DOCTRINAL EXPOSITION
SUMMARY:
I. The doctrine of Arius and its origins
II. The various forms of Arianism after the Council of Nicaea (325)
III. Macedonianism
IV. Arianism among the Germanic peoples
V. Arianism in modern times.I. THE DOCTRINE OF ARIUS AND ITS ORIGINS
Arius (v.) was a well-known priest of Alexandria, advanced in years, who around 320 began to teach the heresy that bears his name. This heresy consists essentially in denying the dogma of the Trinity, the doctrine of a single divine essence subsisting in three really distinct Persons, co-eternal, equal in all things, united by relations of origin: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To this Trinity, which specifically characterizes Christian religion, Arius opposed his own doctrine, which acknowledged a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit; but only the Father is truly God, the one God, infinite, eternal, unbegotten, that is, uncreated (ἀγέννητος or ἀγέννητος), the two terms being taken by him as synonymous. The second Person, called the Word or Son, is not truly God: He is a pure creature, drawn from nothingness, like all that is created (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγονε), the first of the creatures of the one God, the most excellent, produced by Him to serve as His instrument in the creation of other beings, the intermediary between Him and the world. The Word is not eternal: there was a time when He did not exist (ἦν πρὸς ὄντα ἦν). Yet He is before time and before the ages (ἀρχόμενος, πρὸ αἰώνων), since time and the ages begin only with the world. He is not Son by nature but by grace and adoption (κατὰ χάριν). God adopted Him in anticipation of His merits, for He was mutable and fallible. His impeccability is only a factual impeccability. He may be called God, but only in the sense in which Scripture calls the just “gods.” In reality He is not truly God. He advanced in virtue and merit and thus made Himself worthy of the name that God the Father and the Church gave Him. He is a kind of demiurge, entirely foreign and dissimilar to the substance and personality of the Father. As for the third Person, the Holy Spirit, Arius says little about Him in the fragments of his writings that have come down to us. Neither is He God, for He is only a creature far below the Word. “He is the first production of the Word,” his faithful disciples would say later.
Essentially antitrinitarian, the error of Arius also undermines at its foundations the mystery of the Incarnation and that of Redemption, since it is a creature, the Word, and not God, Who became incarnate. And Arius understands the word “incarnate” in its etymological sense: the Word took from human nature only the flesh, not the rational soul. He did not truly become man (σαρκωθείς, οὐκ ἐνανθρωπήσας). The Arian Redeemer is but a half-man, just as He is but a half-God.
The origin of Arianism is to be sought not so much in certain phrases with a subordinationist flavor (v. SUBORDINATIONISM) from some apologetic Fathers, but rather in the School of Antioch, where the tradition of Paul of Samosata was still alive. From the beginning of the controversy, Arius presented himself as a disciple of the martyr-priest of Antioch, St. Lucian (d. 312). The first Arians called themselves followers of the latter. Whether rightly or wrongly is difficult to say with certainty. On the strength of a vague passage in a letter of St. Alexander of Alexandria to his namesake Alexander of Byzantium, St. Lucian has been made out to be a disciple of Paul of Samosata, who for a long time remained out of communion with the Church. But some recent critics, such as F. Loofs and G. Bardy, distinguish between the martyr and the disciple of Paul mentioned by St. Alexander (G. Bardy, Recherches sur s. Lucien d'Antioche et son école, Paris 1936, pp. 50-59). The doubt therefore remains whether the true father of Arianism was St. Lucian. In truth, it is hard to deny that he taught a subordinationism at the same time as that of Origen and that he used ambiguous expressions regarding the divinity of the Word, which Arius and the other “Lucianists” (v. Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, and Marius of Chalcedon) would push to their ultimate logical conclusions. Arius may have been the first to circulate them.
Derived from subordinationism, Arianism thus has affinities with Platonism, especially that of Philo. The system also recalls, in a certain sense, the hints of the Gnostics. As for Aristotelianism, some later leaders of the sect, such as Aetius and Eunomius, drew especially upon its dialectical method, which led St. Epiphanius to call them “new Aristotelians” (De haeresibus, LXIX, LXXVI: PG, 42, 315-570).
II. THE VARIOUS FORMS OF ARIANISM AFTER THE COUNCIL OF NICEA
The doctrine of Arius, as we have set it forth, constitutes authentic Arianism, which was condemned by the Council of Nicaea (v.). Alongside this Arianism there soon arose what may be called political Arianism, which expressed itself in various formulas, more or less reticent, more or less ambiguous, susceptible of being interpreted in an orthodox as well as in a heretical sense. Most of these were proposed to the emperors by Arians in disguise, who aimed to undermine the doctrinal authority of the first ecumenical council under the pretext of establishing harmony among the bishops and religious unity in the Roman Empire, which was officially Christian. This multiplicity of formulas would not have existed had the emperors adhered to what had been decided at Nicaea by the vast majority of the episcopate, in agreement with the Pope. Unfortunately for the Church, the first Christian emperors, namely Constantine and Constantius II—it should be noted that both were baptized only on their deathbeds and by Arians—sought to dogmatize, attempting to substitute themselves for the Bishop of Rome, head of the Church and guardian of its unity, and thus became the plaything of intriguing or vengeful prelates. In 359, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, the great champion of orthodoxy, was already collecting twelve symbols of this kind, and there were still others after that date.
At this time, that is, toward the end of the reign of Constantius II, the more or less declared opponents of the Council of Nicaea and the formula it had canonized—“The Son of God is of the substance of the Father, consubstantial with the Father” (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας Πατρός, ὁμοούσιος τῷ Πατρὶ)—were divided into three distinct groups:
A) There was first a small number of pure Arians, who were the first to dare to attack directly the symbol of Nicaea, resuming for themselves the most radical formulas of Arius. Like him, they declared that the Son of God, the Word, was entirely unlike the Father (ἀνόμοιος τῷ Πατρὶ κατὰ πάντα).
Their great teacher was Aetius of Antioch, a specialist in Aristotelian dialectic. Among their number were later Eudoxius of Constantinople and Eunomius of Cyzicus. They were called Anomoeans (from the Greek ἀνόμοιος) and for a time (357-58) succeeded in winning the favor of Constantius. At a synod held at Sirmium during the summer of 357, of which three Anomoean bishops, Germinius of Sirmium, Valens of Mursa, and Ursacius of Singidunum, were the ringleaders, a formula was drawn up in which the Son was declared less than the Father and subordinate to Him, and the Holy Spirit was said to exist through the Son. In it, the use of the terms “substance” (οὐσία) and “consubstantial” (ὁμοούσιος) was forbidden. This was the Second Formula of Sirmium (which the aged Bishop Hosius of Córdoba was induced to sign), which for a time, according to the will of Constantius, became the token of imperial orthodoxy. The Anomoeans have also been called Aetians, Eunomians, Heteroousians, and Exucontians. They represent the radical Arianism of Arius’ first period.
B) There was then the group of the semi-Arians, also called Omenians or Omoesians, who, instead of calling the Word consubstantial with the Father in essence (ὁμοούσιος), simply said that He was similar to the Father in essence (ὁμοιούσιος). Their leader was first Basil of Ancyra, who, at a council held in Ancyra in 358, drew up a formula to this effect and was fortunate enough to have it adopted by the emperor Constantius, who abandoned the creed of the Amonians shortly before approved. At Basil’s instigation, he even went so far as to exile the principal Amonians.
Most of the Omenians were, at bottom, orthodox regarding the divinity of the Word, and differed from Catholics only in the term ὁμοιούσια, which they substituted for ὁμοούσια, in which they found a Sabellian flavor. It can even be said that the bulk of the Arians were of this type. St. Hilary and St. Athanasius showed themselves conciliatory toward them. However, a great number of them soon compromised themselves by refusing to acknowledge the divinity of the Holy Spirit and falling into what was called the pneumatomachian heresy with Macedonianism. These truly deserved the name of semi-Arians, for while acknowledging the true divinity of the Son, they denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
C) A third group consisted of those who simply affirmed that the Son was similar to the Father (ὁμοιούσιος, σαφής), without further specification. The Omoean was a contrivance of the true Arians to undermine the credit of the Omenians with Constantius, at the Council of Ancyra and that of Sirmium (358). A first formula drawn up by Mark of Arethusa discarded the word οὐσία, essence, and its compounds, which are not found in Scripture, but declared that the Son was similar to the Father in all things (ὁμοιούσιος, σαφής, κατὰ πάντα). This brought it closer to orthodoxy. After the discussions and events of the two Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359), the formula was stripped of the words κατὰ πάντα (similar in all things) and burdened with the condemnation of the word ὑπόστασις, hypostasis. It is this formula that was definitively established at the Synod of Constantinople (early January 360), approved and imposed by Constantius upon the entire episcopate, whose adherence was almost unanimous and which had already been secured by cunning and violence at the two Councils of Rimini and Seleucia. It is called the formula of Rimini-Constantinople or also of Nicaea-Constantinople, because it had been signed at Nicaea in Thrace, near Adrianople, by the orthodox delegates of the Council of Rimini in its first phase (10 Oct. 359).
This was the political result: a formula that is a masterpiece of imprecision, which can be understood in the most diverse, even opposite, senses, and which, as L. Duchesne wrote (Histoire ancienne de l'Église, II, 2nd ed., Paris 1907, p. 306), Athanasius and Aetius, with a little good will, could have recited together. It is curious to note how the Omoean, which, according to the terms, would seem to be the opposite of the Anomoean, is in reality the same thing; for it is in the Anomoean sense that the expression “The Son is similar to the Father” (ὁμοιούσιος, σαφής) was interpreted by those who definitively accepted it, namely, by the true Arians, since Catholics and semi-Arians had rejected it after having accepted it in a moment of surprise. From 360 onward, the Omoean creed of Rimini-Constantinople represented the official Arianism in the Roman Empire and, with the addition of some clarifications, the Arianism of the barbarian peoples.
III. MACEDONIANISM
What is called the Macedonian or pneumatomachian heresy consists in the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and in making Him the first creature of the Son or Word. It is nothing more than a part of the Arian system taken as a whole. We have seen indeed that Arius denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit and placed Him far below the Word. But until about 360, the question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit remained in the shadows. The various Arian formularies speak only of the Word; the Omoean of Rimini-Constantinople itself is silent on this point. The Amonians were the first to preach explicitly the Arian Trinity. After 360, an important group of semi-Arians or Omenians divided what seemed inseparable; while clearly admitting the divinity of the Son of God, they rejected that of the third Person.St. Athanasius refutes them and calls them tropicists (τροπικοι), because they explained by metaphors or tropes the words of Scripture that clashed with their thesis. They are more commonly designated under the name of pneumatomachians (πνευματομάχοι) or Macedonians, from the name of Macedonius, the Arian bishop of Constantinople (351–60), although he does not seem to have taught such an error, and of Maratoniani, from the name of Maratonius, bishop of Nicomedia, one of their leaders. The Macedonians constituted a separate sect, distinguishing themselves from the Arians proper by their belief in the divinity of the Word.
IV. ARIANISM AMONG THE GERMANIC PEOPLES
With the accession to the throne of Emperor Theodosius (379), Arianism soon disappeared from the Roman Empire not only as an official doctrine but also as a condemned sect. However, it survived for many years among the barbarian invaders of the Western Empire, in the form of the Omoeanism of Rimini-Constantinople (360). The bishop of the Goths, Ulfila — successor, from 341, of the Gothic bishop Theophilus, one of the Fathers of Nicaea — attended, in fact, the Synod of Constantinople in 360 and signed its formula. Through him and his compatriots, the Goths, Arianism — one may well say Arianism tout court — penetrated among the other barbarians: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Suebi, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards.This Arianism was now persecuting, now tolerant, but remained stationary from the doctrinal point of view. We know the profession of faith of Ulfila, written by him in the form of a testament on the eve of his death, which occurred in Constantinople in 383. Obscure and almost contradictory regarding the divinity of the Son, it categorically denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, stating that He is neither God nor Lord, but a mere minister of Christ, subject and obedient in all things to the Son. As regards the manner in which he speaks of the Son, Ulfila seems to approach the Omenian-Macedonians: the divinity of the second Person would perhaps be safeguarded if he were not so frankly subordinating: “The only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, author and creator of all creatures, Who has no equal, is subject and obedient in all things to God the Father” (cf. this profession of faith in vol. I of Texte und Untersuchungen zur altgermanischen Religionsgeschichte, Strasbourg 1899, pp. 73–76, edition by M. Kaufmann, Aus der Schule des Wulfila).
The last Arians were the Lombards, who did not convert until the end of the 7th century, c. 671.
V. ARIANISM IN MODERN TIMES
The antitrinitarian Protestant sects — Socinians or Unitarians, Servetists, and liberal Protestants — cannot be directly linked to Arianism, since what characterizes Arianism is the notion of an intermediary demiurge between God and the world, a notion absent in modern antitrinitarians. They rather belong to the ancient Sabellians or modalists. The Sabellian error arrives at the negation of the Trinity by a path opposite to that of Arianism. A certain resemblance can, however, be found between the “superior man” Christ of modern antitrinitarians and the “demiurge Logos” of the ancient Arians.If the author did not re-emerge as a distinct sect, there have nonetheless been, since the 16th century, isolated Arians such as the Anglicans William Whiston and Samuel Clarke. In a work entitled *Primitive Christianity Revisited* (London 1710–11), the former expressly upholds a mitigated Arianism reminiscent of that of Eusebius of Caesarea. He also declares that the *Logos*, created by the Father at the beginning of the world, served as the rational soul in Christ. Clarke speaks of the production of the Son by the will of the Father, of the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father, and rejects as contradictory the doctrine of three eternal, uncreated persons in the numerical unity of nature (cf. his book: *The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity*, London 1712). The theories of Whiston and Clarke were condemned by the upper house of the Anglican clergy. For a time, they caused real turmoil within the Anglican Church (cf. Le Bachelet, *Arianisme*, in DThC, I, cols. 1859–62).
**
Systematic expositions of Arianism and its various forms, accompanied by historical information, are found in the well-known *Histories of Dogma*: I. Schwane, I. Tixeront, A. Harnack (II, 4th ed., Tübingen 1910), R. Seeberg (I and II, 3rd ed., Leipzig 1923). Cf. also the notable work by X. Le Bachelet, article *Arianisme*, in DThC, I, cols. 1779–1863. On the counterpart of St. Athanasius, V. J. Gummerus, *Die homousianische Partei bis zum Tode des Konstantius. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites in den Jahren 356–361*, Leipzig 1900; G. Rauschen, *L’homoiousianisme dans ses rapports avec l’orthodoxie*, in *Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique*, 4 (1903), pp. 189–206, 411–431. On Arianism among the Germanic peoples and the doctrine of Ulfilas: W. Bessel, *Über das Leben des Ufilias*, Göttingen 1860; H. von Schubert, *Das älteste germanische Christentum oder der sogenannte ‘Arianismus’ der Germanen*, Tübingen 1909; B. Capelle, *La lettre d’Auxence sur Uffila*, in *Revue bénédictine*, 34 (1922), pp. 224–233. A more extensive bibliography with indications of the most recent works is found in A. Fliche–V. MARTINO G, *Storia della Chiesa*, III: *Dalla pace costantiniana alla morte di Teodosio*, Italian trans., Turin 1940, pp. 18–25, 67–71, 135–42, 245–34.
HISTORICAL COMPENDIUM
OUTLINE: I. Preliminary Considerations
II. Arianism up to the Death of Constantine
III. The Arian Controversy under Constantius
IV. Arianism after Constantius.
### I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
The Arian controversy was one of the longest and most serious in the history of the Church, remaining acute for nearly a century and deeply disturbing its life. In the early centuries, other heresies had appeared, but they had soon disappeared without causing such upheaval. The reason Arianism made such a stir and its history became so tangled is that the emperors, having become Christian, wished to interfere in the matter under the pretext of ensuring religious unity in the empire. Had Constantine and Constantius turned a deaf ear to the proposals of certain hypocritical Arians who were skilled courtiers, the controversy would have ended like the previous heresies. Condemned at Nicaea as at Rome — and Nicaea would not have been necessary — Arius and his followers would have met the fate of an Artemius, a Sabellius, or a Paul of Samosata, and history would have been spared this endless series of synods and professions of faith, of decrees of expulsion and exile issued against bishops, which form the fabric of this lamentable affair. Imperial caesaropapism is therefore responsible for the entire crisis.
From the same cause also derives the prominent role played in this history by personal rivalries. Not daring to attack directly the definition of Nicaea, which they had signed against their will, Eusebius of Nicomedia and the other court prelates took revenge on the defenders of that Council and turned the violence of the state against them. Hence arose the persecution of certain bishops, in particular St. Athanasius of Alexandria, the standard-bearer of Nicene orthodoxy.
Emperor Constantius tormented the bishops in every way to make them sign successively more or less imprecise, more or less contradictory formulas, by which he hoped to achieve religious unity. At one point, through cunning and violence, he obtained the signature of the Rimini-Constantinople formula from the mass of the episcopate of East and West, which enabled St. Jerome to write the following sentence, in which there is more rhetoric than truth: “The whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian.”
The entire Christian world was never Arian. Even at Rimini and Seleucia, and before and after, the great majority of the episcopate maintained faith in the true divinity of the Son of God made man and in the Catholic Trinity. They interpreted the vague formulas they had been made to sign in this sense. The general dissatisfaction of the signatories, which followed immediately afterward, first in the West and then in the East, proves this. It is certain that the history of Arianism shows the necessity of an infallible authority in the Church, even outside an ecumenical council — that is, the authority which had maintained Catholic unity in the first three centuries, apart from any interference by secular power: the authority of the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter.
It is impossible to write here, even in summary, the exceedingly complicated history of the Arian controversy. To speak of it at greater length would moreover be unnecessary, since all the great names of orthodox or heretical figures involved in the affair, and all the councils of any importance connected with it, are treated in separate articles.
This history can be divided into three main phases: 1) Arianism from its origins to the death of Constantine (c. 320–37); 2) Arianism under Constantius (337–61); 3) Arianism after the death of Constantius (361–81).
### II. ARIANISM UP TO THE DEATH OF CONSTANTINE
The beginnings of the Arian controversy before the Council of Nicaea are very obscure. Probably around 320, Arius, a priest of the Baucalis church in Alexandria, began publicly to teach his theory of the “Logos.” Summoned by his bishop, Alexander, to conform to traditional teaching, he refused and gathered around himself a number of clerics and laity; by means of letters he appealed to several former pupils of the priest Lucian of Antioch, among whom was Eusebius, bishop of Berytus, later bishop of Nicomedia. Alexander then condemned the innovator in a council, and Arius immediately fled to Caesarea in Palestine, where Bishop Eusebius gave
Good reception. The dispute grew bitter not only in Egypt, but also in Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. The bishop of Alexandria notified ARIUS’s error and condemnation to the episcopate of the East and to Pope Sylvester. The matter had reached this point when the emperor Constantine, having defeated Licinius (323), sought to restore concord by hastily dispatching to Alexandria the bishop of Córdoba, Hosius. The attempt at reconciliation failed. The emperor then convened the Council of Nicaea (325). The vast majority of the assembled bishops—about 300, perhaps fewer—proclaimed their faith in the divinity of the Son of God made man and in the Catholic Trinity through a formula in which the principal feature was the expression: ὁμοούσιος τῷ Πατρί: the Son is consubstantial with the Father. The number of opponents was seventeen, who eventually subscribed to the creed, except for two Egyptian bishops who were immediately exiled, along with Arius and two of the most prominent “collucianists,” Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, though these latter had voted with the majority.
The affair seemed concluded, but it was not. The emperor’s sister, Constantia, secretly won over to the heresy, obtained the recall of Eusebius and Theognis. Arius too was recalled after signing an equivocal formula. From that time Eusebius of Nicomedia became the trusted advisor of Constantine, inspiring a series of measures against the defenders of the Nicene definition. Subsequently, Eustathius of Antioch (330), Athanasius of Alexandria (335), and Marcellus of Ancyra (336) were deposed; the orthodoxy of the last was highly suspect because, though he firmly adhered to the Nicene ὁμοούσιος, he interpreted it in a Sabellian sense. Several other orthodox priests met the same fate. The Nicene formula itself remained officially intact, but its defenders were expelled and replaced by Arians. Such was the situation at the death of Constantine (337).
3. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY UNDER CONSTANTIUS
Under Constantine’s successors, persecution of the orthodox ceased for a time. Athanasius and the other exiled bishops were able to return to their sees. As long as the emperor of the West, Constans (337–350), who favored Catholics, lived, not only did the West remain free from Arian intrigues, but nothing too serious occurred in the East, despite the favor shown by Constantius II, emperor of the East, to the Eusebians. It should be noted, however, that Athanasius was exiled a second time (339–346), made a journey to Rome, and the Roman Council of 340, at which Pope Julius annulled the Eastern sentences passed against Athanasius and other Nicenes; the negotiations between the emperors for the convocation of an ecumenical council at Sardica (343); the secession of the Eusebians and their open rupture with the Pope and the Westerners. Already at the Synod of Antioch in 341 they had substituted for the Nicene Creed four different formulas in which the word “consubstantial” did not appear at all. By cunning, Constantius allowed Athanasius to return to Alexandria, where he remained until 356. But after the death of Constans, when he became sole emperor of the entire empire, he openly favored the Arian party, which remained vigilant even after the death of its leader, Eusebius of Nicomedia (341). The party leaders then transferred their activities to the West and maneuvered in several synods to secure the removal of Athanasius. They did not succeed. Recalcitrant bishops such as Hilary of Poitiers, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Pope Liberius were exiled. In 357 the anti-Nicenes triumphed openly. Yet they were far from agreement among themselves. Two extreme parties then emerged: the Anomeans and the Homoians, of which we have spoken above. Victorious for a moment, the Anomeans fell into disfavor (358) in favor of the Homoians of Basil of Ancyra. But the true Arians soon regained the upper hand and were fortunate enough to have their formula signed by the great majority of the episcopate at the two Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359) after various vicissitudes. Though the victory was only apparent, Constantius, on his death (361), was able to delude himself that he had achieved religious unity in his empire.4. ARIANISM AFTER THE DEATH OF CONSTANTIUS (361–381)
Under the brief reigns of Julian the Apostate (361–363) and Jovian (363–364), the Arian question enjoyed a respite. The Western episcopate took advantage of this to recover and erase the stain of the capitulation at Rimini. Apart from a few Arians who managed to retain their sees for a time, the official return to the Nicene faith was complete. Tranquility continued under the Catholic reign of Valentinian I (364–375). In the East, where confusion was extreme following the repeated expulsions of bishops of every stripe, calm did not last long except in Egypt, where Athanasius was allowed to die in peace. He had roused the awakening of orthodoxy and prepared future developments through his Council of Alexandria in 362 and his Tome to the Antiochenes. The emperor of the East, Valens (364–378), adhered to Arianism in the form of Homoianism, established at Rimini-Constantinople. Catholics were persecuted, but not everywhere. Their great failing was their division among themselves over personal and formulaic disputes. The two controversies, Apollinarian and Macedonian, which broke out at this time, further complicated the situation. At this juncture the beneficent action of the three Cappadocian Fathers—Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa his brother, and Gregory of Nazianzus—proved decisive. They clarified Catholic doctrine on the Trinity, freed it from the logomachies surrounding the words ousia and hypostasis, and worked to achieve official agreement with Rome and the Eastern Catholics. The death of Valens and the accession to the empire of Theodosius, who became sole emperor, favored the return of the East to orthodoxy. This return was officially consecrated at the plenary Council of Constantinople in 381, which later became the second ecumenical council. By then Arianism survived in the empire only as a condemned sect, more or less persecuted. The emperors tolerated it among the Gothic mercenaries who swelled their armies. It persisted only among the barbarian peoples of the West.5.