This article quotes mainly from world-class scholars of the last 50 years, specializing in the fourth-century Arian Controversy:
|
Hanson, Bishop RPC
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1988
Williams, Archbishop Rowan
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
Ayres, Lewis
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology
Anatolios, Khaled,
Retrieving Nicaea, 2011
|
Summary
Eustathius of Antioch was a key driver for Nicene theology at Nicaea. However, since Eustathius taught that the Father and the Son are a single hypostasis (one single Person), he was exiled for Sabellianism soon after Nicaea. But his followers remained a significant group at Antioch.
Meletius was elected as bishop of Antioch in 361, but later accepted Cappadocian theology, in which the Son is a distinct hypostasis. The Cappadocians understood homoousios as meaning two distinct substances of exactly the same kind.
The Eustathians were willing to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three prosōpa (masks or faces), but not three hypostases. The Cappadocian Basil of Caesarea objected that this is what Sabellius also taught.
While Meletius was bishop of Antioch, the Eustathians elected Paulinus as their rival bishop of Antioch. Like Eustathius, he was a Sabellian, believing that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person).
Therefore, the Meletian Schism was a dispute in Antioch between two pro-Nicene groups:
Paulinus and the Eustathians were the traditional Nicenes. They accepted ‘homoousios’ as meaning ‘one substance,’ taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), and were supported by Athanasius and the bishop of Rome (Damasus). But Basil of Caesarea regarded this as Sabellianism.
The Meletians and the Cappadocians also accepted homoousios but understood it as meaning two substances that are alike in all respects. Therefore, they believed that the Son is a distinct hypostasis (Person). But the Western pro-Nicenes thought that this is Arianism.
Consequently, the two most important pro-Nicenes of the fourth century, Athanasius of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea, found themselves on opposite sides in the Meletian Schism.
Eustathians
| At Nicaea, Eustathius was a key driver for Nicene theology but was deposed for Sabellianism soon after. |
Antioch was an important center for Christianity in the 4th century. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, attended the Nicene Council in 325 and significantly influenced the wording of the Nicene Creed. Constantine pressed for the inclusion of homoousios because Eustathius and his supporters favoured it. Show More
| “Once he (Constantine) discovered that the Eustathians … were in favour of it (homoousios) … he pressed for its inclusion” (Hanson, p. 211). |
Eustathius taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are a single hypostasis (one single Person). In his view, the Son or Logos is merely an aspect or part of the Father and does not have a distinct existence. Show More
| “Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis“ (Ayres, p. 69).
“’The Logos for Eustathius,’ says Loofs, … ‘has or is no proper hypostasis’” (Hanson, p. 215). |
For this reason, he was exiled for Sabellianism soon after Nicaea:
“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 211). Show More
| “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). |
| The Eustathians continued to teach that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person). |
After Eustathius had been exiled, his followers remained a significant group at Antioch. They continued his teachings and elected rival bishops:
| “’One hypostasis’ of the Godhead was to become the slogan and rallying-cry of the continuing Eustathians” (Hanson, p. 213). |
Cappadocians
| Meletius was elected as bishop of Antioch by Arians but later accepted Cappadocian theology. |
In 361, the Eusebians (Arians) majority elected Meletius as bishop of Antioch. However, Meletius later adopted the Cappadocian teaching, which accepted the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios. Show More
| “In 361 the majority of the Antiochian church elected as bishop Meletius, who had formerly been an Arian, and was ordained by this party, but after his election professed the Nicene orthodoxy” (Philip Schaff). |
| Meletius and the Cappadocians believed that the Son is a distinct hypostasis (Person). |
“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).
See here for a discussion of Cappadocian theology.
| The Eustathians said that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three prosōpa, but not three hypostases. |
The Eustathians refused to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases. Instead, they said each is a distinct prosopon (pl. prosōpa). While prosopon can mean hypostasis, in Ancient Greek, prosopon originally designated one’s “face” or “mask.” In that sense, it was used in Greek theatre, since actors wore masks on stage to reveal their character and emotions to the audience. Applied to the Trinity, it can indicate different roles played by a single Person. For that reason, the Sabellians accepted the term, but Basil objected that this is what Sabellius also taught. Show More
| “The ‘Paulinians’ … considered it (Basil’s concern) sufficiently addressed by acknowledging that each of the Trinity is a distinct person, or prosōpon. But Basil deemed this stratagem inadequate, since the term prosōpon could mean simply “role” or “manifestation,” and thus even a Sabellian could subscribe to such a confession” (Anatolios, p. 27).
Basil wrote: “It is not enough to count differences in the prosōpa. It is necessary also to confess that each prosōpon exists in a true hypostasis. The mirage of prosōpa without hypostaseis is not denied even by Sabellius, who said that the same God, though he is one subject, is transformed according to the need of each occasion and is thus spoken of now as Father, now as Son, and now as Holy Spirit” (Epistle 210.5.36–41.).
“Basil treats hypostasis and πρόσωπον (prosopon) as synonymous, but he also sees πρόσωπον as less appropriate, too close to Sabellianism” (Ayres, p. 210).
“The use of prosopon which was not characteristic of Marcellus but was apparently used by Sabellius …” (Hanson, p. 328).
“The doctrinal difference between the Meletians and the old Nicenes consisted chiefly in this: that the latter acknowledged three hypostases in the divine trinity, the former only three prosopa; the one laying the stress on the triplicity of the divine essence, the other on its unity” (Philip Schaff). |
Meletian Schism
| While Meletius was bishop, the Eustathians elected Paulinus as their rival bishop. He was a Sabellian. |
Hanson describes Paulinus as “a Sabellian heretic” (Hanson’s Lecture). He was “Marcellan/Sabellian” (Hanson, p. 799). Show More
| Paulinus derived “his tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop about forty years before” (Hanson, p. 800-1). As stated above, Eustathius was deposed for Sabellianism.
“Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. Paulinus’ association with the remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the expression ‘one hypostasis’ … rendered him suspect” (Hanson, p. 801). |
| The Meletian Schism was a dispute in Antioch between two pro-Nicene groups. |
In the 360s-370s, there were three views represented in Antioch:
The Eusebians (Arians) rejected homoousios.
The Eustathians were the traditional Nicenes. They accepted ‘homoousios’ (same substance) and understood it as meaning ‘one substance.’ They taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person). Paulinus was their leader, and they were supported by Athanasius and the bishop of Rome (Damasus). But Basil of Caesarea regarded this as Sabellianism.
The Meletians (Cappadocians) also accepted homoousios but understood it as meaning two substances that are alike in all respects. Therefore, they believed that the Son is a distinct hypostasis (Person), and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Persons). But the Western pro-Nicenes thought that this is Arianism.
The Eusebians (Arians), similar to the Meletians, believed in three hypostases. However, while the Eusebians regarded the Son as ontologically subordinate to the Father, the Cappadocians regarded the three hypostases as ontologically equal. Show More
| “The Catholics … split among themselves; the majority adhered to the exiled Meletius, while the old and more strictly orthodox party, who had hitherto been known as the Eustathians, and with whom Athanasius communicated … elected Paulinus … who was ordained counter-bishop by Lucifer of Calaris” (Philip Schaff).
“The schism at Antioch, between the Eustathians, or old Catholic party, under their Bishop Paulinus … and the new Catholic party under S. Meletius, had troubled both the East and West. The holiest Bishops in the East, such as S. Basil and S. Eusebius of Samosata, sided with Meletius. S. Damasus and the Western Bishops communicated with Paulinus. Meletius asserted Three Hypostases in the HOLY TRINITY, Paulinus One: S. Damasus would not allow the former, for fear of being considered an Arian, nor S. Basil the latter, lest he should be imagined a Sabellian.” [A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Volume 1, by John Mason Neale, page 204]. |
| Athanasius was a traditional pro-Nicene, believing that the Father and Son are a single Person. |
He believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person). He condoned Sabellianism. For example, about the year 371, adherents of the Sabellian Marcellus approached Athanasius, presenting to him a statement of faith. Athanasius accepted it and gave them a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine. Therefore, he supported the Sabellian Paulinus. Show More
| One hypostasis
“Athanasius’ most basic language and analogies for describing the relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as intrinsic aspects of one reality or person” (Ayres, p. 46). (See here for Athanasius’ theology.)
Condoned Sabellianism.
“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).
Supported Paulinus.
Paulinus “was recognized as legitimate bishop of Antioch by Athanasius. Later, Athanasius’ successor Peter extended the same recognition to him and persuaded Damasus to do the same” (Hanson, p. 801).
|
| Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea were on opposite sides of the Meletian Schism. |
Consequently, in the 360s and 370s, the two most important pro-Nicenes of the fourth century, Athanasius of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea, found themselves on opposite sides in the Meletian Schism. While Athanasius supported Paulinus and the Eustathians in Antioch, Basil supported Meletius and regarded Athanasius and the Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology as Sabellianism:
“The opening of the year 375 saw the ironical situation in which the Pope, Damasus, and the archbishop of Alexandria, Peter, were supporting Paulinus of Antioch, a Sabellian heretic, and Vitalis, an Apollinarian heretic, against Basil of Caesarea, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy in the East, later to be acknowledged universally as a great Doctor of the Church” (Hanson’s Lecture). Show More
| “Paulinus was a rival of Basil’s friend and ally Meletius” (Hanson, p. 801).
“Basil would not desert Meletius and Athanasius would not recognize him (Meletius) as bishop of Antioch” (Hanson, p. 797). |
Basil of Caesarea suspected Athanasius and the Western support of ‘one hypostasis’ theology as Sabellianism, with Marcellus as its main representative. Show More
| Basil wrote a letter that “contained some shafts directed at Damasus because of his toleration of Eustathius and the Marcellans” (Hanson, p. 799).
“Basil was never sure in his own mind that Athanasius had abandoned Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers” (Hanson, p. 797).
“In a letter written to Athanasius he (Basil of Caesarea) complains that the Westerners have never brought any accusation against Marcellus” (Hanson, p. 802). |
| Peter and Damasus, the bishops of Alexandria and Rome, also opposed Basil. |
After Athanasius died in 373, his successor Peter continued to support Paulinus and persuaded Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to do the same. Peter poisoned the mind of Damasus against Basil and Meletius. Show More
|
“In May 373 Athanasius died, Peter his successor was driven out, fled to Rome, and proceeded to poison the mind of Damasus against Basil and Meletius” (Hanson, p. 798).
In 375, Damasus wrote a letter that “constituted also an official recognition of Paulinus, not Meletius, as bishop of Antioch” (Hanson, p. 799).
|
The Core Issue
| The issue, whether the Son is a distinct Person, was the core issue of the entire Arian Controversy. |
The main issue in the Meletian Schism was whether the Son is a distinct Person. While Athanasius and the Eustathians said that the Father and Son are a single Person, Basil and the Meletians maintained that the Son is a distinct Person. Show More
| “A council headed by Athanasius at Alexandria in 362 … met to address a schism between followers of two pro-Nicene bishops at Antioch: Paulinus, who confessed the one hypostasis, and Melitius, who confessed three hypostaseis” (Anatolios, p. 26-27).
In a letter to Basil, “Damasus sent a very cool reply … deliberately avoided making any statement about the three hypostases. It was the adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this doctrine of the hypostases which caused Damasus … to suspect them of heresy” (Hanson, p. 798). |
This dispute between one and three hypostases in Antioch was also the Core Issue of the entire Arian Controversy. That difference explains all other differences between theologians:
If they are a single Existence (one hypostasis), as the Nicenes claimed, then the Son is eternal and of the same substance as the Father, and only one Logos exists.
But if they are two distinct Existences (two hypostases), then:
-
-
-
- The Father alone exists without a cause.
- The Son did not always exist but is a ‘creature, produced by the Father’s will.
- The Son does not fully understand the Father.
See here for a discussion of the core issue in the Controversy. That article identifies the core issue by analysing the various phases of the Controversy and by showing who opposed whom.
If the Son is not a distinct Person, as Athanasius claimed, He cannot become incarnated. (See here for a discussion.)
Melitian Controversy
| The Meletian Schism must not be confused with the Melitian Controversy. |
In the Melitian Controversy, several decades earlier in Egypt, Athanasius persecuted the Melitian Christians in his see:
“It seems clear also that Athanasius’ first efforts at gangsterism in his diocese had nothing to do with difference of opinion on the subject of the Arian Controversy, but were directed against the Melitians” (Hanson, p. 254). Show More
| “It describes … the barbarous treatment which he (Athanasius) is meanwhile dealing out to those Melitians who have opposed him” (Hanson, p. 252).
“He was finally deposed at Tyre for reasons which had nothing to do with Arianism, nor with any doctrinal issue, but for misbehaviour in his see, disgraceful and undeniable, and that against Melitians rather than Arians” (Hanson, p. 275). |