Arius and the Emergence of the Christological Debates in Alexandria^[1]

David Miano — La Jolla, California

“We believe in One God: the Sole Unbegotten, the Sole Infinite, the Sole Eternal, the Sole True, the Sole Immortal, the Sole Wise, the Sole Acceptable, the Sole Sovereign, the Judge with Authority and Mercy, the Sole Almighty. He who created the Only-Begotten is the God of the Law, the Prophets, and the New Testament.”

Its importance lies in showing that resistance to later Trinitarian formulations was not merely an outside objection, but a dispute that arose from within the early Christian world itself.

According to tradition, the individual who first brought Christianity to Alexandria was John Mark, a companion of Paul on one of his missionary journeys (Eusebius II, 16). Definitive evidence of Christian communities in the city, however, emerges only in the second century. Although the number of these communities remained relatively modest until the fourth century, their intellectual influence should not be underestimated. As one of the foremost cities of the Mediterranean world — a centre that harboured diverse cultural and religious traditions — Alexandria was already renowned for philosophical inquiry well before the arrival of Christianity. It is therefore unsurprising that Christian institutions also took root in this fertile intellectual environment. Several prominent Christian thinkers who resided in Alexandria, among them Clement and Origen, explicitly identified themselves as students of philosophy. Their allegorical approach to scriptural interpretation gave rise to a significant rift with the Christian teachers of Antioch, who advocated a more literal reading of the sacred texts.

By the fourth century, various propositions had been advanced regarding the nature of Jesus's relationship to God. Because certain theologians were precipitate in articulating their views on the divine nature of the Son, sharp conflicts arose on these matters. Expressions found in Scripture referring to Jesus — such as "Son of God," "Christ," and "Image of God" — were widely employed, and their general character meant that they did not in themselves provoke controversy.

Even the meaning of the term "God" (theos) within Christianity remained contested: some interpreted it as referring to the Almighty, while others construed it more broadly as denoting a powerful spirit or divine being. (It should be noted that Greek lacks an indefinite article to distinguish between "God" and "a god," just as capitalisation conventions serve an imperfect function in English.) Over the ensuing years, the use of this inherently ambiguous theological language, while not precipitating outright schism, permitted divergent understandings of Christianity to develop and consolidate across the Church. Extreme positions existed at both poles, though the radical factions commanding adherence to these views were too marginal to affect the broader prospects for reconciliation. Meanwhile, the influence of Greek philosophy — particularly pronounced in Alexandria — stimulated theological inquiry among the educated classes and an expanding circle of Christian teachers, giving rise to a proliferation of ideas concerning, among other topics, the origination and divine status of Jesus (Orthodoxy 147-150).

In due course, positions markedly different from the earliest formulations emerged. Proponents of these new interpretations claimed that their views faithfully reflected the teaching of the Apostles. Before long, the entire Christian world found itself engulfed in this controversy (Life of Constantine II, 61-2).

At the very centre of this contention stood two former associates: Arius and Alexander. Alexander held the office of bishop — or chief ecclesiastical administrator — of the city of Alexandria. So great was the reverence accorded to his position by the Christians of Alexandria that the title “pope” was effectively applied to Alexander even before the Bishop of Rome assumed this distinction (Williams 42). Arius, for his part, served as the presiding priest of the Baucalis congregation in the city. According to Epiphanius, he was a man of unusual stature who wore a short cloak and priestly vestment and possessed an agreeable manner of speech (LXIX, 3:1). Although his exact age during the period of the controversies is unknown, he is generally estimated to have been an elderly man (Epiphanius CLIV, 12).

The date traditionally assigned to the commencement of this debate is 318 AD. Ancient historians cite Athanasius's “Letter to the Bishops of Egypt,” in which he states that thirty-six years had elapsed since the Arians were declared heretical. Their chronologies rest upon the assumption that this letter was composed in 356 AD. Counting back thirty-six years yields 321 AD as the date of the heresy declaration. Modern scholarship has established, however, that Athanasius's letter was in fact written not in 356 but in 361 AD. Consequently, the only council that can serve as a reliable chronological reference for the condemnation of Arius and his adherents is the Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD.

The Declaration of Arius

At this juncture, it came to Alexander's attention that Arius was propagating a doctrine that other priests regarded as erroneous. At the same time, certain individuals in positions of ecclesiastical authority declared their agreement with the said doctrine (Epiphanius LXIX, 3:5). Alexander promptly summoned Arius and examined him on the matter; Arius expounded his position and offered a sustained defence of his views (Epiphanius LXIX, 3:5,6).

Alexander, exercising his episcopal jurisdiction, initially requested that the contending parties set forth their beliefs in formal written declarations. The following is the letter of confession submitted by Arius and those who shared his convictions:

"To our holy father and bishop Alexander. The priests and deacons in the unity of Christ present their respects.

Our faith, inherited from our fathers and which we have learned from you, our holy father, is this: We believe in One God: the Sole Unchangeable Unbegotten, the Sole Infinite, the Sole Eternal, the Sole True, the Sole Immortal, the Sole Wise, the Sole Acceptable, the Sole Sovereign, the Judge with Authority and Mercy, the Sole Almighty. He who created the Only-Begotten is the God of the Law, the Prophets, and the New Testament. With the Son of Eternity and the Eternal, He created time and others. He created Him not merely in a metaphorical sense, but by His own will as a different [hypostasis], unchangeable and irreplaceable being; a magnificent creation of God unlike others; a Son unlike others; and neither descended from the lineage of the Father as Valentinus believed, nor of the same substance [homoousion] as the Father as Mani stated, nor fitting the expression 'Father-Son' that Sabellius used to divide the Unity, nor as Hieracas said, another lantern born from the same lantern or another lamp born from the fire of a lamp; nor a new Son who previously existed and was later born or created.

Thus three different entities emerge [treishypostaseis], and the eternal and everlasting, the cause of all things, is God alone. The Son, whom the Father created before time existed, was created on the other hand only when the Father existed and outside of time. He does not have a common existence with the Father, as in the discourses of some referring to two births (and naturally concerning something entirely different). But God, before all things, is a single Unity and the Source of all things.

Thus, the sole source of the life, honour, and other things bestowed upon the Son is God. The Father is the God and sovereign of the Son — for the Son came forth from Him.

We pray to God for the health of you, our holy father. Priests Arius, Aeithales, Achillas, Carpones, Sarmatas, Arius; Deacons Euzoeus, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, Gaius; Bishops of Pentapolis and Libya."

(DeSynodis §16; Epiphanius LXIX, 7:2-8:5)

The Aftermath

Alexander, at the assembly attended by the priests of Alexandria, did not impose a prohibition on any teaching contrary to accepted Orthodoxy; instead, he permitted an open debate. It must be acknowledged, however, that a universally accepted Orthodoxy was itself still in the process of formation at that time. As Colm Luibheid has explained:

“The point to bear in mind is that, at the time the contentions with the Arians commenced, agreement on the questions concerning the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the divinity and humanity of Jesus, had yet to be reached. At that period, some of the most fundamental questions were only beginning to be articulated, and in the years that followed they would come to preoccupy the entire Christian world.”

(Luibheid 3)

Sozomen corroborates this account: "Alexander deemed it appropriate that both parties should be permitted to debate freely on matters of uncertainty during the assembly, and that consensus should be attained through persuasion rather than coercion" (I, 15).

Regrettably, the assembly did not conclude as Alexander had envisaged. As Sozomen continues:

"As is generally the case in disputes, both parties in this instance sought to achieve victory… The council convened a second time and the same points were debated, yet no agreement could be reached. During the proceedings, Alexander initially appeared sympathetic to one side, then the other; but he ultimately declared himself in favour of the position that the Son is of the same substance (homousios) as the Father and is co-eternal with Him, and he ordered Arius to adopt this doctrine and renounce his former views. Arius, however, could not be compelled to comply, and the majority of bishops and priests considered his teaching to be correct."

(I, 15)

Remarkably, Arius's supporters achieved more than mere vocal endorsement. A considerable number of bishops, most notably Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea, openly declared their agreement with Arius. Letters urging Alexander to reconsider his position began to arrive in great number.

Alexander did not take kindly to having his authority challenged by Arius. His antagonism towards Arius intensified progressively, and he ultimately resolved, in a formal session, to excommunicate Arius and his adherents and to banish Arius from Alexandria.

Meanwhile, the Roman Emperor Constantine, having defeated his rival Licinius in September 324 and thereby secured control of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, was en route to pay his first imperial visit to Alexandria. By the time Constantine's letter reached the city, the excommunication of Arius and his supporters had already been pronounced, and Arius had departed for Caesarea to join forces with Eusebius (Epiphanius LXIX, 4:1). This marks the inception of the second phase of the controversy.

Bibliography

[1] David Miano, "Arius and the Emergence of the Christological Debates in Alexandria," La Jolla, California. Primary sources: Athanasius, De Synodis §16; Epiphanius, Panarion LXIX; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History I, 15; Eusebius Pamphilus, Ecclesiastical History II, 16. The declaration of Arius and thirteen co-signatories is preserved in Athanasius's De Synodis and in Epiphanius's Panarion LXIX, 7:2–8:5.