Category: Pro-Nicenes

• • 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. Show More

    It was: “The most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced” (Williams, p. 1), and “The process whereby the traditional and Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity was finally formed and established” (Hanson, pp. 869-70).

    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. Show More

    “The views of Arius were such as … to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering. … He was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance” (Hanson, p. xvii). “The expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer” (Hanson, xvii). “This controversy is mistakenly called Arian” (Ayres, p. 14).

    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. Show More

    “’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius” (Williams, 82). See here for more details.

    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. Show More

    “My second theological trajectory is the one in which we locate Arius himself. This loose alliance I will term ‘Eusebian’. When I use this term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with either of Arius’ most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or Eusebius of Caesarea” (Ayres, p. 52).

    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’. Show More

    Athanasius Athanasius was the “paragon” (norm) of the West (Hanson, p. 304). “Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy” (Ayres, p. 107). Alexander is similar to Athanasius “Alexander’s theology found its most famous advocate in his successor Athanasius” (Ayres, p. 45).

    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. Show More

    Overview of the history Until Constantine died in 337, he forced the church to remain united. At Nicaea, he sided with the Nicenes (see here) but in later years shifted to the Eusebian (Arian) side. Nevertheless, he ensured unity. After he died, the Eastern and Western Empires were divided between different emperors, with the Western emperor supporting the traditional Western theology and the Eastern Emperor supporting the traditional Eastern theology. The West was on the periphery of the Controversy but became a main player in 341 when it vindicated Marcellus and Athanasius, who were both previously deposed by the Eastern Church, in the Council of Rome. This resulted in a series of heated interactions between the East and the West, in which the Eastern Church formulated the Dedication Creed of 341 and the Westerners the Serdica Manifesto of 343. The only Western Creed: “The one Western theological statement which had appeared since the controversy began, the Formula accompanying the Encyclical of the Western bishops at Serdica …” (Hanson, 311).

    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. Show More

    Constantine interfered. “There was some suspicion of this word (homoousios) on the part of the orthodox” but that the emperor “insisted” on this term (Erickson). “Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best” (Hanson, p. 850). Drawn Battle “It is going too far to say that N [Nicene Creed] is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a drawn battle” (Hanson, p. 172). “It is not quite accurate to say that the creed reflects the beliefs of those who held the initiative at Nicaea. Rather, the creed shows the extent to which those who held the initiative could push their perspective while still achieving sufficient support for victory at the council” (Ayres, p. 91). See here for a discussion.

    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 Marcellus 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. Show More

    Marcellus “Marcellus learnt the main lines of his theology from Eustathius” (Hanson, p. 234) “Marcellus was deposed for Sabellian leanings” (Hanson, p. 228). “Marcellus of Ancyra … cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism” (Hanson). Eustathius “It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 211). At Nicaea “Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians” (Ayres, p. 69). “Marcellus of Ancyra … had been an important figure at the council and may have significantly influenced its wording” (Ayres, p. 431). See here for a discussion of Sabellianism.

    Recognized Sabellians later in the century included Photinus of Sirmium and Paulinus, the rival bishop of Antioch. Show More

    Photinus “Photinus, bishop of Sirmium … came from Ancyra, was a devoted disciple of Marcellus of Ancyra” (Hanson, pp. 235-6). Photinus was “censured” and “condemned” in 344, 345, and 347, “but was only ousted and exiled finally … in 351” (Hanson, p. 236). Paulinus “Basil (of Caesarea) suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead” (Hanson, p. 801).

    Purpose

    The Nicene theology of Alexander, Athanasius, and the Serdica Manifesto was similar to Marcellus’ Sabellianism:

    “The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius“ (Ayres, p. 69). “Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for them to be at one on some of the vital issues” (Ayres, p. 106).

    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).

    “Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians” (Ayres, p. 69).

    “Marcellus of Ancyra … had been an important figure at the council and may have significantly influenced its wording” (Ayres, p. 431). Show More

    “Marcellus, Eustathius, and Alexander had worked together at Nicaea” (Ayres, p. 106). “Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e., Eustathius, Marcellus) whose thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of Arianism” (Manlio Simonetti, La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975)) (Hanson, p. 171). “Once he (Constantine) discovered that the Eustathians (Eustathius was the leader of the Sabellians at Nicaea) … were in favour of it (homoousios) … he pressed for its inclusion” (Hanson, p. 211).

    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).

    “While exiled in Rome, he (Marcellus) joined forces with his fellow exile Athanasius in a polemical campaign against those whom they called ‘Arians’” (Anatolios, p. 23). Show More

    “In Rome during the 339–40 … the exiled Athanasius and Marcellus made common cause against their eastern opponents” (Ayres, p. 106). “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God” (Ayres, p. 106).

    It is sometimes said that Athanasius, at a point, abandoned Marcellus, but he never did:

    “It is … no longer clear that Athanasius ever directly repudiated Marcellus, and he certainly seems to have been sympathetic to Marcellus’ followers through into the 360s” (Ayres, p. 106). Show More

    “Basil was never sure in his own mind that Athanasius had abandoned Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers” (Hanson, p. 797). “Though he (Athanasius) may temporarily at this period, when he was preparing to return from his second exile, have wished to place a distance between himself and Marcellus, he had no intention of making a final break with him. It is doubtful if he ever did this” (Hanson, p. 220).

    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. Show More

    “The year 341 marks the rise of two clearly distinguishable parties, with the majority of the Eastern bishops on one side and Athanasius, Marcellus, and most of the Westerners on the other side” (Lienhard). “In that year [341] Julius of Rome sent the Eastern bishops a letter that is crucial for understanding how the two opposing parties were formed and defined. … In the course of his letter Julius defined and clearly named two opposing parties: they were ‘the Eusebians’ (hoi peri Eusebion) and ‘the Athanasians’ (hoi peri Athanasion). … Further, Julius portentously identified the Eusebians as ‘Arians,’ and he linked Athanasius’ name with Marcellus of Ancyra’s, thus implying that there were two opposing parties” (Lienhard).

    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:

    “The anathema of Nicaea against those who maintain that the Son is of a different hypostasis or ousia from those of the Father … only seemed to support” “a condoning of Sabellianism” (Hanson) Show More

    “The Creed of Nicaea anathematized anyone who said that the Son of God is ‘of a different hypostasis or substance (ousia) than the Father’” (Lienhard). “The production of N … must have been deeply disturbing for many who could not seriously be described as Arian in sympathy but could not believe that God had only one hypostasis, as the creed apparently professed” (Hanson, p. 274). “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men” (Hanson, p. 235).

    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). Show More

    Hanson refers to the Western bishops’ “vindication of the manifestly heterodox Marcellus” despite Marcellus’ “near-Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 272). “Julius, however, persisted in holding a synod, which upheld the orthodoxy and innocence of Athanasius, Marcellus, and others; and Julius received them into communion” (Lienhard, p. 417). Julius of Rome held a council in Rome which “quickly vindicated Marcellus and Athanasius” (Ayres, 109).

    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:

    Hanson refers to the Western bishops’ “traditional Monarchianism” (Hanson, p. 272).  “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:

    “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 … against Basil of Caesarea, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy in the East” (Hanson Lecture). Show More

    Paulinus was a Sabellian. Paulinus derived “his tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop (of Antioch) about forty years before” (Hanson, p. 800-1). Athanasius supported Paulinus. Paulinus “was recognized as legitimate bishop of Antioch by Athanasius. Later, Athanasius’ successor Peter extended the same recognition to him and persuaded Damasus to do the same” (Hanson, p. 801). The West tolerated the Sabellians. Basil wrote a letter that “contained some shafts directed at Damasus because of his toleration of Eustathius and the Marcellans” (Hanson, p. 799). See here for a discussion of the Meletian Schism.

    3(d) Athanasius, more or less at the same time, condoned Sabellianism in writing.

    “About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine” (Hanson, p. 801). Show More

    Athanasius described the Sabellians as “good orthodox brothers of the church” (Athanasius, De sent. 13,1 (Opitz vol. 2, pt. 1, 55)). “Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian; and for many years Athanasius and the Pope refused to disown Marcellus” (Hanson, p. xix). “The Westerners had at Serdica in 343 produced a theological statement which appeared to have the most alarmingly Sabellian complexion, and Athanasius had certainly supported this statement, though he later denied its existence” (Hanson, p. xix).

    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:

    “Athanasius and Marcellus could come together in Rome. The perception that these two trajectories held to very similar beliefs would help to shape widespread eastern antipathy to both in the years after Nicaea” (Ayres, p. 69).  “At the Council of Serdica in 343 one half of the Church accused the other half of being ‘Arian’, while in its turn that half accused the other [the West] of being ‘Sabellian’” (Hanson, p. xvii).

    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:

    “Their main theological opponent was Marcellus, whose doctrine they countered by insisting that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostaseis” (Anatolios, p. 24). “The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust” (Ayres, p. 119). “Its chief bête noire is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead” (Hanson, p. 287).

    The Homoians, who became the dominant Eusebian faction in the church in the 350s (see here), were an anti-Sabellian coalition:

    “The leadership of this alliance (the Homoians) was always diverse. … It included bishops of different stripes united by the desire to find a solution to the ongoing controversy that would rule out any theologies seemingly tainted with Marcellan emphases” (Ayres, p. 138).

    The Homoiousians, another faction that was dominant for a short period (see here), allied with the Homoians against the Sabellians:

    “Basil (of Ancyra – leader of the Homoi-ousians) made ad hoc alliances with theologians such as Acacius (Homoians) against Photinus and Marcellus” (Ayres, p. 150).

    Arianism, in general, was a reaction against Sabellianism:

    “More recent and more thorough examination of Arianism has brought a more realistic estimate of it. Simonetti sees it as an extreme reaction against a Sabellianism which was at the time rife in the East” (Hanson, p. 95). Show More

    “In the two decades after the Dedication Council, this theology [dyohypostatic = two hypostases = Arianism] … sees Marcellus of Ancyra … as the opponent par excellence” (Lienhard). “[Emperor] Constantius [who forced the church to accept an Eusebian (Arian) theology] … broadly supported the position of those who moved towards a theology which was strongly anti-Marcellan” (Ayres, p. 432).

    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. For example:

    “Marcellus has no theology of eternal generation: the Word does not come to be distinct eternally but eternally is in the Father” (Ayres, p. 63).

    Athanasius also described the Son as in the Father as part of the Father’s being. For example:

    “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology” (Hanson, p. 426).

    “Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113). Show More

    “Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common insistence that the Son was intrinsic to the Father’s external existence” (Ayres, p. 106). “The Son is in the Father ontologically” (Hanson, p. 428). “Athanasius’ argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 114).

    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. For example:

    “The Son’s being belongs (idios) inalienably and inseparably to the Father” (Anatolios, p. 89, quoting Athanasius).

    Idios means “pertaining to one’s self, one’s own, belonging to one’s self” (Bible Study Tools). Show More

    Athanasius: “The Word and Son is idios to the Father’s essence” (Ayres, p. 114). “For the Son is in the Father … because the whole being of the Son is idios to the Father’s essence, as radiance from light and stream from fountain” (Ayres, p. 115). He “insisted continually that the Son was the Father’s own (idios)” (Hanson, p. 425). Idios “Initially used to indicate that certain qualities and activities are intrinsic to being human, the use of the term to indicate that the Son is idios to the Father’s ousia serves to reinforce his tendency to present the Father/Son relationship as most like that of a person and their faculties” (Ayres, p. 115).

    Alexander also used the term idios to describe the Son as a property or quality of the Father. For example:

    “[Rowan] Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. … The statement then that the Son is idios to the Father is a Sabellian statement” (Hanson, p. 92).

    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:

    “Like Marcellus, he (Photinus) favoured the analogy of a man and his thought for the relation of the Father to the Son” (Hanson, p. 237). Show More

    For Marcellus, “the Son was a mere word … immanent [inherent] during the time that the Father was silent, but active in fashioning the creation, just as one’s speech is inactive when we are silent, but active when we speak” (Hanson, p. 224). “To describe the relationship between Word and God he (Marcellus) deploys the analogy of a human person and her reason” (Ayres, p. 62).

    The Nicenes, similarly, said that the Son is the Father’s Wisdom and his Word:

    Athanasius argued that the pre-existent Son is “present with Him (the Father) as his Wisdom and his Word” (Ayres, p. 46). “Alexander taught that … as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father” (Ayres, p. 16).

    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. Show More

    “There are … two Wisdoms, one God’s own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides the Son” (Hanson, p. 13, quoting Arius). “Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that was not distinct from the Father’s hypostasis, after whom the Son is designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55).

    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” (Hanson, p. 230).

    The Nicenes said similarly that only a single divine mind exists and that the Son is that divine mind:

    One Logos:

    “There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, p. 431, quoting Athanasius).

    One Mind:

    The Western Church responded to the Eastern view of three minds that “differences and disputes could exist between God the Father Almighty and the Son, which is altogether absurd” (Hanson, p. 302). “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428).

    Christ is the Father’s only wisdom:

    “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). The Western (Nicene) manifesto at Serdica described the Son as “the Father’s ‘true’ Wisdom and Power and Word” (Ayres, p. 125). Athanasius criticized “the [Arian] idea that Christ is a derivative Wisdom and not God’s own wisdom” (Ayres, p. 116). Alexander stated that if, as Arius claims, there once was when the Son was not, then “there was once when God was without wisdom, power, brightness, and so on” (Anatolios, p. 87).

    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. Show More

    The term homoousios disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and was not heard of again until Athanasius reintroduced it 30 years after Nicaea: “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important” (Ayres, 96). “He (Athanasius) began to use it first in the De Deeretis … in 356 or 357” (Hanson, p. 438).

    Initially, both hypostasis and ousia were used to indicate a distinct individual existence. Later, hypostasis became the main term for that purpose. Show More

    “Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, hypostasis, and hyparxis. … As the fourth century progressed, hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of controversy” (Lienhard).

    The Eusebians, following Origen, taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct divine hypostases with three distinct Minds, united in agreement. Show More

    Origen “speaks of Father and Son as two ‘things (πράγματα) in hypostasis, but one in like-mindedness, harmony, and identity of will’” (Ayres, p. 25). “Like-mindedness” implies two distinct minds united in agreement. “Asterius (a leading early Eusebian) insists also that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases” (Ayres, p. 54). Asterius distinguished between God’s wisdom and Christ, implying two distinct minds, e.g.: “God’s own power and wisdom is the source of Christ” (Ayres, p. 53-54). The Dedication Creed, which was a 341 statement of the Eusebian Eastern Church, says: “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” Again, the phrase “one in agreement” implies three minds.

    Sabellianism opposed the three-hypostases theory and taught that the Father and Son are a single Existence (hypostasis):

    “One point about Marcellus which is unequivocally clear is that he believed that God constituted only one hypostasis” (Hanson, pp. 229-230).

    “’One hypostasis’ of the Godhead was to become the slogan and rallying-cry of the continuing Eustathians” (Hanson, p. 213).

    The Nicene “creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men (Eustathius and Marcellus)” (Hanson, p. 235).

    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:”

    The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God” (Ayres, p. 48).

    “He [Athanasius] had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in 343, and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for the belief in one, and only one, hypostasis as orthodoxy. Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359, even though he tried later to suppress this fact” (Hanson, p. 444).

    “The doctrinal statement of the Western Council of Sardica (342 or 343), in which Athanasius and Marcellus participated, insisted even more belligerently that ‘We have received and been taught, and we hold this catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession: there is one hypostasis (which is termed ‘essence’ [ousia] by the heretics) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’” (Lienhard). Show More

    Not three hypostases “This trajectory … is also resistant to speaking of three hypostases” (Ayres, p. 43). “Alexander … never speaks of there being two or three hypostases” (Ayres, p. 45). Serdica “The Western Council of Serdica of 343 produced a document … which opted clearly for Una substantia meaning one hypostasis” (Hanson, p. 201). “We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Hanson, p. 301). “The unity of Father, Son, and Spirit is expressed as ‘one hypostasis’” (Anatolios, p. 24). “The statement offers no technical terminology for identifying what Father and Son are as distinct” (Ayres, p. 124-5). Athanasius “During this same period [the 350s] the miahypostatic [one hypostasis] tradition is represented most fully by Athanasius” (Lienhard). “Athanasius’ gut reaction is that there can be only one eternal reality and source, and that proposing more than one hypostasis would imply a dualism” (Ayres, p. 48). “Athanasius … for several years after 343 held this belief (there is only one hypostasis in God)” (Hanson, p. 245). Athanasius opposed “three hypostases.”   He regarded the phrase as “unscriptural and therefore suspicious” (Ayres, p. 174; cf. Hanson, p. 440). “He clearly approves of the sentence of … that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy into ‘three powers and separate hypostases and three Godheads’, thereby postulating ‘three diverse hypostases wholly separated from each other’” (Hanson, p. 445).

    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:

    “The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis“ (Ayres, p. 69). [Eustathius and Marcellus were the leading Sabellians at Nicaea.]  “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. For example:

    Sabellianism is “the refusal to acknowledge the distinct existence of the Persons” (Hanson, p. 844).

    “Athanasius’ most basic language and analogies for describing the relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as intrinsic aspects of one reality or person” (Ayres, p. 46). Show More

    Sabellianism = one Person “Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. Paulinus’ association with the remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the expression ‘one hypostasis’ … rendered him suspect” (Hanson, p. 801). Nicene theology “He (Athanasius) did not distinguish between the ‘Persons‘ of the Trinity” (Hanson, p. 444). “Just what the Council intended this expression [homoousios] to mean is set forth by St. Athanasius as follows … That the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same” (Philip Schaff). “The Arians always accuse the pro-Nicenes of confounding the Persons of the Trinity” (Hanson, p. 103).

    In other words, the Sabellians and Nicenes agreed that the Son is not a distinct Person:

    “’The Logos for Eustathius,’ says Loofs, … ‘has or is no proper hypostasis’” (Hanson, p. 215).

    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). Show More

  • The Nicene Creed and the Serdica manifesto also explicitly equate ousia and hypostasis: “The anathema of Nicaea against those who maintain that the Son is of a different hypostasis or ousia from those of the Father … ” (Hanson) “We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Hanson, p. 301, quoting the Manifesto at the Council of Serdica).

  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):

  “During these two decades (360-380) we also see the beginnings of an evolution of terminologies that will distinguish what in God is one from what is three” (Ayres, 434).

  “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).  Show More

  Athanasius wrote his De synodis over the years 359–61. “For the first time we have considered a text that offers the logic of unity at one ‘level’ and distinction at another” (Ayres, 175). “Athanasius, in his Tome to the Antiochenes of 362, admitted for the first time that besides one ousia and one hypostasis, there was also a sense in which one could rightly say ‘three hypostaseis’ of the Godhead” (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. Show More

  Basil “Basil’s most distinguished contribution … was in his clarification of the vocabulary” (Hanson, p. 690). “Basil uses hypostasis to mean ‘Person of the Trinity’ as distinguished from ‘substance’ which is usually expressed as either ousia or ‘nature’ (physis) or ‘substratum’” (Hanson, pp. 690-691). See here for a discussion of the Meletian Schism.

  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. Show More

  For example, Photinus wrote: “The Son did not come into existence until the Incarnation and was defined as the whole human being who was born of Mary; Christ had no pre-existence” (Hanson, p. 237).

  Christ is a complete human being with a human soul and mind. Show More

  “Eustathius of Antioch … criticized the Eusebians for not allowing Christ a human soul. We may also be able to attribute a belief in Christ’s human soul to Marcellus of Ancyra” (Ayres, pp. 76-77). “The man whom the Logos assumed was a complete man: ‘he consists of soul and body” (Hanson, p. 213). “Marcellus had allowed Jesus a human soul” (Hanson, p. 453).

  The Logos emerges from the Father and dwells in the man Jesus merely as an energy, an activity, or as inspiration from God. Show More

  “It would seem that Eustathius … holds that the Logos is … dwelling as an ‘energy‘ in Jesus” (Hanson, p. 215). “Marcellus of Ancyra uses the language of ἐνέργεια (energy) to explain how it is that the Son can come forth and work without God being extended materially” (Ayres, p. 197).

  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. Show More

  “The human being absorbs all the human experiences attributed to Christ in the Gospels, leaving the divine element untouched” (Hanson, p. 215). Eustathius “distinguishes between ‘the Logos … and ‘Christ’s man’ who was raised from death and is exalted and glorified” (Hanson, p. 213). “It is the man who sits at God’s right hand” (Hanson, p. 214).

  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:

  “Logically Athanasius ought to have said that the human body was capable of making human decisions. But Athanasius will not allow this … His failure to recognize the existence of a human mind in Jesus lands him in an absurd and impossible situation” (Hanson, p. 449). “The chief reason for Athanasius’ picture of Jesus being so completely unconvincing is of course that, at least till the year 362, it never crossed his mind that there was any point in maintaining that Jesus had a human soul or mind” (Hanson, p. 451). See here for a discussion of Athanasius’ view on the Incarnation.

  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” (Hanson, p. 302). Reading this, “it is hard to avoid the impression that the Incarnation consisted of the Spirit taking a body which did the suffering, and that the Son is not distinguishable from the Spirit” (Hanson, p. 303).

  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. Show More

  “Arius seems to be part of a tradition present in Paul’s third-century opponents and also visible in Eusebius of Caesarea. But, for this tradition, while the mutability of the Logos enabled union with a human being, any such union involved the Logos replacing the human soul” (Ayres, p. 76). “The incarnate Word took to himself a body without a soul or mind” (Hanson, p. 110). “Lucian and all the Lucianists deny that the Son of God took a soul (i.e., a human soul), ‘in order that … they may attach human experiences directly to the Logos” (Hanson, p. 80, quoting Epiphanius). “Is the Son the immortal God? … No, he is not (i.e. he is the God who can do the dying whereas the Father cannot” (Hanson, p. 109).

  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. For example, for Marcellus:

  “The Spirit remains inseparably in God, but goes forth as activity from the Father and the Logos” (Hanson, p. 229).  “The same language of going forth in energy is used for the Spirit as was used in the case of the Son” (Ayres, p. 67).

  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:

  “Just as his (Athanasius’) account of the Son can rely heavily on the picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he emphasizes the closeness of Spirit to Son by presenting the Spirit as the Son’s ‘energy’” (Ayres, p. 214).

  For that reason, the Cappadocians concluded that Athanasius did not afford the Holy Spirit a distinct existence (a separate Person or hypostasis):

  “The language also shows Athanasius trying out formulations that will soon be problematic. … ‘The Cappadocians’ will find the language of ἐνέργεια [energy] used of the Spirit … to be highly problematic, seeming to indicate a lack of real existence” (Ayres, p. 214).

  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:

  “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus [the two leading Sabellians] was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men” (Hanson, p. 235).

  “Marcellus and the clergy who remained faithful to him wrote to Athanasius ca. 371 and asked him to approve their doctrine. They had given up all of Marcellus’ distinctive beliefs but held tenaciously to the doctrine of one divine hypostasis” (Lienhard).

  “The point’ which was to them (Marcellus’ followers) crucial, that there was one hypostasis with one ousia” (Hanson, pp. 223-4). 

  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.

  Hanson says, “It is not surprising … that Eustathius was condemned for Sabellianism. His insistence that there is only one distinct reality (hypostasis) in the Godhead, and his confusion about distinguishing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit laid him open to such a charge” (Hanson, p. 216). If Eustathius could be condemned as a Sabellian for those reasons, Nicene theology can also be condemned as such for the same reasons.

  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:

  “The Westerners had at Serdica in 343 produced a theological statement which appeared to have the most alarmingly Sabellian complexion, and Athanasius had certainly supported this statement, though he later denied its existence” (Hanson, p. xix).

  “Zeiller and Declercq find the profession of faith gravely embarrassing, both because it appears to commit the Western church to a form of Sabellianism … and also because …” (Hanson, p304). Show More

  “The suspicion of Sabellianism which hung around the one Western theological statement which had appeared since the controversy began, the Formula accompanying the Encyclical of the Western bishops at Serdica” (Hanson, 311). “The emphatic identification of the ousia and hypostasis of the Father and the Son in the Western statement after the Council of Sardica only seemed to support” “a condoning of Sabellianism” (Hanson).

  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:

  Ayres refers to “Athanasius’ own strongly unitarian account” (Ayres, p. 435). “Studer’s account [1998] here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped” (Ayres, p. 238).

  But Ayres also describes Marcellus’ theology as ‘Unitarian:’

  He refers to “supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra” (Ayres, p. 431).

  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:

  “We have to resist the anachronistic characterization of him (Arius) as an antitrinitarian theologian.” “He writes simply, ‘So there are three hypostaseis,’” meaning “the set of beings that form the object (or objects) of Christian confession. … the three hypostaseis seemingly form a certain unity” (Anatolios, pp. 47-48).

  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).

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