THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 48 (1987)
THE "ARIAN" CONTROVERSY: SOME CATEGORIES RECONSIDERED
JOSEPH T. LIENHARD, S.J.
ELEMENTARY TEXTBOOKS often paint a clear and dramatic picture of the “Arian” controversy, more or less as follows. Shortly before 318, in Alexandria, Arius began to preach that the Son of God is a creature. In 318 a synod convoked by the bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, condemned Arius’ teaching. Arius then withdrew to Asia Minor, where he won many converts to his doctrines, especially from among the Sylloukianistai, his fellow pupils of the martyr Lucian of Antioch. In 325 the Council of Nicaea decisively rejected Arianism and proclaimed the orthodox doctrine in its creed and particularly in the renowned word homoousion. But the majority of Eastern bishops continued to adhere to the Arian heresy in subtler and subtler forms; and Arianizing emperors, especially Constantius, conspired with these bishops to force Arius’ heresy on the whole Church. At first, resistance to Arianism came almost singlehandedly from Athanasius of Alexandria, who, despite persecution and exile, indefatigably defended Nicene orthodoxy. The year 360 marked the nadir: “The whole world groaned and marveled that it was Arian,” wrote Jerome. Constantius’ death in 361 was a turning point. The three Cappadocian Fathers received the baton of orthodoxy from Athanasius and continued the defense of the Nicene doctrine. The ascendancy of Arianism was definitively ended by the Council of Constantinople in 381, and orthodoxy triumphed.
基础教科书往往为所谓『亚流』正义描绘出以下的清晰并戏剧性的图画。大概在318年之前没多久，亚流开始宣讲神的儿子是一个被造之物。亚历山大的亚历山大在318年召开了一个教会大会，定罪了亚流的教训。亚流接着就退到小亚细亚，许多人士转而接受他的教训，特别是从Sylloukianistai背景来的人士，他乃是殉道者，安替阿的路西安（Lucian of Antioch）的学生。325年的尼西亚大会以决定性的方式拒绝亚流主义并在它的信经中宣告了正统的教育，并特别强调『同质量（homoousion）』这个词。但是大部分的东方主教继续使用越来越细腻的方式追随亚流的异端；亚流化的皇帝们，特别是康斯坦丢（Constantius），与那些主教们一同谋划将亚流的异端强加于整个教会。首先，唯有亚历山大的亚他那修独自抗拒亚流主义，他无惧于逼迫与放逐，不屈不挠的捍卫尼西亚整体。360年是正统派的最低点：『整个世界叹息并惊讶于亚流主义』，耶柔米如此写到。康斯坦丢死于361年，这是转泪点。
But in order to present so clear a picture, several problems and inconsistencies must be glossed over. It is hard, for example, to explain how Arius could have found such quick and enthusiastic acceptance in Syria and Asia Minor if his doctrine were new and strange. And then, the Eastern bishops refused, in fact, to be called “Arians” and in their creeds regularly anathematized typically “Arian” doctrines such as that the Son was created out of nothing, or that he is from a different hypostasis than the Father, or that there was a time or an age when he did not exist. And finally, for 30 or more years after 325, the Council of Nicaea is hardly mentioned and the word homoousion rarely used.
为了展示一幅更为清晰的图画，几个问题和前后矛盾之处必须被掩饰。例如，很难解释叙利亚与小亚细亚为什么那么迅速并热烈的接受亚流，如果他的教义是新颖并奇怪的。此外，西方的主教们事实上拒绝被称作『亚流派』并在他们的信经中固定性的咒逐典型的『亚流派』教义，就像子是从虚无中被创造出来的（the Son was created out of nothing），或祂是从与父不同的位格来的（he is from a different hypostasis than the Father），或曾有一时或一个时代祂不存在（there was a time or an age when he did not exist）。最终，大约在325年后的三十多年，尼西亚大会几乎不再被提及，homoousion这个字也几乎不再被使用。
Some of these problems and inconsistencies can be explained by the fact that older research depended heavily on Athanasius as its source. The 19th century lionized Athanasius and made his career appear even more glorious than it was. This prejudice is understandable. Athanasius’ works supply the fullest documentation available for the history of the controversy but——not surprisingly——are written from his point of view. When the controversy is seen from another point of view——Marcellus of Ancyra’s, for example, or that of other bishops and theologians in Asia Minor, Syria, or Palestine——a distinctly different picture develops. In particular, Athanasius characterizes almost all his opponents as “Arians.” But this category may well be a poor starting point for understanding the era and the issues at stake.
我们可以用一些非常倚重亚他那修为数据源的较为古老的研究所建立的事实来解释某些问题并矛盾。19世纪追捧丫头那那些并使得亚他那修的功绩看起来变得更为荣耀。这种偏见是可以理解的。亚他那修的作品提供了关于那个争论最为完整的文献，但是——不令人惊讶的——都是从他的观点所写的。当争议从另一个视角被检视的时候——例如，安卡拉的马塞流（Marcellus of Ancyra）或其他在小亚细亚，叙利亚或巴勒斯坦的主教和神学家——就会发展出一份完全不同的图画。特别是，亚他那修把他的对手都称之为『亚流派』。但是这种分类可能并不是用来了解那个议题和时代的，合适的起点。
The choice of categories to designate the two opposing sides in the fourth-century theological controversy is crucially important, for the categories color the whole interpretation of the controversy. Some of the categories used in the past are less than satisfactory. The pair “Arian” and “Nicene” is anachronistic, and perhaps too dogmatic. “Antiochene” and “Alexandrian” are misleading. “Eusebian” for one side is, historically, fairly accurate, but lacks a usable counterpart. After examining these categories more closely, I will suggest a pair of more strictly theological categories.
Perhaps the commonest categories for the two conflicting parties in the controversy are “Arian” and “Nicene.” There is hardly any other name in use for the fourth-century theological conflict than “the Arian controversy.” But Adolf Martin Ritter, in a recent article on Arianism, draws some conclusions from modern studies of the early fourth century and says that the theology usually called “Arian” should continue to be called that only under three conditions. One must recognize, he writes, firstly, that Arius’ own role in the “Arian controversies” was comparatively small; secondly, that fourth-century polemicists made vastly excessive use of the name “Arian” without doing justice to the motives and intentions of those so labeled; and thirdly, that “Arianism” was not merely a conceptual category; it can be understood only in its historical situation.
或许，对争议双方最为普遍的分类法是『亚流派』和『尼西亚派』。除了『亚流争议』外，很难在使用别的名字来形容那个四世纪的神学冲突。但是Adolf Martin Ritter在近期一篇关于亚流主义的论文中，总结了现代对于四世纪初期的研究，说那个往往被称作『亚流派』的神学应该只能在三个情况下继续被称作那个名字。他写到，人们应该首先察觉到亚流在『亚流争议』中的角色相对的不是那么重要；其次，四世纪的辩论家门往往大量的使用『亚流』之名，却没有真正搞清楚那些被打上这个标签之人的动机和目的；第三，『亚流主要』不仅仅是一个观念上的分类；它仅能被理解为它的历史背景。
The term “Arian” seems to have been Athanasius’ own coinage and his favored appellation for his opponents (unless he could call them “Ariomaniacs”). Apparently it was only in 341, however, that the Eastern bishops learned that they were being called “Arians.” In that year Julius of Rome sent the Eastern bishops a letter that is crucial for understanding how the two opposing parties were formed and defined, and for understanding that the opponents became aware of themselves as parties only around 341 and not earlier.
In 340 a deputation from the East went to Rome to explain the Easterners’ case against Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and others and to urge Julius to recognize Pistus as the legitimate bishop of Alexandria. Marcellus, Athanasius, and Asclepas of Gaza, all of them deposed, also traveled to Rome, presumably hoping for vindication. Julius took the occasion to summon a synod that would retry the cases of Athanasius and Marcellus and wrote to the Eastern bishops inviting them to attend. The Eastern bishops refused to come, on the ground that the decisions of one council (Tyre, in 335, which had deposed Athanasius) could not be reversed by another. Julius, however, persisted in holding a synod, which upheld the orthodoxy and innocence of Athanasius, Marcellus, and others; and Julius received them into communion. He then wrote the letter already mentioned to the Easterners to explain these actions. In the course of his letter Julius defined and clearly named two opposing parties: they were “the Eusebians” (hoi peri Eusebion) and “the Athanasians” (hoi peri Athanasion). (“Eusebius” was Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea was already dead.) Further, Julius portentously identified the Eusebians as “Arians,” and he linked Athanasius’ name with Marcellus of Ancyra’s, thus implying that there were two opposing parties. The source of Julius’ knowledge of the Easterners’ dispute was undoubtedly Athanasius and Marcellus. His reason for calling the Eastern bishops Arians, however, was not their doctrine but the fact that they favored Pistus, who had been excommunicated by Alexander of Alexandria and then been ordained by a bishop favorable to Arius.
在340年，东方差遣了一个特使团去罗马，解释东方反对亚他那修、安卡拉的马赛流并其它人士的利益，并督促Julius承认Pistus才是亚历山大合法的主教。马赛流，亚他那修和迦萨的Asclepas，他们都被放逐，并旅行到罗马，据推测希望澄清事件。Julius利用这个机会召开一个大会来重新审理亚他那修和马赛流的案件，并写信给东方的主教们，邀请他们参与。东方的主教们拒绝前往，主要是基于一个会议（在335年举行，放逐亚他那修的Tyre大会）的决定不能被另一个大会推翻。然而，Julius坚持召开一个大会，以便于支持正统与丫头那那些、马赛流并其他人士的无辜；Julius接受他们到交通中。他接下来写信给前述的东方主教们，解释那些行动。Julius在他的信中定义并明确的提及两个敌对的党派：他们是『优西比乌派（the Eusebians）』（hoi peri Eusebion）和『亚他那修派（Athanasians）』（hoi peri Athanasion）。（『优西比乌』是尼哥米迪亚的优西比乌/Eusebius of Nicomedia；该撒利亚的优西比乌/Eusebius of Caesarea已经死了。）此外，Julius令人诧异的将优西比乌派当作『亚流派』，他将亚他那修的名字联于安卡拉的马赛流，这就暗示有两个敌对的党派。Julius对于东方争议的信息来源无疑就是亚他那修和马赛流。然而，他称东方主教们为亚流派的理由并不是因为他们的教育，而是他们偏好Pistus的事实，Pistus被亚历山大的亚历山大开革，然后被一位倾向于亚流的主教按立。
The Eastern bishops reacted with shock and indignation at being called “Arians.” Meeting in council in the summer of 341 for the dedication of a church in Antioch, they answered Julius’ letter. The so-called “First Creed of Antioch” is an excerpt from the letter that the Eastern bishops sent to Julius as an example of the “faith handed down from the beginning.” In the sentence that introduces the creed, they express their indignation:
东方主教们的反应是经验并愤怒被称作『亚流派』。在341年夏天为了奉献在安提阿的教会所举办的大会上，他们回答了Julius的信。所谓『安替阿第一信经（First Creed of Antioch）』就是一个从东方主教们写给Julius的信的摘录，作为『从起初就正式宣布之信仰』的样本。在介绍那个信经的介言中，他们表达了他们的愤怒：
We have not been followers of Arius. For how could we, as bishops, follow a presbyter? Nor did we receive any other faith except the one handed down from the beginning. We ourselves were the testers and examiners of his [i.e., Arius’] faith. We admitted him; we did not follow him.
Julius’ accusation clearly surprised the Eusebians and cut them to the quick, all the more so because they had decided in Jerusalem in 335 to receive Arius back into communion, and would have done so in Constantinople in 336 had he not died shortly before. Similarly, the theology of those who opposed the “Arians” (to retain the term for the moment) was not explicitly Nicene. The Council of Nicaea did not enjoy any unique authority until several decades after it was held. Writers in the two or three decades after Nicaea make no appeal to its creed as uniquely authoritative or to the term homoousion as a touchstone of orthodoxy. Its greatest influence, curiously, was apparently a negative one: more than a few creeds and authors accepted its anathemas as an adequate definition of the heresy to be rejected and regularly quote them as an assurance of their own orthodoxy.
Other authors have tried to explain the conflict with the categories “Alexandrian” and “Antiochene.” It is true that some of the “Arians” were, or may have been, pupils of Lucían of Antioch, and that some of its adherents lived in Syria. But these terms risk implying an intellectual bridge between Lucian of Antioch and his disciples on the one hand, and the later Christology of Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius on the other. The roots of dyoprosopic Christology are not in Lucian and the circle around the two Eusebii; if anything, this Christology is foreshadowed in Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra. Cyril of Alexandria, for the other side, wanted to believe that he drew his terms from Athanasius; but, as is well known, one of his key formulas came from Apollinaris of Laodicea. The relationship between theological speculation in the early fourth century and the Christological controversy of the fifth century is complex and unclear; and to try to interpret the first period by later categories does neither a service.
As a historical phenomenon, it would be most accurate to call the “Arian” theology “Eusebian,” understood as a way of thought shared and fostered by Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, among others. Marcellus of Ancyra, for example, traces his opponent Asterius’ intellectual lineage through Paulinus of Tyre back to Eusebius of Nicomedia. All of the elements of this theology are already present in Eusebius of Caesarea’s two great apologetic works, the Praeparatio euangelica and the Demonstratio euangelica. The Eusebian theology has been called “Origenist.” There is some truth in this, but it may obscure Origen’s broad and deep influence on all of Eastern theology. Finally, there is no usable counterpart to the category “Eusebian”; “Athanasian” would be anachronistic.
作为一个历史现象，成『亚流派』神学为『优西比乌派』可能是最为准确的，被理解为被该撒利亚的优西比乌，尼哥米迪亚的优西比乌及其他人士共有的思维方式。例如：安卡拉的马赛流透过Tyre的保利奴，把他的对手亚斯特流的理性思维回朔到尼哥米迪亚的优西比乌。这个神学的所有元素都出现在该撒利亚的优西比乌的两本伟大护教作品，Praeparatio euangelica（预备福音）和Demonstratio euangelica（证实福音）。优西比乌的神学已经被称作『俄列根主义者』。这个说法具有某种的真实性，但是也可能使得俄列根对于东方神学广泛并深邃的影响力变得模糊。最后，『优西比乌派』并没有相应的对手；『亚他那修派』则会造成时代的错误。
TWO THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
The conflict in the fourth century was one between two theological traditions, both of which were well established by the beginning of the century, but neither of which proved adequate to answer the theological problems raised in the second and third decades of that century.
The crisis of 318 was part of a larger movement: a movement from the rule of faith to theology, from the language of confession to the language of reflection, from belief to speculation on what was believed. The rule of faith and the lex orandi were clear and accepted by all. For centuries Christians had believed in one God, the Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. They had prayed to God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ, their Lord. And they had baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Christians of the early fourth century looked at the Christ of the Gospels and saw one who was so much more than a man, and yet not identical with God the Father. Characteristically, the Fathers of the early fourth century can readily quote credal statements, but cannot so readily explain them. Since Origen, no great theologian had come along to explain the faith in the language of reflection and speculation. Furthermore, Christians in the first two decades of the fourth century had had to concern themselves first of all with survival, in the face of what was perhaps the only systematic attempt ever, on the part of the Roman government, to destroy the Christian Church. In many ways the questions brought suddenly to the fore in 318 caught the Church unawares.
There was general agreement on some fundamental theological principles. All Christians were monotheists: there was, and could be, only one God. All Christians rejected psilanthropism: to say that Jesus the Christ was simply a human being, and only a human being, in no way adequately explained him or came close to exhausting his meaning. All Christians agreed that Christ had brought salvation to the human race, although they hardly agreed on how that salvation had taken place. Finally, all Christians agreed on the authority of the Scriptures, which were God’s word; read rightly, they revealed all that Christians needed to know about God and His relation to the world.
Disagreement came when theologians tried to express, in the language of speculation, how Christian monotheism and the doctrine of Christ’s deity could be reconciled. Specifically, they had to search for a way of expressing what was singular and what was plural in God.
Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, hypostasis, and hyparxis; the corresponding verbs are einai, hyphistasthai and hyparchein. Despite the complex, later development of a distinction between ousia and hypostasis, the two words were, in the early fourth century, first and foremost synonyms. Nevertheless, subtle distinctions began to emerge. Hyparxis never achieved the status of a technical term. Before 325 Eusebius of Caesarea and Narcissus of Neronias were willing to speak of two ousiai in the Godhead. After 325 this usage disappears. The Eusebians’ most characteristic phrase for what is plural in God is “two hypostaseis”
Athanasius, Marcellus, and the Westerners insisted just as vigorously that the divine hypostasis, the reality of God, is singular. As the fourth century progressed, hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of controversy. The Creed of Nicaea anathematized anyone who said that the Son of God is “of a different hypostasis or substance (ousia) than the Father.” The Second Creed of Antioch, promulgated in 341 by the Easterners at the Dedication Council after they had received Julius of Rome’s letter, insisted belligerently that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis, one in agreement (symphönia).” The doctrinal statement of the Western Council of Sardica (342 or 343), in which Athanasius and Marcellus participated, insisted even more belligerently that “We have received and been taught, and we hold this catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession: there is one (which is termed “essence” [ousia] by the heretics) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” In 362 a synod that Athanasius convoked in Alexandria marked the first time that he admitted that the phrase “three hypostaseis” might be understood of God in an orthodox way, although he still preferred “one hypostasis” Marcellus and the clergy who remained faithful to him wrote to Athanasius ca. 371 and asked him to approve their doctrine. They had given up all of Marcellus’ distinctive beliefs but held tenaciously to the doctrine of one divine hypostasis. But the Synod of Alexandria had little immediate effect. Gregory of Nazianzus could still say, ca. 380, that the Westerners suspect Arianism whenever they hear “three hypostasis”
Hence the way of using the word hypostasis characterized the two opposing parties for much of the fourth century; one preferred to speak of one hypostasis in God, the other of two (or three, if the Holy Spirit is considered). I suggest calling the two conflicting theological systems “miahypostatic” and “dyohypostatic” theology, the theology of one hypostasis and of two hypostaseis respectively. These terms signal a profound difference in theology, one that touched not only the way God——Father, Son, and Holy Spirit——was understood, but also the way Christ’s person and saving work were described.
As a coherent system, dyohypostatic theology can be described in a typical or ideal form. No one author mentions all of the following characteristics (although Eusebius of Caesarea comes close). But it is a fair description of a type of theology found in many authors.
There is one God, who is the arche——the beginning, the first principle, the ultimate source, and the cause of everything else that exists. He is eternal and underived, and utterly transcendent, even unknowable, best described by the via negativa: as anarchos (without source), agen(n)êtos (unoriginate or unbegotten), akataléptos (incomprehensible). This God, the Father, and only He, is God in the truest and fullest sense of the word.
Besides the Father, there also exists another hypostasis, which Scripture calls Son, Word, Image, Wisdom, Power, and “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15). The Son of God holds a rank somewhere beneath God but above all creatures, or all other creatures. This tradition does not make any clear distinction between “begetting” and “creating.” The decisive point is that the Father is the source of the Son’s being; the Son depends on the Father for his being. Collectively, the tradition is wary of materialistic thinking and strives to avoid language that might suggest that the Father’s essence is divided to produce the Son, or that the Son is an effluence of, or an emanation from, the Father.
The Son’s relationship of dependence excludes predicating “eternity” of the Son. He may be said to have been begotten “before all ages,” outside of time, since time too is one of the creatures that came to be through him; but if he were truly eternal, he would be a second first principle.
The Son is naturally and obviously subordinate to the Father. Scripture affirms this when it has the Son say, “The Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28). And reason confirms it, since a first principle or source (arche) is superior to what derives from it. Hence the passages of the Old and New Testaments that imply the Son’s subordination to the Father pose no problem for the dyohypostatic tradition.
The Son’s principal function is that of a mediator; Scripture calls him the “mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5). As mediator, he is the instrument through which God created the universe: Scripture distinguishes the Father, “from whom are all things,” from the Son, “through whom are all things,” and says of the Son, “all things were made through him” (1 Cor 8:6; Jn 1:3).
子的主要功能就是中保；圣经称祂为『神与人间的中保』（1 Tim 2:5）作为中保，神透过祂这个工具创造宇宙：圣经将『万有从其而来』的父从『万有透过其而来』的子区分开来，并说子乃是『万有透过祂被造』的那位。（1 Cor 8:6; Jn 1:3）
As mediator, the Son is also revealer and teacher. The dyohypostatic tradition often attributes the Old Testament theophanies to the Son: the Son walked in the garden in the cool of the evening, wrestled with Jacob, appeared in the burning bush, gave the law to Moses, and spoke through the prophets. In particular, the Son reveals God because he is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15).
The incarnate Son is Savior of the human race, principally by fully revealing God the Father, teaching the fulness of truth, and being a model of virtue. He cannot save the human race by divinizing it or uniting it to the divine nature, because he is not divine in the fullest sense of the word. At a moment in history that God determined, the Son took flesh from the Virgin Mary. But the Incarnation was not a radically new state of the Son’s existence; the Son was temporarily incarnate when he wrestled with Jacob. The incarnate Christ simply continues his work as revealer, teacher, and model. His human flesh has no new personality or will; the Son in his human flesh continues in perfect harmony of will with the Father, just as he was before he assumed this flesh. His suffering and death on the cross are a model of patience and selflessness.
Put another way, salvation takes place in the order of will; it is not a new state, but an offer of knowledge. The Son reveals the truth and is a model of a God-pleasing life; Christians are saved when they accept the truth and live it. Neither the Incarnation nor the cross and resurrection brought about, of themselves, any ontological change in the human condition. There is no assumption of the human race by the Godhead, no deification of human beings without their co-operation. But with the help of the truth that Christ revealed, and by following his example, the way that leads to salvation can be freely chosen.
The dyohypostatic theology has obvious strengths and weaknesses. It easily accounts for the distinction between the Christ of the Gospels and his divine Father. Further, it offers a good explanation for the many passages in the New Testament that imply the Son’s subordination to the Father. Finally, it gives full play to human freedom in the process of salvation.
But this theology also has serious shortcomings. Its chief flaw is its inability to provide a satisfactory account of monotheism. Eusebius of Caesarea’s suggestion that the Son is God but not the “only true God” is only the most awkward of the explanations; the others do not differ essentially from it. The dyohypostatic theology cannot avoid positing a second, lower-ranking God. Then too, this theology offers a concept of salvation that is really no more than moralism. The help that Jesus offers is ultimately no more than his teaching and his inspiration.
These authors think habitually, or prereflectively, in terms of the Greek notion of the great chain of being, a way of thinking or conceiving all that exists by situating each existent somewhere on a scale or in an order, with God Himself at the top and brute matter at the bottom. They do not make any clear distinction between the uncreated and the created as the two primary or ultimate categories of being.
This habitual thinking in terms of the great chain of being explains the ease with which some of the Eusebians call the Son “God,” while others call him “a creature.” The significant point is not the distinction between these two terms, but the fact that the Son ranks below God but above all the rest of creation.
This dyohypostatic theology has obvious similarities to Middle Platonic cosmology, especially Numenius’. This is clear also because there is little room for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is mentioned in the rule of faith, but hardly plays a role in reflection or speculation.
这种双重位格的神学明显的与中柏拉图主义的宇宙论（Middle Platonic cosmology）相似，特别是Numenius的观点。明显的，在其中并没有什么位置留给圣灵。圣灵在信仰规范中被提及，但是在思考并推论的角色中基本上没有位置。
The miahypostatic tradition can also be described in a typical or ideal form. The miahypostatic theology takes strict Christian monotheism as its point of departure. There is one God. This one God is one real existent: one hypostasis, one ousia, and (in some authors) one prosopon.
This one God utters a Word, or begets a Son, and sends forth His Holy Spirit. The miahypostatic tradition does not hesitate to take over these names from the rule of faith, and willingly confesses faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It does, however, at least in its earlier stages, have difficulty explaining, in speculative language, the essence or nature of the Word and the Spirit. It hesitates to assign any plurality to the Godhead, and hence insists on the expression “one hypostasis” In general, in speaking of God, saying “one” is always safe, whereas saying “two” is always dangerous. Plurality is rather located in the Incarnate.
The Son, for the miahypostatic tradition, is God in the same way that the Father is: homoousia to patri, although its representatives seldom appeal to the Creed of Nicaea until several decades after the Council.
对于单一位格的传统，子是神，就如同父是神一样：homoousia to patri，虽然它的代表在大会后好几十年间，都很少诉诸尼西亚信经。
The Incarnation is the decisive moment in the history of salvation and marks a new stage in the history of the Logos. At the Incarnation God Himself is united with a human nature and thereby with human nature itself. This tradition conceives of human nature as a collectivity, so that, when the Word assumed ho anthropos, he also assumedand thereby elevated-hé anthropores.
道成肉身是救赎历史中的决定性时刻，标示道的历史的一个新阶段。神在道成肉身中亲自与一个人性联合并由此带着人性。这个传统认为人性是集体性的，所以，当道取了ho anthropos的时候，祂也取了—并被提升hé anthropotes。
The miahypostatic theology applied to the incarnate Christ, or even to Christ’s flesh, all the biblical texts that suggested the Son’s subordination to the Father. It is the Incarnate, as man, who says, “The Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28), or who knows neither the day nor the hour (Mk 13:32). In principle, at least, this gave these authors an opportunity to reflect on Christ’s human soul or mind.
单一位格神学将所有建议子低于父的圣经经文用在成为肉身的基督，或甚至基督的肉身之上。乃是成为肉身，作为人的那位，说『父比我大』（Jn 14:28），或祂不知道时刻（Mk 13:32）。在原则上，最起码，这位那些作者提供了一个机会，来体现基督的人性魂或心思。
Salvation, in this tradition, is essentially a divine act by which the human race is elevated and deified. Salvation takes place in the order of being: God acts, and thereby the human race is saved. Athanasius expressed this in his famous axiom, “God became man so that man might become divine.”
Marcellus of Ancyra held a distinctive form of the miahypostatic theology, and several points distinguish his thought from the general outline just sketched. He propounded a radical monotheism. God is one ousia, one hypostasis, and one prosopon. Ousia and hypostasis mean “being” or “existent.” Prosopon means “source of action,” and especially of rational discourse. The term that Marcellus preferred for God was the third, prosopon. God had to be one prosopon, because Marcellus could not conceive of two “I”s in the Godhead; hypostasia means the reality behind the prosopon.
The Word, as God’s dynamis or power, is eternal; when God speaks, then His Word became an active power. The only title that is proper to the Preincarnate is “Word”; all other titles are titles of the incarnate Christ. The Word “goes forth” from the Father; “begetting” is better reserved for the Virgin’s conceiving. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives His mission through the Son.
God’s activity appears to expand the monas or unity into a triad; but the monas is indivisible in dynamis, that is, indivisible into two or three distinct subjects; and the nature of the expansion is left unexplained, except that it is in energeia mone.
When Marcellus writes abstractly of Christ’s humanity, he calls it sarx; but when he thinks of it functionally or soteriologically, he calls it anthropos.
When writing of the Savior’s work (and “Savior” is the title he prefers for the Incarnate), he does not distinguish between Christ’s human nature and human nature in general and thus grounds his doctrine of deification. Marcellus taught that when the Word assumed ho anthropos, it assumed not only an individual man but the whole human race, and the latter precisely as sinful and deceived. Marcellus also sees the need for a human soul or mind in Christ. Asterius had explained that Jn 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) signified their “perfect harmony of will in every word and deed.” But Marcellus points out that Mt 26:39 (“not as I will, but as you will”) demonstrates that their wills were not always in harmony; hence Christ had a distinct center of consciousness.
With careful attention to 1 Cor 15:24-28, Marcellus teaches that Christ’s partial kingdom will, at the end of time, be absorbed into God’s whole kingdom. Even when he wrote the Contra Asterium, however, he admitted a problem with this theory, namely, his inability to explain what would happen to Christ’s flesh at the consummation of time.
因为仔细的研究1 Cor 15:24-28，马赛流角度基督具有部分国度的意志，最终被吸收进入神完整的国度中。基本当他在撰写Contra Asterium的时候，他承认他的理论中有一个问题，就是他不能解释在时期结束的时候，基督的肉身将会发生什么事。
Manuals often take Marcellus’ doctrine of God as a Monad that temporarily expands into a Triad as the most typical element of his theology. But these terms are not frequent in the extant fragments of the Contra Asterium. Marcellus’ speculation is rather dominated by a full and emphatic account of Christian monotheism but lacks a term, or a place, for the hypostatic existence of the (preincarnate) Word and the Spirit. He can call God a Triad but cannot say what is triadic in God. On the other hand, he distinguished clearly between the preincarnate Word and the incarnate Christ, and had the rudiments of a Christology that gives an adequate place to Christ’s complete human nature.
Manuals往往将马赛流的神论视为Monad以暂时的方式展开成为Triad，这是其神学的最为经典的元素。但是那些词并不常出现在Contra Asterium额外的残卷中。马赛流的推论反而比一种对于基督教独一神论主义完全并强调的描述方式所主宰，缺乏容许（成为肉身前的）道和圣灵之hypostatic存有存在的条件或空间。他称神为Triad，但是不能说在身里面有一个triadic。在另一方面，他明确的区分了成为肉身前的道（preincarnate Word）并成为肉身的基督（incarnate Christ），建构了一种基督论的雏形，为基督完整的人性提供了足够的空间。
At least potentially, the miahypostatic tradition recognizes that the first and most important distinction among existents is that between the uncreated and the created. The uncreated is divine and eternal, the created is finite and temporal. No series of steps, no great chain of being, can bridge the gap between God and creatures. The only possible bridge is a free act of God’s, the act of creating. Further, while both the Word and creatures have their source in God, the way they proceed from the source is radically different. The Son is begotten, that is, he comes from God’s essence. Creatures are made; they come from God’s will.
THE TWO TRADITIONS COMPARED
When the two traditions are compared, their strengths and weaknesses, measured against the later, orthodox resolution, become clear.
Speaking of one hypostasismakes the defense of Christian monotheism easy, but allows little room for an explanation of the Trinity that sees plurality in the Godhead itself and not simply in God’s activity or in the oikonomia. The language of two or three hypostaseis allows for a clear explanation of biblical Trinitarianism, but makes it difficult to maintain consequential monotheism and, at least in the fourth century, falls almost by necessity into the Platonic, subordinationist pattern of the great chain of being.
In Christology the dyohypostatic tradition, which already sees the Son as naturally subordinate, the lesser hypostasis who, as God’s instrument, reveals the transcendent God and is the mediator between God and the world, sees the Son as active, in this role, from the moment of creation on through all the revelations and theophanies of the Old Testament and continuing, in a natural progression, into the Incarnation. The mediator is naturally instrument, revealer, teacher, and model. There is no need to postulate a finite, human mind in Christ; the Son is always in symphonia, harmony of will, with the Father. The miahypostatic tradition, in contrast, sees the Incarnation as a radically new stage in the existence of the God the Logos. Because the Logos is God, the Incarnation is a profound, new mystery.
There is little speculation on Christ’s human soul in the early fourth century; but what there is begins on the side of the miahypostatic tradition, particularly in Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra. It is striking that Marcellus of Ancyra accuses Eusebius of Caesarea of psilanthropism for saying that Christ is the “one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5) and Eusebius accuses Marcellus of psilanthropism for saying that Christ had a human soul or mind.
在四世纪早期基本上都不会去推论基督人性的婚；但是在单一位格这边，特别是安替阿的Eustathius和安卡拉的马赛流却开始了这个进程。安卡拉的马赛流批判该撒利亚的优西比乌说，基督是『神与人间的一位中保』（1 Tim 2:5）为耶稣凡夫论，这个做法是令人惊讶的。优西比乌则批判马赛流说基督具有一个人的魂或心思才是耶稣凡夫论。
But the doctrine on which the two traditions may best be tested is the doctrine of salvation. In a sense, salvation is the most basic of all religious concepts. Every religious system offers some kind of salvation. Each presupposes that there is a gap or a rift between the human and the diving, and offers to close or heal it. The doctrine of salvation finally answers the simple but honest question, “What’s in this for me?”
It would be simplistic and unfair to say that the dyohypostatic tradition is cosmological and the miahypostatic soteriological. Both are reflections on the saving event in Christ. Neither is adequate in itself. The two types of theology may be reducible to two ways of conceiving salvation-or rather, to two different ways of interpreting what the New Testament says about Christ’s saving work. Salvation has both a divine element and a human element; no Christian would deny that. It is God who offers salvation and man who in some sense co-operates with God, at least by receiving the gift of salvation. The miahypostatic theology concentrates on God’s action. It interprets salvation as a gift from above, a change in the order of things effected by God’s decree, or, in a classic term of Greek theology, as deification. God acts to unite humanity to Himself and thereby save it. The dyohypostatic theology concentrates on the human response. It reserves a place for man’s free acceptance of God’s offer of salvation and therefore for his free choice. God’s offer is seen as revelation, teaching, and example.
As already stated, the dyohypostatic tradition sees salvation in the order of will: Christ is essentially a revealer and teacher. The advantage of such a view is that it better preserves human freedom; the disadvantage is that it can lapse into mere moralism. The miahypostatic tradition sees salvation in the order of being: God acts definitively in Christ to save fallen man. Such a view runs the risk of making salvation part of a process in which man is passive; but it preserves the unique moment of God’s gracious and effective love of His sinful creatures.
The question of the sources of these two traditions is difficult, if not insoluble. To say that one tradition is Origenist is not particularly helpful, and might be misleading; Marcellus too can quote Origen in his own defense. Friedrich Loofs tried to distinguish a theology that arose in Asia Minor or Antioch, which was biblical and historical, and found in Irenaeus of Lyons, for example, from a theology that is typical of Alexandria, and that was speculative and philosophical, and found, for example, in Justin Martyr and Origen. But the alliance of Eusebius of Caesarea, the admirer of Origen and pupil of Pamphilus, with Arius, the pupil of Lucian of Antioch, makes these categories practically useless.
The majority of bishops in Asia Minor and Syria were sympathetic to the dyohypostatic tradition. Athanasius, Marcellus, and the Westerners represent the miahypostatic tradition. Westerners, especially Romans, are probably rightly said to have held on to the spirit of the monarchian theology of the late second and early third centuries and thereby virtually to have ignored Tertullian.
But in the last analysis the search for sources may be fruitless. Perhaps these differing theological systems can best be categorized by their emphasis, in the doctrine of salvation, on divine initiative or human response. In a sense Arius, Nestorius, and Pelagius all in their own ways emphasize human response, while Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine all stress the divine initiative. It is safer, perhaps, to say no more than this.
HISTORY OF THE TWO TRADITIONS
The history of the two traditions in the fourth century can only be sketched here in outline. The first period is that from the crisis Arius caused in Alexandria to the Council of Nicaea. In this period Arius’ expulsion from Alexandria caused more than a few theologians in the dyohypostatic tradition to attempt to formulate their theological views. Most of these attempts were in the form of letters.
In 318 or 319 Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a letter to Euphration of Balaneae in which he argued that the Father must exist before or precede the Son, and is superior to the Son because He causes the Son’s existence; the Son is God, but not “true God” (Jn 17:3). In 320 or 321 Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote a letter to Paulinus of Tyre (the letter that Asterius later tried to defend) in which he aggressively rejects the assertion that the Son is of or from the Father’s essence (ek tes ousias); he is rather from the Father’s will, a perfect creature. There is uone Unbegotten,” he can write, “and one made by Him.” The letter, G. C. Stead remarks, “became something of an Arian classic.” Paulinus of Tyre wrote a letter, perhaps addressed to Alexander of Alexandria, in which he called Christ “a second God,” “a more human God,” and “a creature.” In 325 Narcissus of Neronias, in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia and others, wrote of a first and second God, and of two or three divine ousia.
在318或319年，该撒利亚的优西比乌写信给Balaneae的Euphration，他在信中辩称父的存在必须在子之前，并超越子，因为祂促成促成了子的存在；子是神，但不是『真神』（Jn 17:3）。在320或321年，尼哥米迪亚的优西比乌写信给Tyre的保利奴（也是亚斯特流的信所要捍卫的），他在其中激进的拒绝子是从父的素质（ek tes ousias）而来；祂反而是从父的意志而来的完美创造物。他写到，『只有一位非受生的，并一位被祂所造的。』G.C. Stead的心提到说，『成为某种经典的亚流观点。』Tyre的保利奴（也是亚斯特流的信所要捍卫的），他在其中激进的拒绝子是从父的素质（ek tes ousias）而来；祂反而是从父的意志而来的完美创造物。他写到，『只有一位非受生的，并一位被祂所造的。』G.C. Stead的心提到说，『成为某种经典的亚流观点。』Tyre的保利奴（也是亚斯特流的信所要捍卫的），他在其中激进的拒绝子是从父的素质（ek tes ousias）而来；祂反而是从父的意志而来的完美创造物。他写到，『只有一位非受生的，并一位被祂所造的。』G.C. Stead的心提到说，『成为某种经典的亚流观点。』Tyre的保利奴写了一封信，或许是写给亚历山大的亚历山大，他在其中成绩单为『第二位神』，『更为像人的神』，并『一个被造物』。Neronias的Narcissus在325年，在一封写给尼哥米迪亚的优西比乌和其他人士的信件中，写到第一位和第二位神，并两个或三个神圣的ousia。
But the most significant partisan was probably Asterius the Sophist. Before Nicaea, Asterius wrote a booklet (syntagmation) which became the theological manual of the Eusebian party and qualified Asterius to be the spokesman or publicist of dyohypostatic theology. In this pamphlet Asterius defined “ingenerate” precisely as “what was not made, but always is.” He also speaks of a double power and a double wisdom: one natural to God and hence eternal, unoriginate, and unbegotten, and another, manifested in Christ, which is created. Asterius states more clearly than the others that Christ is the necessary, created instrument by which God created.
但是最具有意义的党羽可能是智慧者亚斯特流（Asterius the Sophist）。在尼西亚前，亚斯特流写了一本小册子（syntagmation），成为优西比乌党的神学收藏，并使得亚斯特流能够担当双重位格神学的发言人或公开代表的角色。在这本小册子中，亚斯特流正是将『非产生（ingenerate）』定义为『非受造，并永远存在的（what was not made, but always is）』。他也论到一种双重的能和一种双重的智慧：一个的本质是神的，因此是永恒的、无起源的、非受生的、而另一个显现在基督里面的，则是必须的、被造为神创造的工具。
Arius too, far from being an original thinker, was simply one more adherent of the dyohypostatic tradition, albeit one who, in his earlier statements in Alexandria, expressed himself awkwardly or provocatively, and who, further, had the bad luck of using the language of dyohypostatic theology in an atmosphere-Alexandria-where it was unfamiliar and hence easily misunderstood.
In this early period the miahypostatic tradition is sparsely represented; dating Athanasius’ Contra gentes et de incarnatione uerbi before 318 has been abandoned by most scholars. The second period is that from Nicaea to the Dedication Council of Antioch. After Nicaea the language used by the representatives of the dyohypostatic tradition is more guarded; phrases like “two Gods” and “two ousiai” disappear. Asterius the Sophist wrote his letter defending Eusebius of Nicomedia’s own letter to Paulinus of Tyre during this time, probably in 327. The occasion of his writing may have been Eusebius’ effort to have his deposition reversed and regain his see. Perhaps under the influence of Nicaea, Asterius took a creed (albeit a simple one) as his point of departure. From there he asserts that the triple name must refer to a triple reality. The Father and the Son are two natures, he writes, two hypostaseis, and two prosôpa. The two are one, he insists, in harmony of wills. On the other hand, he virtually abandons Eusebius of Nicomedia’s insistence that the Son is from the Father’s will and accepts a more credal “begotten from Him.”
在这个期间，单一位格传统较少被叙述；在亚他那修的Contra gentes et de incarnatione uerbi，也就是318年前，几乎被所有的学者抛弃。第二个时期是从尼西亚到安替阿的献殿节信经。在尼西亚后，用来重新表述双重位格传统的语言进一步受到限制；像『两位神』和『两个ousiai』的句子都消失了。智慧者亚斯特流在他的信中为尼哥米迪亚的优西比乌自己在这个时期中，写给Tyre的保利奴的信辩护，可能是在327年左右。他写作的背景可能是优西比乌逆转了他的被放逐，并重新登上主教宝座产生的影响。或许在尼西亚的影响之下，亚斯特流使用信经（坚持使用一种简单的信经）作为他的出发点。他在那个基础上，简称三个不同的名字比然是指向三个不同的实际尊严。父和子是两个名字，他写到，两个hypostaseis和两个prosopa。他坚持，两者在意志的和谐上是一。在另一方面，他几乎放弃了尼哥米迪亚的优西比乌所坚持的，子是从父的意志而来，并接受更为接近信经的『从祂而生』的语言。
It was Asterius’ letter that provoked the first extended written work after Nicaea expressing the miahypostatic tradition, Marcellus of Ancyra’s Contra Asterium. But Marcellus undertook a refutation not only of Asterius’ letter, but of four other letters: those of Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Paulinus of Tyre, and. Narcissus of Neronias, all mentioned above. Marcellus probably had a dossier of letters put together by representatives of the dyohypostatic tradition, perhaps Arius himself.
But the dyohypostatic tradition in the early fourth century is most clearly and fully represented by Eusebius of Caesarea. In the older literature Eusebius was treated as a historian and a compiler, but not as a theologian of any standing. Research in the past 50 years has changed that impression, and shown that Eusebius thought of himself as a theologian and that he has a theological system well worth studying. Marcellus’ Contra Asterium brought about a full reaction from Eusebius of Caesarea, first in his rather hasty and superficial Contra Marcellum, and then in his more carefully constructed and more theological De ecclesiastica theologia.
但是，该撒利亚的优西比乌最清楚并全面的代表四世纪的双重位格传统。在其他的作品中，优西比乌被当作一位历史学者和编辑者，但是并不是一位具有任何立场的神学家。在过去50年的研究已经改变了这个印象，表明优西比乌认为自己是一位神学家，他具有一个值得研究的神学系统。马赛流的Contra Asterium引发了该撒利亚的优西比乌全面性的反抗，他首先匆促的完成了一本肤浅的Contra Marcellum，然后他更为仔细建构一本更具有神学性质的De ecclesiastica theologia。
The third period is that from the Dedication Council to the death of Constantius. As suggested above, the year 341 marks the rise of two clearly distinguishable parties, with the majority of the Eastern bishops on one side and Athanasius, Marcellus, and most of the Westerners on the other side. Julius of Rome’s vindication of Athanasius and Marcellus, recounted in his letter to the Easterners, provoked their reaction to him at the Dedication Council in 341. The Synod of Sardica (Philippopolis) (342 or 343) is the nadir of the relations between East and West. The Western statement calls the Easterners heretics, and the Eastern statement execrates Athanasius and Marcellus and calls Marcellus ” omnium haereticorum execrabilior pestis.” Both sides probably regretted their excesses, and the Eastern Ekthesis makrostichos or Creed of the Long Lines (344) is deliberately conciliatory and even avoids the contested word hypostasis altogether.
第三个时期是从献殿节信经到康士坦丢死亡。如同前面所建议的，341年产生了两个明显不同的党派，大部分的东方主教们在一边，亚他那修和马赛流，并大部分的西方主教们在另一边。罗马的Lulius为亚祂男性和马赛流辩护的，写给东方主教的信，激发了他们在341年献殿节对他的抵抗。萨迪卡大会（Philippopolis）（342或343）代表东西方关系的最低点。西方的宣言称东方主教们为异端，东方的宣言咒骂亚他那修和马赛流，并称马赛流为『omnium haereticorum execrabilior pestis（所有异端中最为令人憎恶的瘟疫）』。双方可能都后悔他们的作为，东方的Ekthesis makrostichos，或长信经（Creed of the Long Lines，344）刻意被赋予某种安抚的性质，甚至完全避免关于hypostasis这个字的辩论。
But the dyohypostatic theology continued, apart from the formation of parties and the decrees of synods. In the two decades after the Dedication Council, this theology has two characteristics: it sees Marcellus of Ancyra, in a more and more stereotyped picture, as the opponent par excellence; and it becomes increasingly moderate and nuanced, so that one of its last forms is the homoeousian theology proposed around 358.
Eusebius of Caesarea died in 339, and Acacius succeeded him. Acacius wrote a work against Marcellus, probably soon after 341; in the extant fragments he is much concerned with the title “image” for the Son, and heavily dependent on the second creed of Antioch. The sermons of Eusebius of Emesa (ca. 300-ca. 359), which are preserved in a Latin translation, show a theology that is also a later form of the dyohypostatic theology. Eusebius insists with equal vigor both on the deity of the Son and on his subordination to the Father. Piet Smulders shows that Eusebius has the beginnings of a dyoprosopic Christology, which he is led to by his reflection on Jesus’ agony in the garden and his suffering on the cross. Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra had already suggested that Jesus’ human will had to be considered; in Eusebius of Emesa a representative of the dyohypostatic theology comes to the same insight. The one “heretic” whom Eusebius of Emesa attacks with any emotion is Marcellus of Ancyra. Smulders writes of him that “the person of Eusebius leads us to the heart of the homoeousian group.” Cyril of Jerusalem is another clear representative of the dyohypostatic theology. Like Eusebius of Emesa, Cyril too attacks only one living Christian in his Catéchèses, namely Marcellus of Ancyra.
In 358 the short-lived homoeousian party arose, which, if the analysis presented here is correct, is the last representative of the older dyohypostatic theology. The “Blasphemy of Sirmium” of 357 called attention to the words ousia, homoousios, and homoiousios by attempting to prohibit their use, and, ironically, prepared the way for an ultimate solution.
短命的类质派兴起于358年，如果现今的分析是正确的，它乃是最后具有代表性的交往古老版本的双重位格神学。357『Sirmium的亵渎（Blasphemy of Sirmium）』注意到ousia，homoousios和homoiousios这几个字，尝试禁止使用它们，很讽刺的，这反而为最终的解决方案预备了道路。
During this same period the miahypostatic tradition is represented most fully by Athanasius. Marcellus’ last clearly authentic writing is a letter he addressed to Pope Julius of Rome in 341. The writings that have recently been attributed——probably too hastily and too facilely——to Marcellus perhaps belong rather more generally to the miahypostatic tradition of the fourth century. Once this category is established, there is no need to insist that only Marcellus could have written these works.
Besides unnuanced and increasingly stereotyped open opposition to Marcellus by Eusebius of Caesarea, Acacius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and many of the Eastern councils and synods, another strain of opposition to Marcellus developed that was more subtle, more sophisticated, and——ultimately——theologically much more productive. This opposition is found in four writings that have several important characteristics in common. Each refers to Marcellus under the code name “Sabellius”; each uses the word homoousios, but only once or twice, and without making it a touchstone of orthodoxy; each is as explicitly opposed to Arius as it is to Marcellus; each accepts, at least in principle, the validity of the phrase “two hypostaseis” while rejecting the subordination that the dyohypostatic theology considered necessary to preserve monotheism; and each teaches the eternal generation of the Son. In other words, these writings draw elements from both the miahypostatic and the dyohypostatic traditions and point the way toward the Cappadocian resolution. The writings are not hostile to Marcellus personally, but to a caricature of his teaching; implicit in their thought is an opening through which Marcellus might join them. Theologically, it is the concept of the eternal generation of the Son that allows these authors to escape from the subordinationism of the dyohypostatic theology and its reflex thinking in the pattern of the great chain of being, and to teach the essential equality of Father and Son and thus the Son’s saving work as deification.
The works are Ps.—Athanasius,Fourth Oration against the Arians; Ps.Athanasius, Contra Sabellianos ; Basil of Caesarea, Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomoeos; and (Ps.?) Gregory of Nyssa, Aduersus Arium et Sabellium. They are difficult to date, but undoubtedly fall between 340 and 380.
那些作品是伪亚他那修，反对亚流的第四篇论文；伪亚他那修，Contra Sabellianos；该撒利亚的巴西流，Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomoeos；和（伪？）尼撒的贵格利，Aduersus Arium et Sabellium。它们的日期都很难被确定，但肯定都是在340到380年中间。
If this analysis is correct, then a famous thesis, proposed by Theodor Zahn in 1867, is shown to be incorrect. Zahn believed that the Council of Nicaea had, with the word homoousion, professed the numerical identity or unity of the divine essence, but that the Cappadocian Fathers had taken the word to mean generic identity, and thus no different in meaning from homoios hat ousian. Practically, Zahn believed, the Cappadocians were heirs, not of Nicaea and of Athanasius, but of the Homoeousian party of Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea. But the Homoeousians represented rather the end of the dyohypostatic tradition, and the Cappadocians inherited the corrected theology of these “antiSabellian” writings.
如果这个分析是正确的，那么Theodor Zhan在1867提出的一个有名的理论将会被证明是错误的。Zahn相信尼西亚大会使用homoousion这个字来承认一种数字的特性，或神圣素质的联合，但是加帕多加教父们认为那个字具有一般性的意义，因此与homoios hat ousian的意义是一样的。Zahn相信加帕多加并不是尼西亚和亚他那修的继承人，而是安卡拉的巴西流（Basil of Ancyra）和老底嘉的乔治（George of Laodicea）的继承人。但是Homoeousian代表的是双重位格传统的终结，加帕多加继承了那些『反撒伯流（antiSabellian）』作品的，修正过的神学。
After 361 the categories “miahypostatic theology” and “dyohypostatic theology” lose their relevance. Traces of the parties do remain: some Ancyran clergy remained faithful to Marcellus, and the schism in Antioch between Paulinus and Meletius corresponds to these categories. But the gradual rapprochement of the two traditions was advanced by several events. The rise of the Neo-Arians is the immediate cause of the rise of the Homoeousian party: the Blasphemy of Sirmium attempted to prohibit the use of the words homoousios, homoiousios, and ousia, and thereby drew attention to them. Athanasius, in his Tome to the Antiochenes of 362, admitted for the first time that besides one ousia and one hypostasis, there was also a sense in which one could rightly say “three hypostaseis” of the Godhead. And the rise of the Neo-Arians makes Eunomius of Cyzicus the chief opponent of Homoeousians and Cappadocians alike.
在361年后，『单一位格神学』和『双重位格神学』的分类法失去了它们的实用性。那些派别的痕迹仍然存在：某些安卡拉的神职人员仍然对马赛流忠心耿耿，安替阿在保利奴（paulinus）和米勒丢（Meletius）的分离教派也符合那些分类。但是，两个传统头盖骨好几个时间逐渐被整合。Blasphemy of Sirmium尝试禁止使用homoousios，homoiousios和ousia这几个字，因此引起了对它们的关注。亚他那修在362年写给安替阿人的教义中，首次承认在一个ousia和一个hypostasis外，人们可以正确的说神格有『三个位格（three hypostaseis）』。新亚流派（Neo-Arians）的崛起也使得Cyzicus的Eunomius同时成为Homoeousian和加帕多加的对手。
Nevertheless, the categories “miahypostatic” and “dyohypostatic” are useful for analyzing theology in the earlier part of the fourth century. They show that the “Arian” controversy was in reality a collision between two theological systems, neither of which was quite adequate; but the very collision prepared the way for a resolution.