How Did 1 become 3?
God (or Gods)?
Excerpts and Quotes - From The Catholic Church
History
By Brother John
Raymond
Introduction
Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be
looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius. Its appeal,
which began in Alexandria and spread through the whole Empire, must
be seen in the context of the times. The Church emerged in a Jewish
and Greek world. The question occupying this non-Christian world
was the contrast between the "One and the Many, between the
ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the
incalculable variety that exists in the world." [Ward 1955,
38]
Relationship of God And
World
The relationship between God and the
world had to be solved.
The Jews proposed a supreme God who created by His word.
It was an idea of a mediating "Word or Wisdom - the Word which is
pronounced, the Wisdom which is created - whereby the Father
communicated Himself to man and took possession of him." [Guitton
1965, 81].
The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could
come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of
a "mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the
first principle which reduced the distance between God and the
world" [Guitton 1965, 81]
The primitive Church had to "reconcile the notions they had
inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy.
Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer
that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ
as recorded in the scriptures." [Ward 1955, 39].
This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax
with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and
philosophical thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did
triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter
battling. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology
were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle as we
will see.
Arius And His
Teaching
Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish
priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch,
the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been
condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; although he was
later reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism" because
"Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his
students. Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they
developed his adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a
full heresy" [Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058].
With this background Arius struggled with the question of the
Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal
distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God...
the Godhead Himself was responsible for them... Identifying the
eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is
simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality
of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had
created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in
creation.
The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was
only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he
did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the
subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His
creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for
change and suffering." [Ward 1955, 41]
This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity
and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of
the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and
two inferior deities." [Ward 1955, 43].
The Person of Christ "belonged to no order of being that the Church
could recognize... He was neither God nor man" [Ward
1955,42].
Arius Versus The Alexandrian
Bishop
Arius' views began to spread among the people and the
Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of his
priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the
Godhead. Arius continued to argue that since the Son was begotten
of the Father then at some point He began to exist. Therefore there
was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to
the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching.
Alexander called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the
hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted for the condemnation and
exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to the
other Bishops refuting Arius' views. In doing so the Bishop used
the term "homoousios" to describe the Father and Son as being of
one substance.
Alexander "used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole
controversy." [Ward 1955, 43, 44]
With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the
Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From
here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor. The
Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch.
He became Arius' most influential supporter. From this city Arius
enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied
under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius'
views orthodox and condemning Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius
seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation.
The term homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor
Dionysus when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the
Father and Son were identical). All this controversy was taking
place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.
Constantine And
Ossius
With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became
the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically
united the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided
Christianity. Constantine, certainly not understanding the
significance of the controversy, sent Ossius his main
ecclesiastical adviser with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In
the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying that their
disagreement was merely just a matter of words. Both of them really
were in agreement on major doctrines and neither was involved in
heresy.
The letters failed to have an effect. In 325 A.D. Ossius presided
over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by
fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the Council
of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter
Council in Nicaea.
Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated
- that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was
condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed
was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree with the
teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until
the Council of Nicaea.
Roman Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic
Church of Rome). It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey and
in the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of
Ossius, Constantine called for a general council of the Church at
Nicaea in Bithynia.
That an Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered
unusual since in Hellenistic thought he "was given by God supreme
power in things material and spiritual."
[Davis 1987, 56]
The Council of Nicaea. The General Council was well attended by the
major sees of the Eastern Empire. Also some Western Bishops were
present. Because of old age and sickness Pope Sylvester did not
attend but sent two papal legates. The total number of Bishops who
attended the Council has been disputed. Eusebius of Ceasarea who
attended it claimed 250; Athanasius also in attendance mentioned
300; after the Council a symbolic number of 318 was used; modern
scholars put the number at 220.
If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no
longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that
"daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before
the assembly; his arguments attentively considered. The majority,
especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically
declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius"
[LeClercq 1913, 45].
Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of
Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given
divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted" [LeClercq 1967,
792].
But from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia
offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed was
rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the
baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not
seem to form the basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts were made
to construct a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds
proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position.
"Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis
for a new creedal statement... The finished creed was preserved in
the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of Basil
of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451"
[Davis 1987, 59].
When the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still opposed it.
Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone
who would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still
refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled. The Creed and
an Analysis some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea
Creed are as follows:
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only
begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the
Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten
not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father,
through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth...
Those who say: `There was a time when He was not, and He was not
before He was begotten;' and that `He was made out of nothing;' or
who maintain that `He is of another hypostasis or another
substance,' or that `the Son of God is created, or mutable, or
subject to change,' the Catholic Church anathematizes" [LeClercq
1913, 45].
The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal
statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten
of the Father" was seen by them as saying that the Son was created
from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten
not made" was added to the creed that totally ruled out their
position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian teaching was
that the Son was God by grace and name only.
The creedal statement "true God of true God" was an affirmation
that the Son was really truly God against this Arian position. The
most important statement in the creed that affirms "that the Son
shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine"
was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father"
[Davis 1987, 61].
This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an
intermediary being between God and Creation. In case the creed was
not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached
directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial of the Son's
co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases "there
was when the Son of God was not" and "before He was begotten He was
not."
The Arian belief in the Son being created out of nothing is
expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things that are
not". The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was subject
to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the
will is expressed in the phrase "He is mutable or alterable."
Finally the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father
and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different
hypostasis or substance". With these specific anathemas against
them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished. Terminology
Problem With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church
using Latin misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological
terminology. Once instance of confusion is the statement "He is of
a different hypostasis or substance."
The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be synonymous. In
the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the Council
would look as if it was condemning the statement that the Son was a
different Person from the Father, which would clearly be erroneous.
Only later would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from
substance (ousia) as in the West.
This instance of confusion "points up the terminological difficulty
which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West
about the East's position" [Davis 1987, 63].
A second and very important termed used by the Council was
homoousios. At that time this word could have three possible
meanings.
"First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two
individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining
individuals.
Second, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the
Father and the Son are identical in concrete being.
Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the
same substance because both are made of the same clay." [Davis
1987, 61].
The Council intended the
first meaning to stress the equality of the Son with the
Father.
If the second meaning for the word was taken to be the
Council's intention it would mean that the Father and Son were
identical and indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian heresy.
The third meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that would
infer that the Father and Son are parts of the same stuff.
Along with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the
word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with
heresies.
The word was originally used by the Gnostics [1]. The word had even
been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268 regarding its use
by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata.
Another factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used
in Sacred Scripture. The Council's defeat by Arianism. It is not
surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council
could be called into question.
Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor
Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council's use of the
word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). The
Emperor now favored the Arians.
With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his
sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his
brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea.
Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were
deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch.
This Council directly attacked the Nicaea Council by promulgating
its own creed that omitted the phrases "from the substance of the
Father" and "homoousios."
Some attempts were made to find a substitute word for homoousios.
As many as fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 "in
which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression... The
term `like in substance,' homoiousion... had been employed merely
to get rid of the Nicene formula" [Barry 1913, 709].
Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this
new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were
"dissimilar" or anomoios. Another group used the word "similar" or
homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.
With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother
Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor
demanded that all the Bishops of his Empire should agree with the
homoios formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East
at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini.
Both Councils, under the Emperor's threats and with rationalizing
arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign the
homoios formula. "This Homoean victory was confirmed and imposed on
the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following
year" which condemned the terms homoousios, homoousios and
anomoios. [Ward 1955, 57].
It seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed. The
Final Battle. The seeming triumph of homoeism was short
lived.
First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition. With
the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed.
Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoousios supporters
alike "it brought about better understanding and, ultimately,
reconciliation between the two groups" [DeClercq 1967, 793].
Athanasius an ardent defender of the homoousios position and
following the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning
with the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and
Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential
substance.
The Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and
Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians.
The point of departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been
the individual aspect of the divine personality. With the help of
Athanasius they came to the realization that the three Persons as
God must share the same identical substance also. By using the term
homoousios the Cappadocian Fathers "had never meant to deny the
unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons" [Ward 1955,
58].
Both came to the conclusion that although they used different terms
what they meant to say was the same.
The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios.
Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for
the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons
(hypostaseis).
At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers
were reaching an agreement another development was taking place.
The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding of
each others theological terminology.
At the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed,
the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism
(sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-Arianism in its
subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned.
Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had
imperial favor. In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the
Nicene Creed. At the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of
the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed. A
series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited
Arianism in the West.
In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing
Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to
their sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at
Constantinople. The first canon from this Council states that "the
faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not
to be made void, but shall continue to be established" [Davis 1987,
126].
In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory
over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople in the
East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them "sealed
the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church"
[DeClercq 1967, 793].
Conclusion
The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took
over fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the
Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed
finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their
teachings one by one.
The Arian doctrines condemned
were the following:
The Son was created by the Father out of nothing.
Thus the Son was not God in the strict sense but by grace and
in name only.
The Father and Son did not share the same substance.
The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability
and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.
Terminology difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to
continue after the Council. This was especially true with the term
homoousios (of the same substance) used by the Council to describe
the relationship between the Father and the Son.
The Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, that
of identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and Son were
identical thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians then started
producing their own creeds either eliminating this term or
substituting another for it. This lead to the breaking up of the
Arians into diverse groups according to which term they supported -
anomoios (dissimilar), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in
substance).
It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy
determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the
Arianism was dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the
term homoios on the Church by the Emperor Constantius the work of
the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity of this
term died with the Emperor.
The persecution of both the Homoiousians and the Homoiousians
forced them to begin to dialogue. With the two great
representatives of these positions, St. Athanasius and the
Cappadocian Fathers, finding theological grounds for their eventual
agreement the way was paved for the triumph of the Council of
Nicaea. This incident later coupled with Eastern and Western
Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian downfall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFRENCE:
[1] Gnostics - meaning "to know
secret or hidden knowledge"; lit., those who know; a mystic order
of Christianity. Often known for giving up all worldly matters,
often living apart from society and being reclusive, fasting and
remaining celibate. Possible forerunners of the sufi orders found
amongst some Muslims today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKS CITED:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Vol. 1. Arianism, by V.C. Declercq.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Vol. 8. St. Lucian of Antioch, by P. W. Harkins.
Davis S.J., Leo D. 1987. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils
(325-787):
Their History and Theology. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc.
Guitton, Jean. 1965. Great Heresies and Church Councils. New York:
Harper and Row.
Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen, Thomas J.
Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New
York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 1, Arianism, by William
Barry.
Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen,
Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic
Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 11, Councils
of Nicaea, by H. Leclercq.
Ward D.D., Bishop J.W.C. 1955. The Four Great Heresies. London:
A.R. Mowbray and Co. Limited
bibleislam website
- Category: