The Arian controversy was a series of Christian disputes about the nature of Christ. It was the greatest internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced, and led to the acceptance of the Trinity doctrine, the church’s most fundamental doctrine.
It began in 318 as a dispute between Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and a priest in his diocese named Arius, both Christian theologians from Alexandria, Egypt.
The most important of these controversies concerned the relationship between the substance of God the Father and the substance of His Son. Arius argued that the Son of God did not always exist and that His substance is different from the Father's. This conflicted with the view advanced by Alexander, and later also by Athanasius, who argued that the Christ is coeternal and consubstantial (of the same substance) with God the Father.
Emperor Constantine, through the Council of Nicaea in 325, attempted to unite Christianity and establish a single, imperially approved version of the faith. Ironically, his efforts were the cause of the deep divisions created by the disputes after Nicaea. In the decade after Nicaea, the deposed Arians were readmitted to communion, and all the leading supporters of the Nicene Creed were deposed, disgraced, or exiled.“Arius and most of his supporters were, at Constantine’s request, readmitted to communion within two or three years of the council” (Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, p. 100). “Within ten years of the Council of Nicaea all the leading supporters of the creed of that Council had been deposed or disgraced or exiled” (R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. 274).
While there was no formal schism, these disagreements divided the Church into various factions for over 55 years, from the time before the First Council of Nicaea in 325 until after the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
Inside the Roman Empire, the Trinitarian faction ultimately gained the upper hand through the Edict of Thessalonica, issued on 27 February AD 380, which made Nicene Christology the state religion of the Roman Empire,Ehler, Sidney Zdeneck; Morrall, John B (1967). Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. p. 6-7. . Archived and through strict enforcement of that edict. However, outside the Roman Empire, Arianism and other forms of Unitarianism continued to be preached for some time (without the blessing of the Empire), but it was eventually killed off. The modern Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as all Protestant denominations, have generally followed the Trinitarian formulation, though each has its own specific theology on the matter.
History
Beginnings The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. Christians in the first two decades of the fourth century had to concern themselves first of all with survival, in the face of what was perhaps the only systematic attempt ever, on the part of the Roman government, to destroy the Christian Church. Roman persecution of Christians was brought to an end by Galerius’ Edict of Toleration in 311, followed by Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313.
The 4th-century Controversy continued the controversies of the previous centuries. Following Justin Martyr in the second century, Logos-theology dominated, but was opposed by Monarchianism. In the 3rd century, authors like Sabellius, Tertullian, and Origen made significant but conflicting contributions to the debate over the nature of Christ.
Around the year 260, some Sabellians in Libya used the term homoousios (consubstantial) to say that the Father and Son are one substance. In a letter, the bishop of Alexandria opposed them and denied the term. The Sabellians appealed to the bishop of Rome. Rome reprimanded Alexandria in a letter, after which Alexandria accepted the term, but as meaning that the Father and Son are two Beings of similar substance, rather than one substance.“In a dispute between Dionysius, bishop of Rome, and Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, c. 260, the term appears to have been something that Dionysius of Alexandria had denied but was then persuaded by his namesake of Rome to accept” (Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004), pp. 93-4).
The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Alexander of Alexandria, when Arius formulated the following syllogism:"If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: hence it is that there was when the Son was not. It follows then of necessity that he had his existence from the non-existence"..The dispute between Arius and Alexander was a continuation of a dispute between two preexisting theological traditions.“The conflict in the fourth century was one between two theological traditions, both of which were well established by the beginning of the century” (Lienhard). Arius defended what he regarded as the Alexandrian tradition.“Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian” (Williams, Rowan, Arius, Heresy & Tradition, (2002/1987), p. 175). Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was criticised for his slow reaction against Arius. Like his predecessor, Dionysius, he has been charged with vacillation. According to Eusebius's work, The Life of Constantine, the controversy had spread from Alexandria into almost all the African regions, and was considered a disturbance of the public order by the Roman Empire. Constantine the Great (Constantine I) sent two letters to Arius and Bishop Alexander, asking the religious leaders to stop the controversy. The ongoing controversy led to Constantine's oversight of the First Council of Nicaea.
First Council of Nicaea (325)
Arianism would not be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. By the time Bishop Alexander finally acted against his presbyter, 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 Constantine I having legalized it in 313 through the Edict of Milan. "Constantine desired that the church should contribute to the social and moral strength of the empire, religious dissension was a menace to the public welfare." Consequently, the emperor had taken a personal interest in several ecumenical issues, including the Donatist controversy in 316. He also wanted to bring an end to the Arian dispute.
To this end, the emperor sent bishop Hosius of Corduba 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." As the debate continued to rage despite Hosius' efforts, Constantine in AD 325 took an unprecedented step: he called an ecumenical council at Nicaea composed of church prelates from all parts of the empire to resolve this issue, possibly at Hosius' recommendation. It is traditionally said that 318 bishops came to Nicaea to attend the council, though others suggest figures from 250-300. The vast majority of those bishops were from the East. Italy, Spain, Gaul, North Africa, Persia, and Scythia each sent one bishop.
Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to attend, sent two priests as his delegates. Arius himself attended the council as well as the young deacon Athanasius, who attended as an assistant to Alexander of Alexandria and who would become the champion of the Nicene Creed and spend most of his life battling Arianism and other forms of Unitarianism. Also there were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Before the main conclave convened, Hosius initially met with Alexander and his supporters at Nicomedia. The council was presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.
Athanasius was present at the Council but did not play an active part.“Athanasius was certainly present as a deacon accompanying Alexander of Alexandria. … But it is equally certain that he can have taken no prominent nor active part, in spite of later legends to this effect and the conviction of some scholars that he was the moving spirit in the Council” (Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. 157). Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father were led by Alexander. 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, with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. 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."
According to some accounts in the hagiography of Saint Nicholas, debate at the council became so heated that at one point, he slapped Arius in the face. The majority of the bishops at the council ultimately agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene Creed formulated at the first council of Nicaea. It included the word homoousios, meaning "consubstantial", or "same in essence", which was incompatible with Arius' beliefs. 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) 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. However, Constantine soon found reason to suspect the sincerity of these three, for he later included them in the sentence pronounced on Arius.
Ariminum, Seleucia, and Constantinople (358–360)
In 358, the emperor Constantius II requested two councils, one of the western bishops at Ariminum (now Rimini in Northern Italy) and one of the eastern bishops at Nicomedia.Philostorgius, in Photius, Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 10.Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 37.
In 359, the western council met at Ariminum. Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa, following the new creed drafted at Sirmium (359), proposed that, "according to the scriptures," the Son was "like the Father." This is known as the Homoian view which held that the Bible does not reveal whether the Son is of the same substance as the Father and we, therefore, should not speculate about such things. This view is in opposition to the "of the same substance" (Homoousios) view of the Nicene Creed. The council, including some supporters of the older creed, accepted this proposal. After the council, Pope Liberius condemned the creed of Ariminum, while his rival, Pope Felix II, supported it.Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 2, chapter 40.