Who was Arius and why is he important?

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. 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:

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

  • 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

Eusebius of Caesarea’s explanation of the Nicene Creed

Summary

RPC Hanson, who arguably made the most thorough investigation of the Arian Controversy available to us today, states that Eusebius of Caesarea was “the most learned and one of the best-known of the 300-odd bishops present” at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.1The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p159.

After the council meeting, Eusebius wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted certain “objectionable expressions” in the creed. This article discusses that letter. Its main conclusions are as follows:

Three “parties” were present at Nicaea:

      1. Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia;
      2. The Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea; and
      3. Alexander of Alexandria, with his following.

At the meeting, the Lucians first presented their views, which were rejected by both the other “parties.”

Then Eusebius of Caesarea presented the statement of faith used in his home church in Caesarea. That statement did not include the terms “substance” or “same substance” and was accepted by the meeting.

Eusebius particularly mentions that the emperor approved the statement of faith from Caesarea. For us, it is surprising that Eusebius felt it important to have the emperor’s approval but we need to remember that separation of Church and State did not exist at that time. In the culture of the day, the Christian Roman Emperor was regarded as God’s agent on earth. Church and State were one. Consequently, emperors like Constantine, Constantius, Theodosius, and Justinian had a significant influence on church councils, decisions, and even doctrines.

After Eusebius presented the Creed of Caesarea, the emperor spoke and urged the meeting to accept and support that statement but he also asked that the word homoousios be added.

The emperor explained how he understood the meaning of this word. However, as Hanson wrote, “The Creed of Nicaea of 325, produced in order to end the controversy, signally failed to do so. Indeed, it ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous …”

Constantine’s key justification for the word homoousios seems to be that the Son (when He was begotten) was not cut off from the Father. I propose we understand this as follows:

The Bible maintains a clear distinction between the Son and God (e.g., Rev 21:22) but also has an extremely high view of the Son. For that reason, from the earliest time, the church found it difficult to explain who the Son is.

The pre-Nicene Fathers (of the 2nd and 3rd centuries) were all non-Jews and familiar with Greek philosophy. Therefore, they found it appropriate to explain the Son as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In that theory, God’s Logos (Word or Mind or Wisdom) has always existed inside God but, when it became time to create, was emitted from God to become a separate Person. In Biblical language, the Logos was begotten by God to become the Son of God. However, God cannot change. Therefore, His Logos was not separated from Him when the Son was begotten: He always had access to His Logos. It seems as if the emperor was emphasizing this point.

Constantine did not develop these ideas by himself. They were proposed to him by Alexander of Alexandria and the emperor’s advisor Hosius. With their support, the emperor proposed the word homoousios at the council meeting and also enforced the inclusion of the word.

Following the emperor’s request, the party of Alexander presented a carefully worked out statement – the Nicene Creed of 325 as we have it today – which they said was a revised form of the Creed of Caesarea, with certain adjustments to make its rejection of Arianism explicit.

This revised statement included references to the “Father’s substance,” including:

      • “Out of the Father’s substance” and
      • “Of the same substance as the Father.”

Years before, the great theologian Origen had rejected the term substance for fear that it attributed materiality to the divine. Therefore, Eusebius and his fellow Origenists “resisted to the last moment the introduction of certain objectionable expressions.” But due to the considerable pressure applied by the emperor, the statement was approved by all delegates except three.

Eusebius explains as follows how he understood (justified?) the disputed terms:

Ousios (substance or essence) implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but is not part of the Father.

Homoousios (same substance) must not be understood in a material sense. That the Son was begotten by God does not mean that a portion of God’s substance was cut off. Neither did the Father’s substance and power change in any way, for the Father’s substance is “underived” and, therefore, cannot change. That he is homoousios with the Father then simply implies that the Son:

        • Has no resemblance to created things, but resembles the Father in every respect.
        • Is of no other substance or essence but of the Father’s.

Conclusion

Henry Bettenson wrote, “The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority.”2Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41

The meeting was called to deal with the Arian Controversy but that dispute was quickly settled through the rejection of the Lucian ()Arius’) view. However, the meeting caused a second controversy:

At the meeting, there was a dispute between the parties of Alexander and Eusebius of Caesarea. Due to the pressure exerted by the emperor, the formulation presented by the party of Alexander was accepted and became adopted as the Nicene Creed.

But the expressions which the Origenists found “objectionable” caused the second phase of the Arian Controversy that raged for the next 50 years. Emperor Constantine, through the Council of Nicaea in 325, attempted to unite Christianity and establish a single, imperially approved version of the faith. But his efforts caused the deep divisions that existed after Nicaea. The word homoousios became the object of dissension.

– END OF SUMMARY – 

Purpose

Who was Eusebius of Caesarea?

According to Paul Pavao, in his excellent book, Decoding Nicea, at Nicaea, “the bishop who occupied the chief place in the right division of the assembly” is almost universally believed to be Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (AD 260/265 – 339/340).

Millard J. Erickson (God in Three Persons, p82-85) mentions Eusebius of Caesarea as the leader of “the Origenists” and as “already highly reputed:”

Among those who were (at Nicaea in 325), three basic “parties” were discernible:
(1) Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia;
(2) the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and
(3) Alexander of Alexandria, with his following.

Eusebius left us with the only record of the proceedings and discussions at Nicaea that is available today.

Eusebius of Nicomedia

Eusebius of Caesarea must be distinguished from Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a leader of “the Lucianists” at Nicaea. Since the infamous Arius was one of them, we may refer to them as the Arians. Lucian was already dead by then, but people like Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia probably learned their Christology at the school of Lucian at Antioch in the late third century.

Purpose of this article

After the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius of Caesarea wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain the decisions at Nicaea.  That letter is recorded in The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus I:8.

This article provides extracts from that letter as well as comments (in blocks and tables), with headings added. The letter reads:

Introduction

You have probably had some intimation, beloved, of the transactions of the great council convened at Nicea in relation to the faith of the Church … we have deemed it necessary to submit to you:

      • In the first place, an exposition of the faith proposed by us in written form, and then
      • a second which has been promulgated, consisting of ours with certain additions to its expression.
Comment: The “us” here seems to refer to the delegation led by Eusebius. As discussed below, at the council meeting, they first proposed a statement of faith. “A second which has been promulgated” refers to the Nicene Creed, as was formally promulgated.

The Creed of Caesarea

The declaration of faith set forth by us, which when read in the presence of our most pious emperor seemed to meet with universal approbation, was thus expressed:

Comment: Emperor Constantine attended the council and had a huge impact on the outcome, as is discussed below. But Eusebius claims that his proposal was generally accepted. Below, I quote sections from Eusebius’ proposed statement of faith that are key to understanding the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Word of God—
God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life—
the only-begotten Son,
born before all creation,
begotten of God the Father before all ages,
by whom also all things were made …

We believe also in one Holy Spirit. …

Comment: Note that Eusebius’ proposed statement of faith does not include the terms substance or “same substance.”

When these articles of faith were proposed, there seemed to be no ground for opposition. No, even our most pious emperor himself was the first to admit that they were perfectly correct and that he himself had entertained the sentiments contained in them. 

Comment: Paul Pavao commented: It is simply astounding that Eusebius felt it important to have the emperor’s approval of the articles of faith, rather than informing the emperor of what the church approved.

I would like to add that it is important to understand that separation of Church and State did not exist at that time. In the culture of the time, the Christian Roman Emperor was regarded as God’s agent on earth. The supreme bishops of the Empire – the spiritual heads of the Christian world – were regarded as acting in harmony with him. Church and State were therefore one. Consequently, emperors Constantine, Constantius, Theodosius, and Justinian had a significant influence on the decisions of church councils. For a discussion, see Justinian and the Byzantine Papacy.

Constantine added homoousios

He (the emperor) exhorted all present to give them their assent and subscribe to these very articles (as proposed by Eusebius), thus agreeing in a unanimous profession of them—with the insertion, however, of that single word, homoousios, an expression which the emperor himself explained as not indicating corporeal affections or properties. Consequently, the Son did not subsist from the Father either by division or by cutting off. For, said he, a nature that is immaterial and incorporeal cannot possibly be subject to any corporeal understanding; hence, our conception of such things can only be in divine and mysterious terms. Such was the philosophical view of the subject taken by our most wise and pious sovereign,

Constantine’s definition of homoousios

It was, therefore, the emperor that proposed the word homousios. He also explained the meaning of this word. But it is a negative explanation; saying what homoousios does NOT mean. It is a bit strange to propose a term and then to say that it is not possible to understand what it means; that “our conception of such things can only be in divine and mysterious terms.”

But Constantine’s key point seems to be that the Son (when He was begotten) was not cut off from the Father. Tatian (c. AD 165) mentioned the same principle:

“He (the Son) came into being by participation, not by abscission [i.e., cutting off], for what is cut off is separated from the original substance.”

Note the word “separated.” The point seems to be that the Son did not become separated from the Father when He was begotten by the Father. Justin Martyr (c. AD 155) wrote similarly:

This Power was begotten from the Father, by his power and will, but not by abscission [i.e., cutting off], as if the essence of the Father were divided.

Tatian and Justin Martyr, like all the other Gentile Christian theologists of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, held to a Logos-Christology in which the Logos has always existed inside God but was emitted from God (begotten by God) and became the Son of God when it became time to create. See The Apologists for further discussion.

So, what Constantine seemed to have meant is that the term homoousios does not mean that He was separated from God when He was begotten. I propose that we understand this in terms of Logos-Christology according to which God cannot change. Therefore, His Logos was not separated from Him when the Son was begotten: God always had access to His Logos. It seems as if the emperor was emphasizing this point.

Where did Constantine get all this?

Constantine did not develop all these ideas by himself. He got it from somewhere. Above, I listed the three parties at Nicaea. Since Constantine did not get these ideas from the Origenists or from the Lucianists, he received them from the party of Alexander of Alexandria:

“Constantine did put forth the Nicene creed term ‘homoousios’. The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios, as suggested to him by Hosius. The emperor at first gave the council a free hand, but was prepared to step in if necessary to enforce the formula that his advisor Hosius had agreed on with Alexander of Alexandria.” (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

The party of Alexander, which includes the emperor’s advisor Hosius, therefore, before the council meeting, has already agreed on the word homoousios. And, since they had the backing of the emperor, the emperor proposed the word and was able to enforce the inclusion of the word. “Enforce” may seem like a strong word, but is confirmed by many authors. Bernard Lohse, (A Short History of Christian Doctrine, 1966, p51-53) stated:

“What seemed especially objectionable to many bishops and theologians of the East was the concept put into the creed by Constantine himself, the homoousios.”

Substance and Same Substance Added

… and the bishops, because of the word homoousios, drew up this formula of faith:

Eusebius then quotes the Nicene Creed, which is also available from Earlychurchtexts. It is instructive to compare the section of the creed that is key concerning the Arian Controversy, with the same section in the statement of faith presented by Eusebius:
Eusebius proposed Nicene Creed
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Word of God—
God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life—
the only-begotten Son,
born before all creation,
begotten of God the Father, before all ages,
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
I emphasized the key additions, namely the terms “substance” and “one substance.”

Eusebius asked questions

Now when this declaration of faith was propounded by them, we did not neglect to investigate the distinct sense of the expressions “of the substance of the Father” and “consubstantial with the Father.”

Who are “them?” Above, Eusebius referred to “the bishops” but Erickson identified “them” as “the party of Alexander:”

“Those of the party of Alexander, however, were not fully satisfied. They were favored by the emperor, and followed the strategy of accepting the Creed of Caesarea while demanding a more precise definition of some of its key terms. … The Alexandrian party then presented a carefully worked out statement, which they said was a revised form of the Creed of Caesarea, with certain steps taken to close loopholes that could be interpreted in Arian fashion.”

Henry Bettenson wrote,

“The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority” (Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41).

That Eusebius had to ask questions shows that the Nicene Creed was formulated by a group over which he had no control. It is, therefore, probable that the Nicene Creed was formulated before the council meeting itself. 

Ousios (Substance)

When we did, questions and answers were put forth, and the meaning of these terms was clearly defined. At that point it was generally admitted that ousios (substance or essence) simply implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine—which declares that the Son is of the Father but is not a part of his substance—it seemed right to us to assent. We ourselves, therefore, concurred in this exposition.

Steven Wedgeworth stated that “Origen had rejected the term (substance) years before for fear that it attributed materiality to the divine.” Eusebius and “the Origenists,” therefore, questioned this term.

Homoousios

Nor do we cavil at the word homoousios, having regard to peace, and fearing to lose a right understanding of the matter.

Paul Pavao commented that it does not appear that Eusebius embraced homoousios with great enthusiasm, remarking in his letter to Caesarea that “we do not cavil” at the word homoousios. This is hardly rousing support.

Begotten, not Made

On the same grounds, we admitted also the expression “begotten, not made.” “For ‘made,'” said, “is a term applicable in common to all the creatures which were made by the Son, to whom the Son has no resemblance. Consequently, he is no creature like those which were made by him but is of a substance far excelling any creature. The Divine Oracles teach that this substance was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature.”

Paul Pavao commented that the delegates all agreed that Proverbs 8:22, in the LXX, refers to the Son as created. Therefore they all referred to Him as such, but the council here banned this term.

Consubstantial (homoousios)

Thus also the declaration that “the Son is consubstantial with the Father” having been discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a corporeal sense, or in any way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by division of substance, nor by abscission [cutting off], nor by any change of the Father’s substance and power, since the underived nature of the Father is inconsistent with all these things.

That he is consubstantial [homoousios] with the Father then simply implies that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begat him; that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father.

This is an expansion of the emperor’s explanation of this term above. I understand the explanation as follows:

We cannot understand this concept because there is nothing like it in the created realm.

That the Son was begotten by God does not mean that a portion of God’s substance was cut off. Neither did the Father’s substance and power change in any way, for the Father’s substance is “underived” and, therefore, cannot change.

That he is consubstantial [homoousios] with the Father then simply implies that:

        • The Son of God has no resemblance to created things but resembles the Father in every respect.
        • He is of no other substance or essence but of the Father.

Ancients used this term

To this doctrine, explained in this way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term homoousios in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son.

Paul Pavao provides examples in Chapter 15 of Decoding Nicea. Philip Schaff mentioned that Irenæus used the word homousios four times and that Tertullian also uses the expression “of one substance” (unius substantiæ) in two places.

Anathemas

We have also considered the anathema pronounced by them after the declaration of faith inoffensive because it prohibits the use of illegitimate terms, from which almost all the distraction and commotion of the churches have arisen.

Again the “them,” confirms that “the decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority” (Bettenson, quoted above).

The anathemas reflect the typical statements made by Arius and his followers.

Objectionable Expressions

We deemed it incumbent on us, beloved, to acquaint you with the caution which has characterized both our examination of and concurrence in these things and that on justifiable grounds we resisted to the last moment the introduction of certain objectionable expressions as long as these were not acceptable. We received them without dispute when, on mature deliberation as we examined the sense of the words, they appeared to agree with what we had originally proposed as a sound confession of faith.

Generally, Eusebius’ letter gives the impression that consensus was achieved fairly easily, but the phrase “resisted to the last moment” gives us an indication of the struggle within the council. The Nicene Creed was eventually accepted only because “the emperor exerted considerable influence:”

“The Origenists had considerable reservation about references to the ‘Father’s substance’, including ‘out of the Father’s substance’ and ‘of the same substance as the Father’. The emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved by all except three. (Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons)”

“Certain objectionable expressions” refer particularly to those listed by Erickson. As stated before, Eusebius and his followers were Origenists and “Origen had rejected the term years before for fear that it attributed materiality to the divine.” (Steven Wedgeworth)

But these terms were accepted at “the last moment.” However, the acceptance of these “objectionable expressions” resulted in the second phase of the Arian Controversy in which these words were resisted:

The Wikipedia page on the Arian controversy states that Emperor Constantine, through the Council of Nicaea in 325, attempted to unite Christianity and establish a single, imperially approved version of the faith. Ironically, his efforts were the cause of the deep divisions created by the disputes after Nicaea. (Smither, Edward L., ed. (2014-02-14). Rethinking Constantine: History, Theology, and Legacy. p. 65–66)

“Homoousios … in the subsequent strife between orthodoxy and heresy became the object of dissension. ” (A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p51-53)

As Hanson wrote, “The Creed of Nicaea of 325, produced in order to end the controversy, signally failed to do so. Indeed, it 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.”

Other Articles

  • 1
    The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p159
  • 2
    Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41