Overview
This article discusses the views of the three main Sabellians of the fourth century; Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Photinus of Sirmium.
Two of them (Eustatius and Marcellus) attended Nicaea, joined forces with Alexander, vigorously opposed the Arians, and played a major role in the formulation of the Nicene Creed.
However, both of them were deposed for Sabellianism within ten years after Nicaea. Photinus lived a little later and was deposed in 351.
However, some years later, Marcellus was vindicated by the West, together with Athanasius. Alexander and Athanasius were similar enough in their theology to the Sabellians to join forces with the Sabellians both at Nicaea and during the decades after Nicaea.
In Sabellian theology, the Son is “in” the Father, meaning that Father and Son are one single hypostasis (Reality, or Person in Later Trinitarian language). The Son and Holy Spirit are simply attributes or activities of the one God. It follows that the Logos does not have a real distinct existence. The Logos is merely a word spoken by God or God’s thought. This understanding has some important implications for the question of who Jesus Christ is or was:
Firstly, Christ did not exist before He was born from Mary. The Logos is eternal but “the Son did not come into existence until the Incarnation.” (RH, 237)
Secondly, God did not suffer or die. Neither did the eternal Logos die. Christ is a complete human being with a human soul (mind). That soul absorbed all human suffering so that God did not suffer at all. It was that human being that suffered, died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand.
This may be contrasted with the so-called Arians, who said that Christ does not have a human soul, but that God gave Him a body without a human soul (mind) so that the Logos could function as Christ’s mind. In that way, they said, God suffered and God died on the Cross.
Thirdly, the eternal Logos dwells in the man Jesus merely as an Energy or an Activity or as Inspiration and Moral agreement.
In consequence, the Logos is God’s only Logos. In contrast, the Arians said that God has two Logoi: The One pre-existed and was incarnated but God also has His own Logos (reason, mind).
The perhaps surprising conclusion is that the Arian (Eusebian) view of the Son is infinitely higher than the Sabellian view.
Introduction
In chapter 8 of his book,1The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God RPC Hanson discusses three bishops with similar views, that were prominent during the fourth-century Arian Controversy. They are:
-
- Eustathius of Antioch
- Marcellus of Ancyra, and
- Photinus of Sirmium, which was another important city. Emperor Constans made “Sirmium his Head Quarters.” (RH, 316)2RH refers to Hanson’s book.
Ayres3Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy discusses Marcellus as one of the four “trajectories” in the church when the Arian Controversy began in chapter 3.1 of his book. This article is largely a summary of these two chapters.
Similar Theologies
Their theologies were similar:
“Marcellus learnt the main lines of his theology from Eustathius.” (RH, 234) Their theologies only differ “in minor respects” (RH, 216) and “stem from the same theological tradition.” (RH, 234) That tradition is identified below as that of the second-century Monarchians.
“Photinus, bishop of Sirmium … came from Ancyra, was a devoted disciple of Marcellus of Ancyra.” (RH, 235-6)
The Council at Nicaea
Joined forces with Alexander
Both Eustathius and Marcellus attended Nicaea. There, they joined forces with Alexander and were some of the most vocal opponents of Arius:
“Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians.” (LA, 69)4LA refers to Lewis Ayres’ book. “Eustathius and Marcellus … certainly met at Nicaea and no doubt were there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius.” (RH, 234) (Ossius presided over the meeting as the emperor’s agent.)
“Marcellus … played a major role at Nicaea.” (LA, 62)
Eustathius “was clearly a vigorous opponent of Arius and Arianism.” (RH, 208)
Triumphed at Nicaea
Eustathius and Marcellus are important because they influenced the wording of the Nicene Creed:
“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.” (RH, 235)
Deposed
However, both Eustatius and Marcellus were deposed within ten years after Nicaea. Photinus lived a little later and was deposed in 351:
Eustathius was “deposed from the see of Antioch by a council and exiled by Constantine.” (RH, 209) Ayres says that this was “soon after Nicaea, probably in 327.” (LA, 68-69). Hanson says it “cannot have been later than 331.” (RH, 209)
“About ten years after the Council of Nicaea he (Marcellus) was deposed by a council held in Constantinople.” (RH, 217)
Photinus was “censured” and “condemned” in 344, 345, and 347, “but was only ousted and exiled finally … in 351.” (RH, 236)
Sabellianism
Eustathius and Marcellus were deposed for Sabellianism:
“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism.” (RH, 211)
Marcellus of Ancyra “cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism” (R.P.C. Hanson). “Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (RH, ix) “Marcellus was deposed for Sabellian leanings.” (RH, 228) Eusebius regards Marcellus’ “doctrine as outright Sabellianism, that is a failure to distinguish Father and Son.” (RH, 224) His book “was accused of favouring the ideas of Paul of Samosata.” (RH, 217). (This Paul was a prominent Sabellians from the third century.)
Vindicated in the West
While Marcellus was deposed in the East (Constantinople), he was vindicated as orthodox in the West (Rome):
“Julius (bishop of Rome), in the year 341, summoned a council to Rome, which vindicated the orthodoxy of Marcellus, as well as that of Athanasius.” (RH, 218)
Note that the West also vindicated Athanasius. His theology was similar to the Sabellians:
“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.” (LA, 69)
“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.“ (LA, 69)
The similarity of their theologies is also shown by their alliance:
“At the Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Tyre in the same year he (Marcellus) had supported Athanasius.” (RH, 217)
“Athanasius … continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus.” (RH, 220) “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.” (RH, 220)
Another article provides further evidence of the Sabellian leaning of the theologies of Alexander and Athanasius. For example, “Studer’s account here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped.” (LA, 238) The question is, why did the West vindicate these two Sabellians?
One possible answer is that the West did not understand the issues. At first, the West was not involved in the Arian Controversy. For example, the delegates at Nicaea were “drawn entirely from the East. almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire.” (LA, 19) Hanson concludes that the East failed to 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.” (RH, 231)
An alternative answer is that the West was also Sabellian. Hanson comments: “In this medley of opinions it is quite unrealistic to indulge in the business of labelling some as ‘heretical’ and some as ‘orthodox’.” (RH, 216)
One Hypostasis
In the Father
These Sabellians described the Logos, not only as in “God,” but as in “the Father.” With respect to Marcellus, for example:
“The Word … eternally is in the Father.” (LA, 63) “Before the world existed the Word was in the Father.” (LA, 63) “The Word was in the Father as a power.” (LA, 63)
“To describe the relationship between Word and God he (Marcellus) deploys the analogy of a human person and her reason.” In other words, the Word eternally exists “intrinsic to” the Father’s existence. (LA, 62)
One Hypostasis
Hanson defines Sabellianism above as “a failure to distinguish Father and Son.” (RH, 224) Since the Logos is “in” the Father, it follows that God is only One Hypostasis (Reality). In later Trinitarian language, these Sabellians believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one single ‘Person’. The Son and Holy Spirit are simply attributes or activities of the one God. For example:
Hanson refers to Eustathius’ “insistence that there is only one distinct reality (hypostasis) in the Godhead, and his confusion about distinguishing Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (RH, 216) The “’one hypostasis’ of the Godhead was to become the slogan and rallying-cry of the continuing Eustathians.” (RH, 213)
“One point about Marcellus which is unequivocally clear is that he believed that God constituted only one hypostasis.” (RH, 229-230) “The point’ which was to them (Marcellus’ followers) crucial, that there was one hypostasis with one ousia.” (RH, 223-4) “Marcellus … is particularly incensed at the use of hypostasis or ousia in the plural.” (LA, 63)
The Logos has no real existence.
It follows that the Logos does not have a real distinct existence. For that reason, Ayres also refers to them as Unitarians (LA, 431). For example:
“’The Logos for Eustathius,’ says Loofs, … ‘has or is no proper hypostasis’.” (RH, 215) In other words, the Logos does not have an existence distinct from the Father.
Eusebius of Caesarea “accuses Marcellus of Ancyra of rejecting the hypostasis i.e. the distinct individuality, of the Son.” (RH, 53) 5RH = Bishop RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 For Marcellus, the Logos was only a temporary word spoken by God: “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.” (RH, 224)
For Photinus, “The Logos … was simply a mode of manifestation of the Father, a power or aspect of him not in any serious sense distinct from him.” (RH, 237) “Like Marcellus, he favoured the analogy of a man and his thought for the relation of the Father to the Son.” (RH, 237)
Not Sabellian
Marcellus insists “that he is not a Sabellian.” (LA, 63) Technically, this may be true. In Sabellianism, the Father and Son are parts of the one God. See – Sabellius. In contrast, as stated, for Marcellus, the Son is “in the Father.” (LA, 63, 64) Nevertheless, in both views, the Father and Son are one single hypostasis (Reality) and the Son is not a distinct reality. This article, therefore, uses the term “Sabellian” for any view in which God is only one hypostasis.
Who is Jesus?
The discussion above pertains only to the nature of God apart from the incarnation. But the more important issue is what ‘one hypostasis’ theology means for the question of who Jesus Christ is or was. That, after all, was the big question in the Arian Controversy.
Christ had no pre-existence.
All three theologians made a distinction between the Logos and the Son:
-
-
- The Logos is eternal and an attribute of God.
- The Son came into existence when He was born from Mary.
-
Marcellus
For example, for Marcellus, “the only-begotten Son” was equal to “Logos + assumed flesh.” (RH, 227) We usually say that the Son was “begotten” in eternity past. But, for Marcellus, the term “begotten” refers to the event, 2000 years ago, when the Logos assumed flesh. Before that event, the “Son” did not exist:
“It was not the Logos that was begotten, but the Son.” (RH, 224)
“The Logos was only called Son or Jesus or Christ after the Incarnation.” (RH, 225)
Eustathius
Eustathius, similarly, “distinguishes between ‘the Logos … and ‘Christ’s man’ who was raised from the dead and is exalted and glorified.” (RH, 213) “It is the man who sits at God’s right hand.” (RH, 214)
Photinus
“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.” (RH, 237)
Christ has a Human Mind.
The fourth-century Eusebians (the so-called Arians) said that Christ does not have a human soul: God gave Him a body without a human soul or mind so that the Logos may function as Christ’s soul and mind. In that way, the Logos suffered all the pain and insult of the Cross. The Eusebians described the Son as God (divine) but with a lower form of divinity that is able to suffer and even die. They, therefore, were able to say that God suffered and God died.
In contrast, the Sabellians said that the Son has a human soul (mind) and that that soul absorbed all human experiences. The underlying principle is that the Logos is God and God cannot suffer. For example:
Eustathius
“The man whom the Logos assumed was a complete man: ‘he consists of soul and body.” (RH, 213)
“The human being absorbs all the human experiences attributed to Christ in the Gospels, leaving the divine element untouched.” (RH, 215)
“This soul was able to endure the human experiences which it was unfitting for the divine element in Christ to endure.” (RH, 212)
So, in this theology, it was only a human person that suffered and died.
Marcellus
At first, Hanson says:
“There is no reason to conclude that Marcellus saw the necessity of postulating a human psyche in the flesh assumed by the Logos at the Incarnation.” (RH, 229)
But he later mentions factors that: “might cause us to consider again the conjecture discussed above, that Marcellus did in his middle or later period admit a human soul to Christ.” (RH, 238)
Photinus
“He certainly taught that the human body of Jesus had a human mind or soul.” (RH, 236)
Limited
Since Christ has a human mind, He is limited. For example:
Eustathius said: “God hid the knowledge of the day of the Second Coming from the man, but the divine element in Jesus Christ was omniscient.” (RH, 213-4)
And Photinus argued: “Christ was only Son of God in the sense that all Christians are.” (RH, 238)
An Activity or Energy
So, the question is, in what sense was God in this man? For the Sabellians, the eternal Logos dwells in the man Jesus as an Energy or an Activity or as Inspiration and Moral agreement:
“It would seem that Eustathius … holds that the Logos is … dwelling as an ‘ENERGY’ in Jesus.” (RH, 215)
For Marcellus, with respect to “the Incarnation … the Godhead would appear to be extended simply by ACTIVITY so that in all likelihood the Monad is genuinely indivisible.” (RH, 228)
“Everybody in the ancient world accuses Photinus of reducing Christ to a mere man adopted by God, i.e. the union between Logos and man was one of INSPIRATION AND MORAL AGREEMENT” (RH, 237)
One or two Logoi?
Marcellus described the Logos as “the proper and true Logos of God.” (RH, 230). He said: There is not “another Logos and another Wisdom and Power.” (RH, 230) This is an attack aimed at the Eusebians who said that Jesus Christ is the Logos of God but God also has His own Logos. The Sabellians, therefore, found it ‘surprising’ that the Eusebians spoke of two Logoi. For the Sabellians, God only has one Logos, and that Logos works in Jesus as an activity.
Christ’s reign will end.
If the Logos is only an activity of God in the man Jesus, then that activity might end when the goal is accomplished. “Marcellus set a limit to this period of Christ’s reign. At the end of this reign the flesh of Christ was to be abandoned, the body deserted, and the Logos would return to God from whom he had (before the creation of the world) come forth.” (RH, 226-7) “He is most concerned to uphold God’s rule as complete and unmediated, and thus the kingdom of Christ must end.” (LA, 66)
Marcellus seemed to have later changed his view on this. “He played down his more eccentric earlier ideas” (RH, 238)
The Holy Spirit
In the same way, the Holy Spirit is merely an activity of or an energy from God. For Marcellus: “The Spirit remains inseparably in God, but goes forth as activity from the Father and the Logos.” (RH, 229) “The same language of going forth in energy is used for the Spirit as was used in the case of the Son.” (LA, 67)
Antecedents – Monarchian
“Scholarship has also consistently linked Marcellus with ‘Monarchian’ theologies. Monarchian theologians in the second and third centuries appear to have focused on the unity of God centred in the person of the Father. By their opponents they are accused of teaching that the Son and the Spirit do not have real independent existence and are in fact simply modes of the Father’s being. … Some scholarship has seen this theological tendency as a strong and persistent theological voice, both in Rome and in Asia through the third century, with Marcellus as the last prominent Monarchian voice.” (LA, 69)
Conclusions
The perhaps surprising conclusion is that the Arian (Eusebian) view of Jesus Christ is infinitely higher than the Sabellian view.
Another perhaps surprising conclusion is that the Socianians or so-called Biblical Unitarians are the continuation of the ancient Sabellians.
Other Articles in this Series
Church Fathers
-
- Did the church fathers describe Jesus as “god” or “God?” 6The pre-Nicene fathers described the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God,” implying that the Son is not “true” God. This confusion is caused by the translations.
- What did Sabellius (fl. c. 217-220) believe? 7Sabellius taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three portions of one single Being.
Arian Controversy
-
- The ‘orthodox’ view when the Controversy began 8RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed but that is not entirely true. This article shows that subordination was indeed ‘orthodox’ at that time.
Arius
-
- Who was Arius and why was he important? 9The term “Arianism” implies that Arius’ theology dominated the fourth-century church. But Arius was not regarded in his time as a significant writer. He left no school of disciples.
- Did Arius corrupt theology with pagan philosophy? 10Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of this. This article explains why that is a false accusation.
- Was Origen the source of Arius’ theology? 11There are significant differences between Origen and Arius.
- Did Arius say there was time when the Son was not? 12Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist. Did Arius contradict himself?
- An overview of Arius’ theology 13New research has shown that Arius is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness, and originality.
- How did Arius interpret John 1:1? 14The word theos, which is translated as “God” in John 1:1 is not equivalent to the modern English word “God.”
The Nicene Creed
-
- Eusebius’ explanation of the Creed 15Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian at the Council, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases.
- Should a Protestant accept the Nicene Creed? 16The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
- Is Homoousios the main word in the Nicene Creed? 17The term homoousios was not mentioned by anybody during the first 30 years after Nicaea. It only became part of that controversy in the 350s.
- The origin of the word Homoousios 18The word is not found in the Bible or in any orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
- Hypostasis and Ousia – Change in Meaning 19The Trinity doctrine uses two terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.
- Eusebius’ explanation of the Creed 15Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian at the Council, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases.
Arianism
-
- Athanasius invented Arianism. 20The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
- Did Arians describe the Son as a creature? 21‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
- Homoian theology 22In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
- Homoi-ousian theology 23This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
- How did Arians interpret Colossians 2:9? 24Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.
The Pro-Nicenes
-
- The Sabellians of the Fourth Century 25Eustathius and Marcellus played a major role in the formulation of the Creed but were soon deposed for Sabellianism.
- Was Athanasius a Sabellian? 26Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of Biblical orthodoxy but this article argues that he was a Sabellian.
Authors on the Arian Controversy
Extracts from the writings of scholars who have studied the ancient documents for themselves:
-
- Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy 27A summary of this book, which provides an overview of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. Lewis Ayres is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology.
- RPC (Richard) Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381.
- Lecture by RPC Hanson 28A very informative lecture on the Arian Controversy by RPC Hanson, a famous fourth-century scholar
- Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God – Nicene Creed
- Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons
- Boyd, William Union of Church and State in the Late Roman Empire
Trinity Doctrine – General
-
- Elohim 29Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
- The Eternal Generation of the Son 30The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.
- 1The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God
- 2RH refers to Hanson’s book.
- 3Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy
- 4LA refers to Lewis Ayres’ book.
- 5RH = Bishop RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
- 6The pre-Nicene fathers described the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God,” implying that the Son is not “true” God. This confusion is caused by the translations.
- 7Sabellius taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three portions of one single Being.
- 8RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed but that is not entirely true. This article shows that subordination was indeed ‘orthodox’ at that time.
- 9The term “Arianism” implies that Arius’ theology dominated the fourth-century church. But Arius was not regarded in his time as a significant writer. He left no school of disciples.
- 10Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of this. This article explains why that is a false accusation.
- 11There are significant differences between Origen and Arius.
- 12Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist. Did Arius contradict himself?
- 13New research has shown that Arius is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness, and originality.
- 14The word theos, which is translated as “God” in John 1:1 is not equivalent to the modern English word “God.”
- 15Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian at the Council, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases.
- 16The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
- 17The term homoousios was not mentioned by anybody during the first 30 years after Nicaea. It only became part of that controversy in the 350s.
- 18The word is not found in the Bible or in any orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
- 19The Trinity doctrine uses two terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.
- 20The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
- 21‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
- 22In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
- 23This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
- 24Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.
- 25Eustathius and Marcellus played a major role in the formulation of the Creed but were soon deposed for Sabellianism.
- 26Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of Biblical orthodoxy but this article argues that he was a Sabellian.
- 27A summary of this book, which provides an overview of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. Lewis Ayres is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology.
- 28A very informative lecture on the Arian Controversy by RPC Hanson, a famous fourth-century scholar
- 29Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
- 30The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.