[Begin
quote]
Arianism
vs. the Council of Nicaea
By Brother John Raymond
Introduction
Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy
must not be looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder
Arius. Its appeal, which began in Alexandria and spread through
the whole Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The
Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying
this non-Christian world was the contrast between the "One and
the Many, between the ultimate unity that lay behind the visible
universe and the incalculable variety that exists in the world." (Ward
1955, 38)
Relationship
of God and World
The relationship between God and the world had to be solved.
The
Jews proposed a supreme God who created by His word. It was
an idea of a mediating "Word or Wisdom - the Word which is
pronounced, the Wisdom which is created - whereby the Father
communicated Himself to man and took possession of him. (Guitton
1965, 81)."
The
Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could
come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the
idea of a "mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation
of the first principle which reduced the distance between God
and the world (Guitton 1965, 81)."
The
primitive Church had to "reconcile the notions they had inherited
from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew
and Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer
that would agree with the revelation they had received from
Christ as recorded in the scriptures (Ward 1955, 39)."
This
struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax
with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural
and philosophical thought to explain the Trinity. The Council
did triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter
battling. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology
were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle
as we will see.
Arius
and His Teaching
Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish
priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch,
the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned
for holding that Christ was only a man; although he was later
reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism" because "Arius
and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his students.
Calling
themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his
adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy
(Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058)."With this background Arius struggled
with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria
was the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally
present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was
responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with
the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is
simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a
power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began
the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to
be His agent in creation.
The
Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He
was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once
when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed
the subordination of the Logos to
such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity
and to assert His capacity for change and suffering." (Ward
1955, 41)
This
teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity
and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty
of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme
Being and two inferior deities (Ward 1955, 43)." The Person
of Christ "belonged to no order of being that the Church could
recognize. . . He was neither God nor man." (Ward 1955,
42)
Arius
Versus the Alexandrian Bishop
Arius' views began to spread among the people and the
Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of
his priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of
the Godhead. Arius continued to argue that since the Son was
begotten of the Father then at some point He began to exist.
Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius
refused to submit to the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching.
Alexander
called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred
Bishops who attended eighty voted for the condemnation and
exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to
the other Bishops refuting Arius' views. In doing so the Bishop
used the term "homoousios"
to describe the Father and Son as being of one substance. Alexander
"used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole controversy
(Ward 1955, 43, 44)."
With
the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of
the Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported
him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in
Asia Minor. The Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied
under Lucian of Antioch. He became Arius' most influential
supporter. From this city Arius enlisted the support of other
Bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian. His supporters
held their own synod calling Arius' views orthodox and condemning
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds
for this condemnation.
The
term homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor
Dionysus when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the
Father and Son were identical). All this controversy was taking
place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.
Constantine
and Ossius
With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the
religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united
the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided Christianity.
Constantine, certainly not understanding the significance of
the controversy, sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser
with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried
to reconcile them by saying that their disagreement was merely
just a matter of words. Both of them really were in agreement
on major doctrines and neither were involved in heresy.
The
letters failed to have an effect. In 325 A.D. Ossius presided
over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by
fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the
Council of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner
of the latter Council in Nicaea.
Under
the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated
- that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism
was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian
creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree
with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated
until the Council of Nicaea.
Roman
Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic
Church of Rome)It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey
and in the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion
of Ossius, Constantine called for a general council of the
Church at Nicaea in Bithynia.
That
an Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered
unusual since in Hellenistic thought he "was given by God supreme
power in things material and spiritual (Davis 1987, 56).'"
The
Council of NicaeaThe General Council was well attended by the
major sees of the Eastern Empire. Also some
Western Bishops were present. Because of old age and sickness
Pope Sylvester did not attend but sent two papal legates. The
total number of Bishops who attended the Council has been disputed.
Eusebius of Ceasarea who attended it claimed 250; Athanasius
also in attendance mentioned 300; after the Council a symbolic
number of 318 was used; modern scholars put the number at 220.
If
there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are
no longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus
that "daily sessions were held and that Arius was often
summoned before the assembly; his arguments attentively considered.
The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith,
energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines
of Arius." (LeClercq 1913, 45).
"Concerning
the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of Caesarea,
Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent
accounts of how this Creed was drafted." (LeClercq
1967, 792)
But
from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia
offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed
was rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed
the baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it
does not seem to form the basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts
were made to construct a creed using only scriptural terms.
These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position. "Finally,
it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis for
a new creedal statement . . . The finished creed was preserved
in the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and
of Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon
of 451." (Davis 1987, 59)
When
the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still opposed it. Constantine
at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who
would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused
to accept the creed. All three were exiled.The Creed and an
AnalysisSome parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea
Creed are as follows:
"We
believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia)
of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true
God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios)
with the Father, through whom all things were made both in
heaven and on earth . . . Those who say: `There was a time
when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;'
and that `He was made out of nothing;' or who maintain that
`He is of another hypostasis or another substance,' or that
`the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,'
the Catholic Church anathematizes." (LeClercq
1913, 45)
"The
Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements
to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten of the
Father" was seen by them as saying that the Son was created
from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten
not made" was added to the creed
that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning.
Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace and
name only.
The
creedal statement "true God of true God" was
an affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this
Arian position. The most important statement in the creed that
affirms "that the Son shares the same being as the Father and
is therefore fully divine" was the phrase "of one substance
(homoousios) with the Father" (Davis 1987, 61).
This
statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an
intermediary being between God and Creation.In case the creed
was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were
attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial
of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the
two phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before
He was begotten He was not."
The
Arian belief in the Son being created out of nothing is expressed
in the phrase "He came into being from things that
are not." The Arian doctrine that the Son being a
creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained
virtuous by an act of the will is expressed in the phrase "He
is mutable or alterable."
Finally
the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father
and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is
of a different hypostasis or substance." With these
specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy
seemed to be finished.Terminology ProblemWith the Eastern Church
using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings
were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once instance
of confusion is the statement "He is of a different hypostasis
or substance."
The
two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be synonymous.
In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the
Council would look as if it was condemning the statement that
the Son was a different Person from the Father, which would
clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish
hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West.
This
instance of confusion "points up the terminological
difficulty which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and
to confuse the West about the East's position." (Davis
1987, 63)."
A
second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios.
At that time this word could have three possible meanings.
"First,
it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two
individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining
individuals.
Second,
it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father
and the Son are identical in concrete being.
Finally,
it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the
same substance because both are made of the same clay." (Davis
1987, 61)."
The
Council intended the first meaning to stress
the equality of the Son with the Father.
If
the second meaning for the word was taken
to be the Council's intention it would mean that the Father
and Son were identical and indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian
heresy.
The third
meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that
would infer that the Father and Son are parts of the same
stuff.
Along
with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the
word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated
with heresies.
The
word was originally used by the Gnostics[1].
The word had even been condemned at the Council of Antioch
in 268 regarding its use by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata.
Another
factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used
in Sacred Scripture.The Council's defeat by ArianismIt is not
surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council
could be called into question.
Bishop
Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine.
He convinced Constantine that the Council's use of the word
homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). The
Emperor now favored the Arians.
With
the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his
sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his
brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea.
Supporters
of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed
and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch. This
Council directly attacked the Nicaea Council by promulgating
its own creed that omitted the phrases "from the substance
of the Father" and
"homoousios."
Some
attempts were made to find a substitute word for homoousios.
As many as fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 "in
which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression
. . . The term `like in substance,' homoiousion . . . had been
employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula (Barry 1913,
709)."
Not
all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this
new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were "dissimilar" or
anomoios. Another group used the word "similar" or homoios
to describe the Father and Son relationship.
With
the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius
became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that
all the Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios
formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at
Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini.
Both
Councils, under the Emperor's threats and with rationalizing
arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign
the homoios formula. "This Homoean victory was confirmed and
imposed on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople
in the following year" which condemned the terms homoousios,
homoousios and anomoios (Ward 1955, 57).
It
seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed.The
Final BattleThe seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived.
First
it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition. With
the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed.
Second
by persecuting both homoousios and homoousios supporters alike "it
brought about better understanding and, ultimately, reconciliation
between the two groups (DeClercq 1967, 793)."
Athanasius
an ardent defender of the homoousios position and following
the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning with
the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son
and Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential
substance.
The
Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and
Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians. The
point of departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had
been the individual aspect of the divine personality. With
the help of Athanasius they came to the realization that the
three Persons as God must share the same identical substance
also. By using the term homoousios the Cappadocian Fathers "had
never meant to deny the unity but only to preserve the distinction
of persons (Ward 1955, 58)." Both came to the conclusion that
although they used different terms what they meant to say was
the same.
The
Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios. Athanasius,
on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the
Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis).
At
about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers
were reaching an agreement another development was taking place.
The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding
of each others theological terminology.
At
the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed,
the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism
(sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-Arianism in
its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned.
Under
the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial
favor.In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene
Creed. At the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of
the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed.
A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited
Arianism in the West.
In
the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing
Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return
to their sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople.
The first canon from this Council states that "the faith
of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not
to be made void, but shall continue to be established (Davis
1987, 126)."
In
380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory
over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople
in the East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of
them
"sealed the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire
Church (DeClercq 1967, 793)."
Conclusion
The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over
fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the
Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy
seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized
their teachings one by one.
The
Arian doctrines condemned were the following:
-
The Son was created by the Father out of nothing.
- Thus the Son was not God in the strict sense but by grace and
in name only.
- The Father and Son did not share the same substance.
- The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability
and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.
Terminology
difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to continue
after the Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios
(of the same substance) used by the Council to describe the
relationship between the Father and the Son.
The
Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, that
of identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and
Son were identical thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians
then started producing their own creeds either eliminating
this term or substituting another for it. This lead to the
breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups according to
which term they supported - anomoios (dissimilar), homoios
(similar) or homoiousion (like in substance).
It
is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy determined
at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism
was dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the
term homoios on the Church by the Emperor Constantius the work
of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity
of this term died with the Emperor.
The
persecution of both the Homoiousians and the Homoiousians forced
them to begin to dialogue. With the two great representatives
of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers,
finding theological grounds for their eventual agreement the
way was paved for the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This
incident later coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who
were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian downfall.
[End
quote]
[1]
Gnostics - meaning "to know secret or hidden knowledge";
lit., those who know; a mystic order of Christianity. Often
known for giving up all worldly matters, often living apart
from society and being reclusive, fasting and remaining celibate.
Possible forerunners of the sufi orders found amongst some
Muslims today. |
