Harvard Divinity School

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

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

188

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

thatChristis God with the Fatherbefore the ages."3It was suggestedthatPhotinus

shouldmore appropriatelybe named"Scotinus"since the promiseof "illumination"
for the churchhad broughtonly a darknessof "obscurity."4
By the late 340s, Photinus's teaching had come to be the demonstrationof
monarchianismin the west. There certainlywere other proponentsof adoptionist
christology in the fourth century,but none that are rememberedso infamously.5
Thanksto conciliarcondemnations,especiallylike those expressedat the councilof
Sirmiumin 351, PhotinusandMarcellusof Ancyrahad also acquiredthepersonae
of hereticalextremism opposite to the errorsof "Arianism."This is precisely the
means by which the fourth Oration of Pseudo-Athanasiusand various western
writers(Hilaryof Poitiers, Phoebadiusof Agen, Eusebius of Vercelli,Ambroseof
Milan) navigatedtheirway throughthe murkywatersof finding a christologythat
was neither hierarchicalsubordinationistnor unitarianmonarchian.The process
itself contributedto the shaping of doctrine;that is, the varied forms of "Arianism" and monarchianismhelped define or "map"the contourthat contributedto
the identityof pro-Nicene theology in the second half of the fourthcentury.Much
attentionhas been given the "Arian"side of this process,butlittle to the monarchian
contribution,even thoughthe latterstood closer confessionally to the Nicene position.6Given that monarchianismand Photinianismsufferedthe fate of becoming
classified as hereticalmovements, very little reliableevidence remainsthatwe can
draw upon for their reconstruction.
By the end of the fourthcentury,adoptionistmonarchiantheology in the form
of Photinianismhad come to be a stuntedthing, summedup in pithy christological
3Filastrius,Diversarum haereseon liber 91.2 (CSEL 9:257). See Eusebius of Vercelli, De trinitate 3.47 (CCSL 9:42): "Interrogaboet te, Fotine, qui Christum verum deum abnegas et hominem
purum tantummodoconfiteris ...?"
4 Lucifer of Calgari, De non parcendo in deum delinquentibus 28 (CCSL 8:250).
5 Doctrinal historians will know that Tertullian was the first to coin the name "Monarchians"
(Adversus Praxean 10.2 [PL 164D]) to describe his opponents, claiming: "God himself made himself a Son to himself." While the term "Monarchian"could be applied to any Christian, it came to
characterizeseveral theological strainsall of which stressed the essential and inviolable unity of the
divine being. The monarchia of God as the divine substance could not be fracturedor divided into
three, Father,Son, and Holy Spirit. While the fragmented state of the patristic evidence preventsa
nuanced understandingof the different strains, one can identify (from its opponents) what is called
"modalist"monarchianism,also known to the ancients as patripassionism(the Fatherwho suffers).
This position protects the singularity of God by regarding the Trinity as three modes or manifestations of the one and same divine essence. Another strain is called "adoptionist"or "dynamic"
monarchianism,which preserved divine unity in the Fatherwhose spirit came upon the Son at some
point after his human birth. The divinized human being or Christ regressed to his previous human
state when the divine spirit abandoned his body on the cross. Yet a third strain, or perhapsanother
expression of modalism, emphasizes the outward movement of God's one substance in history
for the purposes of creation and recreation and vivifying, whereafterthe divine being contractsor
withdraws into its original singularity.
6While the importanceof Marcellus of Ancyra to the doctrinaldynamics of the council of Nicaea
and its aftermathhave been recognized, the same cannot be said of the influence of adoptionisttheologies in the west.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

190

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

There are reports indicating that "Monarchianism"(mainly of the modalist

variety) enjoyed popularityamong some third-centuryMontanistsin Rome, and
perhapsearlier.9It is not anachronisticto imagine thatMontanushimself had modalist-likesympathies10given thatthe New Prophecyflourishedin or nearPepouza
(justsouthof present-dayUsak, nearthe Ulubey canyon)1'in westerncentralTurkey.
Monarchialviews were attributedto Praxeasand Noetus who came from Smyrna
as well as Theodotus("thecobbler")who came from Byzantium.Interestingly,one
of Hippolytus'scharges against the "Phrygians"was that they entertainedsimilar
notions to Noetus of Smyrna.Althoughembracedby many in Rome, the latterwas
refuted on account of his teaching that there is one Fatherand God, and thatthis
God is also called by the name of the Son, and that in substancehe is one Spirit.12
While it is possible thatHippolytus'sassociation of Noetus with Montanismwas a
calculatedslur,we can also reasonablypostulate an indirecttheological similarity
between the two.
Therewere severalunformedanddiverse doctrinesaboutGod in the late second
and early thirdcenturies.We may recall the one theologically focused momentin
the Shepherdof Hermas (c. 120) in which the authorinterpretsthe parableof the
vineyardas God creatingthe world (e.g., the field), with the son of the ownerbeing the Holy Spirit,and the servantbeing the Son of God. It is the Holy Spiritwho
is later said to have lived in the flesh and served the Spirit well (Similitude5-6).
That the Shepherdwas read as a scripturaltext in many churchesindicatesthatits
assertionsof "Spirit-christology"were considerednormativedespite the ambiguities. But before they were categorized as elements alien to Christianorthodoxy,
modalistandadoptionistformsof monarchianismwere presentin Rome by thetime
of the episcopates of Victor (189?-198) and Zephyrinus(198-217), and probably
earlier.The unknownRomanauthorof an anti-adoptionistwork entitled TheLittle
this manmadeGod(even)at the descentof the Spirit;whereasothers(maintainthathe wasmade
fromthe dead"(AdversusNoetum3.5.224).
God)afterthe resurrection
9Pseudo-Tertullian,Adversus omnes haereses 7 (21; CSEL 47:225); ANF 3.654.

"'A logion attributedto Montanus,"I am the Word,the Bridegroom,the Paraclete,the Om-

nipotent One, I am All Things" (fragment apud Theodore of Heraclea-Perinthusin Diaologo tra

un montanistae un ortodosso[BerrutoMartoneandAnnaMaria,eds.; Bologna:Ed. Dehoniane,

As does "ForMontanusallegeshe said:"I am the Father
1999;99), seems modalistin character.
and the Son and the Paraclete" (Ps.-[?] Mont.,fr. ap. Ps-[?] Didymus, De trinitate 3.41.1 [PG 39:
983B]). Given the Trinitariancontent of this logion, it may have been composed (perhaps from

elementsof genuineformulaiclogia utteredby Montanus)by a lateranti-Montanist

polemicistin
Modalism.Whereascriticshave accusedMontanus
the contextof the controversiessurrounding
of arrogantly
presumingto speakas the Fatheror the Spirit(see the reputedlogionin Epiphanius,
Pan. 48.11.9), it is likely thatthe prophetwas claimingdivine inspiration,utteringin the Spirit
who spokeas the Father.
TheDiscoveryof Pepouza
"Portalsof theMontanistNew Jerusalem:
' See WilliamTabbernee,
andTymion,"JECS11 (2003) 87-93.
'2Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 10.22-23 (GCS 26). The authorshipof this work is
debated but for purposes of this essay I will attributeit to Hippolytus.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

192

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

representedin Photinianismhad a broad appeal that was not easily stampedout.

Among the extantcorrespondenceattributedto the emperorJulian,thereis one brief
letteraddressedto Photinuswho is congratulatedon having distinguishedhis faith
Photinus
from the "mistakeof the base and ignorantcreed-makingfishermen."21
is said to have done well by holding that a god can by no means be broughtinto
the womb.22Of course Julian was seeking to sow the seeds of dissension among
Christian churches (by late 361 and early 362) by pitting variant confessional
We would expect a certaindistortionor exaggeration
groups againstone another.23
of the facts. At the same time, the letterinsinuatesthat the influenceof Photinus,a
metropolitanbishop of Pannonia,24was considerableenough thatJulian'sstrategy
might be reasonablyeffective in thatarea.Indeed,supportfor Photinuswas strong
enough thatValentinianI had to orderhis expulsion from Sirmiumin 375, which
was nearly a quartercenturyafterhe had been deposed as the bishop of thatcity.25
Six years laterat the council of Aquileia (381), we findAmbroseseeking assistance
from the emperor Gratianto enforce previous legislation against the Photinians
who were still holding assemblies in Sirmiumand elsewhere.26In that same year
the firstcanon of the council of ConstantinopleincludedPhotiniansin its heretical
condemnations.Such legal bans were notoriouslyineffective in preventingheretical congregations from proliferatingand it was no different in this case. In his
own refutationof Photinus,Lucifer of Cagliariacidly observed (c. 360), "you've
devoted writtentexts and establishedpreachersin every place who are favorable

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).

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

D. H. WILLIAMS

193

to your views."27 Throughoutthe next 150 years, Photinianismpersisted in small

pockets chiefly in the west and was called by several names.28
E

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

benigniuoti tui omniin loco constituisti"(CCSL8:245).

28Gregoryof Rome,Ep.36; Councilof Arles(latefifthcentury)wherePhotinians
arealso called
Paulianists,or Bonosiacos(CCSL148:117).
29
Sozomen,Hist.eccl. 4.6.
30Jeromeknewor hadheardthatPhotinushadwrittena workcalledContragentesanda book
addressed to the emperor ValentinianI (De viris Illust. 107; PL 23:703B).
31 Socrates, Hist. eccl. 2.29.
32 See "theone throughwhomGodcameinto man"In Matthaeum
5.15 (SC 254:168).

see In Matthaeum3.5: the temerityof the

33Especiallytruein the firsthalfof the commentary,
devil whenhe beganto temptJesuswas basedon his erroneousconclusionthathe was manonly.
Theexegeticalexerciseof 3.1-5 is to showthatChristis theLordGodin a man.See 8.2; 8.6: "He

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

194

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Thereare manywho shunthe apostolicdictumwhichsays, "Christis the

andthewisdomof God"(1 Cor.1: 24). In thismanner,they
power(virtutem)
arein the habitof sayingthatthe wisdomandpowerof Godhadappeared
efficaciouslyin himwhenhe cameforthfromthevirgin,suchthatit is in his
andthatthere
nativitythe workof divinewisdomandpoweris understood,
is in himthe acquisitionof wisdomratherthanwisdomby nature.34
According to the refutationsof MariusVictorinusin AdversusArium,the truth
of the consubstantialityof the Fatherand Son is an argumentagainstthe "Arians"
as well as the Photinians.35Of particularconcern in Victorinus'spolemic is the
adoptionisttheology of the Photinians,which he says makes Christto be the Son
not by nature.36Victorinuscountersby observing that the divine Logos is the Son
and Christ is the Son, which means Christ as Logos is equal to the Father.The
problemwas not thatthe Photiniansfailed to acknowledgethe deity of the Son, but
that the Son was a human vehicle throughwhich divine power flowed. This was
tantamountin Victorinus'smind thatthey denied the divine sonship of Christ.
In the non-compromising treatises of Lucifer of Cagliari, he too is chiefly
concerned with "Arians"and opponents of Athanasius, but, like Victorinus,he
maintainsthat the theological upshot of Photinus's teaching vitiated the divinity
of the Son, much like the "Arians"who also denied the pre-existenceof the Son's
divine being: "You who are Arians or who is Photinus of Sirmium ... believe
Him to be a creature,of whom (in eum) 'who when he was, he once was not; of
whom 'who he createdfrom nothing.'"37 The Nicene creed, accordingto Lucifer,
was necessary against both of these heresies, and it is in this context that a Latin
version of the creed is then quoted, with the concluding words, "Yousee thatthis
is the apostolic and evangelical faith, thatthe Son always reigned with the Father,

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).

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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.

38De non parcendo 18.15-29 (CCSL 8:229).

39For instance, the distinction between the first man who is earthly and the second, heavenly in
1 Cor 15:47 was apparentlyused by the Photinians as a proof text for showing that Adam came into
existence before Christ. Ambrosiaster used Jn 3:31-32 and 16:6-30 attesting to Christ's heavenly
origins and that coming from the Father demonstrates his pre-incarnateexistence.
40Speller, "New Light of the Photinians," 106-7. The Photinian interpretationof the passage
according to Ambrosiaster is: "doctrinaquae venerat a deo, relicto mundo ad deum est regressa"
(Quaest. vet. et nov. test. 91.2).
41On the dating, see T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the
Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1993) 71ff.
42 Following Stuart Hall's enumeration: 1.1.2; 3.1 and 3.5. "The Creed of Sardica," Studia
Patristica 19 (1989) 175-77.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

196

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

It was shortly after Serdica that Photinusbecame bishop of Sirmium.43Given

the contemporarytheological climate, it could not have helped him that he had
reputed ties with Marcellus of Ancyra, whose dubious doctrinal reputationhad
later convinced Athanasiusto separatehimself from Marcellus (c. 345).44 The actual or historical intersectionbetween Marcellus and Photinus is obscuredby the
cacophony of later,and sometimes conflicting,reportsfrom polemical sources.R.
P. C. Hanson's assertionthat "Photinuswas a doctrinairedisciple of Marcellus"45
is an exaggeration of what little we do know about the two. Hilary and Jerome
identify Photinusas a deacon underMarcellusbefore coming to Sirmium,though
neither say to what degree Photinus had drawn on the bishop's preaching.46The
earliestconciliarstatementwe have aboutPhotinus,the so-called Macrostichcreed
of 344, says only thatMarcellus and "Scotinus"are disciples of Paul of Samosata
because they taught "He was not Christ or Son of God or mediatoror image of
God before ages; but that He first became Christ and Son of God, when He took
our flesh from the Virgin."47
Such words seem to describe Photinusas possessing a theology that was motivated primarilyby christologicalconcerns- or at least this is what his opponents
rememberedas the most objectionable.48Marcellus'striadicunitarianismappears
not to have included the bold adoptionism of Photinus. Indeed, Marcellus blawhile insisting on the monotheistic characterof
tantly rejected "Sabellianism"49
were indebtedto Marcellusis impossibleto
Photinus's
views
How
far
orthodoxy.
tell apartfrom the discovery of a work from Photinus'shand. Some minorlight is
shed on the dynamic between the two from Hilary's fragmentednarrativeabout
the events surroundingAthanasiusand Marcellusduringand after Serdica.Here5o
43If the "Euteriusa Pannonias"(Collectanea Antiariana Parisina B 2.4; fragmentahistoricaof

Hilaryof Poitiers[CSEL65:137]) namedamongthose bishopscondemnedby the westernersat

Serdicarefersto Sirmium,thenPhotinusis notbishopuntilsometimesoonafter343. Accordingly,
at Serdicais surelya mistake(Pan.71.1.1-2.4)
Epiphanius's
placementof Photinus'scondemnation
for the eventsat Sirmium351.
44CAP B 2.9.1. Assuming Athanasius wrote the third theological oration against the Arians in

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

withrespectto Photinus'schristologythatAugustinesayshe neededto learnhowsharply

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).

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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).

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

theHolySpirit(ch.6; 9; 10; 14);

Christis Godhe wasblaspheming
2) that he denied Christ "was first of all our Lord and God" (primordialemDominumet

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

"3Athanasius,Historia Arianorum20 (PG 26:716C-D); Theodoret,Hist. eccl. 2.7 (PG 82:1019A).

Euphratas,along with Vincentius of Capua, are referred to as "admirablemen," representingthe
integrity of the council's decisions.
54There is no agreement on the authenticity of these acta, which are preserved only in a tenthcentury codex, though they are acknowledged in the eighth-centuryLife of Maximusof Trier(CCSL
148:26;SC 241:68-9). Forthe negative position, see L. Duchesne, "Lefaux concile de Cologne (346)"
Revue d'histoire eccle'siastique 3 (1902) 16-29, and Hanns C. Brennecke, "Synodum congregavit
contra Euphratamnefandissimum episcopum" Zeitschriftfiir Kirchengeschichte 90 (1979) 30-54.
The introduction to the acta places the proceedings on 12 May 346 ("Post consulatum Amanti et
Albani, iiii Idus Maias"), although it could have been the previous year. Fl. Amantius, who was
consul in 345 with Numinius Albinus, might be identical with the Amantius of 346. See Arnold
H. M. Jones, John R. Martindale, and J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire
(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1971) 1:51. Moreover,the exact identity of the Albinus of
346 is not certain. It may or may not be the same as the M. Nummius Albinus of 345 (Ibid., 1.37).
See Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (ed. Johannes D. Mansi; Florence, 1759)
2:1371, n. 1; Concilia Antiqua Galliae (ed. Jacques Sirmond; Paris, 1629) 11-3.
5"To which the council replied, "cum per uniuersos prophetas manifestetur illum ante mundi
constitutionem fuisse cum Deo Patreomnipotente ..." ("althoughit was made plain throughall the
prophets that had been with God the FatherAlmighty before the foundation of the world .. .")
56The letter from the eastern bishops from Serdica (c. 343) condemn the views as most heinous
(aimed implicitly Marcellus); anyone who says, "Christumnon esse Deum, aut ante aevum non
fuisse Christum, neque filium dei.. ." (CAP A 4.2 (CSEL 65:73).

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

D. H. WILLIAMS

199

condemnedon doctrinalgrounds.Nothing is said aboutothersin league with him,

nor is there any mention of Photinus. However, there is a correlationbetween the
chargesmade against Euphratasand what is usually ascribedto Photinus.
Photinus too was under investigation in the mid-340s, and he had been condemnedby name for the firsttime in the (so-called) Macrostichcreed in 344 and at
least at two othertimes, once in Milan (345)57and again two years laterin Rome.58
While an accurateaccountingof the conciliaractivityin this periodis problematic,59
the mid- and late 340s seems to have been a periodof intense investigationof miahypostatic theologies60 that exhibited monarchianismof one sort or another.The
anathemafrom the Macrostichprovides groundsfor indictment:"theywho negate
Christ'sexistence before the ages and His divinity, and unendingKingdom, upon
the pretenceof supportingthe divine Monarchy."61
Despite organizedactionagainstPhotinus,the councils sufferedfromimpotence
becauseof popularsupportfor the bishop.At least twice he was condemned,as Hilaryreports:"Fotinus,apprehendedas a heretic,and a long time earlierpronounced
guilty and for some time cut off from united communion, could not even then be
broughtthrougha popularfaction .. ."62The final strawwas an imperiallyendorsed
assembly of bishops in Photinus's own see in 351; it officially condemned and
replacedhim with the Homoian sympathizer,Germiniusfrom Cyzicus. Still, this
deposition did not quell Photinus'sactivities in the city anymorethanit eradicated
monarchianism.
The synod at Sirmiumin 351 was a bid for unity along several lines.63 Constantiuswas now the Augustus for the east and west, and with ostensible political
unity he hoped the church would at last realize a common theological mind. A

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.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

200

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

reasonableagendafor the bishops' agreementwas in the works. Condemnationof

doctrinal extremes would enable a more fruitful search for a sharedconfession.
Besides a few standarddenunciationsof "Arianism,"the chief targetof the council's
deliberationswas Photinus,64whose denunciationcould bring easternand western
forces togetherin a way thatSerdicafailed to do. ThatPhotinusserved as the "new
whipping boy" of the west suggests the council was using him as renewedmeans
for condemningMarcellus (andAthanasius).This may have been partlytrue,but
detailedattentionto the reportsaboutPhotinus'stheology forbidsthis explanationto
standalone. Whatconcernedthe council in its denunciationswas not thatPhotinus
was anotherMarcellusbut, when his reportedviews were articulated,the extremes
of mia-hypostatictheology were made most evident.
Accordingto Hilary'scommentaryon the Sirmium351 creed, writtenjust seven
years after the event, Photinus'steaching forced the council to "set forth a wider
and broaderexposition of the creed65... because the heresy which Photinuswas
reviving was tryingto sneak into our catholic home througha multitudeof hidden
tunnels."66Hilary insists that an erroneousinterpretationof one divine substance
was not a small matterin the west. In chapters67-71 of De synodis, he frankly
states to his fellow bishops that the concept behind homoousios already had a
history of misuse that was not sufficiently recognized. "Manyof us," he laments,
"so preach the one substance of the Fatherand the Son that we may seem to be
One-substancetheology hadbeen
preachingno more piously thanas impiously."67
used to arguethatGod's unityshouldbe understoodin termsof "singularity"or one
subsistingpersona, or that the divine natureis "one and only, though denotedby
two names,"68or that the Son was a portionof the Fatheras if the Fathercut off a
portionof himself.69The generalpoint is thatpro-Nicene languageis no guarantee
of preservingthe unityand distinctionof the Fatherandthe Son, with the resultthat
western bishops will requiregreaternuance in their theological definitions.
Returningto the Sirmiumcouncil, modalism, adoptionism,and the movement
of dilation-contractionare all identified in the anathemas.This does not neces64As per Epiphanius, Pan. 71. 1ff., though Epiphanius is confused about the council's location,

whichhe placesat Serdica.

65The fourth creed of Antioch, which Hilary had just discussed in De synodis 34.

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

partemexsecuissequaeesset sibi filius"De synodis68 (PL 10:525C);c. 71, "Situnasubstantia

nonsit autex portione,autex unione,autex communione... Una
ex naturaegenitaeproprietate;
sit ex similitudine, non ex solitudine" (PL 10:527B). See Victorinus, Candidi Arriani ad Marium
Victorinumrhetorem 9 (CSEL 83:1.11).

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

D. H. WILLIAMS

201

sarily imply that there existed three separate monarchianpositions as much as

three emphases among proponentsof monarchianism.There was certainly some
coinherenceamongthe emphases.Among the numberof unacceptabletheological
propositionslisted at Sirmiumare: 1) the Son did not collaboratewith the Father
at creation;2) the Logos was not begotten by the Fatherbefore all ages; and 3) the
Father,Son and Spiritare one prosopon. The last of the 26 anathemasof Sirmium
sums up the Photinianposition: "Whosoevershall deny thatChristis God, Son of
God, as being before the ages, and having subservedthe Fatherin the framing of
the world;but [after]thattime he was born of Maryhe was thereaftercalled Christ
and Son, and took an origin of being God, is anathema."
Importantto the bishops' concerns over Photinus was his apparentuse of the
Old Testamentin showing the absence of an actualhypostaticexistence of the Son.
The same passages othersread as christophaniesvia the Logos before his physical
birth,Photinusinterpretedas the activity of one UnbegottenGod. Abrahamdid not
see the begotten Son in Gen 18.1, nor was it the Son who rained fire from heaven
(Gen 19.24), nor did Jacob wrestle with the Son as man (Gen 32.26) In each case
it was a manifestationof the one God and one divine spirit.In Hilary's gloss of the
Sirmiumcreedhe notesthatthesepassagesconstitutedpointsof denialon Photinus's
partand that it was necessary for the council to list each one lest anyone interpret
the Scriptureto mean the Son of God did not exist before the Son of the Virgin,
or that the "substanceof the Son" should be denied and applied to the Unborn
Father.70Epiphaniuswas likewise cognizantof monarchianexegesis thattook place
at Sirmium,noting that Gen 19:24 and Dan 7:13 were utteredprophetically,"not
becausethe Son existed, but seeing as he was going to be called Son afterMary ...
everythingis referredto him from the beginningby way of anticipation."71
Photinian(andapparentlyMarcellan)exegesis, however,was not obliviousto the
propheticnatureof the Old Testamentprophesyaboutthe Son. The fifth anathema
of Sirmiumcondemnsanyonewho says "theSon existed before Maryonly according to foreknowledge and predestination."There were two crucial implications to
this view, both of which are commentedupon by Hilary.First, to say that the Son
was ordainedas an integralstage of God's propheticplan of redemption,need not
necessitate that the Son had a pre-incarnatesubstantialexistence. "He existed accordingto foreknowledge and predestination,and not accordingto the essence of
his subsistentnature"(non secundumnaturae subsistentis essentiam).72
The second implication of the foreknowledge and predestinationof the Son
before Mary is that Mary's birth of the Son is the progressive realization of God
in history. That is, the Son born of the Virgin is the result of God's substantial
expansion or dilation.73The theory of God's substantialexpansion into the Son
70De synodis 50 (PL 10:517B).
71Panarion 71. 2, 3 (Amidon, 280).
72De synodis 43 (PL 10:514B).
73 See Pseudo-Athanasius, Oratio IV.

13 (PG 26:485A).

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

Thus, according to the Photinianexplanationof the Son's generation,the divine

spirit or Logos representeda stage of the progressionthat is God, promptedby
the needs of creation,redemption,and consummation.It is not a view of sonship
(filietas) that shared the burden that pro-Nicene doctrine bore, namely, a view
of consubstantialitythat also necessitated an eternal hypostatic distinction. As
Victorinus sought to prove, the consubstantialLogos must be understoodat the
same time as existing with God, "in the form of God"(Phil 2:9), and who emptied
himself before he was made man.76
More polemically damagingthan linking Photinuswith the dubiousreputation
of Marcellus of Ancyra, the former was identified by his contemporariesas the
theological successor of Paul of Samosata and Sabellius, and in fact it went all
the way back to Hebion. This sort of "anti-succession"of doctrinalerrorserved
to create an association of damnation,77 supposedly ruling out the legitimacy of

74De synodis 45 (PL 10:514C).

75 Candidi Ariani ad

Marium Victorinum9 (CSEL 83: 1.11).

76Adversus Arium 1. 21 (CSEL 83:1.89).

77 See Damasusof Rome's'confessio'(or Tome,A.D. 377) in a letterto Paulinus
(of Antioch):
the Photinuswho is renewingthe heresyof Hebion,confessedthatourLord
"Weanathematize

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).

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

D. H. WILLIAMS

203

Photinus'sclaims as pro-Nicene and pro-Serdican.It was decidedly importantthat

theological distance be created between Photinus and neo-Nicenism after 360.78
The reason for this was clear:both of these perspectivesof God dependedupon a
single hypostasis or ousia and thus sought to protect the divine substance of the
Son from the weaknesses of his earthlyincarnation.79 The Logos of God is within
God, revealedby a procession within the divine naturewithout alteringthatnature
or disturbingits fundamentalunity. Western writers had been firm on this point
but were slowly discovering in the 360s and 370s that it was not enough if they
wished to maintainthe dual realityof the Son's divinity and substantialuniqueness
as Savior. Two examples of this growing awareness should suffice.
First, Ambrose of Milan, writing about a decade after Hilary, explains in the
beginning of his defense of the Nicene faith that the doctrine of God's unity had
to avoid three extremes: 1) confusing the Father with the Verbum,as Sabellius
did; 2) holding that the Son's first manifestation(initiumfili) was in the Virgin's
[womb], as Photinustaught;and 3) Arius's contentionof dissimilarpowers, which
thus divided the Son's naturefrom the Father's.80If God is one, Ambrose argues,
then he is one in name and one in power as Trinity.So the Son, as the Word,is the
power (virtus) and wisdom (sapientia) of God (1 Cor 1:24) and is one with the
Fatherin divinity and eternity.This is not to say thatthe Fatheris himself the Son,
for "betweenthe Fatherand the Son the distinction of generationis expressed."8'
Fatherand Son are not mere names because they exist in distinctionas Fatherand
Son, nor is there a separationof their divinity.82
It is noteworthythatAmbrosenever uses the actualtermhomoousiosor consubstantialityin this treatise (De fide, books I-II) even though he signals in the very
Indeed,
beginning that he is taking the Nicene creed as his point of departure.83
he rarelyuses substantiaor its Greek corollary,ousia. The obvious reason for the
term's absence is the lack of its appearancein Scripture.At least substantiacould
be located in Psalms 88:46 and 138 (139):14 as well as in Jeremiah23:18. But in

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.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

204

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

an ostensible continuationof books I-II,84Ambrose suggests anotherreason. In

De fide III. xv. 125-26, he observes that ever since the Nicene creed was issued,
the "Arians"associated the term homoousioswith the monarchianteachingof the
"Sabellians."In response, Ambrose offers a striking gloss on the controversial
word: "Rightlydo we say that the Son is homoousios with the Fatherbecause by
this word both a distinctionof the persons and the unity of natureare indicated."85
It would seem that by the late 370s Nicene terminology had become necessarily
more complex to avoid the pitfalls that Hilary had earlierwarnedabout.
Our second example comes from the homilies of Zeno of Verona,a contemporary of Ambrose and a fellow northernItalian. For the sake of creation (ordinem
rerum), the Word (verbum) is said to have burst forth directly from the "heart"
(cor) of the Father,with the process being describedas "omnipotencepropagating
itself." There is no question thatthe Son possesses everythingof the Fatherbeing
generatedby him (de deo nasciturdeus), while the Fatheris diminishedin nothing
by the procession of the Son.86No room is given for his listeners to interpretthe
begetting of the Son as anythingbut an exact duplicationof naturewhen he says:
"theFatherin Himself begets anotherself from Himself' (pater in ipsumaliumse
genuit ex se) (I. 17.2). Thus it can be said thatthe Fatherhas communicatedhis own
substanceto the Son so perfectly that he has begotten anotherself in the Son.
Zeno is most concernedwith those who try to demeanthe person of the Christ
because of his work as the incarnateSon. But he also identifies the errorthat
marksthe existence of the Son with his nativity.Regardingthis latterview, Zeno
is aware of those who assert "Jesus Christ assumed his beginning (principium)
from the womb of the virgin Mary,and was made, not born, God on accountof
his righteousness"7--a reference undoubtedlyto the Photinians. The bishop of
Veronaknows he has to be careful in defining the Son's nativitas (his word for
"generation")given his assertionof the Son as "anotherself" of the Father.Despite
his defense of the Nicene creed, Zeno never employs the terms homoousios or
consubstantialisbut insteaduses una substantia.It is likely this choice of language
reveals a consciousness of anti-Photinianinterpretationfrom which he meantto
distinguishhimself."8
84Books3-5 werewrittenattheendof 379 or early380 werelaterappendedto theearlierbooks
in orderto forma literarywhole. See "PolemicsandPoliticsin Ambroseof Milan'sDefide,"JTS
(1995) 519-31.

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

its title,is Zeno'sdefenseof thelanguageof theNiceneCreed,andhowthebegottenSon"possessed

nothingfromthe Father."I. 17.2 (CCSL12:64.7-10).
everythingof the Father's,subtracting
87Tractatus 2.8 (CCSL 12).

88MartinStepanich, Christology ofZeno of Verona (Washington:Catholic University of America

Press,1948)60.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

D. H. WILLIAMS

205

Conclusion

While we must not overstatethe implicationsof the above evidence by portraying

Photinusas a moreinfluentialfigurethanhe really was, modernpatristicinterpretations of the theological dynamics of the fourthcenturyhas usually suffered from
just the opposite problem.The question is, how successful were pro-Nicene/anti"Arian"polemics in portrayingmonarchianismas an isolated phenomenon and
completely aberrantfrom the theology of its time? We are left with the impression
thatthe theology associatedwith Photinusis easily dismissedas a minorbutchronic
irritationin the searchfor the Christiandoctrineof God. Justas in the case ofArius,
the linkage of Photinuswith hereticalcharactersmeantthatany extendedrefutation
of his theology-where it was actuallyknown-was redundantto whatsupposedly
everyone alreadyknew. Although the danger that a monarchianinterpretationof
God presentedto Nicene theology lay just beneaththe surface,it was importantto
treatit as ephemeralto the concernsof the Church.Photinus'sviews, therefore,were
reduced and simplified to a few choice slogans that were easily read as a position
completely decontextualizedfrom the church'straditionand scripture.
By gatheringthe various strandsof disparateevidence from the thirdandfourth
centuries, it is plausible to maintainthat Photinus and his doctrinalsympathizers
representedand continued the theological traditionof what we know of earlier
monarchiantrajectories.They were not islands of heresy,cut off from the sea of the
church'straditionas theiradversariessoughtto show.Witness the warningRufinus
of Aquileia makes in his opening remarksconcerning the necessity of providing
an orthodoxexposition of the Apostles' or (old) Roman creed:
It hascometo my attention
thatquitea few prominent
writershavepublished
conciseanddoctrinallysoundmanualson the subject. But I knowthatthe
hereticPhotinus,has composed[hisown work],notfor explainingthesense
of the wordsto his listeners,but, in the guise of simpleandfaithfulstatements,he directstheirattentionto thereasoningof his teaching.89
It was not only the Nicene creed that concernedpro-Nicene commentators. It
seems that Photinianassemblies90also claimed their allegiance to the one of the
prototypesof theApostles'Creed.Merelyrecitingthe wordswas not enoughto show
one's orthodoxy as it would appearfrom Rufinus, who is committed to showing
the key differencesbetween right and wrong explanationsof this creed.
As contemporaryscholarshipis rewritingthe way in which Marcellusof Ancyra
significantlyinfluenced the directionof fourth-centurytrinitariantheology in the
east,91we are able to point to specific instances in which Photinusand Photinians
89Expositio Symboli 1 (CCSL 20:133). No other heretical figures are mentioned in this opening chapter.
90Photinus had been dead for about two decades when Rufinus wrote this exposition circa 404.
91E.g., Lienhard,Contra Marcellum;Alastair H. B. Logan, "Marcellusof Ancyra and the Councils of A.D. 325: Antioch, Ancyra and Nicaea," JTS 43 (1992) 428-46; Kelley McCarthy Spoerl,
"ApollinarianChristology and the Anti-Marcellan Tradition,"JTS 45 (1994) 545-68.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

206

HARVARD

THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

endured in the west and how they promptedpro-Nicene Latin trinitarianismto

define itself in contradistinction.At the end of the conciliarpro-Nicene document
from Alexandriain 362, known as the "Tomusad Antiochenos,"Paulinus(of Antioch) subscribedto the documentalthoughwith an importantqualification:"Once
again I anathematizethe heresy of Sabellius and of Photinus and every heresy
walking in faith of Nicaea."92Not only were monarchialsystems of theology not
as ephemeralin Latinthoughtas laterhistoriographymakes it, but the persistence
and influence93of anothervoice of post-Nicene orthodoxywas a criticalpartin the
shapingof early Latin theology.

92 TomusAthanasii Alexandrini ad

Antiochenosl 1 (PG 26:809B; trans. NPNF 4:486).

"9Certainly one of the most enduringaspects is found in the gospel prologues of some codices of

the Vulgate. Novum TestamentumLatine, (ed. JohnWordsworth;Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1889-98)

15-17. The preface to Matthew is particularlystrikingfor evidence of a strong Monarchiantheology.
According to this writer, there are two beginnings (principia) in the generation of Christ:the first
dealing with his incarnationand the other according to his election, both manifesting that Christis
"in the fathers."Since the early twentieth century,these prologues have been identified as Priscillian
in their origination. GermainMorin, Etudes, Textes, DIcouvrertes: Contributions la littirature et
& l'histoire des douze premiers sidcles (Paris: A. Picard, 1913) 151-205; Henry Chadwick, Priscillian ofAvila (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 103-4.

This content downloaded from 147.91.173.31 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:17:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions