You are on page 1of 30

Eunomius of Cyzicus and Gregory of Nyssa: Two Traditions of Transcendent Causality

Author(s): Michel René Barnes
Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 59-87
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1584584 .
Accessed: 07/01/2015 02:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EUNOMIUS OF CYZICUS AND GREGORY OF NYSSA:
TWO TRADITIONS OF TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITY'

BY

MICHEL RENE BARNES

For most of this century scholarly investigation of the influence of phi-
losophy, particularlycosmology, on trinitariandoctrine in the fourth cen-
tury has been functionallyequivalent to the search for the origins of fourth
century trinitarianheterodoxy. On the one hand, many traditionalaccounts
of the controversies accepted the old polemically-motivatedcharacteriza-
tion of anti-Nicenes as virtual Pagan wolves in Christian sheepskins;on
the other hand, many modem accounts of the development of doctrine
have used the newer but no less polemically motivated thesis of "the prob-
lematic of hellenization"to enlarge the category of heterodoxy to include
basically everyone in the fourth century except, perhaps, Athanasius.Even
those scholarswho offered fresh reconsiderationsof anti-Nicenes like Arius,
such as Maurice Wiles in his ground-breaking "In Defence of Arius,"2
nonetheless sought to defend Arius by bracketing off the influence of hel-
lenistic cosmology. This tactic is well dramatized in the later work by
Robert Gregg and Dennis Groh, where one major source of Christiancos-
mological speculation for both anti- and pro-Nicenes (but especially for
anti-Nicenes), namely Eusebius of Caesarea, simply does not appear.3As
we move through a scholarly synthesis (in the Hegelian sense) of the ear-
lier opposing positions on the corrupting influence of philosophy, we now

An earlier draft of this article was presented as a paper at the Midwest Patristic
Seminar, University of Chicago, February, 1993.
2
"In Defence of Arius," Journal of TheologicalStudies,XIII (1962), 339-47.
3
Early Arianism-A View of Salvation(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981). For a more
developed and sympathetic discussion of the significance of Eusebius' cosmology in his
theology and for the theology of the fourth century, see L. Rebecca Lyman's recent
Christologyand Cosmology(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), pp. 82-123. My approach
differs from Lyman's by working from the specific or technical senses of power (dynamis).

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1998 VigiliaeChristianae52, 59-87

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

60 MICHEL RENE BARNES

find, for example, Rowan Williams4and Maurice Wiles5agreeing in recent
publications (written at almost the same time) that cosmological interests
indeed shaped the thought of all sides and provided much of the language
by which all Christiansof the fourth century conceived and expressedtheir
own doctrines.
What I will say here about the role of alternative causal language in
the competing trinitariantheologies of Eunomius of Cyzicus and Gregory
of Nyssa goes a bit further than this recent happy synthesis. I will argue
that we can understand fundamental differences between the trinitarian
doctrinesof Gregory and Eunomius through a recognitionof their different
accounts of transcendentcausality. In particularI will argue that Gregory
and Eunomius develop their own distinctive theologies by drawing upon
alternativetranscendentalcausalitiesalready available in school platonism.
By "transcendentalcausalities"I mean specific accounts of the character
of causality associated with the first or highest member of a transcendent
hierarchy.A significantexample of what I mean by "transcendental cau-
sality"is the account of the Good in the Republic508-509. Although schol-
arly attention tends to settle on the famous statement that the Good is
beyond being, the passage itself is a treatise on how, exactly, the Good is
a cause. The statement that the Good is beyond being is couched in the
conclusion that the Good is not lacking in power or dignity, two attrib-
utes which refer to medical and political aetiologies introduced earlier in
the dialogue. The point of Plato's argument in Republic508-509 is that the
Good is not beyond being a cause, even if it is beyond "o6ioia."The very
causalitiessuggested by 86vaLtS;and npecopeiaare the two kinds of causal-
ities that will come into play in the differences between Gregory and
Eunomius. On the one hand, Eunomius' account of divine productivityis
expressedin moral or political language like ioouoia, Poukil,and TpozTaywxa;
potentially overdetermined language like b6vagtS or EvEpyeta (hereafter
transliteratedby dynamisor energeia) are used only in the moral or political
sense. Gregory's account of divine productivity is, on the other hand,
expressed in the language of connatural union, with terms like oug(puS'o or
(pqtcrli6t6orl;,which are both consideredto be interchangeablewith dynamis.
Is then the first existent productive by nature or may productive causality

4 See the
chapters in section four of Rowan Williams' Arius: Heresy and Tradition
(London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1987).
5 "The
Philosophy in Christianity: Arius and Athanasius," in The Philosophyin Chris-
tianity,Godfrey Vesey, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 41-52.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Role of CausalLanguage in Trinitarian Doctrine The role of causal or productive language in trinitariandoctrine has its beginnings at least in the scripturallanguage of father and son.160 on Wed. Gregory believes that the Son's capacity to create reveals the common power or faculty and thus the common nature the Son shares with the Father. Eunomius' theology leads him to take creation as the fundamental term for divine production to the point where Eunomius will describe the Son himself as created. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 61 be delegated entirely to a first and mediating product. fully transcendent source of the Son and thus His own transcendentnature. such that the first existent is not intrinsicallyproductive?Is the Good a cause the way Xerxes in his palace collects taxes and commands his armies (as is the case in Ps.251. Eunomius is thus led to emphasize God's transcendence over-against not only the Son but also over-against the capacity to pro- duce the Son. If God's productive capacity is not inherent in His nature then a common nature cannot be communicated to the product. it is also true that in the early common This content downloaded from 128. while Gregory is led to emphasize the transcendenceof the divine productive capacity in common with the divine nature. Aristotle's On the Cosmos).or is the Good a cause the way fire is hot or the eye sees (as is the case for Plotinus)? These kinds of argument.They agree that the kind of unity that holds between the divine nature and divine productivity determines the kind of unity that holds between the First and Second Persons because the act of generation or production is the act through which the product's nature is determined. non-natural unity between God and his creative capacity is dram- atized in the Son's reception of the delegated capacity to create. Eunomius believes that the moral. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and this division of language.235. even to the point where Gregory will describe creation as one sense of generation.doxaor sophiadoes not seem neces- sarily to require a causal relationshipbetween that which has. a logosand that logositself. for exam- ple. while Gregory's theology leads him to take generation as the fundamentalterm for divine production. so to ensure the fully natural. If it is true that analytical language such as logos. make sense to Eunomius and Gregory because they both share the following under- standings. given that the capacity to create is not something that can stand apart from the divine nature. Eunomius and Gregory also agree that statements on the status of God's productive capacity are dramatized in doctrines of the Son as the creator God they also share the understandingthat the Son is the creator.

and any product will necessarily (i. a cause posed problems for Eunomius' conception of divine transcendence.6 The uniqueness of God's kind of existence means that any productivity must exist outside His nature. energeia.1 Eunomius understood 6 Apology 10:1-4. The most influential of the early Christians to make a causal description of the relationship between the first and sec- ond persons central to trinitarian doctrine is Origen. Any suggestion that God was. For the different sources of this language. energeia. God's own activity of creating is limited to the production of the second Person.62 MICHEL RENE BARNES era. and 1 Cor.which is external to the essence. 23:4-16.and erga which is available to him from several sources. 8 Apology22:7-12. Pagans.9 Eunomius distinguished the cre- ated nature of the Son from other created natures by describing the Son as the unique product of God's own activity.10 Eunomius develops his theological hier- archy through technical causal language of physis/ousia. Hebrews 1:3.. For Eunomius the transcendence of God requires that He cannot be understood to generate a product which has the same kind of existence He has.e. God's productive capacity can only be that of an activity. In On First Principles 1. Vaggione's edition with translation. 9 Apology17:10-12.7 According to Eunomius. Eunomius:the Extant Works(Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1987). Apology23:4 ff. since that kind of existence is to be uncaused or unproduced. 0 Apology15:14-16. the straight-forward analytical description of Christ as the "Power and Wisdom of God" in 1 Cor.251. while everything else was created by the activity of the Son.2. see my "The Background This content downloaded from 128. 1:24 is subsumed by Origen under the causal rela- tionships described in Wisdom 7:25. in His essence. Wisdom 7:25 and Hebrews 1:3 both describe the relation- ship between God and his Wisdom or Power in generative terms. Jews and Christians equally and consistently interpret such analytical relationships as causal. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1:24. their different doctrines of the unity of the Trinity are argued on the basis of different doctrines of divine productivity. the second Person creates everything else. hereafter cited as Extant Works.160 on Wed. the only sort of divine production that Eunomius recognizes. by definition) be caused. 16:1-17:6. See Richard P. Both Eunomius and Gregory accept Origen's insight that any doctrine of the Trinity presumes an account of divine causality. Origen offers a detailed account of how the Son comes to be from God based upon an extended exegesis of Wisdom 7:25.8 This external productive activity is that of cre- ating. 7 Apology9:1-3. 28:6-8. hence he placed great emphasis on the very limited way in which a productive causality could be directly attributed to God.235.

or rather. that the Son is the unique product of this originating source.'6 Dynamis next appears to describe the Son's unique source. which is Eunomius' term for the creative capacity. Eunomius does use dynamisto name productive capacities in God and in the Son: the Son has the "demiurgicpower" through which God cre- ates. 52-53. 8uva6?eo.. which continues. ibid." 17Apology15:14-16.. and he then speaks of the unique nature of the Son.whether expressed as noun. ibid. 16 Apology15:11-13. 52-53. Clark. he became the perfect minister of the whole creative activity and purpose of the Father.12 The Son as Demiurge Eunomius' earliest discussion of the notion of productive capacity is in chapters 15 and 16 of the Apology. he does say that the Son's origin is unique. pp. pp. However. Apology15:9- 11. '5 Apology15:14.160 on Wed. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . It is the notion of demiurge.Eunomius suggestsGod's will (yvbnrl) as the productive source of the Son. for the creative capacity was begot- ten in him. eds.written in the early 360's.pp. and created directly. Williams. 13 Apology15:9-10. 65-64. 52-53. of course. Barnes and Daniel H. pp."17 In each occurrence dynamisis used of the demi- urgic capacity. which is and Use of Eunomius' Causal Language.'5 The first use of dynamisin the Apologyis in the phrase 5rliuoupy@tcij. Eunomius will make it clear that this originating source is God's will or activity: see Apology24:1-4. Extant Works. & T. adjective. partition. Extant Works. and the addition of form to a formless sub- strate or matter.. He begins chapter 15 by eliminating inappropriate notions of divine productivity. Extant Works. 1993). as it is applied to the Son to explain his creative role and capac- ity: all things are made through him. Later. Eunomius does not immedi- ately follow up the reference to the will." This content downloaded from 128. 52-53.Michel R. while an essential causality would subvert both the ideas of God's simplicity and God's freedom. 217-236.235. in conformity with the blessedJohn. (Edinburgh: T.' since the creative power was begotten coexistentially in him from above. Extant Works. which qualifies him to be the "perfect minister of the creative activity and intention of the Father. or verb. namely. by the power of God. Extant Works.pp.. begetting. 12 Apology17-18..pp.'3 There for the first time in the Apology. 52-53: "For we acknowledge. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 63 God's causal activity to be separatefrom His essence because it is an activ- ity of His free will. that 'all things were made through him.251.'4 for the Son alone was created." ArianismAfterArius: Essays on the Development of the FourthCenturyTrinitarianConflicts.pp. 14 Apology15:13.pp. "Since he alone was begotten and created by the power of the Unbegotten. 52-53.

Gregory suggests that Eunomius appealed to Prov. he (the Father) poured the whole power of God into the Son. at II 10:25-11:8 of the ContraEunomiumLibri." p. and 1 Cor.. for he is the 'power and the wisdom of God. 1960). pp. I must also take exception with the recent opinion expressed by David Runia that "The notion of dynamisfrequently occurs in the remains of Eunomius [Runia here cites Vaggione]. GregoriiNysseni Opera(hereafter GNO).." There remains only the very cryptic Syriac fragment: "The Father <created> only the Son.(Assen: Van Gorcum. which was under- stood to apply to the Son because Paul refers to the second Person as Wisdom. or the many non-Nicene creeds using dynamisin anti-Marcellan doxologies. 52-53.160 on Wed. but this does not stop him from finding at least three references to 1 Cor. Vaggione nuances this opinion with the proviso that "." Philo in Early Christian Literature. However. entirely certain use of 1 Cor. 1993). I and II (Leiden: EJ. 1:24. Gregory's citation makes no mention of power. 55.235. The Pauline reference is understood (by the GNO editor) to be to 1 Cor.. Extant Works.g. 1:24: in Against EunomiusIII:1.pp. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1:24. p. Asterius' doctrine of the Son as dynamis is based on Romans 1:20.251. Werner Jaeger.. In SearchofAsterius(Gottingen: Vanderhoeck. 8:22. 174. in the works of Eunomius." a Asterian-sounding conclusion which nowhere appears in the Apology.pp. 246. and 1 Cor. An alternate source for the use of dynamiswhich must be considered is provided by Wolfram Kinzig. 179. has here led Runia astray: dynamisoccurs This content downloaded from 128. Asterius' exegesis of it. The fragment seems to be a re-statement of the recognizably Eunomian doc- trine that the Son is the creator of the Holy Spirit. 1:24 (a text normally associated with pro-Nicene theology) on Eunomius. despite the disputed exegesis of 1 Cor. 128-129. 1:24 by Eunomius. I see no convincing reason to take this step. 19 I cannot agree with those scholars who find Eunomius' use of dynamishere-or at Apology 19:8-19." Vaggione also cites a passage from the SecondApologyto support his discovery of 1 Cor. in which the capacity to create is described as a power given to the Son by God. and 174. 1990). and the Son the Holy Spirit-indeed. Gregory gives the Pauline background as an explanation of the reasoning by "champions of heresy. References to dynamisalone may be taken from any number of sources. 1:24 at Nicaea. The ambiguity I noted above in Vaggione's remarks in Extant Works. What is unique to the Syriac fragment is the conclusion that by the reception of this power of God the Son also receives the title "Power of God.. credal as well as scriptural. vols." "life. 1:24 is suggested by the presence of "Wisdom" language. 8:22. The Romans text itself."' Extant Works." "power" as applied to God and to the Son-as evidence of the influence of 1 Cor. n. It is also not clear that the reference to the Pauline passage occurred in the original SecondApologyuse of Prov. are all possible sources for Eunomius' use of the single title.'9Eunomiususes. indeed 18 Apology16:1-6. apparatus.p.64 MICHEL RENE BARNES the central notion for Eunomius in this descriptionof divine productivity. ed. who argues that. 174. Extant Works. 56. not any mention of power.. "dynamis. where Eunomius distinguishes the sense of the tites "light... e. there is no. p.. 1:24 is one of his favorite texts. see.8 The reason why dynamisis used here at all is that demiurgic power are two words used together idiomaticallyas one term. Brill.

the elements generally and individually.21 For example. That Runia is on thin ice in this context generally is sig- naled to the careful reader by his mention of "(the semi-Arian) Marcellinus of Ancyra. p.5..sechster band.e. WJ. EusebiusWerke. 23 This as a function of dynamismay be contrasted with description of demiourgein Origen's description of demiourgeinas a function of sophia. 20 The purpose of this and other similar statements by Eusebius is to show that there is only one power that created the cosmos. in the Preparationfor the Gospel Eusebius contrasts the Pagan account of the origin of the world by many gods who have no love for humanity with the Christian account of the origin of the world byJesus "our Savior. vol. there is one general identical divine power. Ferrar. creative of the heavens and of the stars. and not many.. then Marcellus can hardly be termed "semi-Arian" given the modalist character of his theology and his invention of the post- Nicene genre of anti-Arian polemic." If. dynamisin this context because the doctrine of the Son acting as creator through the reception of a delegated power is a traditionalway of subordinating the Son to God (the Father). SC. trans. XIX: 109-11. This content downloaded from 128. and all kinds of natural things . The Proofof the GospelBeing the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebiusof Caesareatwo vols. La pri- parationivangilique. in a corporeal way. Perhaps Runia has confused Marcellus with Basil of Ancyra. Runia is referring to Marcellus. Preparation for the GospelIII. See Commentary on John I..160 on Wed. 20 Demonstration of the GospelIV. 5. 228 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf. for example. 237. A typical example of this association occurs in Demonstration of the Gospel: . This role as Demiurge falls to the Word insofar as he is the Wisdom of God.. He says that if one argues that God is a father as a human is a father. 1920). and trans. III:VI.. 6.23 In chapter 16 of the Apology Eunomius goes on to treat the nature of the creative or demiurgic capacity. 13." who is "Maker of the whole Cosmos" and "the one sole divine power per- vading and ordering all things.." he understands this phrase to mean that the Word is the maker of the material universe: it was the Word who said.LivresII-III. 21 E. Ivar A. who was indeed called "semi-Arian" by Epiphanius.235.251. Origen does not use Power to describe the Word as Demiurge. 155:24-27. in the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea.When Origen offers his exe- gesis of John 1:1. "Let there be light" as recorded in Genesis.. Edouard des Places. 1976). 5-7..g. Heikel.. (London: SPCK. as it seems. for example. The same association of dynamiswith demiurge is found. "In the beginning. entirely certain use of 1 Cor. 1:170. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 65 emphasizes. The same argument occurs at VII:XV.. i."22 The term for the creative force remains dynamis. then one must infrequently in Eunomius' text and "there is no. ed. the living things in the earth and air and sea... governing the whole universe.. GCS pp. 22 Ibid. 1:24" in the works of Eunomius. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .

Extant Works. and 16:8. Moreover. 26 Apology15:15. quacks like a duck. Extant Works. 60-61. Eunomius' interpretationof the divine activitiesperformedby the Son is that their performancetestifies to the Son's perfect obedience as a servant or minister to God (the Father). Thus. The Son's role as creator.. 52-53.27while at the same time indicating the difference in their natures. if power [dynamis] is understoodto be used in this political sense as synonymouswith authority [exousia] then Eunomius' description of the Son as perfect "minister" [{iovpy6.."28 In short. . it is because He is per- fectly obedient to a perfect duck. if He walks like a duck. for God creates by His authority[exousia]alone: eouola g6ovpSrltoupyei. the direct and unique creation of the Son by the authority of God makes him the perfect minister. Extant Works. since Eunomiususes either term to name the immaterialcharacterof God's productive capacity. namely that the act of creation by the Son is "at the Father's command and [thus the Son] acknowledges that he can do nothing of his own accord . in particular. in a corporeal way. as Eunomius points out." 28 Apology20:20-21.pp. the "political-moral"sense. 60-61.pp. Eunomius' position is that if the Son seems like God to us because of what He does.. shows the perfect agreement between the Son's will and God's will.251. 52-53.24But. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .66 MICHEL RENE BARNES also say that God is a creator. 27 It should be remembered that Eunomius understood "God's will" to be equiva- lent to "the Father.235.."29The same scripturaltext is appealed to later in the Apologywhen Eunomius says: "For we confess 24 That is. 52-53. is that of the sovereign authority of the will. and looks like a duck. or demiurge.pp. or. This kind of conclusion in the Apologyis supported by an appeal to John 5:19.]26 due to his cre- ation by God's power rests clearly on a political-moralmodel throughout.pp.160 on Wed. at Apology15:13. This content downloaded from 128. 16:6. 16:3-4.pp. neither is an appropriateunderstandingof demiur- gic activityin God. Eunomiuswill refer to God's creativepower. requir- ing a pre-existent matter to which God presumably adds form.25The sense of authority. 15:15b. but it is a capacity which can be delegated and which seems to be synonymous with exousia. 29 Apology20:21. the dynamis. as used here. 25 Apology16:8. as I call it. As Eunomius says: "He who cre- ates by His own power [exousia]is entirely different from him who does so at the Father's command. for the Son creates only in obedience to God and only by virtue of the capacity to create that God has delegated to Him. Extant Works. all at Extant Works.

282:5-10. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .what the Son is everlastinglyis what he is also rightly called: offspring. obedient Son. This content downloaded from 128. 33 GNO II 282-283."34 Once again. most perfect Minister of the maintenance and preservationof all existing things. and so on. God does not create.160 on Wed. God does not maintain and preserve all things but commands that all things be maintained and preserved. NPNF V:237-238. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 67 that only the Son was begotten of the Father and that he is subject to him both in essence and in will (indeed he has admitted that he 'lives because of the Father and that he can do nothing of his own accord').. 30 Apology26:21-23. Extant Works.. is described in moral or political terms.. namely that the Son's actions correspond to God's intentions. for the power has been allotted to him for the production of things made. 32 Although this idea of God's role strongly resembles the politicized cosmology found in On the Cosmos... Gregory's quotations from the SecondApologyin Against EunomiusII make it clear that Eunomius looked to Genesis to support his understand- ing of God and of language. He commands creation. a&TcOKcrnpop is at GNO II 282:8.235. Extant Works. Eunomius' immediate source for such an understanding of God's role is the Genesis account of creation.. and with the ability given to him by the Father for the allotted task.where the unique glory of God is shown in the mediated character of His action.. was entrusted (EstreTparcat) by the Father with the construction of things visible and invisible. but assumptions about the specific kind of action that are par- ticular to God.35Eunomius intends these terms to anchor the description of the Son's creative power in its source.32 In the SecondApology. 31 Apology27:2-5. pp. Eunomius repeats the understand- ing that the Son's demiurgic power was delegated to Him by God. the relationshipbetween the Father and the Son..30 The Son's very identity and existence is expressed in terms of this action in obedience: ".. He com- mands into being a creature to carry out the command to create.. and in particular the Son's reception of a productive capacity. which is the dispositionof the Father... In this case.251.pp. 70-71.. the terms are ?itxpkto and a&oKrlpoo. . Implicit in this understandingis not only an assumption about the difference in kind of action between God and the Son. 35 7Ctp?sCo is at GNO II 282:5."3 In these texts Eunomius gives his interpretationof what the activities traditionally attributed to the Son mean.. by emphasizingthat the Son acts only in obedience to the Father. 34 Ibid.written in 379.33He says that the Son ".. 70-71.. NPNF V:237.

..as though He were put in some hollow spaces.. This content downloaded from 128. for this line of reasoningby Gregory. and that His own will as power is sufficient for all that is made.NPNF V:211-212. 41 Ibid.." Gregory himself emphasizes the moral or polit- ical aspect of Eunomius' language.)to create. [Eunomiussays of the Son] that to Him that is above all rule. since political language of this sort occurs repeatedly in the SecondApologyand other Eunomian works. 38 See GNO II 283:7-26..39For example. 54-55. according to His own authority. and authority. and such language seems to him arbitraryand belittling. 12... God. i. Gregory's reading that Eunomius uses dynamisto mean exousia. ExtantWorks. begetsand createsaccordingto. 150-151.with the kind of power which is transmitted. NPNF V:211..68 MICHEL RENE BARNES PowerandMoral Union When in his AgainstEunomiusGregory of Nyssa quotes and criticizes Eunomius' statement that the Son "was entrusted by the Father with the constructionof things.NPNF V:237. 37 GNO II 282:24-25. For Gregory. 40 GNO II 216:3-13.235..160 on Wed. or more accurately. earlier in the SecondApologyEunomius said that God creates without constraint or need. 42 Ibid. 10... is not simply tendentious.. and the Creed. Given Gregory'sjudgment on the fullness of the Son's divinity this opinion on Eunomius' use of political-morallan- guage to describethe Father-Sonrelationshipcomes as no surprise.power [dynamis] from on high.Typical of Gregory'sthoughtis his comment:"..40Eunomius goes on to say that God's will determines the goodness and the time of creation. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and 217:17-19.means that the creative capacity of the Son depends upon an or authority exousia..37In Gregory'sjudgement Eunomius' political language for the transmissionof demiurgic power is inappropri- ate.1:8-10. as should by now be clear. 74-75: ". or t1XtpFTco.There has been allotted..42 36 Gregoryargues to this effect immediatelyafter he presentsthe fragmentquoted above. All good is accord- ing to His will. 216:18-21. pp.38Gregory's opinion is that the power of creation is beyond any expression by political-morallanguage..251.. [God made the Holy Spirit through His Son] creating him by his own authorityand commandment.. incommensurate.pp.However.pp." 39For example. for it is a weakness to make what one does not will.e. the term entrust.36 without which the Son lacks both the courage (0ap- ao. NPNF V:211. the pri- macy of God's will in creation. His will."See also Apology17:12.41Eunomius emphasizes rhetorically through repetition.) and the power (&6valt. 216:7.and that the acquisition of this dynamisby the Son is political-moralin nature. GNO II 282:13-283:26. in Apology28:14-16.and dominion..

47 Gregory's specific criticism of Eunomius' description of God's relation- ship to His creativepower emphasizesthe separateexistence that Eunomius seems to attributeto this power. as Eunomius. 86-87.pp. and indeed insists upon it with great force and clar- ity when he says that God's activity is His will. 50 GNO II 218:8-10. 64. Indeed. which is truly God. and only what is outside God's nature is subservient to that nature: God's nature is not subservientto itself. NPNF V:212.for Eunomius does believe that the creative capacityis separatefrom God's essence. 43Gregory's understandingis that if.160 on Wed.Gregory argues that if "God has dominion over his own power. according to Eunomius." as Eunomius says.. 48 GNO II 217:17-19. this preference. for if something is outside the divine nature it is necessarilysubservientto God's will. this separation which insures God's freedom from necessity or need. says.yet Gregoryis not far wrong in his interpretation." then God is not one with that power. in fact. 49 Cf. 64-65. for example: "Is He [God] something else than His own power. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . God has "dominion over His power. NPNF V:212.. particularlyEunomius' statementthat God has dominion over his own power.46Gregory's reading of Eunomius may be heavily burdened by sarcasm and hyperbole. NPNF V:212. Gregory goes on: Is [Godthen]somethingelse thanHis own power.p.251. Extant Works. 217:17-19.45It is.pp. 46 Apology20:20-21. NPNF V:212. but he does understandaccuratelythat Eunomius' preferredmodel for God's pro- ductive capacity is a political-moralone. 47 Apology24:1-2. 1970). Eunomius does not hide.. Extant Works. Brill. the obvious fact that something cannot be subservientto itself is Gregory's point of departure in criticiz- ing Eunomius for teaching a separate dynamis. This content downloaded from 128. Extant Works. Danielou on Gregory and Philo in L'Etreet la tempschez Grigoirede Nysse (Leiden: EJ. 44 GNO II 218:8-219:17. 45 Apology23:15-17. or even deny.48Gregory's criticism is that Eunomius teaches that God's dynamisexists outside God's nature and is subservient to His will.and Lordof a powerthat is somethingelse than Himself?50 43 Ibid.44Eunomius' intention in making such an statement is to emphasize the priority of God's free choice in any act of production or creation..235.49These two doctrines are in fact equivalent. Gregory says. 60-61. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 69 It is in this section of the SecondApologythat Eunomius says that "God has dominion over his own power. pp. then God is not one with that power. and Lord of a power that is something else than Himself?" GNO II 218:8-10.

Clark. Though this is a crude restate- ment of two powers theology.. Hanson. However. For Eunomius the idia dynamisis the subject of God's dominion.52This phrase has a history in Christian two powers theology.5 The veritable explosion of references to dynamis in Gregory's reply to Eunomius' statement that God has dominion over His own power suggests that there is something in this claim that would seem to Gregory quite radical in its implications and worth exploiting polemically. being power.Eunomius' phrase for what God has dominion over is idia dynamis. including the ministerial reference. 5ovdlaeox.."53 This much at least sounds proto-Eunomian.Or again. and.. & T. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . NPNF V:212: I have emphasized each appearance of power in the text which is a translation of dynamis. what is He? over what has He dominion?Is He something else than His own power. how far he was from the Eusebian-Asterian two powers theology. How can God have dominion except through power? Does this power have dominion over the first powerthrough the aid of yet another power? 52 GNO 11:218:7:6 0E6.Gregory ends his attack with a kind of "third man" argument against the idea that God has dominion over His power. p.For that which is something else than power is surely not power. the Son is the second power of God.P. The Searchforthe ChristianDoctrineof God(Edinburgh: T.251. 53 R. is idia dynamis. is not God.160 on Wed. God. KpaTreiTir iita. God as Power.70 MICHEL RENE BARNES This remarkby Gregory is just the first round in an entire volley of criti- cisms directed at Eunomius' understandingof dynamis.has another power in Himself. it suggests how Gregory understood the pas- sage from Eunomius and what about it provoked such a defence of the divine dynamis. and Lord of a powerthat is something else than Himself? Then the poweris overcome by the absence of power. According to Asterius.. that is. [Eunomiussays that] "God has dominion over His own power. then God. being power. has another power in Himself. (prai.C.and then He is forced to have dominion over powerjust in so far as He is not power.235."Tell me. 1988). One clue to what might be so extreme in Eunomius'statementlies in Gregory'sattempt to interpret Eunomius' doctrine as a kind of conventional anti-Nicene two powers theology. as a minor point.. and has dominion over the one by the other. Asterius' phrase for the First Power. 33. Even Asterius would have been scandalized by this phrasing! Again it is clear just how completely Eunomius eliminated a connatural produc- tive capacity from his understanding of God's being and productivity. 51 GNO II 218:6-13. This content downloaded from 128. as when he says that if Eunomius is right. who is "vis- ible through the products [erga] of his ministerial activity.

246." Thomas A. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 71 The PhilonicDelegation of Power Gregory attributes Eunomius' doctrine of a complete separation of the creative capacity from God's nature to the influence of Philo. [Thereis] the creativePowercalledGod. Fossum. Philo did not sep- arate causality from God's own nature. Whether or not Eunomius hypostasizedthe productive capacity.160 on Wed. (Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation. 159. Yet following Fossum. Brill. there is no 54 The GNO sees here a reference to Philo's Allegorical III. 1985).p. 1949). 56 Alan F." 55 Jarl E. 59 "The Neo-Arians were always exceedingly concerned to avoid any suggestion that God had intimate contact with the bodily world. 57 David Winston. but Philo still nearly always describes this action in terms of the separate dynameis. Logosand Mystical Theologyin Philo of Alexandria(Cincinnati: Hebrew Union Press. Eunomius' phrase Kparei&)vagecoW suggests Philo's phrase &)vaoTeia cKpa&ovlaxTeooio[p. but Runia.73. Kopecek.so that "I am thy God"is equivalentto "I am the Makerand Artificer. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Coulson and G. 1985).251. doubts that Gregory's attribution can be "sub- stantiated from the Philonic corpus that we still possess. in particu- lar. becausethroughthis [power]the Fatherwho is its begetterand contrivermadethe universe.59Given the character of Gregory's comments. F. Whittaker. Loeb V:158 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press.B. he understood true action to be the property of God alone. 1977). Two Powersin Heaven(Leiden: EJ.235. Segal. It may have been the property of God to act.H. Interpretations Philo in Early ChristianLiterature."58 This kind of separation of creative power from God is what seems to Gregory to be Philonic in Eunomius' theology.C. Philo. or to describing the intermediate status of the cause of the Son Himself.55Segal. Mohr. Eunomius went so far as to say the Son 'actively carried out the things which belong to love of humanity' but God remained inactive with respect to such grace. 1979).57 we must add that this understandingdid not prevent Philo from finding God's causality enacted through mediating powers. A History of Neo-Arianism.H. 2 vols. it is clear that Eunomius limited the use of dynamis either to describingthe intermediatestatus of the Son as the creating min- ister of God. p. This content downloaded from 128. as Gregory charged. which is definitelyhow Gregory understandsEunomius' doctrines. so in Gregory's remarks Philo figures as the mask for any doctrine which describes God's dynamis as separate from the nature and possessing an intermediate and inde- pendent existence.56and Winston. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord(Tiibingen: J.54 At some level in his own theology. slightly altered. 58 On the Changeof Names 29.

Furthermore.60 However. The contemporary reader is better served by first reading John Dillon's treatment of Numenius in his The Middle Platonists(Ithaca: Cornell University Press. pp. there is no denying that Gregory recognized a genuine tra- dition in Hellenic thought.61a name often mentioned in scholarshipas typifying the gen- eral philosophical climate of Alexandriain Arius' day." p. ed. IV:123-132." Journalof TheologicalStudies. This content downloaded from 128. of whom the most recent is once again Dillon. who is referred to only as an important example of the understandingof divine produc- tive capacity Gregory wishes to refute. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . see pp. or Father." in The Philosophyin Christianity.K. shows the influence of Aristotle's thought.. Anrus. G.251. The same author considers Numenius' influence on early trinitarian theology in his article. Modern scholarshipwould differ from Gregory by locating the paradigmaticexpres- sion of this understandingof a transcendent causality in the thought of Numenius."63 John Dillon has recently shown Numenius' influence in the later stages of the trinitarian contro- versy as well. "Platonism of Arius. The single causal act of the unmoved first cause devolves first and foremost into the delegation of the demiurgic capacity to an intermediary. 223. 62 Williams. 1983). ed.P. Des Places directs the reader to R.72 MICHEL RENE BARNES point in troubling over whether he is being fair to Philo.235. Mathias has recently iden- tified the same tradition in a slightly different way on p. Goodman. C.Lenn E. 1977). Festugiere's commentary on the fragments in his La rivilationd'Hermes Trismegiste(1953. namely. principallyhis idea in MetaphysicsXII of the unmoved mover.62and indeed as the source for Arius' use of "dyad"and "demiurge." 1973). 7. 16-31. Paris: Societe d'Editions Les Belles Lettres."Mathias is noncommital about placing Philo wholly in this tradition. Dillon. 1-13.numerous scholars. Vessey. the CodexBruciacianus. and considersit a lower or secondaryform of being. Christopher Stead.XV (1964). 1992). 6 Numenius' extant writings can be found in the Edouard des Places edition. one which removes causality from the highest being. and the ChaldeanOracles. the Peratae.I men- 60 The Philonic reference also allows Gregory the opportunity to reduce Eunomius' theology to a form of Judaism. 63 of his "Parallel Structures in the Metaphysics of Iamblichus and Ibn Gabirol." JeoplatonismandJewish Thought. have suggested that a doctrine like Numenius' of a personallyinactive primal god. (Albany: State University of New York Press. pp." Among those who held this position Mathias includes the author of "De Mundo.p.160 on Wed. Mathias singles out hellenistic philosophers who taught "a 'self-generating' second principle that creates itself out of the quiescent first principle. Numenius Fragments(Paris: Societe d'tdition "Les Belles Lettres. 61-76. "Logos and Trinity. thinks that Origen found his distinction between "the good" and "good" in Numenius. as am I. by now a conventional pro-Nicene polemical device. 361- 379. 63 G. rpt. 19-22. "Logos and Trinity: Patterns of Platonist Influence on Early Christianity.Numenius.

on entirely new grounds.ut. Lucas F. "66And for q(puot i&i6tm . Raoul Mortley has recently argued.... translated by Stuart G. 95. Doctrineof Transcendent Gregory's Power If we turn directly to Gregory's own theology. .Gregory uses ontologicallanguage drawn from medical and platonic sources. Mateo-Seco andJ. in El ContraEunomiumI.For 85)vagt. Instead of the political language that Eunomiusprefers.64Even if one does not accept all of Mortley's claims for Eunomius.160 on Wed. This content downloaded from 128.: ". have at the same time. 11:137-139. the overall fact remains: probably the best way to understand Eunomius would be to write a philological commentary on him. each concur- rently with itself.Given Dillon's characterizationof Aristotelianinflu- ence in a doctrine of delegated demiurgy. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .: "Heat is a natural property of fire. Hall. On p. or of scents and ointmentsand the quality they emit. and NPNF V:71.. . Bastero. 66 GNO I 147:17-18. . luminosity to the sunbeam. he has none the less opened a new and wholly acceptablevenue for discussingEunomius'debt to fourth centuryAristotelianism. then my argument here adds anothervoice to Mortley'sin suggestingthat the originalchargeof Eunomius' Aristotelianism should be reconsidered and not simply reduced to a Cappadocian polemical device... 1986)." However. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 73 tion these judgements on the conceptual geneology of delegated produc- tivity because Eunomius' errors were traditionallyunderstood as owing to the influence of Aristotle.. He favors three terms in par- ticular:56va."And what of the sun? Is it not . From Wordto Silence. p. p. that Eunomius' theology can in some meaningful sense be described as owing to an Aristotelian variety of neoplatonism.auCpuevand (puaotri86tb1g. eds. 92 (hereafter cited as Hall).235... (Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag Gmbh. we see that he describes transcendentcausalityin terms which suggest the ontological unity that he believes exists between divine nature and divine causality. the natural property they emit: as the sun its beam. 147 Mortley says of Eunomius' thought that ".251." 65 GNO I 140:17-18. Hall. while they remain in themselves without diminution.The sense of these three terms for Gregory can be easily illustrated. (Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra. 151-159. Syrianus and Dexippus. for these.A. NPNF V:73. S. treating all his vocabulary as if it came from Proclus.two vols. These traditionalcharges were polemically moti- vated and turned a blind eye to Aristotelianinfluence on the "orthodox.. . by the same power that it warms everything?"65 For oua(psu?. 1988). the 64 Raoul Mortley.as in the case of the sun and its beam.

"but there power causality is otherwise evident. Rist.written within a few years after the books of AgainstEunomius. In virtu- ally every work where Gregory describesthe unity of the Trinity he refers to the relationshipbetween fire and heat as an analogy for that unity.69In each case he argues that we know of the presence of a particular nature because we recognize the associated power. For just as. Hall p. points out. 69.251.160 on Wed.The analogy does not appear in On '"ot ThreeGods.68 For Gregory. as John M. or ice and cold. as well as ice and its power cold. The same argument is used by Gregory in his Refutationof the Creedof Eunomius. 68 The analogy of fire and heat to the Trinity is found in obviously trinitarian texts such as AgainstEunomius. to the divine nature and its power. shining and warm- ing in precisely the same way. the best examples of the relationship between a nature and its power are fire and heat.. 69 The use of fire and burning or heat and snow and cold to describe the Transcendent Being may be seen as a convention in the School Platonism of the era since these images are used by Philo and Plotinus to the same effect.but in evidence for the divinity of the Spirit."67These three examples illustratethe related sense these terms share.these examples show how Gregory understands dynamisin its technical sense and not in the common political sense.and Catechetical Orations. p. particularlythe example of the relationshipbetween fire and heat. in the lan- guage Gregory prefers to use for such things. so if the Spirit does the works of the Father. Plotinus:The Road to Reality(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. the scents the perfume. 1967). I must add that I choose these passages because they are direct illus- trations of transcendent causality as Gregory understands it. "For if his work is that named. if anything should perform the functions of fire. . NPNF V:204. to illustrate 67 GNO II 196:12-18. and he regularly com- pares fire and its power heat. in particular. He must assuredly be acknowledged to be of the same nature with Him.74 MICHEL RENE BARNES lamp its brightness. These similes play a special role in Plotinus' account of emanation because they derive from Phaedo 149-150. 70 GNO I 154:25-155:15.and not This content downloaded from 128. 99. and in such a one difference of kind from Deity can have no place. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .235. The analogies of fire and heat and ice and cold appear again in Gregory's On the Hoy Trinity." GNO 11:402:15-19. in On the Trinity. as well as cold and ice. NPNF V:132..What is distinctive about Gregory's use of this analogy in On the Holy Trinityis that in this text Gregory refers to heat and cold as energeia. and in incidentally trinitarian texts like Homilieson the Lord'sPrayer. The kind of unity between an exist- ent and its power exemplified in the relationshipbetween fire and heat is fundamental to Gregory's understandingof trinitariandoctrine.70Gregory uses heat and fire. He has assuredly the same power and nature [dynamiskai physis] as Him Who works it. it is itself certainly fire.Againstthe Creedof 383. These examples will later give us clues to influences on Gregory's understandingof transcendentcausality.

Gregory is not at this point arguing. A comparison of the appearance of dynamis in Plotinus' argument with its appearance in Gregory's makes clear that while dynamis appears in the Plotinus text almost incidentally.Gregory cannot because of the immediate influences on his understanding of "idion. Both authors use the relationship between fire and heat or burning to illus- trate the kind of relationship they wish to attribute to God and a capacity to act. When Gregory uses the relationship of the power heat to the nature fire as an analogy of the relationship between divine power and divine nature he depends upon this sense of the necessary link between power and nature to indicate the kind of unity that exists between the two. This content downloaded from 128. however. Furthermore. The argument for the necessary existence of God's power. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . from equating dynamiswith idion. The sense of idion for Philo is roughly the same as dynamisfor Gregory. 71 GNO I 176:1-10.160 on Wed.71Each being has its distinguishingcharacteristics:the distinguishingcharacteristicof fire is heat. Basil uses idionto explain how each Person in the Trinity is distinguished: the first Person is distinguished by the idion of being ungenerated or of being Father (these two are not identical). comes later in AgainstEunomius. In the same way that "fire would hardly be what it is without giving off heat" so too the One would not be what it is without the second Hypostasis proceeding from it.Similarly. because of the neces- sary relationship between powers and natures.235. 110. and it is necessarily the case that when one encounters Providence one encounters God. and so forth. that of ice is cold. He means by this term something that is both unique and dis- tinctive to some specific thing: to burn is unique and distinct to fire and distinguishes it from everything else. 72 In his Allegorical 1:3 Philo calls burning an 'Stov (idion)of fire (as chill- Interpretation ing is an idionof snow). such that the presence of the former invariablyindicates the presence of the latter. Hall p. Gregory cannot identify dynamis with idionbecause of the recent development of the latter concept by Basil in his Against Eunomius11:28. Plotinus. Plotinus' reference in EnneadV 1 6 to the relationship of heat to fire provides a helpful illustration of the kind of necessity inherent in emanation. given the existence of the divine nature. Son and Holy Spirit have all activities in common has been interpreted as Gregory's fundamental insight into trinitarian theology. both authors cannot simply identify "idion"with "dynamis":Philo cannot because of the immediate influences on his understanding of dynamis. Thus. the second Person by the idion of being generated.when Gregory describes the Son as the power of God.pp.251. that is. Gregory makes the reference to dynamisfundamental to his argument because he is interested in the kind of existence described by dynamis.This difference in terminology cannot be passed over lightly since Gregory's arguments in On the Holy Triniy and On 'Not ThreeGods"that the Father. it is necessarily the case that when one encounters heat one encounters fire. for the concept carries none of the argument.72Gregory makes explicit the understandingthat dynameis. and when he speaks of distinguishing power of the divine nature as the power to produce. for the necessity of the existence of the respective powers given the existence of the respective natures. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 75 how powers and natures are inseparablyrelated. Basil has set idionas a means of explaining in what way the Persons are distinct. For Rist."The same Jewish liturgical identification of dynamiswith doxawhich supported Philo's frequent identification of these two would also have prevented him from using dynamisto name what heat is of fire. 68-69.

Since powers are in fact inseparable from the natures. will manifestly be identified by the same marks. serve as invariable marks or signs of the underlying nature or essence.6. of course. Hall p. the essence can never be without its power(s). In Eunomius' system. Hall p.160 on Wed. 75 This is a very important example for Gregory to use. Balas. by which the identity of the underlying nature is recognized.76 MICHEL RENE BARNES the dynamis manifeststhe underlyingnature:"In each. For Gregory. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . as an analogy describing the virtuous nature of Christ's human soul. There is no separation in existence or in time between the nature and its power(s). 110. and those which are the same in terms of being. Otis-have treated. for it originally appears in Origen's On FirstPrinciples. At GNO I 176:11-16. 73 GNO I 174:3-7. diastema.the powers. then one necessarilydenies as well the attri- bution of the power unique to that essence. which others-Balthasar. 109.74 Fire's causality also provides Gregory with an example of the kind of unity that he means to refute and deny." 74 Again see GNO I 174:28-175:13.235. one necessarily denies the possibility of the associated essence as well. if one denies the attributionof a certain nature.. that is."73 These inherent characteristics..75 The unity between iron and heat is not connatural. the causal capac- ity (the activity) is temporary because it is not essential. Gregory's argument for the temporal co-existence of nature and power is.6. for it is not in the in Book I of his AgainstEunomiusGregory is explaining in what way the Persons are shown to be united. the characteristics must surely be and reckoned different. Gregory's argument for the lack of temporal interval between the divine nature and power is part of his argument for the lack of interval. because it is neither identical with the essence nor does it have any necessary relationship with the essence.. if one denies the attri- bution of a particular power to an existent. which culminates at 175:10-13 with Gregory's state- ment that: "Where things are different. Euno- mius' doctrine of the Son's participation in divinity through obedience amounts to the same kind of unity that exists between a piece of iron held in a forge and the heat in this iron: the iron is hot.in the divine life. through an energeia-basedcausality in which there is a diastemabetween the ousza(or physis)and its causal powers or properties. but only temporarily.. namely that the Son is divine only because he participatesin the Godhead. and powers exist for the same duration as their natures. Similarly.11.251.. According to Gregory. According to Origen. subjectsome inher- ent characteristicsare observed. and which I need not develop further except to emphasize that Gregory's denial of a diastemain the divine life is a part of his attack upon Eunomius' sequencing or ranking of the Son and Spirit. pointed against Eunomius' causality which emphasizes the lack of contem- poraneous existence of divine essence and cause. Gregory describes this inseparability of nature and power in terms of time. while Christ's soul is not good by nature and there- fore could theoretically choose good or evil. His soul embraces the good so thoroughly This content downloaded from 128.

even though in principle iron is susceptible to both the hot and the cold. to suppose that the nature of each of them [Son and Spirit] is necessarily defectible. but if it gets into snow or ice. equally receptive of opposites and lying on the boundary between good and its opposite. In the same way.) In On the Holy Spirit 16:38 Basil uses the presence of fire in iron to make the same kind of point as Gregory: unlike the Holy Spirit. 76 ". if it associates for a long time with fire. it takes on the quality of heat. the angels are not holy by nature.5/I (1989).. Gregory's argument suggests that in fact Origen's theol- ogy of the pre-existent soul of Christ may have played a role in Eunomius' trinitarian theology. that a falling away is virtually impossible. 135. More importantly. Origen then offers this analogy: a piece of iron placed in fire will take on the fire.. Rudolf Lorenz. Vaggione gives a good sum- mary of this argument in pp." TorontoJournal of Theology. Basil's use of this analogy is an implicit criticism of Origen. One who says this will be arguing that it is one thing in its own proper definition. while Gregory's use of the analogy of iron in fire as an example of the wrong understanding of why the Son mani- fests the same power(s) as the Father is a definite rejection of Origen's reasoning on this point. Heresy and Tradition by Rowan Williams: A Review Article. 1980) has already suggested that Arius' theol- ogy of the second Person bears a remarkable resemblance to Origen's theology of the Incarnated soul of Jesus in his Ariusjudaizans?. it changes its quality towards the prevailing influence. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . then they are potentially receptive to the opposite just as the hot iron is receptive to cold. so long as the iron remains in the fire. but from his doctrine of the pre-existent soul of Jesus Christ" by pointing out that "Almost all the evidence comes from the later stages of the controversy. If the Son and Spirit are divine by participationand not by nature. Vaggione proceeds to cast doubt on Lorenz's theory that "Arianism can be seen as deriving not from Origen's teaching on the Trinity or Logos.76 Gregory'sdoctrine of transcendentproductivitythus stands in stark con- trast to both anti-Nicene and some school Platonic doctrines of mediated causality.p. (See Williams. is utterly profane. 215-222. Thus with iron it happens that. and becomes something else by participation in good and evil." (p. for a discussion of this passage. Arnus. taking the cold of the snow into its own intimate parts. Gregory provides evidence that the pro-Nicenes rejected the idea of using the language of moral unity which described the unity present in the Incarnation to describe the unity present in the Godhead." GNO I 110:5-14. 63-87. and could never become (or receive) cold.. 76.235. and could never become evil. 70-72 of "Arius.251. but fire cannot be cold. but only to receive heat (to become hot). He is clear that the power that brings the cosmos into existence is fully transcendent.160 on Wed. while remaining iron. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 77 nature of iron to be hot. This content downloaded from 128. The sign of the difference between the way heat or light subsistsin fire versus the way heat or light subsists in iron is the fact that iron can be either hot or cold.pp. but holiness is received by them and exists in them just like fire is received by iron. Christ's soul becomes and is good. Ariusjudaizans? (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.. 72). Hall p.

Another borrowingfrom 72:1-2 is at 137:18.251.The word "bounds"is a term which appearsin Eunomius'summaryof his beliefs. [T]here is no question that the universeis borderedby the Power [dynamis] of the Creator and lies within creation's limits. 89. which he calls "the highest and most authentic being. For every thought that applies to the uncreated Power [dynamis] is "high"and is principle.77 This understanding is shortly re-stated by Gregory in an even more pointedly anti-Eunomian form. Longman & Todd. a translationof teptypaqpi'. This content downloaded from 128.. In a passagefrom 136:24-25.. translationslightlyaltered..see usefuldiscussionof the significanceof perigraphe GospelMessageand HellenisticCulture[London: Darton. 373- 375.This is in fact its most charac- teristic mark.) Gregory'suse of the term here indicateshis revisionof Eunomius'formulae.though there is no clear parallelwith Eunomius'language. 78 GNO I 137:3-6. whereit is used to name an independentlysubsistentexistent.. 79 GNO I 72:1-2.17-19. To refute Eunomius.I also noteJean Danielou's in Clementof Alexandria'swritings."79 Gregory's point is simple: the transcendence and pri- ority Eunomius found in (and limited to) the uniquely divine ousia of God (the Father) is in fact properly attributed to the dynamiscommon to the three Persons. (HEptypaqpnjappearsin Origen's Commentary on the GospelofJohn. but is known only in being incomprehensible. and also appearsin Gregory'sstatementat GNO I 77:7-10 that "Thingsare naturally 'circumscribed'only by what is oppositeto them. Hall p. and demands the name "most authentic"78 In this passage Gregory takes over Eunomius' own language for describ- ing the transcendence of the divine ousia and applies it to the divine dynamis as a description of the kind of existence appropriate to the power.and not simply to the physis.. But the Power [dynamis]that creates beings. 1973]. I emphasize that Gregory appropriates and applies this transcendent language to the dynamis. which echoes Eunomius'languageat 72:12.. it provides no tokens of its own nature. Gregory attributes the transcendent language associated with the essence to the power. that its nature is superior to every concept by which it might be recognized.Hall p. The phrases "high" [avco] and "most authentic" [icuptoraTto] are Eunomius' own preferred terms for the First Essence.78 MICHEL RENE BARNES .he speaks of the power as "highand blessed. Hall p.160 on Wed. has itself nothing to contain it . 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .This kind of correctingof Eunomius'doctrinesby Gregoryis more pronouncedin the very next passagequoted. 90. 57."which is the understandingGregory gives the term here."which also suggeststhat Gregoryis re-workingEunomius' own language..235. which by itself bounds the nature of originatedthings. In a polemic one expects disputed language to be 77 GNO I 135:15-19.. pp. [The ousia]is before all beginning.

I cite one more passage from Gregory: . 1937) 11:106-107. but reg- ularly in Life of Moses.. 1908)..et 80 GNO I 136:24-27.83 Eunomius' writings.. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 77:20 and 78:25.85 5ovd&. in order of fre- quency. one may set Gregory's writings in a sequence according to their use of "divine dynamis"as the preferredtitle for God. (Paris:Librairie Alphonse Picard et Fils.two vols. and trans. This content downloaded from 128. The phrase DInep%EXov has a significant history. bnEpKeicLcVo.82and Catechetical as well as the four books against Orations.5. DiscoursCatechtique.with the result that the title "divine dynamis"replaces "divinephysis" in Gregory's writings.84For "transcendent"Gregory uses. NPNF V:375.Louis Meridier.g. both what is past and what is awaited are seen to be firmly held by the Power which embraces all. 81 See. Hall pp. (Or. Moreover. 85 See Paul Shorey. For exam- ple. alternately. for example. 84 The four books include the three of AgainstEunomiusand the book written to refute Eunomius' Creed of 383. uiXrl6. 82 GNO 111:2.81 OnthePremature Deathof Infants. to which all things are always equally instan- taneously present. M 46 92C. and trans.251.235.80 The appearance of power in such descriptions of the Transcendent is distinctive. Gregory has not taken the course of separating the divine power from the transcendentexistence. as one might expect. much less typically. 83 See e.. TRcepeov. these phrases appear relativelyrarely in On theMakingof Man.) One may in fact say that as Gregory's theology matures his use of the phrases divine power and transcendentpower increases. Republic. 114. The PowerBeyondBeing Gregory's description of the divine power as "transcendent"appears in a wide variety of his writings:in On theSoulandResurrection. 89-90. for it appears in Republic509 B. not. Loeb (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. For Gregory this unity between the divine dynamisand divine physisis both so complete and so significantthat he is led to speak of the transcendentdynamismore than the transcendent physis. ed. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 79 reclaimed: what is noteworthy is that Gregory reclaims it for the power. that high and blessed Power. ed. It is not simply the case that Gregory considerspower and nature so united that he can freely substituteone for the other: Gregory uses power in preference to nature.. or..160 on Wed. in each of these passages Gregory refers to the transcendentpower. to the transcendentnature.

refers Republic509 B to the Father alone." 89 ". By applying the same standards as one usually finds used for ousia. ed. vol.."' 88 Preparationfor theGospel. as Eusebius puts it.. and trans.LivresXI.." See his "6 Wv and the Transcendence of Being in God's Thought. Edouard des Places.3:2. Gregory's interpreta- tion. Origen's own use of Plato's text is as a means of advancing his own theological description of the Son or Logos as the Revelation of the Father. because they have received their existence and their essence from Him who is not an essence. La preparationevangilique.. 586.ooaia. Yet there is no rea- son why a Hellenistic writer would see this aspect of 509 B as the most interesting and noteworthy feature of the platonic text. like Origen."88 Thus Eusebius.. 509 B "actsas a 87 Peter Widdicombehas arguedthat in Origen'stheologyRepublic handmaidento his emphasison the unique revelatoryfunction of the Son.p..trans. Evangelicae three Praeparationes. He also suggests. 345. SC. 292.ed. of the productive transcendent power has no prece- dent or authority in Origen or Eusebius of Caesarea.. an approximate appearance of the phrase eicetv fa ij o-ioagS (or inCepKzeigevov Tzf..and comm. In scholarly practice. I suggest that every time Gregory uses 6vvagts. p. (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf. GenevieveFavrelle. 1982). XI:21. NPNF V:449. Gifford.. Note the com- ment that "the Hebreworacleswith good reasonproclaim[Him] as God. [the Son was begotten from the Father] by the Father'stranscendentand This content downloaded from 128.biepex(ov he refers to 509 B. Gregory's 86 M 46 92C.80 MICHEL RENE BARNES The appearance of dynamishere suggests an interpretative question for the modern reader: when does textual similarity constitute an implicit refer- ence? When scholars find textual echoes of Republic 509 B in a passage that similarity usually centers on a description of ousia: a reference to 509 B is one which speaks of transcending essence.160 on Wed.. 6. as being the cause of all things. tomes in four vols. E. 342-346.H." StudiaPatristicaXXVI (1993). via Republic509 B. ". 154-156. One such exam- ple is in On the Soul and Resurrectionwhere he says that the "real Good" possesses a nature "that surpasses every idea that we can form of the Good and transcends all other power. but far transcends essence in dignity and power.) is considered to be a reference to 509 B."86 What is striking about Gregory's use of Republic509 B language is that he understands the transcendence of the power to be a guarantee or proof that the transcendent is in itself a productive power.87 Eusebius interprets Republic 509 B to support his case that neither the Son nor ideas are coessential with God the Father. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. pp. 1903).89 while Gregory refers the transcendent power to the divine nature.235.251. that Origenmay have thought"Paul's'eternalpower' and 'divinity'[fromRomans 1:20] to be equivalentto Plato's'dignityand power.

How then could the most perfect.. as imitations of the first generation by the One. of "We love because He first loved us. Loeb V:41 (Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress. the first Good. 6. Armstrong. if you will. and the primal power.. etc."' V 1. when it is the productive power of all things?91 Plotinus is the most articulate and forceful spokesman for the idea that the power of production exists in the First Principle because of what it is. 1966). See also: "[The FirstPrinciple]. it must be the most powerful of all beings and the other powers must imitate it as far as they are able.Loeb V:143. snow and cold. and does not endure to remain by itself. Ferrar. and arrives at being and substance:for that Principleis 'beyond being. but makes something else.H. the most perfect of all. 6 bears directly on the subject at hand: inconceivableWill and Power.") The most important statement of Plotinus' doctrine of the One's productivityis given in EnneadV 1.235. emphasisadded.' That is the productive power of all things."TheDemonstration of theGospelIV:3. Now when anything else comes to perfectionwe see that it produces. 92 There are several reasonswhy this text is worth noting. the greatestindeed of all..1:168. A. see: "[Platocalls the One] the Good and that which is beyond Intellectand 'beyond being.GCS 154:20- 21.251..92The specific language of V 1. remain in itself as if it grudged to give of itself. The presenceof Ennead V 1 in Cappadocianwritingsis so ubiquitousthat to a large degree if one speaksof Plotinianinfluenceon the Cappadociansone means the influenceof EnneadV 1 since This content downloaded from 128. In the passage from EnneadV 4.. Power belongs to the First Principle and is not a characteristicof an intermedi- ate being. 2. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 81 intellectual precedent and authority for his understandingof the inherent power of the Transcendent is Plotinus.. 8:7-9. 90 For a typicalPlotinianinterpretationof Republic509 B. as fire warms. is a great power. his descriptionof the procession of the Intellect from the One as an "over- flowing" of the One is well known and much commented upon.. or was impotent.TheEnneads. the Soul) is a result of the power of the One "runningdown" with being to the lower hypostases.. 91Armstrong. 1: If the First is perfect. The pro- ductive capacity found in lower causes (the Intellect." V 4. and drugs act on something else in a way correspondingto their own nature-all imitating the First Principle as far as they are able by tending to everlastingnessand generosity. (A metaphysicalversion.160 on Wed. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and it is not something that can be delegated away. one of the Plotinian texts we are sure Gregory knew. snow cools.90The resemblance between these two authors in thought and language can be recognized in Plotinus'Ennead V 4.Loeb V:149. 1 quoted above Plotinus describes the relationship between fire and heat. Heikel. Armstrong.

(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 7-9. But the general sense of Plotinus' passage is better reflected in Gregory's theology: the kind of being God is means that God will produce." What Meijering misses is that the eternal delegation of creative power is still delega- tion: a doctrine which solves the problem of God's "splendid isolation" does not neces- sarily solve the problem of God's inactivity vis a vis creation.Ascetic.. Brill. as long as they remain in being. trans. 99. E. Much of this passage will seem familiar to any reader of Gregory. 10. in dependence on their present power. This common feeling led Origen to postulate an eternal creation and Athanasius an eternal begetting (while deny- ing the eternity of the world). 105. 1975). 209 and 215 and also Dehnhard's commentary on De Spirituin Das ProblemderAbhangigkeit des Basilius von Plotin.. 181. Meijering says. 6. See John M. Plotinus seems likely to have influenced Eusebius' choice of fragrance to describe the product (the Word) as an image of its source (God). 1981).Paul J.2 to the doctrine of "over-flowing" is to Ennead V 2. "as the eternal Father of the eternal Son. like the bright light of the sun which. ed. SC 250. Perhaps the most suggestive sign of influence is Plotinus' and Gregory's com- bination of fire and heat and snow and cold with the example of fra- grance." in Basil of Caesarea:Christian. 93 Meijering argues that Origen and Athanasius shared a "dislike [of] the idea of an inactive God in splendid isolation.82 MICHEL RENE BARNES [The activity of the One is] a radiation from it while it remains unchanged.160 on Wed. (Leiden: EJ. Furthermore. inactive and in splendid isolation.P." God Being Histo?y. "stresses the eternity of the Son as God's creative Power." Of Athanasius.. runs round it. 44. there is nothing This content downloaded from 128. Band 3 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. "Basil's'Neoplatonism': Its Background and Nature. in finding the doctrine of "over-flowing" in V 1. Gregory is more likely to be referring to EnneadIII 8. p. Perfumed things show this particularly. portions of this Enneadare quoted by Eusebius and are known to Cyril of Alexandria.251. snow does not only keep its cold inside itself. suggest- ing that EnneadV 1 was one of the first texts by Plotinus to have any influence on Christian thought. Fedwick. 192-193. Frederick Norris.235. Meijering says.Humanist. the one God was never lonely.93 Conceptually what Plotinus and Gregory have in common is their insist- this Enneadseems to have been known by all the Cappadocians.. Patristiche Texte und Studien. 2 vols. for in neither Origen nor Eusebius are all these similes brought together conceptually or textually. springing from it continually while it remains unchanged.. a surrounding reality directed to what is outside them. 1991). p. who is His creative Power. thinks that Gregory of Nazianzus' reference in Oration29. a kind of image of the archetypes from which it was produced: fire produces the heat which comes from it. follows Gallay. comm. Meijering. I:162-164. Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning:The Five TheologicalOrationsof Gregoryof Jazianzen. so to speak. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . p. All things which exist. Lionel Wickham and Frederick Williams.. Rist.p. necessarily produce from their own substances. p. 1964). Origen. GodBeingHistory(Amsterdam: North-Holland. 100. What is Meijering claiming for Origen that could not be claimed as well for Philo? Furthermore.

The Search.95Similarly. 96 For references to the Son as "Life-giving" Power.. 103. the cosmos indicates that the Son lives the same kind of existence as the Father.. Hall p. creates the cosmos..p. see GNO I 120:16. wisdom and what- ever else is piously attributed to the divine. mighty.. Hall p." (GNO I 95:9-11...251. Eusebius had already spoken of the Son as the image of God because of the way He was generated (i. "[there is] no greater or lesser. Thus a recurring name for the Son is Life-giving Power. [Thus the procession of the Intellect from the One presents the question:] What is the One that it emanates Nous and Being?" 95 Hanson... and it is that 'necessary' connection which we must bear in mind when we think of the importance and significance of this particular metaphor. 69: "There is some kind of 'necessary' connection between the two [i. Soul.. just.e. p. Both Plotinus94and Gregory draw conclusions about the First Cause from what each produces: the One produces Mind and. Hall p.) Emphasis added in each quotation. 32:2. Gregory's characterization of this productivity as following from God's goodness is no less than Plotinus'. and through Him.e. quotes with approval Holl's summary of Gregory's trinitarian theology: "Holl finely says of him [i. power.97 The best indication of the importance of power and goodness as criteria or signs of divine being is the summary of in Meijering's description of the Athanasian solution to the doctrinal problem of God's loneliness that could not be attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea or even to Eunomius. Plotinus. 69. "[Eunomius brings] the concept of size into the debate" to argue that one Person "is superior or inferior in goodness. 132:23. through it." Hanson's remark is a good example of how the concept of power is noted in modern scholarship only en passant. both Plotinus and Gregory conceive of this productivity as an expression of the Good. since creation is proof of the life-giving existence of the Son. Gregory] that for him God was a life-imparting power existing in three forms..96 As I have already noted.) Or again. 230:20.) And finally Gregory lists the signs of divinity as: "deity itself. Hall p. glory wisdom. This content downloaded from 128. 302:14. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 214:19. 730. GNO II 21:3.235.160 on Wed.." (GNO I 126:11-16. God generates the Son." (GNO I 161:24-25. Goodness and power are recurring virtues in the lists Gregory regularly provides as criteria of being. Heat emanates from fire because fire is what it is." (GNO I 95:12-15.. 94 See Rist.. 97 Gregory says.. patient.. 69) Gregory's reply is that there "is no lack of wisdom or power or any other good thing in one to whom goodness is not something acquired. fire and heat]. 126:7. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 83 ence that the First Principle is known to be the kind of Being that pro- duces. [being] judge. 243:21. as an odor from perfume).. of power. wisdom and power and being good.. Gregory is less inclined to think of the Son as transparentto the Father than to regard the fact of the Son's existence as an indicator of the kind of existence the Father lives: a life-giving kind of existence.e. for example. kindness or any other good one can think of. 89.

we confessthree Persons. one can also see Christopher Stead's "The Freedom of the Will and the Arian Controversy.. The Cappadocians were sensitive to this criticism. from Origen and Arius) but. associate Plotinian-like con- cepts with orthodox theology. GodBeing History.is that it highlights the importance of the freedom of God's will for Arian and Eusebian theology." in Platonismusund Christentum."98 What the Cappadocians reject in Plotinus' account of procession from the One is the sense of the real inferiority of the Intellect compared to the One and the inevitability of generation. Horst- Dieter Blume and Friedhelm Mann... 94 and 108-109. 'O' The virtue of Gregg's and Groh's book. 63. more acutely. Early Arianism.235.'10 Gregory's idea of divine productivity is indeed heavily indebted to 98GNO III:la 5:18 ff. The consistent Cappadocian rejection of Plotinian "inevitable process" language is in part an honest expression of their distance from Plotinus.. 105. Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus already referred to. (Munster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. See pp. the issue of God's will is described primarily as an issue in a debate between Origen and Athanasius. there is one goodness. Aside from Meijering's discussion of the doctrines of God's will held by Origen. and one power.. says that "[Gregory of Nazianzus'] objection to Plotinus' doctrine of the generation is that it implies that this generation is an act against the will of the One.160 on Wed. 99 Meijering. It is not clear from Meijering's comments what would be different in Athanasius' theology if Arius had never been born-except that Athanasius would not have had to misrepresent Origen.84 MICHEL RENE BARNES his faith Gregoryoffersin OntheHolyTrinity: ". because the Cappadocians acknowledge a kind of priority to the Father as cause. In the ApologyEunomius accused those who taught the eternal generation of the Son of teaching the eternity of the world. '00 Apology22:10-12. Extant Works. While he acknowledges Arius' theology as an alternative that Athanasius is opposed to. eds. from contemporary anti-Nicenes like Eunomius.251. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus. not simply historically (i. while the open flank of anything even resembling Nicene theology was the question of God's will in the generation of the Son.p.?00The argument for God's freedom was always the strong point of anti-Nicene theology. or among Plotinus. as we see from Gregory of Nazianzus' Oration29.e. But I suspect that such rejections are also partially motivated by an attempt to dissociate their theology from Plotinus before the Eunomians could. and were careful not to present the Eunomians with anything to support their attack. with some effect.." Elsewhere Meijering notes that the Plotinian procession involves subordination since what is caused is inferior to the cause. He implies that the Cappadocians were not as sensitive to the inherent subordinationism of Plotinian lan- guage as Athanasius would have been. This content downloaded from 128. and one Godhead. NPNF V:326-327.p. One weakness of Meijering's analysis is that he treats the question of the freedom of God's will as though it were not an issue under intense polemical pressure.99 Eunomius had already sav- aged homoiousianand homoousiantheology for removing God's freedom.

The identification of fire with intelligence is further illustrated in Philo's allegorical exegesis of Genesis 22:7B in On Flight and FindingXXIV:132-134. Loeb V:81. In both his Homilieson the Hexaemeron 6:3 and On the Holy Spirit 16:38." Butterworth. 245-257." See CatecheticalOrations. 112. Gregory offers his own tentative analogy of the way in which will and natural productive capacity act in God's generation of the Son. including a familiar reference to the relationship between iron and the fire which sometimes inhabits it.. where "the divine power.160 on Wed. NPNF V:202. While fire with a will may seem an unusual possibility to modem sensibilities. Basil speaks at length on the importance of fire. where he gathers together the scriptural references to God as fire to support his etymology of the word "soul" (v-oXf) from "getting cold" (ji{xeoait).p. pp. 6. "whose cause is indeed the Sun. Jeremiah 5:14. Plotinus. Rist. "As therefore God is 'fire' and the angels 'a flame of fire' and the saints are all 'fer- vent in spirit.' so on the contrary those who have fallen away from the love of God must undoubtedly be said to have cooled in their affection for him and to have become cold. Gregory of Nazianzus provides another exam- ple of the presumed relationship between God and fire when he speaks of those "bright students of Greek etymology" who derive the word "God" "from words meaning 'to run' or 'to burn'-the idea being continuous movement and consuming of evil quali- ties hence.. including note 9.'04 1983).. one of This content downloaded from 128. where the fire of "Behold the fire!" is interpreted as "Behold the mind. suggests that Plotinus uses heat from fire to illustrate the emanation of Nous because of the Stoic description of the hegemonikon as a kind of emanation from the sun. he hypothesizes. as in Malachi 3:2. but its Christianappro- priation requires a correct appreciation of God's will.251.. acting like fire . Gregory has already spoken of the generation of the Son using the language of the ray streaming from the Sun.3. Gregory is himself familiar with a psychological theory which describes fire as similar to intelligence." Coulson and Whittaker.NPNF V:496.'03 The choice of fire for a hypotheticalexample of a simple unity of nature with will is interestingfor several reasons. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 85 the kind of productivitydescribedin EnneadV 1.7. 123. and Hebrews 1:7. '04 Another authority for using fire in this way is the Bible. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . What if. but whose existence is co-extensive with the Sun. who indeed is a second Sun.235. treat God's free will. 103 GNO II 192:20. since Gregory recognizes fire as a scripturally-based metaphor for God. Hall p. p. Stead is primarily concerned with the issue of the Son's free will in Arian and Athanasian doctrine.. 253 ff. certainly God is called a 'consuming fire' [at Deuteronomy 4:24. but pp.. and when it wills it will not be impotent since its natural dynamisat once fulfills its will. we attribute the power of choice to a flame?'02 It would be clear [then] that the flame will at once upon its existence will that its radiance should shine forth from itself." GNO I 180:20 f. 102 GNO II 192:19.. 68.3... Origen's scriptural references in support of describing God as fire include Deuteronomy 4:24 and 9:3. breath all warm and on fire. The Christian authority for Gregory's theological application of fire is Origen and On First Principles11.

. that the kind of reasoning typical of the cos- mological debates of the third century becomes formative for the trinitar- ian debates of the fourth century. for "fire and the understanding are alike in perpetual motion. but in fact serves as a frame for trini- tarian questions. 105 Gregory refers to those who locate mind in the heart because intelligence is simi- lar to fire.Eunomiusand Gregory attach their understandingof the unity of the Son with the Father to an understandingof the unity of the divine productivecapacity with the divine nature. Faith GivesFullness. and the relationshipbetween uncaused and caused. Norris et al. I have tried to sketch how the two opposed fourth cen- tury trinitariantheologies of Gregory of Nyssa's and Eunomius of Cyzicus found expressionin the aetiologies available in the cosmologies of the day. My account of the differences between Eunomius and Gregory contains the suggestion that the early Christian insight into the significanceof God as creator is not lost after Nicaea. Origen had establishedfor Greek trinitariantheology the view that any doctrine of the Trinity presumes an account of divine causality.105 Conclusion The foundationalrole in Christian theology of the doctrine that God is creatorcan hardlyhave escapedthe notice of any studentof earlyChristianity. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . M 44 157C. when the threat of radical dualism seems only hypothet- ical." NPNF V:397." TheologicalOration30. Even at Nicaea.Both Eunomius and Gregory accepted Origen's view.235. This content downloaded from 128. Eunomius' alternativeto Nicene and semi-Nicene doctrines of the Son's generation was to teach that the Son was created. Such cosmological precedents for trini- tarian doctrines are relevant because the trinitariandebate was conceived in terms of the priority of God (the Father) over the Son and the cosmos. In AgainstEunomiusII Gregory again refers to perpetual motion as a dynamis of fire: see GNO I 260:21.p. Doctrines of God and creation were introduced into the trinitariancontroversybecause all sides understood the question of the relationship between the first and second Persons in terms of productive causality. 274. his description of the Origen's 'fire' texts]. the rule of faith still begins with an affirmation of God as creator.251.18. their different doctrines of the unity of the Trinity are argued on the basis of differentdoctrinesof divine productivity.86 MICHEL RENE BARNES one which he describes in On theMakingof Man. a work of openly anti- Eunomian intent. My argument may be said to detail what is already known by scholars in a general way: namely.160 on Wed.

160 on Wed. p. is expressed in the Father's generation of the Son and in the Son's cre- ation of the cosmos. God's kind of existence is the kind that (re)produces.. of Theology Milwaukee. notices Plotinus' use of fire-heat." as one finds detailed in Joseph T. snow-cold.that is." p. "The 'Arian' Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered. Lienhard. Secondly. but because this capacity is the power of the divine nature." (Emphasis added. 7 Jan 2015 02:12:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 231 Papageorgiou concludes that Eunomius "used hypostasisin the same way as Plotinos did before him. 231.37 (1992). I have considerable trouble with Papageorgiou's argument.251. Panayiotis Papageorgiou argues that Eunomius' theology has as its starting point the "Neoplatonic (Plotinian) philosophical principle that the cause is greater than its effect.. on p.XLVIII (1987). this power. Gregory's argument for the unity of the Trinity turns precisely upon his understanding that a productive capacity is natural to God. Gregory's fundamental insight. First. and his argument against Eunomius... 6. In general.Thirdly.235." TheologicalStudies. Finally." The GreekOrthodoxTheologicalReview. he fails to observe Gregory's use of the same productive model. Thus Gregory argues that the common power of creation shown in the two Persons is evidence of their common nature. indeed Gregory's conception of this capacity as a power means not only that this capacity exists as a natural capacity in God. 231. some of which are not Neoplatonic. In this analysis he builds upon the understanding that divinity is naturallyproductive:this naturalproductivity. 224 Papageorgiou argues that "at the foundation of Eunomios' theology lies a basic Plotinian presupposition: that what is generated from God is outside of him and less than him..g. when Papageorgiou finds a term appearing in both the writings of Plotinus and Eunomius he moves to the assumption that Plotinus is the unique spokesman for a given term or concept (e. [as] equivalent to ousiaor being. For Gregory the transcendence of God includes the capacity to produce. he never offers evidence that Eunomius had actually read Plotinus. 219.. inso- far as it is the divine nature. i. 215-231. perfume-odor in V 1. &n7koi)). is productive. Marquette University Dept.WI 53223 106 In his recently published "Plotinos and Eunomios: A Parallel Theology of the Three Hypostases. This content downloaded from 128." p. 415-436. is that the divine nature.'06 By contrast. TWO TRANSCENDENT CAUSALITIES 87 Son's nature stressed both his created status (he is not the true God) and His role as Creator (he is God for us). although Papageorgiou.) Yet in a footnote on the same page Papageorgiou acknowledges that the principle that the cause is greater than its effect can be found in a wide variety of sources. in the body of his text on p." Papageorgiou seems unaware that there are Christian precedents for the understanding that "hypostasis is equivalent to ousia or being..e. although Papageorgiou is arguing that Eunomius "pro- ceeded to develop a system of thought depended [sic] on Plotinos and Neoplatonism ..