Tag: Alexander of Alexandria

Summary

The Arian Controversy

During the first three centuries, the Roman Empire persecuted Christianity. In 313, after the emperor himself had become a Christian, the persecution of Christians came to an end. Only five years later, in 318, the Arian Controversy began when Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, publicly criticized the Christological views of Alexander; the bishop of that same city.

That Controversy came to an end 62 years later when emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, through the Edict of Thessalonica, outlawed all ‘Arian denominations’ and made the Trinity doctrine the official religion of the Roman empire.

Arius’ Support

Arius was about 60 years old when the controversy began. He was very tall, spoke gently, and people found him persuasive. He enjoyed significant support; mainly in Africa but also in the Middle East. He also had the support of perhaps the two most important church leaders of his time, namely:

Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who virtually took charge of the affairs of the Greek-speaking Eastern Church from 328 until his death, and

Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, who was universally acknowledged as the most scholarly bishop of his day and one of the most influential authors of the fourth century.

The Emperor’s Letter

Emperor Constantine became involved in the dispute as well – not because he had specific views on the subject but because he believed that disunity in the church was a danger to the state. He sent a letter to Arius and Alexander, rebuking them for quarreling about “minute distinctions;” things that are “trifling and of little moment.”

Arius’ Writings

As far as Arius’ own writings go, we have no more than three short letters. We also have quotes from ‘The Thalia’; Arius’ only known theological work, but these quotes are in the writings of his enemies (mainly Athanasius) and were selected to ridicule Arius’ theology.

There are at least two reasons why so little of Arius’ writings survived:

Firstly, after the Nicene Council in 325, Emperor Constantine gave orders that all Arius’ writings be burned.

Secondly, and this may surprise the reader, not even his supporters regarded Arius as a particularly significant writer.

But, given that so little of Arius’ writings survived, and given that what survived are mostly in the writings of his enemies, it is difficult to reconstruct WHAT Arius actually taught, and—even more important—WHY.

Why Arius is important

A Serious Misnomer

Since the Arian Controversy was named after him, it seems as if Arius was an important person. However, the term ‘Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer:

‘Arianism’ did not have a single great leader. Arius was not the founder of a sect. He was not a hero for the enemies of Nicaea.

As stated, Arius was not regarded as a particularly significant writer. Those who repudiated the decisions of Nicaea did not have a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian.

Over the centuries before Arius, theologians had expressed conflicting views about Christ. Before Christianity was legalized, this could not result in much controversy because Christians were too busy just trying to stay alive. But, as soon as the persecution came to an end, the explosion was inevitable. And Arius’ dispute with his bishop was the spark that ignited the Controversy. 

So, if Arius was not important, why is it called the ‘Arian Controversy’? The reason is that Athanasius, who lived a generation later than Arius, was determined to show that any proposed alternative to the Nicene formula collapsed back into some version of Arius’ teaching, with all the incoherence and inadequacy that teaching displayed. For that purpose, he referred to his opponents as Arians. Unfortunately, the church has accepted and sustained Athanasius’ misnomer.

An important Dimension in Christian Life

There is another and much better reason for learning about Arius. Arius’ views have always been represented as some hopelessly defective form of belief but more recent scholarship has concluded that Arius and his supporters had a consistent and thought-out position on the points under debate. Rowan Williams described Arius as “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” and as “an important dimension in Christian life.”

To understand the Nicene Creed

However, the Arian Controversy made be divided into two parts and Arius was only relevant in the first part. That part of the Controversy came to an end with the Nicene Creed of 325. At the same time that same creed, by including words from pagan philosophy (substance, same substance, hypostasis), created a new problem and a new dispute. A study of Arius’ theology will not assist us in understanding the second and major part of the Arian Controversy from 325 to 380.

Not a Philosopher

In the year 1900, a well-known theologian wrote: “Arianism is ‘almost as much a philosophy as a religion.” But recent scholarship has concluded that Arius presents himself as essentially a biblical theologian. We misunderstand him completely if we see him as primarily a self-conscious philosophical speculator. Arius was by profession an interpreter of the Scriptures.

Why Arius is still Misunderstood

Despite the conclusions of recent research, Arius is still misunderstood:

One major reason is that very few of his writings survived.

Secondly, most of what has survived did so as derogatory remarks in the writings of his enemies.

Thirdly, we fail to understand Arius because we do not adequately take into account his context, namely that, when Arius wrote, the standard explanation of Christ, which was accepted by all, was that the Son is the Mediator between the immutable, abstract, and immaterial Supreme Being and the world. Thus, when Arius wrote, everybody regarded the Son to be subordinate to the Father.

A fourth and final reason that Arius is often misunderstood is that Arius has been demonized by the church for a very long time and this habit is extraordinarily powerful.

– END OF SUMMARY –

---

The Arian Controversy

In the year 313, after the emperor Constantine himself had become a Christian, Christianity was legalized and the persecution of Christians came to an end. Only five years later, in 318, the Arian Controversy began when, “Arius, a presbyter in charge of the church and district of Baucalis in Alexandria, publicly criticized the Christological doctrine of his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria” (RH, 3).

The Controversy came to an end 62 years later when emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, through the edict of Thessalonica, outlawed all Christian ‘denominations’ except those who “believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity.” In this way, the emperor made the Trinity doctrine the official religion of the Roman empire.

That same edict promised all other Christians “the punishment of our authority.” This was implemented when, after this edict, they were forbidden to meet and their places of worship were given to those Christians who complied with the law of the Roman Empire. For a further discussion, see – Theodosius.

That entire period of 62 years is known as “the Arian Controversy” and as “the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced” (RW, 1).

Purpose

This is an article in the series on Arius within the larger series on the Arian Controversy. The purpose of this article is to explain why it is important to understand what Arius taught.

Authors

This article series is largely based on books by two scholars:

The Search for the Christian doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
by Bishop RPC Hanson
(Referred to as “RH” in this article)

Arius: Heresy and Tradition
by Archbishop Rowan Williams, 2002/1987
(Referred to as “RW” in this article)

Both Hanson and Williams are world-class scholars, Trinitarians, and bishops. These books are currently regarded by many to be the most comprehensive and reliable analysis of Arius’ theology and the Arian Controversy available to us today.

However, Williams has concluded that Arius is not the villain he is usually made out to be but described Arius as “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” (RW, 116). In support of this, Hanson wrote that the entire traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty. This message, however, has not yet reached the level of preachers and ordinary Christians because, as Williams indicated, the prejudice caused by the long history of ‘demonizing’ Arius is extraordinarily powerful (RW, 2).

Who was Arius?

“Arius must have been born about 256 in Libya” (RH, 3). He was, therefore, about 60 years old when the controversy began (RH, 5; cf. RW, 30). Epiphanius, one of Arius’ enemies, omitting his insults of Arius, wrote:

“He was very tall in stature, with downcast countenance … always garbed in a short cloak and sleeveless tunic; he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive and flattering” (RW, 32).

Hanson says that “Arius very probably had at some time studied with Lucian of Antioch” because he refers to somebody else as “truly a fellow-disciple of Lucian” (RH, 5, cf. 29). But Williams questions whether “we should assume from the one word in Arius’ letter that he had actually been Lucian’s student” (RW, 30).

Many writers have assumed that our Arius is the same as the Arius who was involved in the Melitian schism, “who had an outward appearance of piety, and … too was eager to be a teacher” (RW, 34, 32-40). However, after several pages of detailed analysis, Williams concludes that “the Melitian Arius … melt(s) away under close investigation” (RW, 40).

Support

Quickly Spread

Arius’ support seems to be located mainly in Africa and the Middle East:

Arius’ Christology quickly spread through Egypt and Libya and the other Roman provinces.¹KAYE, John (1853). Some account of the Council of Nicæa in connexion with the life of Athanasius. p33

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. (Eusebius of Caesarea in The Life of Constantine)

“The dissension that had by now spread across most of north Africa and the Middle East” (Christian-history.org).

Arius also had the support of perhaps the two most important church leaders of that time:

Eusebius of Nicomedia

Eusebius of Nicomedia “was a supporter of Arius as long as Arius lived” (RH, 30, 31). “The conventional picture of Eusebius is of an unscrupulous intriguer” (RH, 27). “This is of course because our knowledge of Eusebius derives almost entirely from the evidence of his bitter enemies“ (RH, 27).

Hanson mentions several examples where Eusebius displayed integrity and courage (RH, 28) and concludes:

“Eusebius certainly was a man of strong character and great ability” (RH, 29).

“It was he who virtually took charge of the affairs of the Greek-speaking Eastern Church from 328 until his death” (RH, 29).

It was he who encouraged the spread of the Christian faith beyond the frontiers of the Roman Empire. The version of the Christian faith that the missionaries spread was that favored by Eusebius and not by Athanasius. This is evidence of his zeal. (RH, 29).

It was also this Eusebius who baptized emperor Constantine on his deathbed in AD 337.

Eusebius of Caesarea

“Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine [the church historian] was certainly an early supporter of Arius” (RH, 46). “He was universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day” (RH, 46). “Eusebius of Caesarea … was one of the most influential authors of the fourth century” (RH, 860). “Neither Arius nor anti-Arians speak evil of him” (RH, 46).

“He was made bishop of Caesarea about 313 (and) attended the Council of Nicaea in 325” (RH, 47), where he was the leader of the Origenist party (Erickson).

“We cannot … describe Eusebius (of Caesarea) as a formal Arian in the sense that he knew and accepted the full logic of Arius, or of Asterius’ position. But undoubtedly, he approached it nearly” (RH, 59).

318 – 325

In AD 321, three years after the dispute arose, Alexander removed Arius from office and even excommunicated him [i.e.; banned him from the communion table].

Emperor Constantine became involved as well. We need to understand why:

“Constantine desired that the church should contribute to the social and moral strength of the empire.” Therefore, “religious dissension was (regarded as) a menace to the public welfare.” Therefore, “if necessary, secular authority might be exercised for … suppression” of “religious dissension.” (Boyd)²W.K. Boyd’s 1905 book, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code

Constantine interceded “for the settlement of the Arian controversy,” not for “the protection of any creed or interpretation of Christian doctrine,” but “to preserve unity within the church.” He believed that “disunity in the church” was a danger to the state “more grievous than any kind of war.” (Boyd)³W.K. Boyd’s 1905 book, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code

Constantine sent a letter to both parties rebuking them for quarreling about minute distinctions, as he believed them to be doing.⁴Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386 He dismissed the theological question of the relationship of Father and Son as “intrinsically trifling and of little moment”⁵Drake, 4. Constantine and Consensus and as “small and very insignificant questions.” He told the opposing parties that they are “not merely unbecoming, but positively evil, that so large a portion of God’s people which belong to your jurisdiction should be thus divided.”⁶Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Vol. 21. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1990. 55

Arius’ Writings

“As far as his own writings go, we have no more than three letters, (and) a few fragments of another” (RH, 5-6). These are:

1. 1. 1. The confession of faith Arius presented to Alexander of Alexandria,
      2. His letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
      3. The confession he submitted to the emperor. (RH, 5-6; RW, 95)

“The Thalia is Arius’ only known theological work” (RH, 10) but “we do not possess a single complete and continuous text” (RW, 62). We only have extracts from it in the writings of Arius’ enemies, “mostly from the pen of Athanasius of Alexandria, his bitterest and most prejudiced enemy” (RH, 6).

There are at least three reasons why so little of Arius’ writings survived, except as quotations selected for polemical purposes in the writings of his opponents:

1. After the Nicene Council in 325, Emperor Constantine gave orders that all copies of the Thalia be burned so that “nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him,” and authorized the death penalty for those who do not immediately destroy Arius’ writings (Emperor Constantine’s Edict against the Arians)⁷Fourthcentury.com. 23 January 2010.

2. “It may be doubted … whether Arius ever wrote any but the most ephemeral works” (RH, 6).

3. “The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer” (RH, xvii).

In other words, not even his supporters regarded his writings as worth preserving. Given that so little of Arius’ writings survived, and given that what survived are mostly in the writings of his enemies, it is difficult to reconstruct WHAT Arius actually taught, and—even more important—WHY.

Why Arius is important

Therefore, why should we learn about Arius? Was he not, furthermore, the devil’s pupil, as Athanasius implied (RW, 101)?

The Term Arian

The terms “Arian,” “Arianism” and “Arian Controversy,” which were derived from Arius’ name, imply that Arius was the leader of the Arians and the cause of the Arian Controversy. And if we remember that Arianism dominated the church during most of the Arian Controversy, that would mean that Arius was a very important person during the fourth century. However, as explained in another article, “the expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer” (RH, xvii-xviii). Rowan Williams concurs: “’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy” (RW, 82).

Not a Leader

Arius was not a leader of people:

“Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect” (RW, 165).

“Arius … was not an obvious hero for the enemies of Nicaea” (RW, 166).

“We are not to think of Arius as dominating and directing a single school of thought to which all his allies belonged” (RW, 171).

Not a significant writer

Arius was also not regarded “as a particularly significant writer:”

“Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea … certainly (did not have) a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian” (RW, 233).

“Arius was not accepted as leader of a new movement. He did not write anything worth preserving” (RH, xvii-xviii).

“Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote him” (RH, xvii).

Therefore:

There is the growing sense that ‘Arianism‘ is a very unhelpful term to use in relation to fourth-century controversy. There was no single ‘Arian’ agenda, no tradition of loyalty to a single authoritative teacher. Theologians who criticized the Creed of Nicaea had very diverse attitudes to Arius himself.” (RW, 247)

Only the Spark

“Many of the issues raised by the controversy were under lively discussion before Arius and Alexander publicly clashed” (RH, 52).

“The views of Arius were such as … 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.” (RH, xvii)

In other words, Arius did not create the fuel for the explosion. The fuel has been gathering over the previous centuries as writers expressed conflicting views about how the Son relates to the Father. Before Christianity was legalized, Christians were too busy trying to stay alive to do much wrestling with one another on this topic. But, as soon as the persecution came to an end, this explosion was inevitable. And Arius, as Hanson stated, was only the spark that ignited the Controversy. 

Athanasius’ Polemical Creation

So, if Arius was not regarded as important, why is it called the ‘Arian Controversy’?

Athanasius lived a generation later than Arius. Athanasius did not combat Arius directly. He only began to write about 20 years after Nicaea. His opponents were the anti-Nicenes of a different generation and also a different theology. But Athanasius was fond of insulting his opponents and, since Arius’ theology was already rejected at Nicaea in the year 325, Athanasius referred to his opponents as Arians to insult them:

“‘Arianism‘ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius” (RW, 82).

“‘Arianism’ is the polemical creation of Athanasius above all, who was determined to show that any proposed alternative to the Nicene formula collapsed back into some version of Arius’ teaching, with all the incoherence and inadequacy that teaching displayed” (RW, 247).

“The textbook picture of an Arian system, defended by self-conscious doctrinal dissidents, inspired by the teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ polemic” (RW, 234).

Athanasius quotes Arius because he “relies on such texts being a positive embarrassment to most of his opponents” (RW, 234).

“Athanasius’ controversial energies … are dedicated to building up the picture of his enemies as uniformly committed … to a specific set of doctrines advanced by Arius and a small group of confederates” (RW, 82-83).

“The anti-Nicene coalition did not see themselves as constituting a single ‘Arian’ body: it is the aim of works like Athanasius’ de synodis to persuade them that this is effectively what they are, all tarred with the same brush” (RW, 166).

“If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis” (RW, 234).

Unfortunately, the church has accepted and propagated Athanasius’ mangled version of the Arian Controversy.

An important Dimension in Christian Life

There is another and much better reason for learning about Arius.

Hopelessly Defective

Arius’ views have always been “represented as … some hopelessly defective form of belief” (RW, 2). For example:

Harnack (1909) describes Arius’ teaching as “novel, self-contradictory and, above all, religiously inadequate” (RW, 7).

“Gwatkin (c. 1900) characterizes Arianism as … a crude and contradictory system” (RW, 10).

Consistent and Thought-out Position

In contrast, Williams concluded that Arius and his supporters had already at an early stage in the controversy gone far to produce a consistent and thought-out position on the points under debate (RW, 2).

After a careful and detailed analysis of Arius’ theology, Williams concluded that Arius was “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” (RW, 116):

“Arius … is confronted with a bewildering complexity of conventions in Scripture for naming the mediator between God and creation, and he seeks to reduce this chaos … to some kind of order” (RW, 111).

“Arius may stand for an important dimension in Christian life that was disedifyingly and unfortunately crushed by policy or circumstance” (RW, 91).

About how Arius was “unfortunately crushed,” other articles in this series say much more. See, for example:

• • • The dominant role Constantine played in the decision of the Council of Nicaea and
    • Eusebius of Caesarea’s explanation of the Nicene Creed.

But the point is that we need to study Arius because, as Williams wrote, he “may stand for an important dimension in Christian life.”

To understand the Nicene Creed

In particular, it is important to understand Arius to understand the 325 Nicene Creed.

‘Arianism’ continued to develop.

After Nicaea, ‘Arianism’ continued to develop. For example, Hanson states:

“In the year 357, Arianism as a relatively clearly thought out doctrinal position emerged for the first time, and for the first time those Eastern theologians who were not Arian were in a position to distinguish their own views and confess them. (Confused Terminology)”

Nicene theology also continued to develop.

Nicene theology, similarly, continued to develop:

“There is no doubt … that the pro-Nicene theologians throughout the controversy were engaged in a process of developing doctrine and consequently introducing what must be called a change in doctrine” (RH, 872). For example:

The teaching of the three Cappadocian Fathers “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture.”⁸The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568

“The distinction in meaning between ousia and hypostasis (both of which mean ‘something that subsists’) was worked out only in the late fourth century.”⁹Lienhard, Joseph T. Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’. Oxford University Press.

So, if we want to understand the ‘Arian Controversy’, we must study how it developed later; not Arius. But, to understand the Nicene Creed of 325, which was the conclusion of the first phase of the Arian Controversy, we need to study Arius’ theology. In the second phase of the Arian Controversy, Arius was no longer a significant factor.

Not a Philosopher

In the past, it has often been claimed that Arius attempted to distort theology with philosophy:

“It had been customary to associate the Arian system primarily with Neoplatonism” (RW, 3).

“Harnack’s discussion of the nature of Arianism (1909) … sees Aristotelian Rationalism as the background of Arius’ system” (RW, 6).

Gwatkin (1900) stated, “Arianism is ‘almost as much a philosophy as a religion’” (RW, 9).

But Williams concluded:

“Arius presents himself as essentially a biblical theologian. There is a good deal to be said about Arius’ relationship with late classical philosophy; but we misunderstand him completely (as we misunderstand Origen) if we see him as primarily a self-conscious philosophical speculator. … Arius was by profession an interpreter of the Scriptures.” (RW, 107)

“He is not a philosopher, and it would be a mistake to accuse him of distorting theology to serve the ends of philosophical tidiness. On the contrary: the strictly philosophical issues are of small concern to Arius.” (RW, 230)

Ahead of his Time

As stated, Arius was not a leader of people but an academic:

“Arius, like his great Alexandrian predecessors, is essentially an ‘academic’” (RW, 87).

“He (Arius) is not a theologian of consensus, but a notably individual intellect” (RW, 178).

As such, he was ahead of his time:

“In philosophy, he is ahead of his time; he … presses the logic of God’s transcendence and ineffability to a consistent conclusion – that ‘what it is to be God’ is incapable of conceptual formulation, and of imitation or reproduction by any natural process of diffusion” (RW, 233).

“In many ways – and here is a still stranger paradox – his apophaticism (knowledge of God) foreshadows the concerns of Nicene theology later in the fourth century, the insights of the Cappadocians, or even Augustine. If he had his problems with the Lucianists, he would have found the ‘neo-Arians’ of later decades still less sympathetic” (RW, 233).

Why Arius is Misunderstood

Little Writings Survived

One major reason that Arius is not understood, as already stated, is that very little of his writings survived. The letters written by Arius that we have today only provide his summary conclusions with no clear explanations of why he came to those conclusions:

“The Arian controversy is essentially about hermeneutics … the principles of exegesis … Unfortunately, however, we have very little evidence for Arius’ own exegesis” (RW, 108).

In the Writings of his Enemies

Secondly, most of what has survived did so as derogatory remarks in the writings of his enemies:

“Elliger argues that the consensus of earlier scholarship has radically misunderstood Arius, largely as a result of reading him through the spectacles of his opponents” (Walter Elliger, 1931) (RW, 12).

“Once we stopped looking at him from Athanasius’ perspective, we shall have a fairer picture of his strength” (RW, 12-13).

Logos-Theology

Thirdly, we fail to understand him because we do not adequately take into account his context. Williams wrote:

“Our mistake is to try to interpret him in terms of a theology with which he was not at home, the Logos-theology he shares with his opponents” (RW, 12).

Frend also uses the term “Logos-theology” and says that most delegates at Nicaea accepted this view of God:

“The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) … were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church.”¹⁰Frend, W.H.C.: The Rise of Christianity

Hanson refers to the “Logos-theology” as the “Logos-doctrine,” as “the theological structure provided by the Apologists,” and as “the basic picture of God with which the great majority of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were familiar and which they accepted.” (Hanson’s article).

Hanson also explains what this entails:

The supreme being is immutable, abstract, and immaterial.

For that reason, He is unable to communicate with our world of change, decay, transitoriness, and matter.

He uses the divine Logos or nous for that purpose. The Logos or nous was His agent for creating the world and also for revealing Himself in the world.

All of these are concepts from Greek philosophy but Christian “Logos-theology” identified the divine Logos or nous with Christ; both pre-existent and incarnate in his earthly ministry. Thus, when Arius wrote, everybody regarded the Son to be subordinate to the Father:

“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father” (RH, 63).

“The initial debate was not about the rightness or wrongness of hierarchical models of the Trinity, which were common to both sides” (RW, 109).

“Subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy” (RH, xix).

The subordination of the Son to the Father, therefore, was not a new idea proposed by Arius.

Furthermore, pagan philosophy, in the form of Logos-theology, entered the church centuries before Arius and it was something that both Arius and his enemies inherited and accepted. Arius did not attempt to bring it into the church. On the contrary, Arius was not “at home” with Logos-theology (RW, 12-13).

Why Still Misunderstood

If Williams’ evaluation of Arius is correct, why do so many people still regard Arius and his theology as defective and even evil? William says:

“What is … surprising is the way in which the modern study of Arius and ‘Arianism’ has often continued to accept … the image of this heresy as the radically ‘Other’” (RW, 2).

He gives two reasons for this:

• • “Nicaea’s traditional and liturgical importance” and
  • “The long history of what I have called the ‘demonizing’ of Arius is extraordinarily powerful” (RW, 2).

Conclusions

“Arius … came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics, a man whose superficial austerity and spirituality cloaked a diabolical malice. … By the early medieval period, we find him represented alongside Judas in ecclesiastical art” (RW, 1). No other heretic has been through so thorough going a process of ‘demonization’” (RW, 1).

Not only has Arius been misrepresented by the church, the conventional account of the Arian Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognized by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty.

See here for a pdf of some of the key pages from Rowan Williams which I quote in this article and here for the same from RPC Hanson.

---

Other Articles

• • • Other Articles on Arius
      • The expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer.
      • Was Origen the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy?
      • Did Arius describe Jesus Christ as a created being?
      • Did Arius teach that time existed before the Son?
      • Did Arius describe the Son as immutable?
    • All articles on this website
    • Is Jesus the Most High God? – List of articles
    • Arian Controversy – List of articles

• 1
  KAYE, John (1853). Some account of the Council of Nicæa in connexion with the life of Athanasius. p33
• 2
  W.K. Boyd’s 1905 book, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code
• 3
  W.K. Boyd’s 1905 book, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code
• 4
  Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386
• 5
  Drake, 4. Constantine and Consensus
• 6
  Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Vol. 21. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1990. 55
• 7
  Fourthcentury.com. 23 January 2010.
• 8
  The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568
• 9
  Lienhard, Joseph T. Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’. Oxford University Press.
• 10
  Frend, W.H.C.: The Rise of Christianity