Sidor som bilder

speculative mind, and that his main bias and intention was different from that of Arius. The thesis of subordination, which was the centre of the Arian system, was to him only a "suspicious and hasty inference from the distinction between the Father and the Son." See Dorner, s. 743 ff., and Baur, Dg. s. 487.


The Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, with the
Denial of the Hypostatic Distinction.

Sabellianism and Paul of Samosata.

Ch. Wormii, Historia Sabelliana, Francof. et Lips. 1696. * Schleiermacher, über den Gegensatz zwischen der sabellianischen und athanasianischen Vorstellung von der Trinität (Berlin. Theol. Zeitschr. 1822, 3). Lange, der Sabellianismus in seiner ursprünglichen Bedeutung (Illgens Zeitschr. für historische Theol. iii. 2, 3).-J. G. Feuerlin, de Hæresi Pauli Samos. 1741, 4to. J. G. Ehrlich, de Erroribus Pauli Samos. Lips. 1745, 4to. Schwab, de Pauli Sam. vita atque doctrina Diss. inaug. 1839. Trechsel in Herzog's Realencyc. xi. s. 249. [Comp. Dorner, i. 127 ff., on Sabellius; and on Paul of Samosata, i. 510 ff. L. Lange, Antitrin. vor d. Nic. Syn. 1851. Waterland's Works, i. 517 ff., ii. 703 ff.]

Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, who lived about the middle of the third century, adopted the notions of the earlier Monarchians, such as Praxeas, Noëtus, and Beryllus; and maintained, in opposition to the doctrine propounded by Origen and his followers, that the appellations Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only so many different manifestations and designations of one and the same divine being. He thus converted the objective and real distinction of persons (a Trinity of essence) into a merely subjective and modalistic view (a Trinity of manifestation). In illustration of his views, he made use not only of various images which his opponents sometimes misinterpreted, but also of such expressions as were afterwards transferred to the terminology of the orthodox Church (1). Thus, while he avoided, on the one hand, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and re

cognized the divinity manifested in Christ as the absolute Deity; yet, on the other hand, by annulling the personality of the Son, he gave the appearance of Pantheism to this immediate revelation of God in Christ; since, with the cessation of the manifestation of Christ in time, the Son also ceased to be Son. The doctrine of Paul of Samosata is not, as formerly happened, to be identified with the notions of Sabellius; it rather approached the earlier (Alogistic) opinions of Artemon and Theodotus, which, as regards the nature of Christ, were not so much pantheistic as deistic (2).

(1) Eus. vii. 6. Epiph. Hær. 62. Athan. Contra Arian. iv. 2, and other passages. Basil, Ep. 210, 214, 235. Theodoret, Fab. Hær. ii. 9. According to Epiphanius, Sabellius taught that there were ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει τρεῖς ἐνέργειαι (ὀνομασίαι, óvóμara), and illustrated his views by adducing the human trinity of body, soul, and spirit, and the three properties of the sun, viz. the enlightening (pwTIOTIKÓν), the warming (Tò θαλπόν), and the periphery (τὸ περιφερείας σχῆμα). But it is difficult to determine how far he applied the one or the other of these characteristics to the persons of the Trinity, and carried out the analogy in all its particulars. According to Athanasius, iv. 25, he also referred to the manifold gifts coming from the one Spirit, as illustrative of the Trinity. What is objective in the matter consisted, in his view, in the divine economy, in the modes in which God is revealed to the human race. God is called Father in relation to the giving of the law; He is called Son in relation to the work of redemption; and Holy Spirit in relation to the inspiration of the apostles and the quickening of believers; hence the charge of the orthodox (Athan. iv. 25; Basil. Ep. 210, 214, 235; Aug. Tract. in Joh. § 3), that Sabellius had limited the doctrine of the Trinity merely to the wants of the present world (πpòs τὰς ἑκάστοτε χρείας). These three different modes of the divine manifestation (according to Athanasius, iv. 13) he regarded as a πλατύνεσθαι οι ἐκτείνεσθαι (the figure of an arm stretched out and brought back). But it is difficult to ascertain the precise distinction which he made between these different modes of manifestation and the "monas " (unity), the

aúróleos, whom he called vioтáтwp (Athan. De Syn. 16); and the relation in which this monas stands to these modes of manifestation, and to the Father in particular. To judge from some passages (quoted by Athan. iv. 25), he seems to have considered the terms Tarp and μóvas identical; while elsewhere (iv. 13) the Father, who is designated as the póvas, forms a part of the Trinity, comp. Dorner, s. 706 ff. Voigt, Athan. s. 268, seeks (in opposition to Schleiermacher, Baur, and others) again to establish the opinion that, according to Sabellius, the monas and the Father are identical. The Logos also occupies a peculiar position in the system of Sabellius. While, in his opinion, the Trinity only exists in relation to the world, the creation of the world is brought about by the Logos, to whom Sabellius, like the earlier writers, applies the predicates évdiáOETоs and Tроpopikós, see Dorner, s. 711 ff. Thus, according to Sabellius, God is inactive as silent, and active as speaking (Athan. iv. 11). On the entire system of Sabellius, as well as on the sense in which he used the terms πрóσwπov (whether borrowed from the theatre ?) and oμoovσios, see Schleiermacher, 1.c. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. 1. 200 ff. Neander, Kg. i. 3, Möhler, Athanasius der Grosse, i. s. 184 ff.; and Voigt, l.c. As regards the historical manifestation of Christ, it must be admitted that its theological significance is not impugned by Sabellius, inasmuch as he regards the Saviour as the immediate manifestation of God. But Christ possesses personality only during this historical appearance in the flesh. That personality neither existed previous to His incarnation, nor does it continue to exist in heaven, since that divine ray which had been let down into Christ returns again to God. Nevertheless, Sabellius seems to have expected the second coming of Christ (Schleiermacher, s. 174). It is even doubtful whether he makes the return of the Logos to God to occur at the ascension of Christ, or only when the kingdom of God is completed. On the connection between Sabellianism and Ebionitism, see Dorner, s. 726. [This is seen in that Sabellius makes the revelation of Christ a mere means, and not an end; in his calling the Son a ray (axTiva) of the monas, on account of which he was accused of dividing the divine essence; and then the difficult question (since he allowed no distinctions in God), whether the whole

s. 1015 ff., and Dg. s. 175.

God was in the person (Prosopon) of the Son in such a way that He was not elsewhere active during the incarnation-a question which led him to speak of the Son in terms approximating to Ebionitism.] According to Epiphanius (1.c.), the opinions of Sabellius were principally spread in Mesopotamia, and in the vicinity of Rome. A sect of Sabellians, properly so called, has never existed.

(2) Paul, a native of Syria, Bishop of Antioch from the year 260, was, after 264, charged with heresy at several synods, and at last removed from his office (269-272). his dispute with the presbyter Malchion, a fragment is preserved in Mansi, vol. i. p. 1001 ss. Comp. the different accounts given by Epiph. 65, 1, and Euseb. vii. 27. The writers on the History of Doctrines vary in their opinions respecting the relation in which he stands, whether to Sabellianism or to the Unitarianism of the Artemonites (see Euseb. v. 28, ab init.); comp. Schleiermacher, s. 389 ff. BaumgartenCrusius, i. s. 204. Augusti, s. 59. Meier, Dogmengesch. s. 74, 75. Dorner, s. 510. Baur, Dg. 477 ff. The difference between Sabellius and Paul of Samosata may be said to have consisted in this, that the former thought that the whole substance of the divine being, the latter that only one single divine power, had manifested itself in Christ. Trechsel (Geschichte des Antitrinitarismus, i. s. 61) agrees with this, calling Samosatianism "the correlate of Sabellianism, according to the measures of the mere understanding." The divine here comes only into an external contact with man, touches human nature only on the surface; while, on the other hand, the human element comes to its rights more than in the system of Sabellius. In other words: "In the man Jesus, as He lived here below, there dwelt the divine Logos from above; and, in a higher degree than in the prophets and in Moses, the divine wisdom was in Christ as a Temple of God," Baur, s. 478.

1 On the two Antiochene Synods, 265 and 270, see Dorner, p. 769. [Their decrees, though not in a strict dogmatic form, were received as orthodoxthough containing expressions which were avoided after the Council of Nicæa. The Son is confessed to be God in essence and hypostasis (ovcíą xxì vxocráou); His pre-existence is definitely stated-He was always with the Father; through Him, not as instrument merely, nor as an impersonal Wisdom, the Father created all things, etc. and like positions.]

Sabellianism and Samosatianism are excluded by these

At all events, we can hardly expect any serious and persevering attempts at a doctrinal system from a man whose vanity is so prominent. Though the charge that he countenanced Jewish errors to obtain favour with Queen Zenobia is unfounded (Neander, i. 3, s. 1009), yet it is quite probable that the vain show he made of free-thinking principles, and his idle pretension of taking a stand above the parties, were in as full accordance with his ostentatious nature, as in other times and under other circumstances this has been found to be connected with an arrogant and pretentious orthodoxy. Even to make a heresy, a definite theological character is needed; frivolity is but an external appendage of any party. At any rate, it is false to use the terms Sabellianism and Samosatianism promiscuously. It would be more accurate to say that they form a contrast, as Baur, lc. s. 483, rightly shows. Generally, those who denied the distinction of persons in the Trinity were called Пaтρıжaσσiavoί in the West, and Σaßeλavoí in the East. Comp. Athanasius, de Synod. 25, 7.

§ 89.

The Subordination of the Son to the Father, and the Distinction of Persons in Arianism.

[Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century. Maimbourg, Hist. of Arianism, by W. Webster, 2 vols. 1768. J. A. Stark, Versuch einer Gesch. des Arian. T. G. Hassencamp, Historia Arianæ Controversiæ, 1845. Bp. Kaye in his Council of Nice, 1853. Albert de Broglie, L'Eglise et l'Empire Romain au iv. Siècle, Paris 1856, i. 329–397. W. Klose in Herzog's Realencycl. The preparatory history of the Council of Nicæa, in Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Freib. and Edinb.]

The system of Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, forms the most striking contrast with that of Sabellius. Arius, in endeavouring to define objectively the distinction between the persons of the Trinity, carried the idea of a subordination of the one to the other, and, in the first place, of the Son to the Father, so far as to represent the former as a creation of the latter (1). This opinion, which he promulgated at Alexandria, met with the most decided opposition on the part of Alexander,

« FöregåendeFortsätt »