-
INTRODUCTION
The 4th-century ‘Arian’ Controversy, which formed the Doctrine of the Trinity, was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced.
Eusebians
The term ‘Arian’ is a serious misnomer. The anti-Nicenes should be called Eusebians. The 4th-century opponents of Nicene theology (the Trinity doctrine) are traditionally called ‘Arians,’ but that is a serious misnomer. Arius was a nobody. Arius was not a leader. He did not develop a new theology. He had few real followers and did not leave behind a school of followers.
Athanasius coined the term ‘Arian’ to label his opponents as followers of a theology that was already rejected at Nicene. However, that was a false label. His opponents did not follow Arius. They also opposed the extreme aspects of Arius’ theology.
Ayres discusses the different ‘trajectories’ at the beginning of the fourth century. One group he calls the Eusebians, namely the followers of Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. This group is the group that is traditionally called ‘Arians.’ Arius was just another member of the Eusebians.
Nicenes
Alexander and Athanasius were two important Nicenes. Ayres identifies Alexander and Athanasius as another ‘trajectory’ (Ayres, p. 43). They were two important Nicenes. The 4th-century Controversy began with a dispute between Arius and his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, but Athanasius was the main defender of Nicene theology in the remainder of the century. He was the prime example of Western Nicene theology. Compared to Athanasius, much less of Alexander’s writings survived, but his theology was similar to Athanasius’.
Serdica Manifesto
The Serdica Manifesto, formulated by Westerners in 343, is an important example of Nicene theology. For much of the fourth century, Arian emperors forced the Western Church, where Nicene theology dominated, to accept Arian Creeds. The Serdica Manifesto is the only Western Creed that was formulated without the emperor’s interference.
Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed was a drawn battle between the Eusebians and Nicenes. The Nicene Creed was another important indicator of Nicene theology. However, Constantine strongly interfered in that council. For example, he insisted on the term homousios and forced the council to agree to a creed he thought best. Consequently, the Eusebians, who were the far majority of the council, interpreted the key terms figuratively as consistent with their theology. But the Nicene Creed of 325 did not fully reflect Nicene theology. It was a drawn battle between the Eusebians and Nicenes. It does not present Nicene theology as clearly as the Serdica manifesto.
Sabellians
The Sabellians were influential at Nicaea but were deposed soon after Nicaea. Ayres identifies Marcellus of Ancyra (Ayres, p. 62), the main Sabellian of the 4th century, as a third trajectory when the Controversy began. Both Marcellus and Eustathius, from whom Eustathius learned his theology, attended the Nicene Council and joined forces with Alexander (see below). However, in the decade after Nicaea, both were deposed for Sabellianism.
Recognized Sabellians later in the century included Photinus of Sirmium and Paulinus, the rival bishop of Antioch.
Purpose
The Nicene theology of Alexander, Athanasius, and the Serdica Manifesto was similar to Marcellus’ Sabellianism:
This article analyzes the similarities and differences between Nicene theology and Sabellianism.
Authors
This article is based on books and articles published over the last 50 years by the recognized experts in the field of the fourth-century Arian Controversy (see here):
Hanson, Bishop R.P.C. – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1988 Ayres, Lewis – Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 (Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology)
Williams, Archbishop Rowan – Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
Anatolios, Khaled – Retrieving Nicaea (2011) (Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame)
NICENE-SABELLIAN ALLIANCE
The next section discusses the theologies of these two groups. The current section shows that the Nicenes and Sabellians were on the same side in the Controversy:
1. Allied
The Nicenes allied with the Sabellians. Alexander joined forces with Marcellus and the other Sabellians at Nicaea, giving the Sabellians significant influence in the formulation of the Creed:
“Eustathius and Marcellus (the Eusebians) … certainly met at Nicaea and no doubt were there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius” (Hanson, p. 234).
A decade later, Athanasius allied with the leading Sabellian (Marcellus). Both Athanasius and Marcellus were deposed around the year 335 by the Eastern Church, after which they allied against the Easterners:
“They considered themselves allies” (Ayres, p. 106).
It is sometimes said that Athanasius, at a point, abandoned Marcellus, but he never did.
2. Grouped
The bishop of Rome, in a letter in 341, included the Sabellians in a group he called ‘the Athanasians.’ He identified the two opposing parties in the Controversy:
He called the one side the ‘Athanasians’ and included the Sabellians and most Westerners in this group.
The other side he called the ‘Eusebians.’ Most Eastern bishops were included in this group.
3. Condoned
The Nicenes condoned Sabellianism. The Nicene Creed states that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), which is a Sabellian statement:
3(a) The Nicene Creed contains an anathema against all who maintain that the Son is not the same hypostasis (Person) as the Father. In other words, it says that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person). Since that is what Sabellianism teaches, the Creed, by implication, condones Sabellianism.
3(b) A Council in Rome in 340 or 341 accepted Marcellus, who had earlier been deposed for Sabellianism by the Eastern Church, and who was the main Sabellian of the 4th century, as orthodox:
“That Julius and later the Westerners at Sardica should have declared him (Marcellus) orthodox was bound to appear to the Eastern theologians to be a condoning of Sabellianism” (Hanson).
Hanson proposes that the West accepted Marcellus because it did not properly understand the issues:
“Pope Julius and his associates who declared Marcellus’ doctrine to be orthodox can have never met the works of Origen nor known anything of the theology of the Eastern Church” (Hanson, p. 231). The alternative explanation is that the West shared with the Sabellians a common Monarchian heritage:
“Westerners, especially Romans, are probably rightly said to have held on to the spirit of the monarchian theology of the late second and early third centuries and thereby virtually to have ignored Tertullian” (Lienhard). 3(c) In the Meletian Schism, a few decades later, the Western Nicenes even supported the Sabellians against the Cappadocians, who are today regarded as the architects of the Trinity doctrine. Imagine that! Represented by the bishop of Rome (Damasus), the Western Nicenes supported the Sabellian Paulinus as bishop of Antioch against Meletius, who was a Cappadocian follower. This caused severe friction between the Western Nicenes and the Cappadocians, represented by Basil of Caesarea.
3(d) Athanasius, more or less at the same time, condoned Sabellianism in writing.
4. Arian Enemy
The Eusebians opposed Nicene theology because it was perceived as Sabellianism. It was shown above that the Nicenes allied with, were grouped with, and also condoned Sabellianism. A further indication of the close relationship is that the Eusebians (Arians) opposed Nicene theology because they perceived it as Sabellianism. For the Arians, the enemy was not Nicene theology per se, but Sabellianism:
The Dedication Creed of 341 (see here) was the response of the Eastern Church to the decision of the Western Church to accept Athanasius and Marcellus as orthodox. But that creed saw its opponent as Sabellianism.
The Homoians, who became the dominant Eusebian faction in the church in the 350s (see here), were an anti-Sabellian coalition.
The Homoiousians, another faction that was dominant for a short period (see here), allied with the Homoians against the Sabellians:
Arianism, in general, was a reaction against Sabellianism:
Summary
In summary of this section, for the following reasons, the Nicenes and Sabellians were on the same side in the Controversy:
1. Allied – The Nicenes allied with the Sabellians. Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians at Nicaea, and Athanasius later allied with the leading Sabellian (Marcellus). It is sometimes said that Athanasius, at a point, abandoned Marcellus, but he never did.
2. Grouped – The Nucenes were grouped with the Sabellians. The bishop of Rome, in a letter in 341, included the Sabellians in a group he called ‘the Athanasians,’ against the Eusebians.
3. Condoned – The Nicenes condoned Sabellianism:
The Nicene Creed states that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), which seems to condone Sabellianism.
A Council in Rome in 340 or 341 accepted Marcellus, who was the main Sabellian of the 4th century, as orthodox.
In the Meletian Schism, a few decades later, the Nicenes even supported the Sabellians against the Cappadocians.
Athanasius, more or less at the same time, condoned Sabellianism in writing.
4. Arian Enemy – The Eusebians did not oppose Nicene theology as such, but the Sabellian nature of Nicene theology. Arianism was a coalition of theologies opposing Sabellianism.
THEOLOGIES COMPARED
This section compares Nicene theology to Sabellianism.
In the Father
In both Sabellianism and Nicene theology, the Son is in the Father as one of the Father’s faculties. The Sabellians believed that the Son is not distinct from the Father and never became distinct from the Father but is eternally in the Father as an aspect or power of the Father.
Athanasius also described the Son as in the Father as part of the Father’s being.
Idios – This is confirmed by Athanasius’ frequent description of the Son as idios to the Father, which means that the Son belongs to the Father as one of the Father’s faculties, inalienably and inseparably.
Alexander also used the term idios to describe the Son as a property or quality of the Father.
The Father’s Reason
Specifically, in both Sabellianism and Nicene theology, the Logos is the Father’s only reason. In Sabellianism, the Logos is part of the Father as the Father’s Word, or reason, or thought.
The Nicenes, similarly, said that the Son is the Father’s Wisdom and his Word.
One Single Mind
The Nicenes believed that the Father and Son share one single mind. The Eusebians (misleadingly called ‘Arians’) taught that the Son is distinct from the Father. Therefore, they spoke about two Logoi (two Wisdoms or Words), meaning that the Son is something in addition to the Father, and that the Father and the Son have two distinct minds.
Both the Sabellians and Nicenes opposed this and taught that the Father and Son share a single mind:
Marcellus denied the existence of “another Logos and another Wisdom and Power” and described the Logos as “the proper and true Logos of God.”
The Nicenes said similarly that only a single divine mind exists and that the Son is that divine mind:
One Logos:
One Mind:
Christ is the Father’s only wisdom:
One Hypostasis
The Sabellians and Nicenes agreed that the Father and Son are a single Existence (hypostasis). The main word in the 4th-century Controversy was not homoousios but hypostasis.
Initially, both hypostasis and ousia were used to indicate a distinct individual existence. Later, hypostasis became the main term for that purpose.
The Eusebians, following Origen, taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct divine hypostases with three distinct Minds, united in agreement.
Sabellianism opposed the three-hypostases theory and taught that the Father and Son are a single Existence (hypostasis).
In Nicene theology, similarly, since the Son is in the Father as the Father’s only reason, the Father and Son are a single individual Existence (one hypostasis). The statement formulated at Serdica calls that the “catholic and apostolic tradition:”
Therefore, the Sabellians and Nicenes agreed that the Son is not a distinct Person (hypostasis) but that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis:
“Athanasius, Marcellus, and the Westerners insisted just as vigorously that the divine hypostasis, the reality of God, is singular” (Lienhard).
One Person
The Sabellians and Nicenes agreed that the Father and Son are a single Person. To say that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis means that they are a single Person. In other words, the Sabellians and Nicenes believed that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind.
In other words, the Sabellians and Nicenes agreed that the Son is not a distinct Person:
Not One and Three
Today, the Trinity doctrine argues that God is one ousia (one Being) existing as three hypostases (Persons). However, such a distinction did not yet exist.
Firstly, the Nicenes did not say that God exists in three Persons. They claimed that the Logos is part of the Father.
Secondly, while Trinitarian theology claims three hypostases, the Nicenes explicitly identified the Father and Son as a single hypostasis.
Thirdly, the Nicenes used the terms Being (ousia) and Person (hypostasis) as synonyms. So, the Nicenes said that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) and a single ousia (Being):
“Clearly for him (Athanasius) hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous” (Hanson, p. 440).
- Both terms meant an ‘individual existence.’ So, when the Nicenes said that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), they also said that the Father and Son are a single Being.
It was only late in the 4th century that some pro-Nicenes began to accept the idea of three hypostases (three Persons):
“In 362 a synod that Athanasius convoked in Alexandria marked the first time that he admitted that the phrase ‘three hypostaseis’ might be understood of God in an orthodox way, although he still preferred ‘one hypostasis’” (Lienhard).
The Cappadocians in the 360s-370s were the first pro-Nicenes to teach three hypostases. For that purpose, they proposed a distinction between ousia and hypostasis so that ousia means ‘substance’ and hypostasis means ‘Person’. However, in what is known as the Meletian Schism, this caused a huge conflict within the pro-Nicene camp between the Cappadocians and Athanasians.
Incarnation
In both Sabellianism and Nicene theology, a mere human suffered, died, and was resurrected. In Sabellianism, since the Logos has no real distinct existence, Jesus Christ is a mere man, though maximally inspired. Consequently:
Christ did not exist before He was born from Mary.
Christ is a complete human being with a human soul and mind.
The Logos emerges from the Father and dwells in the man Jesus merely as an energy, an activity, or as inspiration from God.
That soul or mind absorbed all human suffering so that God (the Logos) did not suffer at all. It was a human being that suffered, died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand.
With respect to the Incarnation, Athanasius’ view was different from the Sabellian view. He did not believe that Jesus had a human mind. He describes Jesus as God walking around on earth in a human body, like an astronaut in a spacesuit. Jesus only pretended to be ignorant, to fear, and to have faith. “Whatever else the Logos incarnate is in Athanasius’ account of him, he is not a human being” (Hanson, p. 451). He did not have two natures. Perhaps, in the last decade of his life, Athanasius admitted a human mind in Jesus, but that is not clear:
The Western Serdica Manifesto of 343 (see here) was more representative of the Nicene view of the incarnation. However, it declares that it was the Holy Spirit who was incarnated in the man Jesus, not the Logos:
“We believe in and hand down the Comforter the Holy Spirit which the Lord promised and sent to us. And we believe that he was sent. And he (the Spirit) did not suffer, but the man whom he put on, whom he assumed from the Virgin Mary, the man who was capable of suffering, because man is mortal but God immortal.” This does not explicitly state that “the man” was a complete human being, including a human mind, but it is implied.
Therefore, in both Sabellianism and Nicene theology, since the Logos is not a distinct Person, the Logos cannot become a human being, and He cannot die. Therefore, Jesus Christ had a human body and mind, inspired by the Holy Spirit. That ‘mere man’ suffered and died. The Logos did not suffer or die.
This may be contrasted with the Eusebian (Arian) view in which Jesus did not have a human mind, but the Logos (God’s Son) functions as Christ’s mind. Therefore, the eternal Son of God suffered Logos.
Holy Spirit
In both Sabellianism and Nicene theology, the Holy Spirit is an energy from God, not a distinct Person. In Sabellianism, the Holy Spirit is not a Person but an activity or energy from God.
In Athanasius’ theology, just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Person, but an energy from God:
For that reason, the Cappadocians concluded that Athanasius did not afford the Holy Spirit a distinct existence (a separate Person or hypostasis):
CONCLUSIONS
Definition of Sabellianism
The defining aspect of Sabellianism is that the Father and Son are one single hypostasis. Not only do Sabellianism and Nicene theology both present the Father and Son as a single Person (hypostasis), but ‘one hypostasis’ was the core and hallmark of Sabellianism:
All the other aspects of Sabellianism, such as that Jesus Christ is a mere man, maximally inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct Person, follow logically from the one central argument that the Father and Son are a single Person.
Since Nicene theology also teaches ‘one hypostasis,’ it is a form of Sabellianism. Serdica
The Western Serdica Manifesto is Sabellianism. As stated above, the Serdica Manifesto in 343 is the only creed we have from the fourth century that was formulated by the Western Nicenes without emperor interference. It describes the Father and Son as a single hypostasis and is recognized by experts as Sabellianism, which confirms that classical Nicene theology is a form of Sabellianism:
Unitarians
In other words, the Nicenes were not Trinitarians. Like the Sabellians, they were Unitarians. Since the Nicenes and Sabellians did not believe in three hypostases (Persons), they were Unitarians:
But Ayres also describes Marcellus’ theology as ‘Unitarian:’
When we say that Athanasius is a Unitarian, that must not be understood in the sense of modern Unitarianism, also called Biblical Unitarianism, in which God is a single Existence or Person and there is no pre-existent Logos or Son that can be distinguished or differentiated from God. Consequently, Jesus Christ is a mere man, though maximally inspired.
Athanasius was not a Unitarian in that sense. He did believe that God is a single Existence or Person with a single mind, will, and awareness, but he believed that the Son is the Father’s own (idios), meaning that the Son is a distinguishable aspect, part, or power of the Father that has always existed. Athanasius was a Unitarian in the generic sense of the term, meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person.
In contrast, the Eusebians taught a trinity of three divine Beings:
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no substantial difference between Nicene theology and the Sabellians of their day. As ‘one hypostasis’ theologians, Alexander and Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’ theology and the term homoousios were already formally condemned as heretical during the preceding century, they followed an already discredited theology.
Since the Eusebians believed in three divine Persons (hypostases), one may argue that they were the Trinitarians of the 4th century. The Nicenes were Unitarians.
This conclusion should surprise most readers. However, the “conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty” (Hanson).