Arius and the Emergence of the Christological Debates in Alexandria[1]
David Miano — La Jolla, California
Based on David Miano's study; the wording has been lightly adapted for readability. His argument, structure, sources, and citations are preserved unchanged.
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 Trinitarian formulation arose inside Christian debate itself, not only from outside critics.
According to tradition, the first person to bring Christianity to Alexandria was John Mark, a companion of Paul on one of his missionary journeys (Eusebius II, 16). Firm evidence of Christian communities in the city, however, appears only in the second century.
The number of these communities stayed fairly small until the fourth century. Their intellectual influence, though, shouldn't be underestimated. Alexandria was one of the great cities of the Mediterranean world, home to many cultural and religious traditions, and it was famous for philosophical inquiry well before Christianity arrived. Little wonder that Christian institutions also took root in this fertile intellectual environment.
Several prominent Christian thinkers who lived in Alexandria, among them Clement and Origen, openly called themselves students of philosophy. Their allegorical way of reading Scripture (finding layers of symbolic meaning beneath the surface) opened a deep rift with the Christian teachers of Antioch, who argued for a more literal reading of the sacred texts.
By the fourth century, many different ideas were in circulation about the nature of Jesus's relationship to God. Some theologians were hasty in spelling out their views on the divine nature of the Son, and sharp conflicts followed. Expressions found in Scripture referring to Jesus — such as Son of God,
Christ,
and Image of God
— were widely used, and they were general enough not to provoke controversy on their own.
Even the meaning of the term God
(theos) within Christianity remained contested. Some took it to mean the Almighty; others read it more broadly, as a powerful spirit or divine being. (Greek, after all, has no indefinite article to separate God
from a god,
just as capital letters do the job only imperfectly in English.)
Over the following years, this ambiguous theological language didn't cause an outright split. It did something quieter: it let different understandings of Christianity grow and harden across the Church. Extreme positions existed at both poles, but the radical groups holding them were too marginal to affect the broader chances of reconciliation. Meanwhile, Greek philosophy — especially strong in Alexandria — kept stirring theological inquiry among the educated classes and a growing circle of Christian teachers. The result was a flood of new ideas about, among other things, the origin and divine status of Jesus (Orthodoxy 147-150).
In time, positions emerged that looked very different from the earliest formulations. Those who held these new interpretations said their views faithfully reflected the teaching of the Apostles. Before long, the whole Christian world was caught up in the controversy (Life of Constantine II, 61-2).
At the very centre of the fight stood two former associates: Arius and Alexander. Alexander held the office of bishop — the chief church administrator — of the city of Alexandria. The Christians of Alexandria held his position in such reverence that the title pope
was being applied to Alexander even before the Bishop of Rome took up that distinction (Williams 42).
Arius, for his part, served as the presiding priest of the Baucalis congregation in the city. According to Epiphanius, he was unusually tall, wore a short cloak and priestly vestment, and had an agreeable way of speaking (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 beginning of this debate is 318 AD. Ancient historians cite Athanasius's Letter to the Bishops of Egypt,
where he says that thirty-six years had passed since the Arians were declared heretical. Their chronologies rest on the assumption that this letter was written in 356 AD. Counting back thirty-six years gives 321 AD as the date of the heresy declaration.
Modern scholarship has shown, however, that Athanasius's letter was in fact written not in 356 but in 361 AD. So the only council that can serve as a reliable chronological reference for the condemnation of Arius and his followers is the Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD.
The Declaration of Arius
At this point, it came to Alexander's attention that Arius was spreading a doctrine that other priests regarded as wrong. At the same time, some men in positions of church authority declared their agreement with it (Epiphanius LXIX, 3:5). Alexander promptly summoned Arius and questioned him on the matter. Arius laid out his position and offered a sustained defence of his views (Epiphanius LXIX, 3:5,6).
Alexander, using his authority as bishop, first asked the two sides to set out 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
At the assembly of Alexandria's priests, Alexander didn't ban any teaching that ran against accepted Orthodoxy. Instead, he allowed an open debate. To be fair, a universally accepted Orthodoxy was itself still taking shape at the 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 backs up 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).
The assembly, though, didn't end the way Alexander had hoped. 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)
Strikingly, Arius's supporters won more than vocal backing. A considerable number of bishops — most notably Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea — openly declared their agreement with Arius. Letters urging Alexander to reconsider began arriving in large numbers.
Alexander didn't take kindly to having his authority challenged. His hostility towards Arius steadily deepened, and in a formal session he finally resolved to excommunicate (formally expel from the Church) Arius and his followers, and to banish Arius from Alexandria.
Meanwhile, the Roman Emperor Constantine had defeated his rival Licinius in September 324 and taken control of the empire's eastern provinces, and he was on his way to pay his first imperial visit to Alexandria. By the time Constantine's letter — his appeal to Alexander and Arius to settle the dispute, carried to Alexandria by Bishop Hosius of Cordova (Life of Constantine II, 64–72) — reached the city, the excommunication of Arius and his supporters had already been pronounced, and Arius had left for Caesarea to join forces with Eusebius (Epiphanius LXIX, 4:1). This marks the start of the second phase of the controversy.
Notes
[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.
Textual reference controls
The declaration quoted here should be checked against the ancient dossier rather than treated as a free paraphrase. The same core text is preserved through Athanasius and Epiphanius and is catalogued in modern source collections as Dok. 1 / Urk. 6 / CPG 2026. Alexander's letters are deliberately kept in the reference layer as counter-witnesses, because they show how the opposing side framed Arius' teaching.
- Arius' letter: Fourth Century Christianity, “Letter of Arius and his followers to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria”, Dok. 1 / Urk. 6 / CPG 2026.
- Greek/ancient witnesses: Athanasius, De Synodis 16.2–6; Epiphanius, Panarion 69.7–8.
- Counter-witnesses: Alexander of Alexandria's letters to clergy and bishops, preserved in the same fourth-century controversy dossier.
Bibliography
Ancient Works Cited
Athanasius. De Synodis in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers IV; trans. A. Robertson, pp. 448-480, 1891.
Epiphanius. Panarion. trans. F. Williams; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994.
Eusebius Pamphilus. Ecclesiastical History in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers I; trans. A.C. McGiffert, pp. 81-387, 1890.
Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1846.
Theodoret. Ecclesiastical History. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1843.
Modern Works Cited
Barnes, Timothy. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1981.
Hanson, R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988.
Luibheid, Colm. The Council of Nicaea. Galway: Galway UP, 1982.
Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1987.