Jump to content

Arian controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndriesvN (talk | contribs) at 10:36, 11 October 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series of articles on
Arianism
History and theology
Arian leaders
Other Arians
Modern semi-Arians
Opponents
icon Christianity portal

The fourth-century Arian controversy was a series of Christian disputes about the nature of Jesus Christ.

“The crisis of the fourth century was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced” (Williams, p. 1).[1]

It resulted in the Trinity doctrine, which some regard as "the centerpiece of orthodox theology." (GotQuestions)

“The trinitarian controversies of the fourth century constitute what is arguably the most crucially formative period in the development of the Christian doctrine of God.” (Anatolios, p. 21)[2]

Resources

“The fundamental problem in understanding … these controversies stems from the nature of our sources. … The documentary evidence from this period is, in many cases, fragmentary.” (Ayres, p. 2)

In previous centuries, scholars relied largely on Athanasius's explanation of the Controversy.[3] However, in the 20th century, a store of additional resources have become available.[4] Based on this and progress in research,[5] scholars today explain the controversy very differently, compared to the beginning of the 20th century.[6][7]

"The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack, can to-day be completely ignored. Prestige hardly pays sufficient attention to Arianism to be able to understand it. Boularand consistently treats Arianism, from the title of his book, L' Heresie d' Arius et la {oi de Nicee, onwards as if it had been from the outset an easily recognised heresy in contrast to a known and universally recognised orthodoxy, which is far from being the case." [8]

The Main Issue

Traditionally, the most important of these controversies concerned the relationship between the substance of God the Father and the substance of his son. But Lienhard proposed that the dispute about substance was only a surface level symptom of a more fundamental disagreement,[9][10] namely, the number of divine hypostases. A hypostasis is an "individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193)[11]:

  • In the Nicene view, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single existence) and, therefore, of the same substance.[12]
  • The Arian view was that the Father and Son are distinct hypostases.[13] Since the Father alone exists without cause, the Son's substance differs from the Father's.

The idea that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons) did not exist for most of the fourth century. Only in the 360s did Athanasius reluctantly begin to accept the possibility of “three hypostases.”[14] But Athanasius defended ‘one hypostasis’ to the end. The idea that God is one ousia (substance) but three hypostases (Persons) followed from the Cappadocians in the 360-370s. It was for that purpose that Basil of Caesarea made a distinction between the terms ousia (substance) and hypostasis (person).[15]

Cause of the Controversy

In the traditional account, the Controversy began with the dispute in 318 between Arius and his bishop Alexander of Alexandria, two Christian theologians from Alexandria, Egypt. In this view, the Controversy was caused by Arius, who developed a novel heresy, claiming that the Son is a created being.[16]

In reality, Arius did not develop a new theology. He was a conservative.[17] Rather, Arius' dispute with his bishop was the continuation of the controversy that raged in the third century.[18][19] The prominent theologians of the third century included Tertullian, who regarded the Son as part of the substance of the Father,[20] Sabellius, who treated the Father and Son as a single hypostasis,[21] and Origen, who believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases, meaning that the Son has distinct existence.[22] In that century, Sabellian 'one hypostasis' theology was rejected in favour of Origen's three hypostases.[23]

While Arius defended three hypostases,[24] Alexander taught one.[25][26] 'Three hypostases' was accepted by most theologians in the East[27][28] but in Latin-speaking North Africa, the traditional Monarchianism of the Western Church dominated.[29] Consequently, Arius was excommunicated.

Factions

These disagreements divided the Church into various factions. There was no formal schism.

Emperors' Role

The Roman Empire was not a democracy. It was a dictatorship. The emperors were also war generals. They decided which religions to allow and, in the Christian Roman Empire. the emperors were the ultimate judges in doctrinal disputes. For example, at Nicaea, Constantine insisted on the term homoousios. His son Constantius, in the 350s, when he became emperor of the entire Empire, manipulated church councils to force the church to accept a Homoian Creed. Theodosius, after he had become the Eastern Emperor in 379, issued an Edict which made Nicene Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire and erased other forms of Christianity from the Empire through severe persecution.[30][31][32]

End of the Controversy

Inside the Roman Empire, the pro-Nicene faction ultimately gained the upper hand through the Edict of Thessalonica, issued on 27 February AD 380 by the then reigning three co-Emperors. This edict made Nicene Christology the state religion of the Roman Empire.[33] It criminalized all non-Nicene strands of Christianity, described them as “foolish madmen” and “heretics” and authorized their punishment. It said: “They will suffer … the punishment of our authority which … we shall decide to inflict.” This was enforced strictly. Two days after he had arrived in the capital of the Empire (Constantinople), Theodosius exiled the Homoian bishop of the city (Demophilus) and appointed as bishop one of the Cappadocians (Gregory of Nazianzus) from the small group of Nicene supporters.[34] In January 381, he issued another edict, forbidding non-Nicene Christians from having church meetings[35] and from settling in the cities.[36] Later in 381, he called the 'ecumenical' Council of Constantinople but only pro-Nicenes and only were allowed to attend. The Western Church was not represented either. To ensure compliance, Theodosius appoint one of his unbaptized government officials as chairperson and as bishop of Constantinople.[37] After the Council, Theodosius evicted non-Nicene Christians from their churches,[38] causing great disturbances and riots[39] which he put down by force.[40]

However, outside the Roman Empire, Arianism and other forms of Unitarianism continued to be preached for some time. The modern Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as most other modern Christian denominations, have generally followed the Trinitarian formulation.[41][42]

Theologies Compared

Begotten or Created?

Arius described the Son as made out of nothing. In his view, perhaps, the Son was created. But Arius was an extremist. The mainstream ‘Arians’ believed that the Son was begotten from the being of the Father. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea, the theological leader of the ‘Arians’, said: “He alone was born of the Father himself” (LA, 58).[43]

Eusebian Theology

The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial when he formulated his view as follows:

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.[44][45]

Lienhard describes Eusebian Theology as follows:

“There is one God, who is the arche—the beginning, the first principle, the ultimate source, and the cause of everything else that exists. He is eternal and underived, and utterly transcendent, even unknowable, best described by the via negativa: as anarchos (without source), agen(n)êtos (unoriginate or unbegotten), akataléptos (incomprehensible). This God, the Father, and only He, is God in the truest and fullest sense of the word.” “Besides the Father, there also exists another hypostasis, which Scripture calls Son, Word, Image, Wisdom, Power, and ‘the firstborn of all creation’ (Col 1:15).”

Homoousios

In the third century, the term homoousios was preferred only by Sabellians.[46][47] In was included in the Nicene Creed because the Sabellians preferred it,[48] because the Sabellians allied with Alexander,[49] and because the emperor took Alexander's part.[50]

Meletian Schism

The Arian Controversy was not simply is dispute between 'Arians' and Nicenes. Both sides divided into factions and the disputes between these factions were as real as between the 'Arians' and Nicenes. The Meletian Schism was a dispute between two pro-Nicene factions, namely, between the Latin Western pro-Nicenes (Athanasius et. al.) and the Greek Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians). While the Westerners believed in one hypostasis, the Cappacocians taught three. The term 'Meletian' is derived from the name of Meletius, the bishop of Antioch, who was opposed by Paulinus, who was supported by the Western pro-Nicenes.[51]

"Arius's Christology was a mixture of adoptionism and logos theology. His basic notion was that the Son came into being through the will of the Father; the Son, therefore, had a beginning. Although the Son was before all eternity, he was not eternal, and Father and Son were not of the same essence. In Jesus, who suffered pain and wept, the logos became human. ... According to Athanasius, God had to become human so that humans could become divine. ... That led him to conclude that the divine nature in Jesus was identical to that of the Father and that Father and Son have the same substance. He insisted on the need for the Nicene homoousios to express the Son's unity with the Father.[52]: 2 

R.P.C. Hanson quotes with approval "a paper by R. D. Williams." "Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son [...] is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. Properties or qualities cannot be substances [...] they are not quantities. The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement."[53]: 92 

The Term Arian

The term ‘Arian Controversy' implies that Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy that became the main impetus of the Controversy. It also implies that the anti-Nicenes followed Arius. The reality is that Arius was not of any great significance. He had few real followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea.[54][55][56] Therefore, the anti-Nicenes are mistakenly called 'Arians'. Neither should it be called the 'Arian Controversy.[57][58] Since Arius was part of the 'trajectory' led by the two Eusebii, Ayres refers to the fourth century anti-Nicenes as 'Eusebians'.[52]: 52  Arius taught an extreme version of the Eusebian teaching. In fact, the so-called Arians also opposed Arius.[59]

The dispute between Alexander and Arius spread quickly because of "existing theological trajectories and tensions present in the early years of the fourth century."[52]: 41  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.[60] The ongoing controversy led to Constantine's oversight of the First Council of Nicaea.

First Council of Nicaea (325)

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

The traditional account of the Controversy assumed that Arius' theology was new but would not be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. It spread far beyond Alexander's see and had become a topic of discussion—and disturbance—for the entire Church. In reality, the dispute spread quickly because it was the continuation of an existing fire.[61]

Constantine I legalized Christianity 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."[62] Consequently, the emperor had taken a personal interest in several church issues, including the Donatist controversy in 316. He also wanted to bring an end to the Arian dispute. Through the Council of Nicaea in 325, he attempted to unite Christianity and establish a single, imperially approved version of the faith.

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."

Earlier in 325, a pro-Alexander council met in Antioch which formulated a creed (that does not contain the term homoousios) and provisionally excommunicated Eusebius of Caesarea; the leader of the 'Arians'.[63]

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.[64] Around 250-300 bishops attended, almost exclusively from the East.[65] Italy, Spain, Gaul, North Africa, Persia, and Scythia each sent one bishop.[66]

The Bishop of Rome, Sylvester I, himself too old 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[66] and who would become the champion of the Nicene Creed and spend most of his life battling Arianism. Also there were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, supporters of Arius and the leaders of the Eusebians (traditionally called 'Arians').[67] Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian, was universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day.[68] Ossius presided as the emperor's agent.[69] The emperor participated in and even led some of its discussions.[64][70] "Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best." (Hanson, p. 850)

It is traditionally erroneously claimed that Athanasius played a significant role at Nicaea.[71] He was not yet a bishop and not yet 30 years old. It is also sometimes erroneously claimed that Athanasius' opponents were led by Arius the presbyter. Arius was of little importance.[72] Alexander's opponents were led by the two Eusebii and may be called the Eusebians.[73]

For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[74] 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. He also 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."[75]

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.[76] 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',[77] which was incompatible with Arius' beliefs.[78] 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)[78] 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]

Ironically, Constantine's efforts, particularly the inclusion of the term homoousios which, before Nicaea, was associated with Sabellianism, caused deep divisions after Nicaea.[79][80][81]

Ariminum, Seleucia, and Constantinople (358–360)

Main articles: Council of Ariminum, Council of Seleucia, and Council of Constantinople (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.[82][83]

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.[82][83] After the council, Pope Liberius condemned the creed of Ariminum, while his rival, Pope Felix II, supported it.[84]

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".[84][85] However, 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.[86][87] 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;[86] one of the leading proponents of the "dissimilar substance" view. After this, the council, including Maris and Eudoxius,[87] 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.[86][87]

After the Council of Constantinople, the homoian bishop Acacius deposed and banished several homoiousian bishops, including Macedonius I of Constantinople, Basil, Eustathius, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Dracontius of Pergamum, Neonas of Seleucia, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, Elpidius of Satala and Cyril of Jerusalem.[88][89] At the same time, Acacius also deposed and banished the Anomoean deacon Aëtius.[88]

In 360, Acacius appointed Eudoxius of Antioch to replace Macedonius and Athanasius of Ancyra to replace Basil, as well as Onesimus of Nicomedia to replace Cecropius, who had died in the earthquake at Nicomedia.[88]

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.[90] According to Philostorgius, pagans killed George of Laodicea, bishop of Alexandria, allowing Athanasius to reclaim the 'see', or ecclesiastical jurisdiction.[91]

Sides

As indicated by the names of the "sides" listed below, the Arian controversy was not about the entire Nicene Creed but focused on the term Homoousion (same substance). The Homoousians supported theview that the Son's substance is the same as the Father's. The Heteroousians claimed that, since the Father alone exists without cause, the Son's substance must be different from the Father's uncaused substance. The Homoiousians were somewhere midway between the Homoousians and Heteroousians. They also rejected the word homoousion and but maintained that, since the Son was figuratively born from the Father and inherited some of the Father's characteristics, He must be of a "similar substance." But perhaps the Homoians rebelled most against the word homoousion because they claimed that it is utter arrogance to speculate about the substance of God because this is not revealed in the Bible.

It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.[92]

Homoousian

Main article: Homoousion

The Homoousians taught that the son is of the same substance as the Father, i.e. both exist without cause. In the 3rd century, the Sabellians used the term but it was condemned as heresy by Pope Calixtus.[93][94] However, the term was included in the Nicene Creed of 325 and confirmed by the Council of Constantinople in 381. Since then, it has become the basis of most of modern Trinitarianism.[95][96]

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."[109] 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.[110]

Homoiousian

Main article: Homoiousian

The Homoiousian school taught that the Son is of a similar substance to the Father but not the same.[123][124]

Homoian

See also: Acacians

The Homoians taught that the son is similar to the Father, either "in all things" or "according to the scriptures," without speaking of substance.[124] Several members of the other schools, such as Hosius of Cordoba and Aëtius, also accepted certain Homoian formulae.[139]

Heteroousian

See also: Anomoeanism

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.[144][145]

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.

Unclassified

See also

References

  1. ^ Archbishop Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 (This book focuses specifically on Arius.)
  2. ^ Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 2011
  3. ^ “Some of these problems and inconsistencies can be explained by the fact that older research depended heavily on Athanasius as its source. The 19th century lionized Athanasius and made his career appear even more glorious than it was. … Athanasius' works … are written from his point of view. When the controversy is seen from another point of view… a distinctly different picture develops.” (Lienhard, p. 416)
  4. ^ "In the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents." (Williams, p. 11-12) “Schwartz has established much of the chronology of the period more securely. Bell has published the papyrus which throws such a lurid light on the behaviour of Athanasius in his see. … so important for our estimation of Athanasius' character. … The existence of the Synod of Antioch of 325 has now been brought to light. … A store of Arian literature hitherto unknown or little known has been made available by Turner, Gryson and others.” (Hanson, p. xx)
  5. ^ “The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century. It is now commonplace that these disputes cannot simply be understood as ….” (LA, 11-12) Ayres wrote in 2004: “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2).
  6. ^ “If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis” (Rowan Williams, 234).
  7. ^ The “conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty.” (Hanson Lecture) The “older accounts (of the Arian Controversy) are deeply mistaken” (Ayres, p. 11).
  8. ^ Hanson, R.P.C. (1987). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381.
  9. ^ “The way of using the word hypostasis characterized the two opposing parties for much of the fourth century; one preferred to speak of one hypostasis in God, the other of two (or three, if the Holy Spirit is considered).” (Lienhard) See here for more details.
  10. ^ “Joseph Lienhard has suggested that the earlier stages of the controversy, from the Arius-Alexander confrontation to 361, may best be described as a collision between “miahypostatic” and “dyohypostatic” theologies. The former trajectory … (speaks) of Father and Son as a single hypostasis …  The latter trajectory … (speaks) of Father and Son as two hypostaseis …”  (Anatolios, p. 32-33)
  11. ^ “Something that really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident or a quality;” (Lienhard)
  12. ^ The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, p. 48) "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69)
  13. ^ For example, the Dedication Creed of 341, which was a statement of the Eusebian Eastern Church, says: “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.”
  14. ^ “Athanasius, in his Tome to the Antiochenes of 362, admitted for the first time that besides one ousia and one hypostasis, there was also a sense in which one could rightly say ‘three hypostaseis’ of the Godhead.” (Lienhard)
  15. ^ “Basil's most distinguished contribution … was in his clarification of the vocabulary.” (Hanson, p. 690) He is best known for developing “the distinctions between persons and essence.” (Ayres, p. 187)
  16. ^ In the “traditional account,” the Arian controversy was “initially provoked by a priest called Arius.” (LA = Lewis Ayres, p13) “Athanasius' account begins by presenting Arius as the originator of a new heresy.” (LA, 107)
  17. ^ “Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian.” (Rowan Williams, 175) “In Alexandria he (Arius) represented … a conservative theology.” (RW, 233) “Arius too, far from being an original thinker, was simply one more adherent of the dyohypostatic tradition.” (Lienhard)
  18. ^ “We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20).
  19. ^ “The views of Arius were such as in a peculiar manner to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering … He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii)
  20. ^ Tertullian wrote: "For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole" (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9).
  21. ^ “It is not surprising, however, that Eustathius was condemned for Sabellianism. His insistence that there is only one distinct reality (hypostasis) in the Godhead, and his confusion about distinguishing Father, Son and Holy Spirit laid him open to such a charge.” (R.P.C. Hanson, p. 216)
  22. ^ “Origen does consider the Son to be a distinct being dependent on the Father for his existence.” (Ayres, p. 23) "He taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 184)
  23. ^ For example, Sabellius was excommunicated in the year 220 (GotQuestions), and at the Council of Antioch in 258, the Sabellian Paul of Samosata was excommunicated.
  24. ^ Arius had a “strong commitment to belief in three distinct divine hypostases.” (Williams, p. 97)
  25. ^ “[Rowan] Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. … The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92)
  26. ^ "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69)
  27. ^ The Dedication Creed, which was a statement of the Eusebian Eastern Church, says: “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” The phrase “one in agreement” implies three minds.
  28. ^ The Eusebii (usually called 'Arians') "always maintained strictly the reality of the pre-existent Son. [...] 'Father' and 'Son' therefore are [...] terms for two independently existing realities." (Lewis Ayres, p 92.)
  29. ^ Hanson refers to the “traditional Monarchianism” of the “Western bishops.” (Hanson, p. 272) “Westerners, especially Romans, are probably rightly said to have held on to the spirit of the monarchian theology of the late second and early third centuries and thereby virtually to have ignored Tertullian.” (Lienhard) (The Monarchians said that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for one and the same Person.)
  30. ^ “If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.” (R.P.C. Hanson, p. 849)
  31. ^ Emperor Constantius said: “What I wish, that must be regarded as the canon.” Thereby, “he summarizes in a sentence the situation which did in fact prevail over most of this time.” (R.P.C. Hanson, p. 849)
  32. ^ “Simonetti remarks that the Emperor was in fact the head of the church” (Hanson, p. 849).
  33. ^ Ehler, Sidney Zdeneck; Morrall, John B (1967). Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. p. 6-7. ISBN 978-0-8196-0189-6
  34. ^ When Theodosius came to power, “The pro-Nicene faction in the capital (Constantinople) was small and riven by internal dispute.” (Ayres, p. 244)
  35. ^ “He issued an edict … in January 381 (Nullis haereticis) that expressly forbade anti-Nicene factions to congregate in churches.” (Anatolios, p. 29-30)
  36. ^ ”In January of the following year (381), another edict forbade the heretics to settle in the cities” (Boyd, William Kenneth (1905). The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code. Columbia University Press. P45-46)
  37. ^ “It is even possible to contrast Constantius' relative mildness with the ferocious coercion more than twenty years later of the Emperor Theodosius, and not least with his part in choosing an unbaptised layman, Nectarius, as bishop of Constantinople, an act to which the pro-Nicene party raised no objection.” (Hanson, p. 322)
  38. ^ Theodosius instructed that “all churches shall immediately be surrendered to those bishops who confess that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one majesty and power.” (Ayres, p. 252)
  39. ^ “The expulsion of bishops of unorthodox views which followed the decisions of the Council of Constantinople of 381 provoked riots in many parts of the Empire” (Hanson, p. 852).
  40. ^ “Theodosius was more partisan than any of his predecessors. … He went further than any of them in ruthless suppression of dissent.” (Hanson, p. 851)
  41. ^ Dunner, Joseph (1967). Handbook of world history: concepts and issues. p. 70.
  42. ^ Campbell, Ted (1996). Christian Confessions: A Historical Introduction. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-664-25650-0.
  43. ^ He was “put forth from the being of the Father, not by a partaking or a cutting or a division, but unspeakably and, for us, unexplainably” (LA, 58, quoting Eusebius).
  44. ^ Bettenson, Henry, ed. (1963). Documents of the Christian Church (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 40.
  45. ^ Noll, Mark A. (2012). Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (3rd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-8010-3996-6..
  46. ^ “If we can trust Basil [of Caesarea] here, it is interesting to observe that Sabellius had apparently used homoousios in a Trinitarian context early in the third century.” (Hanson, p. 192) “The word homousios had not had … a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the Council of Antioch, and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian meaning.” (Philip Schaff)
  47. ^ “Homoousios before it was placed in N must have been regarded as a term which carried with it heretical, or at least unsound, overtones to theologians in the Eastern church.” (Hanson, p. 195) “The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a Sabellian or monarchian tendency.” (P.F. Beatrice)
  48. ^ “Once he (Constantine) discovered that the Eustathians (Eustathius was the leader of the Sabellians at Nicaea) … were in favour of it (homoousios) … he pressed for its inclusion.” (Hanson, p. 211) “Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus ... Both were influential at the council.” (Ayres, p. 99)
  49. ^ “Eustathius and Marcellus (the Eusebians) … certainly met at Nicaea and no doubt were there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius.” (Hanson, p. 234) “Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians.” (Ayres, p. 69)
  50. ^ "Tension among Eusebian bishops was caused by knowledge that Constantine had taken Alexander's part.” (Ayres, p. 89) “This imperial pressure coupled with the role of his advisers in broadly supporting the agenda of Alexander must have been a powerful force.” (Ayres, p. 89)
  51. ^ “Paulinus was at heart a SABELLIAN, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. Paulinus' association with the remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the expression 'one hypostasis' … rendered him suspect.” (Hanson, p. 801)
  52. ^ a b c Ayres, Lewis (2004). Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology.
  53. ^ Hanson, Richard Patrick Crosland (1988). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. T. & T. Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-09485-8.
  54. ^ “The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii)
  55. ^ “It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent on Arius' specific theology." (Ayres, p. 2)
  56. ^ “During the years 325–42 neither Arius nor the particular technical terminology used at Nicaea were at the heart of theological controversy.” (Ayres, p. 100)
  57. ^ “The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer.” (Hanson, p. xvii)
  58. ^ “’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy.” (Williams, p. 82)
  59. ^ For example, the Dedication Creed "represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been shocked and disturbed by the apparent Sabellianism of N [the Nicene Creed]." (Hanson, p. 290-1)
  60. ^ Eusebius of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea, approximately 260-approximately 340 (1999). Life of Constantine. Cameron, Averil., Hall, Stuart George. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 1-4237-6766-7. OCLC 67703212.
  61. ^ “It is hard … to explain how Arius could have found such quick and enthusiastic acceptance in Syria and Asia Minor if his doctrine were new and strange.” (Lienhard) “The controversy surrounding Arius was an epiphenomenon (a secondary effect or by-product) of widespread existing tensions.” (LA, 15)
  62. ^ Boyd, William Kenneth (1905). The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code. Harvard University. Columbia University Press.
  63. ^ “325 A.D.: Palestine - Hosius, a representative of the Emperor Constantine, presides over an anti-Arian council in Antioch sometime during the early months of this year. This council condemns Eusebius of Caesarea for being an Arian sympathizer and formulates a doctrinal creed in favor of Alexander's theology.” (Legal History Sources)
  64. ^ a b Vasiliev, Al (1928). "The empire from Constantine the Great to Justinian". History of the Byzantine Empire. Retrieved 2 May 2012.
  65. ^ “Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire.” (LA, 19) “The Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way.” (Hanson, p. 156)
  66. ^ a b Gwynn, David M. (2021-01-07), Kim, Young Richard (ed.), "Reconstructing the Council of Nicaea", The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea (1 ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–110, doi:10.1017/9781108613200.005, ISBN 978-1-108-61320-0, S2CID 230546013, retrieved 2021-09-28
  67. ^ “As a historical phenomenon, it would be most accurate to call the ‘Arian’ theology ‘Eusebian,’ understood as a way of thought shared and fostered by Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, among others.” (Lienhard, p. 419)
  68. ^ “Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian” (Ayres, 58) “was universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day” (Hanson, 46) and “was one of the most influential authors of the fourth century” (Hanson, 860).
  69. ^ “Ossius, as the Emperor's representative, presided at Nicaea.” (RH, 154, cf. 148, 156) “Ossius of Cordova, representing the Emperor's interest” (Hanson, p. 156)
  70. ^ "The emperor incited all to unanimity, until he had rendered them united in judgment on those points on which they were previously at variance." (Eusebius, quote in The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus - Book II)
  71. ^ “He could not possibly have been, as he was later erroneously represented to have been, a leading figure at the Council of Nicaea.” (Hanson, p. 275)
  72. ^ “In himself he was of no great significance.” (RH, xvii) “Arius' own role in the ‘Arian controversies’ was comparatively small.” (Lienhard, quoting Adolf Martin Ritter)
  73. ^ “My second theological trajectory is the one in which we locate Arius himself. This loose alliance I will term ‘Eusebian’. When I use this term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with either of Arius' most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or Eusebius of Caesarea.” (Ayres, p. 52)
  74. ^ "Babylon the Great Has Fallen". God's Kingdom Rules!. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.: 447 1963.
  75. ^ M'Clintock, John; James Strong. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. 7. p. 45.
  76. ^ "St. Nicholas Center ::: Bishop Nicholas Loses His Cool". www.stnicholascenter.org. Retrieved 2019-06-14.
  77. ^ "homoousios | Definition, History, & Importance". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2021-09-04.
  78. ^ a b Carroll, A. History of Christendom, Volume II. p. 12.
  79. ^ “The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson's Lecture)
  80. ^ Papandrea, James Leonard (2012). Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicaea. Paulist Press. p. 177. ISBN 978-0-8091-4751-9.
  81. ^ Smither, Edward L., ed. (2014-02-14). Rethinking Constantine: History, Theology, and Legacy. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-1-63087-385-1.
  82. ^ a b Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 10.
  83. ^ a b c d e Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 37.
  84. ^ a b c d e f g Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 40.
  85. ^ a b Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 11.
  86. ^ a b c Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 12 and book 5, chapter 1.
  87. ^ a b c d Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 41.
  88. ^ a b c d e f Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 5, chapter 1.
  89. ^ a b c d Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 42.
  90. ^ Henry Chadwick, History of the Early Church, chapter 9
  91. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 7, chapter 2.
  92. ^ (González, Justo L. (1987). A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. p. 307. ISBN 0-687-17182-2.)
  93. ^ "Sabellianism | Christianity". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  94. ^ “The council that deposed Paul of Samosata in 268 condemned the use of homoousios.” (Ayres, p. 94; cf. Hanson, p. 193-194)
  95. ^ Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 56–59 & 63.
  96. ^ Peter Heather & John Matthews, Goths in the Fourth Century, pp. 127–128. This mainly discusses the later controversy and only mentions Athanasius' form.
  97. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapters 5 & 6.
  98. ^ Socrates of Constantintinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 7 and book 2, chapter 31.
  99. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 21.
  100. ^ a b Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 25.
  101. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapters 23, 27–32 & 34–35.
  102. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 6–7, 12 & 16.
  103. ^ a b Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 15.
  104. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 23.
  105. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 23 & 26.
  106. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 24 & 38.
  107. ^ a b c Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 36.
  108. ^ a b Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 38.
  109. ^ 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."
  110. ^ 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.'
  111. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 36 and book 2, chapter 20.
  112. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 18 & 29.
  113. ^ Sozomen, Church History, book 4, chapter 6.
  114. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 36.
  115. ^ Sozomen, Church History, book 2, chapter 33.
  116. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 20.
  117. ^ Sozomen, Church History, book 3, chapters 11–12.
  118. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 23 & 26.
  119. ^ Sozomen, Church History, book 4, chapter 2.
  120. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 29–30.
  121. ^ Sozomen, Church History, book 4, chapter 6.
  122. ^ a b c Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 19.
  123. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 9.
  124. ^ a b Peter Heather & John Matthews, Goths in the Fourth Century, p. 128. This mainly discusses the later controversy.
  125. ^ a b c d Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 8, chapter 17.
  126. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 36 & book 2, chapter 42.
  127. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 9 & book 8, chapter 17.
  128. ^ Socrates if Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 16, 27, 38 & 42.
  129. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapters 24 & 40.
  130. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapters 4 & 12.
  131. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 19, 37 & 40.
  132. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 30.
  133. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 38 & 42.
  134. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 38 & 45.
  135. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 38, 42 & 45.
  136. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 39, 40, 42 & 45.
  137. ^ Socrates of Connstantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 45.
  138. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 8 and book 2, chapter 15.
  139. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 3 for Hosius and chapter 8 for Aëtius.
  140. ^ a b Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 27 and book 2, chapters 12 & 37.
  141. ^ a b Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 9, chapter 19.
  142. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 37.
  143. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 4, 39 & 40.
  144. ^ 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."
  145. ^ 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.
  146. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapters 5–6.
  147. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 3, chapter 5 and book 8, chapter 2.
  148. ^ a b Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 7, chapter 6.
  149. ^ a b Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 35.
  150. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 8, chapter 2 and book 9, chapter 18.
  151. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 5, chapter 3 and book 6, chapters 1–3.
  152. ^ a b c d e f g h Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 8, chapter 2.
  153. ^ a b c Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 8.
  154. ^ a b c d Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 1, chapter 9.
  155. ^ a b c Condemned by Alexander of Alexandria, see Socrates, Church History, book 1, chapter 6.
  156. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapters 6, 8 & 14, and book 2, chapter 7.
  157. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapters 6, 8 & 14.
  158. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 1, chapter 9 and book 4, chapter 12.
  159. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 9.
  160. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 10–11.
  161. ^ a b Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 26.
  162. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 3, chapter 17.
  163. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 26 & 35.
  164. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 36.
  165. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 4.
  166. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 3, chapter 15.
  167. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 2, chapter 5.
  168. ^ a b c Heather and Matthews, Goths in the Fourth Century, pp. 135–136.
  169. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 5, chapter 5, book 8, chapter 2 and book 9, chapter 4.
  170. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 8, chapter 17 and book 9, chapter 14.
  171. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 12.
  172. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapters 39 & 40.
  173. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 39.
  174. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 8, chapter 3.
  175. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 9, chapter 18.
  176. ^ Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 10, chapter 1.
  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.
    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
  3. Documents of the Early Arian Controversy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arian_controversy&oldid=1250597308"