§ 126. REVIVED 8ABELLIANISM. 653
temporary state, wliicli begins witli the human ad\ ent of Christ, and is at last promoted or glorified into Godhead. Marcellua reaches not a real God-Man, but only an extraordinary dynamical indwelling of the divine power in the man Jesus. In this respect the charge of Samosatenism, which the council of Constantinople in 335 brought against him, has a certain justice, though he started from premises entirely different from those of Paul of Samosata.' His doctrine of the Holy Spirit and of the Trinity is to a corresponding degree unsatisfactory. He speaks, indeed, of an extension of the indivisible divine monad into a triad, but in the Sabellian sense, and denies the three hypostases or persons.
Photlnus, first a deacon at Ancyra, then bishop of Sirmiura in Pannonia, went still further than his preceptor Marcellus. He likewise started with a strict distinction between the notion of Logos and Son,^ rejected the idea of eternal generation, and made the divine in Christ an impersonal power of God. But while Marcellus, from the Sabellian point of view, identified the Son with the Logos as to essence, and transferred to him the divine predicates attaching to the Logos, Photinus, on the contrary, quite like Paul of Samosata, made Jesus rise on the ])asis of his human nature, by a course of moral improvement and moral merit, to the divine dignity, so that the divine in him is a thing of growth.
Hence Photinus was condenmed as a heretic by several councils in the East and in the West, beginning with the Semi- Arian council at Antioch in 344. He died in exile in 366.*
' Domer (1. c. 880 sq.) asserts of Marcellus, that liis Sabellianism ran out to a sort of Ebionitism.
' He called God Xoyo-naTup, because, in bis view, God is both Father and LogoB. Sabellius had used the expression i; / o naTup, to deny the personal distinction between the Father and the Son. Photinus had to say instead of this, KoyoraToip^ because, in bis view, the \6yos, not the vl6s, is eternally in God.
' Comp. on Photinus, Athanas., De syn. 26 ; Epiph., Hser. 71 ; Hilary, De trinit, TiL 3-7, etc. ; Baur, 1. c voL i. p. 642 sqq. ; Domer, 1. o * p. 881 sq. ; and Heff '^ L 0. i. |). 610 Bqq.
654 TIIIKD PERIOD. A.D, 311-590.
§ 127. The Nicene Doctrine of the Consu'bstantiaUty of tJu Son with the Father.
Comp. tlie literature in §§119 and 120, especially tlie four Orations of Atha-Nasius against the Arians, and the other anti-Ariau tracts of this ''fatlier of orthodoxy."
The Nicene, iioMO-orsiAN, or Atiianasian doctrine was most clearly and powerfully represented in the East by Athanasius, in whom it became flesh and blood ; ' and next to hiir , by Alexander of Alexandria, Mai-'ccllns of Ancyra (who however strayed into Sabellianism), Basil, and the two Gregories of Cappadoeia ; and in the "West by Ambrose and Hilary.
The central point of the IN^icene doctrine in the contest with Arianism is the identitj^ of essence or the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and. is expressed in this article of the (original) Nicene Creed : " [We believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God : who is begotten the only-begotten of the Father ; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."'
The term 6/u,ooj;o-to9, consubstanfial, is of course no more a biblical term,' than trinity ;" but it had already been used,
Particularly distinguished are his four Orations against the Arians, written in 356.
' Ka\ (U era Kvpiov 'Iriaovv XpKTToi', rhu vlhv rov Qtov • yfvvrjbfi'Ta tK too Tlarphs novoyevTi • tout' idriv tic t^s ovaias rod Tlarphi, @ehi> eK 0eoC koI (pais iK ^coTis, &€hi> a\ri^ivhu ^k 9eov a.\7)bii>ov ' •yevvqbevra, ov TroiTj^fi'Ta, S^iouvcnou T<f IlaTpi', K.r.K.
' Though John's Qehs ^c d \6yos (John i. 1), and Paura to ehat iaa ©tip (Phil. ii. 6), arc akin to it. The latter passage, indeed, since If u a is adverbial, denotes rather divine existence, than divine belnff or esxence, which would be more correctly expressed by to flvai icioi> 0ea , or by jVoi&eor. But the latter would be equally in harmony with Paul's theology. The Jews used the masc. Xaos, though iu a polemical sense, when they drew from the way in which he called himself preeminently and exclusively the Son of God the logical inference, that he made himself equal with God, John v. 18: "Oti . . , iraripa IStov fXtye rov Qebv, iao* iauThu iruioov T w QftS. The Vulgate translates : ce/pialem se (ixclen:^ T)co.
* The word rpidi and triuitas, in this application to the Godhead, appeais first in Theopliilus of Antioch and Athenagoras in the second century, and in Tcrtulliaii in the third. Confessions of faith must be drawn up in language diirerent from tb«