Arianism

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Aheresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity ofJesus Christ.

Doctrine

First among thedoctrinal disputes which troubledChristians after Constantine had recognized theChurch in A.D. 313, and the parent of many more during some three centuries, Arianism occupies a large place inecclesiastical history. It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes. But we shall better grasp its meaning if we term it an Eastern attempt to rationalize the creed by stripping it of mystery so far as the relation ofChrist toGod was concerned. In theNew Testament and in Church teachingJesus of Nazareth appears as theSon of God. This name He took to Himself (Matthew 11:27;John 10:36), while theFourth Gospel declares Him to be the Word (Logos), Who in the beginning was withGod and wasGod, by Whom all things were made. A similardoctrine is laid down bySt. Paul, in his undoubtedly genuine Epistles to theEphesians, Colossians, and Philippians. It is reiterated in the Letters ofIgnatius, and accounts for Pliny's observation thatChristians in their assemblies chanted ahymn toChrist asGod. But the question how the Son was related to the Father (Himself acknowledged on all hands to be the oneSupreme Deity), gave rise, between the years A.D. 60 and 200, to a number ofTheosophic systems, called generallyGnosticism, and having for their authorsBasilides, Valentinus,Tatian, and other Greek speculators. Though all of these visitedRome, they had no following in the West, which remained free from controversies of an abstract nature, and was faithful to the creed of itsbaptism. Intellectual centres were chiefly Alexandria and Antioch,Egyptian or Syrian, and speculation was carried on in Greek. TheRoman Church held steadfastly by tradition. Under these circumstances, whenGnosticschools had passed away with their "conjugations" of Divine powers, and "emanations" from the Supreme unknowableGod (the "Deep" and the "Silence") all speculation was thrown into the form of an inquiry touching the "likeness" of the Son to His Father and "sameness" of His Essence.Catholics had always maintained thatChrist was truly the Son, and trulyGod. They worshipped Him with divine honours; they would never consent to separate Him, inidea or reality, from the Father, Whose Word, Reason, Mind, He was, and in Whose Heart He abode frometernity. But the technical terms ofdoctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis),person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christiansects ofphilosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The adaptation of a vocabulary employed byPlato andAristotle toChristiantruth was a matter of time; it could not be done in a day; and when accomplished for the Greek it had to be undertaken for the Latin, which did not lend itself readily tonecessary yet subtle distinctions. That disputes should spring up even among theorthodox who all held onefaith, was inevitable. And of these wranglings therationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in anytrue senseGod could have a Son; asMohammed tersely said afterwards, "God neither begets, nor is He begotten" (Koran, 112). We have learned to call that denialUnitarianism. It was the ultimate scope of Arian opposition to whatChristians had always believed. But the Arian, though he did not come straight down from theGnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of theGnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferiorGod, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation.God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.

Such is the genuinedoctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance withGod; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not aperson distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter toEusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." Hence the Arian sectaries who reasonedlogically were styledAnomoeans: they said that the Son was "unlike" the Father. And they definedGod as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.

But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost oflogic; and theschool which supplanted Arianism from an earlydate affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were namedSemi-Arians. They approached, in strict argument, to theheretical extreme; but many of them held theorthodoxfaith, however inconsistently; their difficulties turned upon language or local prejudice, and no small number submitted at length toCatholic teaching. TheSemi-Arians attempted for years to invent a compromise between irreconcilable views, and their shifting creeds, tumultuous councils, and worldly devices tell us how mixed and motley a crowd was collected under their banner. The point to be kept in remembrance is that, while they affirmed theWord of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeemmankind. Among the ante-Nicene writers, a certain ambiguity of expression may be detected, outside theschool of Alexandria, touching this last head ofdoctrine. WhileCatholic teachers held the Monarchia, viz. that there was only oneGod; and the Trinity, that this Absolute One existed in three distinct subsistences; and the Circumincession, that Father, Word, and Spirit could not be separated, in fact or in thought, from one another; yet an opening was left for discussion as regarded the term "Son," and the period of His "generation" (gennesis). Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted:Athenagoras,Tatian,Theophilus of Antioch,Hippolytus, andNovatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, as though It did not come into being or were not perfect until the dawn of creation. To these may be addedTertullian and Methodius.Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly inTertullian, of the Son existing after the Word, is connected as an antecedent with Arianism.Petavius construed the same expressions in a reprehensible sense; but theAnglican BishopBull defended them asorthodox, not without difficulty. Even if metaphorical, such language might give shelter to unfair disputants; but we are not answerable for the slips of teachers who failed to perceive all the consequences ofdoctrinaltruths really held by them. From thesedoubtful theorizingsRome and Alexandria kept aloof.Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like "the secondGod," concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by theChurch — this veryOrigen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not aSemi-Arian. To him the Logos, the Son, andJesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, "subordinate" to the source of His being. He comes forth fromGod as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation.Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced atRome for calling the Son a work or creature ofGod; but he explained himself to thepope onorthodox principles, and confessed theHomoousian Creed.

History

Paul of Samosata, who was contemporary with Dionysius, andBishop ofAntioch, may be judged thetrue ancestor of thoseheresies which relegatedChrist beyond the Divine sphere, whatever epithets of deity they allowed Him. The manJesus, said Paul, was distinct from the Logos, and, in Milton's later language, by merit was made theSon of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence. Three councils held at Antioch (264-268, or 269) condemned andexcommunicated theSamosatene. But these Fathers would not accept theHomoousian formula, dreading lest it be taken to signify one material or abstract substance, according to the usage of theheathenphilosophies. Associated with Paul, and for years cut off from theCatholic communion, we find the well-known Lucian, who edited theSeptuagint and became at last amartyr. From this learned man theschool of Antioch drew its inspiration.Eusebius the historian,Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius himself, all came under Lucian's influence. Not, therefore, toEgypt and its mystical teaching, but toSyria, whereAristotle flourished with hislogic and its tendency toRationalism, should we look for the home of an aberration which had it finally triumphed, would have anticipatedIslam, reducing theEternal Son to the rank of aprophet, and thus undoing theChristian revelation.

Arius, a Libyan by descent, brought up at Antioch and a school-fellow ofEusebius, afterwardsBishop ofNicomedia, took part (306) in the obscure Meletianschism, was madepresbyter of the church called "Baucalis," at Alexandria, and opposed the Sabellians, themselves committed to a view of the Trinity which denied all real distinctions in the Supreme. Epiphanius describes the heresiarch as tall, grave, and winning; no aspersion on his moral character has been sustained; but there is some possibility of personal differences having led to his quarrel with the patriarch Alexander whom, in public synod, he accused of teaching that the Son was identical with the Father (319). The actual circumstances of this dispute are obscure; but Alexander condemned Arius in a great assembly, and the latter found a refuge withEusebius, theChurch historian, at Caesarea. Political or party motives embittered the strife. Manybishops ofAsia Minor andSyria took up the defence of their "fellow-Lucianist," as Arius did not hesitate to call himself. Synods in Palestine and Bithynia were opposed tosynods inEgypt. During several years the argument raged; but when, by his defeat of Licinius (324), Constantine became master of the Roman world, he determined on restoringecclesiastical order in the East, as already in the West he had undertaken to put down theDonatists at theCouncil of Arles. Arius, in a letter to the Nicomedianprelate, had boldly rejected theCatholicfaith. But Constantine, tutored by this worldly-minded man, sent fromNicomedia to Alexander a famous letter, in which he treated the controversy as an idle dispute about words and enlarged on theblessings of peace. The emperor, we should call to mind, was only acatechumen, imperfectly acquainted with Greek, much more incompetent intheology, and yet ambitious to exercise over theCatholicChurch a dominion resembling that which, as Pontifex Maximus, he wielded over thepagan worship. From this Byzantine conception (labelled in modern terms Erastianism) we must derive the calamities which during many hundreds of years set their mark on the development ofChristian dogma. Alexander could not give way in a matter so vitally important. Arius and his supporters would not yield. A council was, therefore, assembled inNicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325. (SeeFIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA). It is commonly said thatHosius of Cordova presided. The Pope, St. Silvester, was represented by hislegates, and 318 Fathers attended, almost all from the East. Unfortunately, the acts of the Council are not preserved. The emperor, who was present, paid religious deference to a gathering which displayed the authority ofChristian teaching in a manner so remarkable. From the first it was evident that Arius could not reckon upon a large number of patrons among thebishops. Alexander was accompanied by his youthfuldeacon, the ever-memorableAthanasius who engaged in discussion with the heresiarch himself, and from that moment became the leader of theCatholics during well-nigh fifty years. The Fathers appealed to tradition against the innovators, and were passionatelyorthodox; while a letter was received fromEusebius of Nicomedia, declaring openly that he would never allowChrist to be of one substance withGod. This avowal suggested a means of discriminating betweentrue believers and all those who, under that pretext, did not hold the Faith handed down. A creed was drawn up on behalf of the Arian party byEusebius of Caesarea in which every term ofhonour and dignity, except the oneness of substance, was attributed toOur Lord. Clearly, then, no other test save theHomoousion would prove a match for the subtle ambiguities of language that, then as always, were eagerly adopted by dissidents from the mind of theChurch. A formula had been discovered which would serve as a test, though not simply to be found in Scripture, yet summing up thedoctrine of St. John,St. Paul, andChrist Himself, "I and the Father are one". Heresy, asSt. Ambrose remarks, had furnished from its own scabbard a weapon to cut off its head. The"consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteenbishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven.Hosius drew out theconciliar statements, to whichanathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable. Everybishop made this declaration except six, of whom four at length gave way.Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius. By the emperor, who consideredheresy as rebellion, the alternative proposed was subscription or banishment; and, on political grounds, theBishop ofNicomedia was exiled not long after the council, involving Arius in his ruin. The heresiarch and his followers underwent their sentence inIllyria. But these incidents, which might seem to close the chapter,proved a beginning of strife, and led on to the most complicated proceedings of which we read in the fourth century. While the plain Arian creed was defended by few, those politicalprelates who sided withEusebius carried on a doublewarfare against the term"consubstantial", and its champion,Athanasius. This greatest of the Eastern Fathers had succeeded Alexander in theEgyptianpatriarchate (326). He was not more than thirty years of age; but his published writings, antecedent to the Council, display, in thought and precision, a mastery of the issues involved which noCatholic teacher could surpass. His unblemished life, considerate temper, and loyalty to his friends made him by no means easy to attack. But the wiles ofEusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine's favour, were seconded byAsiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge ofSabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command thatAthanasius should receive Arius back into communion. The saint firmly declined. In 325 the heresiarch was absolved by two councils, atTyre andJerusalem, the former of which deposedAthanasius onfalse and shameful grounds of personal misconduct. He was banished toTrier, and his sojourn of eighteen months in those parts cemented Alexandria more closely toRome and theCatholic West. Meanwhile,Constantia, the Emperor's sister, had recommended Arius, whom she thought an injured man, to Constantine's leniency. Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicenefaith, and ordered Alexander,Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, whichCatholics could not help regarding as a judgment ofheaven, due to thebishop'sprayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he wasbaptized in his last moments by the shiftyprelate ofNicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which hisignorance and weakness had aggravated.

Constantius, who nominally governed the East, was himself the puppet of his empress and the palace-ministers. He obeyed the Eusebian faction; hisspiritual director, Valens,Bishop of Mursa, did what in him lay to infectItaly and the West with Ariandogmas. The term "like in substance",Homoiousion, which had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula, became a watchword. But as many as fourteen councils, held between 341 and 360, in which every shade ofheretical subterfuge found expression, bore decisive witness to the need and efficacy of theCatholic touchstone which they all rejected. About 340, an Alexandrian gathering had defended itsarchbishop in an epistle to Pope Julius. On the death of Constantine, and by the influence of that emperor's son and namesake, he had been restored to his people. But the young prince passed away, and in 341 the celebrated Antiochene Council of the Dedication a second time degradedAthanasius, who now took refuge inRome. There he spent three years. Gibbon quotes and adopts "a judicious observation" of Wetstein which deserves to be kept always in mind. From the fourth century onwards, remarks the German scholar, when theEastern Churches were almost equally divided in eloquence and ability between contending sections, that party which sought to overcome made its appearance in the Vatican, cultivated the Papal majesty, conquered and established theorthodox creed by the help of theLatinbishops. Therefore it was thatAthanasius repaired toRome. A stranger, Gregory, usurped his place. The Roman Council proclaimed his innocence. In 343, Constans, who ruled over the West fromIllyria to Britain, summoned thebishops to meet atSardica in Pannonia. Ninety-four Latin, seventy Greek or Eastern,prelates began the debates; but they could not come to terms, and the Asiatics withdrew, holding a separate and hostile session at Philippopolis in Thrace. It has been justly said that theCouncil of Sardica reveals the first symptoms of discord which, later on, produced the unhappyschism of East and West. But to the Latins this meeting, which allowed of appeals to Pope Julius, or theRoman Church, seemed an epilogue which completed the Nicene legislation, and to this effect it was quoted byInnocent I in his correspondence with thebishops of Africa.

Having won over Constans, who warmly took up his cause, the invincibleAthanasius received from his Oriental andSemi-Arian sovereign three letters commanding, and at length entreating his return to Alexandria (349). The factiousbishops, Ursacius andValens, retracted their charges against him in the hands of Pope Julius; and as he travelled home, by way of Thrace,Asia Minor, andSyria, the crowd of court-prelates did him abject homage. These men veered with every wind. Some, likeEusebius of Caesarea, held aPlatonizingdoctrine which they would not give up, though they declined the Arianblasphemies. But many were time-servers, indifferent todogma. And a new party had arisen, the strict andpious Homoiousians, not friends ofAthanasius, nor willing to subscribe to the Nicene terms, yet slowly drawing nearer to thetrue creed and finally accepting it. In the councils which now follow these good men play their part. However, when Constans died (350), and hisSemi-Arian brother was left supreme, thepersecution ofAthanasius redoubled inviolence. By a series of intrigues the Westernbishops were persuaded to cast him off at Arles,Milan,Ariminum. It was concerning this last council (359) thatSt. Jerome wrote, "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian". For theLatinbishops were driven by threats and chicanery to sign concessions which at no time represented their genuine views. Councils were so frequent that their dates are still matter of controversy. Personal issues disguised the dogmatic importance of a struggle which had gone on for thirty years. The Pope of the day,Liberius,brave at first, undoubtedlyorthodox, but torn from hissee and banished to the dreary solitude of Thrace, signed a creed, in toneSemi-Arian (compiled chiefly from one ofSirmium), renouncedAthanasius, but made a stand against the so-called "Homoean" formulae ofAriminum. This new party was led byAcacius of Caesarea, an aspiring churchman who maintained that he, and notSt. Cyril of Jerusalem, wasmetropolitan over Palestine. TheHomoeans, a sort ofProtestants, would have no terms employed which were not found in Scripture, and thus evaded signing the"Consubstantial". A more extreme set, the "Anomoeans", followed Aëtius, were directed byEunomius, held meetings at Antioch andSirmium, declared the Son to be "unlike" the Father, and made themselves powerful in the last years ofConstantius within the palace. George of Cappadociapersecuted the AlexandrianCatholics.Athanasius retired into thedesert among the solitaries.Hosius had been compelled by torture to subscribe a fashionable creed. When the vacillating Emperor died (361),Julian, known as the Apostate, suffered all alike to return home who had been exiled on account of religion. A momentous gathering, over whichAthanasius presided, in 362, at Alexandria, united theorthodoxSemi-Arians with himself and the West. Four years afterwards fifty-nine Macedonian, i.e., hitherto anti-Nicene,prelates gave in their submission toPope Liberius. But theEmperor Valens, a fierceheretic, still laid theChurch waste.

However, the long battle was now turning decidedly in favour ofCatholic tradition. Westernbishops, likeHilary of Poitiers andEusebius of Vercellae banished toAsia for holding the Nicenefaith, were acting in unison withSt. Basil, the two St. GregoriesofNyssa andNazianzus --Ed., and the reconciledSemi-Arians. As anintellectual movement theheresy had spent its force.Theodosius, aSpaniards and aCatholic, governed the whole Empire.Athanasius died in 373; but his cause triumphed at Constantinople, long an Arian city, first by the preaching ofSt. Gregory Nazianzen, then in the Second General Council (381), at the opening of whichMeletius of Antioch presided. This saintly man had been estranged from the Nicene champions during a longschism; but he made peace withAthanasius, and now, in company ofSt. Cyril of Jerusalem, represented a moderate influence which won the day. No deputies appeared from the West. Meletius died almost immediately.St. Gregory Nazianzen, who took his place, very soon resigned. A creed embodying the Nicene was drawn up bySt. Gregory of Nyssa, but it is not the one that is chanted at Mass, the latter being due, it is said, toSt. Epiphanius and theChurch ofJerusalem. The Council became ecumenical by acceptance of the Pope and the ever-orthodox Westerns. From this moment Arianism in all its forms lost its place within the Empire. Its developments among the barbarians were political rather thandoctrinal.Ulphilas (311-388), who translated the Scriptures into Maeso-Gothic, taught theGoths across the Danube anHomoeantheology; Arian kingdoms arose inSpain,Africa,Italy. The Gepidae, Heruli,Vandals, Alans, and Lombards received a system which they were as little capable of understanding as they were of defending, and theCatholicbishops, themonks, the sword ofClovis, the action of the Papacy, made an end of it before the eighth century. In the form which it took under Arius,Eusebius of Caesarea, andEunomius, it has never been revived. Individuals, among them are Milton and Sir Isasc Newton, were perhaps tainted with it. But theSocinian tendency out of whichUnitarian doctrines have grown owes nothing to theschool of Antioch or the councils which opposed Nicaea. Neither has any Arian leader stood forth in history with a character of heroic proportions. In the whole story there is but one single hero — the undauntedAthanasius — whose mind was equal to the problems, as his great spirit to the vicissitudes, a question on which the future ofChristianity depended.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT