Editing Arius (section)

== Arian controversy ==
{{Main|Arianism|Arian controversy}}

=== Beginnings ===

The [[Diocletianic Persecution]] (Great Persecution) of AD 303–313 was Rome's final attempt to limit the expansion of Christianity across the empire. That persecution came to an end when Christianity was legalized with Galerius' Edict of Toleration in 311 followed by Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313, after Emperor Constantine himself had become a Christian. The Arian Controversy began only 5 years later in 318 when Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, publicly criticized his bishop Alexander for "carelessness in blurring the distinction of nature between the Father and the Son by his emphasis on eternal generation".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lyman |first=J. Rebecca |date=2010 |title=The Invention of 'Heresy' and 'Schism' |journal=The Cambridge History of Christianity}}</ref>

The [[Trinitarianism|Trinitarian]] historian [[Socrates of Constantinople]] reports that Arius sparked the controversy that bears his name when [[Pope Alexander I of Alexandria|Alexander of Alexandria]], who had succeeded [[Pope Achillas of Alexandria|Achillas]] as the Bishop of [[Alexandria]], gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of [[Sabellianism]], condemned it, and then argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."<ref>{{cite book|last=Socrates|title=The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates Scholasticus|chapter-url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.iv.v.html|access-date=2 May 2012|chapter=The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop.|archive-date=10 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120110083232/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.iv.v.html|url-status=live}}</ref> This quote describes the essence of Arius's doctrine.

Socrates of Constantinople believed that Arius was influenced in his thinking by the teachings of [[Lucian of Antioch]], a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr. In a letter to Patriarch [[Alexander of Constantinople]], Arius's bishop, [[Pope Alexander I of Alexandria|Alexander of Alexandria]], wrote that Arius derived his theology from Lucian. The express purpose of the letter was to complain about the doctrines that Arius was spreading, but his charge of heresy against Arius is vague and unsupported by other authorities. Furthermore, Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in those days, is quite bitter and abusive. Moreover, even Alexander never accused Lucian of having taught Arianism.

=== Supporters ===
It is traditionally taught that Arius had wide support in the areas of the Roman Empire. But it now seems his supporters were limited to Egypt and Alexandria{{failed verification|date=March 2024}}<!--This is not what the following quote says.-->:<blockquote>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. (Eusebius of Caesarea in [[Life of Constantine|The Life of Constantine]]).

"The ''Thalia'' appears ... to have circulated only in Alexandria; what is known of him elsewhere seems to stem from Athanasius' quotations."{{sfn|Ayres|2004|pp=56–57}}</blockquote>He also had the support of perhaps the two most important church leaders of that time:

=== Eusebius of Nicomedia ===
Eusebius of Nicomedia "was a supporter of Arius as long as Arius lived."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=30, 31}} "The conventional picture of Eusebius is of an unscrupulous intriguer."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=27}} "This is of course because our knowledge of Eusebius derives almost entirely from the evidence of his bitter enemies."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=27}} Hanson mentions several instances displaying Eusebius' integrity and courage{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=28}} and concludes:<blockquote>"Eusebius certainly was a man of strong character and great ability" (page 29). "It was he who virtually took charge of the affairs of the Greek speaking Eastern Church from 328 until his death" (page 29). He encouraged the spread of the Christian faith beyond the frontiers of the Roman Empire. The version of the Christian faith which the missionaries spread was that favoured by Eusebius and not Athanasius. This serves as evidence of his zeal."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=29}}</blockquote>

=== Eusebius of Caesarea ===
"Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine [the church historian] was certainly an early supporter of Arius."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=46}} "He was universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=46}} "Eusebius of Caesarea ... was one of the most influential authors of the fourth century."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=860}} "Neither Arius nor anti-Arians speak evil of him."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=46}} "He was made bishop of Caesarea about 313, (and) attended the Council of Nicaea in 325."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=47}}

"We cannot accordingly describe Eusebius (of Caesarea) as a formal Arian in the sense that he knew and accepted the full logic of Arius, or of Asterius' position. But undoubtedly, he approached it nearly."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=59}}

=== Origen and Arius ===

Like many third-century Christian scholars, Arius was influenced by the writings of [[Origen]], widely regarded as the first great theologian of Christianity.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|last=Moore|first=Edward|title=Origen of Alexandria|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/|encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy|publisher=The University of Tennessee at Martin|access-date=2 May 2012|date=2 May 2005|archive-date=28 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151128195921/http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/|url-status=live}}</ref> However, while both agreed on the subordination of the Son to the Father, and Arius drew support from Origen's theories on the ''[[Logos (Christianity)|Logos]]'', the two did not agree on everything. For example:

* Hanson refers several times to Origen's teaching that the Son always existed, for example, "Origen's doctrine of the ''eternal generation'' of the Son by the Father."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=65}} To contrast this with what Arius taught, Hanson states that Arius taught that 'there was a time when he did not exist'."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=65, 86}}
* "Arius in the ''Thalia'' sees the Son as praising the Father in heaven; Origen generally avoids language suggesting that the Son ''worships'' the Father as God."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=144}}

Hanson concluded:<blockquote>"Arius probably inherited some terms and even some ideas from Origen, ... he certainly did not adopt any large or significant part of Origen's theology."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=70}} "He was not without influence from Origen, but cannot seriously be called an Origenist."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=98}}</blockquote>However, because Origen's theological speculations were often proffered to stimulate further inquiry rather than to put an end to any given dispute, both Arius and his opponents were able to invoke the authority of this revered (at the time) theologian during their debate.<ref name="arian-catholic">{{cite web|title=Arius of Alexandria, Priest and Martyr|url=http://www.arian-catholic.org/arian/arius.html|work=Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Arian Catholic)|access-date=2 May 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120425215634/http://www.arian-catholic.org/arian/arius.html|archive-date=25 April 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Divine but not fully divine ===
Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Father, meaning that the Father alone is infinite and eternal and almighty, and that therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius maintained that the Son possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power.<ref name="kelly1978">{{harvnb|Kelly|1978|loc=Chapter 9}}</ref><ref name="Davis 1983 52–54">{{harvnb|Davis|1983|pp=52–54}}</ref>

"Many summary accounts present the Arian controversy as a dispute over whether or not Christ was divine."{{sfn|Ayres|2004|p=13}} "It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about 'the divinity of Christ'."{{sfn|Ayres|2004|pp=14}} "Many fourth-century theologians (including some who were in no way anti-Nicene) made distinctions between being 'God' and being 'true God' that belie any simple account of the controversy in these terms."{{sfn|Ayres|2004|p=4}}

"It must be understood that in the fourth century the word 'God' ''(theos, deus)'' had not acquired the significance which in our twentieth-century world it has acquired ... viz. the one and sole true God. The word could apply to many gradations of divinity and was not as absolute to Athanasius as it is to us."{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=456}}

=== Initial responses ===

The Bishop of Alexandria exiled the presbyter following a council of local priests. Arius's supporters vehemently protested. Numerous bishops and Christian leaders of the era supported his cause, among them [[Eusebius of Nicomedia]], who baptized Constantine the Great.{{sfn|Rubenstein|2000|p=57}}

=== First Council of Nicaea ===
{{Main|First Council of Nicaea}}
{{See also|Nicene Creed}}
[[File:Nikea-arius.png|left|thumb|The [[First Council of Nicaea|Council of Nicaea]], with Arius depicted beneath the feet of the Emperor Constantine and the [[bishop]]s]]
The Christological debate could no longer be contained within the Alexandrian [[diocese]]. By the time Bishop Alexander finally acted against Arius, 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 Emperors [[Licinius]] and [[Constantine I]] having legalized it in 313 through the [[Edict of Milan]]. Emperor Constantine had taken a personal interest in several ecumenical issues, including the [[Donatist]] controversy in 316, and he wanted to bring an end to the Christological dispute. To this end, the emperor sent [[Hosius of Córdoba|Hosius, bishop of Córdoba]] 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." However, as the debate continued to rage despite Hosius's efforts, Constantine in AD 325 took an unprecedented step: he called a [[Ecumenical council|council]] to be composed of church [[prelate]]s from all parts of the empire to resolve this issue, possibly at Hosius's recommendation.<ref name="ellopos">{{cite book |last=Vasiliev |first=Al |title=History of the Byzantine Empire |year=1928 |chapter=The empire from Constantine the Great to Justinian |access-date=2 May 2012 |chapter-url=http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/vasilief/arianism-council-nicaea.asp |archive-date=11 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100611232444/http://ellopos.net/elpenor/vasilief/arianism-council-nicaea.asp |url-status=live }}</ref>

"Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire."{{sfn|Ayres|2004|p=19}} [[Pope Sylvester I]], himself too aged to attend, sent two priests as his delegates. Arius himself attended the council, as did his bishop, Alexander. Also there were [[Eusebius of Caesarea]], Eusebius of Nicomedia and the young deacon [[Athanasius]], who would become the champion of the Trinitarian view ultimately adopted by the council and spend most of his life battling Arianism. Before the main conclave convened, Hosius initially met with Alexander and his supporters at [[Nicomedia]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Photius|title=Epitome of Book I|chapter-url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/philostorgius.html|author-link=Photios I of Constantinople|access-date=2 May 2012|chapter=Epitome of Chapter VII|archive-date=11 May 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120511015647/http://earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/philostorgius.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The council was presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.<ref name="ellopos" />

At this [[First Council of Nicaea]], 22 bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. Nonetheless, when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants.<ref name="ellopos" /> Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father were led by the bishop [[Pope Alexander I of Alexandria|Alexander]]. Athanasius was not allowed to sit in on the Council because he was only an arch-deacon. However, Athanasius is seen as doing the legwork and concluded (according to Bishop Alexander's defense of Athanasian Trinitarianism and also according to the [[Nicene Creed]] adopted at this Council)<ref>Athanasius, Discourse 1 Against the Arians, part 9, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160716225955/http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm |date=2016-07-16 }}</ref><ref>Athanasius, De Decretis, parts 20 and 30, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230723193659/https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm |date=2023-07-23 }}</ref> that the Son was of the same essence ([[homoousios]]) with the Father (or one in essence with the Father), and was eternally generated from that essence of the Father.<ref>Matt Perry – [http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/perry-athanasius.shtml Athanasius and his Influence at the Council of Nicaea] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407062158/http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/perry-athanasius.shtml |date=2014-04-07 }} – QUODLIBET JOURNAL – Retrieved 29 May 2014.</ref> 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,{{sfn|Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society|1963|p=477}} with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius argued for the supremacy of God the Father, and maintained that the Son of God was simply the oldest and most beloved creature of God, made from nothing, because of being the direct offspring. Arius taught that the pre-existent Son was God's first production (the very first thing that God actually ever did in his entire eternal existence up to that point), before all ages. Thus he insisted that only God the Father had no beginning, and that the Father alone was infinite and eternal. Arius maintained that the Son had a beginning. 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."{{sfn|McClintock|Strong|1982|p=45}} Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I",<ref>{{bibleverse|John|14:28}}</ref> as well as Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn of all creation."<ref>{{bibleverse|Colossians|1:15}}</ref> Thus, Arius insisted that the Father's [[Divinity]] was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with him.

[[File:Saint Nicholas of Myra slapping Arius at the Council of Nicaea Greek Icon.jpg|thumb|Greek icon of Arius getting slapped by [[Nicholas of Myra]]]]

According to some accounts in the [[hagiography]] of [[Nicholas of Myra]], debate at the council became so heated that at one point, Nicholas struck Arius across the face.<ref>[http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=57 Bishop Nicholas Loses His Cool at the Council of Nicaea] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110101194431/http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=57 |date=2011-01-01 }}. From the St. Nicholas center. See also [http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsLife.asp?FSID=103484 St. Nicholas the Wonderworker] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120910163113/http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsLife.asp?FSID=103484 |date=2012-09-10 }}, from the website of the [[Orthodox Church in America]]. Retrieved on 2010-02-02.</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=SOCKEY |first1=DARIA |title=In this corner, St. Nicholas! |url=https://catholicexchange.com/in-this-corner-st-nicholas/ |website=Catholic Exchange |access-date=27 February 2022 |date=5 December 2012 |archive-date=27 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220227161607/https://catholicexchange.com/in-this-corner-st-nicholas/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The majority of the bishops ultimately agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the [[Nicene Creed]]. It included the word ''homoousios'', meaning "consubstantial", or "one in essence", which was incompatible with Arius's beliefs.{{sfn|Carroll|1987|p=12}} 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){{sfn|Carroll|1987|p=12}} were deposed and exiled to [[Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum|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. The following is part of the ruling made by the emperor denouncing Arius's teachings with fervor.

{{blockquote|In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment{{nbsp}}[...]|Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians<ref>{{cite web|last=Athanasius |title=Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians |url=http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33 |work=Fourth Century Christianity |publisher=Wisconsin Lutheran College |access-date=2 May 2012 |date=23 January 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110819215807/http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33 |archive-date=19 August 2011 }}</ref>}}