Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Monarchianism and Photinus of Sirmium as the Persistent Heretical Face of the Fourth
Century
Author(s): D. H. Williams
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 99, No. 2 (Apr., 2006), pp. 187-206
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4125293 .
Accessed: 25/06/2013 05:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Monarchianismand Photinus of
Sirmiumas the PersistentHeretical
Face of the FourthCentury*
D. H. Williams
BaylorUniversity
The Psychomachia of the fifth-centuryLatin poet Prudentiusprovides a straightforwardportraitof heresy generally sharedin the west:
The wolf, withgoryjaws,concealshimselfin a softfleece,
milk-whitesheepwhilecarryingon bloodymurders
Counterfeiting
by devouringlambs.
It is by thismeansthatPhotinusandArriusdisguisethemselves,
thosewolvesso wildandsavage.'
Each for its own reasons, PhotinianandAriantheologies claimed thatChristas
incarnatedeity possessed necessary limitations, lest the divine be corruptedand
mitigated by a human ontology. It was not surprisingtherefore that late-fourthcenturyversions of "Arianism"and monarchianismwere often throwntogetheras
essentially sharingthe same hereticalgoals. In particular,the monarchialtheology
of Photinusbecame identifiedas among the chief heresies of the west. It seems that
the leadingcriticismof Photinuswas thathe maintainedthe Son did not exist untilhis
incarnationat Bethlehem.Zenoof Verona(c. 362-380) accusedPhotinusof teaching
that"JesusChristassumedhis beginning (principium)from the womb of the virgin
Mary,andwas made,not born,God, on accountof his righteousness."2Intheearliest
Latinhandbookof heresy,"Fotinus"was highlightedas a hereticbecause "hedenied
* Let me
express my thanks to Prof. Joseph Lienhard who read an early draft and offered helpful criticisms.
1Prudentius,Psychomachia 793-95 (LCL 15:188).
2 Zeno, Tractatus 2.8 (CCSL 22:177.37-38).
HTR 99:2 (2006)
187-206
188
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
D. H. WILLIAMS
189
statementsaboutthe Son having his beginning from Mary.This theology had become narroweddown throughthe machinationsof a handfulof polemicists. I will,
however,returnto some furtherimplicationsof this characterizationtowardthe end
of this essay. But laterfifth and sixth centurycharacterizationsof Photinuscreated
the impressionthat the views associated with Photinus had minor significance to
the evolution of doctrinein the west, a view thatpatristicscholarshiphas more or
less accepted as accurate.In the following pages, I would like to show that a more
balancedperspectiveis warrantedfor the reasonthatit reveals 1) thatPhotinuswas
more than a heretical "strawman" who needed to be knocked down; and 2) that
the ultimate hegemony of pro-Nicene theology was contingent upon its proving
the dissimilaritybetween itself and monarchianism.This means that there had to
be a deliberateand sustainedconfrontationwith the monarchiantrajectorythathad
been latent within pro-Nicene theology.
Thereis no doubtthatthe oppositionPhotinusstirredin the west was an oblique
response to similar concerns voiced in the east over the doctrine of Marcellus of
Ancyra, althoughsuch an explanationdoes not fully accountfor the evidence that
suggeststhatsubduedyet persistentmonarchiantheologies continuedinto the fourth
century. The paucity of extant evidence makes linking this theology concretely
between the thirdand fourthcenturiesuncertain.It is unfortunatethat we know so
little aboutPaul of Samosata'stheology,7andEusebiusof Caesarea'saccountof the
moral turpitudeof the adoptionistmonarchiansin the thirdcentury is not helpful.
The only theological information,although lacking any detailed depth, was that
Artemon and Theodotustaughtthat Christ was merely human.8
7 For a critical review of the evidence see Frederick Norris, "Paul of Samosata: Procurator
Ducenarius," JTS 35 (1984) 50-70. One wonders if Paul's theology, as presented by Epiphanius,
was largely modeled on Photinus when the latter is said to have taught that the Son was "not a
subsistent entity but is in God himself," (Panarion 65.6.1 [The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop
of Salamis (trans. P. R. Amidon; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)]); that the Son was not
begotten (65.3.2); that Jesus was a human being and was inspired by the divine Logos (65.7.3);
that the model of the Son's incarnationwas a psychological one: "thatthe Logos is like that in the
human heart, and wisdom like that prudence in the human soul which every person has acquired
from God" (65.3.4).
8Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.28. The work attributedto Hippolytus, Adversus Noetum, distinguishes a
certainTheodotusandthose like him from the patripassionistswho make use of the scripturalpassages
"to prove that Christ was a mere man." Later Hippolytus says, "There was a certain Theodotus, a
native of Byzantium, who introduceda novel heresy. He announces tenets concerning the originating
cause of the universe, which are partly in keeping with the doctrines of the true Church, in so far
as he acknowledges that all things were created by God .... he alleges that (our Lord) appearedin
some such manner as I shall now describe. According to this, Theodotus maintains that Jesus was
a (mere) man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, and that after he had lived
promiscuously with all men, and had become preeminently religious, he subsequently at his baptism
in Jordanreceived Christ, who came from above and descended (upon him) in the form of a dove.
And this was the reason, (according to Theodotus) why (miraculous) powers did not operate within
him prior to the manifestation in him of that Spirit which descended (and) which proclaims him to
be the Christ. But (among the followers of Theodotus) some are disposed (to think) that never was
190
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
nipotent One, I am All Things" (fragment apud Theodore of Heraclea-Perinthusin Diaologo tra
D. H. WILLIAMS
191
Labyrinth,'13
writing at the end of the second or the beginning of the thirdcentury,
tells of his frustrationwith the tenacity of monarchianviews among the clergy;14
Hippolytuscomplainedaboutthe same thingroughlya generationlater."This state
of affairs would confirmthat Tertullian'sattemptto depict Praxeas as an isolated
heretic was special pleading on his part. He begrudgingly admits that Praxeas's
views were indeed prospering in Carthage, and most noteworthy among those
Christianswhom Tertullianscornfully calls the simplices.16 With some variation
then,monarchiantheology was flourishingin the west. And while the evidence does
not warrantthe claim thatthe "mainstream"traditionof pre-Nicene churcheswere
mainly monarchian,17 it was, nonetheless, a major strainwithin proto-orthodoxy.
It is no surprise,therefore,thatforms of monarchiantheology enduredinto the
fourthcentury.Proponentsof Photiniantheology continuedto be active in the west
long after the bishop's condemnationand deposition in 351, as evidenced by the
proscriptionsof Photinians(along with Arians,Donatists and Manichaeans)under
emperorsConstantius11,18Gratian,19and Theodosius throughoutthe later fourth
century.20These repeated proscriptions suggest that the theological emphases
13The few
fragments against the adoptionism of Artemon that are preserved anonymously only
in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.28.1-19, have been ascribed to Gaius of Rome (the same author of an
anti-Montanistdialogue against Proclus, cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25.6-7; 3.31.4; 6.20.3) by
the Byzantine cataloguer Photius. Jerome does place Gaius at the time of Zephyrinus (De viris illustribus 59 [PL 23:669B]), but no patristic historian connects this work to Gaius and it may just
as likely have been written by Hippolytus or an unknown contemporaryfamiliar with the doctrinal
situation in Rome.
14Roman monarchiansdeclared that both Victor and Zephyrinushad been swayed by their logic,
though The Little Labyrinth disputes this claim on the grounds that Victor condemned Theodotus
"the Cobbler," who presumably taught the same views as Artemon (Fr. ap. Eusebius, Hist. eccl.
5.28.6).
15However, Hippolytus accused Zephyrinus of supporting monarchianism under the influence
of his archdeacon and later successor, Callistus (Refut. 9.11).
16AdversusPraxean 3.1 in Tertullian's Treatise against Praxeas (trans. E. Evans; London:
SPCK, 1948) 91. Even though Tertulliancombined his refutation of the monarchianismof Praxeas
and the endorsement of Montanism, there is no need to assume that Montanism was fundamentally anti-modalistic. In fact, Tertullian sought to show in Adversus Praxean the implicit doctrinal
significance of the Paraclete's prophecies and the monarchia of God in explicitly trinitarianterms
of the economy. That Tertullian stresses how the two complimented each other, contra Praxeas's
claims, may imply that theological distance had to be created between Montanism and monarchial
modalism, at least as they existed in Carthage. This being said, we should not overstate the point
by saying Montanism was the means by which monarchianism came to North Africa, rather, that
the Montanism shared in the theological commerce and diversity of the late second and early third
centuries, including Monarchianism.
17As is the thesis of ReinhardM. Hiibner,Der paradox Eine. Antignostischer Monarchianismus
im zweiten Jahrhundert(VC Supp 50; Leiden: Brill, 1999).
1sAs a result of the council of Sirmium (351).
1919 Jan. 379; 20 Aug. 379 (Socrates, Hist. eccl. 5.2; Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 7.1.3; Theodosiani
Libri XVI cum constitutionibus Simondianis [CTh] 16.5.5 (ed. Theodor Mommsen and Paul M.
Meyer; Berlin: Weidmann, 1905).
20 CTh 16.5.6 (10 Jan. 381). General anti-heretical edicts were frequently issued under Theodosius, e.g., CTh 16.5.15, 19, 20, 24. Under Theodosius II, the Photinians are listed among the
192
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
proscribed heretical groups (CTh 16.5.65) (30 May 428) and again CTh, Novels of Theodosius 3.9
(31 Jan. 438).
2 Ep.
55, The Works of the Emperor Julian (LCL 29:188): "degenerum et imperitorumeius
theologorum errorem."
22
Ibid., "Tuquidem, o Photine, versimilis videris and proxime salvari, benefaciens nequaquam
in uteroinducerequem credidisti deum."The Pagan intellectual,Celsus, had echoed the same disdain
for the Christians' divine view of Jesus: "When they call him the Son of God, they are not really
paying homage to God, rather,they are attempting to exalt Jesus to the heights." Celsus: On True
Doctrine (trans. R. J. Hoffmann; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) 43.
23 There is no warrantto think that Photinus had been restored to the episcopacy of Sirmium
underJulian as L. Speller proposed ("New Light of the Photinians:The Evidence of Ambrosiaster,"
JTS 34 [1983] 101, 104). Germinius remained bishop of Sirmium until his death in c. 375/6. D. H.
Williams, "AnotherException to LaterFourthCentury 'Arian' Typologies: The Case of Germinius
of Sirmium,"JECS 4 (1996) 335-57.
24Of Illyricum (Socrates, Hist. eccl. 2.18).
25Based on Jerome, De viris illust. 107 (PL 23:703B). Valentiniancame into Illyricum in later
375, which is the time he would have likely been approachedabout continuing problems in Sirmium over Photinus. However, Valentinian was noted for involving himself as little as possible
in theological affairs, and it is all but certain that his expulsion of Photinus was on the grounds
of creating a civil disruption-a not uncommon means for emperors in the fourth century to treat
dissident bishops whom they could not (or would not) otherwise touch.
26Ep. 2.12 (CSEL 82:3).
D. H. WILLIAMS
193
Sources
Oppositional
Reminiscentof the problemsassociatedwith reconstructingthe origins of Montanism, Photinusis also said to have writtena numberof works in Greek and Latin,29
but none of these are extant and only vague echoes of his theology can be heard
in subsequentcondemnationsof him.30 The historian Socrates tells of a "creed"
that Photinusespoused in Sirmium,which was presumablythe churchbaptismal
formula,althoughno trace of this remains.31 However, the sources most useful for
determiningPhotinianbelief are not found in the general histories or the heretical
guidebooks of the fourthand fifth centuries,but they are found in the conciliar and
theological literaturecontemporaryto the bishop of Sirmium.
Partialcritiquesof Photinusare found in Hilary of Poitiers, MariusVictorinus,
Lucifer of Cagliari,and the writerknown as "Ambrosiaster."In his Matthewcommentary,Hilary shows that he was familiar first-handwith those who blaspheme
the Spiritby denying "toChristwhat is of God... since God is in Christand Christ
in God."32Presuminghe wrote the commentaryc. 350-53, Hilarymay have been
awareof the Sirmiumcouncil of 351. Regardless,it is plain from variouspassages
of the text thathe was familiarwith an adoptionisttheology at the time of Photinus
and thatit was somethinghe believed posed a presentthreatto his westernreaders.
It is this unnamedgroup who underminedthe incarnationof the divine Word by
claiming God could not be born in man and that Christ's suffering must abrogate
an eternalnature.On numerousoccasions throughoutthe commentary,Hilary signals the errorof those who are underthe illusion thatif Christwas a man he could
not also be God.33At one point, Hilary also explains how this errorleads them to
conclude that the one who was born of Mary acquiredGod's wisdom and power
ratherthan being born as God's power and wisdom:
27De non parcendo in deum delinquentibus 26.13-5: "et libros scriptos dedisti et praedicatores
194
who forgave, therefore, is God because no one forgives except God. Indeed, the Wordof God which
abides in the man offers to a man healing"; 9.8: "For never had they believed that God was in man,
just as they ratherlaughed at the proceeding of the resurrectionof the dead"; 12. 11: "Althoughthey
[the Pharisees] were not able to attributehis works to a man, they refused to confess them of God,
and claimed that all of his power against demons was from Beelzebub, the prince of demons";16.5:
"The whole of the confession is that he had assumed a body and was made man, because just as
eternity received a body of our nature, so it should be acknowledged that the nature of our body
was able to assume the power of eternity";23.8: "Thus, the Pharisees should recall that in him who
arose from David is contained the substance of the eternal power, authority and origin, and that
God was going to reside in a man"; 31.2: "They want to attach neediness to [his] spirit because of
the weakness of the body as if the taking of flesh (incarnation) in his helplessness corruptedthat
power of incorruptiblesubstance and eternity was engulfed by a natureof fragility.
34Ibid., 11.10 (SC 254:264).
35Againstthose who claim Christis madeor bornfrom nothing,Victorinussays this heresyis similar
to the one that declares Christ began from Mary (Adversus Arium 2.2 [CSEL 83:1.170-71).
36 Adversus Arrium 1.10 (CSEL 83:1.66-67).
37De non parcendo 28.43-5 (CCSL 8:250): an awkwardcitation of the phrase, "qui fueritquando
non fuerit." See 18.13-5: "Otherwisethere is a single mind of belief and unbelief among you since
you say that there is no (habere)." "God the true Son" (CCSL 8:229).
D. H. WILLIAMS
195
and upholds to rule, which acknowledges that He is a perfect divine Trinity and
has one substance."38
Lydia Speller has drawn attentionto commentariesof "Ambrosiaster"whose
argumentsreveal that certain Johannineand Pauline passages were importantto
Photinianexegesis.39Apparently,Photiniansexplained John 16:28 ("I came from
the Fatherand have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going
to the Father")as referringnot to the personof Christbut to his teachingand virtus.
Thus the hypostasis of the Son is one thing and his virtus is another-a division
thatAmbrosiasterutterlyrejected.40
Conciliar Activity
Much more could be said about the above writers relative to their opposition to
Photinus.Nonetheless, the conciliaractivity of the 340s andthatof Sirmiumin 351
providesthe earliestandmost directdatafor determiningthe kind of monarchianism
that led to Photinus's final deposition and which laid the course for his damnatio
memoriae. By retracingwhat are familiar steps to many doctrinalhistorians, we
may find some fresh insights.
In the west, the 340s saw the rise of a numberof initiatives addressingdoctrinal
matters.These were largely in response to the momentumbegun at the council of
Serdica(343).41 The aftermathof the westernproceedingsseems to have led to the
uncovering-or acknowledgement-of monarchialinterpretationsof the divine
substance. Despite their exonerationof Marcellus of Ancyra and the affirmation
of God as pia {6
it6 raot;, the western bishops, in a creed that was issued sepafrom
the
conciliar
rately
encyclical, rejectedthe notion thatthe Fatherever existed
without the Son, or that Christhas a beginning or an end, or that the Fatheris the
Son or vice-versa.42Since Marcellus had been absolved of any doctrinalguilt by
the Roman bishop Julius and by western Serdica, the council could not have been
directing its condemnationsobliquely at him but ratheragainst those unnamed
persons who espoused such positions in reality.
196
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
of Athanasius'ssplit
345 andthatit was, in part,againstPhotinus,it may serveas corroboration
from Marcellus. Joseph T. Lienhard, "Did Athanasius Reject Marcellus?"in Arianism AfterArius:
Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts (Edinburgh:T&T Clark,
1993) 74.
45The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1988) 238. Also, that
his
Photinus'sviews stem from Marcellus'searly position,that is, beforeMarcellusmoderated
views for the sakeof his acceptanceby Juliusat Rome.
46 Hilary, CAP B 2.5 (4); Jerome, De vir. illust. 107 (PL 23:703B).
47Athanasius, De synodis 26.5-6 (PG 26:730C; 73 1A).
4XItis
it diverged from the catholic understandingof the Word that became flesh (Conf. 7.19.25).
49J. Lienhard, Contra Marcellum: Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1999) 50. See 49-67 for a presentation of Marcellus's views from his
own works.
5s CAP B 2.9.1-3
(CSEL 65:146-47).
D. H. WILLIAMS
197
he insinuates that Marcellus made his own situation worse by recently writing a
book "in which Marcellus saw fit to mix certain other points of novelty that hint
vaguely at the path of doctrine on which Fotinus set out" (9. 1). Put in this way,
it sounds as if Marcellushad formulatedthe basis on which Photinusrealized his
position. But in the same context Hilarynotes how the contentof Marcellus'sbook
("which is now in our possession") showed how "Fotinustook up the beginning
of his perversitiesfrom his [Marcellus's]lessons" (9. 3). Thus, we may tentatively
conclude that whateverPhotinus took from Marcellus's teaching (e.g., preservation of monotheism with the Nicene creed), Photinus distinguishedhimself from
his former bishop by espousing christological implications that led to his own
unabashedform of monarchianism.
While we know more about Marcellus than we do of Photinus, the "success"
in underminingtheir views lay in the blurringof distinctionsthat existed between
Sabellius, Paul of Samosata,Photinus and Marcellus.5'WhereasEpiphaniussays
nothing (surprisingly)aboutthe connection between Photinus and Marcellus, nor
does Athanasius,nonetheless a group portraitof monarchialheretics, as it were,
broughtMarcellus and Photinus together in ways that obviated the peculiarities
of each. After the 350s, the connection between Photinus and Marcellus begins
to drop away as Photinus's view and his disciples become a perceived threat in
ipsumin the west.52
Besides the link with Marcellus, it seems that Photinus had begun in the mid340s to preacha theology which was one of the few issues both easternandwestern
bishops at Serdica agreed was worthy of condemnation.And yet we may assume
Photinuswon his new appointmentby acceptingprimafacie the decisionsof western
Serdica,a point thatmust have workedin his favor when he was initially suspected
of heresy. The close relation that Photinian views shared with a mia-hypostatic
position made it seemingly compatiblewith early pro-Nicenetheology, a pointthat
clearlyunderminedthose who advocatedthe innocenceof MarcellusandAthanasius
at Serdica.The same may be said of Euphratasof Cologne, a bishopwho subscribed
to the western creed of Serdica while also espousing monarchianviews.
We have the proceedingsof a small Gallic council thatconvened in 346 (or 345)
in Cologne (Coloniae Agrippinae) in response to letters of complaint (epistola)
against the bishop of that city, Euphratas(or Eufratas),the metropolitanbishop
of Gallia Secunda. Little is known of Euphratasexcept that he subscribedto the
The HomoiousianChurchParty,"ArianismAfter
51 WinrichA. Lbhr,"A Sense of Tradition:
T&TClark,1993)99.
Arius(ed. M. R. BarnesandD. H. Williams;Edinburgh:
52See Eusebiusof Vercelli(c. 362), De trinitate3.55, whichjoins Hebionand Photinusas
rejectingandagreeingto the samedoctrines(CCSL9:44);Filastriusof Brescia(c. 380), Diversarumhereseon65, cataloguesPhotinusas a followerof Paulof Samosata(see 91.2; CCSL9:244);
Ambroseof Milan(c. 397),De obituTheodosii49 (PL16:1403A)identifiesPhotinusas the heretic
who deniedthe Son'sdivinity;Rufinusof Aquileia(c. 404) in his ExpositioSymboli37 mentions
Photinusas the successorof Paulof Samosata(CCSL20:172).
198
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
decisions of (western) Serdica and had been sent as one of two delegates to Antioch in order to communicate the emperor Constans's supportof the Serdican
resolutions.53It appears,however, that Euphratas'santi-"Arianism"was founded
on a monarchiantheology that was only revealed after Serdica, perhapsby the
bishop's opponents. Whatever the exact circumstanceswere, the Cologne acta,
whose authenticitymay reasonablybe accepted,54records the following charges
made againstEuphratas:
1) thathe denied Christis God (ChristumDeum negat) (ch. 2; 3; 5) and thatby denyingthat
Deumnostrum)and"thathe hasexistedfromthebeginning"
(ch. 8);55and
3) that "he assertedthatChristwas only a man"(tantumnudumhominemasserit Christum)
(ch. 8).56
Euphratashad alreadybeen condemnedby five bishops in an unknownlocation
priorto the Cologne assembly(ch. 10), butthis seems to have hadlittleeffect against
his claim of orthodoxy,nor did it extricatehim from the city. In the condemnations
attestedin the acta, several bishops bear witness to Euphratas'sunabatedactivity.
The council held in Cologne, Euphratas'sown see, was a forcefulmaneuver,though
we do not know how successful it was in removing him once and for all.
The end of the acta breaksoff suddenlyand so the council's depositionis missing, thoughit is clearfrom each bishop's subscriptionthatEuphrataswas ultimately
D. H. WILLIAMS
199
57 CAP B 2.4 (19); CSEL 65:142. Corroborationmay be found in Liberius's remarks of 353
that it had been eight years previously at Milan that [the council] failed to condemn Arius. Ep. ad
Constantiumimperatoremper Luciferium episcopum (CAP A 7; CSEL 65:89-93).
58 CAP B 2.7: "Haec epistula (of Valens and Ursacius to Julius) post biennium missa est, quam
heresies Fotini a Romanis damnataest." (CSEL 65:145).
59There is little agreement among scholars over the exact number and locations of councils
that dealt with Photinus. Besides Milan 345, Charles Pietri argues for another council in Milan
two or three years later. Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l'Eglise de Rome, son organization, sa
politique, son iddologie de Miltiade a' Sixte III (311-440) (Rome: Ecole frangaise de Rome, 1976)
1:232-34. John N. D. Kelly inserts anothercouncil at Sirmium in 347, Early Christian Creeds (rev.
ed.; London: Longman, 1978) 281, which is the least likely of scenarios given the level of support
Photinus enjoyed in Sirmium during this period. And Speller interpretsthe passage indicated in n.
24 as a reference to another council of Milan in 347 and follows Kelly for the convention of the
Sirmium council ("New Light of the Photinians," 101).
60Joseph Lienhard, "The 'Arian"' Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered," Theological
Studies 48 (1987) 415-37.
61Athanasius, De synodis_26.5 (NPNF 4:463).
62 CAP B 2.9 (1); CSEL 65.146.6-8. There is a break in the text at the end of the sentence,
leaving the direction of Hilary's thought not completely clear.
63Greek version in Athanasius, De synodis 26; Latin in Hilary, De synodis 38-61.
200
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
66Desynodis39:"Necessitaset tempusadmonuit
eos, quiturnconuenerant,
permultiplicesquaestiones latius ac diffusius expositionem fidei ordinare;quia multis et occultis cuniculis in catholicam
heresistentaretirrepere"
domumea, quaeperPhotinumrenouabatur,
(PL 10:512C-513A).
ut uideri
charissimi,ita unam substantiamPatriset Filii praedicant,
67 "Multi ex nobis,Fratres
(PL 10.525A).
possintnonmagisid pie quamimpiepraedicare"
Pateret Filiusdicatur,uthic subsistens,subsignificatione
68,"Atuerosi idcircouniussubstantiae
licet duum nominum, unus ac solus sit" De synodis 68 (PL 10:25B).
61 "Quin etiam et
hujus statim erroris occurrit occasio, ut diuisus a sese Pater intelligatur, et
D. H. WILLIAMS
201
13 (PG 26:485A).
202
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
was the explanationfor both the biblical prophesypertainingto the Son's coming
and why the Son did not yet posses an essential subsistence before Bethlehem
(see Sirmium anathemas6-7). But beyond these reasons of biblical exegesis the
Photinians also claimed that the immutabilityof God was best preservedby the
simple dilation (and contraction)of the one divine substance.74 The Son processed
as a movement within God yet always remained in the Father,homoousios, immutableand impassible.
Aboutthe very time Hilarywas writingthese words,MariusVictorinusin Rome
was tryingto show why this particularunderstandingof divine movementwas inadequatefor a properinterpretationof homoousios. In doing so, Victorinusobserved
that "the heretics"used a Stoic formularyknown as typus for their enumeration
of the Fatherand Son within the Spirit of God. This was a double movement-a
movementintrinsicto spirit(ordivinity)-that was realizedthrougha binaryrhythm
of dilation and contraction,diastolic and systolic, a progressionto the outside and
then a regressionto the inside. The Logos of God signified that movement.It is an
extension of God that is entirely immanentto the divine substanceand consistent
with divine immutability: ab istius modi motione repente erumpitfilietas quaedam.75
Jesus Christ was only of Mary" (Theodoret, Hist. eccl. V. 11; NPNF 3:139); Rufinus, Expositio
successor,
Symboli37: "Itis anemptycouncilthatassertswhatPaulof Samosataandhis latter-day
Photinus, taught" (CCSL 20:172); and the Epistola legatorum Lampsacenae synodi ad Liberium
Marcellusand Sabellius-"omnes
papa, which condemnedPhotinus,Marcion,patripassionists,
haereses aduersantes praedictae sanctae fidei, quae pie et catholice a sanctis patribus Nicanae
exposita est" (PL 8.1377B).
D. H. WILLIAMS
203
78Proponentsof Marcellus wrote an exposition of the bishop's faith in orderto show his orthodoxy
and his differences with Photinus. MartinTetz, "Markellianerund Athanasios von Alexandrien. Die
markellianische Expositio fidei ad Athanasium des Diakons Eugenios von Ankyra,"Zeitschriftfiir
die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 64 (1973) 75-121.
79 Hilary makes it clear in his thumbnailsketch of Sabellius and Photinus, who he sees as having
similar theologies but for different reasons, that they both supported the full divinity of Christ as
manifested in his works. De trinitate. 7.5-7 (SC 448:285-90).
"8Defide 1.1.6 (CSEL 78:7). See 2.3.33. Books I-II of Defide were written and submittedto the
emperor Gratian in 378. See D. H. Williams, Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian
Conflicts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) 141-45.
81De fide 1.2.16 (CSEL 78:10).
82 De fide 2.3.33, "Pater enim et filius distinctionem habent ut pater et filius, separationem
divinitatis no habent." (CSEL 78:68).
83De fide 1.prol. 5.
204
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
distinctioet naturae
85"Recteergo homousionpatrifiliumdicimus,quiaverboeo personarum
unitassignificatur"
argument
againstPhotinus's
Defide3.15.126(CSEL78:152).Fora pro-"Arian"
views of una substantia, see Scripta Arriana Latina 5 (CCSL 87:236-37).
"6Tractatus 1.56.1 (CCSL 12:131.2-6). See the tractateentitled De Genesi (1.17) which, despite
Press,1948)60.
D. H. WILLIAMS
205
Conclusion
206
HARVARD
THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
92 TomusAthanasii Alexandrini ad
"9Certainly one of the most enduringaspects is found in the gospel prologues of some codices of