Was Athanasius a Sabellians?
Purpose
“Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy.” (LA, 107) In contrast, this article argues that Athanasius was a Sabellian; a theology that was already rejected as heretical during the preceding century.
Much less of Alexander's writings survived but this article concludes that he was also a Sabellian.
What is a Sabellian?
To determine whether Athanasius was a Sabellian, one needs to know what Sabellians believed. Sabellianism is described in the article - The Sabellians of the Fourth Century. In summary:
Concerning the eternal Godhead:
- Sabellians believed that “before the world existed the Word was IN
the Father.” (LA, 63) In their view, the Logos is part of the Father
as His only rational capacity. In other words, Father and Son are one
single Person. On page 801, Hanson refers to “a Sabellian, believing
in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.”
- If the Logos is IN the Father, the Logos has no real distinct
existence. Rather, the preexistent Logos was merely “a power or
aspect” of the Father and “not in any serious sense distinct from
him.” (RH, 237)
Concerning the incarnated Jesus Christ, if the Logos has no real distinct existence, then Jesus Christ would be a mere man. He may be a maximally inspired man, but he remains essentially a man, meaning that:
- Firstly, Christ did not exist before He was born from Mary.
- Secondly, the Logos dwells in the man Jesus merely as an energy, an activity, or as inspiration from God.
- Thirdly, God did not suffer or die. In Sabellian view, Christ is a
complete human being with a human soul (mind). That soul or mind
absorbed all human suffering so that God did not suffer at all. It
was that human being that suffered, died, was resurrected, and now
sits at God's right hand.
Terminology
During the Arian Controversy, most people used hypostasis and ousia (substance) as synonyms. So, there were only two basic views, namely that God exists as:
- One ousia (substance) and one hypostasis (Person), or
- Three ousiai (substances) and three hypostases (Persons).
The first view was held by Sabellians. They believed "in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.” (RH, 801) This quote also confirms that hypostasis and 'Person' are synonyms. This article's purpose is to show that Athanasius also regarded Father as Son as being one single hypostasis or Person.
The second view was held by the Eusebians (the so-called Arians).
However, the Trinity doctrine uses ousia and hypostasis as contrasting concepts and adds, therefore, a third view, namely that God exists as:
- One ousia (substance or Being) and three hypostases (Persons).
In all three options, a hypostasis is a 'Person'. Another term that the sources sometimes use as a synonym for 'Person' is 'Reality'.
Overview
The Son is part of the Father.
Similar to the Sabellians, Athanasius regarded the Son (the Logos) as part of the Father. For example:
- “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius'
theology.” (RH, 426)
- Athanasius often used the Greek term idios to describe how the Son
relates to the Father. Idios was used to indicate that certain
qualities and activities are intrinsic to a being.
- While the Eusebians (the anti-Nicenes, usually but inappropriately
called ‘Arians’) postulated two Logoi in the Godhead - (1) the
Logos that became incarnated and (2) the Father's own Logos,
Athanasius said that there is only one Logos, namely, the Father's
own internal Logos (rational capacity).
- For Athanasius, the Holy Spirit is also part of the Father.
Father and Son are only one Hypostasis.
- While the Eusebians taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
three distinct hypostases, the “clear inference from his
(Athanasius') usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.”
(LA, 48)
- Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.” He regarded
the phrase as "unscriptural and therefore suspicious.” (LA, 174; RH,
440)
- Athanasius “defends constantly … the ontological unity of the Father
and the Son.” (RH, 422, cf. 428) This may sound as if he was a
Trinitarian, believing that Father and Son are one single Being
(substance). But “clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still
synonymous.” (RH, 440) In other words, when he argues for
“ontological unity,” meaning that Father and Son are one ousia
(substance), he is really saying that they are one single hypostasis
(Person).
- While the Eusebians regarded the Logos as Mediator between God and
creation both during His incarnation and beyond, Athanasius, because
he does not recognize the Logos as a distinct hypostasis, limited
the Son’s role as mediator to the incarnation.
Athanasius was a Sabellian.
Thus far, this article has shown that Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father and that Father and Son are one single hypostasis. Both are clear indications of Sabellianism. Further indications of this include the following:
- The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to ally with
Marcellus, who was the main Sabellian of the fourth century. “They
considered themselves allies.” (LA, 106)
- At the time, their beliefs were regarded as similar. “The perception
that these two trajectories (Athanasius and Marcellus) held to very
similar beliefs would help to shape widespread eastern antipathy to
both in the years after Nicaea.” (LA, 69)
- The Meletian Schism also identifies Athanasius as a Sabellian.
That schism was a dispute between two factions within the pro-Nicene
camp, namely, between the ‘one hypostasis’ and the ‘three
hypostases’ factions. Athanasius was one of the leaders of the ‘one
hypostasis’ faction.
- In conclusion, “until he (Athanasius) could come to terms with a
theology which admitted the existence of three hypostases, and no
longer regarded the word hypostasis as a synonym for ousia, he could
not fail to give the impression that he was in danger of falling
into Sabellianism.” (RH, 444)
Alexander
Alexander, similar to Athanasius and the Sabellians:
- Maintained that the Son is a property or quality of the Father,
- Taught that the Logos in Christ is the Father’s intrinsic Word and Wisdom, and
- Never spoke about hypostases (plural for hypostasis).
Scholars conclude that "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.“ (LA, 69) Since “Alexander's theology found its most famous advocate in his successor Athanasius” (LA, 45), this is further evidence that Athanasius was a Sabellian.
Conclusion
There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of his day; Eustathius and Marcellus.
**- END OF OVERVIEW -**
Authors
This article is largely based on the following recent writings of world-class scholars:
Hanson - An informative lecture by R.P.C. Hanson in 1981 on the
Arian Controversy.
RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God
– The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of
Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United
Kingdom.
The Son is Part of the Father.
The quotes in this article sometimes refer to 'the Son' and sometimes to 'the Logos'. Alexander and Athanasius used these terms as synonyms. For example:
- “The original Logos and Wisdom … is the Son.” (RH, 427).
- “The Word and Son is idios to the Father's essence.” (LA, 114)
There are several indications that Athanasius regarded the Son (the Logos) as part of the Father:
(A) The Son is IN the Father.
Athanasius described the Son, not as in God generally, but as IN the Father specifically. For example:
“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius'
theology.” (RH, 426) “The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (RH,
428)
“Athanasius' increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to
the Father's being” (LA, 113)
“Athanasius' argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common
activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is intrinsic
to the Father's being.” (LA, 114)
“The Son's existence is intrinsic to the Father's nature.” (LA, 116)
“Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means identical with
Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for them to be at one
on some of the vital issues—especially their common insistence that
the Son was intrinsic to the Father's external existence.” (LA, 106)
(B) The Son is Idios to the Father.
Athanasius often used the Greek term idios to describe how the Son relates to the Father. For example:
“The Word and Son is idios to the Father's essence.” (LA, 114)
“For the Son is in the Father … because the whole being of the Son is
idios to the Father's essence, as radiance from light and stream from
fountain.” (LA, 115)
He “insisted continually that the Son was the Father's own (idios).”
(RH, 425)
Idios means “pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self” (Bible Study Tools). Ayres comments as follows on the meaning of idios:
- “Initially used to indicate that certain qualities and activities are
intrinsic to being human, the use of the term to indicate that the
Son is idios to the Father's ousia serves to reinforce his tendency
to present the Father/Son relationship as most like that of a
person and their faculties.” (LA, 115)
So, to say that the Son (the Logos) is idios to the Father means that He is part of the Father. Ayres says that “it probably served only to reinforce his opponents’ sense that the use of ousia language could only serve to confuse the clear distinction between Father and Son.” (LA, 115)
(C) The Son is God's Internal Wisdom.
While Eusebians postulated two Logoi in the Godhead - (1) the Logos that became incarnated and (2) the Father's own Logos - Athanasius, similar to the Sabellians, said that there is only one Logos. The Logos in Christ must then necessarily be the Father's own internal Logos (wisdom, rational capacity, or mind); not a separate hypostasisor Person. For example:
Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi.” (RH, 431)
He argued that the pre-existent Son is “present with Him (the Father)
as his Wisdom and his Word.” (LA, 46)
He criticized “the [Arian] idea that Christ is a derivative Wisdom and
not God's own wisdom.” (LA, 116)
(D) The Holy Spirit is also part of the Father.
For Athanasius, just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Reality:
“Just as his (Athanasius’) account of the Son can rely heavily on the
picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he
emphasizes the closeness of Spirit to Son by presenting the Spirit as
the Son's ‘energy’.” (LA, 214)
The Cappadocians concluded that Athanasius did not afford the Holy Spirit a distinct existence (a separate hypostasis). For example:
“The language also shows Athanasius trying out formulations that will
soon be problematic. … ‘The Cappadocians' will find the language of
ἐνέργεια [superhuman activity] used of the Spirit … to be highly
problematic, seeming to indicate a lack of real existence.” (LA,
214)
One Hypostasis (One Reality or Person)
(A) Only one hypothesis in God
Following Origen, the Eusebians taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases. The previous section has shown in several ways that Athanasius regarded the Son as part of the Father; similar to the Sabellians. This section reinforces that conclusion by showing that Athanasius believed that Father and Son are one single hypostasis (one single Reality):
The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is
only one hypostasis in God.” (LA, 48)
“Athanasius' most basic language and analogies for describing the
relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as
intrinsic aspects of one reality or person.” (LA, 46)
"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.“ (LA, 69)
“He had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in
343, and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for
the belief in one, and only one, hypostasis as orthodoxy.
Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359, even
though he tried later to suppress this fact.” (RH, 444)
(B) Opposed three Hypostases
This is also indicated by Athanasius’ opposition to the concept of “three hypostases:”
He regarded the phrase as "unscriptural and therefore suspicious.”
(LA, 174; RH, 440)
“He clearly approves of the sentence of … that it is wrong to divide
the divine monarchy into 'three powers and separate hypostases and
three Godheads', thereby postulating 'three diverse hypostases wholly
separated from each other'.” (RH, 445)
Another article shows that the real issue and the fundamental dispute in the entire Arian Controversy was whether God is one or three hypostases. For Athanasius, the enemy was those who taught more than one hypostasis (Person) in God:
“Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against
those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (LA, 106)
(C) Opposed Logos-theology
Athanasius' insistence on one single hypostasis in God is further illustrated by his opposition to the two hypotheses of Logos-theology:
In the traditional Logos-theology of the previous centuries, based mostly on principles from Greek philosophy, which says that God cannot interact directly with matter, the church fathers developed the two-stage Logos-theology. In it, God’s Logos always existed inside Him but, when God decided to create, God’s Logos became a separate hypostasis with a lower divinity which enabled Him to create and interact with matter. Through the Logos, God created all things and, through the Logos, God reveals Himself to the creation. Since this was based mostly on Greek philosophy, Hanson refers to this Logos as “a convenient philosophical device.” But Athanasius rejected the idea of the pre-existent Logos as a distinct hypostasis:
Athanasius said: “He (the Father) was no remote God who required a lesser god (the
Logos) to reveal Him.” (RH, 423)
“He refused to use the pre-existent Christ as a convenient
philosophical device.” (RH, 423)
“He never accepted the Origenistic concept of the Logos as a mediating
agent within the Godhead.” (RH, 425)
The point is that, for Athanasius, in the Godhead, there was only one hypostasis.
(D) Ontological Unity
Athanasius “defends constantly … the ontological unity of the Father and the Son.” (RH, 422, cf. 428)
Now, this may sound as if he was a Trinitarian, believing that Father and Son are one single Being (substance). But “clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (RH, 440) In other words, when he argues for “ontological unity,” meaning that Father and Son are one ousia (substance), he is really saying that they are one single hypostasis (Person).
(E) No Mediator outside the Incarnation
The Bible describes Christ as the Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). In the Eusebian view, the Son always had this role; also before His incarnation. But Athanasius, since he did not believe in the Logos as a distinct hypostasis, limited Christ’s role as Mediator to the incarnation:
“God needed no mediator to create the world. … The Logos/Son is a
redemptive, not a cosmic principle.” (RH, 423)
“When he comes to interpret the crucial text, Proverbs 8:22 ff, [The
Lord made me at the beginning of His ways] he insists that its terms
apply to the incarnate, not the pre-existent Christ … it shows that
Athanasius placed the mediating activity of the Son, not in his
position within the Godhead, but in his becoming incarnate.” (RH, 424)
“Athanasius firmly places the mediating activity of the Logos, not
within the Godhead, but in the Incarnation.” (RH, 447)
In other words, for Athanasius, apart from the Incarnation, there is no Mediator.
(F) Unitarian
Ayres refers to “Athanasius' own strongly unitarian account.” (LA, 435) The term “unitarian” is used for 'one hypostasis' theologies, with Marcellus of Ancyra as the prime example. For example:
" ... supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian
tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431)
“Studer's account [1998] here follows the increasingly prominent
scholarly position that Athanasius' theology offers a strongly
unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal
differentiation is underdeveloped.” (LA, 238)
Athanasius was a Sabellian
Thus far, this article has shown that Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father and that Father and Son are one single hypostasis. Both are clear indications of Sabellianism. This section provides additional support for this conclusion:
(A) Alliance with Marcellus
The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with the main Sabellian of the fourth century; Marcellus:
“They considered themselves allies.” (LA, 106) At the time when
both were exiled to Rome, “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have
made common cause against those who insisted on distinct
hypostases in God.” (LA, 106)
“At the Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Tyre in the same year
he (Marcellus) had supported Athanasius.” (RH, 217)
“Athanasius ... continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus.” (RH,
220) “Though he (Athanasius) may temporarily at this period, when he
was preparing to return from his second exile, have wished to place a
distance between himself and Marcellus, he had no intention of making
a final break with him. It is doubtful if he ever did this.” (RH, 220)
Contrary to the traditional account, “it is … no longer clear that
Athanasius ever directly repudiated Marcellus, and he certainly seems
to have been sympathetic to Marcellus’ followers through into the
360s.” (LA, 106)
(B) Similar Beliefs
At the time and still today, their beliefs were regarded as similar:
“Athanasius and Marcellus could come together in Rome. The perception
that these two trajectories held to very similar beliefs would help to
shape widespread eastern antipathy to both in the years after Nicaea.”
(LA, 69)
"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.“ (LA, 69) (Eustatius was the
other important Sabellian in the fourth century. See - The Sabellians
of the Fourth Century).
"Athanasius and Marcellus can and should both be counted as ‘original
Nicene’." (LA, 99) This again implies a strong similarity between
their theologies.
(C) Meletian Schism
Hanson's discussion of the Meletian schism also identifies Athanasius as a Sabellian.
That schism was a dispute between two factions within the pro-Nicene camp, namely, between the ‘one hypostasis’ and the ‘three hypostases’ factions. The leaders of the ‘one hypostasis’ faction (the Sabellians) were bishop Damasus of Rome and Athanasius. Basil of Caesarea and Meletius of Antioch led the ‘three hypostases’ faction:
In a letter to Basil, “Damasus sent a very cool reply … deliberately
avoided making any statement about the three hypostases. It was the
adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this doctrine of
the hypostases which caused Damasus … to suspect them of heresy.”
(RH, 798)
THE BISHOP OF ANTIOCH
One of the main issues in this dispute was about the rightful bishop of Antioch. Damasus and Athanasius supported Paulinus because Paulinus taught 'one hypostasis':
In 375, Damasus wrote a letter that “constituted also an official
recognition of Paulinus, not Meletius, as bishop of Antioch.” (RH,
799)
Paulinus “was recognized as legitimate bishop of Antioch by
Athanasius.” (RH, 801)
Paulinus was “Marcellan/Sabellian.” (RH, 799) He derived “his
tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop about
forty years before” (RH, 800-1). (Eustathius and Marcellus were
the two famous Sabellians of the fourth century.)
Basil, on the other hand, opposed Paulinus:
“Paulinus was a rival of Basil's friend and ally Meletius. … Basil
suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only
one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.” (RH, 801)
Note that the previous quote confirms that:
- A person who believes in one hypostasis is a Sabellian.
- Basil believed in three hypostases.
SUPPORT FOR THE MARCELLANS
The theologies of Damasus, Athanasius, and Basil are also reflected in their support or opposition to the Marcellans. The ”watch-word” of “these disciples of Marcelius … had always been 'only one hypostasis in the Godhead'.” (RH, 802)
Damasus and Athanasius supported the Marcellans:
“Basil was never sure in his own mind that Athanasius had abandoned
Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers.” (RH, 797)
“About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius,
presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them
a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine.” (RH, 801)
But Basil opposed the Marcellians:
Basil wrote a letter that “contained some shafts directed at Damasus
because of his toleration of Eustathius and the Marcellans.” (RH, 799)
“In a letter written to Athanasius he (Basil of Caesarea) complains
that the Westerners have never brought any accusation against
Marcellus.” (RH, 802)
(D) Conclusions
So, was Athanasius a Sabellian? Hanson concludes:
“Athanasius, not through lack of good intention but through lack of
vocabulary, verges dangerously close to Sabeilianism.” (RH, 429)
“Loofs in his earlier work said that Athanasius swung between the
Sabellian and the anti-Sabellian tendencies in his thought.” (RH, 443)
“The evidence that for Athanasius hypostasis was the same as ousia is
unmistakable.” (RH, 445) “He could not fail to give many the
impression that he did not distinguish between the 'Persons' of the
Trinity. This was not his intention; he was not a Sabellius, not even
a Marcellus. But until he could come to terms with a theology which
admitted the existence of three hypostases, and no longer regarded the
word hypostasis as a synonym for ousia, he could not fail to give the
impression that he was in danger of falling into Sabellianism.” (RH,
444)
All the people I quote are Trinitarians and, naturally, defend Athanasius. But, from an independent perspective, in my opinion, the evidence is quite clear that Athanasius was a Sabellian.
Alexander of Alexandria
“Alexander's theology found its most famous advocate in his successor Athanasius.” (LA, 45) Alexander's theology, therefore, should provide additional information on the question of whether Athanasius was a Sabellian.
RPC Hanson wrote:
“[Rowan] Williams' work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria,
Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or
quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance.
Properties or qualities cannot be substances …; they are not
quantities. The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or
quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (RH, 92)
Both Athanasius and Alexander, therefore, described the Son as idios to the Father. Furthermore, similar to the Sabellians and Athanasius, Alexander taught that the Logos in Christ is the Father’s intrinsic Word and Wisdom:
“Alexander taught that … as the Father's Word and Wisdom the Son must
always have been with the Father.” (LA, 16)
“Alexander argues that as Word or Wisdom the Son must be eternal or
the Father would, nonsensically, have been at one time bereft of
both.” (LA, 44)
“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom
of the Father.” (LA, 54)
Alexander never spoke about hypostases:
With respect to both Alexander and Athanasius, Ayres concludes, “This
trajectory ... is also resistant to speaking of three hypostases.”
(LA, 43)
“We never find him (Alexander) using hypostasis as a technical term
for the individual existence of one of the divine persons, and he
never speaks of there being two or three hypostases.” (LA, 45)
Both Alexander and Athanasius, therefore, believed, since He is God’s only Wisdom or Word, that the Son is part of the Father. In their view, there is only one hypostasis in God. Consequently, scholars conclude that their theologies were close to that of the 'one hypostasis' theology of the Sabellians:
"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.“ (LA, 69)
Incarnation
If Athanasius was a Sabellian, we would also see that in his theory of the incarnation. If he was a Sabellian, the incarnated Christ would be a maximally inspired man, but still a mere man with a human soul (mind).
However, Athanasius refused to admit that Jesus had a human mind. He describes Jesus as the Logos dwelling in a human body. Since, in his view, the Logos is part of the Father, it is really the Father that dwells in the human body.
But he completely ignored the human side of Jesus Christ, so much so that scholars “conclude that whatever else the Logos incarnate is in Athanasius' account of him, he is not a human being.” (RH, 451) In other words, he described Jesus as God in a human body.
When he discusses Jesus’ ignorance and fears, Athanasius says that God only pretended to be ignorant and to fear. For such reasons, scholars say:
“The chief reason for Athanasius' picture of Jesus being so completely
unconvincing is of course that, at least till the year 362, it never
crossed his mind that there was any point in maintaining that Jesus
had a human soul or mind.” (RH, 451)
“Athanasius involves himself in the most far-fetched explanations to
explain away some of the texts which obviously represents Jesus as
having faith.” (RH, 450)
See - The Incarnation for a discussion of Athanasius' view on the subject.
Conclusion
There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of their time; Eustathius and Marcellus. As ‘One Reality’ theologians, Alexander and Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’ theology and the term homoousios were already formally rejected as heretical by the church during the preceding century, they followed an already discredited theology.
