Junghoo Kwon Dream School Seosan, S. Korea [email protected]

“PRE-NESTORIANISM” IN SPAIN: THE LETTER OF VITALIS AND CONSTANTIUS AND PSEUDO-ATHANASIAN DE TRINITATE

Leporius from Gaul has been regarded as a precursor to in the West.1 At the same time, he has been found to be the only fi gure tied with “pre-” in the West. In this paper, I would like to introduce two more “pre-Nestorian” examples which deserve our att ention: The Lett er of Vitalis and Constantius (ca. 431)2 and the pseudo- Athanasian De trinitate.3 Both documents came from Spain and most likely they were writt en in the early part of the fi fth century. These Spanish documents present an extremely strong dyphysite Christol- ogy in danger of proposing two independent entities in the Media- tor. First, I will point out key Christological points of each document (parts 1 and 2). Then, I will demonstrate the critical reaction to such acute two-natured on the part of Capreolus, the bishop of Carthage (part 3). Finally, I will argue that one of the major factors that produced the theological context for such a strong dyphysite Christol- ogy was that of the Latin Arians (part 4).

(1) A. GRILLMEIER, in , vol. 1, Atlanta, 1975, pp. 464–467. (2) PL 53, 847–849. The Latin text is also available in P. GLORIEUX, Pré Ne- storianisme en Occident, Rome, 1959, pp. 39–41. (3) PL 62, 237–334; CCSL 9:3–99. For a comprehensive overview of the previous studies on the pseudo-Athanasian De Trinitate including the questions of authorship, date and place of origin, see the doctoral thesis of J. KWON, A Theological Investigation of the De Trinitate Att ributed to of Vercelli, Toronto, 2011, pp. 1–35.

150 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access Junghoo Kwon 151

1. The Christology of Vitalis and Constantius

Vitalis and Constantius wrote a lett er to Capreolus, bishop of Carthage in order to be informed of the regarding the Son. What prompted the two Spanish bishops to write the lett er was their knowl- edge of “some who say one ought not to say is born.”4 The two bishops did not give the names of these people. Then they continued to describe the faith of their enemies. Instead of saying that God is born, the latt er said that “a mere man (hominem purum) was born from Mary the virgin and after this God dwelled in him.”5 Glorieux argues that these people, whom Vitalis and Constantius encountered in Spain, seemed to have no connection to Leporius or to Nestorius.6 That is, these unnamed people in Spain produced a dangerous doctrine, inde- pendent of any infl uence outside Spain.7 Having stated that they objected to such heretical affi rmation, the two Spanish bishops confessed to the bishop of Carthage what they thought to be right and catholic. Here is their confession: “We confess thus that God (deus) was in the womb of Mary the Virgin, as- sumed some part (aliquam partem), God formed man (homi- nem) for himself, was born true God and true man whom he as- sumed for the of human kind.”8 Their confession highlights that Mary did not give birth to a mere man but to “true God and true man.” This understanding that the Savior is both God and man is fur- ther emphasized by another Christological confession they revealed in the middle of the lett er: One cannot say that the Mediator is God alone without man whom he assumed, nor man without God. There is a double designation in one person of the Mediator, God and man since the Mediator is

(4) Quia sunt hic quidam qui dicunt non debere dici Deum natum (PL 53, 847). (5) Nam et haec est fi des eorum, hominem purum natum fuisse de Maria virgine, et post haec Deum habitasse in eo (PL 53, 847). (6) GLORIUEX, Pré Nestorianisme en Occident, pp. 5–6. (7) However, in his reply to Vitalis and Constantius (PL 53, 849), Capreo- lus seemed to link these unnamed heretics with the “Nestorian (Ne- storianam haeresim).” A. Audollent also concluded that these unidentifi ed Spaniards holding defective Christological views derived from “Nestorian- ism” of the East. See A. AUDOLLENT, “Capreolus,” in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique, 11, ed. by L. COURTOIS, Paris, 1912, pp. 959–961. (8) PL 53, 848.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access 152 Scrinium IX (2013). Patrologia Pacifica Tertia

God from God and the same one is the son of man according to the fl esh. Therefore, this Mediator is true God and true man as if from the form of God and the form of man.9 But one fi nal remark which the two Spanish bishops made before they ended their lett er must have alarmed its recipient. The manner in which they presented their confession is similar to what they did in the previous part of the lett er, fi rst mentioning the heretical view and then theirs. But they say that a mere man (hominem purum) was arrested hung fi rmly on the cross. They also say that God withdrew from him. To these our smallness thus says, God never withdrew from the assumed man (ab homine assumpto) except when he said from the cross: ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? God, my God why have you forsaken me’ (Matt . 27:46)?10 What draws our att ention and must have drawn the att ention of the eminent bishop of Carthage is the condition the two Spanish bish- ops put on the suff ering of the Mediator. That the conditional clause (“except when...”) did not satisfy the bishop of Carthage, we know through his return lett er to the two Spanish bishops. We will see how he responded to them (part 3). At the moment, it suffi ces to note that somehow the two Spanish bishops appeared to believe that there was a time that God left his assumed man, that is, in times of suff ering on the cross.11 And they were absolutely certain that such confession was orthodox. Before we move on to another Spanish document which is subject to “pre-Nestorianism,” a few remarks are appropriate for the lett er of Vitalis and Constantius to Capreolus. First, Glorieux puts forth two cases which indicate that western “pre-Nestorianism” developed in- dependently of the East: “le cas de Leporius” and “la consultation de- mandée à Capreolus.”12 The former is widely known and appears it is no problem for it to be regarded as such. But with the latt er, as I have

(9) PL 53, 849. (10) Nunquam Deus recessit ab homine assumpto, nisi quando dixit de cruce […] quare me dereliquisti? (PL 53, 849). Emphasis is mine. (11) Due to its brief nature, the lett er does not tell us how long the sepa- ration lasted or when exactly God assumed man a second time if he ever re- turned to him. Another Spanish document which we will see below (part 2) gives us the answers to these important questions. (12) GLORIUEX, Pré Nestorianisme en Occident, pp. 5–7.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access Junghoo Kwon 153 noted above, it is diffi cult to consider it a “pre-Nestorian” case in the West because those unidentifi ed enemies of Vitalis and Constantius seemed to have connections to the East and Nestorius. Glorieux’s ad- mission itself that the lett er to Capreolus was most likely writt en af- ter the (431)13 also convinces us that the unnamed agitators of the in Spain mentioned in the lett er writt en by the two Spanish bishops seemed to be related to “Nestorianism” in the East. Second, this does not mean that the lett er of Vitalis and Constan- tius should be set aside in our discussion of “pre-Nestorianism” in the West. It seems appropriate that the unnamed enemies of Vitalis and Constantius should not be considered as a case which can prove the existence of “pre-Nestorianism” in the West. Then, why should the lett er be regarded as “pre-Nestorian”? On the basis of what I have pointed out above and what follows in Part II, I am proposing that the orthodox bishops, Vitalis and Constantius themselves can be regarded as “pre-Nestorians” in the West.

2. The Christology of De Trinitate

We turn to another Spanish dogmatic document whose dating rough- ly falls in the same period as the lett er of Vitalis and Constantius and whose authorship has been mistakenly att ributed to renowned such as Athanasius and Ambrose. The document has been traditionally called the pseudo-Athanasian De trinitate. As the ancient ascription indicates, the Western church in the patristic era seemed to have no doubt about the of the doctrines pre- sented in the text. For example, in the late eighth and ninth centuries, it was widely used by Western bishops who thought it was a work of Athanasius.14 Before we discuss the “pre-Nestorian” nature of the pseudo-Atha- nasian De trinitiate, a few comments are required regarding the rela- tionship between Vitalis and Constantius, on the one hand, and De trinitate, on the other hand. It is most likely that Vitalis and Constan- tius read the mysterious text, if not they themselves were its authors. Several pieces of evidence lead us to such a claim. First, the Christolog- ical confession of Vitalis and Constantius which was cited above in n. 9 (PL 53, 849) is virtually identical to a Christological statement found in De trinitate 3.29. Here are the Latin texts in a comparative table.

(13) GLORIUEX, Pré Nestorianisme en Occident, p. 6. (14) KWON, A Theological Investigation of the De Trinitate, pp. 200–205.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access 154 Scrinium IX (2013). Patrologia Pacifica Tertia

Lett er of V. and C. De Trinitate 3.29 (PL 53:847–849) Quia mediator nec iam deus Vides, quia mediator nec iam tantum pure sine homine deus tantum pure sine homine quem adsumpsit dici potest, quem adsumpsit dici potest nec nec homo sine deo: quia du- homo sine deo? Considera, quia plex in una persona mediatoris duplex est in una persona media- signifi catio, deus et homo, dum toris signifi catio, deus et homo, deus de deo deus et secundum dum de deo deus {sit} et secun- carnem idem ipse fi lius homi- dum carnem idem ipse fi lius nis. Ideo uerus deus et homo hominis {sit}. Ideo deus uerus et uerus est hic mediator sicut de homo uerus est hic mediator sicut forma dei et forma hominis. et forma dei et forma hominis. I have underlined the parts that diff er from each other. The diff er- ences are of litt le value and stylistic in nature. They are basically the same texts. Second, overall, this brief lett er of Vitalis and Constantius contains Christological languages and biblical passages very similar to what we fi nd in Book III of De trinitate. Third, even the dangerous Christological conception of the Son of God’s withdrawal from the son of man during the time of the latt er’s suff ering on the cross is exactly the same.15 The diff erence is that De trinitate elaborates on this divine withdrawal in greater detail. In addition to the Christological statements equally found in both texts and other evidence, I provide below another piece of informa- tion which may lead readers beyond the hypothesis that Vitalis and Constantius drew upon De trinitate and to consider the view that Vi- talis and Constantius themselves could have been the authors of the mysterious text. Observe the following excerpts from the lett er and De Trinitate.

Lett er De trinitate of Vitalis and Constantius Reperit enim parvitas nostra Si caelum caeli non suffi cit in praecellentem famam et doctri- proferenda sublimitate magni- nam tuae sanctitatis: per quam tudinis tuae laudem, si non sa- et scribimus beatitudini tuae, ut tiatur oculus ad uidendum aut

(15) A further discussion will follow soon.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access Junghoo Kwon 155

ait Psalmographus: in omnem ter- auris ad audiendum opera ma- ram exivit sonus eorum, et in fi nes gnifi centiae tuae, unde suffi cit orbis terrae verba eorum (Ps. 18:5). paruitas mea +geminas+17 in Illud etiam consulimus honor- confessione referre tibi maximas ifi centiam tuam, ut de bono the- gratias? Adeo ueniam postulo, sauro cordis tui nostris visceri- ne forte, cum praesumptionis bus irrigari jubeas, quae fi des dicta adsumpsero, tuae maiesta- catholica recta teneat.16 ti aliquid uidear derogare, sed prostratus iaceo ante tuae subli- mitatis gloriae sedem, ut permit- tas de plenitudine thensauri tui legis fontem bibere et de quat- tuor exuberantibus fl uminibus aquam uitae haurire, ex quibus confi denter hereticis per aucto- ritatem regulae praescribamus et catholicis de sempiterno ut nectaris fonte spiritus tui corda inrigemus.18

Here I have cited the beginning parts of both texts. Obviously, the con- text of each text is diff erent. In the lett er, the two Spanish bishops (nos- tra) are addressing the bishop of Carthage (tuae/tui), seeking from this man of great fame and doctrine (famam et doctrinam) what the holds regarding Christ; in the De Trinitate its author (mea/nos) is beseeching God (tuae/tui) to lead him to the right in and con- fession of the triune God. But the wording is so similar (note the words in bold) that we cannot escape the impression that the two texts have close affi nities. The basic literary frame is the same in both cases. The lesser (parvitas nostra / paruitas mea) seeks counsels and assistance from the greater (de bono thesauro cordis tui / de plenitudine thensauri tui legis); the suppliants in both texts (the two Spanish bishops / the author of the De trinitate) employ the language of irrigation, wishing their hearts to be watered with the right belief coming from the greater (nostris visceribus irrigari jubeas / catholicis de sempiterno ut nectaris fonte spiritus tui corda inrigemus). 16 17 18

(16) PL 53, 847. Emphasis is mine. (17) The + sign signifi es the corruption. (18) De trinitate 1.7–8.I. Emphasis is mine.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access 156 Scrinium IX (2013). Patrologia Pacifica Tertia

How can we explain such close literary and theological affi nities? One may suppose that the two Spanish bishops made use of the existing De trinitate writt en by a Spanish theologian, arguing that they copied verbatim the Christological statements of the De trinitate (Book III), on the one hand, and borrowed the humble suppliant-God framework from Book I of the De trinitate together with its language and imagery and transformed it when they wrote to the bishop of Carthage, on the other hand. However, this borrowing of the basic literary framework and imagery from one text to the other or vice versa is so beautiful and perfect that it creates some doubt about this possibility19 and allows us to look for another explanation. That is to say, instead of the bishops borrowing someone else’s work, are they perhaps the authors of both the lett er and De trinitate? In this way, we can easily make sense of both such beautiful transference of literary language and themes from the one to the other and the simultaneous presence of the Christological texts in both writings. Do we perhaps have the authors of the De trini- tate in front of us, namely, Vitalis and Constantius? In this article, I will leave the authorship question open. Whether Vitalis and Constantius were the authors of De trinitate or not is not necessary for our discussion as long as it is understood that the Chris- tology of Vitalis and Constantius heavily depended upon De trinitate and their lett er contains basically the same Christological elements as those of De trinitate. Having said this, now let us return to the Christol- ogy of De trinitate. The seemingly orthodox text contains some ideas which could threaten the unity of the Son as in the case of Vitalis and Constantius. In fact, the author of De trinitate presents in a more explic- it manner God’s withdrawal and separation from man.20 Like Vitalis and Constantius, the pseudonymous author stated that God assumed man in the and this union of God and the assumed man continued until the passion and death of the Mediator. But, he de- scribes in greater details than Vitalis and Constantius what happened to the Mediator on the cross and thereafter. One passage in De trinitate boldly states that God left the assumed man during the passion of the Mediator.

(19) For such perfect borrowing and internalization, we have to assume that the two Spanish bishops thoroughly familiarized themselves with De trinitate, perhaps through repeated readings of it. (20) Neither GLORIEUX or anyone else has ever suggested that this dog- matic text ascribed to Athanasius can be indicative of “pre-Nestorianism.”

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access Junghoo Kwon 157

Therefore, a mortal and passible man truly suff ered our infi rmities, who after the passion was truly assumed again (rursus uere adsump- tus). The Lord himself said: I lay down my life, only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord [John 10:17–18a]. Thus, understand that this man was assumed fi rst (prius …adsumptus) at birth from Mary the virgin. And through the permission of his [the Lord’s] power this man was handed over during the passion and after the passion he was again assumed (denuo adsumptus) or taken up by him [the Lord].21 This passage is striking and enlightening. It fi lls the gaps in the con- fession of Vitalis and Constantius who said that God left the assumed man on the cross. According to the author of De trinitate, God’s fi rst as- sumption of man in the Incarnation came to an end at a certain point in his earthly life. That is, God left him during the passion and only after the passion God assumed man a second time. He is proposing a dou- ble assumption of man by God, one in the Incarnation and the other after the resurrection. From his double assumption idea we infer with- out much diffi culty that God left man and was not present with him between the latt er’s suff ering on the cross and his resurrection from the dead. That is, the assumed man was left alone during his passion and three-day stay in the tomb. Such an idea can be construed as an affi rmation of two independent entities with regard to the Mediator. In addition to God’s complete withdrawal from man during the time of the Mediator’s suff ering and death, a thorough and consistent presentation of a mechanical union of God and man between the Incar- nation and passion throughout Book III of De trinitate leaves no doubt that his one and only concern is the acute distinction and diff erence be- tween God and man. It is true that he affi rms that God assumed man in the Incarnation and as a result, the Mediator is both true God and true man. But the union of God and man brought about by the act of as- sumption on God’s part did not play any signifi cant role. Nor was the affi rmation that the Mediator is both God and man employed to high- light unity and mutual presence of the one in the other and vice versa. Rather, such double affi rmation consistently and thoroughly was used

(21) Mortalis uel passibilis homo uere sustinuit, qui post passionem a deo rursus uere adsumptus est, quod ipse dominus absoluit: ego pono animam meam, ut iterum accipiam eam. Nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego pono eam a me. Itaque intellege, quia prius hic homo in natiuitate de Maria uirgine adsumptus est et in passione permitt ente potestate eius traditus est et post passionem denuo adsumptus ab ipso uel acceptus est[.] (De trinitate 3.36–37.II).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access 158 Scrinium IX (2013). Patrologia Pacifica Tertia to highlight the diametrical diff erence between God and man, between what God does and what man does. The text virtually has no interest in the unity but thoroughly focuses on the distance between God and man. One passage captures and reveals the overarching structure of the Christology of this Spanish author. “All power (omnis potestas) of signs and wonders ought to be ascribed to God (deo) who does and all sadness (omnis tristitia) of the passion ought to be imputed to man (homini).”22 This double “omnis” principle, whose origin goes back to ,23 reveals that the affi rmation of “deus uerus et homo uerus” does not focus on the unity or union of two natures in the Mediator. The true God works powers and wonders and the true man suff ers passion and sadness. The fact that the pseudonymous author stated this same principle repeatedly in a slightly diff erent wording in his treatise24 tells how central it is for his understanding of the Mediator. He even closed his Christological discussion with this very theological principle.25 More than anything else, this principle of “omnis potestas/ omnis tristitia” stressed the two kinds of action that the Mediator per- forms as well as the sharp division of the role each referent (deus/homo) plays; one referent (deus) functions as the subject of divine actions and the other (homo) of human actions. This double “omnis” principle does not allow God to be regarded as the subject of all sadness nor does it allow man to be regarded as the subject of all power. This formulation that God does every kind of power (omnis potestas) and man every kind of sadness (omnis tristitia) leads the orthodox au- thor to a theological position vulnerable to the charge of dividing the Mediator. If it is always (the Son of) man who suff ers (passus sit) and (the Son of) God does not endure any passion (passionem aliquam),26 if it is always God who performs wonders and miracles and man is not qualifi ed to do such actions that are only worthy of God, is it too much to say that we are speaking of two diff erent , not one? Indeed, he consistently avoids God suff ering any human experienc- es and man exercising any divine power. The doctrine of the commu-

(22) De trinitate 3.33. For a detailed exposition of the Christology of the pseudo-Athanasian De trinitate, see KWON, A Theological Investigation of the De Tri- nitate, pp. 120–168. Much of the following discussion derives from pp. 144–148. (23) Against Praxeas 27–29. (24) De trinitate 3.33, 39, 41.I&II, 75.I&II, 87, 99. (25) De trinitate 3.99. (26) De trinitate 3.24.I&II, 33.I&II, 36.I&II.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access Junghoo Kwon 159 nicatio idiomatum is virtually absent in the present treatise.27 We have seen the pseudonymous author almost always ascribing “all power” to God. We have also seen him consistently ascribing “all sadness” to man. But, he does not allow God to suff er “all sadness” nor man to exercise “all power” in any meaningful manner. Each subject performs what is only proper to his nature: God performs actions worthy of his and man performs actions worthy of his humanity. Each na- ture is distinct, perhaps too distant from the other. There hardly exists any meaningful exchange of properties. Without the bonding doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, the strong dyphysite Christology of the pseudonymous author runs headlong into a mechanical union of two natures and even into a danger of positing two Sons. At one instance, however, the author of the De trinitate appears to allow man (homo) to exercise divine power. But this has nothing to do with the communicatio idiomatum. Rather it further intensifi es his acute dyphysite Christology. The pseudonymous author is aware that some biblical passages teach that the son of man is given power to judge all (et potestatem dedit ei [fi lio] ad iudicium faciendum, quoniam fi lius hominis est (John 5:27)) and every power in and on earth is given to him (data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra (Matt . 28:18)).28 He conceded that “homo” can possess “omnis potestas” like God and all things can be subject to him.29 And yet this concession has its own limitations. “Homo” does not have this divine power from his birth but it is given (data) to him only after his passion (post passionem); before the passion (ante passionem) he was a mere man who still owed a debt to death (homo morti esset pro nobis debitor) and, such the case, during his pre-resurrection time all things were not subject to him at all (1 Cor. 15).30 His conception of the two diff erent stages of man (homo), a mere man before the passion and a superhuman after the passion and his att empt to connect the son of man with “all power” borders on Christological heresy. Litt le att ention to the unity of person (persona) and communicatio idiomatum hinders the son of man from pos- sessing and exercising “all power” from the beginning of his existence as much as the Son of God does. The idea that the son of man did not possess divine power throughout his entire life but only after his

(27) L. DATTRINO, Il De Trinitate Pseudoatanasiano, Roma, 1976, pp. 84–88. (28) De trinitate 3.83. Emphasis is mine. (29) De trinitate 3.83. (30) De trinitate 3.83.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access 160 Scrinium IX (2013). Patrologia Pacifica Tertia passion and resurrection and furthermore, the divine power was not inherently his because it was given (data) to him by God appears an extremely dangerous Christological conception.

3. Capreolus’ Critical Response

We will briefl y touch on how Capreolus reacted to such strong dyphysite Christology. His return lett er to Vitalis and Constantius obviously aims at the “Nestorian heresy.”31 But we will see that Ca- preolus seems also to have in mind Vitalis and Constantius and their Christology in this polemical lett er. At the same time, his arguments against Nestorius are equally applicable to the author of De trinitate. Even though the lett er was a response to a request made by Vitalis and Constantius, it seemed almost as if he wrote his lett er after he had read the pseudo-Athanasian De trinitate. From its beginning to the end, the lett er of Capreolus was completely devoted to the unity of the Son. A frequent use of words such as “inseperabilis” or “unitas,” reveals his concern and dissatisfaction with the Christological formulation of the two Spanish bishops.32 The bishop of Carthage made his point clear that God did not come upon Christ in an external manner (ve- lut extrinsecus) as if having dwelled in other patriarchs, prophets and apostles, and He never (nunquam) separated himself from the assumed man after the Incarnation, especially in times of suff ering.33 He was emphatic in saying, “[God] was not absent from man on the cross, nor in death, nor in the grave, nor in .”34 Even at such moments when human weakness and frailty was clearly demonstrated, the presence of divine majesty (praesentiam divinae majestatis) remained continually with the assumed man.35 In addition to his emphasis on the unity of God and man at the level of person (persona), Capreolus knew and em- ployed the communicatio idiomatum which was absent in the writings of the Spanish authors. Without hesitance, he allowed God to suff er hu-

(31) PL 53, 849. (32) Such words emphasizing the unity of the person in Christ are nearly absent and formal, if they exist, in the lett er of Vitalis and Constantius and De trinitate. The author of De trinitate does use these and similar words highlight- ing unity but almost all of them appear in the Trinitarian context (Books I, II, IV, V, VI,VII) to underscore the unity of the three persons. (33) PL 53, 850 and 856. (34) PL 53, 853. (35) PL 53, 854.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access Junghoo Kwon 161 man weaknesses and man to experience divine powers. He states that “the eternal one did not dread birth, nor the perfect one increase, nor the impassible one suff ering, nor the immortal one death.”36 Though the exchange of lett ers was very cordial between the inquir- ing Spanish bishops and the bishop of Capreolus, the latt er’s presenta- tion of orthodox Christology with its emphasis on the unity of the Son, the continual in the assumed man, and the communica- tio idiomatum ended up att acking the defective Christology of the two Spanish bishops. Vitalis and Constantius began their lett er cordially by calling themselves “peccatores”37 and, at the end of their lett er, they stated in a polite manner, if they fall into any wrong because of igno- rance, may the eminent bishop forgive their foolishness and inexperi- ence.38 Ironically, such words of politeness proved to become real; they became sinners because they held a defective Christology bordering on positing two Sons in the Mediator. Though he kindly and aff ection- ately called them “dillectissimi et religiosi fi lii,”39 Capreolus att acked their view and treated it as if it had been that of the Nestorian heresy.

4. Arian Polemics and Western Christology

Where did this acute two-natured Christology of Vitalis, Constantius and the pseudonymous author of De trinitate originate from? Prob- ably it all began with Tertullian who provided the West with a bal- anced Christological formulation that gives due att ention both to di- vine and human elements in Christ. Another reason could be that the West preferred personal referents such as “deus” and “homo” instead of apparently impersonal ones such as “verbum” or “humanitas” to designate the two diff erent actions of the Mediator.40 However, I argue that a major cause that produced a strong “dyphysite” Christology in the West were the Arian Controversies. Since the middle of the fourth century, the Western bishops had no choice but to turn their att ention to the distinction of the two natures in Christ to refute the Arians in the West. The as-God-and-as-man scheme was a common and eff ective tool against the Latin Arians whose principal theological point was

(36) PL 53, 854. (37) PL 53, 847. (38) PL 53, 849. (39) PL 53, 849. (40) If one has to label western Christology, the best label should be “de- us-homo” Christology, not “-sarx,” nor “ logos-anthropos.”

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access 162 Scrinium IX (2013). Patrologia Pacifica Tertia that the Father is superior to the Son in every respect, that is, both in his divine and human natures.41 All the anti-Arian writings of Phoba- dius, Hilary, Gregory of Elvira and Ambrose dwelled heavily on the distinction of the two natures in Christ. Because of the Arians in the West, the West had litt le interest in the unity of the Son in the fourth century other than a formal, dogmatic confession. Such preoccupation with the distinction of the two natures in Christ continued in the West in the fi fth century. To demonstrate a strong connection between the Arian Controversies and a sharp two-natured Christology in the early fi fth century, I will make use of the pseudo- Athanasian De trinitate which we have examined above.42 We have observed that this unknown Spanish author presented an extremely acute two-natured Christology to a degree that could break the unity of the Mediator. The reason for such a formulation is the Arians. He devoted one book (Book III) to Christology and this book had one ma- jor theme from its beginning to the end, that is, refutations of the Ari- ans and their doctrines. Against the Arian argument that the Son is in- ferior to the Father in every respect, the Spanish author came up with an as-God-and-as-man scheme and consistently applied it to scriptural passages; some passages refer to God and others to man. According to the pseudonymous author of De trinitate, the Arian mistake is that they either failed to recognize the two diff erent ele- ments in the Mediator or confused them.43 The so-called “as-God-and- as-man” principle provided the sharp distinction in the Mediator and became an eff ective theological weapon against the Arians who were displeased with such a distinction. For the same reason, he employed the double “omnis” principle again and again throughout Book III. Even the affi rmation that the Mediator is both God and man was used

(41) The Latin Arians admitt ed that Christ has two natures but their Christology did not require stressing the double nature in Christ. Rather, they upheld the unity of the Son, applying all the sayings and deeds of Christ to one single subject, namely the Logos. For an insightful study on the Nicene and non-Nicene Christ, see R. P. VAGGIONE, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution, Oxford, 2000, pp. 79–147. (42) Another example that the Latin Arians kept the Nicenes from giving att ention to the unity of the Son, on the one hand, and applied consistently the as-God-and-as-man scheme to Scriptures was Augustine. See Collatio Au- gustini cum Maximino Arrianorum Episcopo (CCSL 87A, 383–470) and Contra Maximinum (CCSL, 87A, 491–692). (43) De trinitate 3.58.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access Junghoo Kwon 163 to highlight the existence of the two diff erent elements in the Media- tor. In so doing, the unknown Spanish author of De trinitate not only divided Scriptures related to Christ into two groups but he also ended up completely neglecting the unity of the Son. Because of the Arians, the West stressed too much the distinction and diff erence between God and man in the Mediator. In one sense, the Arians became a great contributor to the establishment of a strong two-natured Christology in the West. Later it seemed that the zeal of some orthodox bishops in Spain for the refutation of the Arians went too far in the early fi fth century. Vitalis, Constantius and the unknown author of De trinitate appeared to be overconfi dent of their use of the as-God-and-as-man scheme, not knowing the possible danger coming from its application. The Nestorian Controversies gave an opportunity for the West to take a serious look at the unity of the Son as the let- ter of Capreolus clearly demonstrates.44 But Arian polemics (as-God/ as-man) had become so much part of post-Nicene orthodox in the West that even the Nestorian Controversies couldn’t dismantle the strong dyphysite Christology of the West. Leo’s Tome was a faith- ful refl ection of such Christology. According to Arnobius the Younger, there were some Eastern around who still believed that the Western Church was tainted with the Nestorian heresy.45 Such a judgment indicates how fi rmly the two-natured Christology was es- tablished in the West. Again, I suggest that the key factor that moved the West in that direction were the Arian Controversies.

Conclusion

The present study has aimed at expanding our of “pre- Nestorianism” in the West. I have argued that even though Leporius from Gaul has been known to be the only “pre-Nestorian” case in the West, there exist a couple of examples that require our att ention. First, I have examined the lett er of Vitalis and Constantius in a new light. I have suggested that the unknown enemies of Vitalis and Constantius should be called “Nestorians,” having close connections to the East rather than “pre-Nestorians” independent of Eastern infl uence. Then

(44) To observe how the Arian and Nestorian Controversies led Latin Christology in two diff erent directions, there is no bett er way than to compare and contrast the doctrine of Christ depicted in the pseudo-Athanasian De trini- tate and Lett er of Capreolus to Vitalis and Constantius. (45) Confl ictus Arnobii Catholici cum Serapione (CCSL, 25A, 3–173).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access 164 Scrinium IX (2013). Patrologia Pacifica Tertia

I turned my att ention to the two Spanish bishops, Vitalis and Con- stantius themselves who accused their enemies of heresy. I have ar- gued that the two Spanish bishops seemed to hold an extremely strong dyphysite Christology that could lead to a dangerous division of the two natures in Christ. Second, I off ered a completely new piece of evi- dence that the Christology in the pseudo-Athanasian De trinitate could also be regarded as “pre-Nestorian.” It is very ironic that the long-held, orthodox understanding of Christ which the two Spanish bishops boldly put forth in their lett er contains ideas that can divide the two natures in Christ and threaten the unity in the Mediator. It is also ironic that the dogmatic text which has been venerated for a long time by the Western Church, whose orthodoxy has never been questioned, can contain “pre-Nestorian” elements. Then I have suggested that the irony that the orthodox text and the orthodox bishops are susceptible to a “pre-Nestorian” tendency derives from a fi erce “orthodox” reaction to the Latin Arians who forced the Western theologians to pay att ention to the distinction of the two natures in Christ at the neglect of the Christological unity. Indeed, the Arian Con- troversies establish the as-God-and-as-man polemical method against the Arians to be part of the Western Christology. The cases of Vitalis, Constantius and the unknown author of De trinitate teach a lesson that an orthodox theological method or frame can turn into a theological stumbling block to the Church when such traditional tool or frame was mechanically used without due att ention to its limitations. The constant use of the as-God-and-as-man scheme led the Western church to hold a (strong) “dyphysite” position but it made the West neglect the unity of the Mediator and in some cases like that of Vitalis and Constantius the traditional orthodox scheme unfortunately made its upholders end up becoming proponents of two Sons in the Mediator against their intention.

SUMMARY

This article explores “pre-Nestorianism” in the West. By investigating sev- eral Christological documents produced in the West, the study argues that the Western Church held a (strong) “dyphysite” Christology in the fi fth century which could be understood as positing two entities in the Mediator. At the same time, such Christology which underscored the distinction of the two natures in Christ at the neglect of the unity of the Son derived from a strong “orthodox” reaction to the Latin Arians who forced the Western Church to highlight the distinction of the two natures for refuting .

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:55:09AM via free access