The Antitrinitarian Heresies and Their Condemnation by the Church — Article 2: The Modalism of Sabellius

ARTICLE 2: THE MODALISM OF SABELLIUS

1. The Heresy of Sabellius

Sabellius (about A. D. 250) was not an extreme Monarchianist; he recognized the existence of a Trinity, though an imperfect one, in the Godhead.¹

The Sabellian Triad is no true, real, immanent Trinity. It is merely a modal, external, and transitive distinction, based upon the relation of God (in Whom the Sabellians admit but one Person) to the created universe. In other words, the Trinity of the Sabellians is a merely external Trinity of manifestation, not an internal one of life. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they argue, are three distinct modes (πρόσωπα) by which the one Person of the Godhead manifests Himself, and which are interrelated as body, soul, and spirit in man, or light, warmth, and sphericity in the sun. The undifferentiated Divine Monad has in course of time developed and “dilated” into a Triad. In its role of Creator it is called Father; as the Redeemer it is called Son; and as the Sanctifier, enlightening and regenerating the faithful, it is called Holy Ghost. Hence the Modalist formula: “Τρεῖς ὀνομασίαι ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει,” or, still more sharply: “Μία ὑπόστασις καὶ τρεῖς ἐνέργειαι.”

Although the Trinity of Sabellius was not a real Trinity of Persons, but merely a triple differentiation of office and external manifestation, he nevertheless adopted, for the sake of perverting it, the orthodox formula of τρία πρόσωπα. He dishonestly played upon the ambiguity of the word πρόσωπον, which etymologically may signify a person, outward appearance, a countenance, or a character in a play.² It was on this account that the later Oriental theologians avoided the term πρόσωπον (persona = mask) for person; or, when they did employ it, defined it most carefully as πρόσωπον ἐνυπόστατον, in order to exclude the Sabellian interpretation of πρόσωπον ἀνυπόστατον.

2. Its Condemnation

Sabellius, after having been treated with considerate kindness by Pope Zephyrin, was finally excommunicated by Callistus (217–222). We know this from the Philosophoumena of St. Hippolytus (first complete edition by Miller, Oxford 1851).

After his excommunication Sabellius retired to the Lybian Pentapolis (about A. D. 257), and there continued to propagate his errors. He was opposed by Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, who wrote several dogmatic epistles in refutation of Sabellianism, but in his zeal for the truth went to the other extreme, so that he was accused of teaching Ditheism.³ The most objectionable passage⁴ in the latter’s writings was probably this: “The Son of God is a work or creature (ποίημα) and something that has come into being; He is not distinct according to His nature, but foreign to the Father in substance” [οὐσία undoubtedly is here the same as ὑπόστασις, both terms being used promiscuously for a time to signify nature or person]. At this juncture (A. D. 262) Pope Dionysius issued a truly epoch-making decision, of which St. Athanasius has preserved some fragments. In his epistle the sovereign teacher of Christendom distinctly condemns the Sabellian heresy, but at the same time censures the ditheistic expressions used by the Bishop of Alexandria. It is not too much to say that this Apostolic letter condemned not only Monarchianism and Sabellianism, but likewise, in advance, Subordinationism and Tritheism, which were the products of a later age.⁵ The energetic and loyal Bishop of Alexandria, who in his zeal had overshot the truth, readily submitted and satisfied the Pope of his good faith by means of an explicit statement which he forwarded to Rome. This important document embodies two points of particular interest. In the first place Denis explains that he had employed the unfortunate term ποίημα not in the meaning of “creature,” but in the hypostatic sense of productus, i. e., genitus, in order to emphasize the reality and self-existence of the Person of the Logos against Sabellius. Secondly, he cordially accepts the new locution ὁμοούσιον τῷ θεῷ, used by Pope Dionysius in his dogmatic epistle, though, as he takes pains to remark, he had “not found this term anywhere in Holy Scripture.”⁶ This goes to show that the term was coined and circulated long before the Council of Nicaea; in other words, the heresy of Arius was condemned before it was ever hatched. The phrase ὁμοούσιος τῷ θεῷ embodies all the essential elements of the dogma: Christ’s Divine Sonship, His Divinity, and His Consubstantiality with the Father.⁷

Readings

Worm, Historia Sabelliana, 1796; Döllinger, Hippolytus und Callistus, Ratisbon 1853 (English translation, Hippolytus and Callistus, Edinburgh 1876); Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 116 sqq., New Ed., London 1901; L. Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church (English tr.), Vol. I, pp. 225 sqq.