Arius and the Theology of Early Arianism

1. The Arian Controversy

Began as a local quarrel between the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander and one of his presbyters, Arius. Arius was condemned and exiled by a council convened in Alexandria (318-319). Arius found a principle supporters in Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia; Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea was also sympathetic. Hearing about the disruptive controversy in Egypt, Constantine sent his ecclesiastical advisor, Hosius of Cordova, to Alexandria with a letter demanding reconciliation. Hosius sided with Alexander and, pursuing the conflict further, went to Antioch where he called a council that excommunicated Eusebius of Caesarea. Constantine called for a general council to be held at Nicea.

The Council of Nicea was held in 325, attended by some 220 bishops. All but four or five came from the East. The Council restored Eusebius of Caesarea but produced a sharply anti-Arian creed affirming that the Father and the Son were "homoousios," "of one substance." The creed was accepted almost unanimously, however, the crucial term, "homoousios" was ambiguous enough to admit quite different readings. Despite their defeat, therefore, the Arians were able to re-establish considerable support after 325, especially thanks to the leadership of Eusebius of Nicomedia who managed to engineer the deposition and exile of Eustace, bishop of Antioch, Athanasius, Alexander's successor in Alexandria, and Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra. In 334, Arius was recalled from exile and returned to Alexandria. Athanasius, a year before his own exile, refused to re-admit him to communion. Eventually, it was decided that Arius should receive formal restoration at Constantinople but, in 336, before this could occur, he died. Constantine died the following year.

Eusebius of Nicomedia (died c.342), leader of Arian party in 4th century. Eusebius had been a fellow-pupil with Arius of Lucian of Antioch. As bishop of the imperial capital in Asia Minor, he used his influence in the royal court to advocate Arian views and oppose anti-Arians such as Athanasius. He signed the creed at Nicea but was exiled for his opposition shortly afterwards. He returned c. 328. In 335, Eusebius negotiated the deposition of Athanasius and, in 337, baptized the dying Constantine.

2. Arian Christology: an Overview

The Son "is not unbegotten," "The Son had a beginning but God is without beginning." God alone is "unbegotten ...everlasting...without beginning...immutable and unchangeable."
The Logos is not "part of the same substance."
The Son is a creature: "an immutable and unchangeable perfect creature of God."

"If the aim [of becoming flesh] was that he should be the recipient of the benefits he is said to have received, it follows that he previously stood in need of these things; so he himself will be bound to give thanks to his own body on the ground that when he entered the body he received from the Father these goods which had not belonged to him prior to his descent into the flesh. On the basis of this argument, it seems that he himself was bettered by the body than that the body was bettered through him," Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, Book III.

3. The Representative Son

"For neither perfectly nor accurately does the Logos know the Father, nor is he able to see him fully."

The Son "by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct came to be himself also in the Father."

Christ "having also a changeable nature, on account of the diligence and exercise of conduct did not undergo a change for the worse."

"God foreknowing him to be good, proleptically gave him the glory, which afterward he had from virtue; so that from his works which God foreknew, he made such a one as him now to be begotten."

"The accursed ones [that is, the Arians] say, "Certainly we also are able to become sons of God, just like [Christ]. For it is written, "I begot and raised up sons," Alexander, bishop of Alexandria.

4. Believers and the Divine Will

A relationship of nature? Or will?

For Arius the Logos is related to God through the divine will, as are all creatures. To call the Son "Logos," or "Wisdom" is to award a title. The Son is not identical with God's wisdom as such. The Son is called, titled, God's wisdom by virtue of his willing obedience and service of God's will.

Class Notes from Previous Session