Arian controversy

Part of a series of articles on
Arianism
History and theology
Arius Acacians Anomoeanism Arian controversy Arian creeds First Council of Nicaea Gothic Christianity Gothic Bible (Codex Argenteus) Lucian of Antioch Semi-Arianism
Arian leaders
Acacius of Caesarea Aëtius of Antioch Demophilus of Constantinople Eudoxius of Antioch Eunomius of Cyzicus Eusebius of Nicomedia Eustathius of Sebaste George of Laodicea Wulfila
Other Arians
Asterius of Cappadocia Auxentius of Milan Auxentius of Durostorum Constantius II Gothic persecution of Christians Fritigern Alaric I Artemius Odoacer Theodoric the Great
Modern semi-Arians
Samuel Clarke Isaac Newton William Whiston
Opponents
Peter of Alexandria Achillas of Alexandria Alexander of Alexandria Hosius of Corduba Athanasius of Alexandria Paul I of Constantinople Nicholas of Myrra
Christianity portal
v t

The Arian controversy was a series of Christian theological disputes that arose between Arius and Athanasius of Alexandria, two Christian theologians from Alexandria, Egypt. The most important of these controversies concerned the relationship between the substance of God the Father and the substance of His Son.

The deep divisions created by the disputes were an ironic consequence of Emperor Constantine's efforts to unite Christianity and establish a single, imperially approved version of the faith during his reign.^[1][2] These disagreements divided the Church into various factions for over 55 years, from the time before the First Council of Nicaea in 325 until after the First Council of Constantinople in 381. There was no formal schism. Though the Trinitarian faction ultimately gained the upper hand in the imperial Church; outside the Roman Empire this faction was not immediately so influential. Arianism continued to be preached inside and outside the Empire for some time (without the blessing of the Empire), but it was eventually killed off. The modern Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as most other modern Christian sects, have generally followed the Trinitarian formulation, though each has its own specific theology on the matter.^[3][4]

History[]

Beginnings[]

The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Alexander of Alexandria, when Arius formulated the following syllogism: "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: hence it is that there was when the Son was not. It follows then of necessity that he had his existence from the non-existence".^[5][6]

Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was criticised for his slow reaction against Arius. Like his predecessor, Dionysius, he has been charged with vacillation. According to Eusebius's work, The Life of Constantine, the controversy had spread from Alexandria into almost all the African regions, and was considered a disturbance of the public order by the Roman Empire. Constantine the Great (Constantine I) sent two letters to Arius and Bishop Alexander, asking the religious leaders to stop the controversy.^[7] The ongoing controversy led to Constantine's oversight of the First Council of Nicaea.

First Council of Nicaea (325)[]

The First Council of Nicaea, with Arius depicted beneath the feet of emperor Constantine the Great and the bishops

Arianism would not be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. By the time Bishop Alexander finally acted against his recalcitrant presbyter, Arius's doctrine had spread far beyond his own see; it had become a topic of discussion—and disturbance—for the entire Church. The Church was now a powerful force in the Roman world, with Constantine I having legalized it in 313 through the Edict of Milan. The emperor had taken a personal interest in several ecumenical issues, including the Donatist controversy in 316, and he wanted to bring an end to the Arian dispute. To this end, the emperor sent bishop Hosius of Corduba to investigate and, if possible, resolve the controversy. Hosius was armed with an open letter from the Emperor: "Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant." As the debate continued to rage despite Hosius' efforts, Constantine in AD 325 took an unprecedented step: he called an ecumenical council composed of church prelates from all parts of the empire to resolve this issue, possibly at Hosius' recommendation.^[8]

All secular dioceses of the empire sent one or more representatives to the council, save for Roman Britain;^{[citation needed]} the majority of the bishops came from the East. Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to attend, sent two priests as his delegates. Arius himself attended the council, but his bishop, Alexander, did not, but sent instead his young deacon Athanasius. Athanasius would become the champion of the viewpoint ultimately adopted by the council and spend most of his life battling Arianism. Also there were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Before the main conclave convened, Hosius initially met with Alexander and his supporters at Nicomedia.^[9] The council would be presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.^[8]

Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father were led by the young archdeacon Athanasius. Those who instead insisted that the Son of God came after God the Father in time and substance, were led by Arius the presbyter. For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,^[10] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said Arius, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that He had no existence. He was capable of His own free will, said Arius, and thus "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being."^[11]

According to some accounts in the hagiography of Saint Nicholas, debate at the council became so heated that at one point, he slapped Arius in the face.^[12] The majority of the bishops at the council ultimately agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene Creed formulated at the first council of Nicaea. It included the word homoousios, meaning "consubstantial", or "same in essence^[13][14]", which was incompatible with Arius' beliefs.^[15] On June 19, 325, council and emperor issued a circular to the churches in and around Alexandria: Arius and two of his unyielding partisans (Theonas and Secundus)^[15] were deposed and exiled to Illyricum, while three other supporters—Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Maris of Chalcedon—affixed their signatures solely out of deference to the emperor. However, Constantine soon found reason to suspect the sincerity of these three, for he later included them in the sentence pronounced on Arius.^{[citation needed]}

Ariminum, Seleucia, and Constantinople (358–360)[]

In 358, the emperor Constantius II requested two councils, one of the western bishops at Ariminum (now Rimini in Northern Italy) and one of the eastern bishops at Nicomedia.^[16][17]

In 359, the western council met at Ariminum. Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa, following the new creed drafted at Sirmium (359), proposed that, "according to the scriptures," the Son was "like the Father." This is known as the Homoian view which held that the Bible does not reveal whether the Son is of the same substance as the Father and we, therefore, should not speculate about such things. This view is in opposition to the "of the same substance" (Homoousios) view of the Nicene Creed. The council, including some supporters of the older creed, accepted this proposal.^[16][17] After the council, Pope Liberius condemned the creed of Ariminum, while his rival, Pope Felix II, supported it.^[18]

An earthquake struck Nicomedia, and in 359 the eastern council met at Seleucia Isauria instead. The council was bitterly divided and procedurally irregular, and the two parties met separately and reached opposing decisions. Following the Homoian view, Acacius of Caesarea declared that the Son was "like the Father".^[18][19] But Basil of Ancyra and his party, following a (Homoiousian) Creed of Antioch from 341, declared that the Son was of "similar substance" to the Father. The majority at Seleucia accepted the "similar substance" view and deposed the opposing party.

Constantius did not accept this outcome and requested a third council, at Constantinople (359), of both the eastern and western bishops, to resolve the split at Seleucia. Acacius and Basil of Ancyra, respectively, again proposed the "like the Father" and "similar substance" views, as were explained at Seleucia. However, Maris of Chalcedon, Eudoxius of Antioch, and the deacons Aëtius of Antioch and Eunomius of Cyzicus proposed a third view which was similar to Arius' teachings, namely that the Son was of "a dissimilar substance" from the Father.^[20][21] The Heteroousians ("dissimilar substance") won the victory over the other two views in an initial debate. However, Constantius was not willing to accept this outcome either. He intervened and banished Aëtius;^[20] one of the leading proponents of the "dissimilar substance" view. After this, the council, including Maris and Eudoxius,^[21] agreed to a fourth view, namely the homoian ("like the Father") view that was already agreed to at Ariminum. They made only minor modifications to the Ariminum creed.^[20][21]

After the Council of Constantinople, the homoian bishop Acacius deposed and banished several homoiousian bishops, including Macedonius I of Constantinople, Basil, Eustathius, , , , , and Cyril of Jerusalem.^[22][23] At the same time, Acacius also deposed and banished the Anomoean deacon Aëtius.^[22]

In 360, Acacius appointed Eudoxius of Antioch to replace Macedonius and to replace Basil, as well as to replace Cecropius, who had died in the earthquake at Nicomedia.^[22]

The controversy in the 360s[]

In 361, Constantius died and Julian became sole Roman emperor. Julian demanded the restoration of several pagan temples which Christians had seized or destroyed.^[24] According to Philostorgius, pagans killed George of Laodicea, bishop of Alexandria, allowing Athanasius to reclaim the 'see', or ecclesiastical jurisdiction.^[25]

Sides[]

This section needs expansion. You can help by . (June 2008)

Homoousian[]

The Homoousians taught that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, i.e. both uncreated. The Sabellian form had been condemned as heresy in the 3rd century by Pope Calixtus.^[26] The Athanasian form would be declared orthodox at the Council of Constantinople in 383, and has become the basis of most of modern trinitarianism.^[27]

• Alexander, bishop of Alexandria (313-326).^[28]
• Hosius, bishop of Cordoba (?-359).^[29]
• Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (c. 313-339).^[30]
• Eustathius, (possibly Sabellian) bishop of Antioch (c. 325-330).^[31]
• , (possibly Sabellian) bishop of Beroe.^[31]
• Athanasius (Athanasian) bishop of Alexandria (326-373, later rival of Gregory of Cappadocia and then George of Laodicea).^[32]
• Paul, bishop of Constantinople (336-351, later rival of Eusebius of Nicomedia and then Macedonius I of Constantinople).^[33]
• Julius, bishop of Rome (337-352).^[34]
• , bishop of Gaza.^[35]
• , bishop of Adrianople (?-351).^[36]
• Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem (333-350).^[37]
• Paulinus, bishop of Treves, who supported Athanasius of Alexandria at Milan.^[38]
• , bishop of Alba^{[clarification needed]}, who supported Athanasius of Alexandria at Milan.^[38]
• Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli (340-371), who supported Athanasius of Alexandria at Milan.^[38]
• , (Novatian) bishop of Constantinople.^[39]
• Gregory of Nazianzus^{[citation needed]}
• Gregory of Elvira^{[citation needed]}
• Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari.^{[citation needed]}
• Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (c. 353-367).^{[citation needed]}
• Servatius, bishop of Tongeren.^{[citation needed]}

Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus of Sirmium[]

According to the historian Socrates of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus taught "that Christ was a mere man."^[40] Their opponents associated the teachings of Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus of Sirmium with those of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, which had been widely rejected before the controversy.^[41]

• Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra (?-336 and c. 343-c. 374) and critic of Asterius.^[42]
• Photinus, bishop of Sirmium (?-351) and in exile (351-376); according to Socrates of Constantinople and Sozomen, Photinus was a follower of Marcellus.^[43]
• In 336, a church trial at Constantinople deposed Marcellus and condemned his doctrines.^[44]
• Pope Julius I supported Marcellus and called for his restoration.^[34]
• In 342 or 343, the mostly Western Council of Sardica restored Marcellus, while the mostly Eastern Council of Philippopolis sustained his removal.^[45]
• Under pressure from his co-Emperor Constans, Constantius II initially backed the decision of Sardica, but after Constans' death, reversed course.^[46]
• In 351,^{[citation needed]} a church trial at the Second Council of Sirmium deposed Photinus and condemned his teachings.^[47]
• The Macrostich condemned the teachings of Marcellus and Photinus.^[48]

Homoiousian[]

The Homoiousian school taught that the Son is of a similar substance to the Father but not the same.^[49][50]

• Basil of Ancyra, bishop of Ancyra (336-360).^[51][52]
• Macedonius, (Macedonian) bishop of Constantinople (342-346 and 351-360).^[53][54]
• George of Laodicea, bishop of Alexandria (356-361, rival of Athanasius of Alexandria).^[51][55]
• Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia (?-358), Antioch (358-359), and Constantinople (360-370), who supported the .^[56][57]
• Martyrius, who supported the Macrostich.^[48]
• , bishop of Mopsuestia, who supported the Macrostich.^[48]
• , bishop of Arethusa, who wrote the Creed of Sirmium of 351.^[58]
• Cyril, (Macedonian) bishop of Jerusalem (350-386).^[59]
• Marathonius, (Macedonian) bishop of Nicomedia (c. 351-?).^[60]
• , (Macedonian) bishop of Cyzicus (c. 351-360).^[51][61]
• , (Macedonian) bishop of Pompeiopolis (?-360).^[62]
• Dracontius, bishop of Pergamum (?-360).^[23]
• , bishop of Seleucia Isauria (?-360).^[23]
• , bishop of Satala (?-360).^[23]
• Eustathius, (Macedonian) bishop of Sebastia.^[51][63]
• .^[19]
• Sabinus, Macedonian bishop of Heraclea.^[64]

Homoian[]

The Homoians taught that the Son is similar to the Father, either "in all things" or "according to the scriptures," without speaking of substance.^[50] Several members of the other schools, such as Hosius of Cordoba and Aëtius, also accepted certain Homoian formulae.^[65]

• Ursacius, initially homoiousian, then homoousian, and later homoian bishop of Singidunum, who had opposed Athanasius.^[66]
• Valens, initially homoiousian, then homoousian, and later homoian bishop of Mursa, who had opposed Athanasius.^[66]
• Germinius.^[17]
• Auxentius (died 374), bishop of Milan.^[17]
• Demophilus, bishop of Beraea (?-370) and Constantinople (370-380).^[67][68]
• Gaius.^[17]
• Acacius, bishop of Caesarea (340-366).^[69]

Heteroousian[]

The Heteroousians taught that the Son is of a different substance from the Father, i.e. created. Arius had taught this early in the controversy, and Aëtius would teach the later Anomoean form.^[70][71]

• Arius, presbyter in Alexandria.^[72]
• Theophilus the Indian, who later supported Aëtius.^[73]
• Aëtius, who founded the Anomoean tradition, later bishop (361-?).^[74][75]
• , (Anomoean) bishop of (?-c. 363) and Palestine (c. 363-c. 379).^[18][76]
• Eunomius, (Anomoean) bishop of Cyzicus (360-361) and exiled bishop (361-c. 393).^[75][77]
• , (Anomoean) bishop of Constantinople, (c. 363, at the same time as Eudoxius of Antioch).^[78]
• , (Anomoean) bishop of Lydia, (c. 363-?).^[78]
• , (Anomoean) bishop of Ionia, (c. 363-?).^[78]
• Florentius, (Anomoean) bishop of Constantinople, (c. 363-?, at the same time as Eudoxius of Antioch).^[78]
• Thallus, (Anomoean) bishop of Lesbos, (c. 363-?, at the same time as Eudoxius of Antioch).^[78]
• Euphronius, (Anomoean) bishop of Galatia, the Black Sea and Cappadocia, (c. 363-?).^[78]
• Julian, (Anomoean) bishop of Cilicia, (c. 363-?).^[78]
• , Stephen, and Heliodorus, (Anomoean) bishops of Egypt, (c. 363-?).^[78]
• Philostorgius, (Anomoean) historian.

Other critics of the Creed of Nicaea[]

Many critics of the "Nicene" Creed cannot be clearly associated with one school, often due to lack of sources, or due to contradictions between sources.

• Secundus, bishop of Ptolemais, who supported Arius at Nicaea.^[79][80][81]
• , bishop of Marmarica, who supported Arius at Nicaea.^[79][80][81]
• Eusebius, bishop of Berytus, Nicomedia (?-325 and 328-338) and Constantinople (338-341, rival of Paul I of Constantinople), who supported Arius at Nicaea.^[80][82]
• Theognis, bishop of Nicaea, who supported Arius at Nicaea.^[80][83]
• Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, who supported Arius at Nicaea.^[79][84]
• Eusebius, (possibly Homoiousian, possibly Sabellian) bishop of Emesa (c. 339 or 341).^[85]
• Gregory of Cappadocia, bishop of Alexandria (339-346, rival of Athanasius of Alexandria).^[86]
• , bishop of Neronias.^[87]
• , bishop of Antioch (342-344).^[87]
• , bishop of Antioch (344-358), who also taught Aetius.^[88][89]
• Patrophilus of Scythopolis.^[39]
• Asterius (d. c. 341), who, according to Socrates of Constantinople, considered Jesus as example of the power of God, and according to Philostorgius, defended the Homoiousian tradition.^[90][91]
• , who taught Aetius.^[92]
• Wulfila (died 383), first bishop of the Goths (341?-c.383), and Bible translator, who agreed to the Homoian formula at Constantinople.^[21][93]
• Wereka and Batwin, papa and bilaifs respectively, and Gothic martyrs.
• Auxentius of Durostorum, later bishop of Milan, Wulfila's adopted son.^[94]
• Palladius, bishop of Ratiaria.^[94]
• , bishop of Singidunum.^[94]

Unclassified[]

• , deacon and supporter of Arius; later Homoian bishop of Antioch (361-378, at the same time as three others).^[81][95]
• Dorotheus or Theodorus, Homoiousian and later Homoian bishop of Heraclea (?-378) and Antioch, (378-381, at the same time as three others).^[96][97]
• , bishop of Tyre.^[98]
• , bishop of Nicomedia (359-?).^[22]
• , bishop of Ancyra (359-?, at the same time as Basil of Ancyra).^[22]
• , bishop of Tarsus (359-?, at the same time as ).^[22]
• , bishop of Tarsus.^[99]
• , bishop of Nicaea (?-380).^[67]
• , bishop of Tripolis.^[18][74]
• , a bishop of Philadelphia in Lydia.^[18][100]
• , Anomean bishop of Palestine (c. 379-?).^[101]
• , bishop of .^[18]
• , presbyter in Antioch, possibly the same as an Asterius who supported Acacius at Seleucia.^[18][102]

See also[]

• Christian views of Jesus
• Constantinian shift
• History of Christianity
• Nontrinitarianism
• Semi-Arianism
• Shituf

References[]

External links[]

1. The Arians Of The Fourth Century by John Henry Cardinal Newman
   1. As provided by the Third Millennium Library — this is the version originally referenced in this article. Its pages do not identify bibliographic data. As of December 2016 the third-millennium-library.com site was unavailable, and the domain was offered for sale.
      • Note: The links to the archived sub-documents of this archived page do not resolve correctly. Here are the correct archived links:
      • PART I. Doctrinal
        • Chapter I. Schools And Parties In And About The Ante-Nicene Church, In Their Relation To The Arian Heresy.
          • SECTION 1.—The Church of Antioch
          • SECTION II.—The Schools of the Sophists
          • SECTION III.—The Church of Alexandria
          • SECTION IV.—The Eclectic Sect
          • SECTION V.—Sabellianism
        • Chapter II.—The Teaching Of The Ante-Nicene Church In Its Relation To The Arian Heresy.
          • SECTION I.—On the principle of the formation and imposition of Creeds
          • SECTION II.—The Scripture doctrine of the Trinity
          • SECTION III.—The Ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity
          • SECTION IV.—Variations in the Ante-Nicene Theological Statements
          • SECTION V.— The Arian Heresy
      • PART II. Historical
        • Chapter III.—The Ecumenical Council Of Nicea In The Reign Constantine.
          • SECTION I.—History of the Nicene Council
          • SECTION II.—Consequences of the Nicene Council
        • Chapter IV—Councils In The Reign Of Constantius.
          • SECTION I.—The Eusebians
          • SECTION II.—The Semi-Arians (Note: The top-level page of this document mis-labels this section as "The Athanasians.)
          • SECTION III.- The Athanasians
          • SECTION IV.—The Anomoeans
        • Chapter V.—Councils After The Reign Of Constantius.
          • SECTION I.—The Question Of The Hyhpostasis
          • SECTION II.—The Question Of The Arianizers
        • CHAPTER VI.—The Councils Of Constantinple
          • The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the reign of Theodosius
   2. As provided by The National Institute for Newman Studies – The author's notes for this 3rd edition identify the following differences, among others:
      • "Some additions have been made to the footnotes."
      • "A few longer Notes, for the most part extracted from other publications of [the author], form an Appendix."
      • "The Table of Contents, and the Chronological Table have both been enlarged."
2. A Chronology of the Arian Controversy
   • Archive: A Chronology of the Arian controversy
3. Documents of the Early Arian Controversy
   • Archive: Documents of the early Arian controversy