Arianism
with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be looked upon as an
isolated theory by its founder Arius. Its appeal, which began in Alexandria and
spread through the whole Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The
Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying this
non-Christian world was the contrast between the "One and the Many,
between the ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the incalculable
variety that exists in the world (Ward 1955, 38)." The relationship
between God and the world had to be solved. The Jews proposed a supreme God who
created by His word. It was an idea of a mediating "Word or Wisdom - the
Word which is pronounced, the Wisdom which is created - whereby the Father
communicated Himself to man and took possession of him (Guitton 1965,
81)." The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could
come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a
"mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first
principle which reduced the distance between God and the world (Guitton 1965,
81)." The primitive Church had to "reconcile the notions they had
inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew and
Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer that would agree with
the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures
(Ward 1955, 39)." This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached
its climax with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and philosophical
thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did triumph over Arianism but only
after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support and confusion in
theological terminology were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out
battle as we will see.
Arius
and His Teaching
Arius,
who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish priest in Alexandria. He had
studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who
had earlier been condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; although he
was later reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism" because
"Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his students.
Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his adoptionist
and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy (Harkins 1967, 1057,
1058)." With this background Arius struggled with
the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the
following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the
nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . .
Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos as no
more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the
Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in
creation. The Son was not therefore to be identified
with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was
once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the
subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to
deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering (Ward
1955, 41)." This teaching of Arius "drove the
distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant
solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one
Supreme Being and two inferior deities (Ward 1955, 43)." The Person of
Christ "belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize. . .
He was neither God nor man (Ward 1955, 42)."
Arius
Versus the Alexandrian Bishop
Arius'
views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander
the Bishop called a meeting of his priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius continued to argue
that since the Son was begotten of the Father then at some point He began to
exist. Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius
refused to submit to the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching. Alexander
called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who
attended eighty voted for the condemnation and exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to the other Bishops
refuting Arius' views. In doing so the Bishop used the term "homoousios"
to describe the Father and Son as being of one substance. Alexander
"used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole controversy
(Ward 1955, 43, 44)."
With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the
Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in
Asia Minor. The Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of
Antioch. He became Arius' most influential supporter. From this city Arius
enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian.
His supporters held their own synod calling Arius' views orthodox and condemning
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds for this
condemnation. The term homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor
Dionysius when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son
were identical). All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was
emerging from Roman oppression.
Constantine
and Ossius
With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the
religion of the Roman Empire.
Constantine had politically united the Empire but he was distressed to find a
divided Christianity. Constantine, certainly not understanding the significance
of the controversy, sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters to
both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying
that their disagreement was merely just a matter of words. Both of them really
were in agreement on major doctrines and neither were involved in heresy. The
letters failed to have an effect.
In
325 A.D. Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was
attended by fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the Council
of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter Council in
Nicaea. Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated -
that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a
profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three
Bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were
provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.
In
the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine
called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia. That an
Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual since in
Hellenistic thought he "`was given by God supreme power in things material
and spiritual (Davis 1987, 56).'"
The
Council of Nicaea
The
General Council was well attended by the major sees of the Eastern Empire. Also
some Western Bishops were present. Because of old age and sickness Pope
Sylvester did not attend but sent two papal legates. The total number of
Bishops who attended the Council has been disputed. Eusebius of Ceasarea who
attended it claimed 250; Athanasius also in attendance mentioned 300; after the
Council a symbolic number of 318 was used; modern scholars put the number at
220.
If
there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no longer in
existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that "daily sessions were
held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his arguments
attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of
the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of
Arius (LeClercq 1913, 45)."
Concerning
the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of Caesarea,
Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent accounts of how
this Creed was drafted (DeClercq 1967, 792)." But from one reconstruction
of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia offered a creed that was favorable to Arian
views. This creed was rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed
the baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to
form the basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts were made to construct a creed
using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the
Arian position. "Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as
the basis for a new creedal statement . . . The finished creed was preserved in
the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of Basil of Caesarea
and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 (Davis 1987, 59)." When the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still opposed
it. Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who
would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the
creed. All three were exiled.
The
Creed and an Analysis
Some
parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed
are as follows:
"We
believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and
invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that
is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true
God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the
Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth . . .
Those who say: `There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was
begotten;' and that `He was made out of nothing;' or who maintain that `He is
of another hypostasis or another substance,' or that `the Son of God is
created, or mutable, or subject to change,' the Catholic Church anathematizes
(LeClercq 1913, 45)."
The
Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect
their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten of the Father" was seen
by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their
doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" was added to the creed that
totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian
teaching was that the Son was God by grace and name only. The creedal statement
"true God of true God" was an affirmation that the Son was really
truly God against this Arian position. The most
important statement in the creed that affirms "that the Son shares the
same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine" was the phrase
"of one substance (homoousios) with the Father" (Davis 1987,
61). This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary
being between God and Creation.
In
case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were
attached directly condemning Arian positions. The
Arian denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two
phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before He
was begotten He was not." The Arian belief in the Son being
created out of nothing is expressed in the phrase "He
came into being from things that are not." The Arian doctrine
that the Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only
remained virtuous by an act of the will is expressed in the phrase "He is
mutable or alterable." Finally the Arian position of the Son as
subordinate to the Father and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He
is of a different hypostasis or substance." With these specific anathemas
against them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished.
Terminology
Problem
With
the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin
misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once
instance of confusion is the statement "He is of a different hypostasis or
substance." The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be
synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the Council
would look as if it was condemning the statement that the Son was a different
Person from the Father, which would clearly be erroneous. Only later would the
East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West. This
instance of confusion "points up the terminological difficulty which
continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East's
position (Davis 1987, 63)."
A
second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios. At that
time this word could have three possible meanings. "First, it could be
generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom
share human nature while remaining individuals. Second, it could signify
numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in
concrete being. Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of
the same substance because both are made of the same clay (Davis 1987,
61)." The Council intended the first meaning to stress the equality of the
Son with the Father. If the second meaning for the word was taken to be the
Council's intention it would mean that the Father and Son were identical and
indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian heresy. The third meaning gave the word
a materialistic tendency that would infer that the Father and Son are parts of
the same stuff.
Along
with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the word homoousios the
history of the word is closely associated with heresies. The word was
originally used by the Gnostics. The word had even been condemned at the
Council of Antioch in 268 regarding its use by the Adoptionist Paul of
Samosata. Another factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used
in Sacred Scripture.
The
Council's defeat by Arianism
It
is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council could be
called into question. Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia
gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine
that the Council's use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son
were identical). The Emperor now favored the Arians.
With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided
between his sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his
brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea. Supporters of
Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated
by the Dedication Council of Antioch. This Council directly attacked the Nicaea
Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases "from the
substance of the Father" and "homoousios." Some attempts were
made to find a substitute word for homoousios. As many as fourteen Councils
were held between 341 and 360 "in which every shade of heretical
subterfuge found expression . . . The term `like in substance,' homoiousion . .
.. had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula (Barry 1913,
709)." Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this
new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were
"dissimilar" or anomoios. Another group used the word
"similar" or homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.
With
the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole
ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that all the Bishops of his
Empire should agree with the homoios formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils,
one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini. Both Councils,
under the Emperor's threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming
consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula. "This Homoean
victory was confirmed and imposed on the whole Church by the Council of
Constantinople in the following year" which condemned the terms
homoousios, homoiousios and anomoios (Ward 1955, 57). It
seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed.
The Final Battle
The
seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived. First it gained its popularity
solely by imperial imposition. With the death of Constantius in 361 it
collapsed. Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoiousios supporters
alike "it brought about better understanding and, ultimately,
reconciliation between the two groups (DeClercq 1967, 793)." Athanasius an
ardent defender of the homoousios position and following the Alexandrian train
of thought had begun his reasoning with the unity of God. From their he had
concluded that the Son and Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same
essential substance. The Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory
Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians. The point of
departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been the individual aspect of
the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they came to the
realization that the three Persons as God must share the same identical substance
also. By using the term homoiousios the Cappadocian Fathers "had never
meant to deny the unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons (Ward
1955, 58)." Both came to the conclusion that although they used different
terms what they meant to say was the same. The Cappadocian Fathers came to
accept the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the
Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons
(hypostaseis).
At
about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an
agreement another development was taking place. The East and the West were
arriving at a better understanding of each others theological terminology. At
the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed, the terms
ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism (sometimes referred to as
another form of Semi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was
condemned. Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had
imperial favor.
In
the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At the Council of
Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian
Bishops were deposed. A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor
prohibited Arianism in the West.
In
the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing Emperor
Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to their sees. In 381 he
convoked a regional Council at Constantinople. The first canon from this
Council states that "`the faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea
in Bithyna is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established (Davis
1987, 126).'" In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last
victory over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople in the
East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them "sealed the
final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church (DeClercq 1967,
793)."
Conclusion
The
Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter
battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it.
The Arian heresy seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized
their teachings one by one. The Arian doctrines condemned were the following:
The Son was created by the Father out of nothing. Thus the Son was not God in
the strict sense but by grace and in name only. The Father and Son did not
share the same substance. The Son being a creature was subject to moral
changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.
Terminology
difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to continue after the
Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios (of the same
substance) used by the Council to describe the relationship between the Father
and the Son. The Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, that
of identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and Son were identical
thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians then started producing their own
creeds either eliminating this term or substituting another for it. This lead
to the breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups according to which term
they supported - anomoios (dissimilar), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like
in substance).
It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy
determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism
was dominating the controversy.
With the imposition of the term homoios on the Church by the Emperor
Constantius the work of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity
of this term died with the Emperor. The persecution of both the Homoousians and
the Homoiousians forced them to begin to dialogue. With the two great
representatives of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers,
finding theological grounds for their eventual agreement the way was paved for
the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This
incident later coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea
led to the final Arian downfall.