Hilary and the Homoiousians: using new categories to map the Trinitarian controversy.

Weedman, Mark

Hilary of Poitiers and Basil of Ancyra were unlikely companions. The former was a Latin bishop from a backwater part of Gaul who had only recently become immersed in the Trinitarian controversy. The latter was a leading figure in the East, schooled in classical Greek theology and a veteran in the ongoing struggle over the nature of God. It is also true that their political fortunes diverged significantly. Though both Hilary and Basil's parties "lost" at the Synod of Constantinople in 360, Basil thereafter slipped into obscurity while Hilary's pro-Nicenes would eventually secure political and theological victory in 381. This pairing is so unlikely, in fact, that scholars have long been reluctant to acknowledge the depth of Hilary's relationship with Basil. (2) Among other issues, such a relationship creates a number of historiographical problems by challenging the traditional mapping of the various theological and political alignments of the mid-fourth century. In the traditional version, Hilary is commonly portrayed as the "Athanasius of the West," who, in the late 350s, emerged as the leading supporter of the pro-Nicenes in the West. (3) Basil, on the other hand, is regarded as a "semi-Arian," who rejected the Nicene doctrine that the Son was homoousios to the Father, preferring instead to call the Son "like according to substance" (homoios kat' ousian). (4)

Unfortunately, this account does not do justice to the complex political and theological realities that obtained in the mid-fourth century, and a reexamination of Hilary and Basil's relationship helps to shed some light on how this is so. Indeed, the relationship between Basil and Hilary cautions us against drawing too sharp a distinction between theology and politics when evaluating this period. Each dynamic influenced and informed the other: though Hilary was committed to homoousios and Basil opposed to it, the two found in each other a valuable ally in their political struggle against the Homoians. At the same time, Hilary and Basil shared a theological sensibility. What united them, however, were not the traditional categories-such as homoousios--that scholars have used to describe the course of the Trinitarian controversy. In order to accurately assess the relationship between these two figures, therefore, one must use a different set of categories that more closely correspond to the theological and political dynamics of the late 350s. In this essay, then, I will suggest that by examining the relationship between Hilary and Basil in light of their common defense of the natural quality of the names "Father" and "Son," we can not only better assess the depth of their relationship, but also shed light on the complex historical circumstances that prevailed during this era.

The main reason for looking to Basil as a source of Hilary's thought comes from Hilary's own pen. In his De Synodis, which he wrote in late 358 or early 359, Hilary not only displays a great deal of familiarity with Basil's theology, but he spends the entire second half of the work trying to convince Basil that the Nicene homoousios could easily be interpreted as "like according to substance" (Basil's key phrase), and that the western Nicene theology is essentially congruous with Basil's thought. (5) This alone might suggest the possibility of at least exploring lines of influence between Basil and Hilary, but scholars have posed two challenges to identifying Basil as a source for or influence on Hilary. First, there is a widespread scholarly opinion that Hilary's thought did not develop. If the fundamental shape of his thought was already in place prior to his exile, then meeting Basil simply could not have influenced him, no matter how well they got along personally. This is Pierre Smulders' main argument against Basil's influence on Hilary, and while other scholars have challenged the particulars of Smulders' account of Hilary's theology, they have not challenged the assumption that he did not develop. (6) Second, there is an equally widespread assumption that the various parties in the 350s can be divided into two groups: Nicenes and anti-Nicenes. (7) To belong to one party, according to this mindset, necessarily indicates opposition to anyone not in that party. This is what lies behind the assumption I have already noted, that Hilary, the great defender of the Nicene Creed, could not have been associated with Basil of Ancyra because Basil, if not overtly hostile to Nicea, was nevertheless opposed to the use of homoousios.

The first of these assumptions, however, does not hold up under the evidence, but my purpose here is to examine the second. To do so, I will begin by situating Basil within the matrix of political and theological activity during the decade of the 350s. This section will have two goals. The first is to identify who were Basil's specific opponents. This is work that has been done before, but it needs refining. By doing so we can then ascertain what polemical categories emerge as being operative during this period. The second part, then, will apply these categories to Hilary's De Synodis to look both for signs of Hilary's participation in this conflict--and for signs of Basil's influence.

I. BASIL OF ANCYRA AND THE SHIFTING ALLIANCES IN THE EAST 357-60

Basil's Trinitarian thought found its most lasting expression in the period of controversy leading up to the dual councils of Ariminum and Seleucia in 359. The years leading up to these councils, beginning with the publication of the Creed of Sirmium in 357, were a long power struggle between Basil and his supporters and his opponents. From one perspective, identifying these opponents is straightforward enough: Basil's opponents were the group that came to be known as the Homoians. We can say this because they are the ones who secured the decisive political victory over Basil and his followers after the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia in 359. The most noteworthy fallout from that victory was the deposing and exile of Basil and all of his leading followers. However, identifying precisely who these Homoians were, and what they taught, is less straightforward, and it is to that task I turn first.

The Homoian party arose in the turbulent years following the reunification of the Roman Empire by Constantius II. After the death of Constantine the Great in 337, the empire had been divided among his sons. At the end of a series of civil wars, coups, and other events, Constantine's middle son, Constantius, who had originally been given authority in the East, emerged as the sole ruler of the entire empire, east and west. One of Constantius's first acts was to try to put an end to internal strife among Christians. (8) To accomplish this goal, he pursued several different strategies. The most overt of these was the exile and suppression of Athanasius of Alexandria, and there is some evidence that the series of councils that led to the exile of many prominent western bishops, including Hilary, were called by Constantius for the primary purpose of securing Athanasius's condemnation. (9)

Constantius also pursued a theological agenda, the background for which lies in the Trinitarian polemics that took place in the East between the Nicene Council in 325 and the 350s. This was a complex time, and a full discussion of it lies beyond the scope of this article, but we can make a few general points. (10) First, it is improper to speak of "Arians" during this period as they died out as a theological movement or an ecclesiastical party after Nicea. Instead, the primary debates were (to oversimplify a complex situation) between those who supported the theological perspective of Eusebius of Caesarea and those who backed the theological perspective of Marcellus of Ancyra. (11) Constantius seems to have favored the Eusebian perspective, and he maneuvered events so that this perspective triumphed at what Constantius hoped would be the final salvo in the Trinitarian Controversy, the dual creeds of 359 along with a final creed that ratified the decisions of the two 359 councils, the Creed of Nice in 360. Second, the "Homoians," which is the name of the group and theology represented by the 360 creed, were subordinationists (but they were not Arians). They rejected the use of "substance" language when talking about the relationship between the Father and the Son. According to the Homoians, we can only say that the Son is "like" (homoios) the Father. Approaching the question this way, they thought, had a number of advantages, especially to keep us from applying the passion of the Son to the Father. (12)

Finally, the primary opponents of the Homoians during the 350s were a group of bishops led by Basil of Ancyra known today as the Homoiousians. Like the Homoians, Basil and his party had roots in Eusebian theology, and there are a number of similarities between their two perspectives, especially their common opposition to Marcellus of Ancyra. As we will see, it is not uncommon to find Homoian and Homoiousian bishops signing the same creed. Their most important theological difference had to do with the use of "substance" language. Unlike the Homoians, the Homoiousians were comfortable using "substance" language when talking about the Son, and so they are best known for describing the relationship between the Son and the Father as "like according to substance." This debate over "substance" will be the biggest point of contention as the 350s progress.

In 366 a minor but illuminating exchange that occurred between some Homoian bishops who had been instrumental in the Homoian victory of 359-60 illustrates the character of this era. The Homoian leaders Valens and Ursacius sent a letter to Germinius of Sirmium wondering if it was true, as they had heard, that Germinius was actually teaching that the Son was like the Father in all things. They hope this is not the case, since it would mean that Germinius's teaching had departed from the creed of 360, which said simply that the Son was like the Father, and, more to the point, he was coming too close to the "like according substance" teaching of their common opponent, Basil of Ancyra. Germinius's response was forthright: he acknowledged that he was indeed teaching that the Son was like the Father in all things (except according to "unbegotten-ness"). He is not sure what all the fuss is about. Not only does "like according to all things" enjoy the support of Scripture, and here Germinius cites a number of proof-texts that are almost Nicene in their affirmation of the unity between the Father and the Son, but his teaching derives from the true Homoian Creed, that is, the Dated Creed of 359. (13)

We do not have Valens and Ursacius's response, but the episode is illustrative because it highlights the fractious nature of the Homoian alliance that triumphed in 360. One of the difficulties with tracing the rise and development of eastern Homoianism is that Homoianism was often as much a series of political alliances designed to secure some semblance of ecclesiastical order as a theological perspective. (14) The ultimate effect of all the councils and creed-making was not just theological definition, but political maneuvering. This is not to deny the importance of theology to the various creed signers, and these creeds in particular illustrate how much compromise the various signers were willing to accept as not violating core theological principles. (15) The primary outcome of the Homoian victory in 360 was, however, primarily political, with Homoian bishops being placed in prominent sees, while their Homoiousian opponents were deposed. (16) Far from producing a viable or lasting theological party, the Homoian alliance in the east succeeded only in removing the Homoiousians from the picture. (17)

Having won its victory, however, the Homoian alliance quickly began to fall apart. We can follow this dynamic by tracing the participation of Basil and the prominent Homoian leader Valens of Mursa in the various councils of the 350s. Beginning with the Council of Sirmium in 351, we find Basil and Valens both listed as signers of a creed deposing Photinus. (18) Six years later, however, a council met in Sirmium and produced a creed that Hilary will call "The Blasphemy." Its signers included Valens again, Ursacius, Germinius of Sirmium, Potamius of Lisbon, and perhaps Ossius, but not Basil. (19) The next year, in 358, a group led by Basil met in Ancyra and issued a letter with anathemas condemning the theology of the Sirmium 357 manifesto. (20) It is tempting to see this as the final coalescing of the "Homoian" and "Homoiousian" theological parties, with the Sirmium 357 serving as the Homoian manifesto and Basil's letter of 358 as the Homoiousian riposte, and, in fact, these would be the two groups that were central to this three-year struggle. Later that year, however, another council was held in Sirmium in the presence of the emperor. At this council, everyone present, which included both Basil and Valens, reaffirmed the Dedication Creed of Antioch 341. (21) Sozomen gives the impression that this council was more about Constantius forcing a show of unity than about resolving theological disputes, although they may have paused to condemn the theology of Aetius. (22) This unity was reaffirmed in 359 when Constantius held a preview of the forthcoming councils of Ariminum and Seleucia at Sirmium again. This council issued the "Dated Creed," which would provide the basis for the creeds ultimately ratified by the Ariminum and Seleucia councils of 359, and it is possible that both Basil of Ancyra and Valens had a hand in its composition. (23)

The Dated Creed was an attempt at a theological compromise, and neither side was wholly comfortable with it. Both the Homoians and the Homoiousians, accordingly, attempted to use the Council at Seleucia in 359 to ensure that the "compromise" was interpreted according to their own interests. The actual council was something of a debacle, with no side emerging triumphant. It was, in fact, only after a great deal of political maneuvering and pressure by the emperor that any doctrinal agreement emerged at all. However, the eastern bishops did eventually assent to a revised version of the Dated Creed, now known as the Creed of Nice. (24) Basil must be counted among this group. Although we have no formal record that he signed, the Homoiousian delegates did, under much duress, assent to the revision, despite the fact, as we have seen with Germinius, that the Homoians believed the revision rendered Homoiousian theology no longer orthodox. (25) From a political perspective, therefore, the Seleucia Council of 359 and its follow-up in Constantinople the following year were a decisive victory for the Homoians. Almost all of the participants in the Homoiousian party, including Basil, were deposed and exiled, despite their assent to the Creed of Nice in 359, and they ceased to play a role in eastern theology or politics.

II. MODALISM AND SUBSTANCE IN BASIL'S DEBATE WITH THE HOMOIANS

Given the fluidity of the shifting alliances, therefore, it is difficult to get a coherent picture of Homoian theology during these years. Nevertheless, a few important points do emerge. First, there is a general antipathy towards modalism--especially that of Photinus--that seems common among all the disputants. The best evidence for this tendency comes from the Council of Sirmium in 351, where we find widespread agreement that Photinus needs to be deposed and that his theology is fundamentally unsound. Beyond this basic political agreement about the fate of Photinus, however, the anathemas attached to the creed shed some light on the theological debates that would follow from this council. Many of these anathemas are standard antimodalist boilerplate, such as anathema 19, which condemns anyone who says that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are "one person." (26) Other anathemas go after specifically Photinian doctrines, especially the sixth and seventh, which condemn the teaching that the ousia of God is extended or contracted (anathema 6) or that the Son is the extended ousia of the Father (anathema 7). Hanson suggests that the use of ousia in these anathemas is directed explicitly against Nicea and homoousion, but this is overstated unless we believe that Photinus was using Nicea to support his own doctrines, because the belief that the Son was an extension of the Father's ousia is characteristic of Photinus's theology. (27 These anathemas do, however, anticipate and explain the profound aversion to using ousia on the part of some theologians during this period, because to use it was to risk falling into Photinianism.

The most unambiguous statement of this antipathy to ousia language occurs in the Creed of Sirmium 357. The creed, which actually has very little formal creedal structure, takes up the question of ousia and concludes it would be best not to use the term at all. "But since some or many persons were disturbed by questions concerning substance, called in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to homoousion, or what is called homoiousian, there ought to be no mention made of these at all. Nor ought any exposition be made of them for the reason and consideration that they are not contained in the divine Scriptures." (28) Although the creed's authors (Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius) frame this rejection in terms of the now contemporary struggle, that is, they are rejecting the theologies of the Nicenes and Basil of Ancyra and the Homoiousians, the larger context is their overriding concern about modalism. The creed begins with a short affirmation of the God's "oneness," but it then moves to a rather strong statement denying that there are two Gods. This is followed by the statement forbidding ousia, which is, in turn, followed by a statement of the Son's subordination to the Father. In the minds of the authors, there is a clear-cut connection between guarding against teaching "two Gods," not using "ousia," and subordinating the Son to the Father. The problem with ousia, in this context, is two-fold. First, it gets too close to the "birth" of the Son. Talking about the Son's birth from the Father's substance moves very close to "two-Gods" territory. Second, and related to the first problem, is that ousia has been used by the Marcellans to avoid the two-Gods problem by identifying the Son as the Father. So by denying ousia, the Homoians have cleared the ground for subordinating the Son to the Father, which then allows them to refute the modalists. (29)

This concern to guard against modalism is also present in Basil's writings. Basil begins his letter of 358, which was written in response to the Sirmium 357 Creed, by identifying four creedal authorities that he thinks best express the church's faith: the Creed of Constantinople 336, the Dedication Creed of Antioch 341, Serdica 343, and Sirmium 351. Scholars still debate precisely what these councils actually accomplished, especially the Serdican Council, but for Basil they were antimodalist. Indeed, in the course of reciting this list, Basil names both Marcellus and Photinus--and only those two--and then suggests that having refuted and deposed the two great modalists, the church should have been free to be at peace. (30) Basil seems to be trying to accomplish two things with this list of creeds. First, he wants to establish his own antimodalist credentials. Second, he wants to charge his opponents with innovation. Basil never implies that his Homoian opponents are themselves modalists, but he does maintain that they have departed from the established faith. (31)

Throughout the rest of the letter, Basil takes great pains to avoid modalism. Like the Homoians, Basil capitalizes on the category of "likeness" as a way of avoiding "identity." He is explicit that by using ousia he is not falling into modalism: "the notion of 'like' does not entail the Son's identity with the Father, but his likeness of essence (ousia)." (32) Nevertheless, Basil does insist on using ousia for the relationship between the Father and the Son. His rationale comes from the names Father and Son themselves. According to Basil, we understand that a father is the cause of essence like his own. In an analogous way, we can understand that the divine Father is the Father of a Son who shares a similar essence. For this analogy to work, Basil insists, we must take care to strip away any hint of passion in the causal link between the Father and Son, because otherwise we are placed in the position of talking about sexuality, corporeality, and growth to maturity in God. The analogy is imperfect, therefore, but the area in which it works is significant. Once we eliminate passion from our discourse, then we are left with "the generation of a living being of like essence." (33)

Using the Father-Son analogy in this way serves two purposes for Basil. First, it avoids modalism. Basil frames his discussion of the analogy as an exegesis of Matthew 28:19 ("Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"). (34) Part of the reason Basil chooses this passage is that Valens and Ursacius used it in the confession of faith produced at Sirmium in 357 precisely for its antimodalist implications--for Valens and Ursacius, Matthew 28:19 preserves faith in the Trinity by confirming for us that there are three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (35) This sense of the text carries over to Basil as well. To use the names Father and Son is to talk about two (persons), and to apply "likeness" to the relationship between the Father and Son also preserves their distinction. (36)

At the same time, however, Basil uses the Father-Son analogy to correct his perceived problems with Homoian theology. Basil takes some pains to refute the use of Creator-Created as proper designations of the Father and Son. The value of the Father-Son analogy in this context is precisely that it implies a connection between the Father and Son on the level of ousia. Without this kind of causality, then we are left with only a Creator and creature. "But if, from motives of reverence, someone removes the true notion of the relationship of the Father and the Son because of his idea of physical paternity and sonship, ... whatever he says, he will be saying that the Son is another creature, and never that the Son is a son. Even if he says that the Son surpasses other creatures in greatness as heaven surpasses a mountain or hill, he will in fact be regarding him as a creature." (37) Basil insists on using ousia because he believes its use preserves something fundamental to the experience of the Christian religion. To give reverence to the Son only makes sense if we understand that the Son is something elevated beyond the level of "creature." The problem with Homoian theology, regardless of how reverent it considers itself, is that it fails to properly elevate the Son and so falls short of the standard of Christian piety.

What we have, then, are two ways of refuting modalism, one that uses ousia and one that does not. For those who deny the use of substance, there are only two theological alternatives to the question of the Son's relationship to the Father, either the Father and Son are identical on the level of substance, or the Father and Son are distinct. If they are distinct, however, then one must be subordinate to the other, because otherwise we are talking about two Gods. It is necessary, therefore, to eliminate substance language from theological discourse, because there is a direct polemical and theological connection between talking about ousia in this context and modalism. For those, like Basil, who do use ousia, the problem of modalism is not with the word ousia itself, but with how it is used. From Basil's perspective, the Homoians fail to recognize that ousia can be--must be--used without any suggestion of materiality. It is also possible that Basil believes the modalists are guilty of the same thing, but for their part the real problem is that they do not attend carefully enough to the distinction implied by the names "Father" and "Son." For Basil, while the names indicate a relationship of substance, they also indicate two distinct realities. The irony, of course, is that both the Homoians and Basil are trying to accomplish the same thing, to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son in ways that avoid modalism.

III. HILARY'S DE SYNODIS AND THE HOMOIAN CONTROVERSY

De Synodis is a difficult work to categorize. For one thing, it has two parts that do not necessarily relate to one another. The first part is the exiled Hilary's attempt to explain the perspective of the "Easterners" to his colleagues back in the West. To this end, Hilary walks through a number of eastern creeds in order to explain how they are compatible with the religious convictions of the westerners. (38) In the second part, Hilary produces what amounts to a second treatise on the relationship between homoousios and homoiousios. This treatise has two sections. The first is a discourse on how properly to interpret homoousios, directed towards the Latin bishops who, presumably, were already sympathetic to it but were in danger of misinterpreting it. The second section of the treatise is intended for the eastern Homoiousian bishops, this time commending homoousios to them as being compatible with their belief in homoiousios. What unites the work is Hilary's desire to rally both the easterners and the westerners to the fight against the Homoians, and the perspective that Hilary thinks is capable of uniting these two groups is that of Basil and his party. We turn, accordingly, to the Homoiousian context of this work.

In 356, while Basil was in the initial stages of his struggle against the Homoians, Hilary was facing problems of his own back in his native Gaul. Valens and Ursacius had been conducting a series of councils in the West. The councils were formally intended to gain western approval of Athanasius's condemnation, but they were also not-so-covert means for Valens and Ursacius to enforce their own agenda in the West. (39) Bishops who refused were exiled, which thereby removed those bishops likely to oppose their policies. This move caught the western church almost entirely unprepared, and a number of prominent bishops, including Liberius of Rome, were exiled. Hilary will on occasion act as if he were a naive innocent, claiming, for example, never to have heard the Nicene Creed prior to his exile. As Beckwith has suggested, however, Hilary did have some influence over the Gallic bishops at Beziers. Not only was Hilary judged sufficiently significant to be charged and exiled, but he seems to have influenced Rhodanius of Toulouse into going into exile also. (40) That exile then saw him emerge as a skilled polemicist and theologian, characteristics that surely have roots in his pre-exilic career. (41) Once in exile, Hilary seems to have been able to move around and associate with whomever he chose. From Sulpicius Severus we know that Hilary attended the Council of Seleucia in 359. (42) The circumstances of Hilary's attendance at the eastern council are not clear, but his presence in Seleucia gives evidence of his awareness of and proximity to Basil of Ancyra during these crucial months. Following Seleucia, Hilary went to Constantinople, presumably for the councils there, after which he apparently decided on his own to return home to Gaul. (43)

Strictly on the basis of this historical data, then, we can say that it is at least plausible that Hilary belongs to the same polemical context as Basil of Ancyra. (44) The fact that Hilary is western and Basil is eastern is less important than their common enemies (both theologically and politically) Valens and Ursacius, and that the western Hilary only really comes into his own as a polemicist in the East. This, then, brings us to his De Synodis, and it is here that we see the extent to which Hilary not only shares Basil's opponents, but that he has adopted Basil's perspective on those opponents. Like Basil's letter of 358, De Synodis was written primarily as a reaction to the Sirmium 357 Creed. Hilary places that creed at the beginning of his discussion of councils, he calls it "The Blasphemy," and at the outset of the work, he declares that his intention in the work is to expose the heresy contained in the document. Hilary's approach to that creed also draws heavily from Basil. The first indication of this is the councils Hilary chooses to discuss and the order in which he presents them. (45) He places Sirmium 357 in the position of most visibility and importance. Following that creed, Hilary lists the anathemas issued with Basil of Ancyra's Synodical Letter of 358. He comments briefly on each one of the anathemas, and he makes it clear in these comments that he believes the theological position they represent provides an effective antidote to the Sirmium 357 Creed. Hilary then reproduces the texts of three eastern creeds: the "Dedication Creed" of Antioch 341, the eastern Creed of Serdica 343, and the anti-Photinian Creed of Sirmium 351. The inclusion of these three creeds is significant because they are also named in Basil's letter. This is at once a political and a theological move. By framing his own work around Basil's authorities, Hilary has cast his lot with Basil's party, both politically and theologically.

The combination of meeting Basil (the circumstances of which we know nothing) and the publication of the Sirmium 357 document seems to have clarified Hilary's thinking about the controversy in which he had found himself embroiled. The first book of his Liber adversus Valentem et Ursacium, which he wrote during the earliest stages of his exile, is, like De Synodis, a collection of creeds and other documents that pertain especially to the controversy in the West during the mid-350s. (46) In this text, Hilary concerns himself primarily with defending Athanasius, which makes sense given that, as we have seen, Valens and Ursacius conducted their campaign in the West by demanding the condemnation of Athanasius. Whatever the formal reasons for his exile, Hilary ultimately believed that he had been exiled because of Athanasius, and, accordingly, he set out to defend the Alexandrian. (47) This approach completely disappears in De Synodis. As Michel Meslin notes, the absence of Athanasius from De Synodis is somewhat surprising since, for example, Athanasius had played a key role in the Serdican Creed of 343, and the prominence that Hilary gives to this creed would have given him ample opportunity to talk about Athanasius. (48) What has happened, however, is that Hilary has come to see the conflict through a different lens, one influenced by Basil and Sirmium 357, and Athanasius now plays no role in this new vision.

IV. MODALISM AND SUBSTANCE IN HILARY'S DEBATE WITH THE HOMOIANS

One of the things Hilary has learned from Basil is the importance of avoiding modalism. This comes through in a number of places within De Synodis, including Hilary's sense of the utility of the various "authorities" that he cites. In his discussion of the Dedication Creed of 341, for example, Hilary admits that from his perspective it did not emphasize enough the "undifferentiated similarity" (indifferenti similitudine) of the Father and the Son. The biggest problem with its language is that it can only specify the unity of the Father and Son on the level of "agreement" (consonus), and in a particularly troublesome move, from Hilary's perspective, it calls the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit three substances." (49) When we keep in mind, however, that the creed was not intended to address the current controversy, Hilary believes he can still recommend it as an effective counter to modalism. The reason the creed said "three substances" is to "strike a blow" against the theology that believes the three names refer only to the Father. So the creed said that there were three substances, but this does not necessarily indicate that the Father and Son are dissimilar on the level of nature or essence. (50) Part of what is interesting about this passage is the confidence with which Hilary expects his readers to agree about the antimodalist utility of this creed. (51) This is also, however, precisely the way Basil takes the creed, and Hilary's remarks point to his newfound sense of the need to guard against both modalism and subordinationism.

One more instructive passage occurs at De Synodis 21-22. In this section, Hilary is commenting on an anathema from Basil's letter that condemns anyone who says that the Son is "the same as the Father, or part of the Father," or that the Father generates the Son through emanation. (52) Hilary treats this anathema as a warning to guard against heresy in all its forms, because some heretics can appear to be in agreement while actually believing something completely different from you. "For many heretics say that the Son is like the Father in divinity in order to support the theory that in virtue of this similarity the Son is the same as the Father: for this undivided similarity appears to countenance a belief in a single [one]. For what does not differ in kind seems to retain identity of nature." (53) There is good reason to believe that Hilary is using divinitas as a synonym for ousia here. (54) If so, then he seems to be suggesting that some modalists are using the Homoiousian catch-phrase, "like according to ousia," to describe their own belief that the Son is identical to the Father. The logic here is forced, but these "modalists" appear to be arguing that as long as we see the ousias of the Father and Son as being undivided (indiscretus), then what we are seeing is a single--identical--substance. However, it is doubtful that any modalist actually talked this way. What is more likely is that Hilary has learned (from Basil) the main Homoian objection to the use of ousia, that it leads inevitably to modalism, and he is using this anathema to counter these Homoian doubts about the suitability of ousia language.

The suspicion that Hilary learned this from Basil gains greater weight in the next paragraph, where Hilary turns to the Son's "birth" to explain how "like according to substance" does not lead to modalism. The key, says Hilary, is to remember the nativitas, because where there is only unity (unicus), there is no birth, because whatever is born necessarily has a father. It is a mistake, Hilary believes, to assume that because the divinity of the Begetter and Begotten are inseparable, the two are thereby the same. It is equally wrong, however, to assume that the one who begets is unlike the one who is begotten. Thus Basil's anathema condemns anyone who uses the similarity of nature between the Father and Son to deny the "personal signification" (personalem significantiam) of the word "Son." Instead, he concludes, we must acknowledge that the "birth is perfect ... and remains similar in nature; not taking its beginning materially from a corporeal conception and bearing, but as an incorporeal Son drawing his existence from an incorporeal Father according to the likeness which belongs to an identical nature." (55) The presence of the phrase "similar in nature" is enough to suggest that Hilary is defending Basil's fundamental categories, especially since, like Basil, Hilary uses the concept of the nativitas that is implied by the names Father and Son to explain that language. What is even more striking, however, is the extent to which Hilary has absorbed Basil's sense of how the language of birth and substance can preserve the unity of the Father and Son without slipping into modalism.

This is not to say that Hilary has slavishly reproduced Basil's perspective in order to align himself with Basil's party. Hilary can, in fact, work creatively with Homoiousian categories. In De Synodis 12 he offers a definition of essentia that tweaks Basil's use of ousia.

 Essence is a reality which is, or the reality of those things from
 which
 it is, and which subsists inasmuch as it is permanent. Now we can
 speak of the essence, or nature, or genus, or substance of anything.
 And the strict reason why the word essence is employed is because
 it is always. But this is identical with substance, because a thing
 which is, necessarily subsists in itself, and whatever thus subsists
 possesses unquestionably a permanent genus, nature, or substance.
 When, therefore, we say that essence signifies nature, or genus, or
 substance, we mean the essence of that thing which permanently
 exists in the nature, genus, or substance. (56)

The philosophical background for this definition is Seneca, but its use here helps to support Basil's doctrine of "like according to substance." (57) By positing a category of reality beyond substance, Hilary can better explain how substances can be similar while still sharing a fundamental unity: similar substances can share a common essence. From an antimodalist standpoint, this definition allows for unity without identity. (58) The Father and Son can be united on the level of essence and diverse on the level of substance. Against the Homoians, the definition offers a more sophisticated account of how substances relate to one another. For example, when Hilary explains the X from X language in the Dedication Creed, he is able to appropriate the creed's antimodalist language for his and Basil's theology. In its original context, the creed used language such as "God from God" to express the basic diversity between the Father and Son. To be God from God is to be distinct from (though related to) God. For Hilary, however, to say "God from God" is to admit no distinction between the essence or nature of the Father and the Son. Instead, the God who is from God is "in all in which the Father is." (59)

A final example of the extent to which Basil's categories have influenced Hilary's thinking is his discussion of homoousios in the second part of De Synodis. Hilary's own relationship to homoousios and the Nicene Creed is tenuous. Near the end of De Synodis he mentions that he had not heard of the Nicene Creed prior to his exile. (60) Precisely what he means by this is not entirely clear, but it did not figure in his own theological formation prior to De Synodis. In the Liber adversus Valentem et Ursacium, he cites the entire creed and interprets it as an affirmation of the Son's eternal generation. His "Arian" opponents have argued that when we call the Son "first-born of all creation," we say that first the Son was created and the Son in turn created everything else. Hilary believes that by using homousios, the Nicene Creed counters this theology. The creed's theology affirms that both the Father and the Son subsist within themselves, "one and the same substance of eternity equal in both." (61) If the Son is homoousios with the Father, he is eternal and could never have come to exist in time; "the Son is eternal with the substance of eternity." (62)

When Hilary turns to homoousios in De Synodis, however, he has a much different perspective on it. He begins his address to the western bishops by reminding them that in order to affirm homoousios, we must interpret it correctly, which can only happen when we begin with the names "Father" and "Son," along with the nativitas that these names imply. If the names Father and Son are not explained by the birth, argues Hilary, then one cannot speak of them in any meaningful way. (63) It is imperative to follow the correct order when speaking of the one substance: "He will be safe in asserting the one substance if he has first said that the Father is unbegotten, that the Son is born, that he draws his subsistence from the Father, that he is like the Father in power, honor, and nature.... He did not spring from nothing, but was born. He is not incapable of birth, but equally eternal. He is not the Father, but the Son begotten of him.... After saying all this, he does not err in declaring the one substance of the Father and the Son." (64) In other words, only after preaching the distinction of the Son and the likeness of his nature can he speak of the one substance. (65) Failure to attend to this order results in three problems when one interprets homoousios. First, by confessing the one substance, one really says that the Father and the Son constitute one undifferentiated substance; one does not "keep the Son in our hearts." Second, the one substance also allows for the belief that the Father is divided, and that he cut off a portion of himself to be the Son. Third, it is also possible to take "one substance" to mean that there is a prior substance that both the Father and the Son have "usurped" (usurpata), which is called "one" because that is how it was before the Father and Son divided it up among themselves. (66)

Thus Hilary is careful to require that the use of homoousios always be qualified. Homoousios is never a first order theological concept, as is the birth of the Son, but it can only be introduced once these first order concepts have been established. His reasons for this requirement reveal a great deal about his theological and polemical objectives in De Synodis. Above all, Hilary wants to refute the Homoians in such a way that he also refutes modalism. All of the potential problems he identifies with western interpretations have to do with modalism, and to avoid this trap Hilary will only interpret homoousios to affirm that the Father and Son are equal but not identical. They are equal in substance because they share the substance of divinity, and this is the only way that one can speak of their being "one." (67) And the categories that Hilary uses to explain this interpretation, particularly the Father-Son language, come directly from Basil and the Homoiousians.

V. CONCLUSION

Hilary will pursue this emphasis on name and birth even further in his De Trinitate, going so far as to call the book where he discusses "name" and "birth" the "first or greatest" with regard to our understanding of the Trinity. (68) As he does in De Synodis, Hilary will also take pains in De Trinitate to guard against both modalism and subordinationism. (69) This aspect of Hilary's theology is only comprehensible within the context of the debates of the late 350s in general and Hilary's relationship with Basil of Ancyra in particular. When it is viewed from a proper polemical perspective on the late 350s, one finds ample reason to believe Basil influenced Hilary because they belong to the same polemical trajectory. Hilary entered the controversy without a sophisticated awareness of either the theological or political issues. What he learned from Basil was an appreciation of how the Father-Son analogy can refute the Homoians while avoiding the modalists. It is too much to claim that Hilary went to Constantinople in 360 as a Homoiousian, but Hilary did adopt many of Basil's theological and polemical categories, and he would use these categories to shape his mature thought.

We are able to reach this conclusion only by looking at a different set of categories and a proper picture of the historical context. Approaching this question from the perspective of homoousios versus homoiousios, or even "Pro-Nicene" versus "Anti-Nicene," does not yield a complete picture of either the political or theological relationships that obtained during this period. Taken together, Hilary and Basil give us valuable insight into what was actually at stake between the anti-and pro-Nicenes of the later 350s, and they also give us greater insight into how pro-Nicene theology became what it was during its own victory in 381. The fact that neither of them really survived this phase of the controversy lessens their ultimate influence. The later Homoianism of Palladius in the West and Eunomianism in the East pushed pro-Nicene thought in directions that left Hilary and Basil behind. (70) However, the controversies that followed upon the Homoian victory of 360 found their roots in the controversy that led to that victory.

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

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

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

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

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

(6.) See Smulders, La Doctrine Trinitaire, 235-49.

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

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

(9.) See Williams, "Reassessment," 202-17.

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

(11.) For further discussion of these perspectives, see Joseph Leinhard, "The Arian Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered," Theological Studies 10:1 (1989): 1-22.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(18.) See Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica II.29; Sozomen, HE IV.6. This list of names must be regarded with some skepticism because both Socrates and Sozomen appear to regard the Sirmium Creed of 351 and the Sirmium Creed of 357 as coming from the same council. This confusion may explain the reported presence of Ossius at the 351 council, since he was associated with the 357 meeting but, as Hanson suggests, was unlikely to have attended in 351: see Hanson, Search, 325.

(19.) For these names, see Hilary, De Synodis 11. Hanson suggests that George of Alexandria was also present, but given the confusion in Socrates' and Sozomen's accounts, there is no way to verify that he was at both Sirmium councils (344). Also see Eusebius of Vercelli's letter to Gregory of Elvira, in Hilary's Collectanea Antiariana Parisina A II.1, in S Hilarii episcopi Pictaviensis Opera, ed. Alfred Feder, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (hereafter CSEL) 65 (Vindobonae: F. Tempsky, 1916), 46.

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

(21.) See Sozomen, HE IV.15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(30.) Epiphanius Panarion 73.2.3; GCS Epiphanius III, 269.

(31.) Epiphanius, Panarion 73.2.5; GCS Epiphanius III, 270.

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

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

(34.) Epiphanius 73.3.1; GCS Epiphanius III, 271.

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

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

(37.) Ephiphanius, Panarion 73.4.5; GCS Epiphanius III, 273; Williams, Panarion, 437.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(47.) For further discussion of this point, see my "Not the Athanasius of the West: Hilary's Changing Relationship with Athanasius," Studia Patristica 42 (2006): 411-15.

(48.) Michel Meslin, "Hilaire et la crise arienne," 28.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(59.) De Synodis 33; PL 10, 505.

(60.) De Synodis 91; PL 10, 544.

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

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

(63.) De Synodis 68; PL 10, 525.

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

(65.) De Synodis 70; PL 10, 527.

(66.) De Synodis 68; PL 10, 525.

(67.) De Synodis 71; PL 10, 527.

(68.) De Trinitate 7.1; CCL 62, 259.

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

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

Mark Weedman is an associate professor of Biblical and Historical Theology at Crossroads College, Rochester, Minnesota.