Part 6: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-evolution-of-early-christian_02102111985.html
In the last post, we looked at the history of the ‘Arian controversy’ and the Council of Nicaea. Although it’s often thought that Arius was an arch-heretic who went against the established orthodoxy of trinitarianism, the writings from the fourth century paint a very different picture. Arius was actually theologically conservative, continuing in the tradition of Alexandrian Logos theology, and was persecuted by his bishop Alexander because he thought the terminology that Arius used to describe the Son was too extreme. There were a number of theological and political reasons why Arius was almost unanimously condemned at Nicaea, which I discussed in the last post, but none of them have to do with the actual correctness of his theology. Furthermore, the Nicene Creed did not advocate trinitarianism, but merely managed to establish an uneasy alliance between subordinationism, modalism, and trinitarianism.
The traditional view of Arius and Nicaea is most definitely a case of history written by the victors. However, Nicaea was not the end of the story for Arius or the doctrine that was wrongly named after him. After about a decade of the uneasy alliance established by Nicaea, a full-blown conflict erupted between the Eastern and Western church. In this post, we’ll look at the conflict between East and West in the mid-fourth century, and how this began to lead to the truimph of trinitarianism.
The aftermath of Nicaea
Following the Council of Nicaea, Arius and two ‘Arian’ bishops were excommunicated by the church and exiled by the emperor Constantine. At the end of the year 325, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were also excommunicated and exiled when Constantine discovered that they were continuing to allow ‘Arians’ in their congregations, contrary to the imperial order. Constantine also sent a warning letter to Theodotus of Laodicea, who had been previously excommunicated at the Council of Antioch and reinstated at the Council of Nicaea, telling him not to make the same mistake as Eusebius and Theognis.
However, as time went on, Constantine gradually became more lenient toward those who had been exiled. Constantine reconvened the Council of Nicaea in late 327, and in a letter dated November 27, 327, he invited Arius to come to the court at Nicaea. Arius sent back a letter claiming that his beliefs were orthodox, and asking to be reconciled to the church. There was then a second session of the Council of Nicaea, in which Arius was found to be within the bounds of orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the details of the 327 Council of Nicaea have been lost to history, but from the surviving records, we can reconstruct that this council did actually occur, and Arius was re-admitted to the church. [1] Although this did not cancel the anathemas of the first session, it effectively reversed the ban on ‘Arians.’
Having heard of this turn of events, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea wrote to Constantine, recanting and asking him to re-admit them as he did for Arius. Constantine reinstated them to their episcopates in Nicomedia and Nicaea and, in early 328, sent a letter to Alexander of Alexandria, ordering him to allow Arius back into his church. However, before this letter could reach Alexander, he died of old age and was succeeded by the staunchly anti-‘Arian’ Athanasius. As a result, Arius was never reinstated as presbyter, even though he was re-admitted to the church.
Some time after this, for reasons unknown, Constantine again turned against Arius. In a letter that can be securely dated to 333, he wrote an edict declaring that all of Arius’ writings should be burned, and anyone who hides one of his works put to death. At the same time, he also sent a letter to Arius and his followers, surprisingly full of venom and invective, a strange turn of events given Constantine’s earlier attempts at peace. Perhaps Arius had written something critical of Constantine that caused this change of heart.
Whatever the reason for Constantine’s change of heart, in the year 335, Arius was called to a council of about 200 bishops in Jerusalem, which again declared him to be orthodox and again re-admitted him to the church (Athanasius, De synodis 21). However, the day before he was officially reinstated as a presbyter, he suddenly and mysteriously died. Over the next few decades, several legends about his death cropped up among church historians, but unfortunately we cannot know for certain how or why Arius died. [2]
In the same year, there was an investigation into the trinitarian bishop Athanasius of Alexandria by a council at Tyre, attended by 60 bishops, on the charges of breaking a sacred chalice, mistreating ‘Arians,’ and even murder. He was deposed by this council, but pleaded his case in front of Constantine, who ordered the council to reconvene in his presence. Constantine found Athanasius to be guilty and exiled him to Gaul. However, the modalist Marcellus of Ancyra disagreed with this ruling, so his own beliefs were called into question at another council in Constantinople the next year (336), where he was deposed and exiled for holding Monarchian beliefs.
The events of 335-6 were very significant for the continuing ‘Arian controversy.’ By excommunicating the foremost trinitarian bishop, Athanasius of Alexandria, as well as one of the most influential modalists, Marcellus of Ancyra, the subordinationist bishops of the East broke the fragile peace that had been forged by the Council of Nicaea. By doing this, the Eastern church was in effect declaring that the true orthodoxy was their version of subordinationism (which, to be sure, was not ‘Arian’).
On the other hand, the Western church at this time was much more favorable toward trinitarians and modalists, though many bishops there were also subordinationists. This is shown by the fact that, after Athanasius was exiled for a second time in 338, both he and Marcellus of Ancyra were re-instated by a council of Western bishops in 340. The doctrinal differences between the East and West led to decades of conflict in the mid-fourth century.
The Dedication Council of Antioch
Most of the conflict between the East and West took place at councils. Large numbers of bishops from one side of the debate would gather together, form a creedal statement that agreed with the beliefs of their side, and anathematize anyone who believed otherwise. The first conciliar creed from the post-Nicene conflict was drafted at the Dedication Council of Antioch (341). This council of 90 Eastern bishops was officially called by Constantius II, a ‘semi-Arian’ and the successor to Constantine in the East, to dedicate a new church; however, it primarily dealt with theological issues.
Altogether, the Dedication Council drafted four creeds. The first creed objected to the term “Arian,” which apparently had been used to describe them by their theological opponents, and began like so:
We have not been followers of Arius — how could bishops, such as we, follow a presbyter? — nor did we receive any other faith beside that which has been handed down from the beginning. But, after taking on ourselves to examine and to verify his faith, we admitted him rather than followed him; as you will understand from our present avowals.
The Eastern bishops objected to the term “Arian” because, although they had re-admitted Arius to the church at the Council of Jerusalem in 335, they were not followers of Arius; they merely considered him to be within the bounds of orthodoxy. This council also drew up a creed intended to replace the Nicene Creed, now known as the Dedication Creed:
We believe, conformably to the evangelical and apostolic tradition, in one God, the Father Almighty, the Framer and Maker and Provider of the universe, from whom are all things.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, only-begotten god, through whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from the Father, god from god, whole from whole, only from only, perfect from perfect, king from king, Lord from Lord, living Logos, living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, both unalterable and unchangeable; exact image of the Godhood, essence, will, power and glory of the Father; the firstborn of every creature, who was in the beginning with God, the Logos-god, as it is written in the Gospel, “and the Word was god;” through whom all things were made and in whom all things consist;
who in the last days descended from above, and was born of a virgin according to the Scriptures, and was made man, mediator between God and man, and Apostle of our faith, and Prince of life, as He says, “I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me;” who suffered for us and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Spirit, who is given to those who believe for comfort, and sanctification, and initiation, as also our Lord Jesus Christ enjoined His disciples, saying, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit;” namely of the Father who is truly Father, and the Son who is truly Son, and of the Holy Spirit who is truly Holy Spirit, the names not being given without meaning or effect, but denoting accurately the peculiar subsistence, rank, and glory of each that is named, so that they are three in existence [hypostasis], and one in agreement.
Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence of God and Christ, from beginning to end, we anathematize every heretical heterodoxy. And if any teaches, beside the sound and right faith of the Scriptures, that time, or season, or age, either is or has been before the generation of the Son, let him be anathema. Or if anyone says, that the Son is a creature like one of the creatures, or an offspring like one of the offspring, or a work like one of the works, and not as the Holy Scriptures have handed down concerning the articles which have been treated one after another, or if he teaches or preaches anything beyond what we received, let him be anathema. For all that has been delivered in the Holy Scriptures, whether by prophets or apostles, we truly and reverently both believe and follow.
This creed made several intentional revisions to the Nicene Creed to make it more acceptable to subordinationism, and less to the other factions. The Dedication Creed omits the statement that the Son is “true god from true god,” merely saying that he is “god from god.” It also says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different in “rank and glory.” Contrary to the Nicene Creed, which specifies that the Father and the Son are only one hypostasis, this creed states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate hypostases, and are merely one in agreement. Finally, whereas the Nicene Creed says without qualification that the Son is not a creature, the Dedication Creed says that the Son is not “a creature like one of the creatures” or “an offspring like one of the offspring,” which is an Arian statement. [3]
Although this creed was meant to replace the Nicene Creed, it evidently wasn’t satisfactory to the bishops who wrote it, because several months later, the council of 90 bishops was reconvened at Antioch, and they wrote an entirely new creed:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator and maker of all things; from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named.
And in His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, god from god, light from light, through whom all things were made in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Logos, and Wisdom, and Power, and Life, and true Light;
who in the last days was made man for us, and was born of the holy virgin; who was crucified, and died, and was buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father; and is coming at the consummation of the age, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to everyone according to his works; whose kingdom endures indissolubly into the infinite ages; for he shall be seated on the right hand of the Father, not only in this age but in that which is to come.
And in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete; which, having promised to the Apostles, he [Jesus] sent forth after his ascension into heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things; through whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in him.
But those who say that the Son was from nothing, or from another essence and not from God, and, there was a time when he was not, the catholic Church regards as aliens.
This creed, known as the Fourth Creed of Antioch, made several changes from the Dedication Creed. It expands on who the Holy Spirit is, and removes the anathemas on those who call the Son a “creature” or “work.” It also states that the Son’s reign will “endure indissolubly into the infinite ages,” which is an intentional slight against Marcellus, who believed that the Son’s reign would end when he was absorbed back into the Father. Finally, it removes all reference to the word ousia and its cognates.
However, neither the Dedication Creed nor the Fourth Creed were ‘Arian.’ In fact, they were both explicitly anti-‘Arian,’ anathematizing anyone who claimed that the Son is “from nothing” or “from another essence” (ousia), or that there was a “time or season or age... before the generation of the Son.” Both of these creeds represented the majority position in the East at that time, which was non-‘Arian’ subordinationism.
The Council of Serdica/Philippopolis
The creeds from the 341 Council of Antioch were offensive to those in the West, who saw the Eastern bishops as ‘Arianizing.’ Therefore, in 343, another council was summoned to Serdica by the emperors Constans and Constantius II, as well as Ossius of Cordoba, with the intent of resolving the debate. This time, there were representatives from both the West (about 94 bishops) and the East (about 76 bishops), in an attempt to draft a creed acceptable to both sides of the debate.
However, far from resolving the debate, the Council of Serdica was an absolute fiasco which only served to further divide the West from the East. The Western bishops insisted on allowing Athanasius of Alexandria (trinitarian) and Marcellus of Ancyra (modalist) to participate in the council, because they had been reinstated by a previous council of Western bishops at Rome. The Eastern bishops, who had previously excommunicated both of these individuals, saw this as a slight against them and refused to participate in the council. Therefore, the Easterners left the council and fled to Philippopolis, where they held their own, separate council.
The creed produced by the Western Council of Serdica was written specifically to counter the Dedication Creed of 341. Here are the main highlights from this Western creed:
We declare those men excommunicate from the catholic church who say that Christ is god, but not true god; that he is the Son, but not true Son; and that he is both begotten and made; for such persons acknowledge that they understand by the term “begotten,” that which has been made; and because, although the Son of God existed before all ages, they attribute to Him, who exists not in time but before all time, a beginning and an end...
We do not say that the Father is Son, or that the Son is Father; but that the Father is Father, and the Son of the Father is Son. We confess that the Son is Power of the Father. We confess that the Logos is Logos of God, the Father, and that beside him there is no other [Logos]. We believe the Logos to be true god, and Wisdom and Power... We use the word firstborn with respect to his human nature. But he is superior in the new creation, inasmuch as He is the firstborn from the dead.
We confess that God exists; we confess the divinity of the Father and of the Son to be one. No one denies that the Father is greater than the Son; not on account of another essence, nor yet on account of their difference, but simply from the very name of the Father being greater than that of the Son.
The words uttered by our Lord, “I and my Father are one,” are by those men [the Easterners] explained as referring to the concord and harmony which prevail between the Father and the Son; but this is a blasphemous and perverse interpretation. We as catholics, unanimously condemned this foolish and lamentable opinion... we believe and maintain that those holy words, “I and my Father are one,” point out the oneness of essence [ousia] which is one and the same in the Father and in the Son.
We also believe that the Son reigns with the Father, that his reign has neither beginning nor end, and that it is not bounded by time, nor can ever cease. For that which always exists never begins to be, and can never cease.
We believe in and we receive the Holy Spirit, the Paraklete, whom the Lord both promised and sent. We believe in it as sent. It was not the Holy Spirit who suffered, but the manhood with which he clothed himself; which he took from the virgin Mary, which being man was capable of suffering; for man is mortal, whereas God is immortal.
This creed is very interesting in a number of ways. First, it explicitly repudiates the Dedication Creed for saying that Jesus is “god from god” but omitting “true god from true god;” it also condemns the interpretation that the Son and the Father are one in agreement, rather than one in hypostasis or essence, which was also said in the Dedication Creed.
Second, this creed also states that “no one denies that the Father is greater than the Son... simply from the very name of the Father being greater than that of the Son.” This is a clearly subordinationist statement, and it shows that the majority of Western bishops were also subordinationists, despite their disagreement with the Eastern subordinationists. The subordinationist nature of this creed probably contributed to Athanasius’ rejection of it.
Third, this creed seems to say that it was the Holy Spirit which was incarnated, became human, and suffered. Although this is mostly irrelevant to the overall theology and Christology of the creed, it highlights just how much variability there was in the incarnation theories of the fourth century. It was considered perfectly orthodox at this time to say that the Holy Spirit became flesh in Jesus.
Meanwhile, while this creed was being drafted by the Western bishops at Serdica, the Eastern bishops came up with their own statement of faith at Philippopolis. Their creed was really just a copy of the Fourth Creed of Antioch with a few new anathemas attached, including an anathema against those who say that “he himself [Christ] is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This was probably an intentional slight against Marcellus and his modalistic views, since his presence at the Council of Serdica was part of the reason that the Easterners refused to participate.
The events after the Council of Serdica merely served to further divide the East and the West. The Western bishops at Serdica sent a letter to all the other bishops, accusing the Easterners of being “Arian madmen” and urging the other bishops to cease communion with them. They also sent a letter to the church at Alexandria, and another nearly identical letter to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, telling them to re-admit Athanasius and cease communion with the ‘Arian’ bishop George of Alexandria. The Eastern bishops also sent an encyclical letter to all other bishops, re-affirming their decisions at the 341 Council of Antioch and denouncing Athanasius and Marcellus.
The “Long-Lined Creed” of 344
After the fiasco at Serdica, another council was held in Antioch by the Eastern bishops in 344. This council produced another creed identical to the Fourth Creed of Antioch from 341, but with a number of appended statements defending this creed against the criticisms of Western bishops. Because of the lengthy appendix to the creed, it is known as the Ekthesis Macrostichos or “Long-Lined Creed.” Here are a few of the most pertinent statements from the appendix to the creed:
(3) And again, in confessing the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be three beings and three persons, according to the Scriptures, we do not make three Gods; since we acknowledge the self-complete and ingenerate and unbegun and invisible God to be one only, the God and Father of the only-begotten, who alone has being in Himself, and alone generously grants this to all others.
(4) And again, in saying that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the one only God, the only ingenerate, we do not therefore deny that Christ also was god before ages... For we acknowledge that though he is subordinate to his Father and God, yet being before ages begotten from God, he is perfect god according to nature and true.
(5) We also abhor and anathematize those who make a pretense of saying that he was but the mere word of God and non-existent, having his essence in another — as if pronounced, as some speak, or as if mental — holding that he was not Messiah or Son of God or mediator or image of God before ages, but that he first became Messiah and Son of God when he took our flesh from the virgin, not quite four hundred years ago. For they will have it that Christ then began his kingdom, and that it will have an end after the consummation of all and the judgment. Such are the disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus [sic: Photinus] of Ancyra in Galatia, who, equally with Jews, rejected Christ’s existence before ages and his godhood and unending kingdom, upon pretense of supporting the divine Monarchy.
...we believe, then, in the all-perfect trinity most holy, that is, in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and calling the Father God, and the Son god. Yet we confess in them not two Gods, but one dignity of Godhood, and one exact harmony of dominion; the Father alone being head over the whole universe wholly, and over the Son himself; and the Son subordinated to the Father, but excepting Him, ruling over all things after him, which through himself have come to be, and granting the grace of the Holy Spirit unsparingly to the saints at the Father’s will.
This much, in addition to the faith before published in epitome, we have been compelled to draw forth at length, not in any over-zealous display, but to clear away all unjust suspicion concerning our opinions among those who are ignorant of our affairs; and that all in the West may know, both the audacity of the slanders of the heterodox, and as to the Easterners, their ecclesiastical mind in the Lord, to which the divinely inspired Scriptures bear witness without violence.
The Long-Lined Creed propounds a specific version of subordinationism, in which the Father is the only God, and the Son is a subordinate god because God has “generously granted” secondary divinity to him. It also condemned Marcellus and Photinus’ views that the Son was the literal, or “mere,” word of God before becoming incarnate rather than the personal Logos of Logos theory.
The next year (345), this creed was brought by a delegation of Eastern bishops to the pro-Nicene Western emperor Constans at a council in Milan. However, like the Council of Serdica, this council failed to reconcile the East and West. Before the Long-Lined Creed could be presented, the Western bishops asked the delegation of Eastern bishops to denounce Arius as a heretic, which they refused to do. This was probably not because they agreed with Arius, since his views were anathematized in the Long-Lined Creed itself, but because of the perceived injustice of being suspected to be ‘Arian.’ [4] Whatever the reason, the council was aborted, and East and West remained divided.
Despite the continuing doctrinal differences between the East and the West, both sides agreed on the condemnation of Photinus of Sirmium, who believed that Jesus was a ‘mere man.’ He was anathematized by the Western Council of Milan in 345 and another council at Milan in 347, as well as an Eastern council at Sirmium in 347/8. Around the same time, the stuanchly anti-Nicene bishops Valens and Ursacius wrote a letter to the bishop of Rome, Julius, in which they recanted their condemnation of Athanasius and denounced the “Arian heresy.” It’s clear that during the years 345-350, there was a sincere attempt at reconciliation, although the doctrinal differences between East and West continued to persist.
The Sirmian Council of 357
In the year 350, the pro-Nicene emperor of the West, Constans, was killed in a coup by his general Magnentius. This prompted immediate action from Contans’ brother Constantius II, the emperor of the East. After a prolonged series of battles, Constantius defeated Magnentius in 353 and became sole ruler of the Roman empire.
These events sent ripples through the Christian world, because Constantius was both an anti-Nicene and a ‘semi-Arian.’ Like his father and predecessor Constantine, Constantius wished to unify the empire religiously as well as politically, so he immediately set out to bring the bishops of the West into agreement with the East. He summoned a council at Arles in Gaul, in which he demanded that the bishops denounce Athanasius and affirm the anti-Nicene George as bishop in Alexandria; according to Hilary of Poitiers, he also asked the bishops to sign the following statement of faith:
There is one ingenerate God, the Father; and one only Son, god from god, light from light, firstborn of all creation; and one Holy Spirit, the Comforter. [5]
Although this statement is fairly innocuous, many of the bishops in the West thought (rather irrationally) that a strongly ‘Arian’ sentiment was hiding behind it. Hilary of Poitiers claims that this statement actually intended to say that the Son “was made out of nothing, there was a time when he did not exist, and before he was begotten he did not exist.” [5] This highlights the extent to which distrust had permeated both the West and the East at this time. Even innocuous statements like this, perfectly orthodox within themselves, were considered to be somehow hiding ‘heresy.’
Two years later in 355, Constantius II summoned another council at Milan, composed of 30 Western bishops and an uncertain number of Eastern bishops. At this council, he required all the bishops to re-affirm the condemnation of Athanasius and to sign a statement of faith. This statement of faith has unfortunately been lost, but given Constantius’ anti-Nicene tendencies, it likely favored the Eastern party. The three bishops who failed to sign the statement of faith, including the bishop of Milan, Dionysius, were exiled, and Dionysius was replaced by Auxentius, an anti-Nicene. [6] Athanasius himself was exiled later that year for failing to attend the Council of Milan. [7]
This sudden turn of events brought about by Constantius allowed the more extreme, ‘Arian’ wing of the Eastern party to express their views without fear of condemnation. This is exemplified by the Council of Serdica which took place in the year 357. This council involved only a small group of bishops; the only ones who were certainly present are Ossius of Cordoba (Western pro-Nicene), Potamius of Lisbon (Western anti-Nicene), Germinius, Valens, and Ursacius (all Eastern anti-Nicenes). [8] They produced the following creed:
It is held for certain that there is one God, the Father Almighty, as also is preached in all the world.
And His one only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, generated from Him before the ages; and we may not speak of two Gods, since the Lord Himself has said, “I go to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” [John 20:17] On this account He [the Father] is God of all, as also the Apostle taught: “Is He God of the Jews only, is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also; since there is one God who shall justify the circumcision from faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.” [Romans 3:29, 30] And everything else agrees, and has no ambiguity.
But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, and in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to “one in essence,” [homoousios] or what is called, “like in essence,” [homoiousios] 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. And because no one can declare the Son’s generation, as it is written, “Who shall declare His generation?” [Isaiah 53:8] For it is plain that only the Father knows how He generated the Son, and only the Son how he has been generated by the Father.
And it is unquestionable that the Father is greater. For no one can doubt that the Father is greater in honor and dignity and Godhood, and in the very name of Father, the Son himself testifying, “The Father that sent me is greater than I.” [John 14:28] And no one is ignorant that it is catholic doctrine that there are two persons of Father and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son subordinated to the Father together with all things which the Father has subordinated to Him. And the Father has no beginning, and is invisible, and immortal, and impassible; but the Son has been generated from the Father, god from god, light from light, and that his origin no one knows but the Father only, as said before. And the Son himself, our Lord and god, took flesh, that is, a body, that is, humanity, from Mary the virgin, as the angel preached beforehand. And as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the apostle himself, the doctor of the Gentiles, Christ took humanity from Mary the virgin, through which he has suffered.
And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the gospel, “Go and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” [Matthew 28:19] And entire and perfect is the number of the trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, was sent forth through the Son, and came according to the promise, that he might teach and sanctify the apostles and all believers.
This creed, known as the Second Sirmian Creed, is obviously subordinationist, and rejects both the terms homoousios and homoiousios. It is surprising that Ossius of Cordoba, a pro-Nicene who presided over the Council of Nicaea, assented to this creed; however, he was over ninety years old at this point, and may not have been in his right mind. Hilary of Poitiers, a pro-Nicene critic of this creed, refers to it as “Ossius’ lunacy” and “the blasphemy of Sirmium” (De synodis 11; Lib. con. Const. 23).
The Second Sirmian Creed of 357 was not obviously ‘Arian’ in that it did not explicitly state that the Son had a beginning, or that the Son was produced out of nothing. Nevertheless, it was so radically subordinationist and anti-Nicene that it was even considered too extreme by most Easterners. Despite the uncompromising nature of this creed, it also showed a way out of the conflict by providing a benchmark for orthodoxy; those who supported the “blasphemy of Sirmium” were ‘Arians,’ and those who opposed it were ‘orthodox.’ [9]
Attempts at reconciliation (358 - 361)
In the year 358, Eudoxius, the bishop of Antioch and an ‘Arian,’ summoned a council to Antioch which supported the Second Sirmian Creed. In the same year, Basil, the bishop of Ancyra, summoned a council of 14 bishops to Ancyra which condemned the Second Sirmian Creed and supported instead the term homoiousios (“like in essence”) to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. These two councils defined the sects that would dominate the East over the next two decades: the Homoians, or ‘Arians,’ and the Homoiousians, or ‘semi-Arians.’ There was also a third, smaller sect, led by the bishop Aetius, which declared that the Son is anhomoios (“unlike”) the Father, and was known as the Anhomoians or ‘neo-Arians.’
Another council was held at Sirmium in 359, which was attended by both the Homoians (led by Eudoxius and Acacius) and the Homoiousians (led by Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea). This council produced a creed which was dated to May 22, 359, and is therefore known as the ‘Dated Creed.’ The two groups present at the council were able to agree on the statement that the Son is “like the Father in all respects.” The Homoiousian group at this council also produced a letter which was strongly critical of the Anhomoians, who claimed that the Son is “unlike” the Father.
Seeing that a solution to the conflict was at hand, in late 359 the emperor Constantius II summoned a council of about 400 Western bishops to the city of Ariminium in Italy, and another council of about 170 Eastern bishops to Nicomedia, to produce an ecumenical creed that both sides could agree upon. An earthquake occurred at Nicomedia, killing the bishop there, so the Eastern council was moved to the city of Seleucia.
According to Hilary of Poitiers, the council at Seleucia was composed of about 150 Homoiousians and Homoians, 19 Anhomoians, and a few pro-Nicene Homoousians. [10] A creed was put forth by Acacius, a prominent Homoian, which condemned homoousios, homoiousios, and anhomoios, but this creed was rejected by the majority of bishops in favor of the Dedication Creed of 341. However, when the creed was put forth before the Western bishops in Ariminium, they responded with the following statement:
Ursacius and Valens, Gaius, Germinius, and Auxentius... are still endeavoring to foist their heretical spirit upon the faith of the orthodox. For they wish to annul the creed passed at Nicaea, which was framed against the Arian heresy. They have presented to us a creed drawn up by themselves from without, and utterly alien to the most holy Church, which we could not lawfully receive. Even before this, and now, they have been pronounced heretics and gainsayers by us, whom we have not admitted to our communion, but condemned and deposed them in their presence by our voices.
“Now then, declare what seems good to you, that each one’s vote may be ratified by his subscription.” The bishops answered with one accord. It seems good that the forenamed heretics should be condemned, that the catholic faith may remain in peace.
Thus, the attempted reconciliation at Ariminium and Seleucia was almost as disastrous as the council of Serdica in 343.
Nevertheless, Constantius II moved a delegation of Western bishops from Ariminium to the city of Nike (Thrace) where they met with the Eastern bishops. The delegation of Western bishops was satisfied when Valens signed a statement condemning Arius and his doctrines, and they signed the explicitly subordinationist and Homoian 'Dated Creed' of 359 which rejected the term ousia, with a single omission of the words "in all respects" after "like the Father." [11] This 'Nikean Creed' was officially adopted as an ecumenical creed by the Council of Constantinople in 360. For the moment, at least, it seemed that peace had been reached.
However, this fragile peace was broken the very next year in 361, when Constantius died and was succeeded by his pagan cousin Julian. Upon his death, the inhabitants of Alexandria saw that the political climate had changed drastically, and a mob of Athanasius' angry supporters murdered the anti-Nicene bishop George. Athanasius was re-established as bishop in 362. [12] This event brought the West back into conflict with the East.
Conclusion
Contrary to the traditional view of fourth-century Christianity, the Council of Nicaea was not the defining moment of Christian theology, and it did not show trinitarianism to be the only orthodox position. On the contrary, Nicaea merely established a fragile peace which was broken only a decade later, and subordinationism continued to be the majority position in both the East and the West for many years. Nor was Nicaea considered to be the first ecumenical council, and many creeds were drawn up with the intent of replacing the Nicene Creed.
Even in the year 361, the conflict between East and West showed no signs of ceasing. Furthermore, there is no indication that trinitarianism was a majority opinion at this point in time. How, then, was the conflict resolved in favor of trinitarianism? This is the question that we will explore in the final post of this series.
Part 8: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-evolution-of-early-christian_02105349936.html
______________________________
[1] R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1988), 174-178; Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 74-75; for primary sources see Constantine’s letter to Arius; Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea’s letter to Constantine; Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3.23; Theodoret, EH 1.26.1.
[2] Ellen Muehlberger, “The Legend of Arius’ Death: Imagination, Space and Filth in Late Ancient Historiography,“ Past & Present 227, no. 1 (2015), 3-29.
[3] Arius, Letter to Alexander 2.
[4] R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 312.
[5] Ibid., 330-331.
[6] Ibid., 332-334.
[7] Ibid., 342.
[8] Ibid., 343-344.
[9] Ibid., 347.
[10] Ibid., 374-375.
[11] Ibid., 378-380.
[12] Ibid., 385-386; 639.
No comments:
Post a Comment