Arianism

ARIANISM. - It is the great heresy of the 4th century. Its doctrine and history are very complex; therefore the treatment will be divided into two parts: doctrinal exposition and historical summary.

DOCTRINAL EXPOSITION.

1. THE DOCTRINE OF ARIUS AND ITS ORIGINS

Arius (v.) was a well-known priest of Alexandria, already advanced in age, when, around 320, he began to teach the heresy to which he has given his name. This heresy consists essentially in denying the dogma of the Trinity, the dogma of one single divine essence subsisting in three persons really distinct from one another, coeternal, equal in all things, united through relations of origin: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. To this Trinity, which specifically characterizes the Christian religion, Arius opposes his doctrine, which acknowledges 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 ὁ ἀγέννητος: the two terms being taken by him as synonyms). The second person, called the Word or Son, is not truly God: he is a pure creature, drawn from nothing, like everything that is created (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγον), the first of the creatures of the one God, the most excellent, produced by him to be 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 ποτς, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν). But he is before time and before the ages (ἀχρόνως, 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 foreknowledge of his merits, because he was mutable and fallible. His impeccability is nothing but a de facto impeccability. He can be called God, but only in the sense in which Scripture so calls the just. In reality he is not truly God. He progressed in virtue and in merit and thus made himself worthy of the very name that God the Father and the Church have given him. He is a kind of demiurge, foreign and unlike in everything to the substance and the personality of the Father. As for the third person, the Holy Spirit, Arius says little of him in the fragments of his writings that have come down to us. He too is not God, since he is nothing but a creature far below the Word. "He is the first production of the Word," his faithful disciples will later say.

Essentially anti-Trinitarian, the error of Arius also undermines from its foundations the mystery of the Incarnation and that of the 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 really become man (σαρκωθείς, οὐκ ἐνανθρωπήσας). The Arian Redeemer is but a half man, just as he is but a half God.

The origin of A. is to be sought not so much in certain phrases with a subordinationist flavor (v. SUBORDINATIONISM) of some apologist Fathers, but in the Antiochene School, where the tradition of Paul of Samosata was alive. From the very beginning of the controversy, Arius presented himself as a disciple of the priest and martyr of Antioch, St. Lucian (d. 312). The first Arians called themselves followers of the latter. Rightly or wrongly, it is difficult to answer 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 a disciple of Paul of Samosata, who remained for a long time in rupture with the Church. But some recent critics, such as F. Loofs, G. Bardy, etc., distinguish between the martyr and the disciple of Paul, of whom St. Alexander speaks (G. Bardy, Recherches sur s. Lucien d'Antioche et son école, Paris 1936, pp. 50-59). There thus remains the doubt that the true father of A. is St. Lucian. Indeed it is difficult to deny that he taught a subordinationism at least verbal, like that of Origen, and that he did not have, through his teaching on the divinity of the Word, ambiguous expressions which Arius and the other "Collucianists," such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, will have pushed to their last logical consequences. Arius will have been the first to put them into circulation.

Derived from subordinationism, A. has for that very reason affinities with Platonism, especially with that of Philo. The system also recalls, in a certain sense, the aeons of the Gnostics. From Aristotelianism some later leaders of the sect, such as Aetius and Eunomius, chiefly drew the dialectical method: which led St. Epiphanius to regard them as "new Aristotelian Arians" (De haeresibus, LXIX, LXXVI: PG, 42, 315-570).

II. THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF A AFTER THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

The doctrine of Arius, which we have set forth, constitutes authentic Arianism, which was condemned by the Council of Nicea (v.). Alongside this Arianism there soon arose what may be called political Arianism, which expresses itself in various formulas more or less reticent, more or less ambiguous, susceptible of being interpreted in an orthodox sense as well as in a heretical sense. Most of them were proposed to the emperors by more or less disguised Arians, who aimed to demolish the doctrinal authority of the first ecumenical Council, under the pretext of establishing concord among the bishops and religious unity in the Roman empire, which had officially become Christian. This multiplicity of formulas would not have existed, if the emperors had adhered to what had been decided at Nicea by the great majority of the episcopate, in agreement with the Pope. Unfortunately for the Church, the first Christian emperors, that is Constantine and Constantius II, - it must be noted that both were baptized only on their deathbed and by Arians, - wished to dogmatize by trying to take the place of the bishop of Rome, head of the Church and regulator of its unity, and thus became the plaything of intriguing or vindictive 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 this date.

At this time, that is toward the end of the reign of Constantius II, the more or less declared adversaries of the Council of Nicea and of the formula that 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 of all a small number of pure Arians, who were the first to have the audacity to attack directly the symbol of Nicea, taking up on their own account the most radical formulas of Arius. Like him, they declared that the Son of God, the Word, was entirely dissimilar from the Father (ἀνόμοιος τῷ Πατρὶ κατὰ πάντα).

Their great doctor was Aetius of Antioch, a specialist in Aristotelian dialectics. In their ranks there later distinguished themselves Eudoxius of Constantinople and Eunomius of Cyzicus. They were called Anomoeans (from the Greek ἀνόμοιος) and succeeded for a moment (357-38) in gaining the favor of Constantius. In an episcopal assembly, 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 soul, a formula was drafted in which the Son was declared lesser than the Father and subordinate to him, the Holy Spirit existing through the Son. In it the use of the terms substance (ὀσία) and consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) was forbidden. It was the second formula of Sirmium (which they succeeded in having signed by the old bishop of Cordova, Hosius), which was, for some time, according to the will of Constantius, the badge of imperial orthodoxy. The Anomoeans have also received the names of Sezians, Eunomians, Heterousiasts, Exucontians. They represent radical Arianism, that of Arius of the first period.

B) There was then the group of the Semi-Arians, also called Homoeusians or Homoeousians, who, instead of calling the Word consubstantial with the Father as to essence (ὁμοούσιος), said he was simply like the Father as to essence (ὁμοιούσιος). Their leader was at first Basil of Ancyra, who, in a council held at Ancyra in 358, compiled a formula in this sense and was fortunate enough to have it adopted by the emperor Constantius, who abandoned the creed of the Anomoeans approved shortly before. At the instigation of Basil, he even went so far as to exile the principal Anomoeans.

The majority of the Homoeusians were, at bottom, orthodox as regards the divinity of the Word, and differed from the Catholics only in the term ὁμοούσιος, substituted by them for the Nicene ὁμοούσιος, in which they found a Sabellian flavor. One may also say that the bulk of the Arians were of this type. St. Hilary and St. Athanasius showed themselves conciliatory toward them. A great number of them nevertheless soon compromised themselves, refusing to recognize the divinity of the Holy Spirit and falling into what was called the Pneumatomachian heresy or Macedonianism. These well deserved the name of Semi-Arians, because, while recognizing the true divinity of the Son, they denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

C) A third group was constituted by those who simply affirmed that the Son was like the Father (ὁμοιος τῷ Πατρὶ), without specifying further. Homoeism is an invention of the true Arians to demolish the credit of the Homoeusians with Constantius, at the Council of Ancyra and that of Sirmium (358). A first formula drafted by the Arian Mark of Arethusa rejected the word ὀσία, essence, and its compounds, which are not found in Scripture, but declared that the Son was like the Father in all things (ὁμοιος τῷ Πατρὶ κατὰ πάντα): which brought it closer to orthodoxy. After the discussions and vicissitudes of the two Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359), the formula was lightened of the words κατὰ πάντα (like in all things), and burdened with the proscription of the word ὑπόστασις, hypostasis. This is the formula that was definitively established at the Synod of Constantinople (early January 360), approved and imposed by Constantius on the whole episcopate, whose adherence was almost unanimous and which had already been obtained by cunning and violence at the two Councils of Rimini and Seleucia. It is called the formula of Rimini-Constantinople or also of Nicea-Constantinople, because it had been signed at Nicea of Thrace, near Adrianople, by the orthodox delegates of the Council of Rimini in its first phase (10 Oct. 359).

This was the result of political Arianism: a formula that is a masterpiece of imprecision, which can be understood in the most diverse senses, even the most opposite, « which Athanasius and Aetius », as L. Duchesne has written (Histoire ancienne de l'Église, II, 2nd ed., Paris 1907, p. 306), « with a little good will could have recited together ». It is curious to observe how Homoeism which, according to the terms, would seem to be the opposite of Anomoeism, is in reality the same thing; in fact it is in the Anomoean sense that the expression:

« The Son is like the Father » (ὁμοιος τῷ Πατρὶ) has been interpreted by those who definitively accepted it, that is by the true Arians, since the Catholics and the Semi-Arians had rejected it, after having accepted it in a moment of surprise. From 360 onward, it is the creed of the Homoeism of Rimini-Constantinople that represented official Arianism in the Roman empire and also, with the addition of some indication, the Arianism of the barbarian peoples.

III. MACEDONIANISM

What is called the Macedonian or Pneumatomachian heresy consists in denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit and in making him the first creature of the Son or Word. It is but one part of the Arian system taken as a whole. We have indeed seen that Arius denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit and placed him far below the Word. But, until around 360, the question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit remained in the shadows. The various Arian formularies speak only of the Word; the Homoeanism itself of Rimini-Constantinople is silent on his account. The Anomoeans were the first to preach the Arian Trinity explicitly. After 360 it happened that an important group of Semi-Arians or Homoeousians divided what had seemed inseparable; while admitting quite clearly the divinity of the Son of God, they rejected that of the third person.

St. Athanasius refutes them and calls them tropicists, τροπικοί, because they explained by means of metaphors or tropes the words of Scripture that clashed with their thesis. They are more commonly designated under the name of Pneumatomachi ("adversaries of the Spirit"), or Macedonians, from the name of Macedonius, Arian bishop of Constantinople (351-60), although it does not appear that he taught such an error, and Marathonians, from the name of Marathonius, bishop of Nicomedia, one of their leaders. The Macedonians constituted a separate sect, distinguishing themselves from the Arians properly so called by their belief in the divinity of the Word.

IV. THE A OF THE GERMANIC PEOPLES

With the accession to the throne of the emperor Theodosius (379), Arianism was not slow to disappear from the Roman empire, not only as an official doctrine but also as a condemned sect. Yet it survived for many years more among the barbarian invaders of the Western empire, in the form of the Homoeanism of Rimini-Constantinople (360). The bishop of the Goths, Ulfilas — successor, from 341, of the Gothic bishop Theophilus, one of the Fathers of Nicaea — was in fact present at the Synod of Constantinople of 360 and signed its formulary. Through him and his compatriots, the Goths, Homoean Arianism — one may say outright Arianism — penetrated among the other barbarians: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Suevi, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards.

This Arianism was at times persecuting, at times tolerant, but it remained stationary from the doctrinal point of view. We know the profession of faith of Ulfilas, written by him in the form of a testament on the eve of his death, which occurred at Constantinople in 383. Obscure and almost contradictory on the divinity of the Son, it categorically denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit, "who is neither God nor Lord, but a simple minister of Christ, subject and obedient in all things to the Son." By the manner in which he speaks of the Son, Ulfilas seems to approach the Homoeousians-Macedonians: the divinity of the second person would perhaps be safeguarded if he were not plainly subordinationist: "The only Son, our Lord and God, author and creator of every creature, who has no equal, is subject and obedient in all things to God the Father" (cf. this profession of faith in vol. I of the Texte und Untersuchungen zur altgermanischen Religionsgeschichte, Strasbourg 1899, pp. 73-76, edition of M. Kauffmann, Aus der Schule des Wulfila).

The last Arians were the Lombards, who were not converted until toward the end of the 7th century, ca. 671.

V. ARIANISM IN MODERN TIMES

The anti-Trinitarian Protestant sects cannot be directly linked to Arianism: Socinians or Unitarians, Servetians and liberal Protestants, since what characterizes Arianism is the notion of a demiurge intermediary between God and the world, a notion absent among modern anti-Trinitarians. These are rather linked to the ancient Sabellians or modalists. The Sabellian error arrives at the denial of the Trinity by a path opposite to that of Arianism. One can nevertheless find a certain resemblance between the Christ "superior man" of the modern anti-Trinitarians and the "demiurge Logos" of the ancient Arians.

If Arianism was not revived in the form of a distinct sect, there were nonetheless, from the 16th century, some isolated Arians, such as the Anglicans William Whiston and Samuel Clarke. In a work entitled Primitive Christianity Review (London 1710-11), the former expressly maintains a mitigated Arianism, which recalls that of Eusebius of Caesarea. He also declares that the Logos, created by the Father at the beginning of the world, took the place of a 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 of 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. They caused for some time a real turmoil in the Anglican Church (cf. Le Bachelet, Arianisme, in DThC, I, coll. 1859-62).

Systematic expositions of Arianism and of its various forms are found, variously furnished with historical information, in the Histories of dogmas known to all: 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 of X. Le Bachelet, article Arianisme, in DThC, I, coll. 1779-1863. On Homoeanism in particular, v. J. Gummerus, Die homöusianische Partei bis zum Tode des Konstantins, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites in den Jahren 336-361, Leipzig 1900; G. Raseur, L'homéousianisme dans ses rapports avec l'orthodoxie, in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 4 (1903), pp. 189-206, 411-31. On the Arianism of the Germanic peoples, and the doctrine of Ulfilas: W. Bessel, Über das Leben des Ulfilas, Göttingen 1860; H. von Schubert, Das älteste germanische Christentum oder der sogenannte «Arianismus» der Germanen, Tübingen 1909; B. Capelle, La lettre d'Auxence sur Ulfila, in Revue bénédictine, 34 (1922), pp. 224-233. A fuller bibliography with indications of the most recent works in A. Fliche-V. Martin, 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.

I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

The Arian controversy was one of the longest and most serious in the history of the Church, having lasted in an acute state for nearly a century, profoundly disturbing its life. Other heresies had been seen in the early centuries, but they had disappeared fairly quickly without causing such a tumult. If Arianism made so much noise, if its history is so tangled, this depends on the fact that the emperors, having become Christians, wanted to meddle in the matter under the pretext of ensuring the religious unity of the empire. If Constantine and Constantius had closed their ears to the proposals of certain dissembling Arians, skilful courtiers, the controversy would have ended like the preceding 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 ignored this interminable series of synods and professions of faith, of decrees of expulsion and exile hurled against bishops, which constitute the fabric of this lamentable question. Imperial caesaropapism is therefore responsible for this entire crisis.

From the same cause derives also the principal part played in this history by personal questions. 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 vengeance on the defenders of that Council and turned against them the violences of power. Hence this relentlessness against certain bishops, in particular against St. Athanasius of Alexandria, standard-bearer of Nicene orthodoxy.

The emperor Constantius tormented the bishops in every way to make them sign successively formulas more or less imprecise, more or less contradictory, with which he hoped to realize religious unity. At a given moment, by cunning and violence, he obtained the signature of the formula of Rimini-Constantinople from the mass of the episcopate of East and West: which allowed St. Jerome to write the following phrase, in which there is more rhetoric than truth: "The whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."

The whole of Christendom was never Arian. Even at Rimini and at Seleucia, and afterwards as before, the great majority of the episcopate preserved the faith in the true divinity of the Son of God made man and in the Catholic Trinity. It interpreted in this sense the vague formulas which they had been made to subscribe. What proves this is the general disappearance of the signatories, which followed immediately after, first in the West, then in the East. It is certain that the history of Arianism shows the necessity of an infallible authority in the Church, even outside the ecumenical council, that is, of that authority which had maintained Catholic unity in the first three centuries, outside any interference of secular power, that of the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter.

It is impossible to write here, even in summary, the very complicated history of the Arian controversy. To speak of it at greater length would moreover be useless, since all the great names of orthodox or of heretics who were involved in the affair, all the councils of some importance that relate to it, form the object of separate articles.

This history can be divided into three principal phases: 1st Arianism from its origins to the death of Constantine (around 320-37); 2nd Arianism under Constantius (337-61); 3rd Arianism after the death of Constantius (361-81).

II. THE A 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 Alexandrian church of Baucalis, began to teach publicly his theory concerning the "Logos." Summoned by his bishop, Alexander, to conform to traditional teaching, he refused and, having gathered around himself a certain number of clerics and laymen, appealed by letters 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 he immediately fled to Caesarea in Palestine, where the bishop Eusebius gave him a warm welcome. The dispute grew fiercer not only in Egypt, but also in Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. The bishop of Alexandria notified the error and the condemnation of Arius to the episcopate of the East and to Pope Sylvester. The question had reached this point when the emperor Constantine, having defeated Licinius (323), attempted to restore concord, sending in great haste to Alexandria the bishop of Cordoba, Hosius. The attempt at reconciliation did not succeed. Then the emperor convened the Council of Nicaea (325). The great 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, by means of a formula in which the principal feature is the expression: ἀρχήστρας τῷ Πατρᾷς: the Son is consubstantial with the Father. The number of opponents was seventeen, who ended by subscribing to the symbol, except for two Egyptian bishops, immediately exiled, as were Arius and two of the most prominent "collucianists," Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, who nevertheless had voted with the majority.

The affair seemed finished, but it was not. The emperor's sister, Constantia, secretly won over to the heresy, obtained the pardon of Eusebius and Theognis. Arius too was recalled, after he had signed an equivocal formula. From then on Eusebius of Nicomedia became the listened-to adviser of Constantine, whom he inspired with a series of measures against the defenders of the definition of Nicaea. There were successively deposed Eustathius of Antioch (330), Athanasius of Alexandria (335), Marcellus of Ancyra (336), whose orthodoxy was very suspect because he was a decided follower of the Nicene homoousios but interpreted it in a Sabellian sense. Several other orthodox priests suffered the same fate. The formula of Nicaea was not touched, remaining officially intact, but its defenders were expelled to be replaced by Arianizing bishops. Such was the situation at the death of Constantine (337).

3. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY UNDER CONSTANTIUS

Under Constantine's successors, the persecution against the orthodox ceased for some time. Athanasius and the other exiled bishops were able to return to their sees. As long as the emperor of the West, Constans (337-50), favorable to the Catholics, lived, not only did the West remain sheltered from Arian intrigues, but also in the East nothing too serious occurred, despite the favor accorded to the Eusebians by Constantius II, emperor of the East. One must note nevertheless the second exile of Athanasius (339-46), his journey to Rome, the Roman Council of 340, in which Pope Julius annulled the Eastern sentences decreed 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 of 341, they had substituted for the symbol of Nicaea four different formulas, in which the word consubstantial did not appear at all. By cunning, Constantius allowed Athanasius to re-enter Alexandria, where he was able to remain until 356. But after the death of Constans, having become sole emperor of the whole empire, he openly gave his favor to the Arian party, always on the alert, even after the disappearance of its leader, Eusebius of Nicomedia (341). The leaders of the party then moved to the West and maneuvered in several synods to have Athanasius removed. They did not succeed. The recalcitrant bishops, such as Hilary of Poitiers, Eusebius of Vercelli and Pope Liberius, were exiled. In 357 the anti-Nicenes triumphed openly. But they were far from understanding one another. Then the two extreme parties appeared: the Anomoeans and the Homoeans, of which we have spoken above. Victorious for a moment, the Anomoeans fell into disfavor (358) to the advantage of the Homoeans of Basil of Ancyra. But the true Arians immediately 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. Although the victory was only apparent, Constantius, dying (361), could give himself the illusion of having realized religious unity in his empire.

4. ARIANISM AFTER THE DEATH OF CONSTANTIUS (361-81)

Under the brief reigns of Julian the Apostate (361-63) and of Jovian (363-64) the Arian question had a truce. The Western episcopate took advantage of it to recover and to erase the shame of the capitulation of Rimini. Except for some Arianizing bishops, who managed to maintain themselves in their sees for some time longer, the official return to the faith of Nicaea was complete. Tranquility was maintained under the Catholic reign of Valentinian I (364-75). In the East, where the confusion was extreme in the wake of the many expulsions of bishops of every kind, the calm did not last long, except in Egypt, where Athanasius was allowed to die in peace. He had made the awakening of orthodoxy felt and prepared future negotiations through his Council of Alexandria of 362 and his Tome to the Antiochenes. The emperor of the East, Valens (364-78), pronounced himself for Arianism under the form of Homoeanism, established at Rimini-Constantinople. The Catholics were persecuted, but not everywhere. Their great fault was that they were divided among themselves over questions of persons and formulas. The two controversies, Apollinarian and Macedonian, which broke out at this time, further complicated the situation. At this moment the beneficial action of three Cappadocian doctors intervened: Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, his brother, and Gregory of Nazianzus. They clarified Catholic doctrine on the Trinity, freed it from the logomachies that had arisen around the words ousia and hypostasis, and worked to bring about an official agreement with Rome and the Catholics of the East. 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. Henceforth Arianism no longer existed in the empire except as a condemned and more or less persecuted sect. The emperors tolerated it among the Gothic mercenaries who swelled their armies. It was preserved only among the barbarians of the West.