A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church
.
.
This chapter can best be summed up by noting that the theological division was largely due to linguistic differences between the East and the West. Athanasius and Marcellus had both been removed from their respective sees in 339 and both fled to Rome seeking support from Pope Julius. Athanasius had no difficulty ‘but Marcellus, who had been condemned for his theology, had to demonstrate his orthodoxy by a written confession…’ [p. 71].
Dünzl says that Marcellus was able to win over his Roman audience by branding his opponents Arians, arguing that they believed that the Father existed before the Son and that there was a time when the Son did not exist. It is at this point that Dünzl notes the linguistic difficulties. He says:
There had in fact been a Monarchian tendency to emphasize the unity of God in Roman theology for more than a century. But secondly, the linguistic problem came into play here: the Latin equivalent of the Greek term hypostasis was substantia. The two words correspond to some degree etymologically (hypo-stasis — sub-stantia), so intrinsically the translation is not wrong. But the content changes with the translation into Latin: if Eastern theology spoke of two hypostases, in Latin that amounted to a difference in substance between Father and Son. [p. 72]
Marcellus and Athanasius were eventually reinstated in 341 by a Synod in Rome that took place without Eastern participation. A brief discussion on the various Antiochene formulae ensues with the conclusion that the ’so-called fourth Antiochene formula . . . was thought of as the basis for the theological union of East and West . . . was conceived of as a compromise . . . [was] an implicit attack on Marcellus of Ancyra [due to statements of an infinite kingdom], but in order to provide a balance at the end the text condemns Arianism. . . However, their proposal proved totally ineffective.’ [p. 77]
Dünzl concludes the chapter by saying:
The situation seemed confused: East and West were not only divided in church politics but also split theologically and incapable of union on their own. For this reason the bishops around Julius of Rome and Athanasius sought political support from Emperor Constans, the ruler of the Western half of the empire, in order to get things moving again. [p. 77-78]
This for me personally was one of the most educational chapters of the book — I enjoyed it thoroughly.
B”H
