"Trinitarian Cooperation for our Salvation": Ambrose of Milan's De Spiritu Sancto
By
Andrew M. Selby
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology ofthe University of St. Michael's College and the Department of History of the Toronto School of Theology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Theology Awarded by the University of St. Michael's College
Thesis Adviser: Dr. Pablo Argárate
Readers: Dr. Ephraim Radner Dr. T. Allan Smith
Toronto 2010
© Andrew M. Selby Library and Archives Bibliothèque et ?F? Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l'édition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-68834-2 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-68834-2
NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de thesis. cette thèse.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.
1*1 Canada Abstract of Thesis
While some have dismissed the trinitarian theology of Ambrose of Milan, he actually helped to shape subsequent theology in the West by employing the principle that "the same operations imply the same substance." That is, whenever the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit acts in Scripture, Ambrose believes one can find a place where another divine Person performs that same action, which in turn demonstrates their like substance. Ambrose's overarching purpose in his De Spiritu Sancto is to controvert his Homoian opponents' position that the various operations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in salvation history indicate their subordinate positions to one another by stating that the Persons actually share similar roles and thus have the same substance, a principle he found in his Greek pneumatological sources—Didymus, Basil, and Athanasius—but which became far more central to his own trinitarian theology than to theirs.
11 Table of Contents
Abbreviations iv
Introduction: The Overlooked De Spiritu Soneto of Ambrose of Milan 1
Chapter 1 : The Situation and Composition ofDe Spiritu Sancto 8
Chapter 2: Ambrose's Trinitarian Dictum: "The Same Operation Means the Same Substance" ...... 39
Chapter 3 : Implications 80
Works Cited 96
Appendix 101
iii Abbreviations
ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers
BdP Biblioteca de Patrística
ECF Early Church Fathers
FoC Fathers of the Church
CSEL Corpus scriptorium ecclesiasticorum latinorum
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies
NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
SC Sources Chrétiennes
SP Studia Patristica
VC Vigiliae Christianae
IV 1 Introduction The Overlooked De Spiritu Sancto of Ambrose ? ? Modern and Ancient Judgment of Ambrose's De Spiritu Sancto Apart from one excerpted dissertation,1 introductions in critical editions and a few translations, no accessible, sustained treatment of Ambrose's De Spiritu Sancto (DSS) exists.3 Granted, some surveys ofpneumatology in the patristic period, and especially the fourth century, devote some space to Ambrose.4 But surely this work deserves a more thorough treatment given that Ambrose's DSS was the first Latin treatise exclusively focused on the Holy Spirit, that it served as an important source of Greek pneumatological theology for the West, and that it influenced Augustine's own Trinitarian teaching.5 Part of the reason for the dearth of interest on this topic is scholars' harsh assessment of the content ofAmbrose's treatise. In the scanty scholarship on the DSS a common theme permeates: while the Bishop of Milan's DSS has importance in the transmission of Greek 1 Norman Joseph Belval, The Holy Spirit in Saint Ambrose, (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1971). At the time of writing this thesis, I have not been able to obtain the original dissertation written for the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. The cited work contains only excerpts of about half the dissertation according to BelvaPs introduction. BelvaPs thesis serves to collect older sources' opinions on various aspects of the DSS, especially a chapter devoted to charting Ambrose's use of sources. Since it is not his intention, Belval includes little theological engagement with Ambrose. 2 "Introduction" by H. de Romestin in Ambrose, Select Works and Letters, ed. Phillip Schaffand Henry Wace, trans. H. De Romestin, NPNF, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1896), 91-2; "Introduction" by Roy J. Deferrari in Theological and Dogmatic Works, trans. Roy J. Deferrari, Fathers of the Church, (Washington: Catholic University ofAmerica Press, 1963), 31-3; "Prolegomena I-VII" by Otto Faller in "De spiritu sancto libri tres, De incarnationis dominicae sacramento," ed. Otto Faller, in CSEL, 79 (Vindobonae: Hoelder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1964), 5*^*4*; "Introducción" by Carmelo Granado in Ambrosio de Milán, El Espíritu Santo, trans. Carmelo Granado, BdP, vol. 41, (Madrid: Editorial Ciudad Nueva, 1998), 7-24. There are some more general works, however, on his pneumatology and on various aspects of DSS which include the following: Carmen Castillo, "El prólogo al libro I "De Spiritu Sancto" de San Ambrosio," Rivista liturgica 89, no. 3 (2002): 451-80; Giuseppe Bentivegna, "Lo Spirito Santo nella vita della Chiesa secondo Sant'Ambrogio," Anuario de historia de la iglesia 8 (1999): 87-93; Carmelo Granado, "El Espíritu y el paraíso," Revista española de teología 63, no. 4 (2003): 471-97; ""Spiritus creator" en San Ambrosio de Milán," La Civiltà cattolica 148, no. 3525 (1997): 259-71; Giuseppe Ferraro, "Lo Spirito Santo nella "Esposizione del Vangelo secondo Luca" di sant'Ambrogio," Communio 17, no. 2 (1983): 183-99; also see chapters 8 and 9 in Carmelo Granado, El Espíritu Santo en la teología patristica, (Salamanca: Ediciones Sigúeme, 1987). 4 See two books by Henry Barclay Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church: A Study ofChristian Teaching in the Age ofthe Fathers, (London: Macmillan, 1 9 1 2), 3 1 6-22 ; On the History ofthe Doctrine ofthe Procession ofthe Holy Spirit: From the Apostolic Age to the Death ofCharlemagne, (Cambridge: Deighton, 1876), 120-22; also Stanley M. Burgess, The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity, (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984), pp. 171-79; for a dismissive account see, R.P.C. Hanson, The Searchfor the Christian Doctrine ofGod: the Arian Controversy 318- 381, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 789. 5 Fr Glorie, "Augustinus, De Trinitate: Fontes-Chronologia," Sacris Erudiri 16 (1965): 203-55. 2 theology of the Holy Spirit, he contributes little or nothing original to Trinitarian theology. Such a claim has an ancient precedent. In his preface to his translation of Didymus the Blind's work,
De Spiritu Sancto, Jerome himself noted Ambrose's generous borrowing of other sources, calling him a crow bedecked in others' colourful feathers before going on to offer even less flattering comments about Ambrose's DSS:
A short while ago I read a certain person's books on the Holy Spirit and, in the words of the comic writer, I saw bad things in Latin taken from good things in Greek. Nothing there was closely argued, nothing was manly or firm so as to convince the reader even involuntarily, but everything was flaccid, soft, glistening and cute, painted here and there in exquisite colors. Even scholars who display a marked sympathy for Ambrose acknowledge the derivative nature of most of his theology, and especially the DSS. A good example is Boniface Ramsey, the editor of a recent volume introducing Ambrose, who points to Ambrose's "discretion" and "creativity" in the way he employed Greek sources, but who must also recognize "that Ambrose's writings are overwhelmingly derivative."
In his magisterial tome on Trinitarian theology of the fourth century, R.P.C. Hanson takes aim at Ambrose, though more with the Defide in his sights than the DSS, and fires this dart:
When we turn. . .to [Ambrose's] actual defense of the pro-Nicene doctrine in his De Fide we gain the unavoidable impression that Ambrose has not, like Athanasius and Hilary and Marius Victorinus, struggled with the problem of Arianism and thought it through for himself, but rather has learnt the conventional arguments because these are the stuff which the official, successful church hands out. Almost all his ratiocination proceeds upon the method. . .of assuming as true what he is supposed to be provided, and too often Q his arguments are, as rational discussion, beneath contempt.
6 Jerome in the Prologue to Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto = Über den Heiligen Geist, trans. Hermann Josef Sieben, Fontes Christiani, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 76-8: Et ut auctorem titulofatear, malui alieni operas interpres existere quam, ut quidamfaciunt, informis conicula alienis me coloribus adornare. Legi dudum de Spiritu Sancto cuiusdam libellos et, iuxta Comici sententiam, ex graecis bonis Latina vidi non bona. Nihil virile atque districtum, quod lectorem vel ingratis in assensum trahat, sed totumflaccidum, molle, nitidum atqueformosum et exquisitis hinc inde oderibus pigmentatum. (Translation from Boniface Ramsey, Ambrose, ECF, (London: Routledge, 1997), 52-3.) A persuasive account of Jerome's motives for this and subsequent abuse ofAmbrose can be found in Richard A. Layton, "Plagiarism and Lay Patronage of Ascetic Scholarship: Jerome, Ambrose, and Rufinus," JECS 10, no. 4 (2002): 489-522. 7 Ramsey, Ambrose, 53. 8 Hanson, Search, 669. Of the DSS, Hanson sees nothing but regurgitation of Athanasius, Basil and Didymus. He calls it "a pot-boiler."9 Hanson judges Ambrose to be more skilled in political manoeuvre than in theological controversy. Even Ramsey characterizes Ambrose as one who "attempted political solutions to unorthodox opinions of Christ... and contented himself with repeating the Christological formulas that he had inherited."10 D.H. Williams affirms the judgement that, at least in the Defide, Ambrose's politics outweigh his theological clout: "[e]ven though Defide, I- II, has very little theological originality, it is a tour de force depicting all anti-Nicenes as enemies of the Church and State."11 What he lacked in profundity of thought, Ambrose made up for in political skill. But, like so many politicians, it is easy to despise the arguments of Ambrose in light of his use (or abuse) ofpower. Scholars have been wise to concentrate on Ambrose's political situation and his achievements in that realm. However, one must not make the mistake of drawing too sharp of a line between the political and theological situation ofthe late fourth century. New scholarship, led by recent monographs by Neil B. McLynn12 and D.H. Williams,13 reinterpret Ambrose's relationship with the Emperor Gratian in terms of uncertainty and struggle, rather than that of an older Ambrose holding sway over the younger Gratian and calling the theological shots for him. This reassessment goes hand-in-hand with a new appreciation for the subtle theology and political strength of the Latin Homoian party in the 370's and 380's, especially in Milan. By all recent accounts, Ambrose's ultimate political success required at least some theological acumen; his prominent position as Bishop in the important city of Milan made him the object of doctrinal attack and the voice of Neo-Nicene theology in the West. He officially addressed the Defi.de and
9 Ibid., 756. 10 Ramsey, Ambrose, D.H. Williams, Ambrose ofMilan and the End ofthe Arian-Nicene Conflicts, Oxford Early Christian Studies, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 147. 12 Neil B. McLynn, Ambrose ofMilan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital, Transformation of the Classical Heritage, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). 13 Op cit. 4 DSS to the Emperor, but he knew these works would be read by the literati and that his own theological camp would be judged by their reception. The stakes were high, and though Ambrose may not demonstrate the profundity of the Cappadocians nor of Augustine, the theology in these works should be taken more seriously than a mere "pot-boiler." Fortunately, modern scholars are beginning to make allowances for Ambrose and are even noticing development in his theology. Just as disparagement ofthe bishop of Milan has an ancient precedent in Jerome, so a more positive assessment exists in the defence of Rufinus. In his Apologia contra Hieronymium, Rufinus attempts to deflect Jerome's censures against himself partially by criticizing Jerome's attack on Ambrose's DSS: The saintly Ambrose wrote his book on the Holy Spirit not in words only but with his own blood; for he offered his life-blood to his persecutors, and shed it within himself, although God preserved his life for future labours. Suppose that he did follow some of the Greek writers belonging to our Catholic body, and borrowed something from their writings, it should hardly have been the first thought in your mind, (still less the object of such zealous efforts as to make you set to work to translate the work of Didymus on the Holy Spirit,) to blaze abroad what you call his plagiarisms, which were very possibly the result of a literary necessity when he had to reply at once to some ravings of the heretics.14 Rufinus, again, admits the derivative nature of Ambrose's work, yet he is careful to situate the "borrowing" within the historical situation of Ambrose's polemic against heretics. Time and political opposition pressured Ambrose into writing quickly, which may partially explain his lack of originality. While one might debate the ethics of taking from sources without crediting them—and to do this in Ambrose's case would require sensitivity to the literary conventions of his time—one might also perceive in Ambrose an important transmitter of Greek theology to the West. Ramsey makes an observation along this line: "But thanks precisely to Ambrose's 'thievery' of Greek theologians (not only Christians like Didymus the Blind and Basil the Great but also the Jew Philo) and to the prestige that he enjoyed as a pillar of orthodoxy, he served as a
14 Rufinus, "Apology against Jerome," in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, trans. William Henry Fremantle, NPNF, Philip Schaffand Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1892), 471. 5 major conduit of Greek theological thought to the West."15 In considering books IH-V ofDe fide, Williams allows for development in Ambrose's theology as he began to understand the underlying thought of his Greek sources better: "Ambrose's dependence on caricature as a means ofundermining the position ofhis opponents is much reduced as his theological skills have sharpened."16 Perhaps the most positive judgment of Ambrose's theological contribution comes from Christoph Markschies, author of a monograph on Ambrose's place in the Arian and Neo- Arian conflicts of the fourth century. Rather than depicting Ambrose as a mere borrower, he states, Ambrose's way of borrowing shows a man of education, sensitivity, and mastery; his attitude to philosophy and his knowledge of it have until now been misinterpreted or underestimated... In addition attention has been called to theological developments in Ambrose: in a surprisingly short time, through contact with Eastern theologians, he deepened his knowledge of Trinitarian theology and developed a form ofNeo-Nicene theology on the basis of traditional Latin terminology.17 In a 1958 article, Ludwig Herrman also noted the unique contribution of Ambrose to trinitarian theology in the West, arguing his presentation of the Persons provides a middle way between the Cappadocian and traditional western Trinitarian dogma.18 While this paper will neither seek to justify the ethics of Ambrose's use of sources nor will it attempt to vindicate Ambrose's reputation as a "pillar of orthodoxy," it will fill a lacuna in modern scholarship on the DSS in carefully assessing its central theological focus while remaining aware ofthe thorny political and theological situation facing Ambrose and also
Ramsey, Ambrose, 54. A similar assessment is made here, including liturgy and spirituality alongside doctrinal issues: George E. Saint-Laurent, "St. Ambrose of Milan and the Eastern Fathers," Diakonia 15, no. 1 (1980): 23-31. D.H. Williams, "Polemics and Politics in Ambrose of Milan's Defide," JTS 46, no. 2 (1995): 528. 7 Christoph Markschies, "Ambrose of Milan," in Dictionary ofEarly Christian Literature, ed. Siegmar Döpp and Wilhelm Geerlings, trans. Matthew O'Connell, (New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 2000), 18. He argues for this position in sustained fashion in Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie: kirchen- und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu Antiarianismus und Neunizänismus bei Ambrosius und im lateinischen Westen, 364-381 ? Chr, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, vol. 90, (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995), 197- 212. Markschies especially notes Ambrose's integration of Greek theological ideas with traditional Latin terminology. 8 Ludwig Herrmann, "Ambrosius von Mailand als Trinitätstheologe," Zeitschriftfür Kirchengeschichte 69, no. 3-4 (1958): 217. "Diese Konzeption [that the Persons do the same actions] zeigt einen neuen Typ der Trinitätslehre, der in der Mitte zwischen kappadozischer und abendländischer Tradition steht." 6 assuming this work has more to offer theologically than others have judged. Furthermore, it will look beyond the DSS to the influence the treaty wielded on Augustine and through him on western trinitarian theology, especially in relation to the doctrine of the Filioque.
Thesis
Ambrose of Milan's overarching purpose in his De Spiritu Sancto is to controvert his Homoian opponents' position that the various operations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in salvation history indicate their subordinate positions to one another by arguing that the Persons actually share similar roles and thus have the same substance, a principle he found in his Greek pneumatological sources—Didymus, Basil, and Athanasius—but which became far more central
to his own trinitarian theology than to theirs.
Structure of Thesis
The proper place to begin is with the doctrinal controversies in the West leading up to Ambrose's election as Bishop of Milan and his eventual composition of the DSS in A.D. 381 . The complicated situation into which Ambrose was writing necessarily involves the story of the
conflicts that were coming to a head in 381. Therefore, Chapter 1 will begin with an account of Homoian activity from the Council of Ariminum (Rimini) in 359 up to Gratian's request for a
statement of Ambrose's faith. The next section of the chapter will recount Ambrose's response in his Defide I—II (379), and the Homoian rebuttal led by Palladius of Ratiara. This will lead into a presentation of Homoian pneumatology and "trinitarian" theology. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the reasons for Gratian's request for a treatise on the Holy Spirit, and a reconstruction of what Ambrose faced when he began writing the DSS.
However, historical reflections only begin to scratch the surface of the importance of Ambrose's work. Chapter 2 is the crucial chapter ofthis thesis in which it will be argued that Ambrose's central concern was to demonstrate that the Spirit's actions in salvation history were the same as the actions ofthe Father and the Son. This way ofreading Scripture demonstrates the 7 Spirit's consubstantiality. The guiding principle in trinitarian theology for Ambrose in the DSS is that "the same operations indicate the same essence"—a principle I refer to as "Ambrose's dictum." Evidence for this assessment will be presented by analyzing the style, structure, and themes of the DSS. Following this, attention will be paid to the way Ambrose creatively drew from his sources, with special focus on the idea that "unity of operation implies unity of
substance" in Didymus, Basil, and Athanasius, by introducing their works and the themes therein that Ambrose did or did not include in his own treatise. Then, analysis of specific key texts in
Ambrose's DSS compared alongside those in Didymus, Basil, and Athanasius, will provide concrete evidence for the importance of the dictum in the DSS. . Chapter 3 will offer an assessment of Ambrose's DSS in light of this reading of it against the background of Homoian Trinitarian theology asserting the co-operation of the divine Persons as nearly as possible. Three main implications will be identified. First, I will show that Ambrose did not teach the Filioque, though it appears to be so in certain passages, but he did lay the foundation for that doctrine with his heavy emphasis on his dictum. Second, I will assess
Ambrose's legacy in the development oftrinitarian theology, especially probing whether or not his emphasis on his dictum causes him to become Sabellian or modalist. Finally, I will suggest several directions for further study, by considering the particular situation in the West leading up to Ambrose after the Council ofNicea, the effect Ambrose's dictum had on his later writings, especially his biblical exegesis, and the influence of the dictum on Augustine, an influence already suggested in some secondary sources. 8 Chapter 1 The Situation of the Composition of Ambrose's De Spiritu Sancto
1.1 Plan of Chapter To understand the circumstances which led to Ambrose's composition of the DSS, one must first understand the situation of the Defide, the doctrinal treatise forerunning the DSS. The treatise comprised of five books was written in two instalments, books I and II in late 379 and books III-V in late 380,19 around the same time as the ASS.20 The entire Defide and the DSS are addressed to the Emperor Gratian in response to requests he made ofAmbrose. Indeed, medieval compilers of Ambrose's works grouped together these two treatises into a single whole under the name De Trinitate. While they should be treated distinctly when considering the theology of each, Ambrose created them for similar purposes and for the same audience. As the abundance ofworks on Ambrose's relationship to the state attest,21 one cannot appreciate Ambrose's life or thought without being aware ofthe political milieu of the late fourth-century Roman Empire. While this chapter may initially appear to drift from its theological moorings, by the time we reach the conclusion, the essential nature of the political background oíDefide and the DSS will enable proper navigation of Ambrose's thought. This chapter will be divided up into two major sections. The first will cover the years of the Latin Homoian party's ascendance. These opponents of Ambrose had their heyday from 359- 61, briefly achieving doctrinal supremacy—reckoning on the basis of the declarations of
19 Otto Faller, "Prolegomena," in Ambrosius, De spiritu sancto libri tres, De incarnationis dominicae sacramento, CSEL 79, (Vindobonae: Hoelder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1964), 8*. 20Ibid., 13*. 21 Some of the major studies include: Jean-Rèmy Palanque, Saint Ambroise et l'empire romain: contribution à l'histoire des rapports de l'église et de l'état à lafin du quatrième siècle, (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1933); T.D. Barnes, "Augustine, Symmachus, and Ambrose," in Augustine: from Rhetor to Theologian, ed. Joanne McWilliam, (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1992); Ernst Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand: Leben und Werk, (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004); Ivor J. Davidson, "Social Construction and the Rhetoric of Ecclesial Presence: Ambrose's Milan," SP 38 (2001): 385-393; McLynn, Ambrose, Williams, "Polemics," 519-31 and Ambrose, ; George Huntston Williams, "Christology and Church-state Relations in the Fourth Century," Church History 20, no. 4 (1951): Williams, "Christology and Church-state Relations in the Fourth Century," 3-26; Peter Iver Kaufman, "Diehard Homoians and the Election of Ambrose," JECS 5, no. 3 (1997): 421-40 and the responses by Williams and McLynn on the following pages of the same issue of JECS. 9 councils—over their primary enemies, the Nicene party. Additionally, this section will explain their relationship to the imperial administration up to the election of Ambrose as Bishop. The second, and more substantial, part of the chapter will cover the period from Ambrose's ascent to the bishopric in 374 to his publishing of the DSS in 381 . It will focus on his conflicts with the "elder statesman" of the Homoians, Palladius of Ratiara, and his insecure relationship with the emperor Gratian. It was primarily Gratian for whom Ambrose wrote his treatise and against
Palladius.
It should be noted that this presentation relies heavily on secondary sources, especially those forming a new point ofview on Ambrose, which depart from scholarly judgment up to the middle of the 20th century. The older view emphasized Ambrose's sway over Gratian and downplayed the Homoian presence in the West. Led by Williams's and McLynn's recent monographs, this new presentation of Ambrose portrays him as struggling against formidable opponents and fighting to win Gratian's approval ofhis orthodoxy. Williams and McLynn paint a less hagiographical picture of Ambrose, though the Bishop's resilience and political shrewdness are highlighted in the face of stiff opposition even while his strong-armed political tactics and struggle to persuasively articulate his pro-Nicene theology are given their due emphasis.22 Curious readers are urged to turn to these authorities for a fuller account of the theological controversies swirling around Ambrose.
1.2 Homoian Activity in the West Leading up to Ambrose's Election as Bishop of Milan (359-375) 1.2.1 A BriefSurvey ofthe Western Political and Ecclesiastical Situationfrom Nicea to Sirmium Opposition to the settlement of the Arian controversy at Nicea had been steadily building in the years following A.D. 325. Those dissatisfied with the Council's decisions and unable to
22 Though is should be noted that McLynn essentially attacks Ambrose as a schemer, whereas Williams's portrayal presents an Ambrose with strong virtues along with his occasional vices. 23 For a differing perspective from a recent author presenting a more authoritative Ambrose in continuity with earlier historians, see the introduction to Ramsey, Ambrose, 1-54. 10 affirm the consubstantiality (?µ???s???) ofthe Son and the Father found political allies in
Roman Emperors during the middle decades of the fourth century. Following the 337 death of Emperor Constantine, who assembled and upheld the Nicene judgment, his sons Constantine II and Constantius II favoured the anti-Nicenes, excepting the rule of Constans, who approved of pro-Nicene theology but died in 350. Indeed, after 350, Constantius II ruled the entire Empire by himself, becoming "alone responsible for the policy exercised by the Roman government towards the Christian church and its warring factions."24 Constantius' chief adviser in matters pertaining to Christianity in the West was the anti-Nicene Bishop of Mursa, Valens. Valens had an active role in the Councils of Antioch (351), Aries (353), and Milan (355), which forged a new alternative to Nicene Christianity, openly hostile to Athanasius yet not necessarily supportive of Arms and his doctrine. The Council ofMilan has a special place in our story for two reasons. First, under pressure by the Emperor Constantius, most ofthe bishops who were present signed a document condemning Athanasius and purporting a faith "which was not openly Arian but was patient of an Arian interpretation."25 This position will be referred to as Homoianism, in keeping with contemporary scholarship's term for an alternative both to Nicene orthodoxy and Arianism. Second, the Council elected Auxentius, formerly of Cappadocia, to be Bishop of Milan, a position he would occupy for almost twenty years until his death in 374.26 In the see of Milan, Auxentius generally toed the Homoian line.
Another landmark in the opposition to Nicene faith was reached at the Sirmian Council of 357. Here, Valens and a small group ofbishops including his close colleagues Ursacius of Singidunum and Germinius of Sirmium drafted a Latin creed that unapologetically condemned the teaching that the Father and Son are consubstantial, going so far as to outlaw any talk of God's ousia, yet it did not state that the Son is created. Nevertheless, its theology is Arian, as
24 Hanson, Search, 315. 25 Ibid., 334. Ibid., 334; cf. Athanasius, Historia arianorum, 75. 11 Hanson points out, "in its drastic, consistent and determined subordination of the Son to the
Father, in its insistence on the unique status of the Father, in its explicit rejection of the concept of substance. . .and in its careful account ofhow the Son did the suffering by means ofhis
97 body." The importance of the Sirmian document lies primarily in its status as the foundation of a new theological "party," a party united in its rejection ofNicea and beginning to rally around the concept ?µ???? as the proper biblical interpretation of the relationship ofthe Father to the
Son. Williams sees here a "position paper," rather than a proper creed, dubbing it the "Sirmium Manifesto." The significance of this manifesto is that it "marked the beginning of a new affiliation ofpro-Homoians that eventually established a separate ecclesiastical identity."28 Though the actual document produced in Sirmium in 357 did not contain the declaration that
"the Son was like the Father in all things," it paved the way for a more refined creed made only a little later—the Dated Creed published in the spring of 359—that "maintained the ban oîousia but stated that the Son was 'God from God, like [homoios] the Father who begat him' and 'like
9Q c/ [homoios] the Father in all things.'" Hereafter, ?µ???? became a touchstone theological term and began to form a coherent party, both in the East and the West.
An indefatigable group of Latin bishops, the "Illyrican trio" of Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius, in collusion with Constantine, remained undaunted. Above all they desired to unite the empire theologically by side-stepping the Nicene Creed they believed was at the root of so many divisions. These Illyrican churchmen, backed by imperial power, produced a watershed ecclesiastical document. Only a short time later—a couple of years—Constantius was finally
27 Ibid., 346. 28 Williams, Ambrose, 19. 29 Ibid., 20. 30 Hanson, Search, 364, makes the important note that this party failed to establish a lasting connection between the Homoiousians in the East and the Homoians in the West, which is documented by Hanson from 371-80. The main point of disagreement was the extent to which the Father and Son were alike. Was it in "all respects" or only in certain ones? The latter view, promulgated by Valens, won the day. After summing up the Creed of Nike, Hanson writes: "The frail hope of the Homoiousian party [i.e. that led by Basil of Ancyra] 'like the Father in all respects,' had been destroyed" (380). 12 able to assemble the General Council he had long envisioned, a Council that would make strides toward uniting the churches under an Arian-esque banner. Though it did not ultimately achieve Constantius' goals, what was to become the Council of Ariminum (Rimini) of 359 turned out to be the high-water mark of anti-Nicene theology in the Roman Empire.
1.2.2 The Council ofAriminum 1 .2.2.1 Theological and Political Manoeuvring by Homoians Leading to their Triumph Sulpicius Severas tells us that ofthe 400 bishops present at Ariminum, only 80 were "Arian."31 However, beneath the pressure of Constantius' threats ofbanishment and the clever manoeuvres of Valens and his ilk, the minority became the majority and, in the words of Jerome, "the world groaned to find itself Arian."32 It took some time before this shocking conclusion came to pass. Initially, the majority dismissed the Dated Creed, choosing instead to excommunicate Valens, Ursacius, Germinus, and Gaius on the grounds that they sowed discord. The majority party informed the Emperor about their decision, asking him to dissolve the council and to allow them to return home.33 This result was unacceptable to Constantius. Initially, he put them off asking a delegation often bishops remain in Ariminum. The majority party would not tolerate a delay, however. So Constantius ordered them to send the delegation to Nike, whence they were accompanied by ten matching Homoian representatives, including Valens. When the twenty bishops arrived, however, they learned Constantius was away due to barbarian unrest along the frontier, but the Emperor had plans in this event. He would have officials put pressure on the Nicenes to come to some sort of agreement with the Homoians, "hinting that refusal would imperil their tenure of their sees and lead to banishment."34 Then, Valens made what appeared to be a significant concession, signing a set of anathemas related to propositions
31 Sozomenus, "Ecclesiastical History," in Ecclesiastical Histories, ed. Phillip Schaff, trans. A. C. Zenos, NPNF, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1891), IV.17.2. 32 See Williams, Ambrose, 32: "Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est." 33 Hanson, Search, 377, see nl 16 34 Ibid., 378. 13 condemning Arian doctrine. Thinking themselves on safe enough ground, the ten delegates from the (hitherto) Nicene party endorsed a creed very similar to the Dated Creed. One might expect there to have been an outcry on the part of the majority party against this result. But rather than condemn the treachery of the delegates at Nike, most ofthe bishops in the West immediately offered their assent as well. D.H. Williams points out, "What is perhaps one of the most striking features of the second session [i.e. the delegations at Nike after the larger gathering at Ariminum] is how quickly the pro-Nicene majority became a minority. . .(B)y the end ofNovember or early December, opposition to the Nike creed was whittled down to a mere twenty bishops."35 These western bishops had no problem disowning the doctrine of God's ?µ???s??? with the Son. The import of this term did not apparently strike them as all that important. The full consequences of discarding the Nicene Creed had not yet been felt, the Creed itself not being widely recognized and recited in western churches as Hilary attests when he relates that he did not know of the Nicene Creed until after 356.36 Besides the seeming orthodoxy of the creed, the pro-Nicene bishops approved it for two other important factors: first, some degree of deception was probably used by Valens to foster an orthodox aura around the Dated Creed, and second, the political pressure of Constantius was looming in the background. Williams contradicts Meslin's argument in Les Ariens d'Occident 335-430 that extant writings accusing Valens of fraudulent activity were inventions of anti- Homoian polemics in the years following Nike.37 Williams shows that "the existence of deceitful practices employed at Ariminum (actual or not) was well attested in the west." A letter from the
Williams, Ambrose, 26-7, and he cites Sulpicius Severas, Chronicle 11.43 .4. 36 Hilary, "De synodis," in St Hilary ofPoitiers: Select Works, trans. E.W. Watson and L. Pulían, NPNF, ed. Philip Schaffand Henry Wace (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1899; reprint, 1999), 91 (28-9). 37 Michel Meslin, Les Ariens d'Occident, 335-430, Patristica Sorbonensia, 8, (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1967), 287 as cited in Williams, Ambrose, 29. 14 synod of Paris and Liberius of Rome's 362/3 letter to the Italian bishops both reject the validity ofAriminum because of Homoian deception perpetrated on ignorantes. 38 The guile in which Valens, Ursacius, and the rest of their party engaged was two-fold. On the one hand, they misrepresented the easterners' position. During the council it appears that the Homoians told the bishops that the Council of Seleucia in the East, taking place concurrently with that at Ariminum in the West, had already assented to the same position proclaimed in the Dated Creed. In reality, they had not yet done so.39 Thinking the truth of the matter had been established by their learned Greek-speaking colleagues and being unaware of the debates first- hand, the western bishops found strong motivation in the "fact" of the easterners' decision to go along with Valens. On the other hand, Valens beguiled the Nicenes by his clever denial that the Son of God was a creature like other creatures, or more precisely that Christ was not a creature after the manner of created things.40 To the ears of the pro-Nicenes, Valens' statement sounded as ifhe were condemning Arianism and agreeing that the Son was God. But on further scrutiny, Valens' words held quite another meaning for, as Ambrose later put it in the third book ofDe fide: "For by addition of 'after the manner of the rest of created beings,' you deny not that Christ is a being created, but that He is a created being like [all] others—for created being you do entitle Him, albeit you assign to Him dignity transcending the rest of creation."41 Valens was indeed exalting Christ, but only as the foremost creature and not as God. His statement implied that Christ was in fact a creature albeit a creature sui generis.
Liberius refers to the Italian bishops this way. Cited in Williams, Ambrose, 3 1 . Williams notes the irony that the Homoiousian party in the East signed the Homoian Dated creed (in Greek) when they heard that the western bishops had approved it. Ibid., 32. 40 For what follows see die assessment of Y.-M. Duval, "La 'Manoeuvre frauduleuse1 de Rimini à la recherche du Liber adversus Ursacium et Valentem," in Hilaire et son temps: actes du colloque de Poitiers, 29 septembre-3 octobre, (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1969) in Williams, Ambrose, 32-4. 41 See "Exposition of the Christian Faith" in Ambrose, Works, 3.16 (p. 261); "De fide libri V (ad Gratianum Augustum)," ed. Otto Faller, in CSEL 78 (Vindobonae: Hoelder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1962): Addendo enim secundum celeras creaturas non creaturam Christum negas, sed creaturam dicis esse dissimilem. Creaturam enim dicis, etsi praestantiorem ceteris adseras creaturis. 15 Valens' tricky manoeuvring coupled with the imperial ultimatum on the bishops to sign the creed or be deposed caused the western church to affirm Homoian doctrine. After the joint council of 360 held in Constantinople, "the formula ofNike attained official status as the creed of the Roman Empire with the added provision that all other formulas, past and present, were declared null and void."42 Both sides began to perceive the creed ofNiké as a decisive alternative to Nicea—a Christian could either be for Ariminum and against Nicea or vice versa. The Homoians believed that this decision, having the imperial sanction that it did, was binding and replaced Nicea. The pro-Nicene party contended that the Council of Ariminum was void for a variety ofreasons, but chief among them were the deceptions of Valens and the ignorance ofthe bishops who fell for them.
1.2.2.2 The Aftermath ofAriminum The aftermath ofAriminum would have special significance for Ambrose. The creed at Niké became iconic of betrayal to the faith in orthodox minds; and those who urged it, as well as their doctrinal "progeny," were the prime targets ofNicene polemics. Indeed, thirty years after these events set up the competition ofAriminum with Nicea, they would still be in the background of all Ambrose's dogmatic writings. As such, the controversy we have striven to understand in the last section constitutes a factor which we must take into account when considering Ambrose's trinitarian theology, and therefore his theology of the Holy Spirit. 1.3 Ambrose, Gratian, and the Homoians (376-381) 1.3. 1 Ambrose Assumes Duties as the Bishop ofMilan Polemical activity spiked in the two decades following the events of 359-60, with Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercelli working hard to demonstrate to their fellow bishops that Ariminum had disastrous consequences and that orthodoxy required subscription to a Nicene-
Williams, Ambrose, 35. 16 based theology.43 Despite this polemical theological activity, political changes disallowed any resolution between the Homoians and pro-Nicenes. Constantius did not live long enough to further the momentum of Homoianism, perishing of illness in 361 . The next three Emperors in the West—Julian, Jovian, and Valentinian I—pursued policies of neutrality with respect to warring Christian factions. For instance, when a synod under Damasus, bishop of Rome, condemned Auxentius of Milan in 370, he nevertheless remained untouched in his see because
Valentinian I would have nothing to do with it, disallowing such depositions. He believed they only created disorder, a serious danger in an empire already plagued by barbarian incursions and internal divisions. It would not be until Gratian came onto the scene as senior Augustus in 375, running an administration inclined to hand out favours for those who could persuade him, that some official progress could be made in the conflict between the Homoians and Nicenes. The previous generation of western doctrinal warriors—Valens standing paramount on the one side and Hilary on the other—had passed on when Ambrose came onto the scene to take Hilary's place at the forefront of the Nicene party competing against Palladius of Ratiara. But before we can further investigate how they conducted themselves vis á vis the Emperor, we must set the stage by looking at the gradual winning over of Gratian by Ambrose. Ambrose's election as bishop of Milan has been well-documented by many scholars.44 While some mystery still swirls about its precise circumstances, the main lines are clear and have received further clarification in recent years by the studies of Williams and McLynn. Essentially, Ambrose, as administrative governor of the province Aemilia-Liguria, had the duty to quiet the boisterous contention between the Homoian and Nicene communities in Milan following the death of Bishop Auxentius in 374. He would have appeared an attractive compromise candidate
43 See Williams documentation of the work of Hilary, Eusebius, and others in chapters 2 and 3 in ibid., 38-103. 44 First and foremost see ibid., 104-27 and McLynn, Ambrose, 1-52 both of whom interact with the relevant scholarly literature on Ambrose's election up until the 1990's. Since then see the work of T.D. Barnes, "Valentinian, Auxentius and Ambrose," Historia: Zeitschriftfür alte Geschichte 5 1, no. 2 (2002): 227-37; Hervé Savon, Ambroise de Milan, (Paris: Desclée, 1997); and John Moorhead, Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World, Medieval World, (New York: Longman, 1999). 17 between the Homoian and pro-Nicene parties in Milan since, in his position as an imperial official, he would have been associated in their minds with Valentinian's habit ofremaining impartial in religious matters.45 With Ambrose, the Milanese on either side ofthe theological divide believed they would have a candidate able to serve them both.46 Ambrose, however, was not eager to assume the see. He would have been familiar with the intense contentions between pro-Nicenes and anti-Nicenes having grown up in Rome with a family closely associated with Pope Liberius, who officially blessed Ambrose's sister, Marcellina, when she chose the life of a virgin serving the church.47 Given this proximity to Liberius, one can assume that Ambrose had awareness of the events of the Council of Milan in 355 and therefore ofthe doctrinal conflicts rocking the church in the middle decades of the fourth century. There is no evidence, however, that Ambrose intended to become enmeshed in such controversies. To the contrary, his biographer, Paulinus, records that Ambrose made several attempts to avoid taking the office offered to him,48 indicating that he would have preferred to pursue his secular career, one that forecasted success given his rapid rise to the position of administrative governor. Valentinian I would act decisively in the matter, however, and, after being apprised of the Milaneses' desire for Ambrose, he issued an official relatio that encouraged Ambrose to take up the office ofbishop and promote peace.49 Once Ambrose had the momentum of the secular government behind him he was swept up into the bishopric and irretrievably bound to the
Williams, Ambrose, 1 1 5. Ibid., Williams goes on to review but ultimately reject the argument that Ambrose was put in place as Bishop of Milan at Valentinian's command found in C. Corbellini, "Sesto Petronio Probo e l'elezione episcopale di Ambrogio," Rendiconti: Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettre 1 09 ( 1 975): 181-9. 7 McLynn, Ambrose, 35. Paulinus, "The Life of Saint Ambrose," m Ambrose, trans. Boniface Ramsey, (London: Routledge, 1997), 198-9 (7-9). For the historical veracity of this account of the often unreliable Paulinus, see McLynn, Ambrose, 44.' We lack this document but it is attested in Rufinus, The Church History ofRufinus ofAquüeia, Books 10 and 11, trans. Philip R. Amidon, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1 997), 74 ( 1 1 . 1 1 ); Paulinus, "Life," 1 99 (8-9); and ' Ambrose, Letters. 1-91, trans. Mary Melchior Beyenka, FoC, (New York: Catholic University of America Press, 1954), 53 (Ep. 9 [21]). McLynn, Ambrose, 47-52 for an assessment of these sources and an analysis of Valentinian's role in Ambrose's election. 18 doctrinal controversies raging in Milan. While scholars were, until recently, of the opinion that Ambrose's early years were spent in vigorous contention against unorthodoxy,50 now both McLynn and Williams have joined others in convincingly arguing that Ambrose was biding his time, perhaps having unformed theological views at the time of his sudden ascension to the bishopric. He almost surely needed more time to become acquainted with the crisis of the disunity of the church in Milan and throughout the empire.51 Williams' assessment ofAmbrose as a new bishop is summed up by this portrayal: "[His] administrative and legal abilities far outweighed his grasp of theological and ecclesiastical matters."52
1.3.2 Ambrose Defends his Faith—De fide I—II Though there was little written evidence to prove it in the first years of Ambrose's episcopate (374-378), he was indeed a pro-Nicene and had ample opportunity to prove it in late in 378 when he began to face serious opposition. After Valentinian I died ofnatural causes in 375, his brother, Valens, became sole Emperor for the East, but reigned only three years before perishing in the terribly unsuccessful Battle of Adrianople (378). In the aftermath of this catastrophe, Valentinian IFs court arrived in Milan, which included Justina, the wife of Valentinian I who allied herself to Homoianism. She joined and patronized the already thriving Homoian community in Milan, led by Julian Valens, former bishop of Pettau (Poetovio).53 Williams argues that it was the combined forces ofthese two leaders, along with the Homoians who had already been worshipping together in Milan for several decades, who successfully
For two examples: Roger Gryson, Scolies Ariennes sur le Concile d'Aquilée, SC, (Paris: Les Éditions du cerf, 1980), 106, and F. Homes Dudden, The Life and Times ofSaint Ambrose 2 vols., (Oxford: Clarendon press 1935) i.69. Williams, Ambrose, 1 16-127, who cites in this section Charles Pietri, Roma Christiana: recherches sur l'Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311-440), (Rome: École française de Rome, 1976), i.736. Also, McLynn, Ambrose, 53-78 (eh. 2), which provides a fascinating socio-political interpretation of Ambrose's earliest work De viginitate. 52 Williams, Ambrose, 127. 53 Ibid., 136. 19 requested a basilica for their use from Gratian in late 378 or sometime in 379.54 Contrary to older scholarship and Ramsey's recent introduction, which depicted the relationship between the bishop and emperor as that of mentor to pupil, the newer portrayal of the relationship between Ambrose and Gratian has morphed considerably into one characterized by an uneasy beginning with Ambrose increasingly gaining more influence over Gratian than his opponents, though Gratian never stood as disciple to Ambrose.55 Once this picture is in place, it is plausible to suggest that Gratian sequestrated the basilica in Milan to do a favour for his relatives and/or to continue pursuing a policy of equity amongst various Christian parties in the manner of his purple-bearing forerunners. Additionally, Gratian sternly requested a statement from Ambrose in which he defended his faith.56 It was a rough beginning for Ambrose. The same forces that snatched away one of the pro-Nicene churches were probably the ones that caused the emperor to investigate the possibility that Ambrose's theology might not be wholly orthodox.57 Pierre Nautin—with McLynn following him—proposes that certain Illyrian Homoians, led by Palladius of Ratiara, were the main instigators of Gratian' s inquest into
CO Ambrose's beliefs. While these Illyrians would loom large in the next few years for Ambrose and while he was certainly aware of them when he wrote Defide I—II, they do not constitute the main object ofAmbrose's attack. Instead, he appears to be focused on a wide range oftargets, all of whom he paints as Arians, a well-worn rhetorical device used by pro-Nicenes at the time.59 Ambrose's strategy indicates that he was not directing his treatise against a single person or
54 Our source for this event is primarily Ambrose himself in the DSS, 1.1.1 9-20 where he praises Gratian for reversing his earlier decision—indicating the sequestration must have taken place before this. For the history of scholarship on this relationship see McLynn, Ambrose, 98 and, a more fully developed account in Williams, Ambrose, 132^3. 56 Ambrose, "De fide," 1.1. 57 Williams, Ambrose, 139-144. Pages 141-4 provide Williams' answer to the question, "Why did Gratian desire Ambrose to justify his faith?" Pierre Nautin, "Les Premères Relations d'Ambroise avec l'empereur Gratien: le Defide (livers I et II)," in Ambroise de Milan: XVf centenaire de son élection episcopale: dix études, éd. Y.-M. Duval, (Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1976) cited in and approved of in McLynn, Ambrose, 98 and partially rejected and partially accepted in Williams, Ambrose, 142-3. 59 Williams, Ambrose, 145-46. 20 group but rather making an apologia with the emperor as his primary audience, though with full knowledge that both opponents and supporters would also have access to it. It was not until the publication ofDefide III-V, to the front of which Ambrose attached his first two books in early 381, that Ambrose had Palladius primarily in his sights.60 Though there is nothing to indicate that Defide I—II silenced Julian Valens and Justina in Milan, Palladius definitely moved to the center of the controversy as the great theological adversary to rival Ambrose. 1.3.3 The Struggle with Palladius ofRatiara: The Occasionfor the DSS against Homoian Pneumatology 1.3.3.1 Why Ambrose Composed De Fide IH-V Ambrose's attempt to pigeon-hole Homoians as Arians drew the ire of Palladius, who responded to Defide I—II with a scathing critique from what we can gather from the fraction of the unnamed work still extant.61 Ambrose must have felt the backdraft from Palladius' "Contra defide" since he "found it necessary to defend and expand upon his earlier arguments with three more books" —writings not requested by Gratian. Ambrose probably felt that this step was a necessary one to take given that the Homoians had access to Gratian through Justina at least, as evidenced by the sequestration of the basilica that occurred during the time period between the publication of the two parts of Defide. Imperial policy remained neutral at best in the conflict between the Homoians and pro-Nicenes in Italy. Williams further specifies the occasion for Ambrose's books IH-V: In August of 380 Gratian was at Sirmium where Palladius and some fellow Homoian leaders gained an audience with him. His aims there were to ensure the Homoians had adequate representation at the Council of Aquileia scheduled for the next year. Evidently, the meeting went well for Palladius, "since he insinuates in the minutes of the council
For the composition, dating, and development within Defide see Williams' "Polemics," 5 1 9-3 1 and T.D. Barnes, "Ambrose and Gratian," Antiquite tardive 7 (1999): 165-74. Gryson, Scolies Ariennes, 264-74. For further scholarly treatment of the composition, dating, and content of this work, see Neil B. McLynn, "The 'Apology' of Palladius: Nature and Purpose," JTS Al (1991): 52-76. 62 Williams, Ambrose, 148. 21 that he was satisfied with the emperor's decision."63 Bombarding Gratian with anti-Arian theology could forestall any other gains the Homoians might make, and so Ambrose collected a number of sermons on the topic of the Incarnation and the Trinity and hastily edited them into Defide IH-V,64 finally completed in late 380 or early 38 1.65 1 .3.3.2 Why Ambrose Composed De Spiritu Sancto Since Ambrose mentions that he will produce an additional work on the Holy Spirit in book five ofDefide, we know that he must have composed the DSS after Defide's publication. But more specification is possible. Because ofthe reference in Ambrose's DSS to Theodosius's prohibition against Arians meeting in Constantinople (nam etiam Constantinopolis iam dei verbum recepii) which occurred in December of 380, we know that the DSS must have been composed after this time.66 The terminus ante quern must be near the beginning ofthe Council of Constantinople in May of 381 since Ambrose refers to Peter as bishop ofAlexandria, who died before the Council was underway.67 We must allow some time for the news to have reached Ambrose, but it could not have been long after May or June of 381. Therefore, at most Ambrose had six months to complete the entire DSS, which lends credence to Rufinus' claim that Ambrose wrote this work as "the result of a literary necessity when he had to reply at once to some ravings of the heretics."68 The Homoian heresy, indeed, forms the primary background against which one must read the DSS. Only the political situation facing Ambrose, namely his uncertain relationship with Gratian, constitutes as significant a factor in the DSS' s composition. (And, of course, politics and doctrine are not so easily separated in the Late Antiquity in which Ambrose lived.) Since
63 "Polemics," 530. For the original form of this part of the treatise, see the analysis in ibid.: 528-29. ^ Christoph Markschies, "Einleitung," in Ambrosius, Über den Glauben (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), 51. Ambrose, "DSS," prol. 17. 163—4. Also see Faller's account in the Prolegomena 15* 67Ibid., 16*. 68 Rufinus, "Apology against Jerome," 471; Patrologia latina, ed. Migne, xxi, 547: quifortassis etiam necessitatem scribendipassus est, ut insanientibus tunc haereticis responderet. 22 Ambrose had the most dealings with Palladius of Ratiara during this time and had almost surely just read his work refuting Defide I—II when he began writing the DSS, we may use Palladius as the exemplar of Latin Homoian theology, especially its pneumatology.69 What we have of Palladius' "trinitarian" theology comes from his defence ofhimself in the aftermath of the Council of Aquileia (3 8 1).70 This "Apology" contains a section responding to nine propositions about God, which ideas come primarily from Ambrose. Palladius composed this treatise to be read by an impartial yet informed audience. He believed that if he were able to present his views before such auditors he would have no difficulty in refuting Ambrose's arguments and establishing the merit of his case.72 The imperial court is probably the specific audience to which he directed these works given that he believed that there he could find sympathetic listeners— Justina was still a part of it, for instance—who might actually influence the course of events and overturn the disastrous consequences for him of the Council of Aquileia, and among his sympathetic listeners might be Gratian himself.
1.3.3.3 Extant Homoian Pneumatology with Special Attention to Palladius's Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Against the very reasonable objection that using Palladius' text, written as it is concurrently or after Ambrose's DSS, as part of the background on Ambrose's theology is illicit, I would point out what Palladius states here about the Spirit coheres neatly with other extant Homoian writings, as documented in Hanson and Gryson.74 The key point in Latin Homoian
69 What the Latin Homoians believed is usefully surveyed in several places by Hanson, Search, 557-97 and then- distinctive pneumatology is covered again on 744-5. The most important collection of Homoian texts comes from the volume edited by Gryson, Scolies Ariennes, 204—383. 70 McLynn, "'Apology'," 71 Ibid., 54 for an outline of the work. See pp. 64-70 for an analysis of the theological fodder Ambrose provided for Palladius' work. 72 Ibid., 72. 73 Ibid., 72. His comments in his defense after the Council of Aquileia seem to indicate this when he alludes to a favorable meeting he had had with Gratian before. See McLynn, Ambrose, 113: "the only Illyrican to be named by Ambrose in Defide among the heretics 'to whom a response must be made (1 .45-46),' he had presumably presented the case against [Ambrose] during the emperor's previous visit to the Balkans." McLynn also has persuasively argued that the entirety of Palladius' extant writings preserved in Gryson's critical edition are aimed at Ambrose's Defide and also his DSS, "'Apology'," 64ff. 74 Hanson, Search, 570-72 and 744^15; Gryson, Scolies Ariennes, 195-6. 23 theology of the Spirit was that the Spirit stands in subordination to the Son analogously as the
Son stands to the Father. "The status of the Spirit in Homoian teaching," according to Hanson, "is emphatically short of divine."75 One can discern a similar line of thought in Palladius' refutation of the seventh proposition he attributes to the neo-Nicenes represented by Ambrose,
"The Three [persons] are indistinguishable" {Tres ...indifferentes): Tres etiam indifferentes dicendo non advertistfisj [quod tjum et in appellationibus tarn Patris quam Fili, et in generando utique [et nasjcendo, necnon in adsumendo corpus et non adsumendo, in moriendo [qu]oque pro nobis et non moriendo, sed cum alter alteri custodito gradu anteponitur affectus, id est Filio Paterprefertur— necnon quod Pater Filium mittit, Filius mittit Paracletum, Pater FiHum tradiipassioni, Sp(iritu)s S(an)c(tu)s officio ministripassum prédicat Filium, adhuc vero Filius Patrem, Sp(iritu)s Paracletus glorificai Filium, Filius Patri testimoniumfert, testis Fili cum apostolis etper apostólos existit Sp(iritu)s S(an)c(tu)s, Filius quae a Patre audit loquitur, Sp(iritu)s S(an)c(tu)s a Filio audita ad apostólos perfert, Filius in nomine Patris, in nomine Fili Sp(iritu)s Paracletus mittitur, Pater Fili passione Eclesiam redimii, rede(m)ptam sanguine Cr(ist)i Eclesiam Sp(iritu)s S(an)c(tu)s sua etprocurât et instruit cura, quipped ipse in honorem d(omi)ni sui et episcopos constituens in ea et ministerial dirigens et dividens gratias,— evidens ac manifest differentia inpersonis cernatur et omnino non sufficit tres indifferentes referre. When you necessarily say that the three are also similar, you have not directed your attention to the fact that—both in the names of the Father as much as of the Son, and in generating, certainly, and being born, and indeed in assuming a body and not assuming [one], also in dying for us and non dying—the state of one is set before the other in having [His] position guaranteed, i.e. the Father is given preference over the Son—and also [you have not directed your attention to] the fact that the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the Paraclete, the Father hands over the Son to suffering, the Holy Spirit, having endured in the office of a servant proclaims the Son, but up till now the Son [glorifies] the Father, the Paraclete Spirit glorifies the Son, the Son bears witness of the Father, the witness of the Son with the apostles and through them proves the Holy Spirit's existence, the Son says what he heard from the Father, the Holy Spirit brings to the apostles the things heard from the Son, the Son [is sent] in the name of the Father, the Paraclete Spirit in the name of the Son, the Father redeems the church by the suffering of the Son, the Holy Spirit, by his responsibility, both attends to and teaches the church [which is] redeemed by the blood of Christ; naturally, the Spirit {ipse) also appoints bishops in [the church] for the honour of His Lord and arranges employments and distributes graces—a clear and obvious separation may be distinguished between persons and it is entirely insufficient to refer to the three as similar! Palladius criticizes his opponents for failing to see the ontological implications of the different actions of the Father and Son. He concludes that they have not considered that the Father is given
Hanson, Search, 571. Gryson, Scolies Ariennes, 136. 24 preference over (prefertur) the Son because the Son is (a) called "Son," (b) is born {nascendo), (c) assumes a body {adsumendo corpus), and (d) dies for us {moriendo...pro nobis). These actions, worthy of lesser honour, indicate that the Son himself does not deserve such honour and is indeed located in a position below the Father. Palladius then moves from considering the relationship ofthe Father to the Son in the economy of salvation to the three Persons altogether. He focuses on the various "sendings:" the Father sends the Son; the Son sends the Spirit. The Father, Son, and Spirit have different and neatly defined roles: the Father sends the Son and redeems the church; the Son's suffering {passio) is the means of this redemption; and the Spirit attends to {procurât), teaches {instruit), and generally upholds the life of the church.77 Palladius has the following questions, then, in the foreground of his argumentation: If the Father sends the Son, how can the Son be equal? Ifthe Son sends the Spirit, how much more impossible is it for the Spirit to be equal to either? Essentially, the different functions ofthe divine persons {personae) indicate the dissimilarity {differentia) between them. Palladius does not completely specify what the difference in function implies, though it can be inferred that he conceives the Father, Son, and Spirit as existing on dissimilar ontological planes. Hanson summarizes, "Because Palladius' 'Trinitarian' doctrine consists of one High God, one demi-god and one superior angel, function alone will suffice to differentiate."78 Furthermore, other Arian texts bear this out.79 This Latin Arian fragment dealing specifically with the Spirit further fills out the conception of the relation of divine Persons that
One may think Palladius is here thinking of Origen's Deprincipiis 1.3.5 when he describes the operations of the Father, Son, and Spirit in terms of diminishing spheres: the Father is over all creation, the Son over rational creatures, and the Spirit over the sanctified alone. However, this passage does not appear in Rufinus' translation, a translation to be preferred over the synchronicity of Koetschau as argued by Pablo Argárate, "The Holy Spirit in Prin I, 3," in Origeniana nona: Origen and the Religious Practice ofHis Time, ed. G. Heidi and R. Somos, (Walpole, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2009), 40-1. It would be interesting to investigate whether the source of the highly subordinationist Greek text for De prin. 1.3.5, the letters of Justinian to Mennas and Jerome's Letter 124, is also a source for Palladius. 8 Hanson, Search, 564. Further comfirmation that Palladius represents standard Homoian thought can be found in Roger Gryson, "Introduction," in Scolies Ariennes sur le Concile d'Aquilée, ed. Roger Gryson, Sources Chrétiennes, (Paris: Les Editions du cerf, 1980), 195: Le Fils inaugure son oeuvre créatrice en appellant à l'existence l'Esprit-Saint. Celui-ci 25 Ambrose's opponents very likely were teaching. Unfortunately, the dating ofthis text has proven to be difficult.80
Et hunc sp(iritu)m oportet nos necessariae confiten, qui sumus ueritatis defensores, tertium postpatrem etfìlium natura et ordine et eundem in natura et dignitatem possidentem. Hic estprimum et maius patris perfìlium opus, creatum perfìlium natura sanctum sanctifìcante(m) possidens uirtutem, ut sanctificet simpliciter credentes in patrem perfilium d(omi)n(u)m et d(eu)m n(ostrum) ie(su)m cr(istu)m, et ut doceat et commoneat et inluminet animas eorum et diuidat gratias et ad scientiam ueritatis omnes ducat et adducat adfìliu(m). Hic sp(iritu)s sanctus non d(eu)s neque d(omi)n(u)s, non creator nequefactor, non colendus neque adorandus per diuinas adnuntiatus agnoscitur scripturas, sed sp(iritu)s sanctus quique sunt etfacta suntperfìlium sanctifìcat et inluminat et consolatur, et interpellât gemitibus inenarrabilibus pro nobis, et adiuuat infìrmitatem orationis nostrae, et adducit adfìlium d(e)i perducendos adpatre(m). In isto sp(irit)u et angeli adorantfìlium et arcangeli et omnes inuisibilium et caelestium natura
vient en troisième lieu après le Père et le Fils. Il n'est pas inengendrè, comme le Père, ni engender, comme le Fils, mais créé par le Père, par l'intermédiare du Fils, avant toutes choses. Lui-même n'est pas principe, ni créateur à son tour; il n'est donc ni dieu, ni seigneur, ni roi, il ne siège pas avec le Père et le Fils, il n'a pas droit à notre adoration. Il n'est pas l'égal du Fils, mais son serviteur, comme le Fils l'est du Père. Il se montre soumis et obéissant au Fils, comme celui-ci l'est au Père; il le regarde comme son dieu et son seigneur. 80 There is a discussion of the background of these texts in Johannes Quasten, Patrology: the Golden Age ofLatin Patristic Literaturefrom the Council ofNicaea to the Council ofChalcedon, Patrology, (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1986), 106-7. 1 Roger Gryson, Scripta arriana latina I, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, (Turnholti: Brepols, 1982), 21 (261- 2). An allusion to Origen, On First Principles, trans. G.W. Butterworth, (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1936), 1.3.1. A pattern is discernable here that the Spirit brings (other) creatures to the Son and the Son brings them to the Father. The Homoian writer first starts with God in Himself, explaining that from God's perspective the Holy Spirit is the first creation the Father made by means of the Son. Notice, too, that the purpose of the Spirit's creation is for the benefit ofbelievers—his sphere of influence is greatly diminished after the Son's, whose realm of responsibility is smaller than the Father's.83 The vision of God for this Homoian writer is that the Spirit, clearly subordinated to the Son, brings rational creatures to the Son. In turn, the clearly subordinated Son brings these unto the Father. In this text, it is not clear whether the author reasons from operations to essence or essence to operations, that is, one can read this writer as saying that the Spirit's function is determined by the fact he is the third thing (tertium) or that we know he is the tertium based on what "is made known through the divine Scriptures." Either way, the Homoians' linkage between actions and being is evident. To anticipate the summary of the structure and content of the DSS in the next section,84 Ambrose will make precisely the opposite point, yet starting from the same principle. He will constantly strike the note that similarity in operations indicates the similarity in ontologica! status. When the Scriptures are searched, the Holy Spirit's work is found to overlap extensively with that of the Father and Son, causing Ambrose to conclude that the Spirit is equal with the other two persons. Moreover, the Homoians' insistence on subordination given the differing missions of the Son and Spirit is most likely the cause for Ambrose's use ofhis dictum, "the same operations imply the same substance." When the Spirit is conceived in this way, He appears more intimately connected with the divine life thus flattening, as it were, the ontological hierarchy that Palladius posits.85 Palladius' theology of the three persons might be conceived
Tangentially, it is interesting that the writer does go on to show that the Spirit enables the angels to praise God. (Ironically, this is a point their pro-Nicene opponents, especially Didymus, will use to demonstrate that he is God.) 84 See below pp. 43-7. Cf. Herrmann, "Ambrosius von Mailand als Trinitätstheologe," 217. "Indem Ambrosius die erste göttliche Person ihres Vorrangs gegenüber den anderen Personen der Trinität beraubt, parallelisiert er kräftig die göttlichen 27 geometrically as three distinct planes of diminishing size as one moves from the Father to the Son to the Spirit. In contrast, Ambrose's idea of the Trinity might be thought of as the three distinctions on a line, working together in the world. For Palladius, creation begins somewhere in God, probably in the Son since the Father creates all things through him. For Ambrose, the three Persons remain far above the realm of creatures and when they enter that realm they do so in unity. The arrows in both schémas represented the usual pattern of action in the world both theologians assign to the divine Persons.
Figure 1.1 Homoian Concept of the Trinity Ambrose's Concept of the Trinity
Father Father Son Spirit
CZ Son Z^
?^^ Spirit
As Christof Markschies has pointed out in the context of addressing Ambrose's use of sources, the Bishop of Milan was interested in making as clear a distinction as possible between the theology of the neo-Nicene party he represented and the Homoian "Arians."86 The case is no different when he came to distinguishing his pneumatology from that of his opponents. The Homoian doctrine of the Holy Spirit adduced here will be further considered in relation to the key texts on Ambrose's dictum in the next section.
Hypostasen und ordnet sie nicht vertical, sondern horizontal nebeneinander." I attempt to capture this insight in the figure. Markschies, Ambrosius und die Trinitätstheologie, 198. "Er hielt offenbar seine modifizierte traditionelle lateinische Terminologie für vollkommen ausreichend, um jenen scharfen Abstand zwischen nizänischer und arianischer Theologie auszudrücken und zugleich Anregungen der kappadozieschen Theologen aufzugreifen." 28 1 .3.3.4 Why Gratian Requested a Treatise on the Holy Spirit—Cupio valde and the Emergence of Macedonianism Though Rufinus was correct to indicate that the DSS was written vis á vis Homoians,— and it is well that we have considered their theology—we must remember that its primary audience was emperor Gratian. Why did Gratian request a treatise on the Holy Spirit? Had he become acquainted with the Macedonians in the East against whom the Cappadocians had been arguing, who had claimed the Son may be God, but the Spirit is a creature?87 Or was it as a result of the Homoian influence in his court with Justina and her party who had challenged the pro- Nicene position on the Holy Spirit within his earshot, causing Gratian to seek clarification from Ambrose? After "Cupio valde" should we view the request for Ambrose's to write on the Holy Spirit as a further test, or as a genuine request of Gratian's for theological knowledge? To answer these questions we must first examine the sparse evidence of "Cupio valde,"88 and then consider Ambrose's response in his letter "Non mihi adfectus defuit," the prologue to book three ofthe Defide (from which we can gather some evidence concerning why Ambrose chose to write three more books on this topic), the bits of context Ambrose provides in the DSS, and the theological circumstances in 380, in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to why Gratian would desire Ambrose's account of the Spirit.
It will also be helpful here to reproduce Gratian's extant letter to Ambrose since Ambrose attached it to the beginning of his DSS,89 presumably to give the impression that Ambrose was an official teacher to the emperor given that the treatise had been imperially commissioned—even if this was not what Gratian had in mind!
1 . Cupio valde, quern recordor absentem, ut, cum quo mente sum, cum eo etiam corpore sim praesenti. Festina igitur ad me, religiose dei sacerdos, ut doceas doctrinam veram
87 For an analysis of Macedonian theology of the Spirit see Michael A. G. Haykin, The Spirit ofGod: The Exegesis ofI and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumatomachian Controversy ofthe Fourth Century, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, (New York: E. J. Brill, 1994), 24-49 woven into his account of Basil of Caesarea's pneumatology and also Hanson, Search, 766—72. 88 Dated to "the early months of 379" by Williams, Ambrose, 152 and nl04, following Faller's introduction, 9*. 89 For the textual tradition of Cupio valde see Faller, "CSEL 79," , 5*. Cf. McLynn, Ambrose, 1 15-6. credentem, non quo contentioni studeam aut velim magis deum verbis quam mente conplecti, sed ut magis aperto pectori revelatio divinitatis insidat. 2. Docebit enim me ille, quem non nego, quem fateor deum ac dominum esse meum, non ei obiciens quam in me video creaturam, qui Christo nihil me addere posse confitear, velie tarnen, ut etiam patri me commendarem fílium praedicando. Non ego in deo verebor invidiam, non me talem laudatorem putabo, qui divinitatem verbis augeam. Ego infirmus et fragilis, quantum possum, praedico, non quantum est ipsa divinitas. 3. Rogo te, ut mihi des ipsum tractatum, quem dederas: augendo illic de sancto spiritu fidelem disputationem scripturis adque argumentis deum esse convince. Divinitas te servet per multos annos, parens et cultor dei aeterni, quem colimus, Iesu Christi.90 1. 1 greatly desire, him whom when absent I remember, that, although I am with him in mind, I might also be present with him in body. Therefore, hurry to me, religious priest of God, so that you might instruct one who believes the true teaching—not that by it I might strive for controversy or that I might try to attain God to a greater extent in words than in mind, but so that the revelation of divinity might penetrate my open heart to a greater extent. 2. That is to say, He will instruct me, he whom I do not deny, whom I confess to be my God and Lord; I, who am not opposing him, see that I am a creature myself: I am one who acknowledges myself to be able to add nothing to Christ but am able to wish that I might commend to myselfthe Son of the Father by preaching. I will not fear jealousy in God, nor will I estimate myself to be such a one who praises that I might exalt the divinity by (mere) words. I, feeble and frail, preach, as much as I am able, but not to the extent that is the divinity itself. 3. 1 ask that you might devote yourself to this matter, just as you had devoted to me that treatise, faithful arguments by exalting the Holy Spirit, establish that He is God from the Scriptures and also from logical reasons.91 May the divinity watch over you through many years, O parent and worshiper of the eternal God of Jesus Christ, whom we worship. Though Gratian is properly polite to Ambrose and approved ofhis previous treaty, one need not read him as regarding Ambrose as an official representative of the imperial faith. Gratian already "believes in the true teaching" (doctrinam veram credentem). Nevertheless, Ambrose certainly has a more favourable standing with Gratian than he did when originally asked to produce a treatise. In Defide I, Ambrose submits his books not for the emperor's "instruction" but for his "approval" {non ut disceres, sedprobares)?1 Nevertheless, contra McLynn,93 we can see in the second part of the letter that Gratian has inclined towards the pro-Nicene faith in three of his statements. First, he acknowledged Jesus
90 Ambrose, "DSS," Z-A. Williams, Ambrose, 151nl03 has a helpful treatment of this difficult sentence and its implications. 92 Ambrose, "De fide libri V (ad Gratianum Augustum)," ed. Otto Faller, in CSEL, 78 (Vindobonae: Hoelder Pichler, Tempsky, 1962), 1. 1 . 1 . 93 McLynn, Ambrose, 1 16 and nl 38. to be his "God and Lord" {quernfateor deum ac dominum esse meum)—a statement that could also be true of a Homoian as McLynn believes.94 Second, Gratian expresses that he "will not fear jealousy in God" (Non ego in deo verebor invidiam). This amounts to an anti-Arian attack. If the Son is not God but ought to be worshipped, as Scripture clearly teaches, then there would exist something of a rivalry between the Father and Son for the praise of creation, which is an absurdity. Third, Gratian says that he "is not able to add anything to Christ" (Christo nihil me addere posse). Again, by itself such a sentiment would not absolutely mean adherence to orthodoxy, but it could easily be read that way since, if Christ is equal to God, it is impossible to add anything to him. A further, extra-textual reason may finally convince us of Gratian' s orthodoxy: Ambrose states his relief that Gratian approves oíDefide I—II in his letter in response: "I have sent the two books you requested, and, since they were approved by your Clemency, I shall not fear any damage to them."95 What grounds could Ambrose have for assuming Gratian' s approval—besides the standard polite titles by which he is addressed—than a confession of the same faith? When all these pieces of evidence are weighed, Gratian appears to be pro-Nicene.
However, the part of the epistle that concerns us most is the third sentence. Here, Gratian acknowledges the reception of the first two books ofDefide and requests Ambrose to write a tract like it on the topic of the Holy Spirit's part in the Godhead. The emperor was inclined to believe that the Spirit was God, indicated by his point that the argument that the Spirit is God is trustworthy (fidelem). But why would Gratian care about the status of the Holy Spirit at this point when the conflicts over the Son's part in the divinity seemed more immediate, as demonstrated by Ambrose's contentions with the Homoians?
94 Ibid., 116. 95 Ambrose, Letters. 1-91, 5; "Ep. 12," in Epistulae et acta, ed. Otto Faller and M. Zelzer, Ep., (Vindobonae: Hoelder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1968), 12: Misi autem duos libellos, quorum iam quia tuae clementiae suntprobad periculum non verebor. 31 A strong possibility, suggested by Faller, is that Gratian was aware ofthe disputes among the Macedonian party (often called the Pneumatomachoi by their opponents—the "Spirit- fighters") when they gathered for a synod in Antiochean Caria in the Autumn of 378. This occurred shortly after Gratian published his rescript allowing toleration for all Christian parties save those following Eunomius, Photinus, or Mani.96 Now that toleration had been officially established, the Macedonians wanted to define their position over and against the pro-Nicenes and non-Nicenes. What resulted was confusion: some ofthe Macedonians broke ties with the Homoousian party, declaring that the Son is only like the Father in substance (?µ???s???),97 while others adhered to pro-Nicene doctrine.98 So what did the Macedonians believe? Hanson is probably correct in assigning no coherent agenda to the Macedonian party: [I]t would be a mistake to imagine that Macedonianism ever was a neatly defined doctrinal system, nor even that at any point it could be determined who was Macedonian and who not. It was more like a diverse series ofprotests by people who did not know what was happening in the field of developing doctrine, who had no integrated position to maintain but had a confused suspicion that the pro-Nicenes were going beyond Scripture.99 Though they differed when it came to the relationship of the Father to the Son, the common thread in the theology of this group was a rejection of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Those who held the consubstantiality of the Father and Son could get away with affirming the Nicene Creed with its ambiguous last line: "And we believe in the Holy Spirit." They also could affirm belief in the Holy Spirit, but they held He was an angel and certainly should not be worshipped as God. Amidst all the tumult of competing doctrines of God, the Macedonians raised a serious objection about the nature of the Spirit and did so with such force that they required a response.
Jb Faller, "CSEL 79," 8*-9*. 97 Sozomenus, "HE," VII.2.2^ (377). See the Homoian anti-Macedonian writing in Gryson, Scripta arriaría latina I, fragment 9 (and possibly others). Their disagreement concerned the status of die Son. Hanson, Search, 766. Primary documents attesting the beliefs of the Macedonian party are Sozomenus, "HE," IV.27; Gregory ofNyssa, "On the Holy Spirit (Against the Macedonians)," in Dogmatic Treatises, Etc, ed. Henry Wace and Phillip Schaff, trans. Henry Austin Wilson and William Moore, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1892), 315— 25. 32 While Didymus, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians had begun to answer them in the East from the 3 60' s onward, none in the West had yet developed a substantial reply. Gratian probably realized this. It was natural, after having received Ambrose's pro-Nicene Defide, to ask the Bishop of Milan to provide him with the orthodox rejoinder in Latin. While Cupio valde indicates that Gratian had some degree of favour for Ambrose and his theological positions and that he was inclined to believe that the Spirit was God, it is possible that he may still have had a degree ofuncertainty in this matter, especially since the Homoian beliefregarding the Spirit so nearly aligned with the Macedonian doctrine. They both assigned the Spirit to the realm of creation and thought it blasphemy to call him God. The Macedonians, taken as a whole, were closer to the pro-Nicenes on Christology than the Homoians, but they had similar pneumatologies. Both believed that the Scriptures contained no evidences that the Spirit was God,100 a fact which caused Gratian to ask Ambrose specifically for proof from Scripture
(disputationem scripturis). The similarities between the Homoians and Macedonians may indicate, however, that Gratian only had the Homoians in mind and that he had been exposed to their teaching on the Holy Spirit. Hearing their doctrine could have had the same effect. It would also explain why he would turn to Ambrose for a divergent opinion, since he was well aware of Ambrose's hostility to Homoian theology. Therefore, from Gratian' s Cupio valde we cannot establish which party prompted his request for a treatise on the Spirit from Ambrose, but we do know—as Ambrose would have, too—that Gratian had been exposed to non-Nicene pneumatology, whether
Homoian or Macedonian.
100 See the helpful summary of Scriptural passages frequently used by the Macedonians in Hanson, Search, 769-70. Some scholars believe that Basil of Caesarea himself thought Scriptural evidences of the Spirit's divinity were scarce including McLynn, Ambrose, 116 and nl40 and R.P.C. Hanson, "Basil's Doctrine ofTradition in Relation to the Holy Spirit," VC 22, no. 4 (1968): 241-55. For the contrary position see Stephen M. Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology ofBasil ofCaesarea: A Synthesis ofGreek Thought and Biblical Truth, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), ch. 6, 231-50. 33 1.3.3.5 Ambrose's Response to Gratian: Non mihi adfectus defuit and Passages in De fide IH-V
Another document in establishing the context of the DSS is Ambrose's Epistle 12, Non mihi adfectus defuit, "I do not lack affection."101 Ambrose structured his response to the emperor to interpret each phrase of Cupio valde with a pro-Nicene twist. He begins by making excuse for his failure to comply with Gratian' s request that he come to him.102 He praises Gratian' s character103 and then promises to send the treatise on the Holy Spirit, tipping his hand that he affirms the Spirit's full divinity.104 This letter was written a short time after Ambrose received Gratian' s, probably in the summer of 379 before Gratian returned from his campaigns to Milan.105 It is somewhat strange that Ambrose makes the promise of the DSS here, but does not complete it until almost two years later. We may surmise two reasons for his delay. The first and certain one is that Ambrose, who had experienced staunch resistance including strong arguments
from Homoians like Palladius, felt he needed to clarify Defide I—II lest he lose the ground with Gratian that he had gained through those books' favourable reception. Thus, he occupied himself in the next two years composing Defide III-V. The second reason could be that Ambrose was gathering material of Greek pro-Nicene authors on the Holy Spirit and educating himself on pneumatology. He had probably learned from Palladius' powerful critique oíDefide I—II that he
needed to become better informed before venturing a substantial dogmatic treatise. Failure had been a good teacher. This is important because now we may surmise that Ambrose, bound by a promise to the emperor himself, had a full two years to ponder pneumatology and write the DSS. Admittedly, he was also working on books III-V ofDefide, but the subject matter of his forthcoming work on the Spirit could not have been far from his mind.
Ambrose, "Ep. 12," , 3.219; in the English translation given as "Letter 1": Letters. 1-91, 3-6. Ambrose, Letters. 1-91, 3. Ibid., 4-5. Ibid., 5-6. Faller, "CSEL 79," 12* and 14*. 34 In Defide III, dated to 380,106 Ambrose again acknowledges that "your gracious Majesty's pious care beckons me on towards other labours, since you wish to test in more things him whom you have proved in a few things." These ad cetera are almost certainly the DSS as
Ambrose would have been conscious that Gratian expected something on the Holy Spirit given their correspondence. However, Ambrose probably knew that Gratian had received Palladius at
Sirmium in early 380 and knew his first two books would have come under attack. Defide III-V represents his response to the blossoming relationship between his arch-enemy and the most powerful man in the world, a precarious situation indeed for Ambrose, and ample cause for action.108 Naturally, Ambrose could not make these fears wholly explicit. Yet he not-so-subtly blames the need for these three extra books on "a depraved mind" (mens prava), almost surely a reference to Palladius. In the prologue to book V, Ambrose alludes to the fact that he will have more about the Holy Spirit: "In the Fifth book, therefore, we speak ofthe indivisible Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (omitting, however, a full discussion on the Holy Ghost)."109 Ambrose reminds Gratian that his promise remains unforgotten. 1.3.4 The Prologue to the DSS and the Treatise 's Dating By 381 Gratian had decided to move the imperial court to northern Italy, and Milan was the city chosen for, at least, the mints and presumably other government functions.110 The DSS opens with an interpretation of Gideon and the fleece in which the dew on the fleece indicates the Spirit's outpouring on Israel to give them victory.111 In turn, the life symbolized in the
106 The definitive discussion about this section of Ambrose's Defide, providing historical context and theological development from I and II is found in Williams, "Polemics," 523-30. 107 Ambrose, "De fide," III.l .2: tuae quoque pia me cura clementiae ad cetera vocat volens inpluribus experiri, quern in paucis probasti. 108 Cf. Williams, "Polemics," 530-1. 109 Ambrose, "CSEL," V.prol.7: quinqué igitur libros depatris etfili ac spiritus sancii inseparabili divinitate digerimus, sequestrata interim pleniore disputatione de spiritu; English translation from Works, 285. 110 McLynn, Ambrose, 120 cites M.F. Hendy, "Aspects of Coin Production and Fiscal Administration," Numismatic Chronicle 7, no. 12 (1972): 127. 111 Latin: Ambrose, "DSS," I.prol.l 1; English translation: Works, 40. 35 wetness of the fleece prefigures the life given by Christ in his washing of the disciples' feet,1 n a passage in the Gospel of John relating to Christian baptism,"3 which would take place on Easter. Furthermore, there is an allusion to baptism in the prologue to the DSS when Ambrose thanks
Jesus since "today you have cleansed a thousand here for us" (tu nobis, domine Iesu, hos hodie mille mundasti) and also for those cleansed in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople.114 All this together suggests the prologue to the DSS was written for Easter Day and attached to the beginning of the DSS, which Ambrose perhaps presented to Gratian that very day publicly in the church, since he was in Milan for Easter.115 McLynn makes the inference from his judgement of Ambrose's character, "Ambrose was again pretending to a more authoritative position than he actually held."116
After he finally completed the DSS and presented it to Gratian, Ambrose admitted he had "put off' Gratian for some time regarding the treatise: "For since, most merciful Emperor, you have been so fully instructed about the Son of God that you yourself may now teach, I shall not put you off any longer since you desire and demand to hear more explicitly about Him [i.e. the
117 . Holy Spirit]." This sounds as if it were a moment oftruth for Ambrose, and indeed it could hardly be otherwise. Gratian had taken up residence in Ambrose's city, a place that had experienced fierce and ongoing contention between Homoians and pro-Nicenes. Ambrose stood at the head of the pro-Nicene party; arrayed against him in formidable opposition were Palladius,
Julian Valens, and Justina. Additionally, by this time it would have been known generally that
Gratian planned for a major Council at Aquileia later that same year in parallel to Theodosius' Council of Constantinople. Such a gathering would make or break Ambrose as the "Arian
112 Ambrose, "DSS," I.prol.12-16. 113 E.g. Origen, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 13-32, trans. Ronald E. Heine, FoC, vol. 89, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 32.78-9. 114 Ambrose, "DSS," I.prol.17. 115 McLynn, Ambrose, 120. "6IWd., 120-1. 117 Ambrose, Works, 1.1.19 (p. 43); "DSS," quoniam ita piene de deifìlio, clementissime imperator, instructus es, ut ipse iam doceas—cupientem et exigentem audire aliquid expressius non morabor. 36 conflicts" were coming to a head with Theodosius' ardent partisanship for the Nicene cause and Gratian's moderate inclination in that direction. The DSS could further support Ambrose's cause, establishing him as Gratian's theological doctor. Because he had already indicated his support for Ambrose in Cupio valde, perhaps Gratian's final unanswered theological questions were about the Holy Spirit. While it is unlikely that the arguments in the DSS could alone have turned the tide one way or another, it was surely an important piece, not only because it concerned the status of the Holy Spirit, but also because it provided Ambrose with a chance to present the overall Nicene version of the doctrine of God and the relationships between the Father, Son, and Spirit. 1.3.5 Conclusion: The Situation Ambrose Faced in 381 as He Wrote the DSS In the months and weeks leading up to Easter, one can imagine Ambrose hunched over his parchment with pen in hand considering what he should write concerning the Holy Spirit. Having just completed and sent oñDefide III-V—writings with much more refined arguments than the first two books ofthat work1 18—he had only a short time to compose the DSS. Granted, the main locus of the conflict with the Homoians was the matter ofthe Son's relationship to the Father. But Gratian, Ambrose's chief audience, considered the Spirit's status an important question. Under time constraint, one might imagine that Ambrose's pneumatology is all ad hoc, crafted out ofthose teachings from the Greek fathers he could understand, perhaps without completely grasping them. But because the stakes were high—failure could mean banishment from Milan—nothing less than competent arguments would do. But one must also keep in view a perhaps more important consideration than the perilous situation Ambrose faced. While scholars, especially McLynn, have emphasized that Defide III— V and the DSS were all composed within a span of six months,1 19 they have also shown that
118 Cf. Williams, "Polemics," 525-8. McLynn, Ambrose, 118-9 is the best example of this judgment. 37 much oíDefide III-V and at least the prologue to book one ofDSS were sermons transposed into the treatise.120 While the publication ofthese two books occurred in a short time span, we have no reason to think that Ambrose did anything other than contemplate Trinitarian doctrine in opposition to his Homoian opponents and the conflicts raging in his city in the almost two years between the publication ofDefide I—II and the composition of these other two tracts. The fact that he had sermons at his disposal to use as ammunition in his treatises demonstrates the diligent thought he put into trinitarian theology during this time. Moreover, the absence of any other literary output from Ambrose on other topics during the time from 379-381 suggests that his energies were devoted to reinforcing his theological understanding and strengthening his polemic. Williams writes that the Defide IH-V displays Ambrose's theological development, a point that suggests the bishop's focus on this matter.121 The conclusion we may draw from these points is that the DSS ought to be read with some care—certainly more than scholars since Jerome have given it—under the assumption that Ambrose composed it with care. So Ambrose sat down to write his treatise knowing full-well the Homoian position on the doctrine of God and their belief in the (very) subordinate role of the Holy Spirit. He would know that Gratian had listened to this viewpoint by way of Palladius. While arguments alone would not be sufficient to attain victory in the heated conflict with the Homoians, the DSS would provide him with a chance to put forward the best pro-Nicene arguments to show that true Christianity rightly belonged to the party to which Ambrose belonged. He had the best texts on the Spirit written up to that point—Basil's and Didymus' DSSs and Athanasius' Epistulae ad Serapionem—texts from which he freely borrowed. But again, this borrowing need not imply that he did not use them critically. Though writing about Defide, Markschies comments that Ambrose was a critical and even creative compiler and transmitter of Greek doctrine. Such an
Concerning Defide's literary structure see ibid., 1 19-21 where McLynn cites (1 19nl51) Palanque, Saint Ambroise, 459-60, to which should be added Williams, "Polemics," 528-9. 121 Williams, "Polemics," 527-8. 38 assessment no less applies to the DSS.122 These Greek documents had to be turned into Latin and must address his specific situation. Wholesale copying would not pass muster. So, even though Ambrose needed to compose his treatises in haste, and therefore a fair number of his ideas were derivative, this need not compel us to assume that it lacks depth ofthought or originality. As we will discover in the next chapter, the idea plucked from his Greek sources which unlocked his polemical arguments against the Homoians, was the idea that "the same operations imply the same substance." As Ambrose read and preached through the Bible in the time leading up to the actual constitution of the DSS, he found that the Spirit performed many of the same acts as the Father and Son. This was his proof, developed in myriad ways, for the Spirit's divinity.
Markschies, Ambrosius und die Trinitätstheologie, 198. 39 Chapter 2 Ambrose's Trinitarian Dictum: "Same Operation Implies Same Substance" ? ? 2.1 Overview of Ambrose's DSS Now that we have investigated the circumstances surrounding the composition of Ambrose's treatise, it is time to look at the treatise itself. 2.1.1 Style While Jerome deprecated the style of Ambrose's treatise, quoting Terence's words, "I saw bad things in Latin taken from good things in Greek," Augustine actually praised the prose of the DSS, precisely for its simplicity: "Saint Ambrose too, although treating the important subject of the Holy Spirit, uses the restrained style to demonstrate his equality to the Father and the Son, because his chosen topic does not require verbal ornament or emotional fervour to move the mind, but factual evidence."123 Augustine judged Ambrose's work to be fairly prosaic, but believed this was the appropriate way to approach the subject. However, modern classicist Steven M. Oberhelman has nuanced with Augustine's assessment, arguing that the DSS actually uses a prose rhythm according to the cursus mixtus style—similar to Cicero's own method— which would have pleased the ear of an informed reader.124 McLynn observes that this feature of Ambrose's writing coincides with the audience for whom the treatise was created.125 Such an erudite presentation of his material was a calculated subtlety that demonstrated Ambrose's mastery of language, and he surely hoped this would contribute to the image of him as a learned doctor to the imperial court. For our purposes, this also shows that Ambrose did not borrow wholesale from his Greek sources, but took care as he worked their ideas into his own Latin
123 Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, trans. R.P.H. Green, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 4.127 (258)" Latin (from the same title): Sanctus quoque Ambrosius cum agat rem magnam de spiritu sondo, ut eíim patri etfilio demonstret aequalem, summisso tarnen dicendi genere utitur, quoniam res suscepta non ornamenta verborum aut ad flectendos ánimos commotionis affectum sed rerum documenta desiderai. Steven M. Oberhelman, Rhetoric and Homiletics in Fourth-Century Christian Literature: Prose Rhythm, Oratorical Style, and Preaching in the WorL· ofAmbrose, Jerome, and Augustine, American Classical Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 44-45. See pp. 5-8 for background on the cursus mixtus style. McLynn, Ambrose, 1 19-2 1 . 40 context. One cannot analyze the DSS with the assumption that Ambrose did not compose it with substantial vigilance.
2.1.2 Structure
The DSS consists of three books, of about equal length. The first two books contain prologues that begin with Old Testament allegory, culminating in an interpretation of the work of the Spirit as God. The first book starts off logically enough after Ambrose's exegesis of the Gideon story and his tribute to the Emperor Gratian when it denounces the claim that the Spirit is created (Non... inter omnia, sed super omnia Spiritus Sanctus est),U6 a claim based on an interpretation of John 1 :3 that numbered the Spirit amongst the "all things (omnia) made" by the Word.127 Ambrose continues what may be called the "negative" part ofhis work, in which he argues that the Spirit is not a creature, throughout the 10 initial chapters. Chapters 1 1-15 mostly focus on the Godlikeness of the Spirit—the "positive" part ofbook one. After book one, little structure can be discerned as the work proceeds along by introducing and developing a new theme in almost every chapter, the enumeration of which was probably added by a fifth century
1 98 editor. The end of each of the three books contain passages that may be classified as hortatory: the end ofbook one encourages the reader to thirst for the life the Spirit gives and cast aside vices (1.15.155 and 16.162-6); the end ofbook two provides exempta of the conquering of enemies that Paul, Barnabas, and Peter could achieve in the Spirit (II. 13. 155-8)—a sentiment that would have been welcome to a Christian emperor!—and book three closes with a brief invective against the Arian position (III. 1 6. 1 70). One other possible structural flag post occurs in a chapter near the end of the DSS that summarizes four of the preceding arguments, which
ilb Ambrose, "DSS," 1.1.19. Origen may have been the first to interpret the passage in this manner. See Origen, Commentary on the Gospel according to John. BooL· 1-10, trans. Ronald E. Heine, Fathers of the Church, vol. 80, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University ofAmerica Press, 1989), II.6. 128 Faller, "CSEL 79," 43*. 41 Ambrose gathers together "from here and there" (disperse)}29 This phrase almost serves as an admission that the treatise has ranged over many topics and that some summing up or organizing is needed. In this word, Ambrose flags for the reader that the DSS has no overarching structure. And lest there be any doubt that the treatise has no implicit organization, the four chapters (III. 19-22) that awkwardly follow what had seemed the conclusion make it plain. That Ambrose would compose a dogmatic work focused more on style and individual pericopae should not surprise given that the Defide also employs this style. In composing a polemical, dogmatic work in this way, Ambrose was taking advantage ofhis legal rhetorical training, which taught students how to generate arguments according to various topics (loci). One would argue a thesis, supporting one's own view against objections.130 Once he came up with an idea, which he probably invented either by refuting Homoian doctrine, by consulting the work of one ofhis Greek sources, or by raising his own objections, Ambrose would develop that idea by interpreting various scriptures on the topic. Ambrose occasionally departs from the line of argumentation he was following and makes hortatory points or breaks into prayers and praises to God for his work in salvation history.131 2.1.3 Themes and Purpose The overriding theme, corresponding with the primary purpose of the treatise, is the co- equality and consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son and the Father. All three Persons are God. Ambrose has two main strategies for achieving this end, one in the form of a refutation and one in the form of a confirmation. He refutes that the Spirit is creature, based on exegesis or on the Spirit's particular characteristics. The confirmation, or positive argument, Ambrose puts forward is a demonstration of the unity of operations amongst persons. For Ambrose, if the
III. 18. 132: quae disperse dicta sunt, expressius colligamus. George Alexander Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek TextbooL· ofProse Composition and Rhetoric, Writings from the Greco-Roman World, (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 87 and 120-24. 131 Examples include I.prol.13-14, 1.9.107-1 1,1.16.162-66, 11.10.107-13,111.17.1 18-131,111.21.170. 42 Operations of the Persons are identical, their nature must also be identical.132 The themes of the treatise may be broken down into six topical arguments, though often presented in different forms and alongside varying Scripture passages. I. Although the Spirit serves humankind, He is "above all things," which corresponds to Christ (I.prol. 1-1 .26; Il.prol. 1-2.25) II. The Spirit is uncreated (1.2.27-4.61 ; II.6.48-60) III. The Spirit is omnipresent (1.5.62-7.89; 1. 1 1 . 1 1 6-25) IV. The Spirit's works are the same as those of God: sending, creating, revealing , calling, commanding, self-giving, sanctifying, and judging (1.8.90-1 0 115· 1.12.126-31; II.3.26-5.47; 11.10.101-13.158; III.l. 1-2.10; III.5.29-9 58" ' III. 18. 132-1 9. 152) V. The Spirit shares titles with Father and Son, implying His consubstantiality (1.13.132-15.166; II.6.61-9.100; 111.3.11^.28; III.10.59-68; III.13.92-17 131 · III.20. 153-22. 170) VI. The Spirit is worshipped alongside the Father and the Son (III.l 1 .69-12.92) Points II, III, and VI all aim at showing that the Spirit is not a creature; points I, IV, and V support the idea that there exists a unity of action. As can be seen by consulting the chapter markers, the bulk Ambrose's focus is on the similarity in the operations ofthe Spirit with the Father and Son. While it may not initially seem that point V—the congruence of titles—should be grouped with the unity of operations, in fact the titles denote various operations, and thus they serve to demonstrate the oneness of the Persons. For example, in a long section on the similarity of titles of the Persons (1.13.132-15.166)—in this case the title "fire"—Ambrose, at 1.13.148, after he has exegeted a number of Scripture passages, concludes that the title "fire" indicates the operation of the Spirit: "By this testimony we gather not the diversity but the unity ofthe divine power." ("Power" (potestas) here is synonymous with operation (operatio) for Ambrose.) Early on in the work, in the context of the objection that the Spirit's name is sometimes omitted from a biblical passage, Ambrose responds by laying down the principle that the omission of one of the divine names in a text does not deny that either the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit's action
Herrmann, "Ambrosius von Mailand als Trinitätstheologe," 213. He also finds two primary arguments: that the Spirit is not a creature and that the Spirit is God because ofhis identical work with the rest of the Trinity. Ambrose, Works, 88. Latin: Quo testimonio non diversitatem, sedunitatem divinae colligimus potestatis. 43 is absent. Before he engages more deeply in this particular problem, he lays the groundwork for his subsequent argumentation establishing the following principle: Et sicut, qui benedicitur in Christo, benedicitur in nomine patris etfili et spiritus sancii, quia unum nomen est, potestas una, ita etiam, ubi operatio aliqua divina autpatris aut fili aut spiritus designatur, non solum ad sanctum spiritum, sed etiam adpatrem refertur, nee solum adpatrem, sed etiam adfilium refertur et spiritum. 4
And in the same way, one who is blessed in Christ, is blessed in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit because the name is one, because the power is one, thus also, when some divine operation—whether of the Father or the Son or the Spirit—is described, it is referred not only to the Holy Spirit, but also to the Father, and it is referred not only to the Father but also to the Son and the Spirit. That Ambrose lays down a general rule here is clear by the use ofqui which makes universal the
object of divine blessing, by the ubi which indicates the transference ofthe name can occur anytime, and the aliqua modifying the divina operatio which designates any action wrought by
God. Ambrose brings together the concepts of "name," "power," and "operation," a strategy consistent throughout the DSS. While he will offer a few qualifications to demonstrate the distinctness of Persons, e.g. the Holy Spirit could not die on the cross because he did not take on
flesh (1.9.106-7), his tendency is to unmistakably unite the aspects of the work of each Person in
salvation history, and thus their substantial or natural unity. Again, Ambrose does not employ terminology with the precision of the Cappadocians or ofAugustine, so one finds him confessing the ultimate unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, using a variety of language, as these key passages reveal:
¦ "where there is one sanctification, there is one nature" (ubi una sanctificatio, una natura est, 1.5.75) ¦ "substance cannot be separated" (non potest. ..esse. ..discreta substantia, 1.12.131) ¦ "the Holy Spirit is of one substance with the Son of God and God the Father" (spiritum sanctum unius cumfilio dei et deo patre esse substantiae, 1.16.160) ¦ "the Holy Spirit is creator and is to be venerated with the honour of the eternal divinity" (sanctum...spiritum creatorem et in aeternae divinitatis honore venerandum, II.5.47) ¦ "Where. . .there is the manifestation of the Spirit, there is the power of God; nor can there be any distinction where there is one work." (ubi ergo ostensio est spiritus, ibi dei virtus est, nee potest esse discretio, ubi opus unum est, 11.12.130)
'DSS," 1.3.32. [The Spirit] is the same through substance and power" (idem ...estper substantia™ adque virtutem, 11.12.142) ¦ "But these things have been written so that we might refer them to unity of the divinity" (Sed haec... scripta sunt, utadunitatem divinitatis ista referamus, III.4.19) ¦ "there is no inequality but unity ofnature" (inaequalitatem non esse, sed unitatem naturae, III.7.46) ¦ "The unity is indivisible because, where either the Father, or Christ, or the Spirit is indicated in the witness of Scripture, there is all the fullness of the Trinity" (Inseparabilis ergo unitas, quia, ubi autpater aut Christus aut spiritus scriptura testificante Signatur, ibi omnis plenitudo est trinitatìs, III.9.55) ¦ "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit exist one and the same through the unity of the same nature" (pater etfilius et spiritus sanctus in uno eodem que per naturae eiusdem maneant unitatem, III. 12.9 IA) ¦ "Therefore, if [the Spirit] works all these things, all ofwhich the one and the same Spirit works, how is He not God who has all things that God has?" (Ergo si haec omnia operatur, quia omnia operatur unus adque idem spiritus, quomodo non deus, qui omnia habet, quae deus habet! III. 19. 144) One may observe that his favourite expression ofunity is substantia, though he will often indicate the oneness of the Persons by employing natura or divinitas. So a variety of terms are used to articulate the essential harmony ofthe Godhead, which constitutes Ambrose's overall objective.
2.2 Didymus, Basil, and Athanasius: Ambrose's Sources 2.2.1 Establishing the Fact ofDependence and its Consequences Which of these loci, if any, are uniquely Ambrosian? As discussed above,135 Ambrose's use of various sources in the DSS has been attested from its very publication. In the modern period first T. Schermann136 and then E. Stolz137 have clarified the relationship between Ambrose and his Greek sources, who have been unanimously identified as Didymus, Basil, and Athanasius (in order of the quantity borrowed from each). With the CSEL critical edition published in 1964, Otto Faller carefully documented each use of these three fathers in Ambrose, building on the previous work of Schermann and Stolz. I have included that information in the table in the appendix (page 101 below). Norman Belval's Ph.D. thesis concurred with Faller's 135 See pp. 2-5 above. Theodor Schermann, Die grieschischen Quellen des Hl. Ambrosius in libro III de Spir S (München" Lentner 1902). i- y ¦ E. Stolz, "Didymus, Ambrose, Hieronymus," Theologische Quartalschrift 87 (1905): 371-401. 45 research.138 Additionally, Schermann and Manlio Simonetti have each ruled out the possibility that Ambrose might have incorporated the treatises of his near-contemporaries Cyril of
Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius, or Pseudo-Vigilius' De Trinitate XII. Any similarities between these and Ambrose's treatise can be ascribed to his use of Didymus, Basil, and Athanasius, who were in most cases also sources for the others.
Therefore, I will base my analysis on the assumption that Ambrose had before him the treatises of these three Greek speaking authors. This will inform the present study in two ways. First, in the passages in which Ambrose speaks of the Spirit's relationship to the Father and the Son, one may look directly to similar passages by any of these three authors who influenced him to discover how Ambrose appropriated their arguments. We can assess whether he changed what they wrote or if he incorporated these section wholesale. As a consequence, we will know more about the extent to which Ambrose borrowed his Trinitarian ideas, determining more specifically where he followed with precision and where he employed his own constructive theological notions. Second, we know with a high degree ofprobability that Ambrose read all three ofthese treatises and that the theology of the Spirit in them could have influenced him. In sum, we can first look to localized influence of these works on Ambrose, and we can also look for general influence. The first ought to be preferred to the latter because when Ambrose borrowed material, we know with certainty that he read it. However, ideas outside ofthese particular passages may only coincidentally be located in Didymus, Basil, or Athanasius. 2.2.2 A Quantitative Evaluation ofthe Extent ofAmbrose 's Use ofSources Before digging into textual analysis of key Trinitarian passages in Ambrose, I will quantitatively analyze Ambrose's dependence on his sources to provide the reader with a better idea of the extent to which the Bishop of Milan incorporated these three Greek-speaking theologians.
138 Belval, Spirit in Ambrose, 90-1 10. 139 Schermami, Quellen, 58, and Simonetti, "Ambrosio," Maia: Rivista di Letterature Classisene (1951): 293 as cited in Faller, "CSEL 79," 20*. One can discover which passages Ambrose generated himselfby eliminating all those passages Faller has attributed to the influence of Didymus, Basil, or Athanasius and observing which ones remain. But before providing the results some cautions must be raised. (1) There is some overlap in the chapters Faller has assigned to each author. I have tried not to count borrowed chapters twice, but this may account for some error in the findings. (2) Furthermore, I have adduced these numbers based on chapters. The general lengths of the chapters are similar but not exactly the same. This will also cause some inexactness in the findings. (3) The chapters counted as borrowed by Ambrose influenced the ideas Ambrose dealt with but not necessarily the words he actually chose to express these ideas. Faller himselfpoints out a few places where Ambrose nearly copies exactly into Latin small sections of the Greek treatises, but these places are few.140 Even when he borrows, Ambrose generally does not incorporate the Greek text wholesale. Despite these caveats, one can determine with fair accuracy that Ambrose borrowed substantially, but not exclusively. So, according to this method, out of the 491 total chapters in the AS1S,141 Ambrose borrowed substantial material in 166 total chapters (95 from Didymus, 59 from Basil, and 12 from Athanasius), which accounts for about one-third of the treatise as a whole. However, a more telling statistic is the amount of loci original to Ambrose. From my best estimation, the following points are not treated in any sustained way in the treatises of Didymus,
Basil, and Athanasius, but are uniquely Ambrosian: (1) Allegorical exegesis ofbook of Judges (prologues ofbooks one and two) (2) Spirit forgives sins and is not subject to sin (1. 10.1 12—5) (3) Spirit is "Fire" and the "Fountain of Life" (1.14.144-16.166) 140 Faller, "CSEL 79," 18*-9*. 141 1 have counted the "half paragraphs occurring at 1.9.102 and 102A, 1.13.133 and 133A, III.12.91 and 91A, and HI. 12.92 and 13.92A as full paragraphs, since they truly are paragraphs according to their length; they are only enumerated as half-paragraphs because of an idiosyncrasy in the numbering. Another oddity of the numbering of the paragraphs is the omission ofnumbers 33-39 in the first book. This, too, has been taken into account. 142 This is a theme in Origen, Homilies on Luke, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard, FoC, vol. 94, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 27.1^1. Given that Ambrose used Origen extensively in his own work on Luke (Ambrose, Exposition ofthe Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson, (Etna, Calif.: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998)), one may perceive Origen's influence here. 47 (4) Spirit reveals the Son and such knowledge gives life eternal (II.3.26-28) (5) Spirit is an integral part ofthe mission and unity of the Godhead (III. 1.1-2. 10) (6) Spirit judges (proven mostly by OT exegesis) (IH.6.35-^12) (7) Spirit is God per exegesis of Ambrose's (faulty143) Jn. 3:6 text (III. 10.59-68) (8) List ofhow the Holy Spirit's characteristics align with those of the Father: being without sin, being able to forgive sin, being a creator, being worshiped (III. 13.92A-1 9. 152) (9) Allegorical exegesis of Revelation 22:1-2 and Isaiah 6 proving Spirit's divinity (III.20. 153-22. 170) One conclusion we may draw from this list is that Ambrose's own penchant for allegorical exegesis accounts for much of his creativity in DSS. Points (1), (3), (6), and (9) all arise from Ambrose's discovery ofthe Holy Spirit in passages in which one may not discern His presence on the literal level of the text. The rest of the points may be slight variations on themes from the three Greek theologians with whom Ambrose was in dialogue. For instance, Basil discusses the role the Spirit has in revelation (18.47) as Ambrose does in point (3). However, Ambrose uses this idea to demonstrate the equality of knowledge the Spirit shares with God. This runs completely counter to Basil's purpose, which was to demonstrate how the hypostases have different operations yet remain united. Ambrose certainly does add his own touches of constructive theology. Here we cannot agree with Hanson's assessment that the DSS is merely a "pot-boiler."144 He has relied extensively on sources, but, after years of conflict with the formidable opposition of Palladius and others, he has learned that he must understand the arguments for himself and must bring to bear his own Trinitarian exegesis of Scripture. Before moving on to textual analysis, two final observations about the differences between Ambrose and his sources ought to be made that contribute to an overall understanding of Ambrose's project and situation. First, the length of the DSS is about three times that of Didymus', Athanasius', or Basil's work. This may partly be explained by the fact that Ambrose had three different sources from which to draw. He must have been concerned to cram as many arguments as possible into his work to cover his bases, ensuring that nothing reaching Gratian's
See Faller's note: Ambrose, "DSS," 174. Hanson, Search, 756. 48 ears concerning the Spirit could not be found also in the DSS.145 Another possible explanation is that several sections of the DSS were originally produced as sermons Ambrose preached in Milan against Homoian Trinitarian dogma. The hortatory or devotional tenor ofmost of the digressions in the treatise points in this direction. Additionally, while it might be going too far to say that Ambrose wanted to overwhelm Gratian with his mastery of the topic, he certainly would have wanted the emperor to have the impression that pro-Nicene theology had fecundity.
A second observation is that Ambrose argues with less precision than his Greek-speaking counterparts. Ambrose's sentences and even paragraphs tend to be rather short, often leaving out a key premise of a syllogism. While such omissions can often be ascribed to the rhetorical usage of the enthymeme, in some cases Ambrose is guilty of employing a non sequitur}46 In part, this justifies scholars' dismissal of the DSS, e.g. Hanson, showing that Ambrose simply had not mastered the subject as well as the other theologians ofhis era. He was, after all, the first to write a treatise exclusively on the Holy Spirit in his language. As the above section on Ambrose's terminology demonstrates, the theological vocabulary from which the Bishop had to draw was limited and as yet underdeveloped. Unsurprisingly, some of the intricacies of Didymus, Athanasius, and Basil had to be lost in translation. 2.2.3 The Character ofthe Treatises ofDidymus, Basil, and Athanasius In order to best understand Ambrose's central assumptions about Trinitarian theology, it will be helpful to briefly describe the works on the Holy Spirit of Didymus, Basil, and Athanasius. Accordingly, a short summary follows highlighting the audience, dating, purpose, the structure, and also the central themes of each work, as well as brief mention ofkey themes passed over or incorporated by Ambrose. 2.2.3.1 Didymus' De Spiritu Sancto
145 A problem with this hypothesis is that Ambrose does not touch on the absence of the Spirit in 1 Tim. 5:21, a verse used by both Basil's and Athanasius' opponents. 146 Observe, e.g., II. 1 1.1 16, 11.12.141, HI.13.96, and HI.21.164. 49 The treatise most heavily used by Ambrose comes down to us only in the Latin translation of Jerome.147 Given Jerome's antipathy for the bishop of Milan—already observed in his preface—and his defence of Didymus up until after the time he made his translation, one might be led to suspect the veracity of his text. Could he not have manipulated it to make Didymus look more orthodox and Ambrose to look more derivative? However, Jerome's animosity towards Ambrose gives a good reason to trust his translation: the best way to show Ambrose's plagiarism was to produce the Greek as literally as possible into Latin. Neither is there any indication of textual tampering for orthodoxy's sake. As Alasdair Heron has summed up, "Jerome appears to have been almost painfully precise in his rendering, anxious to reproduce the Greek as accurately as possible, even including explanatory comments where it might have been easier to paraphrase, retaining Greek terms, and generally using the most literal Latin equivalents throughout."148 While it is known that Jerome published his translation in 387, scholars disagree on the time of Didymus' original composition. The arguments mostly hang on whether Didymus was dependent on Athanasius, whose text can be dated with reasonable certainty to 359-60. Heron sees Didymus as dependent on Athanasius and accordingly dates Didymus' work to ca. 370,150 in the process rejecting the position of E. Staimer, who believed
Didymus served as Athanasius' source and who dated Didymus' text to sometime between 355- 58. 151 W.-D. Hauschild proposes a third dating of 358-9 in the belief that the two Alexandrians
The treatise has yet to be translated, in published form, into English. I am grateful for the use of a translation in progress lent to me by Junghoo Kwan and his colleague, Benjamin Martin, both from University of St. Michael's College. 148 Alasdair I.C. Heron, "The Holy Spirit in Origen and Didymus the Blind: A Shift in Perspective from the Third to the Fourth Century," in Kerygma und Logos: Festschriftfür Carl Andersen, ed. A.M. Ritter, (Göttingen: Vandehoek & Ruprecht, 1979), 300. Also see the surrounding discussion for textual background, pp. 299-300. C. R. B. Shapland, "Introduction," in Athanasius, The Letters ofAthanasius concerning the Holy Spirit (London: Epworth Press, 1951), 16-8, a position confirmed in the recent work by Carmelo Granado, "Introducción," in Athanasius, Epístolas a Serapión sobre el Espíritu Santo (Madrid: Editorial Ciudad Nueva, 2007), 9-16. 150 Heron, "Didymus," 300. 151 E. Staimer, "De Schrift 'De Spiritu Sancto' von Didymus dem Blinden von Alexandrien," Dissertation (Munichl960), 1 18-33, quoted in op cit., 300. 50 wrote their texts contemporaneously.152 From the DSS it is impossible to tell for whom and against whom it was written. Under Hauschild' s supposition, Didymus wrote to Serapion of
Thmuis against the Tropici, which is a possibility given the similar scriptural loci dealt with by both Didymus and Athanasius.
Certainly, Didymus intended to prove that the Holy Spirit was not a creature and was, in fact, God. Though there has been disagreement amongst modern scholars on Didymus as to the structure of the work,153 the most sensible position breaks the 277 paragraphs of the text into an Introduction (§§ 1-8),154 a two-part polemic demonstrating the Spirit is truly God (§§ 9-131), Didymus' exegesis confirming the orthodox belief in the Holy Spirit (§§ 132-257), and a sort of appendix dealing with possible objections (§§ 257-77). In the first part of the polemical section (§§ 9-73), Didymus argues that the Spirit cannot be a creature since (a) he is good in himself whereas all other things receive goodness; (b) he is unchangeable, while creatures are changeable; (c) he is unrestricted by space and incorporeal, while creatures are limited; (d) he sanctifies creatures, while creatures are sanctified; (e) he fills creatures; (f) he gives gifts; and, above all, (g) many things can participate in the Holy Spirit (Spiritus est capabilis), but other things cannot be participated in (capax).155 In the second part of this polemic (§§ 74—131) and on into the exegetical section, an important theme in Didymus is his understanding of the operations of the Persons in the biblical account of salvation. Much of the time, he shows what the Spirit has in common with the Father and Son, though mostly with the Son since Didymus is closer to Athanasius in paying close attention to the link between the Spirit and the Son. For instance: "He has never been numbered
152 Cited in Hermann Josef Sieben, "Einleitung," in Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto = Über den heiligen Geist (Tumhout: Brepols Publishers, 2004), 41. 153 Usefully surveyed by Sieben, 47-53. 154 The sections of Didymus' text will be designated with the paragraph symbol (§§) here and throughout the text following Sieben. 155 Didymus develops this philosophical concept, derived, of course, from scriptural texts, in §§ 53-9 with an explanatory comment by Jerome at § 55. 51 along with created things, but has always been placed with the Father and Son. Now let us see what similarity he has with both."156 From here he finds the co-equality and consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and Son based on biblical exegesis. Here are three of the arguments in the polemical section that end with phrases akin to Ambrose's dictum "the same operation means the same substance": ¦ "There is no doubt there is one operation of the Father and of the Son and ofthe Holy Spirit and this is the proof consequently that the substance of the Trinity is the same."157 ¦ "Since therefore the Holy Spirit is shown to dwell in the mind and the interior man, just like the Father and the Son, I will say it is not only silly, but impious to call him a creature. . .there is no doubt but that he is to be believed to be uncreated along with the Father and the Son."158 ¦ "We have already often shown the Holy Spirit to have the same operation which belongs to the Father and the Son, and in the same operation is one substance, and on the other hand, of them who are ?µ???s??? the operation is not diverse."159 Didymus also has a later section, functioning almost as a summary, §§ 231-37, that identifies the common action of the Spirit with the Father and Son in giving goodness and sanctification. However, there are also passages in Didymus that balance this line of argumentation. By the diversity of operations {operationis diversitatem), the Son and Spirit, both called "Paraclete" (¿Paracletus), are distinguished but not according to a difference in nature {non iuxta naturae differentiam)}60 On the matter of the deeds of the Spirit and the Son in salvation history, Didymus presents a balanced view: the Son and Spirit also perform different jobs, but they
Didymus, DSS, § 74: nusquam conditionibus connumeratus, sed semper cum Pâtre et Filio positus, nunc videamus quam cum utroque habeat indifferentiam. Ibid., § 105: nulli dubium est unam Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancii esse operationem etprobationem et consequenter eamdem Trinitatis esse substantiam. Ibid., § 109: Cum ergo Spiritus Sanctus, similiter ut Pater et Filius, mentem et interiorem hominem inhabitare doceatur, non dicam ineptum sed impium est eum dicere creaturam... nulli dubium es quin cum Patre et Filio credi debeat increatus Ibid., § 145: Porrojamfrequenter ostendimus ejusdem operationis esse Spiritum sanctum, cujus est Pater et Filius, et in eadem operatione unam esse substantiam: et reciproce eorum quae ?µ???s?a sunt, operationem quoque non esse diversam. Ibid., § 120. Also see § 122: Verum noli ex Filii et Spiritus Sancii operatione diversa varias aestimare naturas, and § 159: Spiritus quoque Sanctus, qui est Spiritus veritatis Spiritusque sapientiae, non potest Filio loquente auidre quae nescit, cum hoc ipsum sit quodprofertur a Filio, with a parallel passage on the relationship between the Father and the Son immediately preceding it (§ 158). 52 nevertheless have one nature, otherwise it would not be possible to explain the overlap of their functions in achieving salvation. The theme most heavily drawn upon by Ambrose was the unity of operations leading to the oneness of essence, but this argument itself is subsidiary to the most prominent theme in Didymus: his distinction between capabilis and capax. As Heron points out: "The capaxlcapabilis distinction in effect sums up and focuses all the other differences between divine and creaturely being and is indeed pivotal in Didymus' entire argument."161 Jerome was worried that his Latin readers would not understand the distinction and thus provided a note, still helpful to the reader, at § 55: "He calls capabilis a substance which is received by several others, and gives them a part in itself; and capax one which is filled through the communication of another substance, and which, receiving another substance is itself not received."162 From the Spirit's role in creating and sanctifying God's creatures, he reveals himself to be God. While Ambrose does recognize this grand idea, it plays a far less prominent role in his DSS.i6i Whether it proved too subtle for Ambrose's taste, or whether he considered it inappropriate for his audience, or whether it simply did not contribute to the kind ofTrinitarian theology he was trying to build vis á vis his Homoian opponents, one cannot say with certainty. However, he did certainly make use ofthose passages in which Didymus expressed the overlap between the roles of the Persons. Less importantly, Ambrose also borrowed a number of Scriptural passages for interpretation that generated loci. To name a few, he employed Didymus' exegesis of Amos 4:13, John 14:16 and 15:26, Zech. 12:10, Ps. 103:29-30, and a number ofpassages in Acts where the Spirit does works usually attributed to the Father or Son. Ambrose was drawn to Didymus more than Basil or Athanasius. While this may partially be due to Didymus' depth of thought, a more likely
161 Heron, "Didymus," 303. Translation from Heron, Ibid., 302; Didymus, DSS, Capabilem substantiam vocat, quae capitur a pluribus, et eis sui consortium tribuit: capacem vero earn quae communicatione substantiae alterius impletur: et capiens aliud, ipsa non capitur ab alio. 163 Ambrose, "DSS," 1.3.49, 1.8.92-6 and perhaps 11.13. 151-3. 53 answer is that the strategy of Didymus to closely link the operations of the Spirit with those of the Father and of the Son in demonstrating their consubstantiality attracted Ambrose for his own polemical purposes.
2.2.3.2 Basil's De Spiritu Soneto Basil ostensibly addressed this treatise to the Bishop of Iconium, Amphilochius164 after receiving disapprobation by a certain party, probably followers of Eustathius of Sebaste,165 for using a doxology in his liturgy that gave equal honor to the Holy Spirit by means of the preposition "with" (s??). Because of the controversy surrounding Basil's liturgy, Amphilochius requested Basil's thoughts on the nature of the Holy Spirit so as to lay the objections to rest.166 While it is unclear how widely Basil intended his DSS to circulate, he at least expected Amphilochius to use it as he defended the "new" Nicene position, as elaborated by the Cappadocians and their followers. Immediately after stating that he had come under attack, Basil writes:
You, however, chiefly with the view ofbenefiting them, or, ifthey are wholly incurable, for the security of such as may fall in with them, have expressed the opinion that some clear instruction ought to be published concerning the force underlying the syllables employed [in the new doxology].167 In this statement, we can perceive at least three camps Basil has in mind as he writes the treatise: those attacking him, those who may fall in with the same, and Amphilochius with (presumably) others who agreed with the Cappadocian line ofreasoning specifically concerning the position of the Spirit in the Godhead. Translator David Anderson writes that there were four groups in the
164 Basil, St. Basil: Letters and Selected Works, ed. Philip Schaffand Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1895; reprint, 1999) 1 1 (p 2) 165 Howard Griffith, "The Churchly Theology of Basil's de Spiritu Sancto," Presbyterion 25, no. 2 (1999): 93. 166 Basil, Selected Works, 1.1 (2). 167IbJd., 1.3(3). 54 struggle to define the position of the Holy Spirit. These included the two "Nicene" camps who debated over the conceptual breadth of the word ?µ???s???, the "radical Arians," who still held that the Son was part of the created order and thus the Spirit as well, and finally the so-called "semi-Arians" who used ?µ????s??? to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son but not the Spirit.168 This brings us to the central conceptual horizon in Basil's theology: the primary referent of Scripture is the one God who saves humankind through the particular activities of each person of the Trinity.169 When Scripture speaks of God, it can refer either to his nature or to his actions.170 One must discern in each passage, in each story, in each title pertaining to a Person of the Trinity, even in each preposition, whether it pertains to the essence or the economy and how it does so. According to Basil's portrayal, his opponents did not have a clear distinction in mind between essence and economy, and therefore they imposed philosophical rules upon particular biblical passages in an unjustifiable way. They failed to consider the parts in light of the whole. Basil's DSS consists of several sections: 1-8 deal with arguments against the Spirit's Godhead, especially those arguments from biblical prepositions, section nine is a précis of Basil's argument for the deity of the Spirit, and 10-30 alternate between Basil establishing positive theses about the character and relationship of the Spirit to the Godhead and refuting his opposition's complaints about his theology.171 The Scripture passages central to his pneumatology are the baptismal formula of Mat. 28:28 and the chain of revelation beginning with the Father by Christ and then of Christ by the Spirit in 1 Cor. 12:3.172
168 On the Holy Spirit, trans. David Anderson, (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980) 8. 169 Selected Works, 137-141 . Letter XXXVIII to Gregory ofNyssa provides examples of Basil's judgment that sometimes Scripture refers to the person, sometimes to the substance. I70lbid., 8.17(11). 171 Griffith, "Basil," 93^. 172 For full discussions of Basil's exegesis and theology in the DSS see Hermann Dörries, De Spiritu Sancto: der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluss des trinitarischen Dogmas, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gœttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1956); Jaroslav Pelikan, "The "Spiritual Sense" of Scripture: The Exegetical Basis for St Basil's Doctrine of the Holy Spirit," in Basil ofCaesarea: 55 Basil is famously cautious about his affirmation of the ?µ???s??? ofthe Spirit to the Son and Father. As a metropolitan bishop, he did not want to risk alienating church leaders unsure of how to express the relationship of the Spirit to God. Primarily for this reason, Basil attempts to maintain the unique roles of the divine Persons while making clear their overall unity (however broadly he may have expressed it). His focus on maintaining the distinctions between the
Persons probably resonated less with Ambrose. Conversely, Ambrose used Basil most for his explanation ofbiblical prepositions (Ambrose II.8.70-9.100; Basil 1.3-8.21), since Basil's primarily method in these sections was to show that the various prepositions—the most important of which, translated into English, were "from," "through," "in," and "with"—do not rigidly designate the functions of the Persons, but rather that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have all ofthese prepositions attributed to them, in Scripture indicating the unity of their actions.
Given his fascination with this aspect of Basil's treatise, one may infer that Ambrose shared Basil's trinitarian theology primarily in his expression of the Persons' harmony.
2.2.3.3 Athanasius' Epistulae ad Serapionem Athanasius wrote a set of three letters in 358-60 during his third exile,173 (letters two and three ought to be considered together174) addressed to the Bishop of Thmuis, Serapion, who had encountered a group that held the novel position of affirming the equality of the Son with the
Father while ranking the Spirit among the creation, more particularly among the angels.
Athanasius designates them "Tropici" who "dare to devise for themselves tropes," because of the judgment that their exegesis was loose.175 Probably located only in Africa, this group's primary argument for the angelic position of the Spirit came from the silence of Scripture on the Spirit as
Christian, Humanist, Ascetic: A Sixteen-hundredth Anniversary Symposium, ed. Paul Jonathan Fedwick, (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981); Hildebrand, Trinitarian Theology, 102-87.. 173 Shapland, "Intro," 16-18. 174 Discussion of the history of the division of this work can be found in ibid., 1 1-14. 175 Athanasius, The Letters ofSaint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, trans. C. R. B. Shapland, (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951), 1. 10 (85-6). Shapland believes the title existed before Athansius' Epistulae though this is the first extant reference to such an epithet: Shapland, "Intro," 27. 56 ?e?? and three passages: 1 Tim 5:21, Amos 4:13, and Zechariah 1 :9. The first gave them warrant for ranking the Spirit with the angels; the second caused them to call the Spirit created; and the third seemed to identify the Spirit's activity with that of an angel.176
Athanasius responded to these biblically-based attacks with his own bombardment of scriptural quotations, intending to overwhelm his opponents through the sheer quantity of them. Indeed, biblical arguments are the prime ingredient in the make-up of letters I—III. Athanasius employs these to show that the Spirit is not a creature, that he is from God, that creatures partake while he is partaken, and that the church has confessed the Triad ever since Jesus sanctioned baptism in the Gospel.177 In Letter IV, however, the Tropici threw a much stronger argument at the pro-Nicenes, an argument based on the logical relationships between the Father and the Son and one which remained strong even as their exegetical ones fell by the wayside, as observed by Pablo Argárate.178 Based on Athanasius' response in epistle IV, we can infer that Serapion required an answer to this question, which the Tropici formed into a reductio ad absurdum:
If he is neither a creature nor one ofthe angels, but proceeds from the Father, then he is himself also a son, and he and the Word are two brothers. And ifhe is a brother, how is the Word only begotten? How is it then that they are not equal, but the one is named after the Father, and the other after the Son? How, if he is from the Father, is he not also said to be begotten or called son, but just Holy Spirit? But if the Spirit is of the Son, then the Father is the Spirit's grandfather.179 Athanasius' response is essentially one of apophaticism. He believed one could know that the Spirit was uncreated, but the manner of his procession remained unfathomable. Only much later would there be terminology to specify this relationship more fully. "Here we experience the lack of technical terminology that could assist the thought on the specificity ofprocession and relation of the Spirit with God (the Father)."180
Shapland, "Intro," 30-2. For a very clear synopsis of the contents of the epistles, see Ibid. 49-53. Pablo Argárate, "The Holy Spirit in Athanasius' Epistles to Serapion," Journal ofCoptic Studies: (forthcoming). Athanasius, Letters, 1.15 (95-8). Argárate, "Athanasius' Epistles" (forthcoming). 57 Notwithstanding a clearer view of the origins of the Persons of the Godhead, Athanasius does have a clear picture ofthe action of God: the operation of salvation in God "derives from the Father, and is accomplished through the agency of the Son in the Spirit."181 The Spirit makes effective that which the Son puts into motion, which, in turn, comes to Him from the Father. While Athanasius does argue from unity of operation to unity of essence in 1.14 and 19, the unity of operation is more a co-ordination than a confluence of action. In 1.14, Athanasius displays this tendency: "For there is from the Father one grace which is fulfilled through the Son in the Holy Spirit; and there is one divine nature."182 The prepositions "from," "through," and "in" consistently occur when the Alexandrian theologian describes God's action. Such rigidity would never find approval in Ambrose, which is probably why he used Athanasius infrequently. Apart from the Christocentric flavor of his pneumatology, Athanasius also had external reasons for making clear the diversity of operations (speaking in the strictest sense) among the Persons: "As it will happen later at the Synod of Alexandria, Athanasius is engineering a unification of the Nicene supporters."183 His Nicene supporters did not all share his enthusiasm for the language of ?µ???s???, and as such, Athanasius needed to placate them with mere "likeness" and not
overstate the identity. Ambrose's situation demanded strident opposition to language of likeness and required unity of operation to mean real overlap of divine action, not only coordinated action, which he was also willing to grant. Despite the vast differences in their respective situations, Ambrose found in the Alexandrian some inspiration for exegesis about the Spirit
which could be incorporated into his work. 2.3 Textual Analysis of Important Trinitarian Passages in the DSS 2.3.1 Passages Ambrose Altered to Serve his Goal ofProving the Unity ofPersons by Means of the Similarity oftheir Operations
1 Shapland, "Intro," 36. Cf. Athanasius, Letters, 1.20 and 30-1. 2 Athanasius, Letters, p. 94. 3 Argarate, "Athanasius' Epistles," (forthcoming). 58 2.3.1.1 On Baptism in the Threefold Name: 1.3.44-46 Near the beginning of the DSS Ambrose adduces a favourite argument for the divinity of the Holy Spirit, namely that from baptism. If Christ enjoins the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then all three should be named. If you omit the Spirit, as Ambrose's opponents intended to do, "you will ruin the whole."184 Ambrose's proof for this assertion is the instance when the disciples of John needed to be baptized by Paul in the Holy Spirit.185 The only problem with this evidence, as Ambrose immediately identifies, is that Paul subsequently baptizes these followers of John "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ"186 and not in the Triune name. But this provides a fruitful launching point for Ambrose to show that if one utters the name of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit "he who has said one [name] has signified the Trinity."187 From here, he brings in the meaning of the title "Christ," the anointed one, which itself indicates the Father who anoints the Son, the Son who was anointed, and the Spirit who is the ointment Himself, supported by Acts 10:38. While Ambrose does not exactly invoke his dictum that "one operation means one essence," he implies through demonstrating that all the Persons are involved in the one mystery ofbaptism, which shows that "the unity of operation is a
1 RR unity of public proclamation, which cannot be separated." Faller notes that this passage is derived from one in Basil, who indeed adduced a similar argument in 12.28. However, significant differences of emphasis arise between the Bishop of Caesarea and the Bishop of Milan, which indicate their varying concerns. Basil's argument runs as follows: no one should be vexed by Paul's omission of the Father and Spirit in baptism in Gal. 3:27 and Rom. 6:3, "for the naming of Christ is the confession of all, making clear as it does the
1.3.42: Si unum neges, totum subruas. Acts 19:1-7. 1.3.43. Ibid., qui unum dixerit, trinitatem signavit. 1.3.44: Umitas ergo operationis unitas praedicationis, quae non potest separan. 59 anointing God, the anointed Son and the Spirit who is the ointment."189 Basil must have provided Ambrose with the hint to refer to Acts 10:38, but the Bishop of Caesarea also referenced the classic trinitarian verses, Isa. 40:1 and Ps. 44:7 (LXX). Basil's next step was to show that Scripture speaks of baptism only mentioning the Spirit in 1 Cor. 12:13 and Acts 1:5, the logic of this progression of thought, as well as the Bible verses are both incorporated by Ambrose. Naturally, Basil continues, this does not give license for anyone to baptize without including the Father, Son, and Spirit, since Christ sanctioned this practice Himself; should someone omit the Spirit from the Father and the Son, he risks losing salvation since "faith and baptism are. . .inseparable modes of salvation" (??st?? de ?a? ß?pt?sµa, d?? t??p?? t?? s?t???a?... ad?a??et??).1 A striking difference between Basil's argument here and Ambrose's is that Basil has such concern for preserving the original baptismal formula while Ambrose does not. Basil goes out of his way to ensure that his readers know they are not to baptize in any way other than confessing the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His reaction may be due, in large measure, to the conflicts he was addressing with his De Spiritu Sancto, which involved the liturgical practices of the Bishop of Caesarea' s church.191 For Ambrose, the proof that the Spirit is named alone in association with baptism accomplishes as much as the naming of the Son: "just as we read that the sacrament ofbaptism is full in the name of Christ, so also, when only the Spirit is named, nothing is lacking to the fullness of the mystery."192 At precisely the point when Basil hesitantly adds the qualification that one should never employ only the Spirit's name in baptism, Ambrose
189 Translation based on Basil, Selected Works, 18; all Greek citations from Sur le Saint-Esprit, trans. Benoit Pruche, 2nd edn. ed., Sources chrétiennes, vol. 17, (Paris: Édition du Cerf, 1968): 252-530; ?a? t?? ???st?? p??s?????a t?? pa?t?? est?? ?µ?????a· d???? ?a? t?? te xqíaavza ?e?? ?a? t?? ???s???ta ???? ?a? t? ???sµa t? ??e?µa, 12.28.7-10. 190 Basil, DSS, 12.28.31-2. 191 See ibid., 1.3. 192 Ambrose, "DSS," 1.3.44: quemadmodum in Christi nomineplenum esse legimus baptismatis sacramentum, ita etiam sancto tantum spiritu nuncupate nihil desit ad mysterii plenitudinem. (English from Works, p. 50.) 60 boldly asserts that one can name any member of the Trinity and thereby confess the whole. Here his concern for the unity of the Godhead manifests itself. While Ambrose certainly borrows the basic premises and Scripture citations from Basil,193 his conclusions differ significantly in emphasis, so much so that his translator, Defarrari, nervously (and tenuously) asserts that Ambrose does not here sanction baptism in the name of Christ alone. 2.3.1.2 On the Spirit as a Gift from God. 1.8.90-9 Immediately following loci concerning the Holy Spirit's incorporeality (1.5.62-6.80) and ubiquity (1.7.81-9), Ambrose begins to describe the contours of the Spirit's mission, focusing on the Spirit as God's gift and explaining this primarily in terms of the "pouring out" (effondere) of the Spirit (1.8.90-9). He begins by showing that only God can give the Spirit and not humans, even Paul and Peter (90-1). Ambrose adds to this that the Spirit's outpouring parallels the mission of the Son, concluding that just as the Son's condescension does not prevent his divinity so neither does the Spirit's (92). God pours the Spirit into Christ until he is full and into believers to the maximum extent of their individual capacities (93). God gives his love through the Spirit (94). Ambrose compares the Spirit's outpouring to perfume which fills a vase and when it is let out it fills the room. In like manner, the Spirit filled Israel but following the Incarnation of the Son the Spirit went forth into the whole world (95-96). For good measure, Ambrose adds that the outpouring of the Spirit indicates his uncreated nature because he is divided among many "without any severance or loss" and is unchangeable and eternal (97-99). Of all the aspects of this section, none is more striking than the parallelism between the missions ofthe Son and the Spirit. That Ambrose would so closely associate the roles of Son and Spirit informs us of his
193 Didymus also briefly mentions this topic (§§ 99-103), but his point is merely that the name of the Holy Spirit should not be omitted. He does not deal with the problematic verses about baptism only in the Father or the Son. It is interesting to note that Ambrose, certainly having read Didymus, would engage the deeper treatment, i.e. Basil's, and interact with and transform it rather man the simpler Didymus. Cf. Didymus, DSS, §§ 149-5 1 . 194 Cf. Ambrose, Works, p. 49n6. 61 primary concern in this work, especially since this is where he departs from the focus of each of his Greek sources.
Faller assigns the inspiration for this section to Didymus' De Spiritu Sancto. The section most nearly corresponding to Ambrose in Didymus runs from §§ 44—53. Didymus has just concluded a section (§§ 32-^3) devoted to the enlightening work of the Spirit that gives followers of God the ability to speak with wisdom and understanding about Him. That the Spirit grants wisdom of God demonstrates the Spirit's intimate knowledge of God, and thus his own divinity. Didymus puts forward the example of Stephen in his deeds and words (§§ 37-40, cf. Acts 6). The unit of text concerning us (§§ 44-53) narrows the focus of this theme to the knowledge ofthe Trinity: "Moreover those who obtain the good things aforementioned in the power of the Holy Spirit, also will obtain proper faith in the mystery of the Trinity."195 Didymus associates the gifts of the Spirit with a proper understanding of the Godhead, a useful polemical technique in debates concerning the divinity of the Spirit that attempts to identify those denying the Godhead of the Spirit to the sin of denying the Spirit himself. Just as Ambrose writes about how neither Paul nor Peter could give the Spirit, so does Didymus although he connects them with the Spirit within them not in contrast with God, but as giving the actual proof that God himself gives the Spirit through their Epistles and sermons (§§ 45-8). In Didymus the focus then shifts to the outpouring of the Spirit as prophesied by Joel (§§ 50-3). This outpouring "demonstrates the uncreated substance of the Spirit" (increatam Spiritus substantiam probat) because God only uses this action in regard to the Spirit; outpouring is only proper to a being in which other beings participate, which means, for Didymus, that the Spirit is God and not a creature. Meditation on the meaning of "outpouring" {effusio) leads Didymus to bring in the image of Christ as perfume—in contrast to Ambrose's identification of the perfume with the
195 Didymus, DSS, § 1 12: Qui autem in virtute Spiritus Sanciipraedicta bonafuerint consecuti, etiam rectamfidem in Trinitatis mysterio consequentur. 62 Spirit. Since the Spirit is the gift of God through Christ and since the Spirit's benefits are reaped bountifully all over the world after Christ's ministry, it is appropriate that the Father would characterize his gift as outpouring. These parallel passages aptly illustrate the similarities between Ambrose and Didymus. Ambrose heaps on various images and Scriptures, not remaining long with any one idea, but moving on to new topics effortlessly. Didymus maintains a clearer focus, though he also engages in spiritual interpretation of Scripture, such as his incorporation of Christ as perfume based on Song of Songs 1 :3 "You name is perfume poured out" (Unguentimi effusum nomen tuum). Ambrose includes this exegesis, which is of a similar style to his own original sections in the DSS such as the prologue to book one on Gideon. Both Didymus and Ambrose are concerned to show that although the Holy Spirit is a gift, this function does not detract from his divinity. No creature can be "poured out" into many places yet retain its wholeness, therefore the Spirit is not a creature.
There is not such a stark departure from Didymus in Ambrose's passage here as there was with Basil in the passage above. Ambrose actually contributes a significant argument to Didymus here, perhaps even improving the presentation of the concept of the Spirit as a gift. Instead of relying on Didymus' distinction between the metaphysical principle that the Spirit can be separated among many and yet continues to be one, Ambrose turns to the inter-Trinitarian life to show that the Spirit's givenness in no way disconnects him from God, but actually is a characteristic of God himself as seen in the Son. Ambrose adduces this profound point both in 92 and 97. In 92 he reads Joel 2:28 about the outpouring of the Spirit on God's people in conjunction with Philippians 2:6, the Son "did not deem it robbery to be equal with God, but he emptied himself (non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem deo, sed semet ipsum exinanivit). The Son "emptied Himself not because he was devoid of His own fullness, but that he might pour into me. . .so, too, the Father says that he pours out the Holy Spirit upon all flesh. He did not 63 indeed pour Him out so nothing was left, but what he poured out abounded for all."196 Both the Spirit and the Son were freely given on behalf of those they came to save, the Son by his self- emptying (exinaniré) and the Spirit by his outpouring. Characteristic of Ambrosian passages is the devotional quality that exists alongside the theological. He uses the first person to invite the reader to also recognize the action ofboth the Son and the Spirit for his or her benefit. On the theological plane, one may observe an imperfection in the comparison between Son and Spirit. The Son does the action in his version of "outpouring;" he is the subject of the verb "emptied."
On the other hand, the Spirit is the object and the Father the subject. Ambrose strengthens the congruence between the missions of Son and Spirit in 97, which is another passage that does not originate with Didymus. Here he intends to show that coming from God does not mean belonging to the realm of creation: Itaque sicut creata non potest dici sapientia, quae 'ex dei ore procedit\ nee 'verbum, quod eructuatur ex corde', nee virtus, in qua 'plenitudo maiestatis' aeternae est, ita etiam creatus non potest spiritus aestimari, qui ex ore deifunditur, cum ipse deus tantam ostenderit unitatem, ut effundere se de spiritu suo dicat, quo intellegamus quia etiam dei patris eadem gratia sit, quae spiritus sancii est, et quod sine incisione ac detrimento dividatur mentibus singulorum. Therefore, just as neither Wisdom can be spoken of as a creature who proceeds from the mouth of God, nor can the Word which gushes forth from the heart, nor can Power, in which the fullness of majesty exists forever, in the same way the Spirit cannot be thought a creature, who pours out from the mouth of God, because God himself has revealed such unity that he says that he pours out his own Spirit. By this we may understand that the Holy Spirit is also the same grace which is of God the Father, and he is divided in the minds of individuals without diminishment or rupture. Ambrose discovers passages applicable to the Son in the first part of the verse that apply to the Spirit just as well. He even ascribes procedere to the Word, which would later be strictly applied to the origin of the Spirit due to Jesus' words in John 1 5:26 (the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father). All this is to show that the Spirit and the Son are on equal standing, but descending to the world to execute their mission of salvation. In this passage, at least, Ambrose's
196 Ambrose, "DSS," 1.8.92: non quo ipse esset suae vaccuus plentitudinis, sed quo mihi...infunderetur, ita etiam de spiritu sancto pater se dicit effundere super omnem carnem. Non enim totum effundit, sed quod effudit, omnibus abundavit. 64 words echo Irenaeus' that the Son and Spirit are the two hands of the Father.197 Surely the motivation behind this addition to the ideas of Didymus springs from his desire to prove the similar operation of the Spirit and thus his similarity of substance with the Father and Son. 2.3.1.3 AU Three Persons Send and Give in Unity of Operation. 1.1 1.1 18-22 (with 1.12.130-1, III.1.1. and III. 1.6-81 Continuing to play the chord he hit in 1.8.97, Ambrose makes perhaps his strongest statement on the similarity between the divine Persons in 1.1 1 .1 16-23, making as close an identification between their actions and their characteristics as possible. Ambrose responds to the objection that the Holy Spirit exists among the ranks of angels. While it is unclear if the Latin Homoians considered the Spirit to be an angel, they certainly believed he was a created being. Accordingly, Ambrose responds with similar arguments as those brought forward by Didymus against his own opponent, the Tropici.198 Apparently, they believed the Seraph mentioned in Zechariah 3:2^1 was the Holy Spirit.199 The similarities between the Holy Spirit and the Seraphim that Ambrose focuses on are the sending and descending of the Seraph. Ambrose argues for the difference between the Seraph (and all angels by extension) and the Holy Spirit by means of a four step argument, all of which are based on his interpretation of John 15.26, in which Christ indicates the "Spirit proceeds from my Father" (qui apatre meo procedii). First, from 116-8, he argues that the Father does not have a body or any material substance and therefore physical location and motion do not apply to him. Since the Spirit proceeds from the Father, he cannot be sent from a place (de loco). Second, because Ambrose believes the Spirit proceeds from the Son, he has to prove that the Son's "procession" occurs in a non-material mode and so moves on to sketch the manner of the Son's procession from the
197 Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," in The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, ANF, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1885; reprint, 1995) 4.14.2. 198 On the Tropici in distinction from the Macedonians, see C. R. B. Shapland's introduction to Athanasius, Letters, 18-34. Also cf. Hanson, Search, 749-51. 199 Athanasius, Letters, 1.11-12 (87-9 1 ); Didymus, DSS, §§ 24-3 1 . 65 Father. To that effect, he cites Jesus speaking in John 16.28, "I have proceeded from the Father, and I have arrived [in the world] (de patre processi et veni [in mundum])," and John 14:10, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me (Ego in patre etpater in me)."200 The manner of the Son "coming out from the Father" (de padre exit) is not that of originating in a body or withdrawing from a place, but rather it occurred in a way beyond to human conception: Similiter cum aut intus autforis legimus deum esse, non utique deum aut intra aliquod corpus includimus aut ab aliquo corpore separamus, sed alta hoc et inenarrabili 901 aestimatione pensantes divinae naturae intellegimus arcanum. Similarly [to the Spirit's procession], when we read that God is either inside nor outside [the world], certainly we neither enclose God within a body nor do we separate him from a body, but, as we ponder with deep and indescribable valuation, we understand a secret of the divine nature. Ambrose ties the Son's mission to the Father, to whom no party in this doctrinal conflict would ascribe a body. The only kind ofthing that could come out of the Father would be something incorporeal. The precise manner of this "procession" Ambrose leaves unevaluated, attributing indescribability to it. Third, in 120, since the Son and Spirit are incorporeal they cannot properly be separated from the Father, which demonstrates their identification with the Godhead. The unspoken assumption is that anything joined to—or at least inseparable from—God is Godhead itself, and, of course, Ambrose's conclusion is that the Son belongs to the Godhead. Next, Ambrose employs a method that justifies the Spirit's mission by first justifying the Son's; since the Son's "coming out of the Father does not separate him from divinity neither will the Spirit's "procession." But Ambrose is not content only to show the Son and Spirit "come down" (descandere): he also assigns to the Father this action based on a quotation from Gen. 1 1 :7. "It has been set down that even the Father has said: 'Let us come down and confuse their
909 languages'" (positum quod etpater dixerit: descandamus et confundamus linguas eorum). Ambrose finds scriptural evidence in the Old Testament for the same operation of descending or
200 Ambrose, "DSS," 1.1 1.1 19-20. 201 Ibid., 1.11.119. 66 coming down for even the Father. The Spirit, just like the Father and the Son, "does not come from place to place, but from the disposition ofthe order of salvation ofredemption, from the grace of vivification to the grace of sanctification, to transfer us from earth to heaven, from harm to glory, from servitude to kingdom."203 Ambrose's rhetorical training manifests itselfin this passage. He links the mission of God for salvation, described in lovely parallel terms here, to the discussion ofthe Spirit's origin, implying that if one denies the latter, the former will be lost. However rhetorical such a strategy may be, it remains theologically consistent with Ambrose's dictum of "similar operations indicate similar substance." So, then, if Ambrose is successful in linking the actions not only of the Father and the Son, but even the Spirit to divinity by means of showing that such missions are actually proper to the divine, then he shakes the ground of his opponents' objection that the Spirit's "procession" or "descent" indicates his creatureliness. Ambrose actually follows Didymus very closely in this passage. The only substantial change he made in the presentation of the text was to focus on the Seraph (116) rather than a generic angel to enter into the topic. He does this because he is transitioning from a uniquely Ambrosian passage (10.1 12-5) demonstrating that the Spirit takes away sin by means of exegesis of Isaiah 6:7. However, he had the opportunity to draw from Basil and Athanasius as well, since they both contend with the argument that the Spirit is an angel. So why did Ambrose use Didymus' method here? To what in Didymus' theology did Ambrose find affinity? Let us present the arguments of all three on the topic of the Spirit's similarity to angels, and observe the differences between Didymus, Athanasius, and Basil before answering these important
questions. The passage in Didymus corresponding to that in Ambrose is §§ 1 10-14, which is intended to prove the similar essence of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son (§§ 74-131).
203 1. 1 1 . 1 22 : Venit autem non de loco ad locum, sed a disposinone constitutionis ad salutem redemptionis, a gratia vivificationis ad gratiam sanctificationis, ut de terris ad caelum, de inuria ad gloriam, de servitio ad regnum transférât. 67 This section contributes by exegeting John 15:26, explaining the origin of the Spirit.204 Didymus opens by describing the benefits the Spirit provides because of the title of "Paraclete" given to him by Jesus in this verse, particularly, the Spirit consoles and gives joy (110). Didymus acknowledges that the Son sent the Spirit, but not like an angel (111). Didymus links the Spirit's sending with the Son's: "The Son when sent by the Father is not separated or divorced from him, but rather remains in him and possesses him in himself'205 and likewise the Spirit comes out from the Father (egreditur depatre, 112). Being sent by the Father guarantees that neither the Spirit nor the Son can be located somewhere physically since "then the Father himself would be found in a place." Didymus introduces the incorporeality of the Father, which transfers to the Spirit "who excels every substance of rational creatures" (excellens universam rationabilium creaturarum essentiam, 112). The ways in which the Son "goes out from God" (exisse a deo) and the Spirit "comes out from the Father" are ineffable. But it is fitting that both are said to be "from the Father" {depatre) rather than from God or from the Lord because it is proper for the Father to do the sending since he is a parent.206 Didymus may have included this last observation because he feared that the John 16:26 passage might lend credence to the objection that if the Spirit is sent by the Son, perhaps the Spirit is the grandson of the Father, who would then be a grandfather. Didymus could have been counteracting such a protestation by showing the Father's direct sending of the Spirit and the paternity of the Father to the Spirit. Athanasius argues against the angelic nature of the Holy Spirit in I.10-4.The Tropici point to the seeming inclusion of angels in the Godhead instead of the Holy Spirit in 1 Tim. 5:21: "I charge thee in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels that thou observe these
204 Cf. Carmelo Granado, "Introducción," in Didymus, Tratado sobre el Espíritu Santo (Madrid: Editorial Ciudad Nueva, 1997), 23-4 and also Sieben, "Einleitung," 50. Didymus, DSS, 1 1 1 : Filius missus a pâtre non separatur atque disungitur ab eo, manens in ilio et Habens ilium in semetipso. Cf. ibid., 1 14: sed secundum proprietatem Patris et intellectum parentis egredi ab eo dicitur Spiritus veritatis. Cf. Athanasius, Letters, 1.15-8. Indeed, Athanasius' opponents do appeal to the procession of the Spirit attested in John 15:26. 68 things without prejudice."208 Athanasius has little patience for this argument, responding that if this were the correct interpretation, then "they have not realized that, by reducing the Spirit to the level of the angels, they are ranking the angels with the Triad."209 He goes on, in 11-12, to show that Scripture never calls the Spirit an angel, and, even in Zechariah, where angels seem to enlighten and perform other functions of the Spirit, the Spirit is carefully distinguished from angels. True to his guiding Trinitarian principle that the Spirit is connected to the Son as the Son is to the Father, Athanasius' s trump verse is the baptismal formula by which "[Jesus] did not rank an angel with the Godhead; nor was it by a creature that he linked us to himself and to the Father, but by the Holy Spirit."210 Moreover, he includes Old Testament interpretation of God leading the people up out of Egypt. He told Moses he would send an angel to lead them, which Moses refused since he did not want the people to follow anything created. Athanasius then shows verses that indicate that God led Israel by his Spirit. Finally, in 13-14, Athanasius concludes with the proper understanding of 1 Tim. 5:21, which is that when the Apostle invokes one divine name, all the other names are included. "When mention is made of the Father, there is included also his Word, and the Spirit who is in the Son. If the Son is named, the Father is in the Son, and the Spirit is not outside the Word."211 For Paul, no omission of the Spirit was made, because, on Athanasius' interpretation, the Spirit was included when the Father and Son were named.
Basil's disputation also concerns proper interpretation of 1 Tim. 5:21, in DSS 13.29-30. Just before he deals with this apostolic text, the Bishop of Caesarea introduced the principle that
208 Given according to Shapland's translation, p. 86. 209 Athanasius, Letters, 1.10 (87): ?pe?ta d? t? ??e?µa ?at????te? e?? t??? a??????? e?? t?? ????da s??t?ss??te?. 210 Ibid., 1.1 1 (89): ?? ?a? ???e??? s???tasse t? ?e?t?t?, ??d? ?? ?t?sµat? s???pte? ?µ?? ?a?t? te ?a? t? ?at??, ???' ?? t? ??e?µat? t? ????. 211 Ibid., 1.14 (93^1): ?a? ?e??µ???? t?? ?at???, p??sest? ?a? ? t??t?? ????? ?a? t? ?? t? ??? ??e?µa. ??? d? ?a? ó ???? ???µ???ta?, ?? t? ??? ?st?? ó ?at??, ?a? t? ??e?µa ??? ?st?? ??t?? t?? ?????. Cf. Basil, St. Basil: Letters and Selected Works, ed. Philip Schaffand Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, NPNF, vol. 8, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1895; reprint, 1999), 12.28. 69 in the "naming of Christ is the confession of the whole [Father, Son and Spirit]."212 While this principle formed the core of Athanasius' argument, it is not directly associated with Basil's. Rather, although Basil has little time for his opponents' interpretation of this passage, one which he finds "obviously absurd" (p???e???? t?? ?t?p?a?), he nevertheless replies by reasoning from the economy of salvation. The Spirit cannot be a creature because "how can we be reconciled with God by one who is an alien?" The angels, by contrast, are witnesses to this great work of salvation. The rest of Basil's refutation differs from that ofAthanasius in that he appeals to a sort ofbiblical theology of witness, showing that the angels and even other created beings are called on to bear witness to the actions of God.
With these three options before him, Ambrose chose to follow Didymus' refutation for two reasons. First, and most simply, he was unconcerned with 1 Tim. 5:21. Indeed, it does not appear in any of our extant texts of Latin Homoians in their polemic against the pro-Nicenes. Second, and more significantly, Didymus is the only one ofthe three who gives sustained attention to the divine character of the mission of the Spirit. Didymus and Ambrose both rely heavily on John 15:26 here. Basil's pericopa in this case is much more of a refutation concentrating on the proper sphere of activity for angels in the Bible —especially that ofbearing witness—than it is a positive argument for the divinity of the Spirit. So Ambrose's dismissal of his text does not generate surprise.
However, the fact that Ambrose omits Athanasius on this matter reveals a stark contrast between him and the Bishop of Alexandria. After all, Athanasius does use John 15:26, writing, "When [the Son] announced him, he did not say that he would send an angel, but 'the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father,' and who receives from him and gives."213 The way
212 Basil, Selected Works, 12.28 (18); "Traité du Saint-Esprit," ed. Benoit Pruche, in SC, (Paris: Les Éditions du cerf, 1945), 28: ? ?a? t?? ???st?? p??s?????a t?? pa?t?? ?st?? ?µ?????a. 213 Athanasius, Letters, 1.1 1 : ?pe? a?t?? ?pa??e???µe??? ??? e????e? ???e??? ?p?st???e??, ???a t? ??e?µa t?? ????e?a?, ô pa?? t?? ?at??? e?p??e?eta?, ?a? ?? t?? a?t?? ?aµß??e? ?a? d?d?ta?. 70 Athanasius uses this verse exemplifies his method of refuting the Tropici. He shows the difference between the Spirit's mission and the angels'. Just before this passage, the Bishop of Alexandria asserts that the angels are not ranked with the Triad; they did not appear at Jesus' baptism; they did not teach the apostles about the eschaton; and Jesus did not give them to the disciples. In short, the Spirit has a different function than the angels. The John 15:26 verse caps off this line of argumentation because here the Spirit is actually linked to the Father mediated through Christ's sending. While it would be necessary to give many other passages to indubitably prove it, Athanasius' approach on the matter of the Spirit and angels typifies why Ambrose chose to rely so much more on Didymus. Athanasius is generally quite sensitive to the different functions among the Triune Persons. Accordingly, his procedure links the Spirit with the Son and the Son with the Father in neat parallel, leaving plenty of space for the Persons' individual roles in salvation history. Ambrose, by contrast, seeks at every possible point to find similarity in the missions of the Persons. Didymus' choice to dwell on the procession of the Spirit in 1 12, explaining how only a divine nature could have such a relationship to the Father, would have appealed to Ambrose since it would "flatten" Trinitarian hierarchy by linking the Spirit to the Father and not only to the Son. Ambrose, as aforementioned, goes even further, finding the Father has at least part of the same mission as the Son and Spirit in the Old Testament account ofhis "descent" to remedy the situation at the Tower of Babel and the promise of the Son to his disciples that "if anyone love me. . .we will come to him." (121 citing Gen. 1 1:7 and John 14:23). Ambrose thus connects the Father to the Spirit in the closest possible
terms.
One might object to Ambrose here for using the Father's "placelessness" to show the distinction of the proceeding ofthe Spirit from that of the angels (1 16, 1 17, and 119) and the next moment invoking the Father's mission to the earth—a place if any place should have that name (121-2). But could Ambrose not here be taking principles established by Didymus and 71 Athanasius to their logical conclusions? If one can use the distinction between the eternal Word joined to the Godhead and the Incarnate Christ on his mission of salvation as a hermeneutical key, why cannot one use the same logic for the Spirit and even for the Father? The immutability and incorporeality of the Father and Spirit need not stop them from engaging in the created sphere because, just like the Son, they can act in this realm yet not experience alteration. Granted, Ambrose does not explain this on a metaphysical basis. His argument is rooted in Scripture and so casts the burden ofproof on to his opponents. From the three above passages, we certainly see Ambrose making use of his Greek sources but varying their ideas and including his own exegesis to suit his aim, namely to bring the missions of the Persons into the closest possible proximity so as to prove from unity of operation that there is unity of substance.
2.3.2OperationPassages Unique to Ambrose Emphasizing Unity ofPersons by Means ofSimilarity of Ambrose's Trinitarian principle continues to come to the foreground in passages that are unique to him. Two of the most important of these passages will now be considered. Both revolve around the proper interpretation of the Father, Son, and Spirit as "life." While each section employs key biblical passages, they both substantially rely on Ambrose's understanding of Revelation 22:1-2. Since the book of Revelation was used sparingly, if at all, in dogmatic treatises in the Greek East—no passages are substantially developed by Didymus, Basil, or Athanasius, though it is cited three times in Athansasius' Epistulae, perhaps twice in Basil, and perhaps once in Didymus214—the fact Ambrose uses the book of Revelation substantially in his development ofthe doctrine of the Holy Spirit has interest, especially since the main image in
214(206).Ibid., ?.2 (153), II.6 (161), ?.9 (167); Basil, Selected Works, 8.17 (1 1) and 12.28 (18); Didymus, DSS, § 193 72 this passage is the river proceeding from the throne of God, a passage later used to justify the addition of the Filioque clause to the Creed in the Latin Western church.215 2.3.2.1 The Father. Son, and Spirit as Life 1.15.151-16.166 and III.20. 153-8 The section that concludes book one of the DSS (1.15.151-16.166) explores the image of God as life. Although this passage is indeed unique to Ambrose, Athanasius, too, discusses the image of God as life. However, he takes it in a starkly different direction than the Bishop of Milan, a divergence in interpretation which illustrates the deepest dissimilarity between these two in their view of the divine Persons. Ambrose, characteristically, aims to show that all three Persons have life predicated of them. In the first passage, 1.15.151-16.166, he finds this is true for the Father and Son in 1 John 1:1-2 and for the Spirit in Ezech. 1:20(151). Next, by association with "life," he observes that Scripture calls the Father the "fountain of life" (fons vitae, 152-3). While he will not categorically assert that the Son is also the fountain of life, because "many want that the Father alone has been signified as fountain in this place [i.e. John 6:64]," he does assert that regardless, the fountain of water is not something created: "Certainly we do not understand that the fountain ofthat very water has been created, but ofthat divine grace, this is of the Holy Spirit, for he is the 'living water.'"217 While the wording hoc est spiritus sancii could mean that the divine grace derives from the Holy Spirit, more likely it means it is in fact the Holy Spirit, an interpretation borne out by the succeeding paragraph in which Ambrose devotionally shows that this water is the kind worth thirsting for (John 4:10 and Ps. 41 :2-3 LXX) because it purifies, and purification is one ofthe functions of the Holy Spirit which Ambrose has already discussed.218
215 Cf. Avery Dulles, "The Filioque: What Is at Stake?," Concordia Theological Quarterly 59, no. 1-2 (1995): 39. Ambrose, "DSS," 1.15.154: Plerique tarnen hoc loco patrem volunt tantummodofontem significatum. Ibid., \.\5.\55:fontem utique intellegimus non aquae istius, quae creata est, sed divinae illius gratiae, hoc est spiritus sancii; ipse est enim 'aqua viva'. 218 Cf. 1.5.74. But Ambrose senses that there might be an objection to "the littleness of the Spirit" (pauxillitatem spiritus) if he is compared with water. He remedies the situation by adducing a dizzying array of scriptural imagery in the next several sections (156-9) beginning with this quote against his not-so-hypothetical219 objectors, "Let them [the objectors] learn that the Holy Spirit has been called not only water but also a river, according to what is written: 'Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.' Now this [Jesus] said of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in him."220 To this passage (John 7:38-9) Ambrose joins an unspecified prophecy of Isaiah about the "very large river" (flumen maximum) which flowed from Jesus (de Iesufluxit)— perhaps from 48:21 in which water comes from the rock, from 43:19-21 in which streams flow in the wilderness, or most probably from 66:12 in which thefluvius pads is called a torrens and which Ambrose later explicitly cites in 161 —to Ps. 45:5's declaration that "the vigor of the stream makes joyful the city of God."221 The river is not only deep, but it flows from the city of God itself. The image of the city of God, in turn, incites Ambrose to reflect on the Holy Spirit's washing of the heavenly Jerusalem, as portrayed in Revelation 22:1-2, where "the Spirit proceeding from the fountain of life, by a short draught of which we are satiated, seems to flow more abundantly among those heavenly Thrones, Dominions and Powers, Angels and Archangels."222 This allows Ambrose the opportunity to add weight to his earlier (1.1 1.1 16) argument that the Spirit is not an angel because he is the river that delights even the angels in God's city. When he interprets the Revelation this way, Ambrose recognizes he has to account for the "seven spirits" that emerge from the Lamb and not only the river that is the Spirit. How can the Spirit be one and seven? Ambrose explains, with reference to Isa. 1 1 :2, that the gifts of
In 1.6.76-9 Ambrose responds to the criticism that the Spirit ought not be adored since he is named along with water and blood in 1 John 5:8. Ambrose, "DSS," 1.16.156: discant non solum aquam, sed etiamflumen dictum spiritum sanctum secundum quod ledum est: Flumina de ventre eiusfluent aquae vivae.Hoc autem dicebat de spiritu, quem incipiebant accipere qui erant credituri in eum. English from Works, 91. Ambrose, "DSS," 1?6?5? ifluminis impetus laetificat civitatem dei. Ibid., 1.16.158: sed Ule ex vitaefonteprocedens spiritus sanctus, cuius nos brevi satiamur haustu, in Ulis caelestibus 'thronis, dominationibus et potestatibus ', angelis et archangelis redundantius videtur effluere. English from WorL·, 91. 74 the Spirit are sevenfold. He concludes, "So there is one river, but many streams of spiritual gifts."223 Since this passage contains so many overlapping images and refers to so many scriptural passages, amongst which are verses from Revelation, and since the next passage we will investigate (III.20. 153-8) is inspired by Revelation, it is worth pausing for explanation. Ambrose has put into conversation Isaiah, Psalms, the Gospel of John, and Revelation, all of which employ images ofrivers. He does not make it precisely clear how one image leads into another, but there is a strong association in all of these passages of the river with prodigious power, joy, and life. The strangest part is when Ambrose brings in the "seven Spirits" of Rev. 5:6. He does this in order to anticipate an objection that it might not necessarily be the Spirit that proceeds from the throne of God, since the seven spirits proceed from the Lamb in 5:6 or else the Spirit might not be one, an objection he answered near the beginning of the treatise (1.4.55-61). Since Ambrose identifies these spirits as the virtues (the "fruits of the Spirit" of Gal. 5:22-3), they count as uncreated divine grace (cf. 1 54) from the Holy Spirit, and so the Spirit is one since "there is one river, but many streams of spiritual gifts."224 Before furthering his argument, Ambrose stops to make a hermeneutical point lest anyone protest that rivers and fountains are not the same. He acknowledges that Scripture is accommodated to "the lowliness of language" (vilitate sermonum) prior to plunging ahead to show that the "Holy Spirit is of one substance with the Son of God and God the Father" and that
"there is a unity ofpower" so he feels no fear of "any question as to the difference in greatness." His demonstration consists only of a citation of John 4:13-14: Nam etiam in hoc nobis scriptura prospexit. Dicit enim deifilius, 'Qui biberit de aqua, quam ego dabo illi,fìet in eofons aquae salientis in vitam aeternam. 'Hicfons utique
223 Ambrose, "DSS," 1.16.159: Unum ergoflumen, sed multi spiritalium donorum meatus. English from Works, 92. 224 Ambrose, "DSS," 1.16.159; Works, 92. Ambrose, "DSS," 1.16.160: spiritum sanctum unius comfilio dei et deo patre esse substantiae... unitale virtutis...nec verebor aliquam de diversitate magnitudinis quaestionem. 75 gratia spiritalis est.fluvius ex vivofonte procedens. Fons igitur vitae etiam spiritus sanctus est.
Since even in this passage the Bible has provided for us. The Son of God says, "Whoever drinks of the water which I will give him, there will become in him a fountain ofwater gushing into eternal life." This fountain is certainly spiritual grace, a stream proceeding from the living fountain. Therefore, the fountain of life is also the Holy Spirit. Because Ambrose has already interpreted divine grace to be the Holy Spirit, the fountain of water in the believer must refer to the Holy Spirit and the fountain of water is the same thing as the fountain of life since it produces life. Throughout this interlude (160) it becomes apparent that the direction in which his whole interpretation has been tending is toward showing the unity of substance from the unity of the Persons' characteristics and actions. The discourse concludes with a hortatory section (162-6) including imperatives to take water only from the true source, which is Christ and his works, not heretics like Arius and Photinus (162^t), encouragements that Jesus may be found and is not offended with the seeker (165), and typological examples to follow from the Old Testament (166). The next instance in which Ambrose exegetes Rev. 22:1-2 occurs near the end of the DSS. Here, the most useful approach is to begin with Ambrose's conclusion, since it is not clear where he is going with the passage until near the end, that is paragraph 158: "Therefore, the Holy Spirit, who is of one nature, of one domain, and also of one power with the Father and the Son, also has participation in the kingdom."226 To show that the Spirit is a full partner in rule over the kingdom, Ambrose turns to the apocalyptic vision of the kingdom near the end of Revelation where he finds the Spirit signified by the river flowing from the throne of God. After quoting the verse he judges, "This is certainly the river proceeding from the throne of God, namely, the Holy Spirit, and he who believes in Christ drinks of him."227 The throne symbolizes the centre of the kingdom so if the Spirit comes from there he must have partnership in the kingdom {consortium
226 Ibid., III.20.158: Habet igitur consortium regni cumpatre etfilio etiam spiritus sanctus, qui unius naturae, unius dominationis, unius etiam potestatis est. 227 Ibid., III.20.154: Hic est utique 'fluvius de dei sede procedens, ' hoc est spiritus sanctus, quem 'bibit, qui credit in Christum. ' 76 regni). This is even more clearly shown, for Ambrose, when he quotes verses ascribing to the Spirit the means by which the kingdom comes (Rom. 14:17, Luke 2:1 1 and Mat. 12:25-8): "And why wonder if the Holy Spirit is in 'throne of God' when the kingdom of God itself is the Spirit's operation?" Not satisfied with this proof, Ambrose heaps on a final verse demonstrating that the Spirit reigns with Christ over the kingdom, which confirms his consubstantiality: '"For ifwe have died with (Christ), then we also will live with him; if we have been sustained (by him), then will we not reign with him?' (2 Tim. 2:11-2) But we (reign) through adoption, he (the Spirit) through capacity; we by grace, he by nature."229 Again, Ambrose finds the Spirit to be inseparable from Christ in operation, and therefore also in nature. Faller mistakenly attributes the inspiration of 1.16.161 to Basil—even though he does not find Greek inspiration anywhere in III.20.253-8—who does not actually develop the idea of the Spirit as fount. However, in his note to this paragraph, he does ask the reader to confer with Athanasius' Epistulae ad Serapionem, 1.19, in which the Bishop of Alexandria does discuss the image of the fount.230 But instead of giving the title of "fount," or even "river," to the Spirit, Athanasius rigidly designates the Father as fount and the Son as river. Instead, the Spirit is compared with the draught a believer takes of Christ. Leading up to this passage, Athanasius argues that the Spirit cannot possibly be a creature because "nothing foreign is mixed with the Triad; it is indivisible and consistent."231 He confesses ignorance on the manner of the adjoining of the members ofthe Trinity, but points to the ineffability ofthe subject, admonishing one to either "say nothing at all" or "to acknowledge what is written, and join the Son to the Father and
Ibid., III.20. 1 56: Et quid mirum, si in 'sede dei ' Spiritus sanctus est, cum ipsum regnum dei operatio sit spiritus... Ibid., III.20.157: 'Si enim conmortui sumus, et convivemus, si sustinemus, et conregnabimus?" Sed nos per adoptionem, ille perpotestatem, nos gratia, Ule natura. 230 Didymus does not employ the image in his DSS. 231 Athanasius, Letters, 1.17 (104); PG 26: 569.35-6: ?? ?a? ????t???? ?p?µ????ta? xrj ????d?, ???' ad?a??et?? ?st? ?a? ?µ??a éautrj. 77 not divide the Spirit from the Son."232 This passage is significant for our purposes because Athanasius again demonstrates his method ofjoining the Father to the Son and then the Son to the Spirit, keeping separate the Persons distinctive roles and relations. Where Ambrose would almost surely have demonstrated similar functions, Athanasius points to the inexpressible nature of God. He goes on to rhetorically challenge his opponents to describe how natural phenomena come to be; ifthey cannot do this, how much less can they express the nature of the supernatural?233 The Scriptures are the only source for understanding the nature of God, providing "illustrations" (pa?ade??µata). In the midst of this discourse about the relations of
divine Persons, he employs his quotation about God as fount and river (as well as "light and
radiance"): ???? t????? ?a? f?? ???eta? ó ?at??· ?µ? ?a?, f?s??, ???at???p?? p???? ? dat?? ???t??...???eta? de ?a? ? ???? ?? µe? p??? t?? p???? p?taµ??· ? p?taµ?? ?a? t?? Te?? ?p?????? ?d?t??· p??? de t? f?? apa??asµa, ?????t?? t?? ?a????· ?? ?? pa??asµa t?? d????, ?a? ?a?a?t?? t?? ?p?st?se?? a?t??. ??? t????? ?at??? f?t?? ??t??, t?? de ???? apa???sµat?? a?t?? ta a?t? ?a? pe?? t??t?? µ???sta ??? ????t??? ???e?? p???????, ??est?? ??f? ?a? ?? t? ??? t? ??e?µa, ?? ? f?t???µe?a- '??a ?a?, f?s?, d?? ?µ?? ??e?µa s?f?a? ?a? ?p??a???e?? ?? ?p????se? a?t??, pef?t?sµ????? t??? ?f?a?µ??? t?? ?a?d?a?. ?? de ??e?µat? f?t???µe??? ?µ??, ? ???st?? ?st?? ó ?? a?t? f?t???? ?? ?a?, f?s?, t? f?? t? ????????, ? f?t??e? p??ta ?????p?? ????µe??? e?? t?? ??sµ??. ????? te t?? ?at??? ??t?? p????, t?? de ???? p?taµ?? ?e??µ????, p??e?? ?e??µe?a t? ??e?µa· ????apta????, ötl ?µe?? p??te? e? ??e?µa ?p?t?s??µe?. To de ??e?µa p?t???µe???, t?? ???st?? p???µe?· ?p???? ?a? ?? p?e?µat???? a????????s?? p?t?a?· ? de p?t?a ?? ? ???st??...?pe?ta ???? ??s?? t?? ????, ??? ?a?, f?s??, e?µ? ? ???, ???p??e?s?a? ?e??µe?a ?? t? ??e?µat?- The Father is called fountain and light: "They have forsaken me," it says, "the fountain of living water". . .But the Son, in contrast with the fountain, is called the river: "The river of God is full ofwater." In contrast with the light, he is called radiance—as Paul says,
232 Ibid., 1.17 (105-6); PG 26: 572.21-6: ?de? d? a?t??? ? ?a????? µ? ?????ta? s??p??, ?a? µ? s??t?sse??, µ?te e?e????? t?? ????, µ?te t??t??? t? ??e?µa t??? ?t?sµas?? ? t? ?e??aµµ???? ?p?????s?e??, ?a? t? ?at?? s???pte?? t?? ????, ?a? t? ??e?µa µ? d?a??e?? ap? t?? ????. 233 Cf. ibid., 1.18 (106-8); PG 26: 572.41-573.21. 78 "Who, being the radiance ofhis glory and the image of his essence." (Heb. 1 :3) As then the Father is light and the Son is his radiance—we must not shrink from saying the same things about them many times—we may see in the Son the Spirit also by whom we are enlightened. "That he may give you," it says, "the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge ofhim, having the eyes of your heart enlightened." (Eph. 1:17-18) But when we are enlightened by the Spirit, it is Christ who in him enlightens us. For it says: "There was the true light which lighteth every many coming into the world" (1 Jn. 1 :9). Again, as the Father is fountain and the Son is called river, we are said to drink ofthe Spirit. For it is written: 'We are all made to drink of one Spirit.' (1 Cor. 12:3) But when we are made to drink of the Spirit, we drink of Christ. For 'they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.' (1 Cor. 10:4)... Furthermore, as the Son is life— for he says "I am the life" (John 14:23)—we are said to be quickened by the Spirit (Rom. 8:1 1).234 Far from calling the Spirit the fountain of life as Ambrose does, Athanasius calls him a "drink," ascribing to the Spirit the source ofhuman being's subjective encounter with God. Athanasius clearly delineates the functions of each Person, illustrating a conception of the divine Persons much more focused on their separate roles than that of Ambrose. Athanasius continues, however, a little further along, to affirm the unity of God against his opponents based on these biblical illustrations (pa?ade??µata) so that "it may be lawful to speak more plainly. . .and to believe that there is one sanctification, which is derived from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit." So Athanasius also affirms the one operation of the Persons, but in a more cautious and nuanced way than Ambrose. He sees the Father, Son, and Spirit working together to achieve the holiness ofmen and women, but this one unified action happens in a threefold manner, originating with the Father, flowing through the Son, and occurring in the Spirit. Given the scorn heaped upon Ambrose's abilities as a trinitarian theologian, as reviewed in the introduction to this thesis, one might be tempted to say Ambrose did not understand Athanasius' rather subtle point. While it might be impossible to prove that he did grasp the great Alexandrian theologian's
234 Ibid., 1.19 (108-13); PG: 573.28-576.30. 235 Ibid., 1.20 (1 15-6); PG: 577.32-6: ??' ??t? d?a t?? ?p?st?a? t?? t??µ???? ???e?? ?p???ste???, ?a? ???e?? a???d????, ?a? µet? s?????µ?? ??e?? ???, ?a? p?ste?e?? ??a e??a? t?? ???asµ??, t?? ?? ?at??? d?' ???? ?? ??e?µat? ???? ????µe???. 79 sophisticated interpretation of the divine Persons, Ambrose had good reasons to desist from employing a similar method in his DSS, which will be evaluated in the next chapter. 80 Chapter 3 Implications
? ? 3.1 Did Ambrose Teach the Filioque! Western scholarship has had a tendency to ascribe to Ambrose the origin of the doctrine of the Filioque, i.e. the dual procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Indeed, at least three passages in the DSS appear, at first glance, to affirm this very proposition. However, on closer examination, one realizes that Ambrose only uses the word "to proceed" in a loose sense, certainly not the much more well defined idea that Gregory of Nazianzus would introduce in his famous Fifth Theological Oration, where the Spirit's procession (t? ??p??e?t??) is parallel but different than the Son's generation.236 This section of the paper will survey the secondary literature on this matter and will then provide an analysis of the three noteworthy Ambrosian passages with the help of a 1955 article by Simonetti. Though one finds that Ambrose did not directly teach the Filioque, one may discover the seeds for the development of this concept in Ambrose's dictum, "the same operations imply the same substance." 3.1.1 Modern Secondary Literature on Ambrose and the Filioque H. B. Swete's comprehensive essay on the fluctuating church teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit stands as the first treatment of Ambrose's doctrine in the English-speaking world.237 He admits that passages in the DSS appearing to teach the procession may apply to the Spirit's temporal procession, that is, his sending from the Father and Son as recorded in the Biblical witness, noting that Migne had, in footnotes, already assigned such passages to the saving mission of the Spirit in the 17th century.238 However, Swete goes on to argue that the doctrine is implied because "ifthe Spirit proceeds from the Son {ex Filio) in any other sense than
236 Gregory ofNazianzus, "Die fünf theologischen Reden," in Gregor von Nazianz, ed. Joseph Barbel, (Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1963), 31.8. 2 7 Swete, Procession, 119—22. 238Ibid., 120 and note 2. 81 that of motion from place to place, it can only be by some essential derivation from Him; and an essential relation within the Godhead must be timeless, without beginning or end."239 This point only holds, however, if one finds in Ambrose a distinction between economy and essence, and such a concept does not occur in the DSS or Defide. Swete himself would become less sure that Ambrose taught the double procession in his survey ofpneumatology published almost thirty years later.240 Stanley M. Burgess authored the next pneumatological survey of the early church in English. He found no coherent teaching on the processions in Ambrose, arguing that at one time he follows the formula "from the Father through the Son" (11.12.130, 134 and II. 1 1.1 18) and at another he seems to teach the double procession, quoting 1.11.119 and 1. 1 5. 1 52, the same passages to which Swete appealed.241 The exact position represented here is that of Ambrose's early 20th century biographer, F. Homes Dudden.242 He thinks the passage on the Son as the Fountain of Life (i.e. the Fountain of the Spirit) paves the way for Augustine's more precise doctrine of the procession from the Son. More optimistic that Ambrose taught the Filioque are Ramsey, Dulles, and Hanson. In a one line assertion, Hanson finds in 1. 1 1 . 1 20 a passage in which there is "no ambiguity." Though he quotes the passage, he disappointingly offers no explanation and does not further explain it in his essay devoted to the Filioque in the Fathers. Contrary to these scholars who either find reference to the Spirit's procession from the Son or find a confused account stands Manlio Simonetti, who dismantles such claims. He accomplishes this primarily through analysis ofthe two main passages appealed to by these other 239 Ibid., 120. 240 Spirit in Ancient Church, 322. 241 Burgess, Spirit and Church, 171-9. 242 Dudden, The Life and Times ofSaint Ambrose, 574-75. 243 Ramsey, Ambrose, 62; Dulles, "The Filioque: What Is at Stake?," 36; and Hanson, Search, 789. 244 R. P. C. Hanson, "The Filioque Clause," in Studies in Christian Antiquity, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985), 279- 97. 245 Manlio Simonetti, "La Processione dello Spirito Santo nei Padri latini," Maia: Rivista di Letterature Classiche 8 (1955): 308-24. 82 scholars, DSS 1.1 1.1 19-20 and I.15.152.246 Simonetti keeps at the forefront ofhis analysis the supposition that Ambrose's main concern is demonstrating the divine unity and the Spirit's equal part in this. He first notes that in neither of these passages, nor in the DSS as a whole, does Ambrose define procedere or ascribe any specific meaning to it.247 Immediately, one begins to question whether it could possibly have functioned as a technical term for Ambrose. Next, Simonetti shows that the context in which Ambrose writes of the procession of the Spirit from the Son in 1.1 1 .1 19-20 belongs to the mission of the Spirit to the world. As shown above,248 Ambrose here is explaining the difference between the Spirit's mission ofbeing sent by God for salvation in contrast to the mission of the angels—his intention is not to deny that the Spirit does have a mission, but it is a mission from God's nature to the world, not from the nature of an angel. Another indication that procedere has no technical meaning for Ambrose is that the Son himself is said to proceed.250 Simonetti points out that in III. 1.8 there is no hint of distinction in the missions of the Son and Spirit, thus showing the equivalence ofthe terms "procession" and "mission" in the DSS?51 Simonetti's strategy for denying that Ambrose taught the double procession changes in 1.15.152, the relevant part of which I quote for convenience's sake: "Your Son is the fountain of life, i.e. the fountain of the Holy Spirit, since the Spirit is life."252 He grants that this sounds as if Ambrose affirms the procession of the Spirit from the Son, but then dispels this possibility with a
246 Ibid., 3 1 1 . He also treats II. 1 1 . 1 1 8 and II. 12. 1 34. Ibid., 312: "Esaminando I passi surriferiti notiamo subito come nel primo, Ambrogio, usando il termine procedere, non ha inteso affatto di alludere a quello che è il significato specifico della parola, che è dire all'origine dello Spirito Santo, a quella processione che è, per così dire, rispetto allo Spirito Santo il termine parallelo alla generazione nei riguardi del Figlio." This passage is quoted above in an earlier analysis on pp. 68-9. 249 Cf. Ambrose, "DSS," 1. 1 1 .1 16. Cf. Ibid., 1.1 1.1 19: Non ergo quasi ex loco mittitur spiritus aut quasi ex loco proceda, quando proceda exfilio, sicut ipse filius. cum dicit 'de patre processi et veni'... (emphasis mine) Simonetti, "Processione," 312: "251 "Infine, la riprova decisive che Ambrogio ha usato procedere coll'esatto significato di invio e che non ha fatto alcuna distinzione fra la missione del Figlio e quella dello Spirito Santo, l'abbiamo all'inizio del libro 3 dove egli afferma che, come lo Spirito Santo è mandato dal Padre e dal Figlio, così anche il Figlio è mandato dal Padre e dallo Spirito Santo, sì che questi no può essere considerato inferiore alle altre due persone della Trinità. Ambrose, "DSS," \?5?52: filius tuusfons vitae sit, hoc estfons spiritus sancii quia spiritus vita est. 83 reduction ad absurdum. He shows that a little later on, in 1.16.161, the Spirit, too, is called a fountain, and then Ambrose gives the appellation of "river" to the Father himself along with the Son and Spirit. So is the Spirit the fountain of the river that is the Father? No, Ambrose would never have wanted to say this, so we can conclude he neither wanted to affirm the procession of the Spirit from the Son in the technical way we mean it today.253 In 1.15.152 Ambrose's goal is simply to highlight the similarity between Father, Son, and Spirit. Simonetti evaluates two other expressions from book two (II. 1 1.1 18 and 12.134), neither of which the modern scholars treat. The second passage, with extra context, is worth quoting here since its interpretation not only dispels the idea that Ambrose taught the Filioque directly but also reveals Ambrose's strategy for combating the subordination of the Spirit. Ambrose here is dealing with the objection, based on Jn. 16:13, that the Spirit only speaks what he hears from the Son and is therefore ranked underneath him. (This very passage is alluded to by Palladius in his "Trinitarian confession," pp. 24-5 above, to indicate the Spirit's subordination.) As one might expect, Ambrose's strategy is to appeal to the shared nature of the Trinity: Quid est ergo non enim a se loquitur? Hoc est: non sine me loquitur, quia loquitur veritatem, sapientiam spirai; non sine patre loquitur, quia dei spiritus est; non a se audit, quia 'ex deo omnia '. Omnia accepit a patrefilius, quia ipse dixit: Omnia mihi tradita sunt a patre meo. Omnia patris habetfilius, quia iterum ait: Omnia, quae pater habet, mea sunt. Et quae accepit ipse per unitatem naturae, ex ipso per eandem unitatem naturae accepit et spiritus, sicut ipse dominus Iesus déclarât de spiritu suo dicens: Propterea dixi: de meo accipiet et adnuntiabit vobis. Quod ergo loquitur spiritus, fili est, quod dedit filius, patris est. Ita nihil a se autfilius loquitur aut spiritus, quia nihil extra se trinitas loquitur. What then does it mean 'He does not speak by himself? (Jn. 16:13) It means: 'He does not speak without me, [the Son], because he speaks the truth, he breaths wisdom; he does not speak without the Father because he is the Spirit of God; he does not hear by himself, because 'all things are from God.' (cf. 1 Cor. 1 1:12) The Son receives all things from the Father, because he himself said: 'All things have been given to me by my Father.' (Mat. 1 1 :27) The Son has all the Father's things, because again he says, 'All things which the Father has are mine.' (Jn. 16:15) And he himself receives those things through the unity of nature, and also the Spirit receives from him through the identical unity of nature, just
Simonetti, "Processione,"313. Ambrose, "DSS," 11.12.133^1. Incidentally, this section ofAmbrose relies on Didymus, DSS, §§ 34-6. 84 as the Lord Jesus himself declares concerning his Spirit, 'For this reason he has said: 'He will receive from me and will proclaim it to you.' (Jn. 16:15) Therefore, what the Spirit speaks is of the Son, what the Son has given is of the Father. Thus neither the Son nor the Spirit speaks anything by himselfbecause the Trinity speaks nothing outside itself. Ambrose explains the awkward verse from John by appealing to communion of action. We have already seen the Son receiving "all things," but, as is implied by Ambrose here, the Son is divine. Thus, if we observe the Spirit receiving, this goes to show the unity of nature in the Trinity because the same action—in this case, hearing and speaking—implies the same nature, expressed as unitas naturae here. Though Ambrose writes ex ipso per eandem unitatem naturae acceipt et spiritus, what the Spirit accepts are the words the Trinity inseparably utters; it is not that the Spirit receives the same nature through the Son, which would imply procession. The means by which the Spirit announces the message from the Son is the unity of nature.255 (Incidentally, Ambrose's argument assumes the conclusion that the divine nature is shared. The argument has powerful explanatory power, but commits a fallacy if taken to prove the unity of nature.) 3.1.2 What is the Relationship between Ambrose 's Teaching on procedere and the Filioque? From the above conclusions, one might have the impression that Ambrose's non- technical use ??procedere in the connection between the Son and Spirit, far from teaching the Filioque, actually serves as an argument against the Filioque. Does Ambrose not show that procedere, in passages about the Son and Spirit, has nothing to do with eternal trinitarian relationships but rather refers only to the mission of those Persons? Such a question is important in modern discourse about the Filioque. Those who agree with the Filioque would have to admit there was innovation at some point after Ambrose if the question holds true, and those who disagree with it would find support in an unlikely place, i.e. the West.
255 Cf. Simonetti, "Processione," 314-5. The same arguments Simonetti offers here to demonstrate Ambrose did not mean the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son could also be applied to the argument in Ambrose, Exposition ofLuke, VIII.66, where the Spirit receives (accipit) goodness from the Son proving their mutual divine nature. Since Ambrose's guiding principle is "the same operations imply the same substance," we have to read "good" here as goodness towards us. (For the critical edition of this work see Expositionis Evangelii secundum Lucam = Esposizione del Vangelo secondo Luca, trans. Giovanni Coppa, Milano: Biblioteca Ambrosiana, (Roma: Città nuova, 1978). 85 But Ambrose almost always focuses on the Spirit's mission. He has no interest in the way the divine Persons interrelate. Because of the rigid subordinationism of his Homoian opponents and Ambrose's goal of convincing Gratian, a layman, that his own Nicene theology is simply a better way to read the Bible, Ambrose's cares are not directed to the unique characteristics of each member of the Trinity, not even about their origins. As we saw in the case of 1.15.152 and
1.16.161 read together—the passages about the Persons as life and then the Father and Son as fountains of life {fontes vitae)—Ambrose becomes sloppy about origins. Quoting this same passage, Simonetti, confirming the findings of this thesis, writes that Ambrose's entire goal in the DSS is to demonstrate the perfect equality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son by shedding light on their perfectly unified operations.256 Because of his relentless focus on the commonality of the Persons, Ambrose sets the stage for the later western doctrine of the Filioque. He finds so much overlap between the Persons that their operations are nearly identical. From a mindset that eagerly finds the mutual action ofthe Trinity, it follows that even in considering relations of origin one ought to discern that the Persons should have as much as possible in common. Therefore, in the matter of the Spirit's procession, the natural instinct of Ambrosian, or at least Ambrose-influenced, theology is to look for commonality in the biblical witness. From Jn. 15:26 it is clear that the Spirit proceeds (procedere) from the Father, since the Son himselfproclaims it. The Son also sends (mittere) the Spirit. The words procedere and mittere do not contain much semantic difference, so a Latin speaker would perceive a similar action and would interpret it as a common origin. So when considering the origin of the Spirit, reasoning from operations to internal trinitarian relations, Ambrose-influenced theology would identify commonality in the sending of the Spirit by the
Father and the Son.
Simonetti, "Processione," 314: "Risulta infatti chiaro che Ambrogio, il quale non ha di mira la determinazione della caratteristiche peculiari di ciascuna persona divina, ma al contrario la identità delle loro attribuzioni e delle loro azioni in rapporto alla loro commune natura, ha inteso ugualmente e indifferentemente il Padre, il Figlio e lo Spirito Santo come vita e fonte della vita." 86 Taken from the side of the Father and Son, the Old Testament witness for Ambrose is that "the Spirit is the Spirit ofthe Father's mouth." An Ambrosian theologian would go on to find a similar operation, which is found in Jn. 20:21, the Son breathing out the Spirit. Both the Father and the Son are said to "breath" {spirare) the Spirit. Thus, again, the Bible points to the common source of the Spirit in the Father and the Son. It would take a long time to develop the vocabulary necessary to give precision to the Filioque doctrine. Ambrose definitely did not teach the Filioque, as such a teaching would not have been on his horizon. The primary dogmatic concern in the lifetime of the Bishop of Milan was the equal divinity ofthe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Parsing their interior relationship did not play a significant role in the controversy with the Latin Homoians in which he was engaged. But it cannot be doubted that his teaching at least set the theological trajectory for Augustine to teach the Filioque and then for the Council of Toledo (589) to add it to the Creed.
3.2 The Legacy of Ambrose's DSS: Did It Clarify Greek Pneumatology? Does Ambrose Fall into Sabellianism?
Provided that one accepts the preceding argument that Ambrose introduced a new emphasis into western trinitarian theology, what were the benefits or dangers of such an insight? To address this question, I will first assess how his arguments held up against his opponents, the Latin Homoians, and how his situation related to the situations of the writers of his Greek sources, and second, I will explore whether or not Ambrose's trinitarian theology risks Sabellianism, since Ambrose teaches the overlap ofthe individual characteristics and actions of the divine Persons in the DSS.
3.2. 1 Ambrose and Didymus ' Freedom ofDogmatic Expression in Relation to Basil and Athanasius
Studies such as Swete's On the History ofthe Doctrine ofthe Processions ofthe Holy
Spirit and Burgess' The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity try to find the roots of the Filioque in the Greek theologians of the East. However, they correctly caution that the preferred expression 87 in the Greek speaking theologians of the post-Nicene era is that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," an expression that introduces a hierarchy into Trinitarian relations that could be interpreted more or less rigidly. An important reason for this preference derived from church politics. In the East, the Homoiousians were an important party led by Basil of Ancyra, held a position midway between the pro-Nicenes and those hostile to the declaration of the Persons as ?µ???s???.257 They could affirm that the Father, Son, and Spirit were "like in
essence" (?µ???s???), but were not ready to positively say they were identical. They also
exercised vigilance against Sabellianism. Basil of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria, as metropolitan bishops, had to be sensitive to this group, believing they could prove a valuable ally against the anti-Nicene groups. In their pneumatological treatises, where a full Trinitarian confession became necessary, both Athanasius and Basil tried to accommodate the
259 Homoiousians.
Athanasius is, characteristically, less cautious than Basil in this matter, though when he declares the Spirit to be "one in essence" with God (1.27), he had earlier said the Spirit's essence was "proper to the Son." Shapland notes that Athanasius "has. . .to see the Trinity seratim every time."260 Famously, Basil did not go this far, avoiding that controversial word in his description of the Spirit's relationship to the other Persons. In his DSS he provides insight into the political situation facing him, especially in his explanation of the dogmatic reasoning behind his usage of the two different doxological formulas, "glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit" and "glory to the Father and the Son and the Spirit"261 Basil had to navigate a course that rejected anti-Nicene theology while accommodating Homoiousian theology. Accordingly, he exerts much 257 This latter "group" is actually made up of a few groups including Greek Homoians and Anhomoeans. I emphasize what they had in common, namely opposition to the Nicene Creed and its use of?µ???s???. 258 For the main lines of their theology and the history of this party see Hanson, Search, 348-60. 259 That the Homoiousians and the Macedonians largely overlapped bears out this theory. The Macedonians against whom Athanasius and Basil wrote may have themselves been a kind of Homoiousian. See Shapland, "Intro," 22-24. 260 Ibid. 128n3. Shapland also notes that in contrast to Athanasius "Didymus toils to discover parallel references to all three Persons;" Athanasius, Letters, 1.25 (128). 261 Basil, Selected Works, 25.59. 88 effort in explaining that the first formula does not demean the glory of the Spirit in any way and is not opposed to the confession that he belongs to the divinity, a claim that Basil hoped Homoiousians would affirm.262 When it came to the matter of "same operations imply same substance," Basil and Athanasius proceeded cautiously because of the divisive nature of the term "substance" when applied to the Spirit.
On the other hand, Didymus, probably holding no official ecclesiastical position, had more freedom to emphasize the unity of the operations ofthe Persons. Similarly, Ambrose had no crucial third party to appease, and so could stress the unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, without restriction. They both had the ability to emphasize the oneness of God, which explains, consequently, why Ambrose most often looked to Didymus for inspiration as he wrote his own
DSS.
Accordingly, it is likely that Ambrose works out the presuppositions ofpro-Nicene theology more fully than either Basil or Athanasius because of his situation. This is not to say Ambrose offers similar profundity of theology as Basil or Athanasius—few who have read them together could do so! But if one can demonstrate that the Father, Son, and Spirit execute similar operations, what can this imply but that they are the same substance? It is quite likely that Basil and Athanasius would affirm that proposition themselves firmly if only their ecclesial situations did not prohibit it.
3.2.2 Ambrose and Sabellianism/Modalism
However, this judgment does not mean that Ambrose's theology expressed in his dictum sails clear of all hazards. On my view, a legitimate caution ofAmbrose's theology is that he comes very close to Sabellianism or modalism. If the same operations imply that the Persons have the same substance, and we find the same operations everywhere, why make a distinction between the Persons at all? What constitutes Personhood for Ambrose? Unfortunately, he is not
262 Cf. Hanson, Search, 776-8. 89 clear on this topic, but such a danger must have occurred to him since he distances himself from
Sabellianism in four places in the DSS (1.9, 1.13, 11.12, and III. 16). But even so, one might wonder if Ambrose sufficiently thought through the matter and adequately defends his theology against such a heresy, or if his disclaimers of Sabellianism are not simply a standard line he knows he has to write as a late-fourth century theologian.
Here we may observe those places where Ambrose rejects Sabellianism with a view toward his strategy for doing so. From these observations, we may judge whether Ambrose has sufficient guards against this heresy while also gathering his understanding of the distinctions between the divine Persons.
The first place Ambrose checks himself against confusing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is 1.9.106-7, just after he has found in Scripture that the title "Spirit" can be applied to all three Persons. He recognizes that a creature possesses a body and a spirit which are commingled. Could not the Holy Spirit be indistinguishable, then, from the Father and/or the Son? Ambrose responds: Sed non confusus cum pâtre etfilio spiritus sanctus, verum et a pâtre distinctus etfilio. Non enim spiritus sanctus est mortuus, qui mori non potuit, quia carnem non suscepit, nee mortis capax esse potuit 'sempiterna divinitas'. Sed mortuus secundum carnem Christus, in eo utique mortuus, quod suscepit ex virgine, non in eo, quod habebat ex pâtre. In eo enim mortuus, in quo crucifixus est Christus. Spiritus autem sanctus non potuit crucifigi, quia carnem et ossa non habuit. Sed crucifixus est deifilius, qui 'carnem et ossa' suscepit, ut in illa cruce nostrae carnis temptamenta morerentur. But the Holy Spirit is not mingled with the Father and the Son, but is truly distinguished from the Father and the Son. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is not a dead man, who was not able to die, because he did not take on the flesh, nor could the 'eternal Godhead' (Rom. 1 :20) be capable of death. But the dead one (according to the flesh) is Christ, in him certainly was death, in which Christ has been crucified. Moreover, the Holy Spirit was not able to be crucified because he did not have flesh and bones! But the Son of God was crucified, who took on 'flesh and bones' (Luke 24:39), so that the temptations of our flesh might be put to death on that cross.
Ambrose, "DSS," 1.9.106-7. 90 In this passage Ambrose establishes the principle used in the other three places in which he explicitly rejects Sabellianism: the Bible says it was the Son—not the Spirit—that incarnated and died on the cross. The biblical testimony that the Son's role in salvation included assuming humanity, while the other two Persons do not, stands as Ambrose's bulwark against modalism. As is typical in the DSS, Ambrose does not speculate any further than what is given in the quotation. The bare biblical witness suffices for him.264 However, this passage shows that Ambrose did have some sense ofthe distinct missions ofthe Persons. He would hasten to add, as he does in many places in the DSS, that Christ's Incarnation was facilitated by the Father and Spirit, but here he affirms with vigor that the Son alone assumed the flesh. The second passage in which Ambrose distances himself from Sabellianism is where he makes the striking claim that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one (1.13.132-9). The section opens with the statement, "Who shall dare to deny the unity of the name, when he sees the oneness ofthe operation?"265 Later, quoting Jn. 14:16-17 about the Father sending "another Paraclete. . .the Spirit ofTruth," Ambrose denounces Sabellianism: "Well did he say 'another,' so that you would not understand the Son himselfto be the Spirit himself. Since there is unity of name, there is not Sabellian mingling of the Son and the Spirit." Ambrose continues to prove the unity of the Trinity by proclaiming that both the Son and Spirit advocate for believers (137), that the Son and Spirit will be with the faithful forever (138), and that both Christ and the Spirit are named truth (139). His rejection of Sabellianism here functions as an aside in the midst of his discourse on the unity of titles (nomina), and could almost be punctuated with parentheses in the text. Ambrose interprets Jn 14:16-17 literally here, discerning in Christ's use of another (alium) a necessary check on modalistic confusion. However, no investigation of
264 In what is also a typically Ambrosian move, he goes on from this passage to discuss the spiritual significance of the cross in a lovely passage about the heroism and sacrifice of Christ's death on the cross, cf. 1.9.107-1 1 . 265 Ambrose, Works, 83; "DSS," 1.13.132: Sed quid ego unitatem nominis argumentis adstruo, cum divinae vocis evidens testimonium sit unum nomen essepatris etfili et spiritus sancii? 266 Ambrose, "DSS," 1.13.136: Bene dixit alium, ne ipsumfilium ipsum spiritum intellegeres. Unitas enim nominis est, nonfili spiritusque Sabe¡liana confusio. 91 the meaning ofthat word arises. We should expect nothing else given Ambrose's particular polemic, but it does leave the unanswered question, if the Spirit and the Son are so alike in name and action, what separates them? The third passage disallowing Sabellianism occurs in Ambrose's explanation of how the
Spirit can be said to "say whatever he hears" (?sa a???se? ?a??se?) from the Father and Son and yet remain equal to them (11.12.130-42 on Jn. 16:13). Ambrose argues that the Spirit accepts these things not in a bodily fashion but "through unity of substance (per unitatem substantiae, 131)." Ambrose acknowledges that what the Son has and the Spirit has originates from the Father based on Matt. 1 1 :27, but this does not imply difference of nature for it is through the common nature of the Persons itself that these "things" are communicated. If one interprets Jn. 16:13 to imply the weakness of the Spirit, then one also harms the Son. Ambrose explains that the unity of divinity between the Father and Son prohibits subordination, but does not completely identify the Son and Father as one person: Si enim verum est, sicut est verum, quod dixitfilius omnia, quae pater habet, mea sunt, et secundum divinitatem unum est cum pairefilius, unum per substantiam naturalem, non unus secundum Sabellianam perfidiam. Quod unum utique estper substantiae proprietatem, non potest separari, et ideo 'non potestfiliusfaceré ', nisi quod audierit a patre, quia 'in aeternum estpermanens dei verbum' nee umquam pater afili operatione dividitur, et quod operaturfilius, scitpatrem velie, et quod vultpater, filium novit ¦ 267 operan. For if it is true—just as it is true that the Son said, 'All things which the Father has are mine,' (Jn. 16:15)—that even the Son is one substance (unum) with the Father according to divinity, one substance (unum) through natural substance, not one person (unus) according to Sabellian perfidy. Because one substance (unum) certainly exists through the special character of substance, it is not able to be divided. And therefore, 'the Son is not able to do [anything]' unless it is that which he has heard from the Father, because 'the persisting Word of God exists into eternity.' (cf. Ps. 1 18:89 LXX) Never is the Father distinguished from the operation of the Son. And what the Son performs, he knows the Father wills. And what the Father wills, He has known the Son performs. Here, he plays on the difference between the Latin unum and unus. Ambrose means by unum "unity of substance" (lit. "one thing"), while by unus he means "one person," a traditional
Ibid., 11.12.130. 92 Nicene Latin trope probably deriving from Jn. 16:14 where Jesus says, "I and the Father are one {Ego etpater unum sumus)" in the Latin Bible. So according to their one substance, the Father and Son are inseparable, but they can be distinguished according to their unique personhood. Here Ambrose allows for some kind of chain within the operation of God, originating from the Father to the Son because the Father wills something and then the Son does it. But he quickly emphasizes the fact that any action God does begins in eternity—hence his quotation from Ps. 118 LXX—so the distinction only becomes apparent when executed in time. But no more does the Bishop of Milan say on the subject. He has no interest in filling out what the precise differences are between the Father and the Son since his concern is to demonstrate unity of substance through the seeming differences found in Scripture. The fourth and final passage guarding against the Sabellian heresy occurs in a reflection on Jn. 16:14 in the "summary section" of the DSS. Here, Ambrose demonstrates the mutual possession of all things by the Father, Son, and Spirit. In continuity with the passages treated above, it is when Ambrose most strongly affirms the commonality of the Persons that he puts on the brakes before reaching Sabellianism. For Ambrose, Jn. 16:14 stands in opposition to Sabellian doctrine in two ways corresponding to the two parts of the verse, "I and the Father" and "are one." First, it declares that the Son and Father are different Persons in the "I and the Father." Second, the use of unum as opposed to unus shows the unity of divine substance while allowing there to be distinction between the Persons. In all these passages, Ambrose's intention is clear: he has no interest in denying the existence of separate Persons in the Godhead. However, his reasons for believing this are less than evident. They rely on the bare words of a few proof texts, which in turn do little to influence his trinitarian theology. Amidst his constant repetition of the "same operation implies the same
268 In Defide Ambrose discusses the proper characteristsics of the Father as distinguished from the Son in II. 18. Cf. Herrmann, "Ambrosius von Mailand als Trinitätstheologe," 205. 93 substance" dictum, Ambrose allows, to some extent, the distinctiveness of each Person. While this lack of emphasis makes sense in the context ofhis purposes for writing, it does belie a lack of adequacy in his overall trinitarian theology, an inadequacy Augustine sensed and attempted to remedy. 3.3 Areas of Further Inquiry Concerning Ambrose's Theology in the DSS A fuller treatment ofAmbrose's trinitarian theology could, at this point, go on to examine more thoroughly how Ambrose's Trinitarianism, especially his dictum, affected Augustine's theology. Space prohibits such an investigation, but new vistas of study open in light ofthese findings concerning the centrality ofAmbrose's dictum in his DSS, a text clearly read by Augustine.269 The most important connection to explore would be how reasoning from "same operation to same substance" would affect Augustine's highly influential presentation of trinitarian doctrine in De Trinitate. This is the first of three avenues for further study we will now consider. Working backwards in time, as it were, the second follows particular paths of study within Ambrose's own corpus and lastly directions for study within the development of this
theme up to Ambrose. A study on the pro-Nicene influences on Augustine has already been suggested by Michel René Barnes, in his influential essay challenging conventional emphasis on the influence ofNeoplatonic philosophy on Augustine's trinitarian theology.270 Barnes charges that Neoplatonism in Augustine has been grossly exaggerated at the expense of other important sources for his thought. In this essay he points to traditional pro-Nicene arguments used in even Augustine's early theology, the very period in which he is supposed to have been under the greatest sway ofNeoplatonism. When considering Augustine's early Letter 11, composed to his
269 See above p. 41 where Augustine assesses Ambrose's manner of composition in the DSS. Also, on Augustine's use of Ambrose in De Trinitate see Glorie, "Augustinus, De Trinitate: Fontes-Chronologia," 203-55. 270 Michel René Barnes, "Rereading Augustine's Theology of the Trinity," in The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O'Collins, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 145-77. 94 friend Nebridius on the very question of the validity of the "same operations imply same substance" principle, Barnes mostly ascribes the influence to Hilary's De Trinitate VII. However, as this study has shown, that principle is much more clearly and forcefully elaborated in Ambrose, who also had direct personal contact with Augustine. The transmission ofthe principle of "same operations mean the same substance" from Ambrose to Augustine has also been indicated by Brian E. Daley in an essay focused on Augustine's rather neglected Christology.271 My suspicion is that one would discover that Augustine's appropriation of Ambrose's dictum in his Christology also influenced the trinitarian theology he articulated in De Trinitate. Through studying Ambrose's influence on Augustine, a further step would be to trace the divergence of western trinitarian theology from eastern. Ambrose, as we have seen, took much ofhis theology from his eastern counterparts, and certainly did so with his dictum. How did his particular emphasis on this dictum, however, send western notions of the Trinity in so
different a direction than the East that tensions between the two ended in the Great Schism, in part over the Filioquel As one may see by observing the way Ambrose interpreted Scripture vis á vis his Homoian counterparts, his dictum acts as a hermeneutical device. It would be profitable to compare Ambrose's interpretations of various passages, especially those in the Old Testament, which might have been traditionally interpreted to be one ofthe divine Persons. Would Ambrose continue such an interpretation, or would he see unified trinitarian action throughout the Old Testatment? Also, his principle ofthe oneness of operation might influence his view of revelation. Around the same time that Ambrose wrote the DSS, Gregory ofNazianzus famously articulated the traditional understanding that the Father revealed himself in the Old Testament,
271 Brian E. Daley, "The Giant's Twin Substances: Ambrose and the Christology ofAugustine's Contra sermonem Arianorum" in Augustine: Presbyter Factus Sum ed. Joseph T. Lienhard, Earl C. Müller, and Roland J. Teske, (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 477-95. 95 the Son in the New Testament, and the Spirit in the church.272 Ambrose could hardly have agreed, discerning instead—ifhe is to remain consistent to the central argument in the DSS—that anywhere we see God acting in salvation history, we see the Trinity acting. This principle would require a major shift in biblical exegesis. A significant question, too, is the extent to which Ambrose altered western trinitarian theology. As aforementioned, Barnes points out that Hilary had already employed this dictum. But did this form a significant part ofhis theology? Did Hilary, too, discover this principle in his exposure to Greek speaking theologians? Could use of this logic be found in Tertullian, Novatian, or Cyprian? Studies of the development ofthis principle would be of great use in helping us understand more precisely why it was that Ambrose relied so heavily on the dictum, "the same operation implies the same substance."
272 Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius. Translated by Frederick Williams and Lionel R. Wickham. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2002. 31.26. 273 Barnes, "Rereading Augustine's Theology of the Trinity," 151. 96 Works Cited
? ? Primary Sources Ambrose. "De Spiritu Sancto libri tres, De incarnationis Dominicae sacramento." In Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Voi. 79. Edited by Otto Faller. Vindobonae: Hoelder,. "DefidePichler,libri V(AdTempsky,Gratianum1964.Augustum)" In Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Voi. 68. Edited by Otto Faller. Vindobonae: Hoelder, Pichler, Tempsky .1962."Epistula 12." In Epistulae et Acta. In Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Voi. 82. Edited by Otto Faller and M. Zelzer. Vindobonae: Hoelder, Pichler, Tempsky .1968.Exposition ofthe Holy Gospel According to Saint Luke. Translated by Theodosia
Tomkinson.. ExpositionsEtna,EvangeliiCalif.:secundumCenter forLucamTraditionalist= EsposizioneOrthodoxdelStudies,Vangelo1998.secondo Luca. Translated by Giovanni Coppa, Milano: Biblioteca Ambrosiana. Roma: Città nuova .1978.Letters. 1-91. Translated by Mary Melchior Beyenka, Fathers of the Church. New York:
Catholic. Select WorksUniversityand Letters.of AmericaTranslatedPress, by1954.H. De Romestin, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,. TheologicalVol. and10. NewDogmaticYork, Works.N.Y.: ChristianTranslatedLiteratureby Roy J.Company,Deferrari,1896.Fathers ofthe Church, Vol. 44. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1963. Arian Writings: Gryson, Roger, ed. Scolies Ariennes sur le Concile D'aquilée, Sources Chrétiennes, Vol 267. Paris:. ScriptaLesArrianaÉditionsLatinadu cerf,I, 1980.Corpus christianorum series Latina. Turnholti: Brepols
1982. Athanasius. The Letters ofSaint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit. Translated by C. R. B. Shapland. New York: Philosophical Library, 1951. Augustine. De doctrina Christiana. Translated by R.P.H. Green. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Basil. On the Holy Spirit. Translated by David Anderson. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's .SeminarySt. Basil:Press,Letters1980.and Selected Works. Translated by Blomfield Jackson. Edited by Philip Schaffand Henry Wace. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8. Peabody, Massachusetts:. Sur le Saint-Esprit.HendricksonTranslatedPublishers,by BenoitInc.,Pruche.1895.2ndReprint,edn. Sources1999. Chrétiennes, Vol. 1 7. Paris:. "TraitéÉditiondu Saint-Esprit."du Cerf, 1968.In Sources Chrétiennes, by Benoit Pruche. Paris: Les Éditions du cerf, 1945. 97 Didymus. De Spiritu Sancto = Über den Heiligen Geist. Translated by Hermann Josef Sieben, Fontes Christiani, Vol. 78. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. (German and Latin.) ------. On the Holy Spirit. Translated by Junghoo Kwon and Benjamin Martin. (English. Unpublished) Gregory ofNazianzus. "Die fünf theologischen Reden." In Gregor von Nazianz. Edited by Joseph. On GodBarbel,and Christ:218-76.TheDüsseldorf:Five TheologicalPatmos-Verlag,Orations1963.and Two Letters to Cledonius. Translated by Frederick Williams and Lionel R. Wickham. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2002.
Hilary. "De synodis." InSt Hilary ofPoitiers: Select WorL·. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1899. Reprint, 1999. Irenaeus. "Against Heresies." In The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Edited and Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1 . Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1885. Reprint, 1995.
Nyssa, Gregory of. "On the Holy Spirit (against the Macedonians)." In Dogmatic Treatises, Etc, edited by Henry Wace and Phillip Schaff, 315-25. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1892.
Origen. Commentary on the Gospel According to John. BooL· 1-10. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. Fathers of the Church, Vol 80. Washington, D.C: Catholic University ofAmerica Press,. Commentary1989. on the Gospel according to John, BooL· 13-32. Translated by Ronald E.
Heine. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 89. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press,. Homilies1989.on Luke. Translated by Joseph T. Lienhard. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 94.
Washington,. On First Principles.D.C.: CatholicTranslatedUniversityby G.W.ofButterworth.America Press,London:1996. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1936.
Paulinus of Milan. "The Life of Saint Ambrose." In Ambrose, 195-218. London: Routledge, 1997.
Rufinus. "Apology against Jerome." In Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings. Edited by Philip Schaffand Henry Wace. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. 403-82. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1892. ------. The Church History ofRufinus ofAquileia, BooL· 10 and 11. Translated by Philip R. Amidon. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Sozomenus. "Ecclesiastical History." In Ecclesiastical Histories. Edited by Phillip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1891.
Secondary Sources 98 Argárate, Pablo. "The Holy Spirit in Athanasius' Epistles to Serapion." Journal ofCoptic Studies (forthcoming).. "The Holy Spirit in Prin I, 3." In Origeniana nona: Origen and the Religious Practice ofHis Time. Edited by G. Heidi and R. Somos. Walpole, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2009. Barnes, Michel René. "Rereading Augustine's Theology of the Trinity." In The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium. Edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall and Gerald O'Collins. 145-77. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Barnes,. T.D."Augustine,"AmbroseSymmachus,and Gratian."andAntiquiteAmbrose."tardiveIn Augustine:7, (1999):From165-74.Rhetor to Theologian.
Edited by Joanne McWilliam. 7-13. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, .1992."Valentinian, Auxentius and Ambrose." Historia: Zeitschriftfür alte Geschichte 51, no.
2 (2002): 227-37. Belval, Norman Joseph. The Holy Spirit in Saint Ambrose. Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1971 . Burgess, Stanley M. The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984. Daley, Brian E. "The Giant's Twin Substances: Ambrose and the Christology of Augustine's Contra Sermonem Arianroum." In Augustine: Presbyter Factus Sum edited by Joseph T. Lienhard, Earl c. Muller and Roland J. Teske, 477-95. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. Dassmann, Ernst. Ambrosius von Mailand: Leben und Werk. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004. Davidson, Ivor J. "Social Construction and the Rhetoric of Ecclesial Presence: Ambrose's Milan." Studia Patristica 38, (2001): 385-93. Dörries, Hermann. De Spiritu Sancto: der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluss des trinitarischen Dogmas, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch- Historische Klasse,. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1956. Dudden, F. Homes. The Life and Times ofSaint Ambrose. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1935. Dulles, Avery. "The Filioque: What Is at Stake?" Concordia Theological Quarterly 59, no. 1-2 (1995): 31-48. Duval, Y.-M. "La 'manoeuvre frauduleuse' de Rimini à la recherche du Liber adversus Ursacium et Valentem." In Hilaire et son temps: actes du colloque de Poitiers, 29 Septembre-3 Octobre 1968, 51-103. Paris Études augustiniennes, 1969. Faller, Otto. "Prolegomena." In Ambrosius, De Spiritu Sancto libri tres, De incarnationis Dominicae sacramento. Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vol. 79. 3*— 69*. Vindobonae: Hoelder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1964. Ferraro, Giuseppe. "Lo Spirito Santo nella 'Esposizione del Vangelo secondo Luca' di sant'Ambrogio." Communio 17, no. 2 (1983): 183-99. Glorie, Fr. "Augustinus, DeTrinitate: Fontes—Chronologia." Sacris Erudiri 16, (1965): 203-55. Granado, Carmelo. El Espíritu Santo en la teologia patristica. Salamanca: Ediciones Sigúeme, 1987. ------. "El Espíritu y el paraíso." Revista española de teología 63, no. 4 (2003): 471-97. ------. "Introducción." In Epístolas a Serapión sobre el Espíritu Santo, by Athanasius. Madrid: Editorial. "Introducción."Ciudad Nueva,In Tratado2007.sobre el Espíritu Santo, by Didymus. Madrid: Editorial
Ciudad Nueva, 1997. Griffith, Howard. "The Churchly Theology of Basil's De Spiritu Sancto." Presbyterion 25, no. 2 (1999): 91-108. 99 Gryson, Roger. "Introduction." In Scolies Ariennes sur le Concile D'aquilée. Edited by Roger Gryson. Sources Chrétiennes, Vol 267. 25-200. Paris: Les Éditions du cerf, 1980. Hanson, R.P.C. "Basil's Doctrine ofTradition in Relation to the Holy Spirit." Vigiliae christianae 22,. "Theno.Filioque4 (1968):Clause."241-55.In Studies in Christian Antiquity, 279-97. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,. The Search1985. for the Christian Doctrine ofGod: The Arian Controversy 318-381.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Haykin, Michael A. G. The Spirit ofGod: The Exegesis ofl and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumatomachian Controversy ofthe Fourth Century, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae. New York: E. J. Brill, 1994. Hendy, M.F. "Aspects of Coin Production and Fiscal Administration." Numismatic Chronicle 7, no. 12(1972): 117-39. Heron, Alasdair LC. "The Holy Spirit in Origen and Didymus the Blind: A Shift in Perspective from the Third to the Fourth Century." In Kerygma und Logos: Festschriftfür Carl Andersen. Edited by A.M. Ritter. 298-310. Göttingen: Vandehoek & Ruprecht, 1979. Herrmann, Ludwig. "Ambrosius von Mailand als Trinitätstheologe." Zeitschriftfur Kirchengeschichte 69, no. 3-4 (1958): 197-218. Hildebrand, Stephen M. The Trinitarian Theology ofBasil ofCaesarea: A Synthesis ofGreek Thought and Biblical Truth. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007.
Kaufman, Peter Iver. "Diehard Homoians and the Election of Ambrose." Journal ofEarly Christian Studies 5, no. 3 (1997): 421-40. Kennedy, George Alexander. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks ofProse Composition and Rhetoric, Writings from the Greco-Roman World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Layton, Richard A. "Plagiarism and Lay Patronage ofAscetic Scholarship: Jerome, Ambrose, and Rufinus." Journal ofEarly Christian Studies 10, no. 4 (2002): 489-522. Markschies, Christoph. "Ambrose of Milan." In Dictionary ofEarly Christian Literature. Edited by Siegmar Döpp and Wilhelm Geerlings. 12-20. New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 2000.. Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie: kirchen- und
theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu Antiarianismus und Neunizänismus bei Ambrosius und im lateinichen Westen, 364-381 ? Chr. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, Vol. 90. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995. ------. "Einleitung." In Über den Glauben, by Ambrosius, 9-135. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005. McLynn, Neil B. Ambrose ofMilan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital, Transformation of. "Thethe Classical'Apology'Heritage.of Palladius:Berkeley:NatureUniversityand Purpose."of CaliforniaJournal ofPress,Theological1994. Studies 42,
(1991): 52-76. Meslin, Michel. Les Ariens d'Occident, 335-430, Patristica Sorbonensia, Vol. 8. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1967. Moorhead, John. Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World, Medieval World. New York: Longman, 1999. 100 Nautin, Pierre. "Les premières relations d'Ambroise avec l'empereur Gratien: le Defide (livers I et H)." In Ambroise de Milan: XVf centenaire de son élection episcopale: dix études, edited by Y.-M. Duval. Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1976. Oberhelman, Steven M. Rhetoric and Homiletics in Fourth-Century Christian Literature: Prose Rhythm, Oratorical Style, and Preaching in the Works ofAmbrose, Jerome, and Augustine, American Classical Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Palanque, Jean-Rèmy. Saint Ambroise et l'empire romain: contribution ? l'histoire des rapports de l'église et de l'état ? lafin du quatrième siècle. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1933. Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The "Spiritual Sense" Of Scripture: The Exegetical Basis for St Basil's Doctrine of the Holy Spirit." In Basil ofCaesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic: A Sixteen-Hundredth Anniversary Symposium. Edited by Paul Jonathan Fedwick. 337-60. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981. Quasten, Johannes. Patrology: The Golden Age ofLatin Patristic Literaturefrom the Council of Nicaea to the Council ofChalcedon, Patrology. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1986.
Ramsey, Boniface. Ambrose, Early Church Fathers. London: Routledge, 1997. Savon, Hervé. Ambroise de Milan. Paris: Desclée, 1997. Schermann, Theodor. Die grieschischen Quellen des Hl. Ambrosius in libro III De Spir. S. München: Lentner, 1902. Shapland, C. R. B. "Introduction." In The Letters ofAthanasius concerning the Holy Spirit, by Athanasius, 1 1-57. London: Epworth Press, 1951. Sieben, Hermann Josef. "Einleitung." InDe Spiritu Sancto = Über den Heiligen Geist, by Didymus. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2004. Staimer, E. "Die Schrift 'De Spiritu Sancto' von Didymus dem Blinden von Alexandrien." Dissertation. Munich, 1 960. Saint-Laurent, George E. "St. Ambrose of Milan and the Eastern Fathers." Diakonia 15, no. 1 (1980): 23-31. Stolz, E. "Didymus, Ambrose, Hieronymus." Theologische Quartalschrift 87, (1905): 371-401. Simonetti, Manlio. "La Processione dello Spirito Santo nei Padri latini." Maia: Rivista di Letterature Classiche 8, (1955): 308-24. Swete, Henry Barclay. The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church: A Study ofChristian Teaching in the. OnAgetheofHistorythe Fathers.ofthe DoctrineLondon: ofMacmillan,the Procession1912. ofthe Holy Spirit: From the Apostolic Age to the Death ofCharlemagne. Cambridge: Deighton, 1 876. Williams, D.H. Ambrose ofMilan and the End ofthe Arian-Nicene Conflicts, Oxford Early Christian. "PolemicsStudies.and PoliticsOxford:in ClarendonAmbrose ofPress,Milan's2002.De Fide." Journal ofTheological Studies
46, no. 2 (1995): 519-31. Williams, George Huntston. "Christology and Church-State Relations in the Fourth Century." Church History 20, no. 4 (1951): 3-26. Appendix 101
?? ?? ?? ^ w w ^OVO000000-v]vJO\O\aUiUiíi Ov Jk O ? -J U) (? U) W to K) p- ? oojkVouiH-oojkV04^K)vou)Vo ?? *. ? ?\ W ?\ ?? K) ?? ?? ?? ?? Ov ui U) Ov vi K) OMO U) O OV ?? K) K) O ?? OO to C/3 VO Ov •o
fe-
OO Ul Jk Jk U) U) K) ^- h- I— H- H- H- H- H- O VO Ov -~J U) i—' O Ul Ov U) Jk Jk U) U) K> H- H- ? ? O vo ¦£> oo ?- ?) oo ? oo OJ H- *^ lili Ov K) Ui Jk Jk Ov U) Ov O
td
?
Tl
H-.
?- VO oo oo -j Jk H- H- -J u> Jk Jk U) K) H-VO-J-JUlJkJkHH o J^ -a ?- ?) U) U) K) U) OO Jk LH VO 00VOvK)OUiJk ?— I O U) ? f I I O — Il ¦**· ? OO U> U) U) T3 K) O Ov OV H- V jk ui O •O H- OO ta Ö K) -< C-3 O *
K) Ui OV Ul U) J* K) U) O O O K) I Ov U) U) Ji U) Jk H- o. 03 U)
d a S3 S' &5