Emperor Constantine, through the Council of Nicaea in 325, attempted to unite Christianity and establish a single, imperially approved version of the faith. Ironically, his efforts were the cause of the deep divisions created by the disputes after Nicaea.[1][2]
Inside the Roman Empire, the Trinitarian faction ultimately gained the upper hand through the Edict of Thessalonica, issued on 27 February AD 380, which made Nicene Christology the state religion of the Roman Empire,[3] and through strict enforcement of that edict. However, outside the Roman Empire, Arianism and other forms of Unitarianism continued to be preached 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.[4][5]
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".[6][7]
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.[8] The ongoing controversy led to Constantine's oversight of the First Council of Nicaea.
Arianism would not be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. By the time Bishop Alexander finally acted against his 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. "Constantine desired that the church should contribute to the social and moral strength of the empire, religious dissension was a menace to the public welfare."[9] Consequently, the emperor had taken a personal interest in several ecumenical issues, including the Donatist controversy in 316. He also 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 at Nicaea composed of church prelates from all parts of the empire to resolve this issue, possibly at Hosius' recommendation.[10] It is traditionally said that 318 bishops came to Nicaea to attend the council, though others suggest figures from 250-300. The vast majority of those bishops were from the East. Italy, Spain, Gaul, North Africa, Persia, and Scythia each sent one bishop.[11]
Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to attend, sent two priests as his delegates. Arius himself attended the council as well as the young deacon Athanasius, who attended as an assistant to Alexander of Alexandria[12] and who would become the champion of the Nicene Creed and spend most of his life battling Arianism and other form of Unitarianism. 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.[13] The council was presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.[10]
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,[14] 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."[15]
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.[16] 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[17][18]", which was incompatible with Arius' beliefs.[19] 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)[19] 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]
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.[20][21] After the council, Pope Liberius condemned the creed of Ariminum, while his rival, Pope Felix II, supported it.[22]
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".[22][23] 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.[24][25] 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;[24] one of the leading proponents of the "dissimilar substance" view. After this, the council, including Maris and Eudoxius,[25] 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.[24][25]
In 361, Constantius died and Julian became sole Roman emperor. Julian demanded the restoration of several pagan temples which Christians had seized or destroyed.[28] According to Philostorgius, pagans killed George of Laodicea, bishop of Alexandria, allowing Athanasius to reclaim the 'see', or ecclesiastical jurisdiction.[29]
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.[30] The Athanasian form would be declared orthodox at the Council of Constantinople in 383, and has become the basis of most of modern trinitarianism.[31]
Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra (?-336 and c. 343-c. 374) and critic of Asterius.[46]
Photinus, bishop of Sirmium (?-351) and in exile (351-376); according to Socrates of Constantinople and Sozomen, Photinus was a follower of Marcellus.[47]
In 336, a church trial at Constantinople deposed Marcellus and condemned his doctrines.[48]
Pope Julius I supported Marcellus and called for his restoration.[38]
The Homoians taught that the Son is similar to the Father, either "in all things" or "according to the scriptures," without speaking of substance.[54] Several members of the other schools, such as Hosius of Cordoba and Aëtius, also accepted certain Homoian formulae.[69]
Ursacius, initially homoiousian, then homoousian, and later homoian bishop of Singidunum, who had opposed Athanasius.[70]
Valens, initially homoiousian, then homoousian, and later homoian bishop of Mursa, who had opposed Athanasius.[70]
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.[74][75]
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.
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.[94][95]
Arianism is a Christological doctrine considered heretical by all modern mainstream branches of Christianity. It is first attributed to Arius, a Christian presbyter who preached and studied in Alexandria, Egypt. Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten/made before time by God the Father; therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father, but nonetheless Jesus began to exist outside time.
The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. The Council of Nicaea met from May until the end of July 325.
Eunomius, one of the leaders of the extreme or "anomoean" Arians, who are sometimes accordingly called Eunomians, was born at Dacora in Cappadocia or at Corniaspa in Pontus. early in the 4th century.
Arius was a Cyrenaic presbyter and ascetic. He has been regarded as the founder of Arianism, which holds that Jesus Christ was not coeternal with God the Father, but was rather created before time. Arian theology and its doctrine regarding the nature of the Godhead held in common a belief in subordinationism with most Christian theologians of the 3rd century, with the notable exception of Athanasius of Alexandria.
Hosius of Corduba, also known as Osius or Ossius, was a bishop of Corduba and an important and prominent advocate for Homoousion Christianity in the Arian controversy that divided the early Christianity.
The Councils of Sirmium were the five episcopal councils held in Sirmium in 347, 351, 357, 358 and finally in 375 or 378. The third—the most important of the councils—marked a temporary compromise between Arianism and the Western bishops of the Christian church. At least two of the other councils also dealt primarily with the Arian controversy. All of these councils were held under the rule of Constantius II, who was sympathetic to the Arians.
In 4th-century Christianity, the Anomoeans, and known also as Heterousians, Aetians, or Eunomians, were a sect that held to a form of Arianism, that Jesus Christ was not of the same nature (consubstantial) as God the Father nor was He of like or similar nature to God (homoiousian), as maintained by the semi-Arians.
Semi-Arianism was a position regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son of God, adopted by some 4th-century Christians. Though the doctrine modified the teachings of Arianism, it still rejected the doctrine that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal, and of the same substance, or consubstantial, and was therefore considered to be heretical by many contemporary Christians.
Marcellus of Ancyra was a Bishop of Ancyra and one of the bishops present at the Council of Ancyra and the First Council of Nicaea. He was a strong opponent of Arianism, but was accused of adopting the opposite extreme of modified Sabellianism. He was condemned by a council of his enemies and expelled from his see, though he was able to return there to live quietly with a small congregation in the last years of his life. He is also said to have destroyed the temple of Zeus Belos at Apamea.
George was the bishop of Laodicea in Syria from 335 until his deposition in 347. He took part in the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century. At first an ardent admirer of the teaching of Arius and associated with Eusebius of Nicomedia, he subsequently became a semi-Arian, but seems ultimately to have united with the Anomoeans, whose uncompromising opponent he had once been, and to have died professing their tenets.
Aëtius of Antioch, surnamed "the Atheist" by his trinitarian enemies, founder of Anomoeanism, was a native of Coele-Syria.
The Council of Seleucia was an early Christian church synod at Seleucia Isauria.
Homoiousios is a Christian theological term, coined in the 4th century to identify a distinct group of Christian theologians who held the belief that God the Son was of a similar, but not identical, essence with God the Father.
The Pneumatomachi, also known as Macedonians or Semi-Arians in Constantinople and the Tropici in Alexandria, were an anti-Nicene Creed sect which flourished in the regions adjacent to the Hellespont during the latter half of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth centuries. They denied the godhood of the Holy Ghost, hence the Greek name Pneumatomachi or 'Combators against the Spirit'.
In 359, the Roman Emperor Constantius II requested a church council, at Constantinople, of both the eastern and western bishops, to resolve the split at the Council of Seleucia. According to Socrates Scholasticus, only about 50 of the Eastern bishops, and an unspecified number of the western ones, actually attended.
Cecropius of Nicomedia was a bishop of Nicomedia and a key player in the Arian controversy.
Valens of Mursa was bishop of Mursa and a supporter of Homoian theology, which is often labelled as a form of Arianism, although semi-Arianism is probably more accurate.
Heortasius was a 4th-century bishop of Sardis and attendee at the Councils of Seleucia and Constantinople. He was a proto-Catholic who was sent into exile by the Semi-Arian faction following their victory at the afore-mentioned Councils.
Arian creeds are the creeds of Arian Christians, developed mostly in the fourth century when Arianism was one of the main varieties of Christianity.
Florentius of Constantinople was the rival Anomoean archbishop of Constantinople, holding the office at the same time as and in opposition to Eudoxius of Antioch.
↑ Ehler, Sidney Zdeneck; Morrall, John B (1967). Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. p. 6-7. ISBN9780819601896. Archived
↑ Dunner, Joseph (1967). Handbook of world history: concepts and issues. p.70.
↑ Bettenson, Henry, ed. (1963). Documents of the Christian Church (2nded.). New York: Oxford University Press. p.40.
↑ Noll, Mark A. (2012). Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (3rded.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. p.45. ISBN978-0-8010-3996-6..
↑ Eusebius, of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea, approximately 260-approximately 340. (1999). Life of Constantine. Cameron, Averil., Hall, Stuart George. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN1423767667. OCLC67703212.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
↑ Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 56-59 & 63. Peter Heather & John Matthews, Goths in the Fourth Century, pp. 127-128. This mainly discusses the later controversy and only mentions Athanasius' form.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapters 5 & 6.
↑ Socrates of Constantintinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 7 and book 2, chapter 31.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 21.
1 2 Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 25.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapters 23, 27-32 & 34-35.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 6-7, 12 & 16.
1 2 Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 15.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 23.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 23 & 26.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 24 & 38.
1 2 3 Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 36.
1 2 Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 38.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 36 and book 2, chapter 20 Socrates, book 1, chapter 36, states that Marcellus "dared to say, as the Samosatene had done, that Christ was a mere man" and book 2, chapter 18, states that Photinus "asserted that the Son of God was a mere man."
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 36 and book 2, chapter 29. Sozomen, Church History, book 4, chapter 6. Besides these histories, Eunomius' First Apology associates Marcellus' and Photinus' doctrines with Sabellius, and condemns these doctrines.'
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 36 and book 2, chapter 20.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 18 & 29. Sozomen, Church History, book 4, chapter 6.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 36. Sozomen, Church History, book 2, chapter 33.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 20. Sozomen, Church History, book 3, chapters 11-12.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 23 & 26. Sozomen, Church History, book 4, chapter 2.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 29-30. Sozomen, Church History, book 4, chapter 6.
1 2 3 Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 19.
↑ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 9.
1 2 Peter Heather & John Matthews, Goths in the Fourth Century, p. 128. This mainly discusses the later controversy.
1 2 3 4 Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 8, chapter 17.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 36 & book 2, chapter 42.
↑ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 9 & book 8, chapter 17.
↑ Socrates if Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 16, 27, 38 & 42.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapters 24 & 40.
↑ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapters 4 & 12.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 19, 37 & 40.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 30.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 38 & 42.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 38 & 45.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 38, 42 & 45.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 39, 40, 42 & 45.
↑ Socrates of Connstantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 45.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 8 and book 2, chapter 15.
↑ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 3 for Hosius and chapter 8 for Aëtius.
1 2 Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 27 and book 2, chapters 12 & 37.
1 2 Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 9, chapter 19.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 37.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 4, 39 & 40.
↑ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 3, chapter 5, book 4, chapter 12 and book 6, chapter 5 refer to "different substance," book 4, chapter 12 refers to "dissimilarity of substance," and book 4, chapters 4 & 12 and book 5, chapter 1 refer to "unlike in substance" or "unlikeness in substance."
↑ Peter Heather & John Matthews, Goths in the Fourth Century, pp. 127-128. This mainly discusses the later controversy and only mentions Anomoeanism, without using the term Heteroousian.
↑ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapters 5-6.
↑ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 3, chapter 5 and book 8, chapter 2.
1 2 Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 7, chapter 6.
1 2 Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 35.
↑ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 8, chapter 2 and book 9, chapter 18.
↑ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 5, chapter 3 and book 6, chapters 1-3.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 8, chapter 2.
1 2 3 Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 8.
1 2 3 4 Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 1, chapter 9.
The Arians Of The Fourth Century by John Henry Cardinal Newman
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.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Christianityportal 
