Sabellians taught that the Father and Son are a single Person.

Summary

At the Nicene Council of 325, the Sabellians vigorously opposed Arius and Arianism, joined forces with Alexander, and significantly influenced the Nicene Creed. However, within about ten years after Nicaea, the church deposed all leading Sabellians. This article analyses what the Sabellians believed.

The three leading Sabellians in the fourth century were Eustathius, Marcellus, and Photinus. Eustathius and Marcellus attended the Nicene Council. Photinus lived a few decades later.

Sabellian theology taught as follows:

The relationship between God and His Word can be explained using the analogy of a human person and her reason.

The Logos or Word is eternally in the Father, intrinsic to the Father’s existence.

Consequently, the Father and His Logos are a single Person (hypostasis). There is only one distinct reality in the Godhead. ‘One hypostasis’ of the Godhead became their slogan and rallying cry.

The Logos (the Word) does not have a real distinct existence. He is not a distinct Person. The Logos is a mere word spoken by God. The Logos was a manifestation of the Father, a power or aspect of him not in any serious sense distinct from him.

Only one divine mind exists. Since the Father and Son are a single Existence (a single hypostasis), they have a single mind.

Since the Logos is not a divine Person with a distinct mind, He cannot become a human person. Since the Logos is as divine and immutable as the Father, He cannot suffer or die. Consequently, the birth of Jesus Christ brought into existence a new and complete human being with a human body and soul (mind), with the Word of God dwelling in the man Jesus as an energy or inspiration. 

The human body and soul (mind) absorbed all human experiences. It was only a human being who suffered and died, was resurrected, and who now sits at God’s right hand.

God’s only begotten Son is not the Logos but the man Jesus. “Begotten” refers to when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. In other words, Christ, God’s Son, did not exist before He was born from Mary.  

The Holy Spirit is not a Person. Similar to the Logos in the man Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is merely an activity of or an energy from God.

One surprising conclusion is that the Eusebian (Arian) view of Jesus Christ is infinitely higher than the Sabellian view. In the Eusebian view, Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. In the Sabellian view, he is an exceptionally inspired but mere man. 

Introduction

Experts in the field explain the Arian Controversy very differently today compared to the 19th century.

Due to ancient documents discovered and research since the 20th century, modern scholars conclude that the traditional account of the fourth-century Arian Controversy is history written by the winner and, in some respects, a complete travestyShow More

Older books and ‘elementary textbooks’ – written by authors who do not specialize in the history of the Arian Controversy – often still offer the traditional account. Show More

This article is based on the writings of experts over the last 50 years, reflecting the revised account.

This specific article quotes mainly from:

Hanson R.P.C.,
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (1988)

Williams, Rowan,
Arius: Heresy and Tradition (2002/1987)

Ayres, Lewis,
Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)

Lienhard Joseph, The “Arian” Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered, a 1987 article

The three leading Sabellians in the fourth century were Eustathius, Marcellus, and Photinus. 

In chapter 8 of his book, RPC Hanson discusses the three Sabellian bishops who were prominent during the fourth-century Arian Controversy:

      • Eustathius of Antioch
      • Marcellus of Ancyra, and
      • Photinus of Sirmium. 

Ayres, in chapter 3.1 of his book, discusses one of the three (Marcellus) as one of the four “trajectories” in the church when the Arian Controversy began. The current article combines and summarizes these two sections of these two books, with comments from Lienhard added.

The theologies of the three Sabellians were similar. Marcellus learned his theology from Eustathius, and Photinus was a devoted disciple of Marcellus. Show More

History

The Nicene Council

At Nicaea, the Sabellians joined forces with Alexander and significantly influenced the Nicene Creed. 

Eustathius and Marcellus attended Nicaea, allied with Alexander, and were some of Arius’ most vocal critics. Show More

The emperor took Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius. Consequently, their alliance with Alexander allowed the Sabellians to significantly influence the wording of the Nicene Creed. Show More

After Nicaea

However, the church deposed all leading Sabellians within about ten years after Nicaea. 

Eustathius and Marcellus were deposed in the decade 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” (Hanson, p. 209).

“About ten years after the Council of Nicaea he (Marcellus) was deposed by a council held in Constantinople” (Hanson, p. 217). Show More

Initially, the Western Church was not part of the Arian Controversy. 

For example, almost all delegates at Nicaea came from the East:

The delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).

“The Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way” (Hanson, p. 156).

But after the Eastern Church deposed the Sabellian Marcellus, the Western Church accepted him as orthodox. 

“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” (Hanson, p. 218).

“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).

In this way, the Western Church became a main player in the Controversy.

Theology

The Sabellians believed that the Logos is in the Father. 

For example, Marcellus taught:

“The Word … eternally is in the Father” (Ayres, p. 63).

“Before the world existed the Word was in the Father” (Ayres, p. 63).

“The Word was in the Father as a power” (Ayres, p. 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 (Ayres, p. 62).

Consequently, the Father and His Logos are a single Person (hypostasis). 

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” (Hanson, p. 216).

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

It follows that the Logos does not have a real distinct existence. He is not a distinct Person.

For example:

Hanson defines Sabellianism as “a failure to distinguish Father and Son” (Hanson, p. 224). 

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

Eusebius of Caesarea “accuses Marcellus of Ancyra of rejecting the hypostasis i.e. the distinct individuality, of the Son” (Hanson, p. 53).

The Logos was and is a mere word spoken by God. 

For example:

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).

“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

While ‘Arians’ taught two divine minds – God and His Son, Sabellians taught only a single divine mind. 

The Eusebians taught that God’s Son always existed with His own mind, distinct from the Father. For example, both Alexander and Athanasius recorded that Arius, one of the Eusebians, taught that the Son has a distinct ‘Wisdom’:

Athanasius wrote that, for Arius, “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; cf. Williams, p. 100).

Alexander similarly noted that Arius stated of the Son: “Nor is he the Father’s true Logos … nor his true Wisdom” (Hanson, p. 16). “He came into existence himself through the proper Logos of God and the Wisdom which was in God” (Hanson, p. 16).

Hanson explained:

In Arius’ theology, “there are two Logoi and two Wisdoms (Sophiae) … Arius distinguished between an original Reason (Logos) or Wisdom immanent from eternity in the Godhead and the Son who was not immanent in the Godhead but created” (Hanson, p. 20)

Note that these quotes use the terms ‘Logos’, ‘Word’, ‘Reason’, and ‘Wisdom’ as synonyms. For the Eusebians, there are two ‘Wisdoms’ or minds. 

The Sabellians, in contrast, consistent with Jewish monotheism, denied the existence of two divine minds. Since they argued that the Logos is ‘in’ the Father, the Father and Son are a single Existence (a single hypostasis). It follows that they also have a single mind. There is only one ‘Wisdom’ or mind in God. For example:

In response to the Eusebian claim of two Wisdoms, Marcellus denied the existence of “another Logos and another Wisdom and Power.” He described the Logos as “the proper and true Logos of God” (Hanson, p. 230).

“Marcellus of Ancyra held … God is one ousia, one hypostasis, and one prosôpon. … God had to be one prosôpon, because Marcellus could not conceive of two “I”s in the Godhead” (Lienhard, p. 426).

Who is Jesus?

The above discusses the nature of God and His Word apart from the incarnation. A further important issue is what ‘one hypostasis’ theology means for who Jesus Christ was and is.

Jesus Christ was born as a complete human person with a human mind. 

The Eusebians (the so-called Arians) argued that Christ does not have a human soul (mind) but that God gave Him a body without a human mind. Therefore, the Logos functions as Christ’s mind. In that way, the Logos directly suffered all the pain and insult of the Cross. The Eusebians described the Son as God (see here) but with a lower divinity that could suffer and even die.  

In contrast, in Sabellian theology, since the Logos is not a divine Person with a distinct mind, He cannot become a human person. Since the Logos is as divine and immutable as the Father, He cannot suffer or die. Consequently, they argued, the birth of Jesus Christ brought into existence a new and complete human being with a human body and soul (mind). For example: 

Eustathius wrote: “The man whom the Logos assumed was a complete man: ‘he consists of soul and body” (Hanson, p. 213).

“Marcellus also sees the need for a human soul or mind in Christ. … Marcellus points out that Mt 26:39 (‘not as I will, but as you will’) demonstrates that their wills were not always in harmony; hence Christ had a distinct center of consciousness (a human mind)” (Lienhard, p. 427)

Photinus “certainly taught that the human body of Jesus had a human mind or soul” (Hanson, p. 236). Show More

The Logos dwells in the man Jesus as an Energy or Inspiration. 

A critical question is, in what sense was God in this man? 

“It would seem that Eustathius … holds that the Logos is … dwelling as an energy‘ in Jesus” (Hanson, p. 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” (Hanson, p. 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” (Hanson, p. 237).

God’s only begotten Son is not the Logos but the man Jesus. 

Marcellus said: 

“The only title that is proper to the Preincarnate is “Word”; all other titles are titles of the incarnate Christ. The Word ‘goes forth’ from the Father; ‘begetting’ is better reserved for the Virgin’s conceiving. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives His mission through the Son” (Lienhard, p. 426).

Christ, God’s Son, did not exist before He was born from Mary. 

For Marcellus, the term “begotten” refers to the event, 2000 years ago, when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. “It was not the Logos that was begotten, but the Son” (Hanson, p. 224).

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).

“The Logos was only called Son or Jesus or Christ after the Incarnation” (Hanson, p. 225).

It was only a human being who suffered and died. 

Since the Logos is part of or an aspect of God, He cannot suffer or die. The human body and soul absorbed all human experiences:

“The human being absorbs all the human experiences attributed to Christ in the Gospels, leaving the divine element untouched” (Hanson, p. 215).

“This soul was able to endure the human experiences which it was unfitting for the divine element in Christ to endure” (Hanson, p. 212).

It was only a human person who was resurrected, and who now sits at God’s right hand:

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).

Initially, Marcellus taught that Jesus Christ would cease to exist. 

If the Logos is only an activity or energy of God in the man Jesus, then that activity should end when the goal is accomplished. For example:

“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” (Hanson, p. 226-7).

“He is most concerned to uphold God’s rule as complete and unmediated, and thus the kingdom of Christ must end” (Ayres, p. 66).

Marcellus seemed to have later changed his view on this:

“He played down his more eccentric earlier ideas” (Hanson, p. 238).

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is not a Person but an Activity or Energy. 

Similar to the Logos in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is merely an activity of or an 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).

Conclusions

Sabellians claimed they were not Sabellians and could point to differences, but they all taught one hypostasis. 

Marcellus insists “that he is not a Sabellian” (Ayres, p. 63). Technically, this may be true. Sabellius taught that the Father and Son are parts of the one God (see here). In contrast, as stated, for Marcellus, the Son is “in the Father” (Ayres, p. 63, 64). Nevertheless, in both views, the Father and Son are one single hypostasis (Reality), and the Son is not a distinct Person. 

Sabellians had a low view of Christ. 

One surprising conclusion is that the Eusebian (Arian) view of Jesus Christ is infinitely higher than the Sabellian view. In the Eusebian view, Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. In the Sabellian view, he is merely an exceptionally inspired man. 

Biblical Unitarians are Sabellians. 

Another surprising conclusion is that the Socianians, or so-called Biblical Unitarians, continue the theology of the ancient Sabellians. On the Internet, one finds heated debates between the Biblical Unitarians and Trinitarians, but, in fact, the two systems are very close:

Both teach that the Son of God, eternally, does not have a distinct existence.

Both teach that Jesus Christ is a mere man. 


Other Articles

What did homoousios mean to the Nicene Council?

Introduction

Authors Quoted

Due to ancient documents that have become available, stimulating significant progress in research, scholars today explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently. In fact, R.P.C. Hanson described the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, as was taught in the 19th century, as a complete travestyShow More

This article is based on books published during the last 50 years by specialists in the field. Show More

This article quotes extensively from these authors. However, to simplify reading, almost all quotes are hidden in ‘Show More’ sections. Nevertheless, since the scholarly view of the Controversy has changed so much, and since this is a highly controversial subject, these quotes are a crucial part of this article. 

Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed, as formulated at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, is accepted by most denominations. It states that the Son was begotten from the substance (ousia) of the Father, therefore He is of the same substance (homoousios).

The word homoousios consists of two parts: homós = same + ousia = substance (see The Free Dictionary or GotQuestions). Via the Latin, it is sometimes translated as ‘consubstantial’.

Two Possible Meanings

Homoousios (same substance) has two possible meanings because the word “same” has two possible meanings. For example, when I say that John and I drive ‘the same car,’ it can mean that we drive one and the same car or two different cars of the same type. Similarly:

Homoousios (same substance) can mean that the Son is a distinct Being with the same type of substance as the Father, just like a human father and son have the same type of substance. This is called qualitative or generic sameness. Show More

Or it can mean that the Father and Son are a single substance (one Being). This is called numerical sameness because there is only one substance. Show More

Alternative Interpretations

Arius rejected both of these possible meanings. In his view, the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s:

“No doubt he (Arius) believed that the Father and the Son were of unlike substance, but he did not say so directly” (Hanson, p. 187). 

The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Trinity doctrine has existed from the beginning of that controversy, and homoousios in the Nicene Council also meant ‘one substance’. However, the Trinity doctrine did not exist at the beginning but evolved over the fourth century. ‘Pro-Nicene’ theology only emerged after 360:

“The century is understood as one of evolution in doctrine” (Ayres, p. 13).

“This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy” (Hanson, p. xix-xx).

“In the period after 360, we also begin to see the emergence of what I have termed throughout the book so far ‘pro-Nicene’ theology” (Ayres, p. 167). (See here for a discussion.) 

In reality, the view that the Son is distinct from and subordinate to the Father, which is today called Arianism, was orthodox when the Controversy began:

“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father” (Hanson, p. 64).

The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god … a second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture). (See here for a discussion.)

Purpose

This article analyses what homoousios meant (1) before, (2) during, and (3) after Nicaea. It will show that scholars today conclude that homoousios at Nicaea did not mean ‘one substance’:

“We can therefore be pretty sure that homoousios was not intended to express the numerical identity of the Father and the Son” (Hanson, p. 202). Show More

Scholars conclude that it had a much looser, more flexible, and less specific meaning:

“Recent studies on the word homoousios have tended to show, not that it can be reduced to two meanings, one identifying two ousiai as one, and the other conveying a ‘generic’ sense of ‘God-stuff’ (Loofs), but that it was of a much looser, more flexible, indeed less specific and therefore less controversial significance” (Hanson, p. 170).

“Eusebius’ discussion nicely demonstrates the extent to which the promulgation of homoousios involved a conscious lack of positive definition of the term” (Ayres, p. 91). Show More

The Term Arian

As discussed here, the term ‘Arian’ is a complete misnomer because Arius did not develop a new heresy, had only a few real followers, did not leave behind a school of disciples, and was of no real significance after Nicaea. Scholars propose that the term ‘Eusebians’ would be more appropriate to describe the anti-Nicenes because Arius was a member of the group that followed Eusebius of Caesarea. Nevertheless, this article sometimes still uses the term ‘Arian’ because that is the term most people are familiar with.

Before Nicaea

Greek Philosophy and Egyptian Paganism used the term homoousios, not to say that two things are really one thing, but to compare distinct things. In other words, in these systems, it did not mean ‘one substance. Show More

As shown below, at Nicaea, Emperor Constantine insisted on the term. Beatrice suggests that Emperor Constantine proposed the term at Nicaea partly because he was familiar with it from Egyptian paganism (see article).


The Bible never refers to God’s substance and never says that the Son is homoousios with the Father. Show More


The second-century Gnostics used the term, not to say that two beings are one or even equal, but to describe distinct beings as “belonging to the same order of being” (Beatrice). Specifically, they used homoousios to say that lower deities are of ‘a similar kind’ as the highest deity from whom they emanated. However, the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed is not due to a Gnostic influence because “by the fourth century the Gnostic threat to the Christian faith was over” (Hanson, p. 856). Show More


Tertullian (155-220), writing in Latin, nowhere used a term equivalent to the Greek homoousios. However, he did use the term “substance,” and believed that God has a body (is a substance) and that the Son is part of God’s substance. In other words, he did believe that Father and Son are ‘one substance’ and a single hypostasis; a single “individual existence.” This would mean that the Father and Son are homoousios (of the same substance). Show More


Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) wrote in the early 3rd century. Sabellianism is named after him. He and his followers used homoousios to say that Father and Son are ‘one substance’ (a single hypostasis or Person). As discussed here, according to Von Mosheim, for Sabellius, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three parts of God. By the time of the Nicene Council, the church had formally rejected Sabellianism. Show More


Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 253), the most influential theologian of the first three centuries, did not use the term, despite claims to the contrary. He believed that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s and was anxious to avoid the idea that the Father and the Son were of the same material. Show More

In opposition to Tertullian and Sabellius, who taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, Origen believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases; three distinct Existences or Persons. Show More


Dispute between Rome and Alexandria – Around the year 260, there was a dispute between Rome and Alexandria about the term homoousios. It began when some Libyan Sabellians described the Son as homoousios with the Father. Show More

The bishop of Alexandria (Dionysius), overseeing the church in Libya, believing in three hypostases, rejected the term homoousios because Sabellius, who claimed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, used it. Show More

The Libyan Sabellians then appealed to the bishop of Rome (also named Dionysius). Like the Sabellians, Rome believed that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) and described the Son as homoousios with the Father. Show More

It seems as if Rome had some authority over Alexandria because it was able to persuade Alexandria to accept the term. However, Alexandria accepted it reluctantly and only as meaning two substances of the same type. In other words, in Alexandria, the term did not mean that Father and Son are one Being or equal. In the Alexandrian view, Father and Son were two distinct hypostases, with the Son subordinate to the Father. Show More


Condemned in 268 – More or less at the same time, Paul of Samosata used homoousios to describe Father and Son as a single hypostasis (Person). In 268, a council at Antioch condemned both Paul and the term homoousios as Sabellian. This fact caused the 4th-century pro-Nicenes considerable embarrassment. Show More


In conclusion, before Nicaea, only Sabellians favored the term. They include Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. For them, it meant that Father and Son are a single Person. The only non-Sabellian who accepted the term was Dionysius of Alexandria, but he accepted it reluctantly and only as meaning that the Father and Son are two distinct substances (two hypostases) of the same type. Therefore, when the Arian Controversy began, the term homoousios was regarded as Sabellian. Show More


Wikipedia – It is interesting to note that Wikipedia’s article on Homoousios (see here) avoids all discussion of the use of the term before Nicaea. It only mentions that the Gnostics used the term, but the Gnostics cannot be regarded as Christians. I attempted to add to Wikipedia’s article, but was banned from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia reflects the version of the Arian Controversy which scholars still believed in the 19th century, and which was designed to bolster the Trinity doctrine, but which specialists in the field today describe as a complete travesty.


At Nicaea

The majority opposed Homoousios.

The term homoousios was a surprising innovation in the Nicene Creed

It is not found in the Holy Scriptures, did not appear in any precious creed, was not part of the standard Christian language of the day, was already condemned in 268 at a Council in Antioch as associated with Sabellianism, and was borrowed from pagan philosophy. Not even Alexander favoured the term. For example, a pro-Alexander meeting in Antioch a few months before the Nicene Council formulated a draft creed that “makes no use of the ousia language that we see in Nicaea’s creed” (Ayres, p. 51). Show More

Furthermore, ‘same substance’ implies that God has a body and that there is a kind of common ‘God-stuff’ shared by Father and Son. This made many theologians uncomfortable. Show More

For these reasons, the term homoousios seemed especially objectionable to most delegates at Nicaea

Almost all delegates to Nicaea were from the East, and we do not know of anybody in the East who unreservedly supports the concept that the Son is homoousion with the Father. Eusebius of Caesarea, the leader of the Easterners, accepted homoousion with “obvious reluctance” (Hanson, p. 165). Show More

Emperor Constantine enforced homoousios.

Given these strong objections, some powerful force must have caused its inclusion in the Creed. That powerful force was the emperor. As astounding as it might sound to people who grew up in a culture of separation of Church and State, in the Christian Roman Empire, the emperors were the final arbiters in doctrinal disputes:

“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority” (Hanson, p. 849). 

Similarly, the Nicene Council, like all fourth-century general councils, was called and dominated by the emperor. It was not a church meeting. It was the Emperor’s meeting. He dominated it and ensured an outcome consistent with what he thought best:

“The history of the period shows time and time again that … the general council was the very invention and creation of the Emperor. General councils … were the children of imperial policy and the Emperor was expected to dominate and control them” (Hanson, p. 855). 

“Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best” (Hanson, p. 850). This included that he not only proposed the term, but he also used his position to enforce its inclusion, despite the reservations of most delegates. Show More

Emperor Constantine even dared to explain the term to that assembly of the church’s leaders

The Creed says that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father because He is begotten from the Father’s substance. As stated, the Eusebians objected that this is unbiblical and untraditional language and sounds as if the Son was begotten like humans through a material, bodily process. Show More

To counter such objections and to enable the Eusebians (Arians) to accept these new terms, Constantine insisted that these terms must be understood without material connotation. That he was able to explain the term and that the meeting accepted his explanation show his dominant role in the council. Show More

Constantine interpreted the ousia terms figuratively. 

Constantine explained that these phrases merely mean that the Son is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father alone. “The creed’s technical terms are all interpreted to mean that the Son is like the Father, and is truly from the Father” (Ayres, 91). Show More

That figurative explanation of the contentious terms allowed almost all delegates to agree to the Creed. But the main point remains that these untraditional terms were included in the Creed due to the emperor’s domination of the council. For more details, see the discussion of Eusebius’ letter.

Why did Constantine insist on homoousios?

Another article argues that Constantine found the term agreeable because he was familiar with it through his contact with Egyptian paganism. But even if that is true, he would not have proposed the term without support from at least some of the delegates. This section shows that he insisted on this term because he had taken Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius and because Alexander allied with the Sabellians, who preferred the term.

Like the Sabellians, Alexander believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis). 

The term hypostasis, meaning a distinct individual Existence, was the key term in the Arian Controversy. The core of the Controversy was whether the Son is distinct from the Father or part of the Father. The Eusebians (Arians) believed that the Son is a distinct hypostasis (a distinct Person). They believed that the Father, Son. and Spirit are three hypostases. In opposition to them, the Nicenes and Sabellians agreed that the Father and Son are one hypostasis (a single Person). Show More

Alexander’s one-hypostasis theology was in the minority

The delegates were drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire, and, following Origen, the Easterners believed in three hypostases, meaning the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Beings. Show More

Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians. 

Since he was opposed by a ‘three hypostases’ majority, and since his theology was similar to the Sabellians, Alexander joined forces with the leading Sabellians, Eustathius and Marcellus, against the Eusebians. Show More

The Emperor took Aleander’s part. 
“Constantine had taken Alexander’s part” (Ayres, p. 89). “This imperial pressure coupled with the role of his advisers in broadly supporting the agenda of Alexander must have been a powerful force” (Ayres, p. 89). 

It was probably Ossius, whom Constantine appointed as chair of the Nicene Council, and who was also his religious advisor, who advised the Emperor to take Alexander’s side. His humble position in the church, as bishop of the small city of Cordova, did not qualify him as chair of that assembly. He also believed in one hypostasis, similar to Alexander and the Sabellians. Show More

This made the Sabellians very powerful. 

Since the emperor had taken Alexander’s side, this alliance made the Sabellians influential at the council. Eustathius and Marcellus were both influential at the council and may have significantly influenced the wording of the Nicene Creed. Show More

Constantine did not insist on the term because Alexander preferred it.

This point was already made above. In his extant utterances, “Alexander never uses homoousios and indeed seems to be avoiding homoousios. Furthermore, just a few months earlier, the draft statement prepared by the pro-Alexander council at Antioch did not mention ousia or homoousios. Show More

Constantine insisted on homoousios because the Sabellians preferred the term

Since the 3rd-century Sabellians used and preferred the term homoousios, the Sabellians Marcellus and Eustathius seem likely to have endorsed homoousios, understood as meaning ‘one substance’. Once Emperor Constantine discovered that the Sabellians were in favour of homoousios, he pressed for its inclusion. Show More

Another indication of Sabellian domination in the Council is the anathema that confesses one hypostasis.  

The anathema in the Nicene Creed against all “who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance” implies that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) and substance. This is the hallmark of Sabellianism, implying that the Nicene Creed was a Sabellian victory. Show More

Therefore, the Creed was the work of a Minority

The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority. A majority opposed the Nicene creed, and that majority also opposed some of Arius’ extreme statements. Show More

The emperor’s authority and support allowed the one-hypostasis minority to include the term homoousios in the Creed, despite the Sabellian history of the term and despite the objections raised by the majority.

The Eusebian (Arian) majority accepted the emperor’s figurative explanation.

The emperor’s figurative explanation allowed the Eusebian majority to accept the term, albeit reluctantly. They were able to reconcile that explanation with their view that the Son is distinct from and subordinate to the Father. Like Dionysius of Alexandria in the 3rd century, the Eusebians at Nicaea were forced to accept the term, but accepted it only with a generic meaning. Therefore, if we take the majority view of the term homoousios, it had a rather vague meaning, namely, that the Son was truly from the Father. Show More

But the Sabellian minority understood homoousios as meaning ‘one substance.’

The Sabellians, on the other hand, who preferred the term in the first place, understood it very differently, namely, as saying that the Father and Son are ‘one substance’; a single hypostasis (a single Person). Show More

Therefore, after the Council, the Sabellians claimed the Nicene Creed as a victory for their theology:

“In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were influential at the council, and Nicaea’s lapidary formulations were never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies” (Ayres, p. 99). 
However, the Eusebians (Arians) knew that this term implies Sabellianism

For that reason, the same church mainstream (the Eusebians) opposed the Creed after Nicaea:

“It was impossible to rid the term in the minds of many of Sabellian, if not Gnostic associations” (Hanson, p. 437).

“The language of that creed seemed to offer no prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly came to be seen as implying such doctrine” (Ayres, p. 96, 97). Show More

The Nicene Creed was a Sabellian victory. 

There are several indications in the Creed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. For example, the Father alone is called “Almighty,” and the Son is God’s agent in creation (see here).

On the other hand, since homoousios was known to be a Sabellian term and given the anathema which implies a single hypostasis, perhaps it was a Sabellian victory.

Hanson says that Nicaea was a drawn battle. Simonetti says that the Creed includes a hint of opposition to the three hypostases theory, in favour of the Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ theology. Ayres says that it is not an openly Sabellian creed. Since the Nicene Creed is known as the most important creed in the history of the church, perhaps our Trinitarian authors are hesitant to admit that it was a Sabellian victory:

“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). Show More

After Nicaea

Arius’ specific theology was also no longer at issue after Nicaea

He had some extreme views, such as that the Son was made out of nothing, but almost the entire Nicene Council rejected his theology:

“Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century” (Ayres, p. 56-57).

“He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early stage in its course” (Hanson, xvii). Show More

Alexander was also not a main player after Nicaea. He died soon after Nicaea

“The Index to the Festal Letters of Athanasius dates the death of Alexander firmly to April 27th, 328” (Hanson, p. 175).

By reviving Sabellianism, Nicaea rekindled the Controversy. 

The Controversy after Nicaea was not caused by an an Arian Conspiracy, as is often claimed, but by the Sabellian elements in the Nicene Creed. In the 3rd century, Sabellianism was rejected, but the Nicene Council gave it new life.

“Nicaea has been a catalyst for conflict between pre-existing theological trajectories” (Ayres, p. 101). Show More

The conflict in the decade after Nicaea was specifically about the meaning of the term homoousios. The Sabellians claimed that the Nicene Council had accepted Sabellianism as its formal religion, but the Eusebians (Arians) insisted that the term does not imply Sabellianism. Show More

The Nicene Creed was abandoned after Nicaea. 

The same war that raged between the followers of Origen and the Sabellians in the third century and at Nicaea continued in the decade after Nicaea between the Eusebians (Arians) and the Sabellians. Again Origen’s theology triumphed. All leading pro-Nicenes were deposed. This decade may be called the ‘Post-Nicaea Correction’ because it closed the door to Sabellianism that was opened at Nicaea. Show More

Consequently, the term homoousios disappeared

Since the dispute between the Eusebians and Sabellians focused on the meaning of the term homoousios, the rejection of the Sabellians after Nicaea was also a rejection of the term homoousios. After the Sabellians were removed from their positions, the term homoousios also disappeared from the debate. Nobody mentioned homoousios for about two decades:

“What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years” (Hanson Lecture). Show More

For example, respectively 16 and 18 years after Nicaea, the Easteners formulated the Dedication Creed in 341 and the Westerners a Manifesto at the Council at Serdica in 343. Since both these creeds were formulated during the period when nobody mentioned homoousios, they do not mention the term. However, these councils focused on the more fundamental issue, of which homoousios was only a symptom, namely, whether the Son is a distinct Person. Show More

Athanasius did not defend homoousios in the 330s-340s

During the years 335-6, Athanasius and Marcellus were deposed by the Eastern Church. Meeting in Rome, they joined forces. At that time, Athanasius also developed his polemical strategy; his “masterpiece of the rhetorical art” (Ayres, pp. 106-7). However, in the 330s and 340s, Athanasius’ polemical strategy said nothing about homoousios. Show More

Athanasius revived homoousios in the 350s

By the time Constantius became emperor of the entire Empire in the early 350s, Athanasius had become extremely powerful, and Constantius attempted to isolate Athanasius. Show More

In this time of crisis for Athanasius, in the mid-350s, 30 years after Nicaea, he revived homoousios to strengthen his polemical strategy. In this way, homoousios came back into the Controversy. Athanasius had become the West’s “paragon” (model) (Hanson, p. 304). Following Athanasius, the West also began to support homoousios. Show More

Athanasius revised homoousios because his theology was similar to the Sabellians. 

Athanasius re-introduced the term into the Controversy because, as discussed here, like the Sabellians, he believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis). Specifically, he believed that the Son is part of the Father:

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

“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). Show More

In response, the Eusebians united, not against Athanasius as such, but against Sabellianism. 

In the late 350s, after Athanasius had reintroduced homoousios into the Controversy, the Eusebians (the so-called Arians) opposed the term but had differing views about the Son’s substance. Nevertheless, they were united against Sabellianism. This confirms that homoousios was a Sabellian term and that Sabellianism remained the main enemy. Show More

Since Arius’ theology did not cause the Controversy, it should not be called the ‘Arian’ Controversy. Rather, since Sabellianism was already rejected in the third century but continued to oppose the Eusebian majority in the fourth, it could more appropriately be called the ‘Sabellian Controversy’.

The Cappadocians accepted homoousios but opposed traditional Nicene theology. 

Basil of Caesarea, the first Cappadocian father, who wrote in the 360s-370s. was the first to accept both the term homoousios and the view that the Son is a distinct Person. He did not follow Athanasius and did not base his theology on the Nicene Creed. He began as an Arian (a Homoiousian), but later also accepted that the Son is homoousios with the Father. However, while Athanasius and other traditional pro-Nicenes explained homoousios as meaning one substance and one hypostasis, Basil, like most other Easterners, taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct substances (three hypostases or Persons or Beings). Show More

Where Basil differed from the other Easterners is that he said that the three Persons have exactly the same type of substance. Show More

In other words, Basil opposed the traditional Nicene theology, as represented, for example, by Athanasius, in which the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person). Show More

In the 360s and 370s, in what is known as the Meletian Schism, Basil’s view of three hypostases brought him to oppose Athanasius and Westerners, who taught one hypostasis. Show More


The Core Issue

One or three Hypostases?

The core issue in the Controversy was whether the Son is a distinct Person. In the Greek of the fourth century, the core issue was whether the Son is a hypostasis (a distinct existence):

This controversy began in the second century. While the Monarchians said that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person, Logos theology dominated, claiming that the Son is a distinct hypostasis.

In the third century, while the Sabellians confessed one hypostasis, Origen’s view dominated, teaching three hypostases.

In the fourth century, the Sabellians, Alexander, Athanasius, and the West continued teaching one hypostasis. With the emperor’s assistance, that view dominated at Nicaea, but the Eusebian three hypostases dominated for most of the century.

Later in that century, the Cappadocians taught three equal hypostases but were opposed by Athanasius and the Western pro-Nicenes, who taught one hypostasis (see here).

However, in 380, Emperor Theodosius made Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire (see here).

(See here for a discussion of the Real Main Issue in the Controversy.)

Related to Homoousios

The term homoousios was not the core issue. For example, the term disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and only surfaced again in the 350s. But the term homoousios relates directly to the question of whether the Son is a distinct Person:

If the Father and Son are a single Person, then they are one substance (homoousios). It also follows that the Son, like the Father, is eternal and immutable. These theologians included Tertullian, the Sabellians, Paul of Samosata, Alexander, Athanasius, and the Western Church generally. Show More

But if the Son is a distinct Person, as Origen, Arius, and the Eusebians believed, then the Father alone exists without cause, which implies that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s. At Nicaea, almost all Eusebians (Arians) accepted the term homoousios but not as meaning ‘same substance’. They had accepted the emperor’s figurative explanation of the term.

Ways of understanding the Bible

The core issue relates to two ways of understanding the Bible:

In the Old Testament, God is one. There is little indication of a second divine Being.

But the New Testament reveals a second divine Being, namely, the Son of God, who is also called ‘I am’ and ‘the First and the Last’, who is God’s Agent in the creation of all things and maintains all things. So, the question arose, how does the Son relate to the Father?

‘One hypostasis’ theology argues from the Old Testament and claims that, since the Old Testament asserts only one divine Being, the ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ must be one Person.

Three hypostases’ theology accepts the evidence from the New Testament that the Son is indeed a distinct divine Person. It identifies three divine Persons (three hypostases): the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


Overview

The fourth-century Controversy continued the controversy of the preceding century, which was mainly between Sabellius’ one-hypostasis theology, which adopted the term homoousios, and Origen’s three hypostases, which rejected the term. In that century, Sabellianism was defeated.

However, at Nicaea, through the emperor’s support, a Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ minority had the upper hand and was able to insert the term homoousios in the Creed, despite the majority’s objections. Emperor Constantine appeased the majority’s fears by explaining the terms ousia and homoousios highly figuratively, saying that it only means that the Son is truly from the Father. This enabled the Eusebian majority to accept the Creed.

After Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed that the term homoousios means that the church had accepted a one-hypostasis theology. This caused a few years of intense strife during which all leading Sabellians were exiled.

After that, nobody mentioned homoousios for more than two decades. For example, neither Athanasius nor the councils in the 340s mention homoousios. Rather, the focus was now on the more fundamental issue: whether the Son is a distinct Person (a hypostasis).

In the mid-350s, 30 years after Nicaea, Athanasius, who also had a ‘one hypostasis’ theology, brought the term back into the Controversy, causing the Eusebians to divide into three major views with respect to the Son’s substance.

In the 360-370s, Basil of Caesarea, the first Cappadocian father, was the first pro-Nicene to explain homoousios as three hypostases. This caused some fierce conflict between Basil and Athanasius.

In the end, the church was divided into at least the following factions:

Western pro-Nicenes defended homoousios and explained it as saying that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (one Person). (For example, at the Council of Serdica)

Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) also accepted homoousios but interpreted it in a generic sense, meaning three distinct but equal hypostases (see here).

Homoians Eusebians, who dominated the church for much of the 350s to 370s, rejected all talk of God’s substance, including the term homoousios (see here).

Homoiousian Eusebians claimed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same (see here).

Heterousian Eusebians taught that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s.

In the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made the Western pro-Nicene view the State Religion of the Roman Empire and destroyed Arianism among the Romans through violent persecution (see here).

However, the other European nations remained ‘Arians.’ Consequently, after these other nations had taken control of the Western Empre in the fifth century, and divided it into various Arian kingdoms, Europe was Arian once again.

In the sixth century, the Eastern Emperor Justinian subjected the Arian kingdoms and set up the Byzantine Papacy, a system through which the Eastern Empire ruled the West through the Papacy. This continued for two centuries. During this period, the dominance of the Eastern Empire and the Roman Church converted all the Arian kingdoms to Nicene theology.

After the influence of the Eastern Empire dwindled in the West in the 8th century, the Roman Church managed to survive as a distinct organization and grew in power to become the Church of the Middle Ages. 

In conclusion, throughout the Controversy, the only people who regarded homoousios as saying that Father and Son are one substance, as the Trinity doctrine also claims, were the one-hypostasis (Sabellian) theologians. In reality, the Trinity doctrine continues ancient Sabellianism. (See here for a discussion of the Trinity doctrine.)


Other Articles