Subject 6. The Sabellian doctrine of dilatation and contraction§§. 13, 14.
§. 13. {528} 1. THIS perhaps he borrowed [Note A] from the Stoics, who maintain that their God collapses and again expands [Note B] with the creation, and then rests without end [Note 1]. For what is dilated, is first straitened; and what is expanded, is first in collapse; and it is what it was, and does but undergo an affection [Note 2]. If then the One [Note 3] being dilated became a Three [Note 4], and the One was the Father, and the Three is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, first the One being dilated, underwent an affection and became what it was not; for it was dilated, whereas it was not dilated. Next, if the One itself was dilated into a Three [Note C], and that, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, then Father {529} and Son and Spirit become the same, as Sabellius held [Note D]; unless the One which he speaks of is something besides the Father, and then he ought not to speak of dilatation, since the One was maker of Three, so that there was a One, and then Father, Son, and Spirit. For if the One were dilated and expanded itself, it must itself be that which was dilated. And a Three when dilated is no longer a One, and when a One it is not yet a Three [Note E]. And therefore when Father, He is not yet Son and Spirit; and when become These, no longer only Father. And a man who thus should lie, might ascribe a body to God, and represent Him as passible [Note 5]; for what is dilatation, but an affection [Note 6] of that which is dilated? or what the dilated, but what before was not so, but was strait instead; for it is the same, in time only differing from itself. §. 14. 2. And this the divine Apostle knows, when he writes to the Corinthians, Be ye not straitened in us, but be ye yourselves dilated, O Corinthians [2 Cor. vi. 12.]; for he advises them, continuing the same, to change from straitness to dilatation. And as, supposing the Corinthians, being straitened, were in turn dilated, they had not been others, but still Corinthians, so if the Father was dilated into a Three, the Three again is the Father alone. And he says again the same thing, Our heart is dilated [2 Cor. vi. 11]; and Noe says, God shall dilate Japheth [Gen. ix. 27.], for the same heart, and the same Japheth is in the dilatation. If then the One dilated, others it dilated; but if it dilated itself, then it would be that which was dilated; and what is that but the Son and Holy Spirit? {530} 3. And it is well to ask him, when thus speaking, what was the action [Note 7] of this dilatation? or, in very truth, wherefore at all it took place? for what does not remain the same, but is in course of time dilated, must necessarily have a cause of dilatation. If then it was in order that Word and Spirit should be with Him, it is beside the purpose to say, first "One;" and then "was dilated;" for Word and Spirit were not afterwards, but ever, or God would be word-less [Note 8] as the Arians hold. So that if Word and Spirit were ever, ever was It dilated, and not at first but a One; but if it were dilated afterwards, then afterwards is the Word. But if for the Incarnation It was dilated, and then became a Three, then before the Incarnation there was not yet a Three. And it will seem even that the Father became flesh, if, that is, He be the One, and was dilated into man's nature [Note 9]; and thus perhaps there will only be a One, and flesh, and thirdly Spirit [Note F]; if so be He was Himself dilated, and there will be in name only a Three. It is extravagant too to say that it was dilated for the sake of creating; for it were possible for the Divine Being, remaining a One, to make all; for the One did not need dilatation, nor was wanting in power before the dilatation; it is extravagant surely and impious, to think or speak thus in the case of God. Another extravagance too will follow. For if it was dilated for the sake of the creation, and while it was a One, the creation was not, but upon the end of all things, it will be again a One after dilatation, then the creation too will come to nought. For as for the sake of creating it was dilated, so, the dilatation ceasing, the creation will cease also. FootnotesA. [hupelabe]. Here an anonymous opponent
is abruptly introduced; also 14. [eresthai auton kalon]. vid.
Introduct. to this Oration, supr. p. 501. However abrupt, this section
seems to be a continuation of the foregoing, as the words [pausei
… eis apeiron] there, and [apeiros pauesthai]
here, shew. B.
And so [kata ektasin kai sustolen he monas duas einai
nomizetai]. Clementin. xvi. 12. vid. Neander, Church Hist. (t. 2.
p. 276.tr.), who imputes the doctrine to the Judæo-Christian
theosophists. The Benedictine Ed. refers to a passage of Diogenes
Laertius in Lips. Phys. Stoic. ii. 6. in corroboration of what Athan.
says of the Stoics. Brucker dissents t. 1. p, 923. ed. 1767. Petavius
ascribes similar (but orthodox) modes of expression to the Platonists,
referring to Synesius's adoption of them, De Deo ii. 8. §. 17. Naz.
refers to them with blame, as of a material character, apparently
referring to Plato. Orat. 29, 2, b. C.
[he monas eplatunthe eis triada]. the very words
of Marcellus as quoted by Euseb. [aporrhetoi logoi
he monas phainetai platunomene men eis triada].
Eccl. Theol. p. 168, a, b. Yet [platusmos] seems to have been a
word of Sabellius, by Dionysius's allusion to it, [houto eis
te ten triada ten monada platunomen adiaireton, kai
k.t.l.]. de Sent. Dion. 17 fin. This idea of [platusmos] is
admitted by other Fathers, as by Nazianzen, but of course to express
the order of Divine Origination and Procession, not any actual and
temporary process; "the Godhead being neither poured out beyond These,"
the Holy Trinity, "lest we introduce a multitude ([demon])
of gods, nor limited short of Them, &c." Orat. 38, 8, a. vid. also
23, 8. and Basil. de Sp. S. 47. But such statements are open to no
misconstruction. vid. supr. p. 399, note B. D.
It is difficult to decide what Sabellius's doctrine really was; nor is
this wonderful, considering the perplexity and vacillation which is
the ordinary consequence of abandoning Catholic truth. Also we must
distinguish between him and his disciples. He is considered by
Eusebius, Eccl. Theol. i. p. 91. Patripassian, i.e. as holding that
the Father was the Son; also by Athan. Orat. iii. 36 init. supr. p.
451, r. 2. de Sent. Dion. 5 and 9. By the Eusebians of the Macrostich
Creed ap. Athan. de Syn. 26. supr. p. 115. By Basil. Ep. 210, 5.
Ruffin. in Symb. 5. By Augustine de Hær. 41. By Theodor. Hær. ii. 9.
And apparently by Origen. ad Tit. t. 4. p. 695. And S. Cyprian. Ep.
73. On the other hand, Epiphanius seems to deny it, ap. August. l. c.
and Alexander, by comparing it to the emanating doctrine of Valentinus,
ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 743. Vid. p. 115, note F. and p. 505. E.
vid. a passage similar to this, Orat. i. §. 17. supr. pp. 205, 6.
where such a doctrine is urged as the strongest reductio ad
absurdum against the Arians, being a red. ad Sabellismum (a
similar red. ad abs. is mentioned infr. p. 532, n. 3. in Orat.
1. §. 38. supr. p. 234. vid. also supr. p. 526, note K.) It is there
urged that the Holy Trinity becomes [anomoios heautes],
the charge which Eusebius brings against Marcellus, [ho theos estai
heautoi anomoios]. p. 114, a. Athan. declares that the [trias]
is [homoia heautei]. Serap. i. 17 init. 20, c. 28, c.
and S. Cyril. in Catech. vi. 7. F.
This passage is like one in Eusebius contr. Marc. [ti toinun en
to katelthon touto pro tou enanthropesai; pantos
tou, phesin, pneuma; ei de pneuma, pneuma ho theos. saphos
enteuthen tou soteros peri tou patros legontos,
elenchetai Markellos auton ton patera enenthropekenai
eipon]. pp. 33, 36. Margin Notes1. [apeiros pauesthai] qu. [p., a]. 2.
[pathos]. 3.
[monas]. 4.
[trias]. 5.
[patheton]. 6.
[pathos]. 7.
[energeia] pp. 506, 7. 8.
p. 208, note B. Return to text Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |