Tag: Eustathius

This article quotes particularly from the following specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy:

Hanson Lecture - An informative 1981 lecture by R.P.C. Hanson on the Arian Controversy.

Hanson, Bishop RPC
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God -
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1988

Williams, Archbishop Rowan
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987

Ayres, Lewis
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology

Anatolios, Khaled,
Retrieving Nicaea, 2011

John Mason Neale described the two factions as the “old Catholic party … and the new Catholic party.” See the long quote at the end of this article. This schism must not be confused with the Melitian Schism several decades earlier in Egypt.

For example, at the Council of Nicaea:

“Once he (Constantine) discovered that the Eustathians … were in favour of it (homoousios) … he pressed for its inclusion.” (Hanson, p. 211)

For example:

“Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69)

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

“Within ten years of the Council of Nicaea all the leading supporters of the creed of that Council had been deposed or disgraced or exiled - Athanasius, Eustathius and Marcellus, and with them a large number of other bishops who are presumed to have belonged to the same school of thought.” (Hanson, p. 274)

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

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

The quote from Neale below refers to the Eusebians as Arians. However, we know today that that term is a serious misnomer. Arius did not leave behind a school of followers. See - Athanasius invented Arianism.

“The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer.” (Hanson, p. xvii)

Following the teachings of Basil of Caesarea, the “new Catholic party” formed in the 360s:

Similar to the Eusebians, they believed that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Persons). However, while the Eusebians regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, this new ‘Catholic’ party regarded the three hypostases as ontologically equal.

While the Eustathians understood ‘homoousios’ (same substance) as indicating one substance, this new party understood it as meaning two substances that are alike in all respects.

In 361, the Eusebian majority elected Meletius as bishop of Antioch. However, Meletius later accepted the 'three hypostases' form of Nicene theology. The Meletian Schism is named after him because the most important aspect of the dispute was who the rightful bishop of Antioch was. For the pro-Nicenes, the choice was between Meletius and Paulinus, the rival bishop of the Eustathians. ¹"In 361 the majority of the Antiochian church elected as bishop Meletius, who had formerly been an Arian, and was ordained by this party, but after his election professed the Nicene orthodoxy." (Philip Schaff) ²“The Catholics … split among themselves; the majority adhered to the exiled Meletius, while the old and more strictly orthodox party, who had hitherto been known as the Eustathians, and with whom Athanasius communicated … elected Paulinus … who was ordained counter-bishop by Lucifer of Calaris.” (Philip Schaff)

While the official bishop of Antioch was Meletius, the Eustathians’ rival bishop was Paulinus. As shown here, Athanasius taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a single hypostasis (Person). Therefore, Athanasius and friends 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)

“In May 373 Athanasius died, Peter his successor was driven out, fled to Rome, and proceeded to poison the mind of Damasus against Basil and Meletius.” (Hanson, p. 798)

In 375, Damasus wrote a letter that “constituted also an official recognition of Paulinus, not Meletius, as bishop of Antioch.” (Hanson, p. 799)

Basil supported Meletius:

“Paulinus was a rival of Basil's friend and ally Meletius.” (Hanson, p. 801)

“Basil would not desert Meletius and Athanasius would not recognize him (Meletius) as bishop of Antioch.” (Hanson, p. 797)

Athanasius supported the Eustathians because, as shown by here, he also proclaimed a single hypostasis.

For example:

“A council headed by Athanasius at Alexandria in 362 … met to address a schism between followers of two pro-Nicene bishops at Antioch: Paulinus, who confessed the one hypostasis, and Melitius, who confessed three hypostaseis.” (Anatolios, p. 26-27)

In a letter to Basil, “Damasus sent a very cool reply … deliberately avoided making any statement about the three hypostases. It was the adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this doctrine of the hypostases which caused Damasus … to suspect them of heresy.” (Hanson, p. 798)

Initially, Basil was concerned that the term homoousios could be understood in a modalistic or Sabellian manner in which Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person. Therefore, when he agreed to the term, it was with the understanding that the Father, Son, and Spirit are acknowledged as distinct hypostases, each subsisting uniquely. He encouraged the Eustathians to embrace the terminology of three hypostases.³“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)

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.

“The 'Paulinians' ... considered it (Basil's concern) sufficiently addressed by acknowledging that each of the Trinity is a distinct person, or prosōpon. But Basil deemed this stratagem inadequate, since the term prosōpon could mean simply “role” or “manifestation,” and thus even a Sabellian could subscribe to such a confession.” (Anatolios, p. 27)

Basil wrote: “It is not enough to count differences in the prosōpa. It is necessary also to confess that each prosōpon exists in a true hypostasis. The mirage of prosōpa without hypostaseis is not denied even by Sabellius, who said that the same God, though he is one subject, is transformed according to the need of each occasion and is thus spoken of now as Father, now as Son, and now as Holy Spirit.” (Epistle 210.5.36–41.)

“Basil treats hypostasis and πρόσωπον (prosopon) as synonymous, but he also sees πρόσωπον as less appropriate, too close to Sabellianism.” (Ayres, p. 210)

“The use of prosopon which was not characteristic of Marcellus but was apparently used by Sabellius …” (Hanson, p. 328)

“The doctrinal difference between the Meletians and the old Nicenes consisted chiefly in this: that the latter acknowledged three hypostases in the divine trinity, the former only three prosopa; the one laying the stress on the triplicity of the divine essence, the other on its unity.” (Philip Schaff)

As another example of the distinction between hypostasis and prosopon, Jerome disapproved of the phrase 'three hypostaseis.' (Anatolios, p 27) The Latin equivalent of prosopon is persona. Writing in Latin, Jerome described the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “una substantia, tres personae” (one substance, three prosopa). [Jerome, Epistle 15.4.] In other words, for Jerome, there was a real and important distinction between hypostasis and prosopon/persona.

For example:

In the second century, while the Logos-theologians identified the Logos as “the nous or Second Hypostasis of contemporary Middle Platonist philosophy” (see - Apologists), the Monarchians proclaimed one hypostasis.

In the third century, the Sabellians taught one hypostasis and the followers of Origen taught three.

In the dispute between Alexander and Arius, culminating in the Nicene Council, Alexander taught one and Arius three. At Nicaea, Constantine took Alexander’s side, resulting in a Creed that was open to a one-hypostasis reading. See - The Meaning of Homoousios.

After Constantine died in 337, the empire was divided East and West. In the 340s, while the empire remained divided, the Western Church taught one hypostasis and the East three.

When the empire was united again under Constantius in the 350s, Constantius forced the West to accept the Eastern three-hypostasis theology.

In the 360s-370s, Constantius’ successors mostly continued his three-hypostasis policy but the pro-Nicene were divided into one- and three-hypostases camps, as illustrated by the Meletian Schism.

In 380, emperor Theodosius made Athanasius' one-hypostasis theology the state religion of the Roman Empire:

“Theodosius made known by law his intention of leading all his subjects to the reception of that faith which was professed by Damasus, bishop of Rome, and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria.” (Sozomen’s Church History VII.4)

For a detailed discussion, see – The Real Issue.

For example:

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

He derived “his tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop about forty years before” (Hanson, p. 800-1). As stated above, Eustathius was deposed for Sabellianism.

Basil of Caesarea regarded Athanasius and the Western support of one-hypostasis theology as Sabellianism, of which Marcellus was the primary representative:

Basil wrote a letter that “contained some shafts directed at Damasus because of his toleration of Eustathius and the Marcellans.” (Hanson, p. 799)

“Basil was never sure in his own mind that Athanasius had abandoned Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers.” (Hanson, p. 797)

“In a letter written to Athanasius he (Basil of Caesarea) complains that the Westerners have never brought any accusation against Marcellus.” (Hanson, p. 802)

“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) This quote also confirms that Basil believed in three hypostases. See - Basil of Caesarea taught three substances (three Beings).

As discussed here, Athanasius did maintain a one-hypostasis theology, similar to the Sabellians.

“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)

"The schism at Antioch, between the Eustathians, or old Catholic party, under their Bishop Paulinus … and the new Catholic party under S. Meletius, had troubled both the East and West. The holiest Bishops in the East, such as S. Basil and S. Eusebius of Samosata, sided with Meletius. S. Damasus and the Western Bishops communicated with Paulinus. Meletius asserted Three Hypostases in the HOLY TRINITY, Paulinus One: S. Damasus would not allow the former, for fear of being considered an Arian, nor S. Basil the latter, lest he should be imagined a Sabellian.…  S. Basil addressed a letter to him (Peter of Alexandria) … in which he complains in very strong language, that the Western Bishops, who could not be so well acquainted with the actual state of affairs, should presume to class Meletius and Eusebius among the Arians." [A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Volume 1, by John Mason Neale, page 204]

“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)