ARIANISM
3S9
ARIANISM
sion was conveyed to all the foreign bishops by cir- 1 sebius of Nicomedia*, and other favorers of Arius, by culars sent by Alexander himself (A.D. 321). Arius which an epistle was written to "all bishops," ex- retired to Palestine, where by his eloquence and tal- I horting them to hold fellowship with Arius (Sozomen, ents he soon gained a number of converts. Eusebius, j i, 15). Another council was now held at Alexandria bishop of Nicomedia, who had also studied under Lu- (323 ?), from which Alexander sent forth an encyclical
cian, and doubtless held his opinions, naturally in- clined to favor Arius, who addressed to Eusebius a letter, still extant (Epiphanius, Hares. GO. G, and in Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i, 5), from which we derive our knowledge of the first stage of Arian opinion. It runs thus : "We cannot assent to these expressions, ' always Father, always Son;' 'at the same time Father and Son ;' that ' the Son always co-exists with the Father ;' that ' the Father has no pre-existence before the Son, no, not so much as in thought or a moment.' But this we think and teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of the unbegotten by any means. Nor is he made out of any pre-existent thing ; but, by the will and pleasure of the Father, he existed before time and ages, the only begotten God, unchangeable ; and that before He was begotten, or made, or designed, or found- ed, he was not. But we are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning, and that God has no beginning. For this we are persecuted ; and because we say the Son is out of nothing. 'Which we there- fore say, because he is not a part of God, or made out of any pre-existent thing" {cicdaKopiev, on b u'lbc, ouk Iotiv aykvvr]TOQ, obct fifpog dytvvijTov kcit oho'tva
TpUTTOV, OllU t£ VTTOKH/XIVOV TIVOQ ' ttXX' DTI ^E\t)fia-
ti icai fiov\>j vitinri] irpb \pbvwv tcai irpb aiwviov Tr\t)ptiQ dtoc,, povoyeia)g, dvaXXoifarog, icai irpiv yev- v)]9ij, i'/Toi KTicQy, i) bpioOij, »; Srept\iw9>j, ovk yv • ayivvijTog yap ovk ijv * diUKojisBa on tnrapitv, ap\i)v t\n b vibg, b ci Sebe. avapxbc, tan .... Kai on tiira- ptv, on t% oiiic ovrwv iar'tv ' ovrto St inraptv k'iQoti ol>?t pkpoQ Stov ovSe t£ irKOKiipivov rivoe). Voigt (in his Lehre des Athanasius von Alexandrien) gives this letter, with critical emendations, which elucidate the development of the opinions of Arius (see transl. from Voigt, by Dr. Schaefter, in B'Miotheca Sacra, xxi, 1- 38). The second direct source of our knowledge of the opinions of Arius is a letter addressed by him to Alex- ander (preserved in Epiphanius Uteres. 69, 7, and in Athanasius, De Synod. 1G), in which he states his po- sitions plausibly and cautiously, and claims that they are the traditional opinions of the church. "We be- lieve that there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. God, the cause of all things, is alone without beginning. The Son, begotten of the Father before time, made before the ages were founded, was not before he was begotten. Nor is he eternal, or co-eternal, or begotten at the same time with the Fa- ther." In these two letters Arius teaches that the Father alone is God, and that the Son is his creature. He still regards the Son, however, "as occupying a unique position among creatures; as unalterable and unchangeable; and as bearing a distinctive and pe- culiar likeness to the Father" (Dorner, 1. c. p. 236). He terms the Son "a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures ; an offspring, but not as one of those who are generated" (Ep. ad Alex.~). Alexan- der now wrote a letter to Alexander of Constantinople (Theod. i, 4), in which he charges Arius with teach- ing not only that the Son is less than the Father, but also that he is "liable to change," notwithstanding that Arius, in the epistles cited above, speaks of the l Son as " unalterable and unchangeable" (ftvaXXoiWoc, UTptTTTOc). But Arius abandoned these terms, and set forth the changeableness of the Son without reserva- tion in his Thalia (Qakeia), the latest of his writings known to us (written during his stay at Nicomedia). It is partly in prose and partly in verse, and obviously addressed to the popular ear. What we have extant of it is preserved in Athanasius {cont. Arianos, i, 5-9 ; De Synod. 15 ; see citations from all the remains of Arius in Gieseler, Ch. History, i, § 79).
A council was called in Bithynia (A.D, 323) by Eu-
letter against Arius, and also sharply censured Eusebi- us of Nicomedia, and other Eastern bishops, as support- ers of grave heresy (preserved in Socrates, Hist. Eccl. i, 6). We now hear, for the first time, the name of Eu- sebius of Caesarea in connection with the controversy. He did not accept the Arian formula (jjv iron ore oinc yv) ; but, as he had been educated in Origen's denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ, he was just in the position to suggest a compromise between the opposing parties. He wrote letters in this spirit (excusing Arius) to Alexander; but the question at issue was a funda- mental one, ready for its final decision, and the day of compromise was past and gone (Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. i, 15 ; Epiphanius, Hares. 69, 4 ; see Eusebius of Gjet- sarea). The controversy had now spread like a flame throughout the Eastern empire, and at last Con- stantine found it absolutely necessary to bring it to a point. At first he sought to reconcile Alexander and Arius by a letter in which he urged them to drop dis- cussion on unessential points, and to agree together for the harmony of the church. This letter was con- veyed by his court bishop, Hosius ; but he met with no success, and an uproar arose in Alexandria, in which the effigy of the emperor himself was insulted. As all the provincial synods had only helped to fan the flame of strife, Constantine determined to call a general council of bishops, and accordingly the first (ecumenical council was held at Nice, A.D. 325, con- sisting of 318 bishops, most of whom were from the East. (See Nice, Council of.)