https://ebookmass.com/product/the-idea-of-nicaea-in-the-
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, AD 431-451 Mark S. Smith
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-idea-of-nicaea-in-the-early-churchcouncils-ad-431-451-mark-s-smith/
ebookmass.com
The Acts of Early Church Councils Acts: Production and Character Thomas Graumann
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-acts-of-early-church-councils-actsproduction-and-character-thomas-graumann/
ebookmass.com
The Idea of the Book and the Creation of Literature Stephen Orgel
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-idea-of-the-book-and-the-creationof-literature-stephen-orgel/
ebookmass.com
Story of Will Rogers 1935 Little Big Book Jerome Beatty
https://ebookmass.com/product/story-of-will-rogers-1935-little-bigbook-jerome-beatty/
ebookmass.com
Total synthesis of bioactive natural products Brahmachari https://ebookmass.com/product/total-synthesis-of-bioactive-naturalproducts-brahmachari/
ebookmass.com
Philosophic Classics: From Plato to Derrida 6th Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/philosophic-classics-from-plato-toderrida-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/
ebookmass.com
A Rebel's Seduction: A BBW & Military Romance (Heartland Heroes: Rebel Autos Book 2) Lana Love
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-rebels-seduction-a-bbw-militaryromance-heartland-heroes-rebel-autos-book-2-lana-love/
ebookmass.com
A highly efficient α-Fe2O3/NiFe(OH)x photoelectrode for photocathodic protection of 304 stainless steel under visible light Liya Fan & Xiao Zhang & Chuanqun Zhang & Jiangshan Li & Chenglin Wu & Yuxiao Chu & Fangqi Ge & Yiyuan Liu & Xianqiang Xiong
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-highly-efficient-%ce%b1-fe2o3-nifeohxphotoelectrode-for-photocathodic-protection-of-304-stainless-steelunder-visible-light-liya-fan-xiao-zhang-chuanqun-zhang-jiangshan-lichenglin-wu-y/ ebookmass.com
Gifts, Glamping, & Glocks (A Camper & Criminals Cozy Mystery Series Book 29) Tonya Kappes
https://ebookmass.com/product/gifts-glamping-glocks-a-campercriminals-cozy-mystery-series-book-29-tonya-kappes/
ebookmass.com
(eBook PDF) Entrepreneurial Finance 7th Edition by J.
Chris Leach
https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-entrepreneurial-finance-7thedition-by-j-chris-leach/
ebookmass.com
OXFORDEARLYCHRISTIANSTUDIES GeneralEditors GillianClarkAndrewLouth
THEOXFORDEARLYCHRISTIANSTUDIESseriesincludesscholarlyvolumeson thethoughtandhistoryoftheearlyChristiancenturies.Coveringawiderangeof Greek,Latin,andOrientalsources,thebooksareofinteresttotheologians,ancient historians,andspecialistsintheclassicalandJewishworlds.
Titlesintheseriesinclude:
LiturgyandByzantinizationinJerusalem DanielGaladza(2017)
TheRomanMartyrs Introduction,Translations,andCommentary MichaelLapidge(2017)
PhiloofAlexandriaandtheConstructionofJewishness inEarlyChristianWritings
JenniferOtto(2018)
StTheodoretheStudite’sDefenceoftheIcons TheologyandPhilosophyinNinth-CenturyByzantium TorsteinTheodorTollefsen(2018)
GregoryofNyssa’sDoctrinalWorks ALiteraryStudy
AndrewRadde-Gallwitz(2018)
TheDonatistChurchinanApocalypticAge JesseA.Hoover(2018)
TheMinorProphetsasChristianScriptureintheCommentaries ofTheodoreofMopsuestiaandCyrilofAlexandria HaunaT.Ondrey(2018)
PreachingChristologyintheRomanNearEast AStudyofJacobofSerugh PhilipMichaelForness(2018)
GodandChristinIrenaeus AnthonyBriggman(2018)
Augustine’sEarlyThoughtontheRedemptiveFunction ofDivineJudgment
BartvanEgmond(2018)
TheIdeaofNicaea intheEarlyChurch Councils, AD 431–451 MARKS.SMITH GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©MarkS.Smith2018
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2018
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018949485
ISBN978–0–19–883527–1
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby ClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
ForPhillippa,Phoebe,andSophie Acknowledgements Thismonographrepresentsarevisedandexpandedversionofmydoctoral thesis,undertakenattheUniversityofCambridgeandsubmittedinthe autumnof2015.Iamgratefultomyexaminers,ProfessorLewisAyresand DrRowanWilliams,fortheirhelpfulcomments,andfortheirencouragement topublishmyresearch.Iamalsodeeplyindebtedtomysupervisor, DrThomasGraumann,forhiswisdom,hiskeeneyefordetail,andhis friendship ithasbeenapleasureandaprivilegetoworkwithhim.Oxford UniversityPresshaveoverseentheprocessofpublicationwithcare,precision, andprofessionalism.
Indetailingtheproceedingsofthemid-fifth-centurycouncils,Ihavegenerallyprovidedthereaderwithtranslationsoftheconciliar acta thatfollowthe elegantandlucidrenderingsofProfessorRichardPrice.Hiseditionofthe Chalcedonian acta hasalreadybeenpublished(LiverpoolUniversityPress, 2005,withM.Gaddis),andIamgratefulforhavingbeenabletoconsulthis forthcomingvolumeontheEphesinematerial(LiverpoolUniversityPress, withT.Graumann).IwishtothankProfessorPriceforhisgenerosity,andfor hismanyinsightfulremarksonmywork.
Anumberofcommunitieshaveprovidedasupportiveandfruitfulenvironmentformystudies.IamgratefultotheMasterandFellowsofPeterhouse, Cambridge,wherethedoctoratewaspursued,andtotheMasterandFellows ofChrist’sCollege,Cambridge,wherethebookwaswritten.Thatthiscouldbe accomplishedalongsideongoingordainedministryowesmuchtotheabiding supportoftheBishopofEly,theRtRevdStephenConway,andtothe kindnessandgoodhumouroftheChapelcongregationsofPeterhouseand Christ’s.Inaddition,aprofounddebtisowedtothemembersofAllSaints’ Church,LittleShelford,andtotheirRector,theRevdSimonScott,whohave beenaconstantsourceofencouragement.
Manyothers,too,haveprovidedincalculablefriendshipandsupportover thecourseofthisproject,andIwouldespeciallyliketothanktheRevdDrLee Gatiss,DrSimonGathercole,DrHannahReinhold,TimandMariaDean,the RevdMarkandKylieThomas,DanielJohnson,theRevdDrStephenHampton,theRevdDrRobertEvans,theRevdLukeTillett,theRevdPeterEdwards, theRevdJudeDavis,theRevdBrianMastin,DrEricTippin,andMichael Dormandy.TheNorwich-ElyDiocesecricketteamensuredthatjoyfuldistractionswereoftenavailable,andshowedremarkableforbearanceintoleratingmypenchantfortheforward-defensivestroke.Deepthanks,asever,are duetomyparents,StephenandElaine,andtomybrother,Andrew.
Acknowledgements Mostofall,Iwishtothankmywife,Phillippa,whohasshownmeunfailing loveeverystepoftheway,andourdaughtersPhoebeandSophie,whohave blessedusbeyondwords.Idedicatethisworktothem.
1.Introduction:NicaeainContext1 2.TheCouncilofNicaeaandItsEarlyReception7
3.TheIdeaofNicaeaintheTwoCouncilsofEphesus(431)35
4.TheIdeaofNicaeaintheAftermathofEphesus88
5.TheIdeaofNicaeaattheConstantinopolitanHomeSynod(448)140
AbbreviationsandOtherConventions PRIMARYSOURCES ACOActaConciliorumOecumenicorum, ed.E.Schwartz(Berlin:deGruyter, 1927–40)
VCollectioVaticana
CSCollectioSegvierana
CACollectioAtheniensis
CVCollectioVeronensis
CCCollectioCasinensis
CPCollectioPalatina
AWAthanasiusWerke
CCSLCorpusChristianorum,SeriesLatina
CJCodexJustinianus
CSCOCorpusScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium
CSELCorpusScriptorumEcclesiasticorumLatinorum
CThTheodosianilibriXVIcumConstitutionibusSirmondianis [Codex Theodosianus]¸ed.T.MommsenandP.M.Meyer(Berlin:Weidmann, 1905)
FATFathersoftheChurchseries (1947–)
GCSDiegriechischenchristlichenSchriftsteller
Gr.1431CodexVaticanusGr.1431:EineantichalkedonischeSammlungausderZeit KaiserZenos,ed.E.Schwartz,Philosophisch-historischeKlasse32.6 (Munich:AbhandlungenderBayerischenAkademiederWissenschaften, 1927)
MansiSanctorumConciliorumNovaetAmplissimaCollectio,ed.J.D.Mansi
PGPatrologiaGraeca,ed.J.-P.Migne
PGL G.W.H.Lampe, APatristicGreekLexicon (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1961)
PLPatrologiaLatina,ed.J.-P.Migne
POPatrologiaOrientalis
RSCCRomanStateandChristianChurch:ACollectionofLegalDocumentsto AD535,ed.P.R.Coleman-Norton,3vols(London:SPCK)
SCSourcesChrétiennes
Urk. Opitz,H.G.(1934–5), AthanasiusWerke,II.1: UrkundenzurGeschichte desArianischenStreites318–328 (Berlin:deGruyter)
xii AbbreviationsandOtherConventions
JOURNALSANDOTHERSECONDARYWORKS AHCAnnuariumHistoriaeConciliorum
ByzByzantion
ByzFByzantinischeForschungen
ByzZByzantinischeZeitschrift
CHChurchHistory
CHRCChurchHistoryandReligiousCulture
CRChristianRemembrancer
CSSSCanadianSocietyofSyriacStudiesJournal
ETLEphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses
GOTRGreekOrthodoxTheologicalReview
HTRHarvardTheologicalReview
JECSJournalofEarlyChristianStudies
JEHJournalofEcclesiasticalHistory
JTSJournalofTheologicalStudies
MSRMélangesdeScienceReligieuse
OCPOrientaliaChristianaPeriodica
REArmRevuedesÉtudesArméniennes
RHERevued’histoireecclésiastique
RSPTRevuedesSciencesPhilosophiquesetThéologiques
RTLRevuethéologiquedeLouvain
SBAWPHSitzungsberichtederBayerischenAkademiederWissenschaften, Philosophisch-historischeKlasse
SCHStudiesinChurchHistory
SCIScriptaClassicaIsraelica
SEAStudiaEphemeridisAugustinianum
SJTScottishJournalofTheology
SPStudiaPatristica
TRETheologischeRealenzyklopädie
VCVigiliaeChristianae
ZKGZeitschriftfürKirchengeschichte
ZNWZeitschriftfürdieneutestamentlicheWissenschaft
Thefollowingreferencingconventionsarefollowedintheworkbelow: The ‘shorttitle’ systemisusedthroughout.The firstreferencetoasecondary workisgivenwithfullbibliographicaldetails,andsubsequentreferences employanabbreviatedform.
Pagenumbersfollowimmediatelyafterthebibliographicalreference.
Linenumbersfollowimmediatelyafterpagenumbers,precededbyacolon. Whendirectquotationsaremadefromapatristicsource,thecriticaledition ofthetext(towhichthepageandlinenumberscorrespond)isindicated (e.g. ‘SC 110’ refersto SourcesChrétiennes,volume110).
Whenquotingfromthe ACO,the collectiones referenceisprovided (e.g.CC.10);or,inthecaseoftheChalcedonianproceedings,thesession detailsaregiven,followingthenumerationoftheGreek acta (e.g.IV.23).
Foreaseofreading,IhaveprovidedtheoriginalGreekandLatinsourcesin translationinthemainbodyofthetext.Thesetranslationshavegenerally followedPriceandGraumann(forthcoming)fortheEphesinematerial,Price andGaddisfortheChalcedonianmaterial,andMcEnerneyforCyril’sletters, withoccasionalamendments.Inallsignificantcases,IhavegiventheGreek orLatintextinafootnote,sothatreaderscancheckthetranslationagainst theoriginal.
Introduction:NicaeainContext Nicaeawasaffordedaplaceofspecialhonouratthechurchcouncilsofthe mid-fifthcentury.AtEphesus(431),atConstantinople(448),atEphesusagain (449),andatChalcedon(451),theassembledbishopsrepeatedlyaffirmedthe uniqueauthorityandsufficiencyoftheNiceneCreed,andpraisedthe ‘fathers’ ofNicaeafortheirunimpeachablefaith.ThisreverenceforNicaeaintheEast shouldperhapscomeasnosurprise for,sincetheremarkablesuccessofthe Athanasianpro-Nicenepolemicofthemid-fourthcentury,ithadbecome widelyacceptedthatanyarticulationoforthodoxy(especiallyifmadeina conciliarcontext)shouldlooktothe ‘greatandholysynod’ of325asits benchmarkandtouchstone.However,theveryubiquityofappealstoNicaea inthisperiodhasactedtoinhibitthecloserstudyoftheirdiscursiverole. Acknowledgementofone’sadherencetoNicaea,ithasoftenbeenassumed, hadbecomesoroutineandstereotypedastobeessentiallymeaningless the banal ‘backgroundnoise’ toadebateaboutorthodoxywhosemainfocushad shiftedelsewhere.¹
Yettheuseof ‘Nicaea’ intheconciliarcontextofthemid-fifthcenturywas neitherirredeemablyvacuous,nordrearilystatic.Thiswasaperiod,asLim hasputit,ofthe ‘self-consciousformationoftradition’,whosepre-eminent taskwas ‘tosummarizeanddefinetheaccomplishmentsofpreviousages’.² Nicaeawas,inthisway,notapasttriumphbutapresentbattleground,nota specimen fixedinamberbutamalleablediscursivetool.RecoursetoNicaea, indeed,becametheprimarymeansbywhichconflictingtheologicalconstruals werejustified,andthroughwhichneworthodoxiesweredisguisedasthat whichhadalwaysbeenbelieved. ‘Nicaea’ couldthusfunctionasahelpful cypher,sinceavowed fidelitytothesimplewordingoftheCreedconveniently shroudedamultitudeofdoctrinaleccentricities;butitcouldalsobeemployed asapowerfulweapon,providingtheammunitionwithwhichanopponent’ s theologywascondemnedashopelesslyheterodox.
¹Cf.P.T.R.Gray(1989), ‘TheSelectFathers:CanonisingthePatristicPast’ , SP 23,21–36. ²R.Lim(1995), PublicDisputation,PowerandSocialOrderinLateAntiquity (Berkeley,CA: UniversityofCaliforniaPress),228.
AppealstoNicaeathusembodiedadiversityofsubtlerhetoricalstrategies, andnevermoresothanduringchurchcouncils,atwhichbishopsgathered explicitlytore-enactandreaffirmtheunchangingorthodoxyofNicaea;andin conciliar acta,wherein,throughcarefultextualarrangementandargumentation,aparticularconstrualofNicaeacouldbeenshrined,andthreatening counter-construalscouldberejected.Yetitwasalsohere,intheconciliar context,thatthedilemmastheideaofNicaeaexposedforthearticulationof orthodoxywereattheirmostpotent.Whatwasthepointofdoctrinalformulation,ifNicaeahadalreadysufficientlyexpoundedthetruth?Whatwasthe pointofanothercouncil,ifthegreatcouncilof325hadalreadyauthoritatively establishedthefaith?Whatwasthepointofthebishopsagaincoming together,ifthefathersofNicaeahadalreadyachievedallthatwasneedful?
ThecentralityoftheideaofNicaeainmid-fifth-centuryconciliardiscourse inallitsdynamicandproteancomplexity wasthusprofoundlyproblematic. Theprimarydiscursiveinstrumentforthearticulationoftrueorthodoxywas alsothemeansbywhichthatorthodoxycouldberesistedoropposed:theidea ofNicaea,inthissense,wasboththegroundofthechurch’sunityandthe sourceofherstrife.Nicaea’scapacityfor flexiblere-expressionopenedup waysforsubsequentcouncilstoassociate(andevenelide)theirownworkwith itssacredauthority,butalsomadepossibletherefutationofsuchconstruals onequallyimpeccable ‘Nicene’ grounds.TheideaofNicaeawas(inquasiHegelianterms)bothproblem and solution,bothdisease and cure,boththe causeofepiscopaldivisionsand ifcreativelyutilized theverymeansby whichthosedivisionscouldbeovercome.TheideaofNicaeawas,inshort,at theveryheartofmid-fifth-centuryconciliardiscourse,anditspeculiarly problematizingeffectonthearticulationoforthodoxyhelpstoexplainthe extraordinaryseriesofecclesialconvulsionsthatmarkedthesedecades.
Thisstudy,then,seekstoanalysethewaysinwhichtheideaof ‘Nicaea’ functionedintheconciliarcontextofthemid-fifthcentury.Despitethe significantopportunitiesthattheunusuallyrichsourcematerialaffords, researchintothiscrucialdynamicremainslamentablyunderdeveloped.Both olderaccountsoftheperiod(suchasthatofKidd)andmorerecenttreatments (suchasthoseofMcGuckinandWessel)havelargelytakenCyril’sselfpresentationasthefaithfulinterpreterofNicaeaatfacevalue,andsohave colludedinateleologicalnarrativeinwhichthetriumphsofEphesusIand Chalcedonrepresenttheinevitablevictoryoftheauthentically ‘Nicene’ party.³ Indeed,onthetopicunderinvestigation,themid-fifthcenturyhasmanagedto fallintosomethingofascholarlygap:Ayreshasgivenhelpfulattentiontothe
³B.J.Kidd(1922), AHistoryoftheChurchtoAD461 (Oxford:ClarendonPress); J.A.McGuckin(1994), St.CyrilofAlexandria:TheChristologicalControversy:ItsHistory, TheologyandTexts (Leiden:Brill);S.Wessel(2004), CyrilofAlexandriaandtheNestorian Controversy:TheMakingofaSaintandaHeretic (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).
useof ‘Nicaea’ asacypherintheAriancontroversies,butconcludeshis accountin381;whilePriceandGrayhavecontributednuancedreadingsof thesubsequentconstrualoforthodoxy,butlargelywithregardtosixthcenturydevelopments.⁴ Graumann’sanalysisoftheconceptofthe ‘church fathers’ infourth-and fifth-centurydebateshasprovidedanin-depthexaminationofcertainrelateddiscursivestrategies,buteventhisworkcloseswith theeventsof431,anddoesnotpursuesomesignificantthemesfurther.⁵
TheonlysubstantialaccountoftheroleofNicaeainthe fifthcenturyremains Sieben’solderstudy,but,astheensuinganalysiswillsuggest,theworkisnot withoutitsproblems.⁶ Sieben’sbookprovidesanumberofepisodicsketches thattracethe Konzilsidee fromthe firsttotheninthcentury,andwithinthis, heoffersaseriesofrefl ectionsondevelopingideasofconciliarauthority, andtheroleofNicaeainthatprocess.YetSieben’ saccountofNicaea ’ s Monopolstellung isundulymonolithicandoverlysimplistic,hemisreads (andsounderplays)thecontributionofEphesusI,andhisevidenceistoo frequentlymadeto fitanunderlyingnarrativewhich fi ndsitsinexorable culminationinVaticanIandII.
Thus,incriticallyengagingwiththeworkofSiebenandothers,this monographwillnotonlyseektoprovideamorethoroughandconvincing assessmentoftheideaof ‘Nicaea’ thanhashithertobeenoffered,butwillalso contendthatitsdiscursivecentralityinshapingecclesialidentityandgoverningconciliarpracticeduringtheseyearshasnotbeenfullyappreciated.
Thewaysinwhich ‘Nicaea’ wasfoughtoverandnegotiatedinthisperiod, then,donotmerelyprovideahelpfuldescriptionofhoworthodoxywas established(or,inthemindsofothers,betrayed),butalsoraisedeeper questionsabouthowthatorthodoxywasunderstood.Forattheheartofthe strugglesover ‘Nicaea’ laytheproblemofhowcontinuitywiththeNicenepast couldbepersuasivelymaintained,whilstthefreshchallengesofnewdoctrinal contextscouldbegenuinelyconfronted.Itwasthedilemma,inotherwords,of how ‘Nicaea’ couldbebothreaffirmedassufficientandyetalsoacknowledged (evenifnotopenly)asinadequate;ofhowtheCreedcouldbothremain inviolateandyetalsobesupplemented;ofhowthe ‘greatandholysynod’ couldbothabideunchallengedandyetalsoadmit(insomesenseatleast)to authoritativesuccessors.
⁴ L.Ayres(2004), NicaeaanditsLegacy:AnApproachtoFourth-CenturyTrinitarianTheology (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress);P.T.R.Gray(1997), ‘CoveringtheNakednessofNoah: ReconstructionandDenialintheAgeofJustinian’ , ByzF 24,193–205;R.M.Price(2009), ‘The SecondCouncilofConstantinople(553)andtheMalleablePast’,inR.M.PriceandM.Whitby (eds), ChalcedoninContext:ChurchCouncils400–700 (Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress), 117–32.
⁵ T.Graumann(2002), DieKirchederVäter:VätertheologieundVäterbeweisindenKirchen desOstensbiszumKonzilvonEphesus(431) (Tübingen:MohrSiebeck).
⁶ H.J.Sieben(1979), DieKonzilsideederAltenKirche (Paderborn:Schoningh).
Adetailedanalysisoftheideaof ‘Nicaea’ alsoallowslighttobeshedon widerthemesofecclesialreceptionanddoctrinaldevelopment.Ofcourse,any suchnotionof ‘doctrinaldevelopment’ wouldhavebeenentirelyrejectedby thebishopswhoassembledatthemid-fifthcenturycouncils.Therecanbea tendencytoconceiveofthesemenasratherlikemodern-dayParliamentarians,albeitinlateantiquedress:theretoweightheevidenceoffreshideas, cometoaconclusion,voteaccordingly,andthenadoptwhatevernewdogma themajorityhaddetermined.Yetnothingcouldbefurtherfromthetruth. Rather,sincethefaithoncedeliveredtothesaintswasunderstoodascomplete, perfectandunchanging⁷,thetaskbeforethebishopswassimplytorepudiate doctrinalinnovations(which,beingnew,werethereforewrong),andso confirmthetruefaith.Decisionsweremadenotthroughthecut-and-thrust ofdebatebutonthebasisofanappealtotheologicalauthorities(Scripture,the NiceneCreed,andtheteachingofthe ‘fathers’).⁸ Thebishopsdidnotsee themselvesas ‘votingaboutGod’⁹,butinsteadasaffirmingtheirallegiancetoa consensusthathadalreadybeenestablished,and,throughtheirunanimity, bearingwitnesstotheunifyingpresenceoftheHolySpiritintheirmidst.
Nonetheless,thoughlargelyforeigntotheassumptionsof fifth-century bishops,theologianshavefoundsomemodel,howevervague,ofdoctrinal ‘development’ duringthisperiodhardtoavoid.¹⁰ Themostpenetrating attempttograpplewiththisquestionremainsNewman’ s EssayontheDevelopmentofDoctrine.¹¹ForNewman,thepassingoftimewasnotathreattothe articulationoforthodoxtruth,butthenecessarymeansforthefullnessofthat truthto flower.Doctrinaldevelopment,then,occurredratherlikethegrowth ofanidea,whereinvariousaspectsofthetruth,presentfromthebeginning in nuce,graduallyuncoiledinandthroughtheparticularitiesofhistory.¹²Inthis way,NewmanwasabletoaffirmaprofoundcontinuityintheChurch’ s teachingthroughthecenturies,whilstalsogivingdueweighttosignificant changesinthedetailsofherdoctrine.
However,inseekingtoavoidascribingtothepatristicpastamere ‘theology ofrepetition’,Newman’spreferenceforamodelofhomogenousevolution raisedsignificantproblems.¹³AsMozleyastutelyobserved,Newman’saccount
⁷ Foraclassicexpression,seeEusebius, H.E. IV.7.13.
⁸ Thepointisnicelymadeby:R.M.Price(2017), ‘ConciliarTheology,Resourcesand Limitations’,inA.HeilandA.vonStockhausen(eds), DieSynodenimtrinitarischenStreit (Berlin:deGruyter),1–19.
⁹ Cf.theunfortunatelytitledR.MacMullen(2006), VotingaboutGodintheEarlyChurch Councils (NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress).
¹
⁰ See,forinstance,theincisiveremarksofM.Edwards(2015), ReligionsoftheConstantinian Empire (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),292–4.
¹¹J.H.Newman(1878), AnEssayontheDevelopmentofChristianDoctrine (rev.edn, London:Pickering).
¹²Cf.Newman, Development,I.1.4.
¹³Ontranscendinga ‘theologyofrepetition’,seeWilliams’shelpfulremarks:R.Williams (2001), Arius:HeresyandTradition (London:SCMPress),235–6;andalsoAyres, Nicaea,425–9.
ultimatelysuccumbedtoaformofthenaturalisticfallacy,whereinsuch developmentsasactuallyoccurredwerebydefinitionnecessary,and,because necessary,true:therecouldbenopositiverole,forinstance,fordoctrinal pruningordoctrinaldemolition.¹⁴ Newman’sorganicprogressivism,inother words,wasaproductofitsage relyingasitdiduponasereneconfidence thatthehistoryofdoctrinewasessentiallyanarrativeofcontinualgrowth andimprovement.AsLashhasputit, ‘theoriesofhomogeneousevolution paradoxicallybearwitnesstotheveryphenomenontheywereelaboratedto deny,namely,theculturallyandhistoricallyconditionednatureofsuccessive contextsofChristianthoughtandexpression’.¹⁵
Itisperhapsnosurprise,then,thatthisstudywillcontendthattheshiftsin theideaofNicaeainthemid-fifthcenturydonotstraightforwardlybearout Newman’smodel.Rather,itwillbesuggested,themostfruitfulwayof understandingthewidersignificanceofthesechangesisfoundinRush’ s conceptof ‘rejuvenatingreception’.¹⁶ BuildingonHansRobertJauss’sliterary hermeneutics¹⁷ andCongar’sworkonthetheologyofreception¹⁸,Rush emphasizednotlineardevelopmentinecclesialdogmabutepisodicreformulation,inwhichthepastisconstantlybeingre-receivedafreshinthepresent, sothatauthenticcontinuityisexpressedprecisely through adaptationand modification.¹⁹ Suchanapproachtakesseriouslytheirreducibleparticularity ofanygivenhistoricalmoment thatan ‘artefact’ suchastheNiceneCreed, itselftheproductofspecificcircumstancesandmotivations,cannotsimplybe reaffirmedinanewtimeandcontextwithoutremainder.Rather,inJauss’ s terms,itisan ‘openwork’ , ‘finishedinitsunfinishedness’,whichmustbe encounteredandreceivedanew.²⁰ Inthisway,each ‘reception’ ofNicaeainthe periodunderinvestigationretainedanintrinsicprovisionalityandincompleteness,andwasmorelikelytodemonstrateitsauthenticitybyprovoking furtherfruitfulquestionsthanbyseekingtoclosedowndiscussiononce andforall.
¹
⁴ J.B.Mozley(1847), ‘NewmanonDevelopment’ , CR 13,117–265,esp.121,139;cf.N.Lash (1975), NewmanonDevelopment:TheSearchforanExplanationinHistory (London:Sheed& Ward),116–21;N.Lash(1973), ChangeinFocus:AStudyofDoctrinalChangeandContinuity (London:Sheed&Ward),143ff.;M.Wiles(1974), TheRemakingofChristianDoctrine (London: SCMPress),5–19.
¹
¹
⁵ Lash, ChangeinFocus,122–3.
⁶ O.Rush(1997), TheReceptionofDoctrine:AnAppropriationofHansRobertJauss’ ReceptionAestheticsandLiteraryHermeneutics (Rome:PontificalGregorianUniversityPress).
¹⁷ H.R.Jauss(1982), TowardanAestheticofReception,tr.T.Bahti(Brighton:Harvester).
¹
⁸ EspeciallyY.Congar(1972), ‘La “réception” commeréalitéecclésiologique’ , RSPT 56, 369–403.
¹
⁹ Rush, Reception,187ff.
²⁰ O.Rush(1993), ‘ReceptionHermeneuticsandthe “Development” ofDoctrine:AnAlternativeModel’ , Pacifica 6,130;cf.B.Quash(2013), FoundTheology:History,Imaginationandthe HolySpirit (London:Bloomsbury),123–64.
Thus,itwillbearguedthattheproblemofNicaea’sdiscursivecentrality, yetpracticalinadequacy,wasinpartsolvedthroughthefashioningoftools foritscreativere-reception.Inthisway,thecapacityof ‘Nicaea’ for flexible re-expressioncouldbeharnessedasameansforsecuring,ratherthanundermining,itsfaithfulconfirmation:ledurnedurepas,seuldureledoux.²¹ Paradoxically,then,themosttheologicallycreativeconstrualsofNicaeawere oftenalsothosethatwerethemostinsistentontheirunswervingloyaltytothe fathersof325:inveterateconservatismwasnotsomuchthebarriertoinnovationbutratherthecloakunderwhichsuchinnovationwassecured.
Theensuingchapterswillanalysethechangingwaysinwhichtheideaof Nicaeawasarticulatedintheconciliarcontextofthemid-fifthcentury.
AfteroutliningtheproblemswiththeinheritedAthanasianconstrualof ‘Nicaea’ asuniquelyauthoritativeandsolelysufficient,itwillbearguedthat theconciliar fi ascoof431wasprimarilyattributabletothefailureconvincinglytoresolvetheprofoundcon flictbetweenrivalideasof ‘ Nicaea’ thatthe Nestoriancontroversyhadfatefully exposed.Atthesametime,however, theuniqueopportunitiesaffordedbytheconciliarcontextofEphesus(not leasttheproductionofwritten acta )alsostimulatednewhermeneutical methodsfor ‘ reading’ Nicaea,andsoforelidingpresentconciliaractivity withNicaea ’ spastconciliarauthority.Itwillfurtherbecontendedthatthe dramaticconciliarconvulsionsof448– 51areprimarilyexplicableinthelight ofthedivergenttrajectoriesofreceptionofEphesusI,andthecontrasting construalsof ‘ Nicaea’ thatthosedifferentreceptionsembodied.
TheroleofNicaeainthecouncilsof448,449,and451willthenbeassessed inturn.Theincreasinglyshrewdappealto ‘Nicaea’ asameanstoresistthe impositionofnewNicene ‘orthodoxies’ developedalongsidethegradual refinementofstrategiestodistinguishbetweentrueandfalse fidelitytoNicaea. Notably,thoselatterstrategiessoughttodefendthespecialauthorityofNicaea preciselybyrequiringsubscriptiontoadditionaltextualandconciliarauthoritiesdeemednecessaryto ‘receive’ Nicaearightly.Theunstableaftermathof Chalcedonservesasa fittingendpointtothestudy,sinceitrevealsthatwhile thecouncilof451hadachievedsomesuccessinsubjectingtheideaofNicaea toaconvincing ‘rejuvenatingreception’,itcouldultimatelyofferonlythe illusionof finality.
Thethesisofthisstudy,inshort,isthattheideaof ‘Nicaea’ functioned astheunstableheartofmid-fifth-centuryconciliardiscourse,andthatits capacityforcreativere-expressionexplainsnotonlytheintractabilityof thedisputeoveritsauthenticinterpretationduringtheseyears,butalsothe significantnewpathsinthearticulationofcredalandconciliarauthoritythat ituniquelystimulated.
²¹M.Serres(2008), Laguerremondiale (Paris:LePommier),115.
2 TheCouncilofNicaeaand ItsEarlyReception TheNestoriancontroversydramaticallyexposedaseriesofunderlyingtensions intheinheritedassumptionsconcerningthemeaningof ‘Nicaea’ andinthe rhetoricalstrategiescommonlyemployedtoexpressNiceneorthodoxy,andso ensuredthattheideaofNicaeawouldbecomethecentralbattlegroundof Ephesus431.Inthischapter,then,theearlierreceptionofNicaeaisanalysed, sothatthesubsequentconflictcanbesetinitspropercontext.
THECOUNCILOFNICAEA(325) Theunprecedentedscaleofthe firstgreat ‘oecumenicalcouncil’¹wastestament, firstandforemost,toConstantine’sdesireforapowerfulpieceof imperialpropaganda.Herewasagloriouspictureoftheemperorcelebrating hisVicennaliaamidstthetriumphofa ‘secondvictory’²,bywhichhehad broughtpeacetotheChurch,justashehadbroughtpeacetotheEmpire. Eusebius’ VitaConstantini,forallitsinflated,self-servingpanegyric,helpfully
¹IprovidehereonlyabriefsketchofthecircumstancesoftheCouncil,insofarastheyare relevanttothewiderthemesofthisstudy.Fulleraccountscanbefoundin:C.Luibheid(1982), TheCouncilofNicaea (Galway:GalwayUniversityPress);Ayres, Nicaea,85–101;T.D.Barnes (1981), ConstantineandEusebius (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress),208–23; M.Edwards(2006), ‘TheFirstCouncilofNicaea’,in:M.M.Mitchell,F.M.Young,and K.S.Bowie(eds), TheCambridgeHistoryofChristianity,I: OriginstoConstantine (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress),552–67;R.P.C.Hanson(1988), TheSearchfortheChristian DoctrineofGod:TheArianControversy318–381 (Edinburgh:T&TClark),152–80;J.N.D.Kelly (1972), EarlyChristianCreeds (3rdedn,London:Longman),205–62;J.N.D.Kelly(1958), Early ChristianDoctrines (London:A&CBlack),223–51;Williams, Arius,67–81. ²Eus., V.C. III.14(Winkelmann,88.17).Nicaeaitselfmeant ‘Victory’ (Eus., V.C. III.6.1). Constantine,likehispaganimperialforebears,associatedearthlyharmonywithdivineblessing (cf.Eus., V.C. II.71),buthisactionswerenowgivenaChristiangloss:EusebiusdescribesNicaea’ s harmonyasprovidinga ‘representationofthekingdomofChrist’:Eus., V.C. III.15.2(Winkelmann,89.9).
TheIdeaofNicaea revealshowConstantine’sdesireforgrandeurmusthaveprofoundlyshaped thecontemporary ‘ideaofacouncil’:menstillbearingthewoundsofimperial persecution³nowtravelledonthe cursuspublicus, ⁴ hasteningas ‘sprinters fromthestarting-line’ toseea ‘strangemarvel’ ; ⁵ theysatinhushedsilenceto beholdConstantine, ‘decoratedwiththedazzlingbrillianceofgoldandpreciousstones’,openingtheCouncil ‘likesomeheavenlyangelofGod’⁶;they foundthemselveslavishedwithdailymeals⁷ andgenerousgifts,⁸ feastingwith theemperorontheplushcouchesoftheimperialpalace.⁹
Constantine’sinvolvementensuredthatNicaeasetanewstandardfor thesizeandgeographicalrepresentativenessofchurchcouncils:although Westerninvolvementwasmeagre,therewerestillperhapssome220bishops inattendance,fromawiderangeofprovinces.¹⁰ Indeed,althoughtheterm ‘oecumenical’ originallylackedanygrandtheologicalovertones,¹¹thefactthat Constantine,Eustathius,Eusebius,andAthanasiusallcometoexaggerate thenumberofbishopspresentmayreflectacontemporaryawarenessofthe uniquecharacteroftheCouncil.¹²
However,whilstConstantine’sroleatNicaeahelpedtoshapetheperceived criteriaforauthoritativeconciliaractivity(size,representativeness,andimperialpresence),italsodemonstratedthedegreetowhichconciliardecisions couldbewarpedbyimperialconcerns.Constantine’sconcernforunity,and hisperennialpredilectionfor ‘teamplayers’,¹³ensuredthatwhenhediscoveredOssius’ andEustathius’ attemptto ‘pre-judgetheissue’ attheCouncil ofAntioch,¹⁴ hemovedthe ‘greatandpriestlysynod’¹⁵ awayfromMarcellus andtowardsEusebiusofNicomediaandTheognisofNicaea.¹⁶ AttheCouncil
³Theod., H.E. I.10. ⁴ Eus., V.C. III.6.
⁵ Eus., V.C. III.6.2(Winkelmann,84.1–2).
⁶ Eus., V.C. III.10.3(Winkelmann,86.9–12). ⁷ Eus., V.C. III.9(cf.Theod., H.E. I.10).
⁸ Eus., V.C. III.16. ⁹ Eus., V.C. III.15.
¹⁰ Parvisderives218namesfromconflatingthevarioussignaturelists:S.Parvis(2006), MarcellusofAncyraandtheLostYearsoftheArianControversy,325–345 (Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress),255–6;cf.E.Honigmann(1939), ‘LaListeoriginaledespèresdeNicée’ , Byz 14, 17–76.
¹¹H.Chadwick(1972), ‘TheOriginoftheTitle “OecumenicalCouncil”’ , JTS n.s.23,132–5. ThetermisappliedtoNicaeabyvariouspartiesbythelate330s,forinstanceEus., V.C. III.6.1 (Winkelmann,83.18);Ath., Apol.Sec. 7.2(Opitz,93.20).
¹²Constantinereports ‘morethan300bishops’ (Opitz, Urk. 25.5,53.7),Eusebiussaystheir numberexceeded250(Eus., V.C. III.8;Winkelmann,85.13),Eustathiusestimatesabout270 (Theod., H.E. I.8.1;Parmentier,34.1),andAthanasius(beforelatersettlingonthespecial figure of318)suggestsaround300(Ath., Decr. 3.1;Opitz,3.2–3).
¹³H.A.Drake(2000), ConstantineandtheBishops:ThePoliticsofIntolerance (Baltimore, MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress),250,cf.Eus., V.C. I.44.3.
¹⁴ H.Chadwick(1958), ‘OssiusofCordovaandthePresidencyoftheCouncilofAntioch, 325’ , JTS n.s.9.2,303.
¹
⁵ Opitz, Urk. 18.15,40.17(fromSchwartz’sGreek).
¹⁶ Opitz, Urk. 20;ConstantinelaterclaimedthatEusebiusofNicomediahadasignificant influenceovereventsatNicaea:Opitz, Urk. 27.14.
itself,ConstantineactedswiftlytoreverseEusebiusofCaesarea’sprovisional deposition being,itwouldappear,the firsttodeclaretheorthodoxyof Eusebius’ theologicalstatement.¹⁷ Similarly,althoughConstantinedutifully enforcedtheCouncil’sdecisions,includingthedepositionandexileofSecundusandTheonas,¹⁸ hesubsequentlyinterpretedthosedecisionsaccordingto hisown(rathergenerous)construalofNicaea’sboundaries,allowingback bothEusebiusofNicomediaandAriushimself,oncetheyhadmadeaminimal assenttotheCouncil’sterms.¹⁹ Constantine’sinvolvementensured,inshort, thattheprecisenatureofNicaea’stheologicalachievementwouldbecontested fromthestart.
TheactualproceedingsoftheCouncilofNicaeaareextremelydifficultto reconstructreliably.Nostenographicrecordappearstohavebeenkept(itself anindicationthatnormsofconciliarprocedureremainedunderdeveloped²⁰), andsowearereliantonpatchyevidencedeeplycolouredbypersonalconcerns.Eusebius’ needtovindicatehisownpositionleadshimtodepictNicaea asagrandaffairdominatedbyanemperorfavourablydisposedtowardshim;²¹ Athanasius’ desiretojustifythenon-scripturalterm homoousios meanshe construesproceedingsasakindofexegeticalworkshop;²²Eustathius’ concern toexplainhowthedeceitful ‘Ariomaniacs’ couldsubscribetotheCreedresults inanarrativeofintrigue;²³andthe fifth-centuryhistoriansSocratesand Sozomenseemintentondisguisingthelackofdocumentaryevidencebythe additionofanecdotesandtrivialities.²⁴
Itcertainlyappearsthattherewasalackofintegrationbetweenthecarefully choreographedopeningceremony(inwhichConstantinehademphasizedthe importanceofa ‘commonharmonyofsentiment’ amongthebishops²⁵),and theactualbusinessoftheologicaldebate.EusebiusofNicomediahadsignalled hishighstandingbygivingthespeechformallybeginningthecouncil,²⁶ yet whenhecametodeliverhisowntheologicalstatementitwasmetnotwith acclamationbutwith ‘greatgrief ’,and ‘tornupinthesightofall’.²⁷ Constantine,
¹⁷ Eus., Ep.Caes. 7(Opitz, Urk.22,44.1).
¹⁸ FollowingapatternofimperialenforcementstretchingbacktoAurelian(Eus., H.E. VII.30.19);forthefearofbanishmentasencouragingepiscopalassentatNicaea,cf.Philost., H.E. I.10.
¹⁹ Arius’ subsequentappealtoConstantinecleverlyemphasizedhisdesireforecclesialpeace (Opitz, Urk.30.5).
²⁰ Athanasiuslaterseemslargelyreliantonmemory(Ath., Decr. 19–20).
²¹Cf.Eus., Ep.Caes.passim; V.C. III.10–12.²²Ath., Decr. 19–20; Ep.Afr. 5. ²³Theod., H.E. I.8.1–5.
²⁴ As,forinstance,theencounterbetweenConstantineandtheNovatianAcesius(Soc., H.E. I.10).
²⁵ Eus., V.C. III.12.²⁶ Eus., V.C. III.13.
²⁷ EustathiusinTheod., H.E. I.8.2(Parmentier,34.6);cf.Ambrose, DeFid. III.15.Itisnot likelythatEustathiusherereferstoEusebiusofCaesarea,since his initialsubmissionwaswell received.PerhapsOssius,whoprobablypresidedatNicaea(heheadsmostoftheCreedsignature lists,andcf.Ath., Fug. 5),wasgettingrevengeforConstantine’sattempttounderminetheplans hehadforgedattheCouncilofAntioch.
10 TheIdeaofNicaea inanefforttopreventfurtherepiscopalrecrimination(‘numberlessassertions’ nowbeingputforthbetweenthebishops),publicallyburntthemassofpersonal petitionsnamingpettydisputesbetweenbishops,andEusebiusrelateshowhis interventionseemstohaveencouragedadegreeofreconciliation.²⁸ Itisperhaps thisverytacticaboutwhichthe fieryEustathiuscomplainswhenherecallshow ‘underthepretenceofpreservingpeace,[they]imposedsilenceonalltheablest speakers’.²⁹
ThebackgroundtothecompositionoftheNiceneCreedisthemost difficultaspectofalltoelucidate.EusebiusofCaesareafamouslywishedto claimthatthecouncil’sCreedwassimplyareworkedversionofhisown but LietzmannandKellyhavedemonstratedthatthisclaimistextuallyuntenable, andmorelikelyreflectsEusebius’ owndesperateconcerntoprovehisorthodoxy.³⁰ EusebiusseemsequallyuntrustworthyinhisclaimthatConstantine himselfwasthedrivingforcebehindtheinclusionofthecrucialword homoousios intheCreed acompellingcasehasrecentlybeenmadeforseeingthe handofAlexanderofAlexandria(perhapsindiscussionwithOssiusofCordoba) inpushingthisterminologytothefore.³¹Thecredaltextitselfrunsasfollows:
²⁸ Eus., V.C.,III.13;Theod., H.E. I.10;cf.Ruf., H.E. X.2.
²⁹ EustathiusinTheod., H.E. I.7(Parmentier,34.9–11) amongthe ‘ablestspeakers’ Eustathiuslikelyincludeshimself.Constantinemayhavesoughtmoregenerallytosideline ‘extremists’ duringthecouncil.
³⁰ SeeespeciallyKelly, Creeds,234–55.
³¹M.Edwards(2012), ‘AlexanderofAlexandriaandthe Homoousion’ , VigiliaeChristianae 66,482–502;cf.Phil., H.E. I.7.
³²Forafulllistofearlytextualwitnesses,seeW.Kinzig(ed.)(2017), FaithinFormulae: ACollectionofEarlyChristianCreedsandCreed-RelatedTexts,4vols(Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press),I,290ff.;cf.G.Dossetti(1967), IlSimbolodiNicaeediConstantinopoli (Rome:Herder), 226–40.Thebracketed ‘orcreated’ intheanathemasislikelyanearly(pro-Nicene)textualaddition: M.Wiles(1993), ‘ATextualVariantintheCreedoftheCouncilofNicaea’ , SP 26,428–33.
WebelieveinoneGod,theFatherAlmighty, makerofallthingsbothvisibleandinvisible; andinoneLordJesusChrist,theSonofGod, begottenfromtheFather,only-begotten,thatis,fromthesubstanceoftheFather; GodfromGod,LightfromLight,trueGodfromtrueGod, begotten,notmade,consubstantialwiththeFather; throughwhomallthingscameintobeing,boththingsinheavenandthingsonearth; whoforushumansandforoursalvationdescended,becameincarnate,wasmadehuman, suffered,onthethirddayroseagain,ascendedintotheheavens,willcometojudgethe livingandthedead; andintheHolySpirit.
Thosewhosay, ‘Therewaswhenhewasnot’,and ‘Hewasnotbeforehewasbegotten’ , andthathecametobefromnothing,orthosewhoclaimthattheSonofGodisfrom anotherhypostasisorsubstance,[orcreated],oralterable,ormutable; thesethecatholicandapostolicChurchanathematizes.
Asonewouldexpect,theCreed’stheologicalfocusisonthekeyareaofdispute intheAriancontroversy theeternalrelationbetweentheFatherandtheSon.It isthusinthe firsthalfofthesecondarticle,andintheanathemas,thatwe finda particulardensityoftechnicalvocabulary.Bycontrast,thematerialonGodthe Father,ontheSon’sincarnation,andontheHolySpiritiscomparativelyunremarkable,consistingoftraditionalaffirmations,expressedinaself-consciously scripturalidiom.³³Thissimplefactwouldcometohaveprofoundconsequences forNicaea’slaterreception,assubsequentgenerationsofbishopsreturnedtothe textinsearchofanswerstotheirChristologicalandpneumatologicalquestions.
Moreover,the finaltextoftheCreedlikelybearswitnesstoatusslebetween those,likeAlexanderandMarcellus,whowantedtoseeamuchgreaterswathe of ‘Arian’ theologicalopinioncondemned,andConstantine,whosoughta unityfoundedupon ‘oneunanimousopinionsharedbyall’.³⁴ Thecontentious ousia terminology(ἐκτ
)was includedpreciselybecauseAriushadvociferouslyrejecteditsusewithregard tothedivinenature,ashavinginappropriatelymaterialistconnotations.³⁵ Itwasnodoubthopedthatthewhiffofsuchvocabularywouldmakethe CreedentirelyunpalatabletoasignificantproportionofArius’ supporters. However,thisstrategywasthensubvertedbyConstantinehimself,whoatthe Councilexplicitlyauthorizedabreadthofinterpretationwithregardtothe
³³Cf.theanalysisof:C.A.Beeley(2012), TheUnityofChrist:ContinuityandConflictin PatristicTradition (NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress),119f.Thecomparativebrevityofthe Creed(incontrast,forinstance,totheformulaoftheCouncilofAntiochfromafewmonths before),andthesimplicityofmanyofitsclauses,wasperhapsdesignedtohelpsweetenthepill forthosebishops findingthe ousia languagedifficulttoswallow. ³⁴ Eus., V.C.III.12.1(Winkelmann,87.7–8).
³⁵ Arius’ objectionsarequotedin:Ath., Syn. 16.3;EusebiusofNicomediahadalsoobjectedto homoousios (Ambrose, DeFid. III.15).
