A.D. 381 heretics, pagans, and the dawn of the monotheistic state ( PDFDrive )

fact, it added a new element to the debate, in that it was hard to see how the three
members of the Trinity could each be fully God yet have a distinct personality
without there being three gods. Gregory of Nyssa, who many scholars see as the
finest theologian of the three Cappadocian Fathers, produced a work of great
erudition, On Not Three Gods, to counter his opponents. 21 Yet whatever their
protestations that the three divine personalities are co-equal, the Cappadocians
often refer to the Father as the source or fountainhead of the Trinity, which
suggests that they retained a subordinationist instinct. 22
In short, by the 370s one can see a debate that, in the east at least, was still
lively (for the west in this same period, see Chapter Eight) and, thanks to the
input of the Eunomians and the Cappadocian Fathers, who acted as stimulants to
each other, impressively sophisticated, but which remained by its very nature no
closer to philosophical resolution. There were too many plausible solutions, each
of which could draw on some support from scripture or terminology adapted to
the purpose. Even if some form of philosophical consensus had been found,
other rivalries and different factions within the Church would probably have
undermined it. In Antioch, for instance, there were two opposing Nicene
bishops: Meletius, appointed in 360, and Paulinus, who was elected by rivals in
362 on the grounds that Meletius, despite an outward adherence to Nicaea, had
leanings toward the Homoian cause. Meletius was supported by Basil of
Caesarea, Paulinus by Athanasius and Damasus, the Bishop of Rome. The
disagreement was so bitter, it was still corroding church politics in the 380s. It
was hard to see how the church could possibly come to a consensus on a
theological question so deeply embedded in the philosophical problems and the
personal rivalries that infused the debate.
Nor did the emperors seem an appropriate means of resolving the issues at
stake. They could hardly compete on a theological basis with the likes of the
Cappadocian Fathers or Eunomius, and if they made their personal views
known, their immense influence, which was enhanced by their own ‘divine’
status, could all too easily be used by one faction or another in the Church’s
internal struggles. If they were to remain figureheads of the whole empire, above
its controversies, their duty was to maintain good order, suppress outbreaks of
violence between the opposing factions and, if they accepted Themistius’
arguments, support freedom of speech.
This is precisely what happened in the western empire during the rule of
Valentinian I (364—375). Although Valentinian is normally seen as sympathetic