Category: The Trinity Doctrine

This article quotes mainly from world-class scholars of the last 50 years, specializing in the fourth-century Arian Controversy:

Summary

Eustathius of Antioch was a key driver for Nicene theology at Nicaea. However, since Eustathius taught that the Father and the Son are a single hypostasis (one single Person), he was exiled for Sabellianism soon after Nicaea. But his followers remained a significant group at Antioch.

Meletius was elected as bishop of Antioch in 361, but later accepted Cappadocian theology, in which the Son is a distinct hypostasis. The Cappadocians understood homoousios as meaning two distinct substances of exactly the same kind. 

The Eustathians were willing to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three prosōpa (masks or faces), but not three hypostases. The Cappadocian Basil of Caesarea objected that this is what Sabellius also taught.

While Meletius was bishop of Antioch, the Eustathians elected Paulinus as their rival bishop of Antioch. Like Eustathius, he was a Sabellian, believing that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person).

Therefore, the Meletian Schism was a dispute in Antioch between two pro-Nicene groups:

Paulinus and the Eustathians were the traditional Nicenes. They accepted ‘homoousios’ as meaning ‘one substance,’ taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), and were supported by Athanasius and the bishop of Rome (Damasus). But Basil of Caesarea regarded this as Sabellianism.

The Meletians and the Cappadocians also accepted homoousios but understood it as meaning two substances that are alike in all respects. Therefore, they believed that the Son is a distinct hypostasis (Person). But the Western pro-Nicenes thought that this is Arianism.

Consequently, the two most important pro-Nicenes of the fourth century, Athanasius of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea, found themselves on opposite sides in the Meletian Schism.

Eustathians

Antioch was an important center for Christianity in the 4th century. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, attended the Nicene Council in 325 and significantly influenced the wording of the Nicene Creed. Constantine pressed for the inclusion of homoousios because Eustathius and his supporters favoured it. Show More

Eustathius taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are a single hypostasis (one single Person). In his view, the Son or Logos is merely an aspect or part of the Father and does not have a distinct existence. Show More

For this reason, he was exiled for Sabellianism soon after Nicaea:

“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 211). Show More

After Eustathius had been exiled, his followers remained a significant group at Antioch. They continued his teachings and elected rival bishops: 

Cappadocians

In 361, the Eusebians (Arians) majority elected Meletius as bishop of Antioch. However, Meletius later adopted the Cappadocian teaching, which accepted the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios. Show More

“Basil (of Caesarea) had originally exhibited some discomfort with the Nicene homoousios as vulnerable to modalistic interpretations. His acceptance of this term was conditioned by his construction of an accompanying set of terminology to designate the threeness of God: Father, Son, and Spirit are each a distinct hypostasis, with a unique manner of subsistence (tropos hyparxeōs). Basil, a supporter of Melitius, pressed the followers of Paulinus to adopt the language of three hypostaseis in order to safeguard Nicene theology from a Sabellian interpretation” (Anatolios, p. 27).

See here for a discussion of Cappadocian theology.

The Eustathians refused to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases. Instead, they said each is a distinct prosopon (pl. prosōpa). While prosopon can mean hypostasis, in Ancient Greek, prosopon originally designated one’s “face” or “mask.” In that sense, it was used in Greek theatre, since actors wore masks on stage to reveal their character and emotions to the audience. Applied to the Trinity, it can indicate different roles played by a single Person. For that reason, the Sabellians accepted the term, but Basil objected that this is what Sabellius also taught. Show More

Meletian Schism

Hanson describes Paulinus as “a Sabellian heretic” (Hanson’s Lecture). He was “Marcellan/Sabellian” (Hanson, p. 799). Show More

In the 360s-370s, there were three views represented in Antioch:

The Eusebians (Arians) rejected homoousios. 

The Eustathians were the traditional Nicenes. They accepted ‘homoousios’ (same substance) and understood it as meaning ‘one substance.’ They taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person). Paulinus was their leader, and they were supported by Athanasius and the bishop of Rome (Damasus). But Basil of Caesarea regarded this as Sabellianism.

The Meletians (Cappadocians) also accepted homoousios but understood it as meaning two substances that are alike in all respects. Therefore, they believed that the Son is a distinct hypostasis (Person), and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Persons). But the Western pro-Nicenes thought that this is Arianism.

The Eusebians (Arians), similar to the Meletians, believed in three hypostases. However, while the Eusebians regarded the Son as ontologically subordinate to the Father, the Cappadocians regarded the three hypostases as ontologically equal. Show More

He believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person). He condoned Sabellianism. For example, about the year 371, adherents of the Sabellian Marcellus approached Athanasius, presenting to him a statement of faith. Athanasius accepted it and gave them a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine. Therefore, he supported the Sabellian Paulinus. Show More

Consequently, in the 360s and 370s, the two most important pro-Nicenes of the fourth century, Athanasius of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea, found themselves on opposite sides in the Meletian Schism. While Athanasius supported Paulinus and the Eustathians in Antioch, Basil supported Meletius and regarded Athanasius and the Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology as Sabellianism:

“The opening of the year 375 saw the ironical situation in which the Pope, Damasus, and the archbishop of Alexandria, Peter, were supporting Paulinus of Antioch, a Sabellian heretic, and Vitalis, an Apollinarian heretic, against Basil of Caesarea, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy in the East, later to be acknowledged universally as a great Doctor of the Church” (Hanson’s Lecture). Show More

Basil of Caesarea suspected Athanasius and the Western support of ‘one hypostasis’ theology as Sabellianism, with Marcellus as its main representative. Show More

After Athanasius died in 373, his successor Peter continued to support Paulinus and persuaded Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to do the same. Peter poisoned the mind of Damasus against Basil and Meletius. Show More

The Core Issue

The main issue in the Meletian Schism was whether the Son is a distinct Person. While Athanasius and the Eustathians said that the Father and Son are a single Person, Basil and the Meletians maintained that the Son is a distinct Person. Show More

This dispute between one and three hypostases in Antioch was also the Core Issue of the entire Arian Controversy. That difference explains all other differences between theologians:

If they are a single Existence (one hypostasis), as the Nicenes claimed, then the Son is eternal and of the same substance as the Father, and only one Logos exists.

But if they are two distinct Existences (two hypostases), then:

• • • • The Father alone exists without a cause.
      • The Son did not always exist but is a ‘creature, produced by the Father’s will.
      • The Son does not fully understand the Father.

See here for a discussion of the core issue in the Controversy. That article identifies the core issue by analysing the various phases of the Controversy and by showing who opposed whom.

If the Son is not a distinct Person, as Athanasius claimed, He cannot become incarnated. (See here for a discussion.)

Melitian Controversy

In the Melitian Controversy, several decades earlier in Egypt, Athanasius persecuted the Melitian Christians in his see:

“It seems clear also that Athanasius’ first efforts at gangsterism in his diocese had nothing to do with difference of opinion on the subject of the Arian Controversy, but were directed against the Melitians” (Hanson, p. 254). Show More

• • ---

    Other Articles

    • • • All Articles on this Website
        • The Book of Daniel
        • The Book of Revelation
        • The Mark of the Beast
        • Is Jesus the Most High God?
        • The Trinity Doctrine – Pandora’s Box
        • The Origin of the Trinity Doctrine
        • The Origin of Evil
        • Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment