Abstract: This article re-examines the origin, development, and theological ambiguity of the Greek term homoousios (“of the same substance”) during the fourth-century Arian Controversy. Drawing on contemporary patristic scholarship—including works by R.P.C. Hanson, Lewis Ayres, Rowan Williams, and Khaled Anatolios—the text challenges traditional 19th-century accounts of early church history. It traces how homoousios evolved from non-biblical, pagan, and Sabellian contexts into a pivotal phrase forced into the Nicene Creed under the influence of Emperor Constantine. The study demonstrates that rather than denoting a fixed numerical identity of substance in 325 AD, the term initially carried a flexible, controversial, and largely non-material meaning that served as a catalyst for theological debate rather than an immediate consensus.
Introduction
Authors Quoted
Because many ancient documents have become available over the last century, research into the fourth-century Arian Controversy has advanced significantly. As a result, scholars today explain the controversy very differently from scholars a century ago. R. P. C. Hanson even described the traditional nineteenth-century account of the Arian Controversy as a complete travesty. [Quotes]
- “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).
- “The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 11).
|
Consequently, this article series draws on books published during the last 50 years by leading patristic historians, including:
Hanson, R.P.C.
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1987)
Williams, Rowan
Arius, Heresy & Tradition (2002/1988)
Ayres, Lewis
Nicaea and its legacy (2004)
Anatolios, Khaled
Retrieving Nicaea (2011)
This article quotes these authors extensively. To make the article easier to read, however, almost all quotations are hidden in “Read More” blocks. Because scholarly understanding of the controversy has changed significantly, and because the subject remains highly controversial, these quotations are essential to the argument.
Although I quote extensively from patristic scholars, the conclusions are my own.
Homoousios appeared in the Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and accepted by most Christian denominations, states that the Son was begotten from the substance (ousia) of the Father and is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. The word homoousios consists of two parts: homós, meaning “same,” and ousia, meaning “substance” (see The Free Dictionary or GotQuestions). Through Latin, it is sometimes translated as “consubstantial.”
Homoousios has two possible meanings
The term has two possible meanings because the word “same” can be used in two different ways. For example, when I say that John and I drive “the same car,” I may mean that we drive one and the same vehicle, or that we drive two separate cars of the same type. Similarly:
Homoousios (“same substance”) may mean that the Son is a distinct being who has the same kind of substance as the Father, just as a human father and son share the same kind of substance. This is called qualitative or generic sameness. [Quotes]
| “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). |
Alternatively, it may mean that the Father and the Son are one substance, or one Being. This is called numerical sameness, because there is only one substance. [Quotes]
| “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. |
Trinity doctrine: Homoousios means one substance
The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Being. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Trinity doctrine existed from the beginning of the controversy. On that reading, homoousios at the Council of Nicaea meant “one substance.”
However, the Trinity doctrine, as we know it today, did not exist at the beginning of the Controversy. Both the Father and Son were regarded as divine, but the idea that they are a single Being, existing as two equal persons, was not the original orthodox view. There is no theologian, before the fourth century, in the East or West, who did not regard the Son as subordinate to the Father in some sense. At the beginning of the fourth century, the Church’s conventional view was that the Son was distinct from, and subordinate to, the Father: “a demi-god . . . a second, created god lower than the High God.” This view continued in fourth-century Arianism. [Quotes]
| Subordination before the fourth century: “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 View: 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.)
Arianism was similar: “Arianism . . . does present the Son as in effect a demi-god, even though the antecedents of this doctrine are not to be found in pagan religion nor directly in Greek philosophy but in various theological strands to be detected in Christian theology before the fourth century” (Hanson). |
Rather, the Trinity doctrine was the result of a process of evolution over the fourth century. Nicene theology, as we know it today, only began to take its first baby steps after 360. [Quotes]
| Evolution: “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).
After 360: “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.) |
Purpose: Homoousios had no single fixed meaning
This article examines what homoousios meant before, during, and after Nicaea. It will show that many scholars today conclude that, at Nicaea, homoousios was not intended to express the numerical identity of the Father and the Son. In other words, it did not mean “one substance.” Nor did it simply mean that the Son is a distinct being with a similar substance. Rather, it had a looser, more flexible, and less precise meaning. Later theologians constructed meanings for the term that were not necessarily intended by the Nicene Creed. [Quotes]
| Not numerical identity: “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).
Also not generic identity: “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’” (Hanson, p. 170).
Looser meaning:
• “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).
• 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).
Later theologians created meanings:
• “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). |
The term “Arian” is misleading
The fourth-century anti-Nicenes are traditionally called “Arians,” which suggests that Arius’s theology dominated the fourth-century Church. As discussed here, however, that label seriously distorts the nature of the controversy. Arius was not a leader, did not develop a new theology, had only a few real followers, left behind no school of disciples, and had little significance after Nicaea. Rather, he was a conservative who belonged to an existing group. Ayres calls the anti-Nicenes “Eusebians” and includes Arius among them. Therefore, this article often refers to the anti-Nicenes as “Eusebians.”
Hypostasis – What did it mean?
Today, we often make a distinction between ‘Person’ and ‘Being’ and explain the Trinity as one Being (one ousia) but three Persons (three hypostases). However, the Cappadocians, later in the fourth century, are often credited with first making this distinction. For many in the 4th century, including Athanasius, ‘Person’ (hypostasis) and ‘Being’ (ousia) were synonyms. Both meant a single individual existence. Therefore, this article often translates hypostasis as “Being,” not as “Person.” In other words, “three hypostases” means three distinct Beings. For example, the Eusebians, who argued for three hypostases in the Godhead, claimed that the three hypostases are united in agreement, implying three distinct minds, three distinct Beings. [Quotes]
Synonyms:
- “It is only much later in the century that the two are more clearly distinguished by some” (Ayres, p. 98).
- “Despite the complex, later development of a distinction between ousia and hypostasis, the two words were, in the early fourth century, first and foremost synonyms” (Lienhard).
Hypostasis = Being
- Hanson explains hypostasis as meaning “individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193).
- “The Greek word hypostasis … meant ‘to stand under or among’, that is, ‘to be existent’. Such language (three hypostaseis) suggested three distinct existences within the Godhead.” (Litfin)
Three hypostases = Three minds
- “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428).
- “Asterius [an important early Arian] … asserts that the triple name must refer to a triple reality. The Father and the Son are two natures, he writes, two hypostaseis, and two prosôpa. The two are one, he insists, in harmony of wills” (Lienhard).
- “Theologians who emphasize difference [‘Arians’] understand the Logos to be a subordinate and independent being” (Ayres, p. 41).
|
Homoousios Before Nicaea
Greek Philosophy – Qualitative Identity
Greek philosophy and Egyptian paganism used the term homoousios, not to say that two things are literally one thing—that is, numerically identical—but to compare distinct things that share the same kind or quality. In these systems, therefore, the term did not mean “one substance.” [Quotes]
| 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). |
The Bible never uses the term.
The Bible never refers to God’s “substance” and never says that the Son is homoousios with the Father. These terms were borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the time. [Quotes]
| Not in the Bible: 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).
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). |
Gnostics – Qualitative Identity
Second-century Gnostics used the term, not to say that two beings are numerically 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 were “of a similar kind” to the highest deity from whom they emanated. [Quotes]
| Qualitative identity: “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).
Not numerical identity: “Hippolytus quotes Gnostics as using the word homoousios, none of them suggesting identity, nor even equality” (Hanson, p. 191). |
Tertullian – One Substance
Tertullian (155-220), “writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding to (the Greek term) homoousios” (Hanson, p. 190). However, he did use the term “substance.” He believed that God has a body—that is, that God is a substance—and that the Son is part of God’s substance. In this sense, he believed that the Father and the Son are “one substance” and one hypostasis: a single “individual existence.” This would mean that the Father and Son are homoousios in the sense of one substance. [Quotes]
| Three Persons, One Body: “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).
One Hypostasis: 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 🔗 for more on Tertullian’s theology.) |
Sabellius – One Substance
Sabellius wrote in the early third century (fl. ca. 215), and Sabellianism is named after him. He and his followers used homoousios to say that the Father and the Son are “one substance”—that is, a single hypostasis or Person. According to Von Mosheim (🔗), Sabellius held that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one Person. By the time of the Council of Nicaea, the church had formally rejected Sabellianism. [Quotes]
| Did use homoousios: “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).
One hypostasis: “Sabellius used it (homoousios) . . . in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192). He used the term “in the sense of numerical sameness” (Ninan).
Three portions: “He considered the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as being three portions of the divine nature” (Von Mosheim J.L. p. 220). |
Origen did not use the term.
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 253), the most influential post-Biblical theologian of the first three centuries, never says that the Son comes from the substance of the Father, and he did not use the term homoousios. There is one famous ancient passage in which he appears to use the term, but it is probably a corrupted translation. The council in Antioch in 268 was probably composed mostly of followers of Origen, and it condemned homoousios. Origen was anxious to avoid materialism—the idea that God the Father and the Son were made of the same material. According to Epiphanius, Origen even declared that the only-begotten God is alien from the Father’s ousia. [Quotes]
| Not from the Father’s substance: “Origen never says that the Son comes from the substance of the Father” (Hanson, p. 67).
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).
• “Origen may have rejected the term” (Ayres, p. 92).
• “One famous passage in which he seems to use the term homoousios . . . may have been adulterated by later writers” (Ayres, p. 24).
The Antiochene Council condemned the term: “It is significant that the victorious party at the Antiochene Council which condemned Paul were in all probability supporters of the views of Origen and were therefore most unlikely to have condemned homoousios had Origen, who had only died little over ten years before, himself used it” (Hanson, p. 195).
Avoided Materialism: 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).
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). |
In opposition to Tertullian and Sabellius, who taught that the Father and the Son are a single hypostasis, Origen believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases—three distinct existences or Persons. He opposed the Sabellians of his day, who made the Father and Son one hypostasis, as if the distinction between Father and Son were only conceptual. [Quotes]
| “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, p. 132). |
Libyan Sabellians used the term.
A few decades after Sabellius and Origen, around the year 260, a dispute arose between Rome and Alexandria, mainly over whether the Son is homoousios with the Father. The dispute was caused by some Libyans who described the Son as homoousios with the Father. Alexandria, Rome, and Eusebius of Caesarea all labeled the Libyans as Sabellians. [Quotes]
| Dispute between Rome and Alexandria: “In the interchange which took place between Dionysius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria a little after the middle of the third century, the word homoousios certainly figured” (Hanson, p. 191).
These Libyans were Sabellians:
• “Dionysius [bishop of Alexandria] was involved in several controversies, but that which concerns us was his conflict with certain people in Libya whom he suspected of Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 72).
• “Dionysius of Rome and Eusebius of Caesarea label” “the accusers of Dionysius of Alexandria” as “Sabellians” (Beatrice).
• “Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a treatise . . . against a type of doctrine prevailing in Libya of a Sabellian cast” (Hanson, p. 191).
These Libyans used the term homoousios: “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). |
Alexandria opposed the term.
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who oversaw the church in Libya, rejected the term because:
-
- It does not appear in the Bible,
- Sabellius had used it,
- It implied that the Son did not have a distinct personal existence, and
- The term suggests that the Father and the Son are a single hypostasis.
[Quotes]
Rejected the term:
- “It seems . . . likely that Dionysius of Alexandria, in a campaign against some local Sabellians, had denied the term” (Ayres, p. 94).
- “Those who had called the attention of the bishop of Rome to these suspect expressions of Dionysius of Alexandria charged him among other errors with virtually refusing to apply the term homoousios to the Son” (Hanson, p. 73).
- “Dionysius of Alexandria was accused of rejecting, or at least of not using, the term” (Hanson, p. 191).
Not in the Bible:
- “Dionysius said that he had rejected homoousios because it did not occur in the Bible” (Hanson, p. 75).
Sabellius used it:
- According to Basil of Caesarea, “Dionysius of Alexandria … sometimes rejected homoousios because Sabellius used it . . . in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192).
It implies the Father and Son are one hypostasis:
- “Simonetti . . . thinks that Dionysius of Alexandria had rejected it because for him it implied that the Father and the Son had the same hypostasis, i.e. individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193).
|
Rome championed Homoousios.
The Libyan Sabellians then appealed to the bishop of Rome, who was also named Dionysius. Rome had a Monarchian tradition. Therefore, it taught only one hypostasis, or Person, in the Godhead. Rome could not tolerate dividing the Godhead into three hypostases and condemned those who did so, arguing that such a view effectively produced three gods. Rome agreed that the Father and the Son were homoousios. [Quotes]
| Sabellians complained to Rome: “Those who complained of his erroneous doctrines to the bishop of Rome accused him of . . .” (Hanson, p. 75)
Rome had a Monarchian Tradition:
- “Westerners, especially Romans, are probably rightly said to have held on to the spirit of the monarchian theology of the late second and early third centuries and thereby virtually to have ignored Tertullian” (Lienhard).
- Hanson refers to the “traditional Monarchianism” of the “Western bishops” (Hanson, p. 272).
Rome taught One Hypostasis:
- “Dionysius of Rome . . . 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 championed Homoousios:
- “Dionysius of Rome . . . found homoousios acceptable” (Hanson, p. 192, quoting Loofs).
- “Dionysius of Rome . . . (also) claimed that Father and Son were homoousios” (Ayres, p. 94).
- “Whoever may have been the first to use the word homoousios in this affair, Dionysius of Rome at least took up or championed it” (Hanson, p. 193).
|
Because Rome had a Monarchian tradition, understanding the Father and the Son as a single Being with one mind and one will, and because Rome supported, or at least aligned itself with, the Libyan Sabellians against Alexandria, Rome’s theology “could only with difficulty be distinguished from that of Sabellius.” [Quotes]
| “Dionysius of Rome . . . his doctrine could only with difficulty be distinguished from that of Sabellius” (Hanson, pp. 192-3) |
Alexandria accepted homoousios qualitatively.
After the Libyan Sabellians appealed to Rome about Alexandria’s position, Rome sided with the Sabellians and condemned the “three hypostases” view. At the request of the Libyan Sabellians, the bishop of Rome wrote a work against the views of Dionysius of Alexandria and sent it to Alexandria, thereby putting pressure on Alexandria to accept the term. [Quotes]
Rome censured Alexandria
• “Kraft also thinks that Dionysius of Rome used homoousios, indeed that a synod in Rome may have censured the bishop of Alexandria for not using it and have condemned the doctrine of three hypostases as tritheism” (Hanson, p. 193).
• “Dionysius of Rome wrote a work . . . at the request of some people who were disturbed by the treatise of the bishop of Alexandria . . . Dionysius of Rome sent his work, with a letter, to Dionysius of Alexandria” (Hanson, p. 191-2).
• “Certain terms which Dionysius [of Alexandria] had used in writing to those whom he suspected of heresy caused his namesake, Dionysius of Rome, to write a work against both Sabellius and the views of Dionysius of Alexandria and also to address a letter of protest to the bishop of Alexandria” (Hanson, p. 72). |
Alexandria then accepted homoousios as applicable to the Son, but only reluctantly and only in a qualitative or generic sense. In other words, Alexandria accepted the term as meaning that the Father and the Son are two distinct Beings of similar nature or similar kind, belonging to the same class—not as meaning “one substance.” For Alexandria, therefore, the term did not mean that the Father and the Son are one Being or that they are equal. [Quotes]
Alexandria accepted homoousios:
- “In a later work Dionysius modified and withdrew many of these views. Dionysius, he (Athanasius) says, in his reply to the bishop of Rome . . . accepted the term homoousios as applicable to the Son” (Hanson, p. 73).
- “Basil (of Caesarea) . . . says that Dionysius . . . sometimes he accepted it (homoousios), when he was defending himself against the bishop of Rome” (Hanson, p. 74).
Only reluctantly: Dionysius of Alexandria was “persuaded by his namesake of Rome to accept (the term)” (Ayres, p. 94) but “we can be quite certain that Dionysius of Alexandria disliked it and only adopted it with reluctance” (Hanson, p. 193).
Only in a generic sense, meaning ‘of a similar kind’:
- “Simonetti . . . thinks that Dionysius of Alexandria . . . only accepted it in the generic sense of meaning that both had the same kind of nature” (Hanson, p. 193).
- “Dionysius said that . . . he was in fact ready enough to accept it, and it is clear that he accepted it in a general sense, meaning ‘of similar nature or ‘of similar kind” (Hanson, p. 192), “belonging to the same class” (Ayres, p. 94).
- “Simonetti . . . thinks that Dionysius of Alexandria . . . only accepted it (homoousios) in the generic sense of meaning that both had the same kind of nature” (Hanson 193).
Not equal: This “did not at all exclude relationships between realities that were hierarchically distinct in other ways” (Ayres, p. 94-95). |
Athanasius tried to demonstrate that all earlier writers, without distinction, supported homoousios. Somewhat disingenuously, he claimed that even the bishop of Alexandria approved of the word. [Quotes]
| 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). |
Paul of Samosata used the term.
Around the same time as the dispute between Rome and Alexandria, Paul of Samosata used homoousios to describe the Father and the Son as “of one substance,” or “a solitary unit.” Modern scholars associate Paul’s theology with Monarchianism or Sabellianism. His theology was similar to that of Marcellus, who was deposed for Sabellianism. [Quotes]
Of One Substance:
- “Hilary . . . clearly believes that Paul himself approved of homoousios” (Hanson, p. 194).
- “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).
Sabellian Theology:
- “Although it is no longer possible to speak with certainty about Paul’s theology . . . For his opponents this theology could only result from semi-modalism“ (Ayres, p. 76).
- “The new synod met in the summer of 336 and deposed Marcellus for holding the heresy of Paul of Samosata” (Williams, p. 80).
|
In 268, a council at Antioch condemned Paul. It also condemned the term homoousios as Sabellian in nature. This later caused considerable embarrassment to the fourth-century Nicenes, who, less than sixty years later, included the term in the Nicene Creed. [Quotes]
Deposed Paul and condemned homoousios:
- “The council that deposed Paul of Samosata in 268 condemned the use of homoousios” (Ayres, p. 94).
- “The fathers of the Council of Antioch which had condemned Paul of Samosata had also condemned homoousios” (Hanson, p. 193).
- “He (Athanasius) cannot deny that they damned the epithet homoousios as applied to the Son” (Hanson, p. 193-4).
Because Homoousios spelled Sabellianism: According to Hilary, “Our fathers (the 268-council) . . . repudiated homoousion” because “the word to them spelled Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 194).
Caused 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).
- “Those who condemned Paul also condemned the use of the word homoousios in a Trinitarian context thereby causing considerable embarrassment to those theologians who wanted to defend its inclusion in an official doctrinal statement in the next century” (Hanson, p. 195).
|
Conclusion: Sabellian Associations
In the third-century Christian debates, only Sabellians seem to have favored the term. It was used by:
- Sabellius himself,
- The Libyan, whom several ancient sources identify as Sabellian,
- Dionysius of Rome, who had a Monarchian tradition, and whose theology approximated Sabellius’, and
- Paul of Samosata, whose theology was also Sabellian.
For them, homoousios meant that the Father and the 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 the Son are two distinct Beings of similar nature or similar kind. Therefore, when the Arian Controversy began, the term homoousios was generally regarded as Sabellian. [Quotes]
| “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).
“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 . . . and provides one more reason why that creed was vulnerable to criticism” (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). |
Homoousios at Nicaea
Most delegates objected to Homoousios.
It was a surprising innovation.
The term homoousios was a surprising innovation in the Nicene Creed:
- It is not found in the Holy Scriptures, but was “borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day” (Hanson, p. 846).
- Nothing comparable had appeared in any earlier creed or profession of faith.
- It was not standard Christian language of the day.
- It had already been condemned in 268 by a council at Antioch because of its association with Sabellianism.
- Not even Alexander favored 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).
[Quotes]
Not in the Bible:
- “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).
Not said before: “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).
Not Standard Christian 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).
Already condemned: “The council that deposed Paul of Samosata in 268 condemned the use of homoousios” (Ayres, p. 94).
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). |
It implies that God has a body.
Furthermore, a literal reading of ‘same substance’ implies that God has a body and that the Father and Son share a kind of common ‘God-stuff.’ Such materialism made many theologians uncomfortable. [Quotes]
Materialistic:
- “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).
|
Most delegates objected to it.
For these reasons, the term homoousios seemed especially objectionable to most delegates at Nicaea. Almost all the delegates came from the eastern [Greek] half of the empire. Most followed Origen, who did not use the term, and no known Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea unreservedly supported homoousion as applied to the Son. Consequently, at the Nicene Council, Eusebius of Caesarea, the leader of the Eastern Eusebians, accepted homoousion with “obvious reluctance” (Hanson, p. 165). [Quotes]
| Almost all from the East: “Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern [Greek] half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).
No Greek speaker accepted the term:
- “We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports homoousion as applied to the Son” (Hanson, p. 169).
- “The Origenists had considerable reservations about homoousios and the other phrases containing the term ousios” (Erickson).
|
Constantine insisted on Homoousios.
Constantine dominated.
Given these strong objections, a powerful force must have driven its inclusion in the Creed. That powerful force was the emperor. As surprising as this may sound to those raised in a culture that separates Church and State, emperors in the Christian Roman Empire were the final arbiters of 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 meeting convened by the Church; it was the emperor’s meeting. The Church did not request the meeting; the emperor called it on his own initiative and for his own purposes. He also dominated the proceedings and ensured an outcome consistent with what he considered 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).
The emperor pressed for Homoousios.
The emperor proposed the term and “pressed for its inclusion” (Hanson, p. 211). “Eusebius, in his Letter to his Diocese written in 326, writes that Constantine himself spoke, endorsing the term homoousios” (Ayres, p. 90). He used his position and authority to secure its inclusion despite the reservations of most delegates. [Quotes]
| 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 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, pp. 82-85].
“’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 explained the term.
Emperor Constantine even regarded himself as qualified to explain the term to that assembly of the church’s leaders. All the theologians probably saw homoousios as expanding on and explaining the phrase, ‘from the ousia of the Father,’ and thought that these phrases sounded material. This language could suggest that the Son was begotten through a material, bodily process analogous to human generation. To counter such objections, and to enable the Eusebians to accept these new terms, Constantine insisted that these terms must not be understood materially. That the emperor was permitted to explain these nontraditional terms, and that the meeting accepted his explanation, indicates that the phrases entered the Creed because of his dominance over the council. [Quotes]
| Regarded himself as qualified: Eusebius of Caesarea, who left us the only extant record of the proceedings of the council, “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).
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 material: “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 explained it is not material:
- “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).
- “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).
For more details, see the discussion of Eusebius’ letter (🔗). |
Why did Constantine insist on homoousios?
Pagan philosophy
Hanson described homoousios as a new term “borrowed from the pagan philosophy” (Hanson, p. 846), but he does not elaborate. Pier Franco Beatrice, professor of Early Christian Literature at the University of Padua, Italy, has proposed that Constantine’s familiarity with Hermetic or Egyptian religious language helps explain his receptivity to the term. This remains debated, but even if that claim is true, he would not have proposed the term without support from at least some delegates. This section argues that he insisted on the term because he had sided with Alexander in the dispute with Arius and because Alexander was allied with the Sabellians, who preferred it.
Alexander allied with the Sabellians.
The term hypostasis, meaning a distinct individual existence, was central to the Arian controversy. A hypostasis was a distinct existence—something that truly exists in itself. The core of the controversy was expressed through this term:
The Eusebians (Arians) believed that the Son is a distinct hypostasis (a distinct Being and Person). They believed in three hypostases in the Godhead.
Both the original Nicenes and Sabellians held that the Father and Son are one hypostasis (a single Person). [Quotes]
| 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 held 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). [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).
It was only later in the century that some, mainly the Cappadocians, began to accept both the Nicene Creed and three hypostases (🔗). |
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. For example, the Eastern Dedication Creed of 341 declared a belief in three hypostases. [Quotes]
| 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: “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.) |
Consequently, in the Council, Alexander’s one-hypostasis theology represented a minority position. He was opposed by a ‘three hypostases’ majority. Alexander’s theology was similar to the Sabellians. He believed that the Son was proper to the ousia of the Father, meaning that the Son is a property or quality of the Father—a Sabellian statement. [Quotes]
| “Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son was proper to the ousia of the Father. To say that the Son is idios (proper) to the Father is to say that he is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. Properties or qualities cannot be substances, as is evident from Porphyry’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories; they are not quantities. The statement then that the Son is idios to the Father is a Sabellian statement” (Hanson, p. 92). |
Consequently, Alexander joined forces with the leading Sabellians, Eustathius and Marcellus, against the Eusebians. In this sense, Alexander accepted virtual Sabellianism to ensure the defeat of Arianism. [Quotes]
Joined Forces:
- “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 Alexander’s part.
Constantine sided with Alexander in his dispute with Arius. This alignment, together with support from the emperor’s advisers—including the presiding bishop, Ossius—exerted powerful influence on the council. [Quotes]
| “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). |
Constantine appointed Ossius, his religious adviser, to preside over the Nicene Council, where Ossius acted as the emperor’s representative or agent. He represented Constantine’s policy. [Quotes]
| In the Council, Ossius 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). |
It was probably also Ossius who advised the Emperor to take Alexander’s side. His modest ecclesiastical position as bishop of the small city of Cordova did not, by itself, qualify him to preside over that assembly. Like Alexander and the Sabellians, Ossius also believed in one hypostasis in the Godhead. Eighteen years after Nicaea, in 343, Ossius helped to compose the Serdica Manifesto, which had “the most alarmingly Sabellian complexion” (Hanson, p. xix). That manifesto explicitly confesses a single hypostasis. [Quotes]
| “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). |
Consequently, the Sabellians were powerful.
Since the emperor had taken Alexander’s side, the Alexander-Sabellian alliance made the Sabellians powerful at the council. Both Eustathius and Marcellus may have significantly shaped the wording of the Nicene Creed. [Quotes]
| “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). |
Alexander did not prefer Homoousios.
Constantine’s insistence on the term did not arise from any preference expressed by Alexander. As noted above, Alexander never uses homoousios in his surviving statements and appears, in fact, to avoid it. For example, the pro-Alexander draft statement formulated at Antioch only a few months earlier mentioned neither ousia nor homoousios. “Simonetti rightly notices that Alexander is chary (suspicious) of using the word ousia” (Hanson, p. 144). [Quotes]
| “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).
“That this Statement is anti-Arian is overwhelmingly clear. But it is equally clear that it represents the theology of Alexander of Alexandria” (Hanson, p. 150). |
Constantine followed the Sabellians.
As discussed, in the third century only Sabellians preferred the term homoousios. In the 4th century, the Sabellians Marcellus and Eustathius continued to endorse homoousios. They understood it to mean ‘one substance.’ Constantine appears to have been favorably disposed toward the Sabellians. For example, the pre-council in 325 was held in Antioch, in the hometown of Eustathius, and Constantine first ordered the main council to be held in Ancyra, the hometown of Marcellus. Furthermore, once Emperor Constantine saw that the Sabellians were in favor of homoousios, he pressed for its inclusion. [Quotes]
- “Marcellus and Eustathius also seem likely to have endorsed homoousios because of the notion of shared being” (Ayres, p. 95).
- “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).
|
‘One Hypostasis’ implies a Sabellian influence.
The Nicene Creed’s anathema against all “who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance” implies that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis and substance. This was the hallmark of Sabellianism, confirming a strong Sabellian influence and supporting the view that Constantine insisted on homoousios for that reason. [Quotes]
- “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 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. |
Conclusions
The Nicene Creed was a Minority Decision.
Therefore, the decisions of Nicaea were effectively the work of a minority. The majority opposed the Creed’s distinctive terminology (from the Father’s substance, homoousios) and accepted it only when generically interpreted and under considerable pressure from the emperor for consensus, despite the Sabellian history of the term. [Quotes]
- “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!”
|
How was Homoousios understood?
The emperor explained that the phrases ‘from the substance of the Father’ and homoousios must not be understood nonliterally. This enabled the Eusebian majority to accept homoousios, albeit reluctantly. They accepted it as merely meaning that the Son is not out of any other substance, but from the Father alone, and that He is not like other things, but like the Father alone. Most Eusebians found that explanation of the disputed terms acceptable. 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. [Quotes]
- “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 creed’s technical terms are all interpreted to mean that the Son is like the Father, and is truly from the Father” (Ayres, 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 Sabellians, by contrast, had preferred the term from the outset and understood it quite differently: the Father and Son are ‘one substance,’ a single hypostasis (a single Person). [Quotes]
| “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” means two distinct but more or less equal entities.] |
Although the Eusebians preferred to understand it differently, they knew that the term implied Sabellianism. It was impossible to rid the term, in the minds of many, of its Sabellian associations. The language of that creed offered no defense against a Sabellian interpretation. [Quotes]
- “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).
- “To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency among these existing trajectories” (Ayres, p. 431). [“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).
|
Nicaea was a drawn Battle
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, because homoousios carried Sabellian associations and the anathema implies a single hypostasis, the outcome may be regarded as 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 favor of the Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ theology. Ayres says that it is not an openly Sabellian creed. [Quotes]
- “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).
|
Homoousios After Nicaea
The developments relating to homoousios after the Council of Nicaea are discussed in more detail in other articles. The following is a brief overview:
Nicaea revived Sabellianism.
The controversy after Nicaea was not caused by an Arian conspiracy, as is sometimes claimed, but by the Sabellian tendencies in the Nicene Creed. Although Sabellianism had been rejected in the third century, the Council of Nicaea revived it. [Quotes]
| “Nicaea has been a catalyst for conflict between pre-existing theological trajectories” (Ayres, p. 101).
“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). |
Conflict over the meaning of Homoousios
The conflict at Nicaea continued in the following years. It centered specifically on the meaning of the term homoousios. [Quotes]
| About the meaning of Homoousios: “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. |
The Sabellians claimed that the Council of Nicaea had accepted Sabellianism as its formal doctrine, and they interpreted homoousios to mean “one substance.” [Quotes]
| Sabellians claimed Nicaea: “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). |
By contrast, the Eusebians argued for the figurative meaning discussed above. [Quotes]
| For example, the following is one event during that period, “probably in 326 or 327 . . . 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). |
The Eusebians won that round.
“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” (Hanson, p. 274). At the same time, all exiled Arians and Eusebians were allowed to return. (🔗)
Homoousios was abandoned.
Because homoousios was mainly associated with Sabellianism, the defeat of Sabellianism also meant the rejection of homoousios. After the Sabellians were removed from their positions, the term disappeared from the debate. For more than two decades, no one mentioned it. [Quotes]
| “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).
“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, sixteen and eighteen years after Nicaea, respectively, the Easterners formulated the Dedication Creed in 341, and the Westerners issued a manifesto at the Council of Serdica in 343. Neither mentioned homoousios. Instead, these councils focused on the more fundamental issue of which homoousios was only a symptom: whether the Son is a distinct Person, or a distinct hypostasis.
The main purpose of the Eastern (Eusebian) Dedication Council was to condemn Sabellianism. It explicitly affirmed three hypostases—that is, three Persons or Beings with three distinct minds. (🔗)
“The Westerners had at Serdica in 343 produced a theological statement which appeared to have the most alarmingly Sabellian complexion” (Hanson, p. xix). It explicitly affirmed one hypostasis. (🔗)
Athanasius revived homoousios in the 350s.
In the 330s, Athanasius developed his polemical strategy, described by Ayres as a “masterpiece of the rhetorical art” (Ayres, pp. 106–7), but he said nothing about homoousios. [Quotes]
| “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). |
By the time Constantius became emperor of the whole empire in the early 350s, Athanasius had become extremely powerful, and Constantius attempted to isolate him. [Quotes]
| 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). |
During this crisis for Athanasius in the mid-350s—thirty years after Nicaea—he revived homoousios to strengthen his polemical strategy. In this way, homoousios re-entered the controversy. Athanasius had become the West’s “paragon” or model (Hanson, p. 304), and, following him, the West also began to support homoousios. [Quotes]
| 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). |
The Cappadocian Alternative
Basil of Caesarea, the first of the three Cappadocian fathers, wrote in the 360s and 370s. He began as an Arian, specifically, a Homoiousian. In other words, he initially taught three hypostases in the Godhead. He later accepted homoousios while continuing to teach three hypostases. Whereas the Homoiousians held that there were three hypostases of similar substance, Basil made the relatively small move to three hypostases of the same substance. [Quotes]
| “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).
“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). |
However, his interpretation of homoousios brought him into opposition with Athanasius and the other Western Nicenes, who continued to teach one hypostasis (🔗).
“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).
Overview
The fourth-century controversy continued the debate of the preceding century, which centered mainly on two competing views:
The Monarchian/Sabellian view that the Father and Son are a single Being, a single hypostasis, and
The traditional Logos-theology view, often as interpreted by Origen, in which the Son is a distinct Being, a distinct hypostasis.
The Monarchian/Sabellian view employed the term homoousios, but this view and the term were rejected in the third century.
However, at Nicaea, with the emperor’s support, a one-hypostasis minority gained the upper hand and inserted the term homoousios into the Creed, despite the majority’s objections. Emperor Constantine eased the majority’s concerns by explaining ousia and homoousios in a highly figurative sense, merely meaning that the Son was truly from the Father and is like the Father. This explanation enabled the Eusebian majority to accept the Creed.
In the years after Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed that the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios meant that the church had accepted a one-hypostasis theology. This caused a few years of intense strife, after which the leading Sabellians were exiled.
After that, homoousios disappeared from the discussion for more than two decades. Neither Athanasius nor the councils of the 340s mentioned it. Instead, the debate focused on a more fundamental issue: whether the Son is a distinct Being, or hypostasis.
In the mid-350s, about thirty years after Nicaea, Athanasius, who also held a one-hypostasis theology, brought the term homoousios back into the controversy. This development divided the Eusebians into different positions on the Son’s substance.
In the 360-370s, Basil of Caesarea, the first Cappadocian father, was the first to explain homoousios as three hypostases. In the end, the church was divided into at least the following factions:
Western Nicenes explained homoousios as saying that the Father and the Son are a single hypostasis (one Being).
Eastern Nicenes (the Cappadocians) interpreted homoousios in a generic sense, meaning three distinct but equal hypostases.
Homoians, who dominated the church in the 350s, 360s, and 370s, rejected all talk of God’s substance, including the term homoousios (🔗).
Homoiousians claimed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same (🔗).
Heterousians held that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s.
In the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made the Western Nicene view the State Religion of the Roman Empire and destroyed all Eusebian (Arian) views from the Roman State Church through violent persecution.
Other Articles
Other Core Articles
🔗 All articles on this Site
🔗 Daniel’s Little Horn
🔗 Daniel 9 – Verse-by-Verse
🔗 Daniel 9 – Four Alternative Interpretations
🔗 Revelation 13 Dragon, Roman Empire
🔗 Revelation 13 Beast, Roman Christian Authority
🔗 What is the Mark of the Beast?
🔗 The Trinity doctrine
🔗 The True Origin of the Trinity Doctrine
🔗 The Sabbath was part of the Arian Controversy.
🔗 Christ’s Return
Other Article Series
🔗 The Antichrist in Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11
🔗 The 490 years of Daniel 9
🔗 Book of Revelation
🔗 Christology
🔗 Origin of Evil
🔗 Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment
For general theology, I recommend Graham Maxwell.