Tag: Same substance

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). 

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

Beatrice = An article by Pier Franco Beatrice; Professor of Early Christian Literature at the University of Padua, Italy
The word “homoousios” from Hellenism to Christianity.)[/expander_maker]

For a further discussion of the different meanings of “same,” see Right Reason or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

“The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word’ Person’), three ways of being or modes of existing as God” (Hanson Lecture). 

“By the conventions of the late fourth century, first formulated in Greek by the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’, these three constituent members of what God is came to be referred to as hypostases (‘concrete individuals’) or, more misleadingly for us moderns, as prosōpa (‘persons’)” (Anatolios, xiii). 

Invisible to humans

“By the last quarter of the fourth century, halting Christian attempts … had led … to what later generations generally think of as ‘the doctrine of the Holy Trinity’: the formulated idea that the God … is Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one reality or substance, operating OUTWARD in creation always as a unity, yet always INTERNALLY DIFFERENTIATED by the relationships of origin that Father and Son and Holy Spirit have with one another” (Anatolios, xiii).

Single Mind

“When today we speak of person in the plural, we think almost necessarily, because of the modern meaning of the word, of several spiritual centers of activity [minds], of several subjectivities [biases, views] and liberties [freedoms].” (Karl Rahner, a leading Catholic scholar, in ‘The Trinity’).

“But there are not three of these in God. … There are not three consciousnesses; rather the one consciousness subsists in a threefold way. There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by the Father, Son, and Spirit.” (Rahner, continuing from the previous quote) (See Article)

“The century is understood as one of evolution in doctrine.” (Ayres, p13)

“This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy.” (Hanson, pxix-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, p167).

(See Article)

Subordination was orthodox.

“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 Article)

“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).

“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” p82-85

Flexible 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).

“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). 

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) 

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 … 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 used it (homoousios) … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192);

He used the term “in the sense of numerical sameness” (Prof Ninan).

“He considered the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as being three portions of the divine nature.” (Von Mosheim J.L. p220)

“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)

He 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)

Epiphanius stated that “Origen often declared ‘that the only-begotten God is alien from the Father’s Godhead and substance’ (ousia)” (Hanson, p. 62)

“There is one celebrated fragment … where Origen appears to sanction the use of homoousios. … But in its present form, this seems too closely bound to the specific interests of the post-Nicene period … to come directly from Pamphilus, let alone Origen.” (Williams, p. 132-3)

“One famous passage in which he seems to use the term homoousios … may have been adulterated by later writers.” (Ayres, p. 24)

He did not say the Son came from the Father’s substance:

“Origen never says that the Son comes from the substance of the Father.” (Hanson, p. 67) 

“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)

“Some local Sabellians” described the Son as homoousios with the Father (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)

“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)

“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)

“His doctrine could only with difficulty be distinguished from that of Sabellius!” (Hanson, p. 193)

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).

Alexandria accepted the term 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)

This does not mean that they are equal:

This “did not at all exclude relationships between realities that were hierarchically distinct in other ways.” (Ayres, p. 94-95)

Athanasius, disingenuously, claimed that both bishops approved of the word homoousios. 

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)

“In using the expression ‘of one substance’, Paul declared that Father and Son were a solitary unit;” “a primitive undifferentiated unity.” (Williams, p. 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)

“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, p82-85)

“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)

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).

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)

Not Traditional Language

“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” (Williams, p. 236) and “conceptual innovation” (Williams, p. 234-5).

Anti-Nicenes objected that these words are “untraditional.” (Williams, p. 234-5)

“We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports homoousion as applied to the Son.” (Hanson, p. 169) 

“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)

The Eusebians argued that we should not understand the terms “Father,” “Son,” and “begotten” in a literal, material sense, as if the Son was begotten like humans are by breaking off a part of the parent.

“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)  

“Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire.” (Ayres, p. 19)

The East opposed homoousios:

The term “seemed especially objectionable to many bishops and theologians of the East.” [Bernard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, 1966, p51-53]

“The Origenists had considerable reservation about homoousios and the other phrases containing the term ousios (substance).” (Erickson)

“A majority opposed the Nicene creed. The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius!” (Bible.ca) 

Eusebius accepted homoousion with “obvious reluctance.” (Hanson, p. 165) 

“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)

“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) 

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) 

He enforced the term.

Constantine “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]

“Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best.” (Hanson, p. 850)

“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, p51-53)

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.) 

“All the theologians … probably saw homoousios as expanding on and secondary to the phrase ‘from the ousia of the Father’.” (Ayres, p. 90-91)

It 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) 

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, p. 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)

“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, p. 90-91) 

“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)

“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)

Alexander described the Son as “idios to (a property or quality of) the Father (which) is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92. 

“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)

They believed that the Son is a distinct Person (hypostasis).

“The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) were ultimately disciples of Origen.” (Frend, WHC: The Rise of Christianity) As stated above, Origen believed in three hypostases.

For example, the Dedication Creed declared a belief in three hypostases. 

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).

“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) 

Alexander allied with the Sabellians.

“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)

“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)

Consequently, the Sabellians were influential at the council. 

“Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus … Both were influential at the council.” (Ayres, p. 99)

“Marcellus of Ancyra … had been an important figure at the council and may have significantly influenced its wording.” (Ayres, p. 431)

“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)

“Alexander indeed seems to be avoiding homoousios.” (Hanson, p. 139)

“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)

The Sabellians endorsed homoousios.

“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)

Constantine insisted on homousios because the Sabellians preferred it:

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

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!”

“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.

“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) 

“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)

Sabellian

“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.

“Eusebius’ discussion nicely demonstrates the extent to which the promulgation of homoousios involved a conscious lack of positive definition of the term. 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)

Eusebian Understanding

“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) 

Sabellian Understanding:

“For him (Marcellus) homoousios … meant not merely ‘consubstantial’ or ‘of similar substance’, but ‘of identical being‘.” (Hanson, p. 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, p. 95-96) [“Co-ordinate” here means two distinct but more or less equal entities.]

Sabellians claimed the Creed.

“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)

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

“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)

“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)

“To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency among these existing trajectories.” (Ayres, p. 431) [The term “unitarian” refers to 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.” ¹Athanasius (1911), “In Controversy With the Arians”, Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn

“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)

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

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

About the meaning of the term homoousios:

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)

“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) 

“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)

“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)

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.

• • • 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 about 100 years. 

“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) 

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)

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

One hypostasis

“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)

Athanasius explained the term homoousios as follows: “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)

Sabellian

“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)

• • • 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’.

Basil said they are “like unalterably according to ousia.” (Hanson, p. 696-7)

(Read Article on Basil)

The Trinity doctrine, as it eventually became accepted, combined Athanasius’ and Basil’s theologies. It says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being with one mind and will, which is what Athanasius taught, but added Basil’s verbal formula of three hypostases, but without Basil’s proposal of three minds.

“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 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 re-introduced homoousios into the Controversy confirms the one-hypostasis implication of the term.