§ 119, THE AEIAN CONTROVERSY. G19
in which it is to tliis day substantially held in all orthodox churches.
The external history of the Arian controversy, of which we first sketch the main features, falls into three stages :
1. From the outbreak of the controversy to the temporary victory of orthodoxy at the council of ^icsea; a,_ d. 318-325.
2. The Arian and semi-Arian reaction, and its prevalence to the death of Constantius; a. d. 325-361.
3. The final victory, and the completion of the Nicene creed ; to the council of Constantinople, a. d. 381.
Arianism proceeded from tlie bosom of the Catholic cliurch, was condemned as heresy at the council of Nicsea, but afterwards under various forms attained even ascendency for a time in the church, until at the second ecumenical council it was cast out forever. From that time it lost its importance as a politicotheological power, but continued as an uncatholic sect more than two hundred years among the Germanic nations, which were converted to Christianity under the Arian domination.
The roots of the Arian controversy are to be found partly in the contradictory elements of the christology of tlie great Origen, which reflect tlie crude condition of the Christian mind in the third century ; partly in the antagonism between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian theology. Origen, on the one hand, attributed to Christ eternity and other divine attributes which logically lead to the orthodox doctrine of the identity of substance ; so that he was vindicated even by Athanasius, the two Cappadocian Gregories, and Basil. But, on the other hand, in his zeal for the personal distinctions in the Godhead, he taught with equal clearness a separateness of essence between the Father and the Son,' and the subordination of the Son, as a second or secondary God beneath the Father,' and thus furnished a starting point for the Arian
' 'ErcpoTTjs Tf)9 o&eriaj, or rov viroictiiuevov. De orat. C. 16.
' Hence he termed tlie Logos Sevr^pos @e6s, or 0€o's (without the article, comp John i. 1), in distinction from the Father, who is absolute God. 6 ©edy, or avro^eoi Deus per se. He calls the Father also the root {piCa) and fountain {-^viv) of the whole Godhead. Comp. voL i. §78. Redepenning: Origenes, ii. 304 sq., anc Thomasius: Origenes, p. 118 sq.
620 THIRD PERIOD. A.D 311-590.
heresy. Tlie eternal generation of the Son from the will of the Fatlier was, witli Origen, the communication of a divine but secondary substance, and this idea, in the hands of the less devout and profound Arius, who with his more rigid logic could admit no intermediate being between God and the creature, deteriorated to the notion of the primal creature.
But in general Arianism was much more akin to the spirit of tlie Antiochian school than to that of the Alexandrian. Arius himself traced his doctrine to Lucian of Antioch, avIio advocated the heretical views of Paul of Samosata on tho Trinity, and was for a time excommunicated, but afterwards rose to great consideration, and died a martyr under Maximinus.
Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, made earnest of the Origenistic doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (which was afterwards taught by Athanasius and the Nicene creed, but in a deeper sense, as denoting the generation of a person of the same substance from the suhstance of the Father, and not of a person of different substance from the will of tho Father), and deduced from it the homo-ousia or consubstantialir ty of the Son with the Father.
Amus,' a presljyter of the same city after 313, who is repre- Bented as a tall, thin, learned, adroit, austere, and fascinating man, but proud, artful, restless, and disputatious, pressed and overstated the Origenistic view of the subordination, accused Alexander of Sabellianism, and taught that Christ, while he was indeed the creator of the world, was himself a creature of God, therefore not truly divine.'
The contest between these two views broke out about the year 318 or 320. Arius and his followers, for their denial of the true deity of Christ, were deposed and excommunicated by a council of a hundred Egyptian and Libyan bishops at Alexandria in 321. In spite of this he continued to hold religious assemblies of his numerous adherents, and when (.riven trom
* 'Apfios.
' This, however, is manifestly contrary to Origen's view, whi>:l made Christ ao intermediate being between the uncreated Father and the creature Contra C«la ill £4.