Sabellius

 EUSEBIUS, Eccles. Theol. i. 20, p. 91, as well as the Macrostich Confession, supr. vol. i. p. 106, says that Sabellius held the Patripassian doctrine. Epiph. however, Hær. p. 398, denies it, and imputes the doctrine to Noetus. Whatever Sabellius taught, it should be noticed, that, in the reason which the Arian Macrostich alleges against his doctrine, it is almost implied that the divine nature of the Son suffered on the Cross. The Arians would naturally fall into this notion directly they gave up their belief in our Lord's absolute divinity. It would as naturally follow to hold that our Lord had no human soul, but that His pre-existent nature stood in the place of it: also that His Priesthood was not dependent on His Incarnation.

 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. de Sent. Dion. 5 and 9. By the Eusebians of the Macrostich Creed ap. Athan. de Syn. 26 vol. i. supr. By Basil. Ep. 210, 5. By 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 by Cyprian. Ep. 73. On the other hand, Epiphanius seems to deny it, ap. August. l. c. and Alexander, by comparing Sabellianism to the emanation doctrine of Valentinus, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 743.

 Sabellians, as Arians, denied that the Word was a substance, and as the Samosatenes, who, according to Epiphanius, considered our Lord the internal, [ endiathetos ], Word and Thought, Hær. 65.

 All Sabellians, except Patripassians, mainly differed from Arians only at this point, viz. when it was that our Lord came into being. Both parties considered Him a creature, and the true Word and Wisdom but attributes or energies of the Almighty. This Lucifer well observes to Constantius, with the substitution of Paulus and Photinus for Sabellius, "Quid interesse arbitraris inter te et Paulum Samosatenum, vel eum tum ejus discipulum tuum conscotinum, nisi quia tu 'ante omnia' dicas, ille vero 'post omnia'"? p. 203, 4. A subordinate difference was that the Samosatenes, Photinians, etc., considered our Lord to be really gifted with the true Word, whereas Arians did scarcely more than admit Him to be formed after its pattern.

 The Sabellians agreed with the Arians, as far as words went, in considering the Logos as a creative attribute, vid. Sent D. 25. Ep. Ægypt. 14 fin. Epiph. Hær. 72, p. 835; but such of them as held that the Logos actually took flesh, escaped the mystery of God subsisting in Two Persons, only by falling into the heterodox notion that His nature was compounded of substance and attribute or quality, [ suntheton ton theon ek poiotetos kai ousias ]. They virtually denied, with many Trinitarians outside the Church in this day, that the Son and again the Spirit is [ holos theos ]; but, if Each is not [ holos theos ], God is [ sunthetos ].