Hubbry Logo
AriusAriusMain
Open search
Arius
Community hub
Arius
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Arius
Arius
Arius
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Part of a series of articles on
Arianism
History and theology
Arian leaders
Other Arians
Modern semi-Arians
Opponents
icon Christianity portal

Arius (/əˈraɪəs, ˈɛəri-/; Koine Greek: Ἄρειος, romanized: Áreios; 250 or 256 – 336) was a Cyrenaic presbyter and ascetic. He has been regarded as the founder of Arianism,[1][2] which holds that Jesus Christ was not coeternal with God the Father, but was rather created by God the Father. Arian theology and its doctrine regarding the nature of the Godhead showed a belief in radical subordinationism,[3] a view notably disputed by 4th century figures such as Athanasius of Alexandria.[4]

Constantine the Great's formal decriminalization of Christianity into the Roman Empire entailed the convention of ecumenical councils to remove theological divisions between opposing sects within the Church. Arius's theology was a prominent topic at the First Council of Nicaea, where Arianism was condemned in favor of Homoousian conceptions of God and Jesus. Opposition to Arianism remains embodied in the Nicene Creed, described as "a deliberately anti-Arian document."[5] Nevertheless, despite concerted opposition, Arian churches persisted for centuries throughout Europe (especially in various Germanic kingdoms), the Middle East, and North Africa. They were suppressed by military conquest or by voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.

Arius's role as the sole originator of Arian theology has been disputed by historians such as Rowan Williams, who stated that "Arius' role in 'Arianism' was not that of the founder of a sect. It was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern Church."[6] Richard Hanson writes that Arius' specific espousal of subordinationist theology brought "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."[7] The association between Arius and the theology titled after him has been argued to be a creation "based on the polemic of Nicene writers" such as Athanasius of Alexandria, a Homoousian.[8]

Early life and personality

[edit]

Reconstructing the life and doctrine of Arius has proven to be a difficult task.

Arius was of Berber descent.[9] His father's name is given as Ammonius.

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."[10] But Williams questions whether "we should assume from the one word in Arius' letter that he had actually been Lucian's student."[11]

In the past, 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 ... was eager to be a teacher."[12] However, after several pages of detailed analysis, Williams concludes that "the Melitian Arius ... melt(s) away under close investigation."[13]

In 313, Arius was made presbyter of the Baucalis district in Alexandria.

Arius' views have always been "represented as ... some hopelessly defective form of belief."[14] Contrary to this view, Rowan Williams recently concluded that Arius is "a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality."[15]

Although his character has been severely assailed by his opponents, Arius appears to have been a man of personal ascetic achievement, pure morals, and decided convictions.

"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."[16]

It is traditional to claim that Arius was a deliberate radical, breaking away from the 'orthodoxy' of the church fathers. However:

"A great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition."[17] "Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian."[18]

Arius' writings

[edit]

Very little of Arius' writing has survived. "As far as his own writings go, we have no more than three letters, (and) a few fragments of another." The three 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."[19]

The letters' original text and English translation can be found in Fontes Nicaenae Synodi.[20]

"The Thalia is Arius' only known theological work"[21] but "we do not possess a single complete and continuous text."[22] 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."[23]

Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius was still living but R.P.C. Hanson concluded that so little survived because "the people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer."[7]

Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic. This leads some—but not all—scholars to question their reliability.[24] For example Bishop R.P.C. Hanson wrote:

"Athanasius, a fierce opponent of Arius ... certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he said."[21] "Athanasius... may be suspected of pressing the words maliciously rather further than Arius intended."[25]

Archbishop Rowan Williams agrees that Athanasius applied "unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle."[26]

Arian controversy

[edit]
Main articles: Arianism and Arian controversy

Beginnings

[edit]

The Diocletianic Persecution (Great Persecution) of AD 303–313 was Rome's final attempt to limit the expansion of Christianity across the empire. That persecution came to an end when Christianity was legalized with Galerius' Edict of Toleration in 311 followed by Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313, after Emperor Constantine himself had become a Christian. The Arian Controversy began only 5 years later in 318 when Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, publicly criticized his bishop Alexander for "carelessness in blurring the distinction of nature between the Father and the Son by his emphasis on eternal generation".[27]

The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius sparked the controversy that bears his name when Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and then argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."[28] This quote describes the essence of Arius's doctrine.

Socrates of Constantinople believed that Arius was influenced in his thinking by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr. In a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople, Arius's bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, wrote that Arius derived his theology from Lucian. The express purpose of the letter was to complain about the doctrines that Arius was spreading, but his charge of heresy against Arius is vague and unsupported by other authorities. Furthermore, Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in those days, is quite bitter and abusive. Moreover, even Alexander never accused Lucian of having taught Arianism.

Supporters

[edit]

It is traditionally taught that Arius had wide support in the areas of the Roman Empire.

"The Thalia appears ... to have circulated only in Alexandria; what is known of him elsewhere seems to stem from Athanasius' quotations."[29]He also had the support of perhaps the two most important church leaders of that time:

Eusebius of Nicomedia

[edit]

Eusebius of Nicomedia "was a supporter of Arius as long as Arius lived."[30] "The conventional picture of Eusebius is of an unscrupulous intriguer."[31] "This is of course because our knowledge of Eusebius derives almost entirely from the evidence of his bitter enemies."[31] Hanson mentions several instances displaying Eusebius' integrity and courage[32] and concludes:

"Eusebius certainly was a man of strong character and great ability" (page 29). "It was he who virtually took charge of the affairs of the Greek speaking Eastern Church from 328 until his death" (page 29). He encouraged the spread of the Christian faith beyond the frontiers of the Roman Empire. The version of the Christian faith which the missionaries spread was that favoured by Eusebius and not Athanasius. This serves as evidence of his zeal."[33]

Eusebius of Caesarea

[edit]

"Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine [the church historian] was certainly an early supporter of Arius."[34] "He was universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day."[34] "Eusebius of Caesarea ... was one of the most influential authors of the fourth century."[35] "Neither Arius nor anti-Arians speak evil of him."[34] "He was made bishop of Caesarea about 313, (and) attended the Council of Nicaea in 325."[36]

"We cannot accordingly 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."[37]

Origen and Arius

[edit]

Like many third-century Christian scholars, Arius was influenced by the writings of Origen, widely regarded as the first great theologian of Christianity.[38] However, while both agreed on the subordination of the Son to the Father, and Arius drew support from Origen's theories on the Logos, the two did not agree on everything. For example:

  • Hanson refers several times to Origen's teaching that the Son always existed, for example, "Origen's doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son by the Father."[39] To contrast this with what Arius taught, Hanson states that Arius taught that 'there was a time when he did not exist'."[40]
  • "Arius in the Thalia sees the Son as praising the Father in heaven; Origen generally avoids language suggesting that the Son worships the Father as God."[41]

Hanson concluded:

"Arius probably inherited some terms and even some ideas from Origen, ... he certainly did not adopt any large or significant part of Origen's theology."[42] "He was not without influence from Origen, but cannot seriously be called an Origenist."[43]

However, because Origen's theological speculations were often proffered to stimulate further inquiry rather than to put an end to any given dispute, both Arius and his opponents were able to invoke the authority of this revered (at the time) theologian during their debate.[44]

Divine but not fully divine

[edit]

Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Father, meaning that the Father alone is infinite and eternal and almighty, and that therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius maintained that the Son possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power.[45][46]

"Many summary accounts present the Arian controversy as a dispute over whether or not Christ was divine."[47] "It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about 'the divinity of Christ'."[48] "Many fourth-century theologians (including some who were in no way anti-Nicene) made distinctions between being 'God' and being 'true God' that belie any simple account of the controversy in these terms."[49]

"It must be understood that in the fourth century the word 'God' (theos, deus) had not acquired the significance which in our twentieth-century world it has acquired ... viz. the one and sole true God. The word could apply to many gradations of divinity and was not as absolute to Athanasius as it is to us."[50]

Initial responses

[edit]

The Bishop of Alexandria exiled the presbyter following a council of local priests. Arius's supporters vehemently protested. Numerous bishops and Christian leaders of the era supported his cause, among them Eusebius of Nicomedia, who baptized Constantine the Great.[51]

First Council of Nicaea

[edit]
Main article: First Council of Nicaea
See also: Nicene Creed
The Council of Nicaea, with Arius depicted beneath the feet of the Emperor Constantine and the bishops

The Christological debate could no longer be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. By the time Bishop Alexander finally acted against Arius, Arius's doctrine had spread far beyond his own see; it had become a topic of discussion—and disturbance—for the entire Church. The Church was now a powerful force in the Roman world, with Emperors Licinius and Constantine I having legalized it in 313 through the Edict of Milan. Emperor Constantine had taken a personal interest in several ecumenical issues, including the Donatist controversy in 316, and he wanted to bring an end to the Christological dispute. To this end, the emperor sent Hosius, bishop of Córdoba to investigate and, if possible, resolve the controversy. Hosius was armed with an open letter from the Emperor: "Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant." However, as the debate continued to rage despite Hosius's efforts, Constantine in AD 325 took an unprecedented step: he called a council to be composed of church prelates from all parts of the empire to resolve this issue, possibly at Hosius's recommendation.[52]

"Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire."[53] Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to attend, sent two priests as his delegates. Arius himself attended the council, as did his bishop, Alexander. Also there were Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and the young deacon Athanasius, who would become the champion of the Trinitarian view ultimately adopted by the council and spend most of his life battling Arianism. Before the main conclave convened, Hosius initially met with Alexander and his supporters at Nicomedia.[54] The council was presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.[52]

At this First Council of Nicaea, 22 bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. Nonetheless, when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants.[52] Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father were led by the bishop Alexander. Athanasius was not allowed to sit in on the Council because he was only an arch-deacon. However, Athanasius is seen as doing the legwork and concluded (according to Bishop Alexander's defense of Athanasian Trinitarianism and also according to the Nicene Creed adopted at this Council)[55][56] that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) with the Father (or one in essence with the Father), and was eternally generated from that essence of the Father.[57] Those who instead insisted that the Son of God came after God the Father in time and substance were led by Arius the presbyter. For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[58] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius argued for the supremacy of God the Father, and maintained that the Son of God was simply the oldest and most beloved creature of God, made from nothing, because of being the direct offspring. Arius taught that the pre-existent Son was God's first production (the very first thing that God actually ever did in his entire eternal existence up to that point), before all ages. Thus he insisted that only God the Father had no beginning, and that the Father alone was infinite and eternal. Arius maintained that the Son had a beginning. Thus, said Arius, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that he had no existence. He was capable of his own free will, said Arius, and thus "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being."[59] Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I",[60] as well as Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn of all creation."[61] Thus, Arius insisted that the Father's Divinity was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with him.

Greek icon of Arius getting slapped by Nicholas of Myra

According to some accounts in the hagiography of Nicholas of Myra, debate at the council became so heated that at one point, Nicholas struck Arius across the face.[62][63] The majority of the bishops ultimately agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene Creed. It included the word homoousios, meaning "consubstantial", or "one in essence", which was incompatible with Arius's beliefs.[64] On June 19, 325, council and emperor issued a circular to the churches in and around Alexandria: Arius and two of his unyielding partisans (Theonas and Secundus)[64] were deposed and exiled to Illyricum, while three other supporters—Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Maris of Chalcedon—affixed their signatures solely out of deference to the emperor. The following is part of the ruling made by the emperor denouncing Arius's teachings with fervor.

In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment [...]

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[65]

Exile, return, and death

[edit]

The homoousian party's victory at Nicaea was short-lived, however. Despite Arius' exile and the ostensible finality of the Council's decrees, the Arian controversy recommenced at once. When Bishop Alexander died in 327, Athanasius succeeded him, despite not meeting the age requirements for a hierarch. Still committed to pacifying the conflict between Arians and Trinitarians, Constantine gradually became more lenient toward those whom the Council of Nicaea had exiled.[52] Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. Athanasius was exiled following his condemnation by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 (though he was later recalled), and the Synod of Jerusalem the following year restored Arius to communion. The emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop's objections; Bishop Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius might perish before this could happen.[66]

Modern scholars consider that the subsequent death of Arius may have been the result of poisoning by his opponents.[67][68] In contrast, some contemporaries of Arius asserted that the circumstances of his death were a miraculous consequence of Arius's heretical views. The latter view was evident in the account of Arius's death by a bitter enemy, Socrates Scholasticus:

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.[69]

The death of Arius did not end the Arian controversy, which would not be settled for centuries in some parts of the Christian world.

Constantine I burning Arian books, illustration from a book of canon law, c. 825

Arianism after Arius

[edit]

Immediate aftermath

[edit]

Historians report that Constantine, who had not been baptized for most of his lifetime, was baptized on his deathbed in 337 by the Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia.[52][70]

Constantius II, who succeeded Constantine, was an Arian sympathizer.[71] Under him, Arianism reached its high point at the Third Council of Sirmium in 357. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held, regarding the doctrines homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance), that both were non-biblical; and that the Father is greater than the Son, a confession later dubbed the Blasphemy of Sirmium:

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential', or what is called, 'like-in-essence', there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding.[72]

Following the abortive effort by Julian the Apostate to restore paganism in the empire, emperor Valens—himself an Arian—renewed the persecution of Nicene bishops. However, Valens's successor Theodosius I ended Arianism once and for all among the elites of the Eastern Empire through a combination of imperial decree, persecution, and the calling of the First Council of Constantinople in 381 that condemned Arius anew while reaffirming and expanding the Nicene Creed.[71][73][page needed] This generally ended the influence of Arianism among the non-Germanic peoples of the Roman Empire.

Arianism in the West

[edit]
Main articles: Gothic Christianity and Germanic Christianity
The Arian Baptistery erected by Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great in Ravenna, Italy, around 500

Arianism played out very differently in the Western Empire; during the reign of Constantius II, the Arian Gothic convert Ulfilas was consecrated a bishop by Eusebius of Nicomedia and sent to missionize his people. His success ensured the survival of Arianism among the Goths and Vandals until the beginning of the eighth century, when their kingdoms succumbed to the adjacent Niceans or they accepted Nicean Christianity. Arians continued to exist in North Africa, Spain and portions of Italy until they were finally suppressed during the sixth and seventh centuries.[74]

In the 12th century, the Benedictine abbot Peter the Venerable described the Islamic prophet Muhammad as "the successor of Arius and the precursor to the Antichrist".[75] During the Protestant Reformation, a Polish sect known as the Polish Brethren were often referred to as Arians due to their antitrinitarian doctrine.[76]

Contemporary Arianism

[edit]

There are several contemporary Christian and Post-Christian denominations today that echo Arian thinking.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are sometimes accused of being Arians by their detractors.[77] However, the Christology of the Latter-day Saints differs in several significant aspects from Arian theology.[78]

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the Son is a created being, and is not actually God, but rather his only-begotten Son.

Some Christians in the Unitarian Universalist movement are influenced by Arian ideas. Contemporary Unitarian Universalist Christians often may be either Arian or Socinian in their Christology, seeing Jesus as a distinctive moral figure but not equal or eternal with God the Father; or they may follow Origen's logic of Universal Salvation, and thus potentially affirm the Trinity, but assert that all are already saved.

According to the reincarnationist religion of Spiritism, Jesus, the highest-order spirit that has ever incarnated on Earth, is distinct from God, by whom he was created. Jesus is not considered God or part of God as in Nicene Christianity, but nonetheless the ultimate model of human love, intelligence, and forgiveness, often cited as the governor of Earth.

Arius's doctrine

[edit]
Main article: Arianism

Introduction

[edit]

In explaining his actions against Arius, Alexander of Alexandria wrote a letter to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which he believed Arius had fallen. According to Alexander, Arius taught:

That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God ('the I AM'—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father's true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God's own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.

— Socrates Scholasticus (Trinitarian)[79]

Alexander also refers to Arius's poetical Thalia:

God has not always been Father; there was a moment when he was alone, and was not yet Father: later he became so. The Son is not from eternity; he came from nothing.

— Alexander (Trinitarian)[80]

Eusebius of Caesarea, in his famous book The Ecclesiastical History explains Arius' views as:[81]

That God has not always been a Father, and that there was a time when the Son was not ; that the Son is a creature like the others ; that he is mutable by his nature; that by his free will he chose to remain virtuous, but that he might change like others. He said that Jesus Christ was not true God, but divine by participation, like all others to whom the name of God is attributed. He added, that he was not the substantial Word of the Father, and his proper wisdom, by which he had made all things, but that he was himself made by the eternal wisdom ; that he is foreign in every thing from the substance of the Father; that we were not made for him, but he for us, when it was the pleasure of God, who was before alone, to create us that he was made by the will of God, as others are, having no previous existence at all, since he is not a proper and natural production of the Father, but an effect of his grace. The father, he continued, is invisible to the Son, and the Son cannot know him perfectly ; nor, indeed, can he know his own substance.

The Logos

[edit]

The question of the exact relationship between the Father and the Son (a part of the theological science of Christology) had been raised some fifty years before Arius, when Paul of Samosata was deposed in 269 for agreeing with those who used the word homoousios (Greek for 'same substance') to express the relation between the Father and the Son. This term was thought at that time to have a Sabellian tendency,[82] though—as events showed—this was on account of its scope not having been satisfactorily defined. In the discussion which followed Paul's deposition, Dionysius, the Bishop of Alexandria, used much the same language as Arius did later, and correspondence survives in which Pope Dionysius blames him for using such terminology. Dionysius responded with an explanation widely interpreted as vacillating. The Synod of Antioch, which condemned Paul of Samosata, had expressed its disapproval of the word homoousios in one sense, while Bishop Alexander undertook its defense in another. Although the controversy seemed to be leaning toward the opinions later championed by Arius, no firm decision had been made on the subject; in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alexandria, the debate seemed bound to resurface—and even intensify—at some point in the future.

Arius endorsed the following doctrines about the Son or the Word (Logos, referring to Jesus:

  1. that the Word (Logos) and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
  2. that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
  3. that the worlds were created through him, so he must have existed before them and before all time.
  4. However, there was a "once" [Arius did not use words meaning 'time', such as chronos or aion] when he did not exist, before he was begotten of the Father.

Extant writings

[edit]

Three surviving letters attributed to Arius are his letter to Alexander of Alexandria,[83] his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia,[84] and his confession to Constantine.[85] In addition, several letters addressed by others to Arius survive, together with brief quotations contained within the polemical works of his opponents. These quotations are often short and taken out of context, and it is difficult to tell how accurately they quote him or represent his true thinking.

The Thalia

[edit]

Arius's Thalia (literally, 'festivity', 'banquet'), a popularized work combining prose and verse and summarizing his views on the Logos,[86] survives in quoted fragmentary form. In the Thalia, Arius says that God's first thought was the creation of the Son, before all ages, therefore time started with the creation of the Logos or Word in Heaven (lines 1–9, 30–32). Arius explains how the Son could still be God, even if he did not exist eternally (lines 20–23); and endeavors to explain the ultimate incomprehensibility of the Father to the Son (lines 33–39). The two available references from this work are recorded by his opponent Athanasius: the first is a report of Arius's teaching in Orations Against the Arians, 1:5–6. This paraphrase has negative comments interspersed throughout, so it is difficult to consider it as being completely reliable.[87]

The second quotation appears on page 15 of the document On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia, also known as De Synodis. This second passage, entirely in irregular verse, seems to be a direct quotation or a compilation of quotations;[88] it may have been written by someone other than Athanasius, perhaps even a person sympathetic to Arius.[89] This second quotation does not contain several statements usually attributed to Arius by his opponents, is in metrical form, and resembles other passages that have been attributed to Arius. It also contains some positive statements about the Son.[90] But although these quotations seem reasonably accurate, their proper context is lost, so their place in Arius's larger system of thought is impossible to reconstruct.[88]

Ceiling mosaic of the Arian Baptistry, in Ravenna, Italy, depicting the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost present, with John the Baptist

The part of Arius's Thalia quoted in Athanasius's De Synodis is the longest extant fragment. The most commonly cited edition of De Synodis is by Hans-Georg Opitz.[91] A translation of this fragment has been made by Aaron J. West,[92] but based not on Opitz' text but on a previous edition: "When compared to Opitz' more recent edition of the text, we found that our text varies only in punctuation, capitalization, and one variant reading (χρόνῳ for χρόνοις, line 5)."[93] The Opitz edition with the West translation is as follows:

Αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ θεὸς καθό ἐστιν ἄρρητος ἅπασιν ὑπάρχει.
ἴσον οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, οὐχ ὁμόδοξον ἔχει μόνος οὗτος.
ἀγέννητον δὲ αὐτόν φαμεν διὰ τὸν τὴν φύσιν γεννητόν·
τοῦτον ἄναρχον ἀνυμνοῦμεν διὰ τὸν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντα,
ἀίδιον δὲ αὐτὸν σέβομεν διὰ τὸν ἐν χρόνοις γεγαότα.
ἀρχὴν τὸν υἰὸν ἔθηκε τῶν γενητῶν ὁ ἄναρχος
καὶ ἤνεγκεν εἰς υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ τόνδε τεκνοποιήσας,
ἴδιον οὐδὲν ἔχει τοῦ θεοῦ καθ᾽¦ ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος,
οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἴσος, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ὁμοούσιος αὐτῷ.
σοφὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ θεός, ὅτι τῆς σοφίας διδάσκαλος αύτός.
ἱκανὴ δὲ ἀπόδειξις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀόρατος ἅπασι,
τοῖς τε διὰ υἱοῦ καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ υἱῷ ἀόρατος ὁ αὐτός.
ῥητῶς δὲ λέχω, πῶς τῷ υἱῷ ὁρᾶται ὁ ἀόρατος·
τῇ δυνάμει ᾗ δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἰδεῖν· ἰδίοις τε μέτροις
ὑπομένει ὁ υἱὸς ἰδεῖν τὸν πατέρα, ὡς θέμις ἐστίν.
ἤγουν τριάς ἐστι δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις, ἀνεπίμικτοι ἑαυταῖς εἰσιν αἱ ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν,
μία τῆς μιᾶς ἐνδοξοτέρα δόξαις ἐπ' ἄπειρον.
ξένος τοῦ υἱοῦ κατ' οὐσίαν ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι ἄναρχος ὐπάρχει.
σύνες ὅτι ἡ μονὰς ἦν, ἡ δυὰς δὲ οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν ὑπάρξῃ.
αὐτίκα γοῦν υἱοῦ μὴ ὄντος ὁ πατὴρ θεός ἐστι.
λοιπὸν ὁ υἰὸς οὐκ ὢν (ὐπῆρξε δὲ θελήσει πατρῴᾳ)
μονογενὴς θεός ἐστι καὶ ἑκατέρων ἀλλότριος οὗτος.
ἡ σοφία σοφία ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ θεοῦ θελήσει.
επινοεῖται γοῦν μυρίαις ὅσαις ἐπινοίαις πνεῦμα, δύναμις, σοφία,
δόξα θεοῦ, ἀλήθειά τε καὶ εἰκὼν καὶ λόγος οὗτος.
σύνες ὅτι καὶ ἀπαύγασμα καὶ φῶς ἐπινοεῖται.
ἴσον μὲν τοῦ υἱοῦ γεννᾶν δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ κρείττων,
διαφορώτερον δὲ ἢ κρείττονα ἢ μείζονα οὐχί.
θεοῦ ¦ θελήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος ἐστίν,
ἐξ ὅτε καὶ ἀφ' οὖ καὶ ἀπὸ τότε ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπέστη,
ἰσχυρὸς θεὸς ὢν τὸν κρείττονα ἐκ μέρους ὑμνεῖ.
συνελόντι εἰπεῖν τῷ υἱῷ ὁ θεὀς ἄρρητος ὑπάρχει·
ἔστι γὰρ ἑαυτῷ ὅ ἐστι τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἄλεκτος,
ὥστε οὐδὲν τῶν λεγομένων κατά τε κατάληψιν συνίει ἐξειπεῖν ὁ υἱός.
ἀδύνατα γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸν πατέρα τε ἐξιχνιάσει, ὅς ἐστιν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ.
αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδεν,
υἱὸς γὰρ ὢν θελήσει πατρὸς ὑπῆρξεν ἀληθῶς.
τίς γοῦν λόγος συγχωρεῖ τὸν ἐκ πατρὸς ὄντα
αὐτὸν τὸν γεννήσαντα γνῶναι ἐν καταλήψει;
δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τὸ αρχὴν ἔχον, τὸν ἄναρχον, ὡς ἔστιν,
ἐμπερινοῆσαι ἢ ἐμπεριδράξασθαι οὐχ οἷόν τέ ἐστιν.

Translation:

... And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all.
He alone has no equal, no one similar, and no one of the same glory.
We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten.
We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning.
We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist.
He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things
He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him.
He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God's own being
For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being as him.
God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom
Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all:
He is invisible both to things which were made through the Son, and also to the Son himself.
I will say specifically how the invisible is seen by the Son:
by that power by which God is able to see, each according to his own measure,
the Son can bear to see the Father, as is determined
So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings are not mixed together among themselves.
As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other.
The Father in his essence is a foreigner to the Son, because he exists without beginning.
Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father's will,
He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others
Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God.
Hence he is conceived in innumerable aspects. He is Spirit, Power, Wisdom,
God's glory, Truth, Image, and Word.
Understand that he is also conceived of as Radiance and Light.
The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son,
But not someone more important, or superior, or greater.
At God's will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has.
His existence from when and from whom and from then – are all from God.
He, though strong God, praises in part his superior.
In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son.
For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable,
So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them.
For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself.
For the Son himself does not even know his own essence,
For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.
What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father
should comprehend and know his own parent?
For clearly that which has a beginning
is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning.

A slightly different edition of the fragment of the Thalia from De Synodis is given by G.C. Stead,[94] and served as the basis for a translation by R.P.C. Hanson.[95] Stead argued that the Thalia was written in anapestic meter, and edited the fragment to show what it would look like in anapests with different line-breaks. Hanson based his translation of this fragment directly on Stead's text.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Primary sources

[edit]

Secondary sources

[edit]
  • Latinovic, Vladimir. Arius Conservativus? The Question of Arius' Theological Belonging in: Studia Patristica, XCV, p. 27-42. Peeters, 2017. Online at [1].
  • Parvis, Sara. Marcellus of Ancyra And the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325–345. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
  • Rusch, William C. The Trinitarian Controversy. Sources of Early Christian Thought, 1980. ISBN 0-8006-1410-0
  • Schaff, Philip. "Theological Controversies and the Development of Orthodoxy". In History of the Christian Church, Vol III, Ch. IX. Online at CCEL. Accessed 13 December 2009.
  • Wace, Henry. A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects a.d Heresies. Online at CCEL. Accessed 13 December 2009.
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Arius

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Arius (c. AD 250–336) was a Libyan and ascetic who served in the Baucalis district of , , and whose teachings on the subordination of the to the ignited the central Christological debate of the early fourth century. His doctrine maintained that alone is unbegotten and eternal, while the , identified as the , was created by the from nothing prior to the world's creation, possessing a divine-like but derivative nature rather than full with the . This position, drawn from scriptural interpretations emphasizing the Father's uniqueness—such as Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28—challenged emerging trinitarian formulations and attracted widespread clerical support before being branded heretical. Arius's conflict with Bishop Alexander of Alexandria escalated around 318–321, resulting in his excommunication for refusing to affirm the Son's co-eternity with the Father, a stance that spread through popular hymns and letters, polarizing the Eastern churches. The dispute prompted Emperor Constantine I to convene the Council of Nicaea in 325, where over 300 bishops largely rejected Arian subordinationism in favor of the homoousios (same substance) creed, leading to Arius's condemnation and exile, though his ideas persisted among Germanic tribes and required repeated imperial interventions to suppress. Knowledge of Arius derives predominantly from Nicene adversaries like Athanasius, whose polemics framed him as an arch-heretic, potentially exaggerating or distorting his views amid the victors' narrative dominance in surviving records. Recalled from exile in 335, Arius died abruptly in Constantinople the following year under circumstances later mythologized by opponents as divine judgment.

Early Life and Ministry

Origins and Education

Arius, a of the early , was born around 250 AD in , possibly of Berber descent, with his father named Ammonius. Historical accounts place his origins in , though exact locality remains disputed among ancient sources, with some linking him to Ptolemais in . Arius pursued theological training under , a renowned , , and martyr executed in 312 AD, whose school in Antioch emphasized scriptural literalism and anti-Monarchian views. This education shaped his later Christological positions, as Lucian’s teachings on the subordination of the to the influenced Arius's interpretations of divine . By the early 4th century, Arius had relocated to , where he rose to prominence as a under Patriarch Peter I before becoming of the Baucalis district circa 313 AD.

Role in Alexandrian Church

Arius served as a in the Alexandrian church, initially ordained as a under Peter of , who ruled from approximately 300 to 311 AD. Following Peter's martyrdom in 311 AD, Arius gained the favor of Peter's successor, , who briefly held the episcopate from 311 to 313 AD and ordained Arius as a . Under Bishop Alexander, who succeeded in 313 AD and led until 328 AD, Arius was appointed to oversee the of Baucalis, a bustling district near Alexandria's harbor with a significant Christian . In this role, which he assumed in his fifties, Arius was responsible for , scriptural exposition, and preaching, duties that positioned him as an influential teacher within the local . His ascetic and rigorous moral leadership earned him widespread respect and a devoted following among congregants, reflecting his prominence in Alexandria's vibrant structure prior to theological disputes. Arius's education, likely influenced by the catechetical school (Didaskaleion) tradition in tracing back to and possibly training under , equipped him for doctrinal instruction and public discourse in his presbyterial capacity. This background underscored his integration into the church's intellectual and pastoral hierarchy, where presbyters like him maintained through homilies and community guidance in a central to early .

Theological Formulations

Scriptural Foundations

Arius derived his Christological views primarily from a literal reading of biblical texts that affirmed the Father's , uniqueness, and unbegotten nature, while portraying the as generated, subordinate, and possessing a beginning. He rejected interpretations implying the 's co-eternality or shared substance (homoousios) with the , arguing instead that such notions compromised strict derived from scriptures like Deuteronomy 6:4. This approach aligned with an Antiochene-influenced prioritizing the Father's transcendence and the 's role as a mediator created ex nihilo before the world's formation. A cornerstone passage was Proverbs 8:22—"The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old"—which Arius and his supporters applied to the pre-existent (identified with Christ via 1 Corinthians 1:24), interpreting "possessed" or "created" (ktizō in ) as indicating the 's origin as the Father's foremost creation, distinct from the subsequent created order. Similarly, Colossians 1:15 described the as "the firstborn of all creation," which Arius took to denote primacy in time and rank rather than eternal generation, reinforcing the Son's instrumental role in creation without implying equality in essence. Subordinationist texts further bolstered his position, including John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I") and Revelation 3:14 (Christ as "the beginning of God's creation"), which he cited to affirm the Son's inferiority and temporal inception, not merely functional but ontological. Psalm 110:3 (LXX 109:3)—"From the womb before the daystar I begot you"—and John 16:28 ("I came out from the Father") were invoked to depict the Son's begetting as a voluntary act implying sequence, not eternity, while Romans 11:36 ("from him and through him and to him are all things") excluded the Son from the Father's self-sufficiency. These interpretations, drawn from the canonical Scriptures, underpinned Arius's Thalia and letters, where he professed fidelity to the "God of the Law and the prophets and the New Covenant" against what he saw as speculative innovations.

Key Christological Concepts

Arius's centered on the absolute transcendence and uniqueness of as the sole unbegotten, eternal, and self-existent being, emphasizing divine to avoid any implication of multiple eternal principles. In his letter to Alexander of Alexandria around 321 CE, Arius explicitly stated that "one , alone unbegotten, alone eternal, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality," underscoring the Father's incomparable nature. This framework positioned the Father as the unoriginate source of all existence, with no equals or co-eternals. The Son, whom Arius identified as the pre-existent Logos or Word, was begotten by the Father through an act of will from non-existence, prior to the ages but not co-eternal with the Father. In the Thalia, a poetic exposition of his theology composed circa 323 CE, Arius asserted that "God was not always a Father" and "the Son... once was not," directly implying a temporal origin for the Son despite his priority over creation. This begetting was not an eternal generation from the Father's essence but a creative fiat, rendering the Son a distinct, mutable being capable of virtue and growth, as supported by Arius's interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 ("The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways"). Subordination defined the Son's relation to the Father, with the Son deriving divinity as a gift rather than by nature, thus preserving the Father's supremacy without compromising monotheism. Arius maintained that the Son is "like the Father" in will and power but not in essence (ousia), rejecting any notion of shared unbegottenness or immutability that would equate them. This view drew from scriptural depictions of the Son as "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) and obedient agent of creation, through whom the Father wrought the universe, yet always as a subordinate instrument. Arius's formulation aimed to reconcile the Son's exalted role in redemption— as the immutable image of the invisible and mediator of — with the Father's unrivaled sovereignty, arguing that true resides only in the unbegotten. By denying co-essentiality (homoousios), Arius sought to avert what he saw as tritheistic or modalistic confusion, prioritizing scriptural literalism over philosophical speculation about eternal intra-divine relations. Critics like Athanasius later preserved these tenets through quotations, confirming Arius's insistence on the Son's derivation "out of nothing" as foundational to his , wherein the Son's obedience enables human deification without impugning the Father's sole ultimacy.

The Controversy's Outbreak

Dispute with Alexander of Alexandria

The theological dispute between Arius, a in Alexandria's Baucalis district, and his arose circa 318–320 AD amid discussions on the Trinity's nature. Arius contended that the , while exalted as the 's unique creation, was not co-eternal or consubstantial with the , asserting phrases like "there was [a time] when he was not" and that the derived existence from the 's will alone, thereby preserving divine unity against what Arius perceived as implicit in equating the fully with the unbegotten . Alexander, upholding the 's eternal generation and shared essence with the as intrinsic to , regarded Arius' —portraying the as a mutable creature susceptible to change—as diminishing Christ's divinity and contradicting scriptural depictions of the 's unchanging role in creation. Initially sparked in informal clergy gatherings where Arius publicly critiqued Alexander's homilies for allegedly blurring distinctions between Father and Son in a manner akin to Sabellian modalism, the conflict escalated as Arius disseminated his views through sermons, theological letters, and hymns among parishioners and regional clergy. Alexander responded by summoning a local synod of roughly 100 Egyptian and Libyan bishops around 321 AD, which formally deposed Arius, his ally Presbyter Pistus, and about 17–22 supporting presbyters, issuing an encyclical letter detailing the condemnation and warning other churches against Arian teachings. This excommunication, grounded in charges of introducing novelty alien to church consensus, prompted Arius to appeal via letters—such as his epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia—defending his doctrine as biblically derived and seeking alliances, thereby propagating the controversy beyond Alexandria. Primary accounts, preserved largely through Nicene partisans like Athanasius who documented Alexander's circulars, reveal the bishop's emphasis on safeguarding against perceived innovation, though Arius' surviving fragments indicate his aim to align strictly with scriptural over philosophical speculation on divine . The rift's intensity stemmed from Alexandria's intellectual milieu, where Origenist influences fostered rigorous scriptural , yet sources from the victorious orthodox tradition may amplify Arius' deviation while understating Alexander's potential overreach in suppressing .

Initial Propagation and Supporters

Arius's teachings gained initial traction beyond after his by a local convened by Bishop around 320 AD, which condemned him and a small group of followers including the Libyan bishops Theonas and Secundus. To counter this, Arius dispatched letters and emissaries to bishops in the eastern provinces, framing his position as consistent with scriptural and accusing Alexander of innovation. A preserved letter to , bishop of and dated circa 321 AD, explicitly sought alliance by affirming the Son's derivation from the Father and decrying persecution for "all-conquering truth." Eusebius of Nicomedia emerged as Arius's principal early advocate, responding positively and convening a in around 323 AD that acquitted Arius of and endorsed his Christological views as compatible with prior ecclesiastical tradition. This gathering included sympathetic figures such as Theognis of and Maris of , who aligned with Arius's emphasis on the Son's temporal generation, thereby legitimizing his ideas among a network of eastern influenced by Antiochene . Complementing clerical efforts, Arius propagated his doctrines among the laity through the Thalia ("Banquet"), a poetic-theological composition in anapestic meter designed for memorization and recitation. Fragments preserved in Athanasius's works indicate its content reiterated the Son's creaturely status and inequality with the Father, set to simple tunes that followers sang in Alexandria's streets, markets, and workshops; reports from contemporaries describe these refrains echoing among dockworkers, travelers, and sailors, accelerating dissemination across trade routes by the early 320s AD. Other initial adherents included Asterius the Sophist, whose writings echoed Arian emphases on divine monarchy, and deacons like Euzoius, reflecting appeal among those prioritizing logical inference from texts like Proverbs 8:22 over emerging egalitarian interpretations of Christ's divinity. This grassroots and episcopal momentum positioned Arianism as a viable alternative amid pre-Nicene debates on the Logos's ontology.

Major Figures and Alliances

Eusebius of Nicomedia's Role

, a pupil of alongside Arius, emerged as the principal ecclesiastical ally and propagator of Arian theology beyond . Originally bishop of in , he transferred to the more influential see of around 318, leveraging proximity to the imperial court at to advance Arian interests. In late 323 or early 324, following Arius's condemnation by a local under of , Arius appealed directly to for support, enclosing his theological letter outlining the Son's derivation from the Father's will and subordination in essence. responded affirmatively, convening a of bishops sympathetic to Arius and composing letters to defend him, including one to Paulinus of Tyre urging reconsideration of the Alexandrian verdict. This initiative framed the dispute as a defense of scriptural against alleged Sabellian excesses by , rallying a network of eastern bishops and escalating the conflict empire-wide. Eusebius's leadership unified disparate anti-Nicene factions under what became known as the Eusebian party, providing organizational and rhetorical backbone to Arian dissemination. His court connections facilitated appeals to Constantine I, who initially viewed the matter as a minor squabble but convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 partly due to Eusebius's persistent advocacy. At the council, Eusebius presented an Arian-leaning creed subscribed by about 17 bishops, which emphasized the Son's creation "before times" but was rejected in favor of the homoousios formula; he and his allies eventually subscribed under pressure, though subsequent actions revealed ongoing opposition. Through such maneuvers, Eusebius sustained Arian viability amid imperial oversight, prioritizing theological precision over conciliar conformity.

Eusebius of Caesarea's Involvement

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339), a prominent , , and apologist influenced by Origen's subordinationist , viewed the as divine yet generated by and subordinate to the Father in essence and authority, distinguishing this from the Father's unbegotten nature. This perspective aligned partially with Arius's emphasis on the 's derivation from the Father but rejected Arius's implication of the 's temporal creation ex nihilo, maintaining instead a pre-existent, begotten . Eusebius's early involvement included correspondence and apparent initial support for Arius against of Alexandria's accusations of , though he sought doctrinal moderation rather than outright endorsement of Arian extremism. Prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325, had faced at the Council of Antioch (c. 324) for refusing to condemn Arius unequivocally and for his own 's perceived leniency toward subordinationist language, a decision later addressed at where his status was rehabilitated under Constantine's auspices. At , proposed his own baptismal , rooted in the Antiochene-Lucianist shared with Arius, affirming the as "God of , Light of Light, begotten not made," but deliberately avoiding terms like homoousios (of the same substance) to preclude Sabellian modalism or implying full co-equality. This , while rejecting Arianism's radical subordination, highlighted distinctions in the Godhead that echoed Arius's concerns about preserving . Eusebius ultimately subscribed to the Nicene Creed, including homoousios, primarily to foster unity amid imperial pressure from Constantine, who prioritized consensus over precise formulation. In his subsequent letter to the Caesarean church (dated shortly after July 325), Eusebius explained his assent by reinterpreting homoousios as denoting shared divine attributes or will rather than identical substance, thus aligning it with his subordinationist framework while condemning both Arian creaturely views and modalist conflation of persons. He emphasized that the creed's anathemas targeted only extreme Arian positions, not moderate expressions like his own, and urged acceptance for the sake of peace, reflecting his pragmatic role as a bridge between factions rather than a committed partisan. This accommodation preserved Eusebius's influence post-Nicaea, though later Athanasian critics accused him of to evade condemnation.

Broader Intellectual Influences

Arius's theological framework drew significantly from the teachings of (c. 240–312), a and whom Arius explicitly identified as his doctrinal predecessor in correspondence, such as his letter to around 321. Lucian's Antiochene school emphasized literal scriptural exegesis and a form of that prioritized the Father's monarchy, influencing Arius's insistence on the Son's subordination and created status to preserve divine unity. This connection positioned Arius within a broader Eastern tradition wary of speculative Trinitarian innovations, though direct textual evidence of Lucian's precise doctrines remains limited due to his works' survival primarily through fragments and opponents' accounts. Within Alexandrian Christianity, Arius engaged the legacy of (c. 185–254), whose subordinationist —viewing the Son's divinity as derivative and the as eternally generated yet inferior—permeated the catechetical tradition at the didaskaleion. Arius radicalized these elements by rejecting eternal generation in favor of the Son's creation ex nihilo, aligning with Origen's stress on God's transcendence but diverging to avoid any implication of divine division. He invoked continuity with earlier bishops like of (d. 264), who had navigated similar tensions, to claim fidelity to scriptural monarchy over philosophical speculation. Philosophically, Arius's emphasis on the Father's absolute immutability and the Son's intermediary role echoed Neoplatonic hierarchies of emanation from the transcendent One, as noted by scholars tracing parallels to (c. 204–270), though direct borrowing lacks primary attestation and may reflect ambient cultural discourse in rather than explicit adoption. Such resonances facilitated Arianism's appeal amid Hellenistic influences but were subordinated to biblical primacy, with Arius critiquing overly allegorical in favor of unambiguous texts affirming creation. Modern analyses caution against overstating pagan philosophy's role, attributing Arius's system more to conservative scriptural conservatism than .

Council of Nicaea and Its Aftermath

Proceedings and Key Debates

The First Council of Nicaea assembled in spring 325 AD, with proceedings commencing around Whitsunday and concluding by late July, primarily to address the amid broader ecclesiastical matters like the . Approximately 318 bishops attended, mostly from Eastern sees, under the convening authority of Emperor Constantine I, who sought doctrinal unity to stabilize the empire. Constantine opened the sessions with an address urging harmony, emphasizing that discord among bishops undermined the faith's witness, though he deferred theological deliberation to the assembly. Arius, summoned from Alexandria along with supporters including bishops Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarica, defended his position by submitting a written asserting the Son's derivation from the "before " yet distinguishing Him as rather than unbegotten, implying origination in time and subordination in . This formulation, echoing Proverbs 8:22's "He created me as the beginning of his ways," portrayed the Son as the highest creature, capable of but not sharing the 's eternal, unoriginate nature, which Arius supported through appeals to scriptural and creation ex nihilo. Opponents, led by of and his deacon Athanasius, countered with exegeses of John 1:1 ("the Word was God") and Colossians 1:15-17, insisting the Son is eternally , not made, to preserve divine unity and soteriological efficacy—arguing that a created Son could not redeem humanity from . Debates hinged on terminological precision, with a middle faction including proposing an amended baptismal affirming the Son as "begotten, not made," but initially resisting "homoousios" (of one substance) due to its philosophical connotations potentially implying modalism or material division. The term homoousios, likely influenced by Western bishop and ratified to explicitly refute Arian derivationism, was incorporated into the despite hesitations, as it encapsulated the Son's with the Father without compromising scriptural fidelity. Only Secundus and Theonas dissented, subscribing to Arius' view, resulting in their deposition alongside Arius, whose teachings were anathematized and books ordered burned to prevent further propagation.

Adoption of Homoousios

The adoption of the term homoousios ("of the same substance" or "consubstantial") occurred during the final stages of the First Council of Nicaea, convened by Emperor Constantine I from May to late June or early July 325 AD, with approximately 300 bishops in attendance. This Greek philosophical term was incorporated into the council's creed to explicitly counter Arian teachings by declaring that the Son is "of the same substance with the Father," thereby affirming the eternal co-equality and full divinity of Christ rather than viewing the Son as a created being subordinate in essence. Prior drafts of the creed, such as the one proposed by Eusebius of Caesarea, omitted homoousios and focused on scriptural language emphasizing the Son's generation from the Father without temporal origin, reflecting a broader consensus against Arianism but avoiding potentially contentious extra-biblical terminology. Constantine personally intervened to mandate the term's inclusion, overriding objections from bishops wary of its non-scriptural origins and associations with earlier modalist or Sabellian interpretations that blurred distinctions between Father and Son. In his letter to the churches of Caesarea, Eusebius explained that while he and others initially hesitated—fearing the term's materialistic connotations from pagan philosophy like Plotinus' usage—they ultimately subscribed to preserve unity and doctrinal peace under imperial pressure, interpreting homoousios as denoting the Son's unique, non-created likeness to the Father without implying division or composition in the divine nature. The creed's anathemas further reinforced this by condemning phrases like "there was a time when he was not" or "he was made of nothing," directly targeting Arius' formulations. Of the attending bishops, the vast majority—over 99%—signed the amended creed incorporating homoousios, with only two, and Theognis of Nicaea, initially refusing due to perceived ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation favoring over orthodox Trinitarianism; they were deposed and exiled but later reinstated after submitting ambiguous recantations. This adoption marked a pivotal shift toward using precise metaphysical to safeguard soteriological implications, as the Son's ensured the efficacy of through a truly divine redeemer rather than a exalted creature, though the term's novelty fueled subsequent controversies and required later clarifications like those by . Constantine's enforcement, including orders to burn Arian writings and exile non-signers, underscored the political dimension of achieving imperial harmony over purely theological consensus.

Exile and Imperial Politics

Following the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Arius was anathematized by the bishops and exiled to Illyricum by imperial decree of Constantine I, who also ordered the burning of his writings throughout the empire. This exile reflected Constantine's initial alignment with the Nicene majority to enforce doctrinal unity, though enforcement varied regionally. Arius's supporters, particularly , who shared his exile, actively engaged imperial politics to secure recall. appealed directly to Constantine, submitting a modified that gained imperial approval, leading to his own restoration around 328 AD and subsequent influence at court, including baptizing Constantine's son Constantinus. These maneuvers highlighted the interplay between ecclesiastical alliances and imperial favor, as leveraged proximity to the emperor to undermine Nicene hardliners like Athanasius. Constantine's sister Constantia further advanced Arius's cause, recommending his theological work on her deathbed and persuading the of its , which softened his stance by the late 320s. By 330 AD, Constantine formally recalled Arius from exile, rescinded penalties against his associates, and demanded reconciliation with Alexandria's bishop , though tensions persisted due to Arius's refusal of full submission to Nicene terms. This imperial intervention underscored Constantine's pragmatic prioritization of political stability over strict theological consistency, allowing Arian sympathizers renewed access to power centers. The recall efforts culminated in political victories for the Arian faction, including the 335 AD Synod of Tyre, which deposed Athanasius on unrelated charges, paving the way for Arius's summons to for public vindication. These events illustrated how exile did not end Arius's influence but shifted it to court intrigue, where alliances with figures like exploited Constantine's evolving religious policy.

Later Career and Death

Period of Exile

Following the Council of Nicaea in 325, Emperor Constantine issued an edict exiling Arius, along with bishops , Theognis of , and Theonas, Arius's deacon, for refusing to subscribe to the homoousios clause in the . The decree barred Arius from his native and the Egyptian diocese, banishing him specifically to Illyricum, a region then under imperial oversight but favorable to his supporters among eastern bishops. During this initial phase of exile, lasting until at least 327, Arius sustained his theological positions through epistolary networks, appealing to allies like , who had been briefly exiled but recanted and regained favor by late 325. Arius and Euzoius composed a doctrinal letter to Constantine around 327, affirming the Son's derivation from the Father's will and subordination in essence, in response to the emperor's request for clarification of their beliefs; this document, preserved in fragments, underscores Arius's persistence in defending his views against Nicene formulations without direct retraction. Such correspondence helped maintain Arian sympathies in Thrace, Asia Minor, and Illyricum, where local clergy continued propagating his teachings amid ongoing debates. By winter 327–328, Constantine summoned Arius to the imperial court, signaling a partial easing of the banishment, though full restoration remained elusive due to resistance from figures like Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius relocated to under the protection of Eusebius of Caesarea, where he resided intermittently until the early 330s, engaging in theological dialogues and evading formal condemnation while his supporters, including , lobbied for reinstatement. This period saw no major new compositions from Arius himself, but his earlier works, such as letters and the Thalia, circulated via proxies, fostering divisions that persisted despite imperial efforts at unity. Church historians like Socrates Scholasticus, writing from a pro-Nicene perspective in the fifth century, portray Arius's as a consequence of obstinate , yet contemporary imperial documents reveal Constantine's pragmatic shifts, driven by political needs to consolidate eastern loyalty rather than doctrinal purity alone. Arius's confinement thus exemplified the interplay of and Roman governance, with banishment serving as a tool for both punishment and controlled dissemination of dissenting views until his final recall in 335.

Recall under Constantine

In the years following the Council of Nicaea, Arius remained in exile, primarily in , though Constantine permitted his partial recall around 328, allowing return to where Athanasius, the new bishop succeeding , refused readmission to communion due to doctrinal incompatibility. By 335, after the of Tyre deposed Athanasius on charges including violence and economic misconduct—allegations later contested by Athanasius' supporters—Constantine shifted decisively toward reconciliation with Arius and his allies, exiling Athanasius to . This political maneuvering reflected Constantine's pragmatic aim to unify the church amid ongoing divisions, influenced by Arian-leaning bishops like , who had been restored earlier. In 336, Constantine summoned Arius to for formal restoration, directing Bishop Alexander of the city (not to be confused with the late Alexandrian bishop) to reintegrate him into fellowship. Arius, accompanied by companions including Euzoius and Theonas, presented a creedal statement to the emperor affirming belief in "one Almighty" and "one Lord Jesus Christ, begotten as Son before the ages," described as "according to the holy Scriptures," which avoided explicit while implicitly aligning with Trinitarian language to satisfy imperial scrutiny. Constantine, reportedly pleased with this formulation's apparent orthodoxy—despite its evasion of the Nicene homoousios—decreed that Arius be received into communion the next day, viewing the act as essential for imperial harmony. Bishop , a Nicene adherent, reluctantly complied under imperial pressure but prayed privately against the restoration, reflecting persistent orthodox resistance. This episode underscores Constantine's evolving stance from enforcing to favoring pragmatic appeasement, as evidenced in his correspondence urging unity over precise doctrinal enforcement; primary accounts from Scholasticus, writing in the mid-fifth century from an anti-Arian perspective, portray Arius' submission as insincere recantation, though the creed's ambiguity allowed interpretive flexibility. The recall failed to materialize fully, as Arius' sudden death preempted the ceremony, leaving the unresolved under Constantine's rule.

Circumstances of Death

Arius died on September 25, 336, in , on the eve of his planned readmission to ecclesiastical communion ordered by Emperor Constantine I. Having been recalled from earlier that year and summoned to the imperial city, Arius had gained Constantine's favor through diplomatic efforts, including a letter affirming his orthodoxy that masked his prior subordinationist views. On the preceding Saturday, as preparations proceeded for Arius to receive the in the Church of the following day, he reportedly experienced a sudden onset of abdominal distress during a or gathering. According to the fifth-century church historian Socrates Scholasticus, a Nicene partisan, Arius was seized by "terror arising from the remorse of conscience," followed immediately by a "violent relaxation of the bowels," leading him to seek relief in a nearby privy where he collapsed and died from massive hemorrhage and organ expulsion, including the liver and spleen. Similar accounts appear in Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History, emphasizing the ignominious nature of the demise in a latrine, which Nicene sources framed as divine retribution for his theological errors, though no contemporary medical diagnosis exists and later speculations of poisoning lack primary evidence. These reports, drawn from orthodox historians hostile to Arianism, consistently depict the event as abrupt and undignified, occurring when Arius was approximately 80 years old, but their interpretive bias toward providential judgment warrants caution against assuming supernatural causation without corroboration.

Detailed Doctrine

The Logos and Creation

Arius posited that the , identified with the pre-incarnate Christ, was created by as the initial act of divine volition prior to the existence of time or the material . This creation occurred ex nihilo, meaning the had no independent of the Father's generative act, ensuring the Father's absolute and without implying composition or division in the divine essence. In fragments from his Thalia, Arius articulated this by stating that "God was not always a Father" and "the Word of God was not from eternity," emphasizing a definitive origin for the Son "out of nothing" at a point when "he was not." As the "firstborn over all creation," the Logos served as the instrumental agent through which the Father brought the cosmos into being, mediating divine action while remaining distinct in substance () from the uncreated Father. Arius drew on scriptural precedents such as Proverbs 8:22—"The Lord created me at the beginning of his work"—and Colossians 1:15 to argue that the Logos was engendered by the Father's will alone, not by eternal emanation or shared essence, thereby avoiding any implication of or subordination within a co-equal triad. This framework preserved by subordinating the Logos as a perfect but contingent being, capable of moral excellence and divine functions like creation and , yet inherently mutable and dependent. The doctrine underscored a causal : the Father's unbegotten generated the as an intermediary to execute creation without direct involvement that might compromise divine impassibility. All subsequent entities—angels, humans, and the physical world—derived existence through this , which Arius described as "unlike in all things" to the Father's essence, highlighting an essential otherness that precluded co-eternity or homoousios (). This view, while affirming the 's exalted role in cosmology, rejected any notion of it sharing the Father's , positioning creation as a willed production beginning with the Son's own origination.

Subordination and Eternity

Arius's emphasized the subordination of the to the as an ontological reality, wherein the derives his entire being from the through , lacking the 's unbegotten, self-existent nature. This positioned the as inferior in , though exalted above all creation as the first and highest creature formed by divine will to mediate creation and . The , as the sole source (arche) of , begets the not from his own in an eternal, consubstantial manner but through an act of volition, ensuring the 's dependence and thus his subordinate rank. This subordination extended to authority and function, with the Son acting as the Father's agent in creation and redemption, but always under the Father's direction, reflecting a hierarchical order within the divine economy. Arius drew on scriptural precedents such as John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I") to argue for this inequality, rejecting any notion of co-equality that might imply the Son's independence from the Father. Critics like Athanasius later contended this view diminished the Son's , but Arius maintained it preserved by upholding the Father's unique supremacy. Central to Arius's rejection of the Son's was the assertion that the Logos had a beginning prior to time, famously summarized in the fragment: "There was [a time] when he was not." The Son's by the Father marked the of his , occurring "before the ages" but not co-extensive with the Father's timeless being, as the unbegotten Father alone possesses true without origin. This denial of co-eternity stemmed from Arius's interpretation of texts like Proverbs 8:22–25, where (equated with the Logos) is described as "created" or "brought forth" by God, implying a volitional act rather than an eternal intra-divine relation. By severing the Son's from the Father's, Arius aimed to safeguard divine unity and immutability, arguing that eternal co-existence would necessitate two unbegotten principles, bordering on ditheism. Fragments of his Thalia and letters, preserved mainly in orthodox polemics, reinforce this: the Son is "perfect God" only by grace and , not by , and his is finite, contingent on the Father's eternal decree. This framework intertwined subordination with , portraying the Son as eternally obedient yet not self-subsistent, a position that provoked the Nicene emphasis on homoousios to affirm shared and equality.

Soteriological Implications

In Arian theology, salvation was understood primarily as moral reconciliation and ethical transformation achieved through the Son's incarnation, obedience, and vicarious suffering as the Father's appointed agent. The Son, being a created being exalted by divine favor for his pre-incarnate merits, assumed human nature to provide humanity with a perfect exemplar of obedience, thereby bridging the ontological gap between the uncreated Creator and fallen creatures. This mediation enabled believers to attain adoptive sonship and immortality not by inherent divine participation, but through imitation of the Son's virtues and reliance on his intercessory role, with ultimate vindication by the Father's grace. Primary fragments attributed to Arius, such as his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia circa 321 CE, portray the Son as the "Word and Wisdom and Power" through whom God effects redemption, emphasizing his instrumental causality in delivering humanity from corruption. This framework implied a soteriology centered on moral progress and creaturely exaltation rather than ontological deification, as the Son's subordinate, non-eternal precluded believers from sharing in the Father's unbegotten directly. Early Arian thinkers like Asterius the Sophist, in fragments preserved by Athanasius, argued that the Son's mutability in becoming flesh demonstrated his suitability as a redeemer capable of empathetic , fostering human ethical renewal over transformative union with . Consequently, retained a forensic and exemplary character, where Christ's death atoned by satisfying divine justice through perfect human obedience, but lacked the infinite merit derived from full , potentially rendering redemption contingent on human response rather than divine initiative alone. Critics within the emerging Nicene tradition, notably in his Orations Against the Arians (circa 339–345 CE), contended that Arian undermined salvation's efficacy, asserting that only the uncreated could truly recapitulate and divinize , as "He was made man that we might be made God." If the were a creature, Athanasius argued, his redemptive work would equate to one creature aiding another, failing to overcome sin's corruption or impart eternal life, thus reverting humanity to a state of mere moral improvement without eschatological renewal. This critique highlighted Arianism's prioritization of strict and the 's exemplary function, which, while affirming Christ's worship-worthiness as the highest creature, risked diluting the redemptive act's divine potency.

Extant Writings

Thalia: Content and Style

The Thalia (Greek for "banquet" or "festivity"), composed by Arius around 323 CE, represents his most substantial surviving theological exposition, presenting core elements of his doctrine in a poetic format designed for or . It articulates a strict wherein is utterly unique, ineffable, and without equal or comparable being, emphasizing that "He alone has neither equal nor like, none comparable in glory." The work subordinates the () as a created entity, begotten from the Father's will but not co-eternal or consubstantial, stating that the Son "has proper to God in his essential property. For neither is he equal nor yet consubstantial with him." This framework posits the Son's origin "" prior to all creation, serving as an intermediary through whom the world was made, yet inherently mutable and capable of virtue or vice. Key doctrinal assertions in the Thalia include the Father's eternal incomprehensibility and self-sufficiency, contrasted with the Son's temporal beginning and derivative nature: "God was not always a , but there was a time when God was alone," after which He willed the into as "a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures," highlighting a where the Son worships the Father as supreme. The poem rejects any implication of the Son's divinity on par with the Father, warning against terms like homoousios (consubstantial) as introducing materialistic or Sabellian errors, and stresses the Son's role in creation while affirming divine immutability in the Father alone. These ideas, drawn from scriptural interpretations emphasizing the Son's "beginning" (e.g., Proverbs 8:22), underscore a causal realism in which the Son's depends entirely on the Father's uncaused initiative, without compromising monotheistic unity. In style, the Thalia employs a rhythmic, verse structure—debated as anapestic tetrameters, dactylic hexameters, or a mix—facilitating memorization and public performance, possibly with musical accompaniment to disseminate theology among laity in Alexandria's diverse congregations. Arius's language is vivid and assertive, using metaphors of begetting and craftsmanship to convey subordination without vulgarity, though critics like Athanasius derided it as "flippant" and "effeminate" in manner, reflecting polemical bias rather than objective form. Surviving fragments, preserved mainly in Athanasius's Orations Against the Arians and Synodicon, comprise paraphrases alongside direct quotes, totaling around 40 lines, which scholarly reconstructions confirm as faithful to an original poetic intent aimed at doctrinal clarity over philosophical abstraction. This accessible format contributed to the work's influence, enabling rapid spread before its condemnation at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.

Letters and Fragments

The extant letters of Arius, preserved chiefly through quotations in pro-Nicene sources such as of Cyrus's Ecclesiastical History and Athanasius's treatises, offer direct evidence of his theological stance during the early phases of the around 318–321 AD. These include a personal appeal to , a collective defense addressed to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, and a later confession submitted to Emperor Constantine I circa 335 AD following Arius's exile. Such documents, transmitted by adversaries who viewed as heretical, warrant scrutiny for potential interpretive biases, though their core doctrinal assertions align consistently across multiple patristic citations. Arius's letter to , his key ally and bishop of Beroea before transfer to , dates to approximately 318 AD and laments persecution by while summarizing core beliefs: alone is unbegotten, eternal, and without beginning, having begotten the Son as a perfect but created being before eternal times, deriving entirely from the Father's will without sharing His essence or equality. The Son is described as immutable yet not co-eternal, possessing attributes like Word and by grace rather than , and created "out of nothing" like all other beings, albeit uniquely prior to the world's formation. This explicitly rejects homoousios (same substance) implications, prioritizing scriptural subordination to preserve divine monarchy. The letter co-authored by Arius and about 22 presbyters to Alexander of Alexandria, circulated around 321 AD amid synodal condemnation, reaffirms loyalty to Nicene-antecedent traditions while anathematizing views of the as "unbegotten" or co-eternal. It posits the as begotten "before all ages" yet distinctly from the Father's , emphasizing as an act of will rather than necessity, and interprets Proverbs 8:22 ("The Lord created me") as indicating the Son's origin in time to avoid implying division in the . Signatories, including figures like Secundus of Ptolemais, underscore empirical scriptural fidelity over speculative equality doctrines. Arius's confession to Constantine, presented during his recall from exile, adapts phrasing to affirm the Son's divinity and generation "before the world was" while maintaining subordination: the Son is "true Power, begotten before the worlds," faithful image of the invisible , yet eternally generated without implying co-unbegottenness. This document, quoted in Socrates Scholasticus's Ecclesiastical History, reflects pragmatic concessions amid imperial pressure but retains causal distinction between Father as unoriginate source and Son as derived. Beyond these letters, fragmentary quotations from Arius's lost treatises appear in Athanasius's Discourses Against the Arians (circa 339–345 AD), including exegeses asserting the Son's "begetting" as a creative act from non-being, rendering Him "God only-begotten" by adoptive grace rather than inherent . These snippets, drawn from Arius's interpretations of John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I") and Colossians 1:15, reinforce a hierarchical where the Son's immutability derives from the Father's unchangeable will, not shared substance. Reconstruction challenges arise from selective quoting by opponents like Athanasius, whose anti-Arian may amplify perceived novelties, yet the fragments cohere with letter doctrines, suggesting fidelity to ante-Nicene in figures like .

Challenges in Reconstruction

![Constantine ordering the burning of Arian books][float-right] The reconstruction of Arius's writings is impeded by the extensive destruction of Arian texts decreed by Emperor Constantine shortly after the Council of Nicaea in 325. In a rescript dated to 325, Constantine commanded the immediate surrender of all books composed by Arius or his followers, stipulating their public burning and imposing the death penalty for concealment or possession. This imperial policy, enforced across the empire, ensured that no substantial treatises or systematic works by Arius survived intact, leaving modern scholars with only fragmentary remnants. The surviving corpus consists primarily of three letters attributed to Arius—his epistle to Alexander of Alexandria (c. 321), another to Alexander outlining his creed, and one to (c. 323)—along with excerpts from his Thalia, a theological poem. These letters, preserved in collections by opponents, are generally regarded as authentic by scholars, offering direct expressions of Arius's subordinationist doctrine that the Son was created by the Father and not coeternal. However, their scarcity limits comprehensive analysis, as they represent ad hoc defenses rather than elaborated . Reconstruction of the Thalia presents acute difficulties due to its exclusive transmission through adversarial quotations. Alexander of Alexandria cited portions in a synodal letter (c. 324), while Athanasius provided longer summaries in Orations Against the Arians (c. 339–345) and De Synodis (c. 352). As a metrical composition in anapestic or iambic form, its conversion to by critics likely introduced alterations in phrasing and emphasis, compounded by Athanasius's polemical agenda to Arian views as materialistic or polytheistic. Scholarly efforts to restore its original meter and content, as analyzed by G.C. Stead, reveal inconsistencies in the preserved texts, further obscuring Arius's precise formulations. Broader challenges arise from the heresiological bias inherent in the sources, where Arius's ideas are filtered through orthodox refutations by Athanasius, Epiphanius, and others, who had incentives to exaggerate deviations from emerging Nicene norms. This distortion, combined with the absence of Arian-friendly archives after subsequent suppressions under and , fosters ongoing debates about the nuances of Arius's thought, such as the extent of the Son's or immutability. highlights the formidable task of discerning authentic intent amid such caricatures, urging reliance on contextual patristic parallels over uncritical acceptance of polemics. Scattered fragments from lost works, like references in Asterius the , add layers of attribution , rendering any full doctrinal synthesis provisional and contested.

Post-Arius Developments

Variations in Arian Thought

The primary variations in Arian thought emerged after Arius' death circa 336 AD, as his disciples and sympathizers grappled with the implications of the Nicene Creed's homoousios (same ) formulation while refining subordinationist Christology. These divergences, evident by the 350s AD amid imperial councils under , produced three main factions: the Anomoeans (emphasizing radical dissimilarity), the Homoiousians (advocating similarity in ), and the Homoeans (stressing likeness without essence terminology). Each group subordinated the to the but differed in the extent of ontological distinction, often influenced by dialectical methods and political expediency rather than uniform adherence to Arius' original fragments. Anomoean Arianism, the most extreme variant, asserted that the Son is anomoios (unlike) the Father not only in person but in essence (ousia) and attributes, rendering any similarity superficial. Developed by Aetius, a ordained around 350 AD who applied Aristotelian syllogisms to , this school argued that the Father's unbegotten (agennētos) nature inherently precludes essential unity with the begotten Son, as implies contingency. Aetius' pupil Eunomius, bishop of from approximately 360 AD until his deposition in 364 AD, systematized this through an apophatic yet rationalist : divine names like "unbegotten" fully disclose the Father's , which the Son lacks, allowing human comprehension of God's incomprehensibility. This position, condemned at councils like in 360 AD, prioritized logical deduction over scriptural ambiguity, alienating moderate Arians but appealing to intellectuals. In contrast, thought, sometimes termed moderate or , posited that the Son shares a similar (homoiousios) essence with the Father, distinct yet not wholly dissimilar, as a compromise against both Nicaean identity and Anomoean otherness. Promoted by Basil of Ancyra, who led a there in 351 AD rejecting extreme subordination, this faction emphasized the Son's eternal generation from the Father's will without creaturely origination, drawing on Origenist precedents for relational likeness. Influential under until the 360s AD, Homoiousians like George of Laodicea sought ecclesiastical reconciliation, but their nuanced homoiousios—differing by one from homoousios—fueled accusations of and eventual marginalization at in 359 AD. Homoean Arianism eschewed ousia debates entirely, declaring the Son homoios (like) the Father "according to the Scriptures" in a formula ratified at the Council of Sirmium in 357 AD, which banned essence terminology to foster anti-Nicene consensus. Championed by Acacius of Antioch, who orchestrated Athanasius' exile in 356 AD, and Eudoxius of Antioch, this pragmatic variant subordinated the Son temporally while affirming functional likeness, accommodating diverse subordinationists under imperial favor. Homoeans dominated Eastern sees during the 360s AD but fragmented post-381 AD under Theodosian orthodoxy, as their avoidance of metaphysics exposed underlying inconsistencies. These factions, while rooted in Arius' emphasis on the Son's derivation, illustrate how post-Arian developments blended theology with synodal politics, diluting original coherence.

Arianism in Germanic Kingdoms

Arianism spread among primarily through the missionary efforts of (also known as Wulfila), a 4th-century bishop of Gothic origin consecrated around 341 CE by the Arian-leaning Emperor Constantius II's appointees. evangelized the starting in the 340s, translating portions of the into the , which facilitated the adoption of a Homoian (semi-Arian) form of that emphasized the subordination of the Son to the Father, distinguishing it from the upheld by the Roman imperial church. This creed, often termed "Arian" broadly, appealed to Germanic elites as it permitted separate ecclesiastical structures, preserving tribal identity amid Roman conquests and migrations. In the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy under Theodoric the Great (r. 493–526 CE), Arianism served as the royal faith, with Theodoric maintaining distinct Arian institutions while practicing relative tolerance toward Nicene Catholics to stabilize rule over a Roman majority. He commissioned the Arian Baptistery in Ravenna around 500 CE, an octagonal structure featuring mosaics of the baptism of Christ, symbolizing the kingdom's adherence to Arian baptismal rites separate from Catholic ones. Political control over Arian bishops enhanced monarchal authority, though Theodoric avoided doctrinal enforcement to prevent unrest. The in and upheld from the , using it to legitimize rule and differentiate from the Hispano-Roman population, with kings like (r. 568–586 CE) attempting forced conversions of Catholics. This ended with King Reccared I's conversion to in 587 CE, formalized at the Third Council of Toledo on May 8, 589 CE, where 62 bishops condemned and integrated Visigothic and Roman churches, driven by internal pressures and alliances against external threats. Vandal rulers in , after conquering in 439 CE under Genseric (r. 428–477 CE), enforced more aggressively, confiscating Catholic churches, exiling or deposing Nicene bishops, and imposing penalties like on converts who reverted, viewing Nicene resistance as a loyalty threat. Subsequent kings like (r. 477–484 CE) intensified persecutions, but Byzantine reconquest in 533–534 CE under Justinian eradicated Vandal Arian structures, restoring Nicene dominance. Other groups like the and adopted similarly for ethnic cohesion, but by the late , political expediency and imperial pressure led to widespread conversions, diminishing Arianism's hold as Germanic kingdoms assimilated Roman institutions.

Decline Under Theodosius

The reign of (379–395) marked a turning point in the suppression of within the , as the emperor, a committed adherent of Nicene orthodoxy, leveraged imperial authority to enforce doctrinal uniformity. Upon entering on November 24, 380, shortly after his baptism by Ascholius of Thessalonica, Theodosius expelled the Arian bishop Demophilus and his followers from the city's churches, reallocating them to Nicene clergy. This action, combined with the appointment of as bishop, signaled a policy of exclusion that dismantled Arian institutional presence in the imperial capital. The , promulgated on February 27, 380, by alongside Western emperors and , formalized —defined by adherence to the of the Father and Son—as the empire's sole legitimate faith, explicitly condemning Arian views of Christ's subordination as heretical madness. The decree mandated adherence to the doctrines upheld by and Peter of Alexandria, effectively criminalizing non-Nicene assemblies and authorizing the seizure of dissenting properties. To consolidate this policy, Theodosius convened the in May 381, where 150 bishops reaffirmed the , expanded it to affirm the Holy Spirit's divinity, and issued Canon 1 anathematizing alongside Macedonianism and other variants, binding the Eastern churches to under threat of imperial enforcement. Subsequent legislation intensified the crackdown, with edicts in the prohibiting Arian ordinations, public worship, and urban settlement by non-Nicenes; for instance, a 383 targeted Eunomian Arians by confiscating their conventicles, while laws in 392 and beyond extended bans on heretical gatherings empire-wide. Punishments included for Arian leaders, such as the deposition of bishops refusing to recant, and fines or for unauthorized assemblies. These measures, enforced through prefects and military oversight, eroded Arian networks in Roman territories, compelling conversions or marginalization; by Theodosius's death in 395, had lost its episcopal strongholds and state tolerance in the core empire, though pockets endured among barbarian federates.

Long-Term Legacy

Theological Influence and Critiques

Arius's , which emphasized the Son's derivation from the and subordination in , contributed to ongoing debates on divine unity and hierarchy within , influencing subordinationist tendencies in later patristic thought before being marginalized by Nicene . While not directly causative, Arius's formulation echoed and intensified Origen's earlier , where the Son's generation implied ontological dependence, prompting refinements in trinitarian doctrine to affirm coequality without modalism. This legacy persisted in nontrinitarian strands, such as 16th-century Socinianism, which rejected Christ's with the in favor of a created, exalted , drawing on Arian-like arguments for strict . Orthodox critiques, spearheaded by in works like Contra Arianos (circa 339–345 CE), centered on soteriological inadequacy: if the Son were a creature, as Arius asserted ("there was when he was not"), divine would be impossible, since only the uncreated God could redeem humanity from sin and death. Athanasius argued this view fragmented the , veering toward by positing two unequal principles, and undermined scriptural depictions of Christ's divine attributes, such as eternal existence in Proverbs 8:22 interpreted through Hellenistic lenses. Later , including Basil of Caesarea (d. 379 CE), reinforced these objections by distinguishing economic subordination (roles in creation and redemption) from essential inequality, rejecting Arianism's collapse of the former into the latter as logically incoherent with . In modern assessments, Arian subordinationism faces critique for prioritizing philosophical monadism over biblical relationality, with scholars noting its appeal in contexts emphasizing God's transcendence but failure to account for claims of Christ's shared glory with the Father (John 17:5). Some contemporary theologians, wary of reviving it amid debates on intra-trinitarian relations, caution against conflating functional order with ontological , viewing Arius's system as overly rationalistic and detached from incarnational realism. These critiques underscore Arianism's enduring challenge to trinitarian coherence, though its suppression at (325 CE) solidified homoousios as the antidote.

Modern Revivals and Analogues

In the 19th and 20th centuries, emerged as a theological movement rejecting the and emphasizing the unity of God, viewing as a human prophet or moral teacher exalted by God but not co-eternal or consubstantial with the Father, echoing Arius's subordinationist . This position aligns with Arianism's denial of the Son's full divinity, as Unitarians historically drew from Socinian influences that revived anti-Trinitarian ideas condemned at in 325 CE. Some English Unitarians explicitly identified ancient Arians as intellectual forebears, though modern has broadened into pluralism, diluting strict Christological focus. Jehovah's Witnesses, originating from the Bible Student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the 1870s and formalized under Joseph Franklin Rutherford by 1931, teach that Jesus is the archangel Michael, the first created being through whom God made all else, implying a time before his existence—paralleling Arius's formula "there was when he was not." This subordinationism rejects the Nicene homoousios (same substance), positioning the Son as inferior in essence to the Father, much like Arian theology. Unlike classical Arians, who permitted worship of Christ as a divine intermediary, Witnesses direct worship solely to Jehovah, viewing Jesus as a perfected creature worthy of obedience but not adoration. These groups represent analogues rather than direct revivals, as lacked the organizational continuity or additional doctrines (e.g., Witnesses' rejection of or blood transfusions) seen today. Broader modern analogues appear in liberal Christian theologies that reduce Christ to an ethical exemplar without ontological divinity, influenced by Enlightenment and prioritizing over scriptural Trinitarian inferences. Such views persist in some academic and progressive circles, critiqued by orthodox theologians for undermining core Christian dependent on Christ's .

Assessments of Suppression

Following the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Emperor Constantine I imposed severe measures against Arius and his adherents, including the exile of Arius along with bishops Theophronius of Ptolemais and Secundus of Ptolemais to for refusing to endorse the . Constantine decreed the public burning of all Arius's writings, likening them to the condemned texts of the anti-Christian philosopher Porphyry, and mandated that any individuals found concealing such documents face . These actions aimed to eradicate Arian teachings at their source, reflecting Constantine's prioritization of imperial stability through religious uniformity. Proponents of the suppression, including Nicene advocates like , assessed it as a necessary defense against doctrinal deviation that subordinated the Son to the Father, potentially undermining the efficacy of Christ's salvific role by implying a created intermediary rather than an eternal co-equal divine person. From this perspective, the measures preserved the church's theological integrity, as Arian views were seen as incompatible with scriptural affirmations of Christ's full deity, such as those in John's Gospel. Empirical outcomes supported this view partially: while Arianism persisted among Germanic tribes and faced resurgence under emperors like (r. 337–361 AD), systematic enforcement under via the in 380 AD marginalized it within the , culminating in the Council of Constantinople's reaffirmation of in 381 AD. Critiques of the suppression highlight its coercive nature, involving state-enforced and that stifled theological and contributed to the of primary Arian texts, complicating modern reconstructions of Arius's positions. Scholars such as have argued against demonizing Arius as the archetypal heretic, noting that his emphasis on the Father's uniqueness drew from scriptural (e.g., Proverbs 8:22 interpreting Wisdom's creation) and represented a sincere attempt to safeguard against perceived Trinitarian innovations. This perspective posits that the suppression, while politically effective for consolidating power, reflected an alliance of church and state that prioritized over intellectual pluralism, with long-term causal effects including the entrenchment of but at the expense of diverse early Christian interpretations. Confessional histories often justify the actions as providential, whereas secular analyses, potentially influenced by post-Enlightenment aversion to religious authority, emphasize the authoritarian precedents set for later inquisitorial practices.

References

  1. https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/arius.htm
  2. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=honorsprojects
  3. https://ehrmanblog.org/you-call-this-a-heresy-the-views-of-arius-in-his-own-words/
  4. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36586/what-scriptures-did-arius-use-to-support-teaching-that-jesus-was-created
  5. https://restitutio.org/2023/05/06/494-early-church-history-12-arius-and-alexander-of-alexandria/
  6. https://earlychurch.org.uk/arianism.php
  7. https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=grapho
  8. https://academic.oup.com/past/article/227/1/3/1461647
  9. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01718a.htm
  10. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Arius%2C%2520the%2520heresiarch
  11. https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/cce/id/234/
  12. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/arius-christian-ascetic
  13. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Arius
  14. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Arius
  15. http://legalhistorysources.com/ChurchHistory220/LectureTwo/ArianControversy.htm
  16. https://www.affinity.org.uk/app/uploads/2022/08/59_17.pdf
  17. https://www.knowableword.com/2014/08/04/proverbs-8-and-jesus/
  18. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/irish-biblical-studies/24-3_099.pdf
  19. https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/arius_letter_to_alexander_of_alexandria.htm
  20. https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-6/
  21. https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/arius_thalia.htm
  22. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.i.ii.html
  23. https://www.fourthcentury.com/arius-thalia-intro/
  24. https://www.fourthcentury.com/documents-of-the-early-arian-controversy/
  25. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0622.htm
  26. https://ehrmanblog.org/the-controversies-about-christ-arius-and-alexander/
  27. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2803.htm
  28. https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-4a/
  29. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
  30. https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-1/
  31. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05623b.htm
  32. https://biblehub.com/library/pamphilius/church_history/section_5_the_outbreak_of.htm
  33. https://thinkingwest.com/2023/05/08/the-earworm-that-rocked-the-early-church/
  34. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Arius%2C%2520Followers%2520of
  35. https://www.fourthcentury.com/eusebius-of-nicomedia/
  36. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/eusebius-of-nicomedia
  37. https://www.phcmontreat.org/central-figures-nicea/
  38. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.iii.i.vii.html
  39. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1854/eusebius-on-christianity/
  40. https://www.fourthcentury.com/eusebius-chart/
  41. https://libguides.regent.edu/nicaea/arian
  42. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
  43. https://theologicalstudies.net/articles/the-council-of-nicaea-325-reassessing-the-role-of-eusebius-of-caesarea/
  44. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2804.htm
  45. https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-22/
  46. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=grapho
  47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23953621
  48. https://www.academia.edu/19029662/Arius_Conservativus_The_Question_of_Arius_Theological_Belonging
  49. https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/arius-philosophy/
  50. https://aleteia.org/2025/05/20/how-many-bishops-were-at-the-council-of-nicaea/
  51. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25023.htm
  52. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/arius-and-the-council-of-nicaea-10686
  53. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2816.htm
  54. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/nicea
  55. https://www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-from-the-sources-7-eusebius-of-caesareas-creed-and-letter/
  56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4146467
  57. https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/eusebius_letter_to_his_church_about_nicaea.htm
  58. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/irom.12510
  59. https://www.equip.org/PDF/DN206.pdf
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31195552_The_Exile_and_Recalls_of_Arius
  61. https://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=C5BMBSYCYHLN3CM
  62. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-ecclesiastical-history/article/constantine-and-the-arian-reaction-after-nicaea/3E9E754C5609527D990371ACF2FB38C7
  63. https://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter3-2.html
  64. https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-10.htm
  65. https://michaelfbird.substack.com/p/who-was-arius
  66. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26011.htm
  67. https://churchhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nicene-parallels.pdf
  68. https://www.fourthcentury.com/arius-chart/
  69. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23970859
  70. https://www.fourthcentury.com/imperial-laws-and-letters-involving-religion-ad-311-364/
  71. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26013.htm
  72. https://biblehub.com/library/scholasticus/the_ecclesiastical_history_of_scholasticus/chapter_xxxviii_the_death_of_arius.htm
  73. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm
  74. https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/files_JETS-PDFs_31_31-1_31-1-pp059-067_JETS.pdf
  75. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-the-council-of-nicaea/arius-and-arianism/BA2A28323C36138745DB796F8EED45EA
  76. https://theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/48.3.1.pdf
  77. https://www.monergism.com/subordinationism
  78. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=kjur
  79. https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/refuting-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-within-the-trinity-1/
  80. https://fuller.edu/next-faithful-step/resources/arius-and-nicea/
  81. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/early-arianism-a-view-of-salvation/
  82. https://earlychurch.gospelstudies.org.uk/pdf/atr/59-3_260.pdf
  83. https://credomag.com/2020/08/arianism-its-teaching-and-rebuttal/
  84. https://biblehub.com/library/athanasius/select_works_and_letters_or_athanasius/chapter_ii_extracts_from_the_thalia.htm
  85. https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/XXXIII/1/98/1625999
  86. https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/XXIX/1/20/1731271
  87. https://biblehub.com/library/theodoret/the_ecclesiastical_history_of_theodoret/chapter_iv_the_letter_of_arius.htm
  88. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-edition-of-early-christian-writings/arius-letters-to-eusebius-of-nicomedia-and-alexander-of-alexandria/83CFB56DEC02E7167DB5CF1C6E4AF095
  89. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.v.ii.iv.html
  90. https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-33/
  91. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/arius-heresy-and-tradition/
  92. https://archive.org/details/arianismafterari0000unse
  93. https://labalkans.org/en/labedia/religion/dogmatic/neo-arians
  94. https://dlib.scu.ac.ir/bitstream/Hannan/268249/1/9789004183322.pdf
  95. https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/204/2040391.htm
  96. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/ECO/A582.xml?language=en
  97. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/10/1177
  98. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2015/2015.03.49/
  99. https://homepages.bluffton.edu/~SULLIVANM/italy/ravenna/arianbap/arian.html
  100. https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=wwuet
  101. http://culturahistorica.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/nirenberg_visigothic_conversion.pdf
  102. https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/pdf/10.1484/J.NMS.3.5
  103. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2019/2019.01.52/
  104. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/244/
  105. https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2016/sharp_robert.pdf
  106. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/87130/why-was-theodosius-successful-in-ending-the-arian-controversy
  107. https://worldhistoryedu.com/the-edict-of-thessalonica-in-380/
  108. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum02.htm
  109. https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/theodosius-successful/
  110. http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/codex_theodosianus.htm
  111. https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/orthodox-view/
  112. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/trinitarian-agency-and-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-an-augustinian-perspective/
  113. https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/download/23803/51063/79733
  114. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/they-just-wont-go-away
  115. https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/unitarian_influence_on_modern_bible_versions.php
  116. https://mpuuc.org/sermons/110904AncientRoots.html
  117. https://africa.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-arianism-back-then-matters-now-jehovahs-witnesses/
  118. https://www.evangelical-times.org/arianism-and-jehovahs-witnesses/
  119. https://realclearcatholic.com/2020/02/09/on-jehovahs-witnesses/
  120. https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses/arianism-and-its-influence-today/
  121. https://www.churchandculture.org/blog/2022/9/26/the-modern-renaissance-of-arianism
  122. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/how-arianism-almost-won
  123. https://www.academic.oup.com/book/10915/chapter/159168570
  124. https://insearchofchristianorigins.com/arianism/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.