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 travesty. Show More
| Documents discovered – “In the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents” (Williams, p. 11-12).
Research – “The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 11). |
This article is based on books published during the last 50 years by specialists in the field. Show More
| Hanson, R.P.C. (Bishop) – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1987)
Williams, Rowan (Archbishop) – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, (2002/1987)
Ayres, Lewis (Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology) – Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)
Anatolios, Khaled – Retrieving Nicaea (2011) |
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
| “A standard connotation of the term homoousios was membership in a class, a generic similarity between things that were, in some sense, co-ordinate [equal in rank or importance]. The term was used loosely to point to markers of commonality and did not at all exclude relationships between realities that were hierarchically distinct in other ways” (Ayres, p. 94-95). |
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
| “As it stands, the homoousios can be read either as an affirmation of the divine unity or as an affirmation of the equal deity” (Hanson, p. 170-1).
For a further discussion of the different meanings of “same,” see Right Reason or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. |
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
| “While a large number of scholars have contended that the council used the term in this latter (numerical) sense, there are good grounds for questioning such a conclusion” (Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons – Nicene Creed” pp. 82-85). |
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
| “It was intended to have a looser, more ambiguous sense than has in the past history of scholarship been attached to it” (Hanson, p. 202).
“Studor … notes that the term homoousios is not used with precision at Nicaea and that later arguments for homoousios always involve constructing accounts of its meaning” (Ayres, p. 238).
Hanson agrees with Loofs’ statement that “the meaning of homoousios was so fluid that we cannot determine its meaning from its appearance in N alone” (Hanson, p. 192).
“Our investigation of the use of homoousios before it was inserted in N, then, should have suggested strongly that it would be unwise to give the word a strictly defined or single meaning” (Hanson, p. 196). |
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
| Aristotle was known for using the term οὐσία (ousia) to describe his philosophical concept of Primary Substances (Beatrice).
“In the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that the Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature” (Beatrice). |
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 term homoousios “is not to be found in the Holy Scripture” (P.F. Beatrice). “Nobody could pretend that it was Scriptural” (Hanson, p. 167).
“The pro-Nicenes are at their worst, their most grotesque, when they try to show that the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day were really to be found in Scripture” (Hanson, p. 846). |
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
| “The term was adopted in the second century by Gnostics, probably to indicate ‘same ontological status’ or ‘of a similar kind’” (Ayres, p. 93).
It meant, “belonging to the same order of being” (Hanson, p. 191). They did not use the word to mean “identity, nor even equality” (Hanson, p. 191).
“Hippolytus quotes Gnostics as using the word homoousios, none of them suggesting identity, nor even equality” (Hanson, p. 191). |
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
| Tertullian, “writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding to (the Greek term) homoousios” (Hanson, p. 190).
“Tertullian … had already used the Latin word substantia (substance) of God … For him God … had a body … It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance” (Hanson, p. 184).
He used “the expression unius substantiae.” “This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea … But this is a far from plausible theory” (Hanson, p. 184). “The word in Greek translation of Tertullian’s una substantia would not be the word homoousios but mia hypostasis (one hypostasis)” (Hanson, p. 193).
(See here for more on Tertullian’s theology.) |
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
| “If we can trust Basil here, it is interesting to observe that Sabellius had apparently used homoousios in a Trinitarian context early in the third century” (Hanson, p. 192).
“Sabellius used it (homoousios) … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192).
He used the term “in the sense of numerical sameness” (Ninan).
“He considered the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as being three portions of the divine nature” (Von Mosheim J.L. p220). |
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
| Rejected homoousios
“Origen may have rejected the term” (Ayres, p. 92).
“Origen had rejected the term (substance) years before for fear that it attributed materiality to the divine” (Steven Wedgeworth).
Did not describe the Son as homoousios
“Origen certainly did not apply the word homoousios to the Son and did not teach that the Son is ‘from the ousia’ of the Father” (Hanson, p. 185).
“It is almost certainly right to conclude that Origen could not have spoken of the Son as homoousios with the Father” (Williams, p. 132).
“The likelihood of Origen having described the Son as consubstantial with the Father is very slim” (Hanson, p. 68). The word “consubstantial … would have suggested to him that the Father and the Son were of the same material, an idea which he was anxious to avoid” (Hanson, p. 68).
“One famous passage in which he seems to use the term homoousios … may have been adulterated by later writers” (Ayres, p. 24).
Different Substance
Epiphanius stated that “Origen often declared ‘that the only-begotten God is alien from the Father’s Godhead and substance’ (ousia)” (Hanson, p. 62).
From the Father’s substance
“Origen never says that the Son comes from the substance of the Father” (Hanson, p. 67).
|
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
| “He (Origen) taught that there were three hypostases (three distinct Existences or Persons) within the Godhead” (Hanson, p. 184).
“He (Origen) deplores those heretics who confuse the ‘concepts’ of Father and Son and make them out to be one in hupostasis, as if the distinction between Father and Son were only a matter of concepts and of names, a purely mental distinction” (Williams, Rowan, p132). |
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
| “It seems at least likely that Dionysius of Alexandria, in a campaign against some local Sabellians had denied the term” (Ayres, p. 94).
Both “Dionysius of Rome and Eusebius of Caesarea label” “the accusers of Dionysius of Alexandria” as “Sabellians” (Beatrice).
“Stead … believes … it was the people in Libya criticized by Dionysius of Alexandria who had introduced the term. Simonetti agrees that it was not Dionysius of Rome who first used the word homoousios in the interchange” (Hanson, p. 193). |
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
| “It seems … likely that Dionysius of Alexandria, in a campaign against some local Sabellians, had denied the term” (Ayres, p. 94).
According to Basil of Caesarea, “Dionysius of Alexandria … sometimes rejected homoousios because Sabellius used it … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192). |
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
| Rome championed the term:
“Dionysius of Rome … (also) claimed that Father and Son were homoousios” (Ayres, p. 94).
He “at least took up or championed it (the term homoousios)” (Hanson, p. 193).
Rome taught one hypostasis:
“Dionysius of Rome … found homoousios acceptable but could not tolerate a division of the Godhead into three hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192, quoting Loofs).
“Dionysius of Rome harshly condemned those who divided the Trinity into three distinct hypostases” (Beatrice).
“Dionysius of Rome … said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy ‘into three sorts of … separated hypostases and three Godheads’; people who hold this in effect produce three gods” (Hanson, p. 185).
Rome was Sabellian.
“His doctrine could only with difficulty be distinguished from that of Sabellius” (Hanson, p. 193).
|
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
| Accepted homoousios reluctantly:
Dionysius of Alexandria was “persuaded by his namesake of Rome to accept (the term)” (Ayres, p. 94) but he “only adopted it with reluctance” (Hanson, p. 193).
As meaning ‘of a similar kind’:
He accepted it “in a general sense, meaning ‘of similar nature, ‘of similar kind’” (Hanson, p. 192), “belonging to the same class” (Ayres, p. 94), or “meaning that both had the same kind of nature” (Hanson, p. 193).
Not necessarily equal:
This “did not at all exclude relationships between realities that were hierarchically distinct in other ways” (Ayres, p. 94-95).
Athanasius
He “tried tendentiously to demonstrate that they were all without distinction supporters of homoousios” (Beatrice).
Athanasius “says, somewhat disingenuously, that both the bishops of Rome and of Alexandria approved of the word homoousios” (Hanson, p. 192).
|
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
| One hypostasis
“In using the expression ‘of one substance’, Paul declared that Father and Son were a solitary unit;” “a primitive undifferentiated unity” (Williams, pp. 159-160).
Homoousios condemned
“The council that deposed Paul of Samosata in 268 condemned the use of homoousios” (Ayres, p. 94; cf. Hanson, p. 193-194).
According to Hilary, “Our fathers (the 268-council) … repudiated homoousion” because “the word to them spelt Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 194).
Embarrassment
“The condemnation of homoousios by this well-known council” caused “considerable embarrassment to those theologians who wanted to defend its inclusion in an official doctrinal statement in the next century” (Ayres, p. 94; cf. Hanson, p. 195).
“There was some suspicion of the word homoousios on the part of the orthodox because of its earlier association with Gnosticism and even Manicheism. Even its defenders experienced some embarrassment about this term because of its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosata” (Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, pp. 82-85).
|
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
| “Homoousios before it was placed in N must have been regarded as a term which carried with it heretical, or at least unsound, overtones to theologians in the Eastern church” (Hanson, p. 195).
“The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a Sabellian or monarchian tendency” (P.F. Beatrice).
“The word homousios had not had … a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the Council of Antioch, and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian meaning. It was accepted by the heretic Paul of Samosata and this rendered it very offensive to many in the Asiatic Churches” (Philip Schaff). |
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
| Not in the Scriptures
“Nobody could pretend that it was Scriptural” (Hanson, p. 167).
The term homoousios “is not to be found in the Holy Scripture” (P.F. Beatrice).
Not Traditional Language
“Neither before nor during Constantine’s time is there any evidence of a normal, well-established Christian use of the term homoousios in its strictly Trinitarian meaning,” i.e., to describe the relation of the Son to the Father (Beatrice).
“To say that the Son was ‘of the substance’ of the Father, and that he was ‘consubstantial’ with him were certainly startling innovations. Nothing comparable to this had been said in any creed or profession of faith before” (Hanson, p. 166-7).
Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (p. 236) and “conceptual innovation” (pp. 234-5).
Anti-Nicenes objected that these words are “untraditional” (Williams, pp. 234-5).
Alexander did not use it.
“Neither Alexander nor the recent Council of Antioch had described the Son’s relation to the Father by introducing ousia or its cognates” (Hanson, p. 167).
“The word homoousios is not to be found in the extant writings of Alexander of Alexandria” (Beatrice).
Borrowed from Pagan Philosophy
“The pro-Nicenes are at their worst, their most grotesque, when they try to show that the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day were really to be found in Scripture” (Hanson, p. 846).
|
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 Christian writers such notions seemed irredeemably materialist, and made it easy for them to suppose that the mere use of homoousios implies a certain materiality” (Ayres, p. 93).
“This word (substance) was thought, as it was always thought by Arians, to introduce corporeal notions into the Godhead” (Hanson, p. 346).
“Williams points out that the objection based on the Manichean tendency of the word assumed that it implied that the Son was a component or extension of God, thus representing God as composite, perhaps as material, and suggesting that there is a kind of common ‘God-stuff’ shared by Father and Son” (Hanson, p. 197).
|
| 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
| Almost all delegates were from the East.
“Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern [Greek] half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).
The East opposed homoousios.
“We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports homoousion as applied to the Son” (Hanson, p. 169).
The term “seemed especially objectionable to many bishops and theologians of the East” [Bernard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, 1966, pp. 51-53].
“The Origenists had considerable reservation about homoousios and the other phrases containing the term ousios” (Erickson).
“A majority opposed the Nicene creed. The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius!” (Bible.ca).
|
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
| Constantine proposed the term:
The Emperor accepted Eusebius’ creed “and he advised all present to agree to it … with the insertion of the single word ‘consubstantial’” (Beatrice). (See also Eusebius’ letter.)
“The decisive catchword of the Nicene confession, namely, homoousios, comes from … the emperor himself” (Bernard Lohse, in ‘A Short History of Christian Doctrine’, 1966, p51-53).
“Constantine did put forth the Nicene creed term ‘homoousios’.” “The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios” (Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, p82-85).
Constantine enforced the term.
He “pressed for its inclusion” (Hanson, p. 211).
“The Origenists had considerable reservation about homoousios and the other phrases containing the term ousios (substance), but the emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved” (Erickson) [Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, p82-85].
The emperor “himself proposed and insisted on the word homoousios” (Erickson, Millard J, God in Three Persons, p82-85).
“’Homoousios’ and ‘from the essence of the Father’ were added to the creed by Constantine himself, bearing witness to the extent of his influence at the council” (Jörg Ulrich. Nicaea and the West. Vigiliae Christianae 51, no. 1 (1997): 10-24. 15.).
“The concept put into the creed by Constantine himself, the homoousios” (Bernard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, 1966, pp. 51-53).
Constantine “himself … insisted upon the word homoousia being included in the creed.” (Jörg Ulrich. “Nicaea and the West.” Vigiliae Christianae 51, no. 1 (1997) p 15.).
|
| 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
| Homoousios explains ‘from the substance.’
“All the theologians … probably saw homoousios as expanding on and secondary to the phrase ‘from the ousia of the Father’” (Ayres, p. 90-91).
Sounds materialistic
“The phrase ‘from the ousia of the Father’ also had a complex history of use before Nicaea, much of which revolved around its seemingly materialistic or inappropriately genetic implications. Origen treats this phrase as implying something like a human birth and thus a materialistic understanding of divine being. … Eusebius of Caesarea, also writing before Nicaea, demonstrates similar worries that the phrase implies a materialistic diminution of the Father’s being in the generation of the Son” (Ayres, p. 97).
|
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
| Eusebius asked:
“Eusebius also reports that he himself secured clarity that the phrase ‘from the essence of the Father’ did not mean ‘is part of the Father’s substance’” (Ayres, pp. 90-91).
The emperor explained:
Constantine did his best “to placate Eusebians” (Ayres, p. 91).
Eusebius of Caesarea “gives the impression throughout this letter that Constantine took the initiative in all the matters that the letter deals with, apparently regarding himself as qualified to deal with any discussion about the profound questions raised by the Christian doctrine of God” (Hanson, p. 160).
Not material:
“It seems … that Constantine interceded on behalf of those unhappy with homoousios, insisting on the importance of understanding the term without material connotation” (Ayres, p. 96).
“Eusebius … writes that Constantine himself spoke, endorsing the term homoousios, but insisting that it did not imply any material division in God” (Ayres, pp. 90-91).
Eusebius “alleges that the Emperor himself qualified the addition of ‘consubstantial’ by saying that it must not be understood “in the sense of any corporeal experiences.” It also does not mean that the Son “exists as a result of division or any subtraction from the Father” (Hanson, p. 165).
“Eusebius directly ascribes to Constantine only an emphasis on understanding homoousios without reference to material division or the sorts of change associated with corporeal existence” (Ayres, p. 96).
|
| 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
| “This term, however, upon which Constantine insisted, was given a special turn of meaning here. What was being affirmed and insisted upon was that the Son is different, utterly different, from any of the created beings. He is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father” [Erickson, Millard J, God in Three Persons, p82-85].
“Eusebius tells us that once he had been assured that this phrase (from the ousia of the Father) served only to indicate that the Son was truly from the Father he could agree even to homoousios” (Ayres, p. 96). |
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
| Hypostasis meant a distinct existence.
“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).
Arians believed in three hypostases.
“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).
Sabellians and Nicenes maintained one hypostasis.
“There were present at the Council people, such as Marcellus of Ancyra, who were quite ready to maintain that there is only one hypostasis in the Godhead, and who were later to be deposed for heresy because they believed this” (Hanson, p. 167).
“’One hypostasis’ of the Godhead was to become the slogan and rallying-cry of the continuing Eustathians” (Hanson, p. 213).
“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.] (See here for a discussion of Nicene theology.)
Eustathius and Marcellus were Sabellians
Eustathius attended the Nicene Council (Hanson, p. 208) but was deposed soon after Nicaea (“in 330 or 331”) (Hanson, p. 210) “primarily for the heresy of Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 211).
“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix) Marcellus of Ancyra “cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism” (Hanson’s Lecture).
|
| 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
| Most were from the East.
“Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).
“The Westerners at the Council (of Nicaea) represented a tiny minority” (Hanson, p. 170).
The East followed Origen.
“The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) were ultimately disciples of Origen” (Frend, WHC: The Rise of Christianity).
The East believed in three hypostases.
For example, the Eastern Dedication Creed of 341 declared a belief in three hypostases.
“The dyohypostatic (two hypostases) tradition in the early fourth century is most clearly and fully represented by Eusebius of Caesarea” (Lienhard). (Eusebius was the Eastern leader.)
|
| 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
| “Eustathius and Marcellus … 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).
“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” (Hanson, p. 171). |
| 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
| The emperor’s agent:
In the Council, he acted “as the Emperor’s representative” (Hanson, p. 154) and as Constantine’s “agent” (Hanson, p. 190).
“Ossius … represented the policy of Constantine” (Hanson, p. 170).
He believed in one hypostasis.
“Ossius evidently believed that God is a single hypostasis” (Hanson, p. 870).
“It also seems possible that Ossius at least believed in only one hypostasis” (Hanson, p. 167).
Eighteen years later, in 343, Ossius helped to compose another creed (at Serdica) (Hanson, p. 201) which had “the most alarmingly Sabellian complexion” (Hanson, p. xix). That manifesto explicitly confesses a single hypostasis.
|
| 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
| “Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus … Both were influential at the council” (Ayres, p. 99).
“Marcellus … played a major role at Nicaea” (Ayres, p. 62).
“Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Alexander must all have been key players in the discussions” (Ayres, p. 89).
“Marcellus of Ancyra … had been an important figure at the council and may have significantly influenced its wording” (Ayres, p. 431). |
| 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
| “Alexander in his extant utterances never uses homoousios, though there are several places where its application to the Son would have been apt” (Hanson, p. 140).
“Alexander indeed seems to be avoiding homoousios” (Hanson, p. 139). |
| 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
| “Marcellus and Eustathius also seem likely to have endorsed homoousios because of the notion of shared being” (Ayres, p. 95). “Shared being” can be understood as ‘one Person’.
“For him (Marcellus) homoousios, whose presence in N he must have welcomed enthusiastically …” (Hanson, p. 229-230).
“Once he (Constantine) discovered that the Eustathians [the Sabellians] … were in favour of it (homoousios) … he pressed for its inclusion” (Hanson, p. 211). |
| 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
| Nicaea teaches one hypostasis.
“He (Eustathius, a leading Sabellian) could have replied … that the notorious anathema in N gave him every encouragement to believe that there is only one distinct reality in the Godhead” (Hanson, p. 216). (“One distinct reality” is this quote is equivalent to ‘one hypostasis.’)
Sabellian 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” (Hanson, p. 235).
“The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a view recognized as a heresy even at that period” (Hanson’s Lecture).
“The condemnation … that the Son is ‘of another hypostasis or ousia’ from the Father … can only have been a highly ambiguous and extremely confusing statement. By the standard of later orthodoxy … it is a rankly heretical (i.e. Sabellian) proposition” (Hanson, p. 167).
“The anathema of Nicaea against those who maintain that the Son is of a different hypostasis or ousia from those of the Father and 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” Sabellianism. (Hanson Lecture).
See here for a further discussion of this anathema. |
| 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 decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority” [Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41].
The reformed website Bible.ca states: “We will grant … that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. … The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius!”. |
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
| “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).
“Eusebius tells us that once he had been assured that this phrase served only to indicate that the Son was truly from the Father he could agree even to homoousios” (Ayres, p. 96). |
| 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
| “Of course, those who were broadly in the same trajectory as Alexander would have easily been able to sign up to Nicaea’s terms but would have read them in a very different manner” (Ayres, p. 91).
“For him (Marcellus) homoousios … meant not merely ‘consubstantial’ or ‘of similar substance’, but ‘of identical being‘” (Hanson, pp. 229-230).
“Marcellus and Eustathius also seem likely to have endorsed homoousios because of the notion of shared being that was an accepted part of its semantic range, but not because they thought it implied two distinct eternally co-ordinate realities” (Ayres, pp. 95-96). [“Co-ordinate” here means two distinct but more or less equal entities.]. |
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 terms aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, tending to Sabellianism” (Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41).
“To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency among these existing trajectories” (Ayres, p. 431). [The term “unitarian” includes Sabellianism. For example: “A great deal of controversy was caused in the years after the council by some supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (Ayres, p. 431)]
The Homoiousians (a later group of Arians) rejected “homoousios as leading to Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 439) “To them an acceptance of homoousios … would naturally appear to involve them in pure indiscriminate Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 440)
Athanasius wrote that the Arian objection to the term “homoousios” was that it was considered to be “un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency.” [Athanasius (1911), “In Controversy With the Arians”, Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn]. |
| 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
|
“The ‘Asiatics’ (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) … were able to include in N a hint of opposition to the three hypostases theory” (Hanson, p. 171, quoting Simonetti).
It is not “an openly Sabellian creed.” “It is going too far to say that N 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). Ayres says that his conclusions are close to Hanson’s (Ayres, p. 92).
|
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
| As another article explains, people believe that Arius was important because Athanasius argued that his opponents were all followers of Arius. Since Arius’ theology was already rejected at Nicaea, Athanasius’ purpose was to discredit his opponents by showing that they all followed an already rejected theology. For that purpose, he quoted Arius at length, pretending to address his opponents’ theology. But Athanasius’ opponents – the anti-Nicenes – did not follow Arius. In fact, the so-called Arians opposed Arius’ extreme teachings (see here). |
| 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 Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a view recognized as a heresy even at that period” (Hanson). |
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
| For example, the following is one event during that period, “probably in 326 or 327” (Ayres, p. 101):
“The fifth-century ecclesiastical historian Sozomen reports a dispute immediately after the council, focused not on Arius, but … concerning the precise meaning of the term homoousios.
Some [the Eusebians] thought this term … implied the non-existence of the Son of God; and that it involved the error of Montanus and Sabellius. …
Eustathius accused Eusebius [of Caesarea] of altering the doctrines ratified by the council of Nicaea, while the latter declared that he approved of all the Nicaean doctrines, and reproached Eustathius for cleaving to the heresy of Sabellius” (Ayres, p. 101).
“This event was only one part of the conflict that now began” (Ayres, p. 101).
|
| 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
| Pro-Nicenes deposed
“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).
“Eustathius lost this battle and was deposed at some point between 326 and 331” (Ayres, p. 101).
“The new synod met in the summer of 336 and deposed Marcellus for holding the heresy of Paul of Samosata” (Williams, p. 80).
(Read Article) |
| 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
|
“There is a near-fifteen year absence before the creed is mentioned again” (Ayres, p. 100).
“After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. …This lack of usage also results from the association of Nicaea with the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra” (Ayres, p. 97).
|
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
|
The main purpose of the Dedication Council was to condemn Sabellianism. It explicitly asserts three hypostases (three Persons or Beings with three distinct minds).
The Serdica Council never met as one. The Western and Eastern delegates met separately and issued different creeds. While the Eastern creed maintained three hypostases, the Western creed explicitly asserts one hypostasis.
|
| 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’ polemics claimed that:
-
-
- Arius originated a new heresy, causing the Controversy.
- All opponents of Nicaea are followers of Arius.
- Athanasius himself preserves scriptural orthodoxy.
- An Arian Conspiracy caused him to be exiled for violence, but, in reality, he was exiled for opposition to Arianism.
These statements may sound familiar because the church has believed Athanasius for more than 1500 years, but none are true. The truth of the Arian Controversy was only revealed in the last 100 years.
“Athanasius’ engagement with Marcellus in Rome seems to have encouraged Athanasius towards the development of” “an increasingly sophisticated account of his enemies;” “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years;” “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art” (Ayres, p. 106-7).
|
| 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
| Athanasius had become powerful.
“Towards the end of his life he had reached a position in which his power (in Egypt), not only ecclesiastical but also political, was virtually beyond challenge” (Hanson, p. 421).
The emperor marginalized Athanasius.
For example, at Milan in 355, “almost everybody present acquiesced in the Emperor’s demands, condemned Athanasius, and probably also signed some formula which was not openly Arian but was patient of an Arian interpretation” (Hanson, p. 333-4).
|
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 revived Homoousios.
“It is not until he (Athanasius) writes the De Decretis (356 or 357) that Athanasius again mentions the word and begins to defend it” (Hanson, p. 436).
“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s” (Ayres, p. 144).
The West followed slowly:
“In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century. The 350s show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west” (Ayres, p. 135).
|
| 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
| One hypostasis
“Just what the Council intended this expression 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 … as the sun and its splendour are inseparable’” (Philip Schaff).
Athanasius condoned 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).
“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).
|
| 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
Euisebians were divided:
-
-
- The Homoiousians said the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s.
- The Heterousians argued that no being’s substance can be like or similar to the Father’s because the Father alone exists without cause.
- The Homoians rejected all talk of God’s substance, including homoousios.
United against Sabellianism:
The Homoians “included bishops of different stripes.” What “united” them was “the desire to find a solution to the ongoing controversy that would rule out any theologies seemingly tainted with Marcellan emphases” (Ayres, p. 138).
“Basil (of Ancyra – leader of the Homoiousians) made ad hoc alliances with theologians such as Acacius (leader of the Homoians) against Photinus and Marcellus” (Ayres, p. 150). (Photinus was “perhaps the most visible representative of a Marcellan theology in these years (in the 350s)” (Ayres, p. 134).)
|
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
| “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). |
Where Basil differed from the other Easterners is that he said that the three Persons have exactly the same type of substance. Show More
| “Basil … gives his own interpretation of it (homoousios).” He said: “Whatever ousia is hypothetically taken to be the Father’s, that certainly must also be taken to be the Son’s.” He proposes “like unalterably according to ousia” (Hanson, p. 696-7). |
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
| The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God” (Ayres, p. 48). “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). |
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 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).
See the article on the Meletian Schism.
|
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
The second-century Monarchianism, the third-century Sabellians, and Athanasius in the fourth had different forms of one-hypostasis theology:
-
-
- The Monarchians stated that Father and Son are two names for the same Person.
- Sabellius proposed that the Son and Father are two parts of the one Person of God.
- Athanasius said the Son is part of the Father.
But they all believed in one hypostasis, as opposed to three hypostases as proposed by Origin and the fourth-century Eusebians. Therefore, the fact that Athanasius reintroduced homoousios into the Controversy confirms the one-hypostasis implication of the term. |
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