letter 234.2. [Wiles and Santer, eds., Documents in Early Christian Thought, 11; Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol.8, 274.]

52 He makes this clear in his Letter XVI against Eunomius.“He makes his boast that he has really arrived at the comprehension of actual existences; let him then

explain to us the nature of the least of visible beings; let him tell us all about the ant.” [Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol.8, 125.]

53 Basil, Letter 234.2. [Wiles and Santer, eds., Documents in Early Christian Thought, 11; Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol.8, 274.]

54 In his letter VII to Gregory he makes that clearWhen I wrote to you, I was perfectly well aware that no theological term is adequate to the thought of the speaker, or the want of the questioner, because language is of natural necessity too weak to act in the service of objects of thought. If then our thought is weak, and our tongue weaker than our thought, what was to be expected of me… [Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 8, 115.]

55 Lewis Ayres, Nicea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 196-197.

56 He articulated the negative doctrine through a series of distinctions including, what we do and do not know about God and how different things we say about God function differently. He also differentiates ‘knowing that’ with ‘knowing what’, ‘knowing how’ with ‘knowing what’, ‘absolute’ with ‘relative’, ‘common’ with ‘particular’, ‘positive’ with ‘negative’. This contrasted Eunomian position of reducing all claims regarding God as synonyms. At the same time he along with Gregory retain a certain degree of the language of divine simplicity. [Raddle-Gallwitz, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity, 113-114.].

57 In his Letter XXXVIII to Gregory of Nyssa, he suggests that the meaning of a word or concept is not so simple as postulated by the Neo-Arians for he wrote, “Suppose we say “a man”. The indefinite meaning of the word strikes a certain vague sense upon the ears. The nature is indicated, but what subsists and is specially and peculiarly indicated by the name is not made plain.” [Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 8, 137.]

9

God58. Basil asserts the oneness in essence but distinct persons in Trinity and he also

distinguishes the knowability of the divine essence and the knowability of the particular

characteristics of Father and Son59. For him acknowledging God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

is not an enumeration by computation but an assertion individuality and no conception of

numbers are applicable to the Divine nature60. Through the assertion that unaided human

reason’s inability to grasp the divine essence, need to hold steadfastly to the creeds and to

participate in liturgical worship was emphasized61. Hence, his formulation of the Trinitarian

faith was rooted in the pastoral and liturgical practices of the church62. He used his rhetorical

ability and theological concepts for pastoral functions with a pedagogical structure.

3.2. Gregory of Nazianzus

58 Basil distinguishes between terms attributed to God because of the divine activities and terms attributed to the three persons of Trinity individually. [Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, "The Cappadocians (C.329-C.524)," in The Blackwell Companion to the Theologians, ed. Ian S. Markham (West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing House, 2009), 72.]

59 Ayres, Nicea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 195.60 Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

(Second Series), vol. 8, 27-30.61 Richard Lim, “Christian Triumph and Controversy”, in G. W. Bowersock, Peter Robert Lamont Brown,

and Oleg Grabar, Late Antiquity : A Guide to the Postclassical World, Harvard University Press Reference Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999), 205.

62 Kannengiesser, "The Spiritual Message of the Great Fathers", 68.William J. Hill has pointed out that the Trinitarian explanation is rooted in worship and confession and

hence it cannot be dismissed as the mere search for an explanatory construction. [Hill, The Three Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation, 29]

This in other words mean that understanding of Trinity should be approached from the point of faith rather than from intellectual enquiry. This is the stand which early Fathers of the Church upheld.

10

Greogry of Nazianzus asserts the incomprehensibility of God to human mind63and

asserted that no one had yet discovered or ever shall discover God in his nature and essence 64.

He questioned the Neo-Arian exaltation of dialectic as the way to the knowledge of God and also

the claim that God can be known fully by the human intellect65. In line with Clement66 he further

stressed that what human beings can understand is only the unknowability of God67. He focused

on the public, pro-Nicean profession of Trinitarian faith68. He categorized the pro-Arian attitude

as “naive and pretentious” and based on this evaluation, he vocally reprimanded that theological

discussion was not an easy pursuit to be employed indiscriminately without any limits69. He

stressed that the investigative aspect of theology should be restricted to our grasping capacity and

to the limit of the experience70, for according to him it is not only hard to know but also is

impossible to describe God71. Hence, any attempt to squeeze Godhead into the limitation of

human language and speech and boast over infinity through the deductive arguments of rational

theology mutilate the incorporeal into corporeal72. According to him this is the mistake the

“heretics” had committed. So, he cautions them not to make Reason their rider and allow those

who hear the arguments on the generation and creation of God and get hostile to the Christian

message73. He was of the opinion that even the words “incorporeal”, “ingenerate”,

63 Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, 45.

64 Ibid., 49.65 “Gregory of Nazianzus: An Introduction of the Reader” in Ibid., 19.66 Clement of Alexandria argued that the poets, philosophers including Plato and the Scripture alike point to

the ineffability of God. [ Strom. 2.2., 6. 1-3.]67 i.e. the infiniteness of God. 68 Kannengiesser, "The Spiritual Message of the Great Fathers", 70.69 In fact, he was of the opinion that the attitude of the Arian adherents professing to know everything was

simply stupid and arrogant. [Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, 26-27.]

70 Further he clarified that it should not be misinterpreted as the total negation of any attempt to be mindful of God. That is why he affirmed that God should be remembered more than that we should breathe and he did not intent to discourage the continual remembrance of God. [Ibid., 27-28.]

See also his “First Theological Oration IV” in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 7 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999). 285-286.

71 Gregory maintained that conviction on the existence of a thing is different from the knowledge of what it is. In other words he was making it clear that stressing the difficulty in knowing God and inability to articulate God does not mean an atheistic approach of negating the existence of God, on the other hand it proceeds from the absolute conviction of the existence of God. [Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, 39; Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 7, 289.]

72 Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, 41.

He further argues that limiting God locates God spatially and thereby containing God in a part of the universe raising the problematic question of the existence and location of God before creation. If God is located above the creation, then the question of the actual line of demarcation is difficult to figure out. [Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, 44.]

73 He makes it clear that the analysis, dissection and distinctions on God could place the accusers of Christian faith as judges of Christianity. [Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, 28-29.]

11

“unoriginate”, “immutable” or “immortal” though could be understood as the attributes applied

or referred to God, they are not potent enough to reveal and all-embracing revelation of God’s

essential being74. In other words he was pointing to the Missiological function of Theological

articulation.

Explaining the expression “begets”, Gregory stressed on its no causal implication aspect,

thereby indicating that Son also is the product of no causal implication and therefore cannot be

called categorized as a comprehensible creature in respect of earthly generation75. Hence,

according to him Son is also incomprehensible. Further he clarifies that derivation from the

uncaused is no guarantee for inferiority to the uncaused, but shares in the glory of the unoriginate

because the Son derives from the unoriginate76. According to him unity is not disrupted by the

diversity of hypostases77.

74 Ibid., 43.75 In fact he stresses that Son is also incomprehensible. [Ibid., 94; 109-110.]76 Ibid., 99.77He makes it clear that Father and Son together constitute the one God whom Christians should worship.

[Lewis Ayres, “On Not Three People: The Fundamental Themes of Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian Theology as Seen in to Ablabius: On Not Three Gods”, in Sarah Coakley, ed., Re-Thinking Gregory of Nyssa (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004), 19.

12

3.3. Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa gave lucidity to this thought78. He was the most systematic thinker

among the Cappadocian fathers79. His understanding of the incomprehensibility of God rests on

his assertion that God is out of time80. Hence nothing can measure the divine81. He criticized the

Neo-Arian position pointing out that denial of the existence of the Son would mean the denial of

the message of salvation82. Further he questioned the Eunomius’ position of relegating that

which is mentioned second as inferior and dependent and retorted that numerical ranking did not

bring about difference83 in nature for it deals with the quantity and not with the qualitative

relationships84. Further he pointed out that placing Son who was begat at a later time would

mean that Father was not father in the beginning and was not Ungenerate before He begat Son85.

He also clarified that like the Father, the Son is also incomprehensible 86. He maintained that any

endeavor to fit Godhead within the famework of human intellectualism would transfer the

infinite to the finite87. He complained that this is the mistake the pro-Arians had committed.

78 He wrote against Appollinarian Christology and lengthy tomes against Eunomius. He also produced a series of works on Trinitarian theology and a work against believing in fate. His work also include one on the problem of why some infants die prematurely and some biographical works including one on his sister Macrina. He took Basils legacy after his death and confronted Eunomius and Pneumatomachians. [Radde-Gallwitz, "The Cappadocians (C.329-C.524)", 75.]

79 Kannengiesser, "The Spiritual Message of the Great Fathers", 71.80 In contrast he is equivocal in suggesting that human history proceeds to its proper end through the

sequence provided by time. According to Gregory, absence of time means the absence of any measure for God. For him time and space are the conditions of the created world where as timelessness corresponds to the uncreated realm. [Raoul Mortley, "Chapter X. Gregory of Nyssa and Eunomius: Theology Verses Philosophy", http://epublications.bond.edu.au/word_to_silence_II/11 (15 February 2010), 171-172.]

81 “…that we are to be persuaded that the Divine Essence is ineffable and incomprehensible: for it is plain that the title of Father does not present to us the Essence, but only indicates relation to the Son…He showed that the knowledge thereof is beyond our power..” [Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), Vol. 5, 103.]

82 Meredith, Gregory of Nyssa, 34.83 “Against Eunomius 1. 20” in Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene

and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 5, 59.84 Thus the comprehensibility of the Father first and Son second thesis becomes meaningless. God’s

hypostases are three in quantity but the list does not imply a ranking in quality and therefore essence. Therefore the before and after question does not figure in the whole process. [Mortley, "Chapter X. Gregory of Nyssa and Eunomius: Theology Verses Philosophy", 172.]

85 Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 5, 89.

He states in “Against Eunomius II.2” that Trinity is divided without separation and united without confusion. Further he defends the eternity of the Father and Son,

For the term “Father” would have no meaning apart by itself, if “Son” were not connoted by the utterance of the word “Father”. When, then, we learnt the name “Father” we were taught at the same time, by the selfsame title, faith also in the Son. Now since Deity by its very nature is permanently and immutably the same in all that pertains to its essence, nor did it at any time fail to be anything that it now is, nor will it at any time be anything that it now is not, and since He Who is the very Father was named Father by the Word, and since in the Father the Son is implied… [Ibid., 102.]

86 Ibid., 182-183.87 In his Book III “Against Eunomius” points out the inability of language and speech to describe Godhead

through the following words,13

His criticism of pro-Arian absolute single Being, exhibits his attempt to portray Arianism

as a Gnostic attempt to place the doctrine of emanations into Christian faith88. Emphasizing the

unknowability of God, he countered the Eunomian presumption to know the essence89. He made

clearest distinction between the creator and the created stressing the unknowability of God in his

essence and the precedence of faith over knowledge. He offered an ontological and

epistemological foundation of human knowledge of God that set the stage for analogical

description of the Godhead90. He elucidated that the word “Lord” is not expressive of the

essence as upheld by the Eunomians, on the other hand, it concerns the dignity91. In line with

Basil, he articulates the incomprehensible and impossible nature of the investigation into

beings92. He points out that if the essence of God is knowable, then the multifaceted procedure

of forming notions of God is unnecessary and theology becomes an unnecessary exercise if the

meaning of God were obvious93. He views human knowledge as a striving towards divine

darkness94. According to him God’s absolute incomprehensibility is a logical principle for our

created mind and finite nature95. He observed that because of the incomprehensibility it is not

possible to prove the nature of Godhead through arguments96. Further he argues that on account

of God’s infinite nature, finite human beings provided with inexhaustible potential for the

process of theosis. At the same time he was aware of the problems in asserting the radical

For what name can I describe the incomprehensible? by what speech can I declare the unspeakable? Accordingly, since the Deity is too excellent and lofty to be expressed in words, we have learnt to honour in silence what transcends speech and thought: and if he who “thinketh more highly than he ought to think”, tramples upon this cautious speech of ours, making a jest of our ignorance of things incomprehensible, and recognizes a difference of unlikeness in that which is without figure, or limit, or size, or quanity (I mean in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit)… [Ibid., 147.]

88 Ibid., 50.Further he also accuses that negating the oneness in the substance of Father and Son tends to echo

Manichaean heresy. [Ibid., 81.]89 Along with Basil Gregory also defends the role and reliability of human reasoning about God. He

acknowledges that in spite of being limited, human reason is essential for a theologian to appropriate concepts of God by contemplating God’s activities in the Scripture. [Radde-Gallwitz, "The Cappadocians (C.329-C.524)", 75.]

90 Lewis Ayres, “On Not Three People: The Fundamental Themes of Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian Theology as Seen in to Ablabius: On Not Three Gods”, in Coakley, ed., Re-Thinking Gregory of Nyssa, 16.

91 Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series), vol. 5, 91-197.

92 Like Basil, he points out that when it is not even possible to understand by reason the nature of an ant, how could it be possible to comprehend the transcendent God with human intellectualism. This criticism is made in the context of Eunomius’ claim on the possibility of comprehending Godhead in human intellect. [Ibid., 220-221.]

93 He is of the opinion that we can investigate what we do not know of God from the Scripture with in ourselves as image of God and at the create world around us to form the best possible concepts of God, while recognizing their ultimate inability to describe the transcendent God. For him forming concepts, so that, our teaching about God is salutary and consistent is not the ultimate aim is to participate in the newness of life. [Radde-Gallwitz, "The Cappadocians (C.329-C.524)", 75-76.]

94 Ayres, Nicea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 196.95 Kannengiesser, "The Spiritual Message of the Great Fathers." 74; Meredith, Gregory of Nyssa, 12-13.96 Schaff and Wace, eds., A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

(Second Series), vol. 5, 57.14

apophatic attitude97. It is in the wake of this awareness, Gregory refutes the neo-Arians

accusation that they rejected man having been created a rational being by God98.

4. Evaluation

Theology of early Christianity with its Christology was rooted on their understanding of

Jesus as Lord (Kyrios) and Jesus as Word (logos). As Christianity moved out of the shadow of

Judaism and confronted the Greeco-Roman socio-cultural and philosophical systems, it was

forced to articulate its theological concepts. Appropriation of the logos doctrine with the concept

of Jesus as Lord created confusion in the wake of Greek philosophical understandings. Impact of

Greek philosophical thinking imparted tremendous influence on the development of theological

articulation especially with its rationalistic intellectualism. Confluence of Neo-Platonic

affirmation of emanation of everything from One, with the strict monotheistic approach of

Judaism made the articulation of Christian theology in the light of New Testament kergma

problematic. Corollary of this inevitable situation was the emergence of various faith deviations

within the framework of Christian thinking. Arianism and the Neo-Arian Eunomian system

exhibits this confluence of rationalism and Christian faith. Hence, as Rowan Williams has

pointed out categorizing Arianism as a faith deviation is more appropriate99. In other words,

Arianism was a consequence of such a historical context rather than a calculated

misappropriation.

Arianism brought the discussion on the ontological question to the centre of Christian

theological platform. On the one hand, it took the Jewish line of understanding of relegating

Jesus to the level of a creature while on the other hand in line with the Greek philosophy stressed

emanation from the Single Being. It’s primary concern was to safeguard the primacy of God. It

was also oriented to guard against Sebellianism. Result was the drastic subordination of logos

undermining the orthodox Christian concept of Trinitarian faith that emphasizes the co-eternity

and same ousia of Godhead with different hypostases.

97 It is in this connection Gregory made his defense of divine incomprehensibility against Eunomius accusation that “Ye worship ye know not what, if ye know not the essence of that which ye worship”. He clarified that worship is on the knowledge of the loftiness of God’s glory that we cannot comprehend. In other words he was making it clear that even if we do not know the essence, we know that we do not know. Hence, would follow the advice of the prophets and the apostles. [Ibid., 146-147.]

98 Ibid., 270.99 See footnote 14. This is not a blanket justification of the lapses in the Arian theology, but is an expression not to question

the genuine urge behind them to bring meaning to Christian theological articulation.15

Condemnation of the Arian position at Nicea was not potent enough to remove it. It still

persisted and developed through Aetius and his disciple Eunomius. Political help rendered by

Constantius and Valens rendered impetus. Defending the primacy of God, Eunomian system

affirmed the knowability of essence and the possibility to comprehend the knowledge of essence.

Its theological epistemology was oriented to assert this. Its doctrine of divine simplicity and the

subsequent distinction with and the subordination of Son to Father has to be understood in this

background. In other words, the philosophical foundation of subordination dynamics rests on the

theological epistemology centered on the theory of the knowability and comprehensibility of

divine essence.

Pro-Nicene Fathers of the fourth century, especially the Cappadocians recognized this

dynamics. They identified the root problem as intellectual logic of Eunomian epistemology that

tried to contain the uncontainable divine essence into human rationality. It is from this

realization that they turned to apophaticism to reverse the adverse effect of Greek evaluation of

the finite. Their attempt was in line with the Biblical affirmation of the absolute transcendence

of the divine. Their affirmation that God cannot be confined to inferior degrees of

understanding, was oriented to uproot the Neo-Arian claim of knowability and comprehensibility

which became the foundation for Father Son differentiation and subordination. Based on the

incomprehensibility of God, their argument that the title Father presents the relationship rather

than the essence, questioned the Arian epistemological logic. Likewise, their firmness in

explaining number denoting function rather than ranking in quality blocked any room for time-

sequential production in Trinity whereby difference in essence could be established. Thus

comprehensibility of God the Father as first and Son as second was made meaningless and the

logic for distinction and subordination was negated.

Basing on the incomprehensibility of God, they challenged the foundational

understanding of the Neo-Arian theological epistemology that categorized all claims regarding

God as synonyms. It is from this platform they affirmed that not only human intellect but also

human language is incapable of comprehending divine essence. Founding on the

incomprehensibility of God they affirmed the oneness of essence and established the Trinitarian

theology and was able to locate Arianism as a Gnostic attempt to place the doctrine of emanation

into Christian faith. Such a step became bold and crucial move in containing the influence of

Arianism and establishing the Pro-Nicene understanding.

16

At the same time, they did not negate the role of rationality in human beings. Hence they

advocated that rationality should only be employed to that, that could be grasped by intellect,

where as Godhead should be approached primarily as a matter of faith. It is on this foundation,

they insisted that the ultimate knowledge of God is, we do not know anything about the essence

of God. Through defending the role and reliability of human reasoning of God, yet placing it

within the broader umbrella of incomprehensibility of God, the Cappadocians upheld the role of

theologizing, but with the primacy of faith over reason. In other words, they postulated

theological articulation with reason guided by faith100.

5. Conclusion

The Cappadocians not only helped pro-Nicene community to check the growth of

Arianism but also gave strong foundation to Trinitarian faith. Their insistence on the

incomprehensibility of God and the incapability of human language to comprehend the essence

of God helped to liberate the understanding of Godhead from contained to all containing, thereby

giving clarity to the debate Trinity and hence on homoousios.

Bibliography

Ayres, Lewis. Nicea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Beeley, Christopher A. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God : In Your Light We Shall See Light, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Bowersock, G. W., Peter Robert Lamont Brown, and Oleg Grabar. Late Antiquity : A Guide to the Postclassical World, Harvard University Press Reference Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.

Bracken, Joseph A. God : Three Who Are One, Engaging Theology. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2008.

Coakley, Sarah, ed. Re-Thinking Gregory of Nyssa. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.Ferguson, Everett, ed. Doctrines of God and Christ in the Early Church, Studies in Early

Christianity. New York ; London: Garland, 1993.Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two

Letters to Cledonius. Translated by Frederck Williams and Lionell Wickham. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2006.

Hanson, Richard Patrick Crosland. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. London: T & T Clark, 2005.

Hill, William J. The Three Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982. Reprint, 1988.

100 Their approach was neither negation of reason nor absolutization. 17

Kannengiesser, Charles. "The Spiritual Message of the Great Fathers." In Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelth Century, edited by Bernard McGinn, et al., 61-88. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc, 1986.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. 3rd ed. London: Continuum, 2006.Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. New York: St Vladimir's

Seminary Press, 1976.Lyman, J. Rebecca. "Arius and Arians." In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies,

edited by Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter, 237-57. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Meredith, Anthony. Gregory of Nyssa. New York: Routledge, 2002.Newman, John Henry. The Arians of the Fourth Century, Their Doctrine, Temper, and Conduct,

Chiefly as Exhibited in the Councils of the Church, between A.D.325, & A.D.381. London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1833.

Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew. "The Cappadocians (C.329-C.524)." In The Blackwell Companion to the Theologians, edited by Ian S. Markham, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing House, 2009, 69-76.

Raddle-Gallwitz, Andrew. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series). Vol. 3. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999.

———, eds. A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series). Vol. 5. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999.

———, eds. A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series). Vol. 8. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999.

———, eds. A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series). Vol. 7. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999.

Schoedel, William R., and Robert L. Wilken, eds. Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition. Paris: Pour tous reseignements concernant nos publications, 1979.

Wiles, Maurice. Archetypal Heresy: Arianism through the Centuries. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press & Oxford Universtity Press Inc., 1996.

Wiles, Maurice, and Mark Santer, eds. Documents in Early Christian Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Reprint, 2001.

Williams, Rowan. Arius : Heresy and Tradition. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 2001.

Articles

Russell, Paul S. "Saint Gregory's Exegeses against the Arians, Still a Viable Christian Tool." The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 39/2 (1994): 123-30.

Stead, G. Christopher. "The Concept of Divine Substance." Vigillae Christianae 29 (1975): 1-14.

Conference Paper

Letham, Robert. "John Owen's Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context and Its Significance for Today." In Westminister Conference, December 2006.

Online Document

18

Mortley, Raoul. "Chapter X. Gregory of Nyssa and Eunomius: Theology Verses Philosophy" http://epublications.bond.edu.au/word_to_silence_II/11 (15 February 2010)

Rev. Sunni E. MathewMar Thoma Theological Seminary

History of Christianity

19